E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Updated at 4:48 p.m. — There was no great rush on Tuesday by lawmakers to embrace the new measures proposed by President Barack Obama to rein in gun violence.
As Obama unveiled a series of proposals — which include stricter regulations on guns — key lawmakers were noncommittal or openly skeptical of the president's new plan.
"House committees of jurisdiction will review these recommendations," said a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. "And if the Senate passes a bill, we will also take a look at that."
Related: Obama unveils sweeping new gun control proposals
Obama proposed a variety of new measures, including universal background checks on firearms purchases, limits on the capacity of ammunition magazines as well as a ban on assault weapons, as part of a broader, more comprehensive effort to curb gun violence. The proposals were generated by a task force led by Vice President Joe Biden, and prompted by the massacre last month at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.
In his remarks detailing the proposals, Obama acknowledged the heavy political lift involved in achieving legislation to address these issues.
"I will put all I can into this, and so will Joe," he said, the vice president by his side. "But the only way we can change is if the American people demand it."
However, essential to advancing legislation will be Republicans who run the House of Representatives, as well as a series of moderate Democrats from gun-friendly states who might fear recrimination from the National Rife Association, the influential gun rights lobby.
Already, the NRA has signaled its willingness to engage in hardball tactics, releasing an ad Tuesday labeling Obama a "hypocrite" for allowing Secret Service protection for his daughters while denying the NRA's proposal to put an armed guard in every school in America.
Related: White House calls NRA 'repugnant,' 'cowardly' for invoking president's children in ad
And while most Democrats released generally supportive statements of Obama's new gun proposals, many centrist Democratic lawmakers were mum following the announcement.
West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, D, a key centrist whose support could be indicative of the Obama plan's fortunes, said he would "weigh each recommendation carefully."
"However, I am disappointed that the president did not recommend the creation of the national commission on mass violence that I have proposed," Manchin said in a statement.
Republicans were either noncommittal, or openly hostile to Obama's proposals.
"House Republicans welcome the recommendations of this task force and will consider them as the House continues to examine ways to prevent tragedies like the one in Newtown," said Virginia Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the Republican who chairs the House Judiciary Committee — the panel that would consider new gun laws.
"However, good intentions do not necessarily make good laws, so as we investigate the causes and search for solutions, we must ensure that any proposed solutions will actually be meaningful in preventing the taking of innocent life and that they do not trample on the rights of law-abiding citizens to exercise their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights," Goodlatte added.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a high-profile Republican, dismissed Obama's plan.
"President Obama is targeting the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens instead of seriously addressing the real underlying causes of such violence," he said in a statement.
Said Rep. Tim Huelskamp, a Kansas conservative: "The right to bear arms is a right, despite President Obama's disdain for the Second Amendment and the Constitution's limits on his power."
Leave a Comment:
Heil Obama!
The American people want sensible measures to prevent mass/gross extermination of their families.
We don't want access to your kitchen cupboards.
You may not want access to my kitchen cupboard but Obama does!!!
As I've said before... we are all doomed!
(once he has our guns... there is nothing to stop him.)
conservative paranoia is a funny thing.
We The People are being punished, yet will the criminals obey? *smiles*
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/16/obama-to-announce-gun-control-proposals-shortly/comment-page-2/
Where is the addressing of the mental health other than ' if your ACA
spots something they are supposed to report itencouraged to report/record it?Here's the list :
The following is a list, provided by the White House, of executive actions President Obama plans to take to address gun violence.
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/16/list-executive-actions-obama-plans-to-take-as-part-anti-gun-violence-plan/#ixzz2IAEFpKcD
Okay Drama Queens, nobody is taking away all your guns, or all my guns. You want to cite the second amendment which gives you the right to bear arms, in context of a well regulated militia. Some want to only focus on the right to bears arms, and wish to ignore the well regulated part. The president is upholding the second amendment not destroying it, we are finally addressing the well regulated part.
Don't worry so much, as in all new laws your precious semi-auto peashooters will be grandfathered. Why do think there is a run on gun purchases?
SickOfTheBickering
Good Grief.
Instead of posting here, why don't you strap on a lunch-board sign and stand on the corner preaching "The end is near".
The majority of Americans aren't afraid to change and adapt with the times.
That's life.
I honestly think that if you were a football team, and were down by 14 points at halftime, you and people like you would give up.
Pathetic.
Salud
"conservative paranoia is a funny thing."
Well they would not be so paranoid if everybody was not out to get them!
There simply is no evidence that what Obama is trying to do has any effect on curbing gun violence in this country.
I have lived in CA most of my adult life and do not own a gun. It isn't often that a newspaper, local news or the Internet don't provide information about another killing by someone using a gun (of any sort).
CA employs some the most stringent if not the most stringent laws regarding the purchases of guns. None of the measures that are part of the state laws prevent people from killing one another/themselves.
So then comes the current rant about mental evaluations. Really? It is doubtful in my opinion that would do any more good than any existing law. The simple fact that someone can be deemed mentally stable today does nothing to insure that persons mental stability tomorrow.
Then let's take it a step further. What happens if a person is deemed mentally unstable to own a gun? Should that person then be declared unfit to walk among us in a civilized society? Should that person then be declared eligible for disability?
I'm all for the safety everyone in this country from dying at the hands of anyone else. But we need something far more realistic than what is being sought by Obama/Biden.
Outlawing assault gun purchases simply means that those who want them will obtain them illegally. Our country has laws against purchasing and pocessing many drugs (cocaine; etc.) yet these drugs are abundant in the country. They get here through other countries in exactly the same way as assault weapons will be brought here. Obama is talking about more measures to prevent guns from entering the country illegally. Nice words, nut if we can;t stop illegal entry by people or drugs from getting here why would we believe that we do any better with guns?
These people that say the president wants to take your 2nd amendment rights had no problem with trying to take away the right to vote from million of Americans within the last couple of years. The right to vote is also a constitutional right of every American. So guess Republicans are selective as to which rights they want to "protect." Tisk Tisk!
I saw the press conference and the president laid out measures that are all commen sence things we should have been doing for year!
What if your not American...can you still go out and vote?
Isn't it wonderful how 0bama parades around on the graves of murdered children?
0bama has no ability to enforce what he wants here. The mental health stuff has been agreed to for a long time. The gun restrictions will not pass. Everyone who paid 2,000 for an AR-15 can buy another for 700 in a few months.
Either way in the last few days the bastard has referred to himself as a "big spending socialist" and a "tyrant," its' nice to see this narcissist come to terms with reality.
I don't agree with everything the President is proposing:
The shape of a weapon has nothing to do with it's mechanical function. Semi Autos have been around since the turn of the 20th century. Gas operated Semi Autos since before WWII.
One of the solutions is in the number of bullets allowed in a magazine. Limit mags to 10 rounds. If the NRA pusses want to show off their "Hi Cap mags" then plug em and limit them to 10 rounds. (Duck Hunters in some states are required to plug their shot guns limiting them to 3 rounds). If you want to own a Hi Cap AK, AR, FLN Galil, or another type mag; Fine! Plug it! If you get caught out in the field then heavy fines or jail time or confiscation. Same thing for pistol mags.
Real men use bolt action open sight rifles for hunting game.
Pussies use scopes and semi autos.
Last time I was at the range some dickwad next to me was shooting a scoped 10 rd mag semi auto 50 cal and trying to hit a target at a 1000 yds. Even with earplugs, the muzzle blast and sound was almost unbearable. Go figure. Guy said he spent nearly 7 grand on the weapon. I asked why? and he said: "Because I can." Only in America. Go Figure!
Oh really? And EXACTLY which AMERICANS did 'these people' try to take the vote away from?
Do you mean those illegals (as in not American citizens)? Sorry... but THEY have no right to vote... never did... and as long as they are illegals... never will!
AH... but THAT is the REAL issue now isn't it? You want them to be granted citizenship WITHOUT going through the LEGAL channels. YOU are unAmerican!
Are all Republicans mentally challenged? What part of this don't you understand?
All the law proposes to do is try to prevent criminals, wackos and those who pose a danger to society from obtaining a gun. No one is proposing to take away a responsible law-abiding citizen's gun.
It will not be perfect, but it will be better than what we have now. Again, if you're a law-abiding, sane person, you have nothing to worry about.
The funny part about this debate is that so far Obama can't claim to have enough Democrats on board to pass this sort of legislation. So while everyone is pointing fingers at conservatives, no one is even considering the difficultly in garnering support from Democrats.
As for some of the whack job posts, especially those trying to compare taking away voting rights. Seems ironic that you would support a more stringent gun registration policy, but having to prove who you are to vote, to liberals constitutes voter suppression.
From the List in #1.6:
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
This means that everyone will have to sign a new HIPA form and your privacy just went out the window.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
In their haste to pass the bill so we can find out what's in it, they screwed up....The ACA does prohibit Doctors from asking.....Now they need to "FIX" that. Sebelius will with the stroke of her pen......Any adult that decides to tell their doctor is just plain dumb..That information will be used in upcoming being written now ObamaCare regulations and be given to Insurers who will be able to put you in a different Rate Class....What bothers me most is.....Doctor's asking children, " Does Mommy & Daddy have any guns in your house ??"....
We tried to warn you....0BamaCare was just the framework for Government Intrusion into every aspect of your life....
There's more, but I'm off to the Gun Range for some target practice.....
Me thinks thou doth protests too much...
It's not that you don't understand President Obama's common sense measures that really DO represent what the majority of Americans want, it's that you refuse to LET yourself understand.
FEAR and/or GREED is controlling you... it's really pathetic.
How can republicans be considered responsible gun owners when they regularly shoot themselves in the foot on the issue of sensible gun laws.
The Snowball Effect
OMG, I didn't edit my post above... so many subject-verb agreement errors! My apologies to English grammar-lovers everywhere!
I get so upset about this topic of sensible gun control laws that I can't even write correctly...
No the laws do not prevent " criminal, wackos and those who pose danger to society from having a gun". He's asking for an assault weapons ban without a grandfather clause. So look at it as it is, If you own an AR 15, and purchased it legally , having gone through the background checks as asked, are mentally stable and have used it responsibly, that the government can decide that since a couple of irresponsible criminals have commited crimes with guns, the government has the right to take yours because they want to. Meaning the government can take your property, just because, this opens up a whole new can of worms. Where do they stop? History shows that once the government opens a door there is no telling how far they will go. Where do you suppose the end is once that precident is set? What will they eventually take from you or your kids/grandchildren?
Where are you willing to draw the line?
Any legislation is a non-starter in congress (thank goodness). Sure Obama isn't trying to "take our guns away", but he is surely trying to limit which guns we can purchase. I would have no problem if this if doing so actually made a difference. The fact of the matter is, it makes zero difference. All you're going to do is limit the rights of responsible gun owners-- which is, realistically, the only difference this legislation would make.
How does limiting magazine capacity prevent criminals from using one of the 50 million already out there? Most think with their emotions rather than their brains. I bet few or any even know how many people die from guns each year. Think about 33,000. That is a tiny problem compared to the 100,000 who die from medical mistakes, the many who die from car accidents, slipping in a tub, or alcohol related deaths. it seems that no anti gun person i know wants to give up their 3-4 cocktails a day, spend 10 more minutes on the road to get to work or do any of the many more things that can result in saving what amounts to what effects .0001% of the population, namely death by gun. Every year we have about 300 or less people killed in what is called Mass Shootings and that number has remained about the same even during the last AWB. What has changed is the media attention which like after an airplane crash, will publish every plane related story they can find until the public loses interest.
Sad to say that despite how it is portrayed, we do put a value on each life. Would you vote to increase your taxes by 10% so that we can save just the life of one child? I bet not. If the public and President were interested in saving lives rather than apeasing their supporters and using children to impose their will on us, there are many other ways to save a lot more lives than gun control. Bet most of you do not know that soon, accidental pool drowning will surpass guns as far as the number of childred killed and yet I do not see that getting any publicitiy or anyone looking to pass laws to prevent that.
Finally, let's not forget that Columbine happened during the last AWB and most mass shootings occur in gun free zones where the shooters know they will not meet resistance. I am for gun free zones but the current laws are feel good laws rather than effective as they depend on people voluntarily not carrying guns. I will glady not carry my gun someplace if you screen everyone, like they do in a court house, to make sure that the criminals do not carry their guns also. To pass a law that only law abiding citizens will obey is plain stupid and ineffective.
I am for background checks even for private sales because I know that people get around the law by simply buying from individuals. However restricting magazine size or guns based on their looks because they scare people is sheer nonsense and proven not to be effective over the term of the last AWB. Only 2% of crimes are commited with "assault weapons" and switching magazines takes a second or two and is not going to slow down people much. In fact, the higher the capacity the magazine, the more likely it will jam as has happened in recent mass shootings. What the law will do is ensure that those meaning to do harm will be using more reliabile magazines.
We seem to live in a world where beliefs have replaced facts and people will accept only that information that supports their beliefs. I have discussed all of this with friends and it seems that aside from not knowing much, if anything, about guns or magazines, they have no idea whatsoever how many people die from guns each year any awareness that gun save more lives than take due to the lack of media coverage of such things. Personally my gun has saved my life twice. Obama and other elitist do not have to walk along dark streets at night aftter working the graveyard shift and be accosted in a parking garage.
There are extremist on both sides of the gun issue but so few of them bother to spend the time to get the facts from the FBI and academic studies. They all want to save lifes but only if it can be done by flapping their gums and it does not involve taking away anything they like. Try it yourself. Ask someone if they will vote for Prohibition to safe children's lives and they will all say no and point to the fact that most drinkers drink responsibly and after a while you realize that they are saying the same thing that you are about guns.
When you elect a president that is so radical that his radical ideas spark "little enthusiasm with key lawmakers" even in his own party that is a clear sign they understand this president has no concept of what the Constitution actually means.
The only thing Obama uses the Constitution for is to rip it in tiny strips and use in the White House bathroom.
But as Thomas Jefferson said "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
Hagg
We tried to vote the jackass out. Problem is there are two many jack asses like you who voted for the worst President Ever. Gosh your ignorant
If you promise to vote straight Democrat.
To: Haggisbingo-2225582 "obamas-gun-plans-spark-little-enthusiasm-with-key-lawmakers Then vote the jacka$$e$ out!!!"
Lawmakers irresponsible enough to not follow the will of their law-abiding, gun-owning constituents will face the action you suggest. It happened last time an ill-advised and poorly conceived "assault weapon" ban was passed, and is likely again. The majority do NOT support gun take-away laws..
Now can we talk about the measures that would help curb the violence?
People are getting their knickers all in a twist. Calm down, people, these are just proposals. If Congress doesn't do their job someone else will have to do it. That means the President will take action. He would prefer the Congress critters do their job, for once, but he is prepared to step in if they don't.
Yes, George W. Bush did get "elected" twice, didn't he?
Most sensible people want sensible gun laws. No one is talking about taking away anyone's 2nd Amendment rights. The gun lobby has finally had to explain themselves and they are having difficulty so they resort to all sorts of ridiculous statements. They are desperate. The gun manufacturers are no longer able to do as they please. If 20 kids and 6 adults are killed by their product by a deranged individual, they consider that collateral, the cost of doing business. Sane, sensible people don't agree.
The simple fact is this country is out of control and if we don't get it under control that incident at Sandy Hook will be common place, a daily occurance where people won't care. Stop it, stop the insanity now!
MikeLat,
Great post in 1.27!
I also wish more people would do some research and logically think about the various options instead of just going with the initial emotional reaction (on all issues).
By the way, I don't own a gun and likely never will.
I wonder if that list will include the "fast and furious" sale of guns, now unaccountable...
Cowards, all, and we'll be here again, having this same debate again, wringing our hands in anguish again, and mouthing phony platitudes again, before you know it.
There are many people who cite various statistics about assault rifles and assault weapons. Part of the issue is the lack of information. As noted (see other articles) the CDC was prevented from doing research and the NRA attacks anyone who does research and their families.
Regardless, the information I have gleaned indicates that between 1% and 3% of the acts of gun violence are done by assault weapons. Since there are some 30,000 deaths involving a gun each year, that means that between 300 and 900 involve "assault weapons".
My question is, how many is OK, 300, 400, 500
100?
26?
In my opinion, ONE is too many.
Jawohl Herr Obama! And as usual, this will be not much of anything but hot air.
Concerning the Dr.s asking questions of their patients.....I thought it was bad enough when the nurse asked me if I felt threatened in my home. Frankly that is none of their business, and the govt. shouldn't be using the Medical profession to nose it into people private lives. ACA should stay out of this. That task should remain with law enforcement. That's what they are trained to do.
Overall, the President has proposed another way to increase govt. jobs, and waste time, while not addressing the real problems. Maybe that Legislator who said he would start Impeachment proceedings against the President if he over-stepped his bounds made the right impression. THANK YOU....now get to Impeaching him for Benghazi.
FBI murder statistics for 2011:
If the White House wanted to curb gun violence, wouldn't it make more sense to work on handguns, which kill 26.6 times the number of people that are killed by rifles?
why is the kings only solution to problems is throwing money at it! enforce the laws we have!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! but i guess that would require a little work on his part and we cant have that.
@Bill, Unfortunately, I can guarantee you, if Hussein Obama succeeds on this, hand guns will be next, then single fire, then whats left of the Second Amendment. To all ye Librals, the Second Amendment protects the entire Bill of Rights!
BTW, "Well Regulated" means: To keep up with.
Making cocain illegal worked, huh okay.
Making drinking under age against the law worked, huh right.
Making illegal entry to the USA stopped all illegal alians, huh yup!
I'm a liberal, sounds like making guns illegal should work too! Thanks Obama!
It would not matter what Obama proposes the Repugs would be against it. even their own ideas?? That being said, how can you turn back the hand of time when theses weapons were put on the American streets? For over 40 years now AK-47"s have been sold throughout America and the culture of Violence on TV, Video games, and the media has been everywhere.
I'd like to know the Congressmen and Senators who voted for allowing them on the streets in the first place because when I grew up you never heard or even saw an assault riffle.We live in a sick world from what I call the good old days even though the good old days had problems too..
Is there really any hope for the world???? I really hope so but I don't believe so......
The biggest problem in this country is the NRA and the nuts that run it !!!
Its sad the GOP supports this crazy group of Militants !!!
Obama* used children in this grandstanding for the socialism of his agenda, and then accuses the nra of being 'Cowards" for mentioning the true fact that Obama*'s daughters have several Armed Guards with them at their school and any other child at that school could be attacked and the Secret Service will do what? Go find another Hooker?
Obama* made a laughing stock of the Secret Service who procured a Columbian Prostitute for Obama* while he was in columbia.
And then Obama* tries to make it look like he is not a petty cheater from Harvard just like sotomayer.
All it takes to committ treason is a signature and Obama* demonstrated that today. Biden is as guilty of treason as Obama* is.
I bet that this does nothing to stop the shootings in Chicago.
When the M16 first came out during the Vietnam war the troops called it "the Mattell toy" and tried to stop its use. The generals forced it on the soldiers who died because of it and they used captured AK47s to fight with.
the soldiers of today have better weapons and not Obama* wants to ban them.
treason.
@ willowbrook...if you think it is wrong for the nurse to ask you feel safe in your own home then CONGRATS...you have no domestic violence in your home...unfortunately too many do & @ the doctor's office or e.r. or school are the only places MANDATED to help & report this so it does not continue....if you don't understand it educate yourself & volunteer to help & then the "intrusive questions" you feel you are being asked won't be to you any more...that question also explains marks bruises & broken bones to doctors they may not know why..I know I sure would feel safer if a mental issue for someone saves ANY innocent lives...INCLUDING yours...thank you President Obama for trying to make the self-rightous people have to be held accountable for safety of the human race.
What a bunch of hypocrites. They say we shouldn't have grenade launchers, fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers, 50mm machine guns, or tanks, yet that is what they supplied all of these foreign countries with to over throw there governments. They never seem to have a problem as long as it is in other countries. We as Americans, should have the weapons if ever needed, to be able to defend our constitutional rights. Period!!!
Bill-2910238, if the school shooting had happened with a handgun they would have. They can't pick the tragedy they will use to further their agenda.
Hussein Obama will go down as a the most divisive, arrogant, narcissistic President in History.
HMMMMM. Lets THINK about crime and guns. OK: Are there any guns in our prisons, that the inmates have ANY access to? NO? Well then, I see that has stopped crime/killings in prison now, hasn't it? Has ANY country that has a gun ban, had their crime rates/murder rates drop at all? Your right, they haven't. BUT CRIME HAS OVERWHELMINGLY INCREASED THERE. So, do you REALLY, REALLY, think a gun ban will decrease, or increase crime????? If you still think so, then you have another agenda in mind, instead of "GUN CONTROL!
My father-in-law is a NRA guy....he has been passing on the NRA misinformation ever since Obama got elected. Still lots of guns out there for sale so i don't know why all the "whiners" posting here keep up with the "Obama is coming for my guns," Mantra. Pretty sickening those Rush Limpnoodle comments about the kids......his popularity with conservatives shows just what our country is up against. The American Taliban!
There is a clear pattern to the comments on this thread. The comments from the pro-gunners are simple statements of the writers opinion regarding gun control. The comments from the anti-gun crowd pretty much contain an insult towards the pro-gun writers and gun ownership in general.....most reminding us in some way how intelletually superior they are. To me, insults in any discussion are a sign of the utterer's lack of confidence in his position/stance....you know, I can't come back with a civil, factual argument, so instead I'll call you an idiot who doesn't get it. Pathetic.
President Obama will go down as one of the best Presidents in history and I didn't vote for him the first time !!!
Now for these lovely law makers who are with the people of this great country to look like superheros is to suggest better care and services for the mentally ill..that would make Obama and his henchman look lost as to what should be done....go eat your heart out haggisbingo-2225582 ...
Actually there was no meat in any of Obama' s statements tyhat i have read. I didn't hear his press conference so that is all i have to reference. If current laws are enforced we have no need for new ones. If we address the real problem which is mental health perhaps we will see some progress. To attempt to ban asault type weapons and restrict clip size are both feutal and non productive glitz to appease the public. To say a 10 round clip is maximum will only require someone of the wrong frame of mind to carry more clips. He can change them faster than he can unload one, just a couple of seconds is all thats needed to swap out a clip. There are many many types of rifles capable of multiple shell clips that are not concidered asault weapons. This is just a term being loosey used and i doubt the President or Joe Biden even know the difference as many on here don't.
Same story different day. No progress to report here.
Getting emotional also affects the thought process, rendering people unable to recognize their Constitutional Rights, and not just the Second, being legislated away.
9BallPro said:
Clearly you are a few balls short of a rack! Criminals will always get the weapons they want. Criminals will always disregard the law - hence, they are criminals - duhh!!! What don't you on the left get about that? Have all your logical brain cells died? Apparently so.
Obama is a tyrant who wants to penalize law-abiding citizens. He veils his aspirations of his dictatorship by saying he is concerned for our kids. Blah, blah, blah! He doesn't give a shi* about the kids. If he did, he wouldn't be doing his best to destroy our country. So if you want to call me a gun toting right-wing wacko - go right ahead! I'd be proud! Much better than being called a nambie-pambie left-wing fanny pack wearing needs a shower sorry excuse of an American - yeah, your side.
I happen to believe in the Constitution and will always stand up for it - much to the dismay of those on wannabe dictator Obama's side of the aisle wanting nothing more to control our lives as they see fit.
Common sense being the key term here. Stop with the knee-jerk reactions and be sensible. By your definition, Mr. President, my deer rifle would be on your list of "assault weapons" simply by the virtue of a thumb hole grip in the stock. Does that really keep with your goal of "keeping the children safe"? Like Ray Romano's dad would say on Everybody Loves Raymond: "Dumba$$!"
""However, I am disappointed that the president did not recommend the creation of the national commission on mass violence that I have proposed," Manchin said in a statement."
That is just a procrastinating tactic until Newtown news is old news.
Spider,
That is what the libs on the this page do. They insult everyone that doesnt agree with them. And you can bet they start every post about guns with "you gun nuts".
Don't be naive and stupid America and wake the F*&^ up! The weapons we have as civilians are not "Assault Weapons" but that neither here nor there. If we let them pass legislation banning "Assault Rifles" the that means you 10/22 is also on the chopping block to be banned. Besides that who are they to tell me what I need and dont need. I sure people like Reginald Denny who was just doing his job driving a truck and found him self in the wrong place at the wrong time (April of 1992 at the intersection of Florence and Normandie) wishes he had a AR-15 with a few 30 round mags. Or how about the people over in London during the riots of 2011. I thinking that they wished they had been armed to protect their families and businesses to keep them from being looted and burnt to the ground. You never know when you are going to find your self in a WROL (without rule of law) situation. What your little 10 round mag going to do for in a mob rules mentality? What if this go so far as to say we became disarmed in the next 20 years? how will you defend your family in a mob rule situation? With a Baseball bat? Thats noble of you but ineffective and you will all die. Which brings me to my last point, the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with sporting or hunting. It to protect us from our government. How would we be able to do that if we banned simi-automatic rifles and limited the round count of mags. By the way right now we are supporting the rebels in Syria that are fighting their own military and government. Who do you thing is giving them the "Fully Automatic Assault Rifles," 30 round mags and ammunition to do so? That right! The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! but their going to tell us we can arm ourselves against such tyranny? Wake up!
We lost more FREEDOM when the young Bush was president than the 50 years before that, everything from Cell phones tracking to EZ pass and Medical records all given freely to protect companies, also lost any other privacy on the Internet being monitored by all (what you are looking at/for) including google and other offenders, the sad part is most USA people have no idea what it means, until they are in trouble--thus the reason the government and companies get away with taking our entire freedom--guns are a very small part compared to that government/company intrusion.
At the same time regular people can not find out anything, even what is kept on record about them.
Thank you Senator Tim Huelskamp. We need courageous men and women to stand up to Obama and his radical grab for power. Again the Obama administrations follows the mantra " Never let a good crisis go to waste." After this speech all that doubted Obama's dictatorial ambitions and contempt for the constitution need to reassess their opinion and unite against Obamas attempt to bring about a Fourth Reich
@ Jen Lance-Johnson - it is one thing to note bruises and ask that question, it is totally another when you are checking in to have your cancerous kidney removed. That's what happened to me. And no, I didn't have any bruises, or other behaviors that would lead anyone to ask that. BTW - it is highly likely if a person was feeling threatened, they wouldn't admit it to a nurse, until the point they wanted any way out possible. By that time it is usually too late. It would be far more effective to use the rules for teachers, where they are to alert authorities if they see unexplained bruising/cuts on their pupils. That's a mandate too, and a far better one than the one for nurses.
I'm already "educated" about this. I simply don't agree with their reasoning.
Gun bans do nothing to get help to the mentally ill. There is something we really need to address!
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human
events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands
which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the
earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's
God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that
they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the
Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such
form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be
changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath
shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable,
than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same
Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their
right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new
Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of
these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter
their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great
Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct
object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove
this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and
necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and
pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should
be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large
districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of
Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable
to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual,
uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the
sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing
with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause
others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of
Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the
State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from
without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for
that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to
pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of
new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his
Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of
their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms
of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without
the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior
to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction
foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent
to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any
Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring
Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its
Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for
introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws,
and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves
invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his
Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns,
and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign
Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already
begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the
most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high
Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends
and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has
endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian
Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all
ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these
Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our
repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose
character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be
the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in
attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of
attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.
We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement
here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have
conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations,
which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too
have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must,
therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold
them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of
America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the
world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of
the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these
United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that
they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all
political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought
to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have
full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce,
and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection
of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes
and our sacred Honor.
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer,
James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson,
Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
I'm not opposed to background checks. There should have never been a "gun show loop hole in the first place". I have a problem with people deciding what I need or can have based solely on their own bias. Of course many of you don't have a problem with it today, since it's you who are telling me what I need to give up. Of course when they get around to limiting a freedom you actually care about, will we hear from the other side of your mouth on that day? I don't know how many more times I can say this, " You realize this very same logic and law writing can be applied to alcohol?" Gun bans get any kind of traction at all, how soon before a large group of M.A.D.D. mothers get after alcohol? Many of us will switch sides then, won't we? No alcohol wouldn't bother me all that much (the idea of another freedom being stripped would send me spiraling into orbit).
Good luck with your crusades
President Obama is going to take all your guns away? How many do you think he can carry? As usual the radical right has gon e over the top, with their drama. Too bad they missed the awards programs.
Here is the equation.
GUNS=MONEY=NRA=RICH WHITE GUYS! Larry, Darrell and Darrell, were smarter and more sympathetic,then the backroom boys at the NRA.
And let me explain this "10 round" magazine issue. Virtually all semi-automatics hold 10 or more unless it is a sub-compact with a large caliber. I have a .22 rifle that holds 16 rounds. Do you want to take that? I have a .22 semi-automatic target pistol that hold 16 shots - that would be "banned". I have a Smith and Wesson .40 (Sigma series) that holds 14 rounds in the magazine - that would be banned. My other 5 guns hold less than that because those are my carry conceal guns.
But my point is you listen to Obama say "assault rifles" and this "non-nonchalant" comment about 10 round magazine maximums. Do you realize that is the vast majority of handguns?
Sorry, of COURSE you know that. The intention of this "ban" would be the first major step of outlawing ALL guns. But those who don't own guns say "yes, 10 rounds is PLENTY!!" but that is not reality. When defending my house I don't want to shoot 7 rounds then have to reload. What if I have two home invaders? Or three? That means I can only use two rounds for each assailant and if I miss with a couple shots I am $%#$ed.
No, I want to pop 14 rounds of .40 cal, drop in another magazine, then hold them until police arrive but have more shots available if I need it.
SIGN YOUR NAME ALSO!
Please sign your name to the Declaration of Independence
IMPEACH
THE BASTARDS
Congressman
Stockman has pledged to move for impeachment against Obama. I am standing up
against Obama right beside him, will you?
“The
President’s actions are an existential threat to this nation,” reads a
statement by Rep. Steve Stockman. “The right of the people to keep and bear
arms is what has kept this nation free and secure for over 200 years. The very
purpose of the Second Amendment is to stop the government from disallowing
people the means to defend themselves against tyranny. Any proposal to abuse
executive power and infringe upon gun rights must be repelled with the stiffest
legislative force possible.”
-
He has aided America’s enemies, violating his oath, by sending funds to
insurgents in Syria who are being commanded by Al-Qaeda terrorists.
-
He has violated federal law by overseeing a cover-up surrounding Operation Fast and
Furious,
the transfer of guns to Mexican drug cartels direct from the federal
government.
-
He has lied to the American people by overseeing a cover-up of the Benghazi
attack which directly led to the deaths of four American citizens. The cover-up has been called “Obama’s Watergate,” yet four months after
the incident, no one in the administration has been held accountable.
-
He has brazenly undermined the power of Congress by insisting his authority
came from the United Nations Security Council prior to the attack on Libya and
that Congressional approval was not necessary. “I don’t even have to get to the
Constitutional question,” said Obama. This is an act that “constitutes an
impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the
Constitution,” according to Congressman Walter Jones.
-
He has ignored Congressional rejection of the cybersecurity bill and instead
indicated he will pursue an unconstitutional executive order.
-
He has signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act which includes
provisions that permit the abduction and military detention without trial of
U.S. citizens, violating Habeas Corpus. Despite Obama claiming he would not use
the provisions to incarcerate U.S. citizens, it was his administration that specifically demanded these powers be included
in the final NDAA bill.
-
He has enacted universal health care mandates that force Americans to buy
health insurance, a clear violation of the Constitution in exceeding
congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. Obama has also handed outpreferential waivers to corporations friendly to his
administration.
-
He has declared war on America’s coal industry by promising to bankrupt any company that attempts to build a
new coal plant while using unconstitutional EPA regulations to strangle competition,
ensuring Americans see their energy costs rise year after year.
-
He has violated the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses when he bullied the secured creditors of automaker Chrysler into accepting 30 cents
on the dollar while politically connected labor unions and preferential others
received better deals.
-
He has violated Article II of the Constitution by using signing statements as part of his executive
usurpation of power.
“I
will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not
limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House,
and even filing articles of impeachment.”
Rep.
Steve Stockman, Texas.
For
these, and other offenses which constitute high crimes and misdemeanors,
including perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation,
misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty,
conduct unbecoming and refusal to obey a lawful order, we call
for the immediate impeachment of Barack H. Obama.
The gun nuts are the only ones that need anything over 10 round clips, a good deer hunter over needs one bullet !!!
here is your well regulated militia
"The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people."
The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
forest grump
You have it wrong, it is in order to regulate our militia that we are given the right to bear arms. Without that right we have no way to ensure that regulation. If the people lose the right to bear arms the militia can do whatever they want with no one to stop them, that is the context of the right.
I am glad that attention is being focused on gun violence in America. Problem though is still the shooter and NOT the gun they are shooting with. Poverty; I believe, is causing more and more violence in America as people are continuing to suffer and those who are employed are forced to finance those who aren't. If there was a way to return America to a prosperous society again with morals and a sense of self reliance, then violent crime would drop. Restricting gun types or adding more laws does little to nothing to curb the violence but becomes another useless taxpayer burden to pocket when most of our pockets are emptying faster than we can refill them.
Please please please can we not get any leadership to help the people of this country or are we doomed to this new type of government control that passes more and more laws with out the finances to uphold them?
What is most irrational is that NRA fanatics are allowing themselves to be led by Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the NRA, who dodged the Vietnam draft in 1969 by having his family doctor write a letter saying he had a nervous disorder.
Seems like he would have wanted to go into battle and use all that military weaponry he advocates so much.
If he really has a nervous disorder, should he be the one leading the charge promoting more weapons in this country?
And if he does not have a nervous disorder, shouldn't his followers be concerned about him being an unpatriotic liar?
This is most disturbing.
Only 3% of all murders used rifles, and only 10% of those were assault rifles. So therefore Obama's plan will allow 99.7% of the murder rate to continue.
Murder rate in the US has dropped by 54% since 1994.
I call BS on your last time at the range. If the guy was shooting 1000 yrds then that range is seperate from the other other ranges. Where you at MTC? if so 1000 is seperate from the other ranges as is every other range I have been to. If you were shooting 1000 yrds then you most likely would use a scope but not ness. You would in fact never be next to a 50 bmg at the range, with the muzzle brake (which it WILL have one) the glasses woud be blown right off your head along with your hat. Nevermind the sound waves/pressure would cause perm. damage to you. This is why all ranges have certain rules for certain guns. If you were an FFL holder why would you ever give it up? You claim tou have made a ton off the last ban. 7 grand is nothing on a gun like that considering he would have to drop over $2000 on scope, base, rings, cant/level, ADI.
I must also say then that according to you millions of hunters are not real men as they use a scope. I can see not needing one in the woods of Mich but try that in the caynons out west, or grasslands in the mid west.
To be honest a 50 is a waste of money, but if he can then good for him. Almost any of my 338s will perform better as if I do my part they are better than 1/2 moa at a 1000 and beyond. This of course if the wind is not crazy. Why do I shoot past 1000 even past 2000 yrds, well because I can. And it is not cheap
Liberal Hypocryiscy in the 21st century....
1. Showing ID to vote infringes on one's right to vote.
2. Showing ID to buy a firearm does not violate one's right to bear arms.
NRA Hypocrisy ...
1. Lying to avoid the draft by having your family doctor say you have a nervous disorder.
2. Telling the American people they need more guns to protect themsevles when you yourself are afraid to go into battle to protect your own country.
Just ask Wayne "Warlord" LaPierre.
Hey JFK2012,
check this out! https://www.youtube.com/embed/rrjU-HBkmLE?feature=player_detailpage
Especially so when most of the people posting it aren't actually conservatives themselves! The number of folks who could truthfully claim, "I'm not a conservative, but I play one on the Internet" is not small.
Uh, yeah. The categories of individuals who it's not politically correct to prohibit from having guns aren't likely to be singled out, a la profiling. They'll have to pick on someone that it's 'safe' to prohibit, such as veterans who have ever received care through the VA system, especially if they've been in combat...oh, wait! Already been there, doing that. Hmmm.....who else out there can they try that with and get away with it?
Any dealer will tell you the most important part about that is charging the fee for the service!
Now there's something no one's every thought of...seriously, speaking of the number 13, how about doing something real about Mara Salvatrucha and their ilk? I know why a great many people who have never owned or fired a gun before suddenly went out and bought one - or several - during the past five years, and many of them had always voted Democrat, no less. They're not worried about gun bans, or even 'doomsday', they're worried about CRIME, not the least of which is some of the stuff attributed to violent gangs. They're afraid that this administration isn't willing to deal with criminals who immigrated here without checking in first and who aren't of European descent. It's nothing the NRA or the gun makers did, it's what government hasn't been able or willing to do!
I suspect it will become an unstated fashion to inform the doctor that one does NOT keep guns in their home but not revealing that they have pistols, revolvers, rifles, and shotguns. Especially in the VA healthcare system. Any old military man will tell you that a gun is something very specific that the Army has plenty of but the only places you see them in the civilian world is war memorials at parks and in front of the occasional VFW hall. Definitions can be very slippery when they're strictly used!
There's 'safety' in numbers, so I guess they needed a few more 'numbers' to appear on the list...
Real men, huh? REAL HUNTERS use whatever they can comfortably and safely carry and control while in the field that is still effective for humanely harvesting game. Part of it is having a powerful enough cartridge that does the job at hand cleanly, but the other half of it is making a solid shot so game isn't left wounded. If one's aging eyes necessitate a scope in order to ensure accurate bullet placement for a one-shot kill, then it is inhumane to not use one. Bolt actions are fine, but the fast followup shot is sometimes very useful when the first one didn't quite take effect, and a real hunter is mature enough to admit that he's not going to be a crack shot every time, especially under typical wintertime field conditions.
And $7,000 may have been hardly a dent in his pocketbook, too. Some people are blessed like that, you know!
Colt started marketing the AR-15 in 1963. Some of the early ones that went to Vietnam with the US Army advisers were actually privately owned commercial rifles, not government owned ones. Most dealers wouldn't touch them, because THEY DIDN'T SELL. They were available all through the 70's and 80's, and mostly derided as junk, 'peashooters', 'popguns', 'Made by Mattel', and whatnot. A lot of veterans thought they were a tremendous step backwards after they replaced the M14 rifle in Army service. Police departments sometimes bought them, but they preferred to get .30 M1 carbines instead most of the time. Interest picked up a bit in the early 90's after the Persian Gulf war when people realized the rifle had evolved and wasn't what it had been made out to be after Vietnam twenty years earlier. I'll tell you what really made people want them, though: banning them. A whole lot of 'post-ban' models no one really wants today sold very well back then, and when the ban expired in 2004, it really took off. They're not considered to be junk anymore. Hey, a lot of people suddenly started drinking in 1920, too. Telling Americans that they can't do something is never a good idea, and it fails every time it's tried.
If you feel as I do, please sign this petition, and feel free to copy and pass this along! It is located at: petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/patriots-supporting-constitution-gives-us-rights-and-powers-protect-and-rule-ourselves-against/gnGXPZkN
we petition the obama administration to:
Patriots supporting the Constitution that gives us rights and powers to protect and rule ourselves against tyranny!
I count myself amongst a group of "patriots" than amongst the group of enemies of our Constitution trying to make us unable to oppose or defend against Tyranny, as our Country has done before!Here is a quote from monticello.org, supposedly from Thomas Jefferson a founding father: "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
You might also want to look up the seven stages of democracy, attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler written over 200 years ago, and decide for yourself,what stage we are in! We demand that you abide by our Constitution and our 2nd Amendment rights!
Created: Jan 16, 2013
Issues: Firearms
So for the person who had the guts to compare accidental deaths of all kinds to deaths caused on purpose by the means of a gun(s), you should really understand the comparison of apples and oranges, accidents happen, sometimes beyond ones control, using a gun with the intention to kill is avoidable! We do not seem to have a problem with people using cars on a mass murder scale frequently in case you havn't noticed! Also in many of the cases, the planning that goes into these mass murders is not long term, they go buy the needed magazines after deciding to take innocent lives, and this is where not having them available comes in play. Remember it could have as easily been your child or could be, I am willing to bet you that every parent or loved one of all these mass shootings never would have thought it would have happened to their child or loved one!
I guess now we will find out just who the NRA pays the most money to in congress. I already assume the the house will go against whatever is brought up by Obama. I see nothing from Obama that says it will take up all guns...only that certain things need to be done..WHat can be wrong with better background checks if it keeps crazy frolks from buying guns ? What is wrong with cutting down the size of magazines in rifles...better than that..what purpose does the average citizen have need of a fully automatic weapon ? What is the NRA so afraid of to begin with...nothing is taking away the right to own a gun....just looking to stop mass murder with auto weapons..I guess the NRA is all for that though. But the members of congress now have a problem..many have made statements claiming to want better gun controls..yet..are deathly afraid of the NRA and the loss of any funds from them. Special interest groups own congress...and it shows every time a vote comes up.
Here is a quote from monticello.org, supposedly from Thomas Jefferson:
You might also want to look up the seven stages of democracy, attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler written over 200 years ago, and decide for yourself at what stage we currently are in, and how close we are to the end of our democracy,according to his writings. I can only hope that we do not need to have another fight against tyranny again in our country, but hope that we are able to fight for our freedom. Instead of hoping, like many other countries, that there will be a country that will come to our defense, and help us defend our freedoms.
A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
STL MIke 1. is okay with you and 2. Is not? Is that reverse hypocrisy? Nope just hypocrisy. I am liberal and I am against gun control so stop trying to color in your lines with such a broad brush and maybe you will be less of a moron on here. If the gov wants to take your guns they can do it pretty easily, after all they have drones tanks and nuclear scuds etc... Your ak47 will only help you shoot cans at a higher velocity. Pretty cool but a bit unnecessary. Especially considering you will probably die from all the burgers you snort on a daily basis rather than the zombie apocalypse you probably get hard thinking about. Your analogy is completely ridiculous anyway. Nobody blows any ones head off with their vote. Nobody can vote with a bullet, not even corrosion of conformity. No one is willing to go to prison to cast a fraudulent vote and the prisons and cemetery's are full of gun offenders and victims. Stop with the shallow superficial analogies. Deep as a teaspoon.
Where were the crocodile tears when Planned Parenthood murdered almost 350,000 innocent children in the womb last year? Did those unborn children - who can hold a doctor's hand while doing an exam on the pregnant mother, as we saw in recent months on You Tube - not count to this administration? Where was the concern for those 350,000 lives? Or is the problem there is no helpful posturing, media hysteria and photo ops in that? And where were the crocodile tears as over 100,000 children and adults were killed by drunk drivers last year? Where is the legislation to restrict access by boozers to alcohol or bailout-buddies cars, or do those campaign contributions actually count for more than "the children"? This so-called administration is unworthy of earning a C in consistent reasoning in a first-year law class, though it would no doubt do well in a politburo pick-your-winners-and-losers executive session. There are even calculated winners-and-losers among "the children". Where are the real leaders that America so desperately needs?
If it can save even one life its worth it. I bet if one of GOP or NRA CEO's child was shot and killed we would be hearing a totally different tune. Just remember who is trying to scare you about the 2nd Amendment, not Obama, the NRA. Obama is not going to take your guns, the NRA is putting fear in gun owners, and to top it off they even stooped so low by attacking Obama kids because they are protected by armed men, come on they are the kids of the President of the United States of course they will be protected by armed men, its a totally different situation, and once again they blow it out of portion, they are pathetic!
Don't try to use logical to understand the liberal mentality....it won't work. Liberals are not logical. Oh, they think they are but the vast majority of their core "values" are emotional, not logical.
Every American citizen has the right to bear arms. If you want to restrict those who can own firearms, then I want to restrict those who can vote. If you are mentally ill and can't own a firearm, I don't want you voting either.
Personally, I don't like the idea of the mentally ill being equipped with firearms but that does not mean I think their right to have one should be VIOLATED because I don't like it.
The real problem here is the liberals are going after the symptom of the problem and not the problem itself. We see those "atrocities" committed and they are almost always committed by someone known to be mentally ill, if not under a doctor's care already. The problem is not that there are guns in society...the problem is that the mentally ill are mainstreamed. If liberals TRULY wanted to stop episodes like this past school shooting from happening, they wouldn't try to take away the rights of EVERY American because one guy did something wrong...they would look at why the guy wasn't institutionalized in the first place.
The mentally ill ARE dangerous to society. When you mainstream them, things like this are going to happen. It's just that simple. This school shooting was the "cost" of mainstreaming the mentally ill...a trade-off for a program designed to bring the mentally ill home rather than being hospitalized.
Liberals suck at two things above all else...logic and math.
Oh, bullsh!t....Obama DOES want to take guns away from people. He wants to take away "assault" weapons. The 2nd Amendment specifically says that people have the right to bear arms to be able to form MILITIAS but he wants to take away the "assault rifle"....?
And, yes...Obama is hypocritical for having his family protected by armed men while saying you can't protect your own family. The constitution guarantees me that if I want to by an assault rifle for home defense, I am entitled to do so as my right. You don't get to tell me what I 'need' or what I don't 'need".
Of course, Obama and the liberals think the Constitution is something to be either ignored or circumvented...it would never occur to them to stop and say, "Hey, we can't do that because it's 'unconsitutional'."
Just like the President doesn't have constitutional authority to make laws...the idea of using an "executive order" to repeal a constitutionally protected right ought to make any red-blooded American furious.
Were you referring to my post vrt1968? I stated "drunk" drivers. Hmmm....didn't know you could get drunk by accident but what the hey. If you want to say murdered then I consider anyone killed by a drunk driver murdered as well. Wouldn't you? And how do you know the thought process of a psychotic murderer who is planning a mass shooting by saying," they go and buy needed magazines after they decide to do it"? You been there, done that come into play or speculation?
What gun someone owns doesn't make them anymore "at risk". It is the person not the gun. Like I stated before, as long as Obama targets the unstable people from owning a gun, I have no problem. The gun they use doesn't really matter. Being shot to death by a .22 cal or a .50 cal still = dead by a gun.
How is restricting high capacity magazines really curbing gun violence exactly? Criminals/psycho killers won't sit back and say," Well, I can't do that mass shooting now. Only only got these fifteen 10 round clips." You can reload a clip in about 3 seconds in a rifle or in a handgun. Its those damn bazooka rounds that take forever to reload. Glad they don't allow high capacity mags on those. My 40 round bazooka clip weighed a freakin ton. That is a joke for all those Obama rats who want to cry, " Oh Oh Oh, he has a bazooka with a 40 round mag! We need to get him!"
Forrest Gump,
The supreme court decided "the people" have a right to keep and bear arms, not just a militia.
Laura as usual you dont know what the hell your talking about. I watched politicians whittle away my gun rights for nearly 35 years. I guarantee Obamas assault weapons ban, bans more than so-called assault weapons. Mark my words.
To all you trolls from the right.
most people who own guns have no need for large capacity weapons. not sure if that even helps. but to me, a gun owner, i could care less weather i have an 8 clip or a 16. how dam lazy can you be?
now if you live in a secluded area with grisly bears, then they should make a special provision for such areas. But if you live in a city like me, you really should not have anything bigger then a 9mm or 38 cal. mine is 25 cal. it's perfect for defence and my wife can use it with ease. Use you heads when you buy a gun or a car. DON'T BUY MORE THAN YOU NEED.
there are also provisions here to try and trace the mental health issue. which to me is more productive then most of this.
gun owners such as myself have no problems with background checks, it's a foolish stand. food for trolls.
The Russian people over threw the commie empire without a single gun. Gandhi got rid of the English empire without a single gun. why are you worried about guns? "guns don't kill people, people do". you need to trust your fellow american. you need to trust that if we ever have a tyrant, that the police and military will simply refuse to do the bidding of such a person JUST LIKE IT HAPPENED IN RED SQUARE. .
constitutional? so you think it's ok to take away my right to live, for this right to have high capacity clips? I'm thinking life is just more important. and the fact that you envision shooting it out with the troops you claim to support is worse than childish, IT'S TREASON. make up you @#$%$ minds. support the troops? or shoot them? my liberal @&& supports our troops and has faith in them.
AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT
Garbageman…1.86
Great post,
Yes, we are almost right back where we started from!
@Endeavor, No it was in reference to Mikelat, as for drunk driving, yes it is a form of murder when you drink and drive, but not fully intentional, it is not planned. This is also why we have gotten tougher with alcohol limits, and first offense, ect... which has brought down the number of deaths, but they will never be iliminated. Running a stop sign and killing someone is a form of murder in the same way, but not intentionally planned out of hate and disregard as such! Maybe that is why since we have touch regulations on autos as we treat them as a weapon, it makes sense to do the same for guns, but my reply was not to your comment!
I've seen some armchair lawyers here who talk about a "well regulated militia" and that we have an army and don't need firearms because of that, or some other justification for us not owning the firearms we choose. This fallacy has been exposed by people here who took the time to do some research and show what our forefathers (aka Founding Fathers) thought when they drafted the 2nd Amendment. If you can navagate around the computer well enough to post here you should be able to find something factual to bolster your opinion. The Founding Fathers saw the need for the population at large to protect thenselves with the weapons of the day against a Government that would trample their rights or turn dictatorial, or tyranical. They did not spell out any certain weapon as they knew weapons change throughout history.
I have yet to see someone who is pro gun control post anything that resembles a rational argument in favor of their pet cause. A majority of you wouldn't know what an assault weapon was even if it were capable of jumping up and biting you in the nose.
An assault weapon by definition is capable of firing in 3 modes of operation. 1) semi-automatic (1 shot per trigger pull) 2) 3 round burst (3 shots with 1 trigger pull) 3) fully automatic (all rounds in magazine with 1 trigger pull)
The type of weapons 0bama wants to ban are semi-automatic rifles. They are not assault weapons. This is a lie that is being foisted upon us by politicians, and the media. All liars.
0bama also has stated that he wants "high capacity magazines" limited and military style assault weapons banned. Like that did a lot of good when Bill Clinton was President and passed his gun control laws. Columbine happened while Clintons gun ban was in effect.
Come to think of it, the Clinton gun ban did do some good! The democrats lost the majority they had in the House and Senate since 1954. History does repeat itself!
The reality of the situation is that it is never about "gun control", it is about people control. You can not rule a people if they have their own guns. Armed people are citizens, disarmed people are subjects.
This is the address for this petition and I urge you to sign copy and pass along if you are likeminded: petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/abolish-use-executive-order-subvert-constitution-and-present-constitutional-proof-priviledge/xvGmv9pk we petition the obama administration to:
Abolish the use of Executive Order to subvert the Constitution and present Constitutional proof of this priviledge!
Definition from merriamwebster.com:
Definition of TYRANT 1a : an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution b : a usurper of sovereignty 2a : a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally b : one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power This is a definition that will belong to the President of the US, if he indeed tries to use a power that the Constitution does not grant him in Article II ! It is his duty. as sworn by him to uphold our Constitution! We can only hope that he is a true believer in our democracy and will stop his threats or use of an Executive Order to usurp our Constitution.The onty way to change our Constitution is through an amendment approved by all our citizens,so that ALL are represented not ONE!
Created: Jan 16, 2013
Issues: Civil Rights and Liberties
When we the people are allowed to posses weapons that rival our military and law enforcement then our elected officials will take us seriously.
this is the address for this petion if you are like minded, feel free to copy or pass along: petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/patriots-supporting-constitution-gives-us-rights-and-powers-protect-and-rule-ourselves-against/gnGXPZkN we petition the obama administration to:
Patriots supporting the Constitution that gives us rights and powers to protect and rule ourselves against tyranny!
I count myself amongst a group of "patriots" than amongst the group of enemies of our Constitution trying to make us unable to oppose or defend against Tyranny, as our Country has done before!Here is a quote from monticello.org, supposedly from Thomas Jefferson a founding father: "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
You might also want to look up the seven stages of democracy, attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler written over 200 years ago, and decide for yourself,what stage we are in! We demand that you abide by our Constitution and our 2nd Amendment rights!
Created: Jan 16, 2013
Issues: Firearms
Trying to violate Doctor/patient confidentiality, eh?
So who do you help, the patient or the government?
Go watch the movie "Article 99" and get a clue...
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — An Oregon sheriff has sent a letter to Vice President Joe Biden saying his department will not enforce any new gun laws it considers unconstitutional.
We need more Sheriffs like this!!!
Here's a link:
Oregon sheriff to Joe Biden: I won’t enforce new federal gun laws.
@wtw of KC Feel free to pass along as you wish, It is there courtesy of other individuals that have posted similar comments,which I have expounded upon.
How can it get any better than watching the crazy right wing extremists doubling down on stupid yet again!!!!!! Just how many monsters do you republican/teabag/nra clowns have hiding in your closets anyway???? Thankfully the rational thinking majority of Americans agree with our President 100%. You guys better get used to it.......America has had enough of your cops and robbers crap.
One question: How many, of you have lost a loved one, to gun violence?
One comment: I have never owned a gun. I treasure all life, even those of the NRA.
Fact: Guns=Money=NRA It is all about greed. Our government, most likely does watch some people because, they bare watching.
Quoted from a drone above who worships his lord and savior Obama.
For all the idiot drones on the left (I know, redundant), gallup conducted a poll recently asking what was most important to Americans; 4% said gun violence. By far and away the most important thing was that which Obama ignores and deflects from when questioned: the economy.
The wannabe tyrant in chief nailed it himself today when he accurately described his actions:
"some will publicly warn of an all out assault on liberty".
Impeach this idiot now. He has overstepped his authority and already has a history warranting impeachment:
- He has clearly communicated his intent to eviscerate the second amendment rights of American citizens by pursuing executive orders to curtail the right to keep and bear arms without congressional authorization and in violation of the second amendment
- He has aided America’s enemies, violating his oath, by sending funds to insurgents in Syria who are being commanded by Al-Qaeda terrorists.
- He has violated federal law by overseeing a cover-up surrounding Operation Fast and Furious, the transfer of guns to Mexican drug cartels direct from the federal government
- He has lied to the American people by overseeing a cover-up of the Benghazi attack which directly led to the deaths of four American citizens. The cover-up has been called “Obama’s Watergate,” yet four months after the incident, no one in the administration has been held accountable.
- He has brazenly undermined the power of Congress by insisting his authority came from the United Nations Security Council prior to the attack on Libya and that Congressional approval was not necessary. “I don’t even have to get to the Constitutional question,” said Obama. This is an act that “constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution,” according to Congressman Walter Jones.
- He has signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act which includes provisions that permit the abduction and military detention without trial of U.S. citizens, violating Habeas Corpus. Despite Obama claiming he would not use the provisions to incarcerate U.S. citizens, it was his administration that specifically demanded these powers be included in the final NDAA bill
- He has violated the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses when he bullied the secured creditors of automaker Chrysler into accepting 30 cents on the dollar while politically connected labor unions and preferential others received better deals
Now this thug politician wants to disarm us. That is the straw that has broken the camel's back
NY governor Cuomo,aka MUSSOLINI ,just took away out 2nd amendment rights ,did it behind "closed doors" typical facist tryant,as is all the other politicians who signed it ,they did it in such haste that they "forgot" to exempt the police from the ban ,WTF the police are public servants ,they should not be treated better then the public they serve ,the ban should also apply to them as well as all politicians ,what there lives are "worth more then you or me? " THEY FORGOT THEY ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS" THEY GOT THE MENTALITY THAT THE public must serve them ! throw out all the bums
"Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a high-profile Republican, dismissed Obama's plan: 'President Obama is targeting the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens instead of seriously addressing the real underlying causes of such violence,' he said in a statement.
"Said Rep. Tim Huelskamp, a Kansas conservative: 'The right to bear arms is a right, despite President Obama's disdain for the Second Amendment and the Constitution's limits on his power.'"
And once again, the Tea Party/arch-Conservative factions ramp up the rhetoric, disdaining reasoned discussion if favor of kowtowing to their NRA masters.
News flash, fellows: Tuesday November 4, 2014 is just 657 days away. This issue can't be kicked down the road forever.
America certainly deserves much better, and we'll by God get it.
@Judy The Ornery
I have, twice! Obama's BS ideas would not have prevented either time! Gun control doesn't work, period!
The sad reality about today's proposals is that they will do nothing to seriously stem gun violence in the USA. And there's a reason for this: Gun violence isn't about guns, per se. Let me show what I mean.
If guns are the problem, why are women seldom, if ever, mass murderers?
If guns are the problem, why are married men, or men over 30, seldom, if ever, mass murderers?
If guns are the problem, then why is it that gun violence rates SKYROCKETED beginning in 1964, despite there being no change in gun availability?
If guns are the problem, and guns with high capacity magazines particularly, then why were there no mass murders (other than among criminals at war with one another) when it was legal to own a Thompson submachine gun, or a Browning Automatic Rifle? It still is legal, btw, just much more difficult.
If guns are the problem, then why was it that throughout our history young people were not only taught how to use a weapon, but were EXPECTED to be able to use that weapon, but they didn't use it for criminal mass murder?
The point is that it's our culture which is the problem, not the guns we own or take to the range or out hunting. Single parenting, out-of-wedlock births, illiteracy, the "self-esteem" movement, welfare laws, and many, MANY, more reasons are why young, single men today go out after some slight against them and shoot the hell out of other people.
Had Adam Lanza had only the two pistols, and each of those had only a 10 round magazine, and the police were still ten minutes away and no one else at the school was armed, then he would have still been able to wipe out dozens of kids. It's sad to say this, but I think it's true...Adam Lanza's raw rage, which caused him to pump as many as 11 rounds into the little bodies, is what kept more students from dying. Had he simply gone, mechanical-like, double tapping each child, he could have easily killed far more than 100 students in 10 minutes.
The president has failed yet again to deal with a real problem with real ideas to solve it. There is a reason for this too. Almost every cultural reason the president would have to openly face in trying to understand gun violence and do something to help stop it is a cultural problem brought to us by liberals. Sorry, but it's true. Easier divorce. Easier out-of-wedlock birthing. Easier to remain illiterate but be told how wonderful you really are. Easier to bash the Boy Scouts. And so on. And while I am an atheist I have to say that our cultural movement AWAY from religiousity is no help either. Most people need a God, and need to learn about their God in order to understand right and wrong.
Said Rep. Tim Huelskamp, a Kansas conservative: "The right to bear arms is a right, despite President Obama's disdain for the Second Amendment and the Constitution's limits on his power."
Well now, do you understand why he wants the second gone? "The constitutions LIMITS on HIS POWERS"! There you have it. HE WANTS TO BE A DICTATOR RIGHT THERE!!! With out the second, there is no way to defend the "Bill Of RIGHTS"!
No Judy. As a gun owner, Guns=Self Defense and Freedom From All Tyranny, Including You
AND YET WE CAN LEGALLY KILL THEM IF WE JUST DON'T WANT THEM TO BE BORN, AND BURDON OUR PRECIOUS LIVES OF OUR OWN. AMERICA: GROW A PAIR AND STAND UP FOR ALL, ALL KIDS, DON'T JUST PICK AND CHOSE, OR YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE. If you abolish the 2nd, you are going to open the door for U.S. genicide, and will not be able to defend yourselves. YES, IT CAN/WILL HAPPEN HERE!
Thank goodness the NRA cannot bully us anymore.
'West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, D, a key centrist whose support could be indicative of the Obama plan's fortunes, said he would "weigh each recommendation carefully." '
I seem to recall an Ad by Manchin when he was running for the Senate where he used a Rifle to shoot a bullseye at a target of Obama's proposed ban on coal. lol
Personally, I have no problem with reasonable restrictions on some types of guns, but the process will be difficult - for example, I saw something where the same rifle with the same semi-automatic magazine capacity would be changed from 'illegal' to 'legal' simply by sawing off the pistol grip on the bottom of the gun. That sounds pretty 'cosmetic' to me.
Strange times we live in people.
First we have a a group that is so set against having guns in our schools or around our children.
Then their friends at the ACLU says be careful about the questions you can ask so you don't violate anybodies rights.
Then allow the ACLU to remove God and moments of silence from schools.
Try to make the government the primary care givers of families with no Moral guidance.
Allow more than thirty thousand abortions a year.
Criticize their opponents for failure to act in reducing taxes, all the while knowing they are going to let the SS tax relief expire causing your taxes to go up anyway.
Then call themselves friends of the working class.
These are the liberal progressives of this country. All they have done is created the environment for mass shootings like this to take place. This tragedy, while terrible, is the proof in the pudding of what these progressives want to accomplish. Drive a wedge between the two parties so they will be so intent on fighting with each other that they don't notice the rights and freedoms being taken away from the people.
All of these proposals made by Obama today will do absolutely nothing in preventing another Sandy Hook from happening again. If a person is intent on doing something illegal, they are not going to abide by any law that limits the number of rounds they can legally put in a magazine.
The 2nd amendment was originally intended to make it easier for southerners to control their slaves with state militias. It even says "state" instead of country.
"The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.
In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states."
Daily Kos: The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery
"White House calls NRA 'repugnant,' 'cowardly' for invoking president's children in ad"
Meanwhile, Obama plans on using children as a prop in announcing his proposed restrictions on guns.
How do you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E?
Militia and right to bear arms are not connected, a ruling by the US Supreme Court in 2008.
The President today has infringed on our right to bear arms as best he can. Even causing a hassle or being a nuissance is an infringement.
Obama is carried away with himself, he's not presiding, he's dictating. He has no guts to meet with congress. Rather he speaks via news release. He can't stand being argued with and the microphones don't argue. He has now even admitted he will not negotiate with congress. Using the children as a human shield today seemed like a heck of an idea to Obama. He doesn't have a clue how pathetic it is.
But Congress has 30 days to throw out all or some of the executive orders, and can take up measures as well. So let's give Congress 30 days to defend the Cosntitution or not.
What I find interesting is that the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment allowing the Right to Bear Arms was to foil any attempt by a dominating Central Government to disarm ordinary citizens, making it easier to control them
Now, Obama wants to make sure that the government has the names, addresses and type of gun that every law-abiding citizen has in their possession - making confiscation easy.
The Supreme Court has created confusion and opened a can of worms in regards to their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
On one hand, they've agreed the Amendment grants citizens the right to bear arms, and although the Amendment clearly states the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed", allows it to be infringed.
Thus we now have a country divided over how far the infringement should or should not go.
So you must be for bringing prohibition back and making sure marijauna is not made legal since both of these lead to far more related deaths than firearms.
The only paranoia going on here is the liberals. If you own a gun there is nothing to be paranoid about. It's truly time to speak up and ensure your congressman knows your views. I understand you people in the city just don't get it. I wouldn't either if the only people that owned guns were the criminals and the very ownership of that gun by your big city laws makes you a criminal. It's time you understand you are in the city and there is an entire rest of the country out here that isn't like your big city and different rules and standards apply. Stop tredding on our rights or maybe our tax dollars will stop funding your liberal big government.
The second amendment this and the second amendment that! You conspiracy pushers and you right to bear destructive weapons proponents want to honor the second amendment, then return to the musket and the ball (rounded) projectile that was in use when the second amendment was passed into law.
When the second amendment was passed, there were no assault rifles, nor 30+ clip magazines, nor midnight specials, nor Oozies.
All you insecure, mentally unstable types that want to keep your mass destruction weapons, use the second amendment as a shield to hide behind. You don't fool anyone. Your glut for assault style weapons, 30+ clip magazines is based on your warped sense of fear (PARANOIA) that there's someone out there to get you so you must be able to respond in kind. That's the mentality that eventually snaps and turns normal (supposedly) people into mass murderers. Fear and paranoia runs deep in many unstable minded individuals.
Stop using the second amendment as justification for weapons that should only be used in wars--armed combat--by the military. The second amendment discusses the right to bear arms for self defense, not for mass killings. The only justification for rapid fire assault weapons is paranoia. Ohh, Yeah, and the glut of the arms manufacturers to sell you these weapons; hence the NRAs position--keep arms manufacturers in business.
I may be missing it, but where are any suggestions from the so-called gun rights advocates in fixing the problems of mass murder and the run-away murder rate as a whole in this country? All I hear from you or read here is the president, and it hasn't just been President Obama, it has been EVERY democratic president in recent times, they want to take your guns away. President Obama even extended your rights to conceal carry in national forests and parks. He is taking the lead and giving congress cover to finally do something about those wanting and willfully taking away peoples right to LIFE. I have not heard ONE suggestion so that leads me to believe they don't think there is a problem, a growing problem that needs attention. What part of a WELL REGULATED MILITIA is not being understood?
None of what I have read about the presidents directives, orders and requests to congress seems to be all that insensible to me. Especially studying what causes these nut cases to blow so many away. One would think the NRA would welcome a study like that.
All this being said, new technologies like 3-D printers that can and will be able to print out guns are becoming achievable to the masses. The founding fathers couldn't have imagined this type of technology and never intended on what is going on in guns today to happen. Wouldn't you like to know what causes the evil that propels a person to blow away so many children in classrooms and on street corners so perhaps they can be recognised earlier and hopefully corrected? I know I would. I have nothing against you owning your guns. You have a right to protect yourselves and your families but I can tell you you are NO match to the US military. Your guns won't be needed against your country or government.
rednawt1
You have it wrong, it is in order to regulate our militia that we are given the right to bear arms. Without that right we have no way to ensure that regulation. If the people lose the right to bear arms the militia can do whatever they want with no one to stop them, that is the context of the right.
And by your logic, the first amendment would only apply to the printing press and the quill.
The Founding Fathers knew that weapons would improve, otherwise they would have spelled out specific guidelines, but, as they were intelligent enough to know that technology would improve, they left the wording to include all arms.
9BallPro.........are you absolutely, certifiably OUT OF YOUR MIND??
"All the law proposes to do is try to prevent criminals, wackos and those who pose a danger to society from obtaining a gun. No one is proposing to take away a responsible law-abiding citizen's gun."
Don't you understand the definition of CRIMINAL? They're individuals who BREAK THE LAW! So tell me when, IF EVER, a law prevented a criminal from doing ANYTHING when, by virtue of definition, criminals break the law. So moron, what makes you think you can pass a law that the criminals are not going to break? And as far as the wackos and those who pose a danger, they're already prohibited from owning guns in many of the Nation's states. Hasn't helped, has it.
The only outcome of these laws is to restrict the ownership of guns by law abiding citizens, and the last time I checked, no mass murders were committed by decent, upstanding law abiding citizens of this country.
The Libs want to and have done away with the death penalty in many states so there is no deterrent for these crimes. Good 'ole Governor Quinn in Illinois took all inmates off of death row and suspended the death penalty in Illinois and Chicago has the highest homocide rate in the country. Why not....kill someone in Illinois and live off of the "Law Abiding Citizens" for the rest of your life!
For more than three decades now, the anti-gun liberals have sat back and done/said NOTHING about the persistent, DAILY gun murders and violence perpetrated by the inner city gangs in cities like Chicago and Washington DC, NOW all the sudden want complete and unrestricted access to controlling gun ownership to the 99% who are LEGAL and LAW ABIDING citizens in America. Only after a horrid tragedy fulfilled by a mentally ill individual that belonged in a mental institution who STOLE his mother's LEGALLY purchased and owned guns have they risen up. Never let a crisis go to waste. Well I've got news for you...we are waking up too. We understand baby steps to the ultimate goal: complete confiscation of firearms by legal, law abiding gun owners.
I'm a libertarian (so I have my criticisms of both liberals and conservatives), but I found you saying that funny when this was above what you wrote:
Who is paranoid again? There is no "mass/gross extermination". What a paranoid piece of nonsense, clearly influenced by media coverage as opposed to the stats easily found at the DOJ, CDC, and FBI (let alone studies done elsewhere at various Universities).
The stats are clear. Mas murder hit it's peak in 1929 and has declined since. The murder rate is down 49% over the last 20 years and 20% over the last decade. All this while "assault' rifles, large capacity magazines, permits to carry guns, violent and sexualized movies, TV, and music, and single patrenthood have never been more widespread. There is no correlation. If there is no correlation then there is no causation.
Meanwhile over 51% of murders in theis country are directly caused by the existence of the Drug War and its illegalization of drugs (without drug gang murders and murders over drugs and drug turf are only less than 49% of our murders annually).
Banning "assault" rifles and high capacity magazines had NO net effect on crime, violent crime, or murder rates last time it was tried fort ten years. It's just an irrational feel-good measure for the ignorant.
If this is about saving thousands of lives, get rid of the Drug War. If this is about a political agenda and saving AT MOST a few hundred lives (rifles, let alone just "assault rifles" are responsible for less than 3.5% of homocides, and less than 2% of murders annually) then attack gun rights. If you want to save a ton of lives expand the rights of adults by ending the Drug War, if it's about a political agenda then limit rights of adults to little or no affect.
So which is it? Do you want to save lots of lives? Or do you have a political agenda.
If you continue this gun control nonsense it is clearly NOT about saving lives, it's about a political agenda. If you go after the Drug War it's clearly about saving lives.
The paranoids are the people going after guns. That's not to say some pro-gun people aren't paranoid...but not about what you seem to think they are.
Here a few stats you should get to know:
10tacle, Compound that with the Presidents track record of ignoring the killings in his own nieghborhood for the 20 yrs he was in Chicago. I guess the 100's of little children of color lying in pools of blood in Chicago didn't matter. It took the lives of 20 white girls and boys at Sandy Hook for this grandstanding President to react! To little to late, Barack Obama, don't tell America how things should be if you cannot clean up your own home town!
Here is how the new gun law reads:
You are allowed to have weapons of any kind, with as much ammunition as you can carry, only if you meet the following criteria:
-You are terrorist.
-You work for the MOB or you are member of a gang.
-You work for organize crime.
-You are criminal.
-You have mental issues.
-You are an invading nation.
If you do not meet the above criteria, then turn in all your weapons to the nearest police station. There is no amount of law that will stop the qualifier from not obtaining a weapons. All whom comply with the law will be defenseless. The powerful qualify to have their family protected, the rest are on their own. Got it!
Seriously, the gun is merely a tool. The mentally deficient can be quite resourceful. Obamas list of actions are really empty when you consider his attack on the video games, guns, and a mention of addressing mental illness. The film industry has played a major role along with video games, to bring fiction to life (or death) in some minds. But there are political contributors that will not be included in his recommendations. So, with the absence of the film industry, is it seriously about solutions, or to punish only opponents?
Clinton sent our jobs out of the country,6 million of them I might add,GW hits us with the patriot act,which in my opinion was against the constitution, Obama's first term,keep in mind our economy is not in good shape,a year and a half of his term is directly focused on a health care system,that would have been without a doubt been declared unconstitutional if it wasn't for the dodge and calling it a tax. Now more things comming that are,or may be very close to being unconstitutional. I wonder if when we fought the british for our freedom if it was just the republican party that gave everyone their freedom,or was it just democrats that did the fighting for everyone. Or did you guys work together for your freedoms?
LosMan - I had a problem with people voting MORE THAN ONCE, I had a problem with people WHO WERE DEAD VOTING, I had a problem with illegal aliens voting, yeah, I had a problem with all of that. And factually, people with the IQ of a small child should really NOT be allowed to make decisions that affect the future of a country. But if we put in that restriction, then 47% of the population wouldn't be allowed to vote (and I'm being generous).
Mental illness in this country won't stop being a dangerous threat to Americans until we wipe out psychiatry and stop the drug companies from pushing deadly drugs on people. DUH! It's the psycho pharmaceuticals and the socialist agenda that are creating the downfall of America but you ignorant people won't confront that until it's too late, and even then you will try to make excuses why it's okay that we are no longer the "land of the free"...
Ahhh,
I stopped reading post a little while ago, but found that I had to stop along the way. Thank you Sheepled. One of the greatest reads ever written...Our Declaration of Independence. May whatever god (or whatever else) you believe in bless you for posting that. It feels good on the eyes every time I read it.
I kept reading above "no one is coming to take your guns" and "no one is taking your second amendment rights away". Who are you trying to convince? If you think that registration isn't the first step, try telling that to some of the Jewish from the 1940s. I remain unconvinced.
So, let's work back. rednawt1, you seem to be one of those that actually believes that the bill of rights has something to do with a states rights. Do some history. When you get to the part in 1783 (I might be off a year, it's been a long time since High School) where 10 of the original 13 colonies would not ratify the constitution because it did not spell out Individual liberties, come back and post. The fact is, the bill of rights spells out your liberties and has not one thing to do with the governments (federal or state). Read my friend, and you will find that our Founding Fathers had one purpose and one purpose only in creating the bill of rights...To protect the citizens against the government! These are your lines of defense, from your ability to make your opinion known (be it through public speech, petition, or press) about if or when your government is trying to usurp your liberty and to forcibly resist your government (should it be necessary). Yes, thanks to plenty of weapons bans and regulation, the citizenry will not be as well armed as the government and you may be right in the fact that we may lose, but that does not mean that you should not try to make the point known. The point is, to strive for liberty, to fight and die for the beliefs in the constitution, and to ensure that these principles survive so that my children might get to experience the true promise of what it means to be "The land of the free."
Forrest Grump 2.0, clearly you did not serve in Vietnam...same as above applies to you.
silverton-2953905, I'm glad to see that you've mastered the art of copying and pasting the same tired comments from MSWord to Newsvine. Get a new shtick.
And now, a few thought for people who think these executive orders are such a great idea.
do I need to finish that line of thought so that you see he is paranoid and will not talk to someone he doesn't think he can trust?
That being said kids, I'm not so sure that we are looking at the big picture here. We still are not looking at the real problems that our society has and only looking to mass punish people who will follow these things that are being done. Really, I was thinking today about what happens when someone in my state commits a murder. If caught (and that is a big if, considering that 60% of homicides in the United States go unsolved), they will go to prison. You ask "ok, so how is that bad?" Let's see, 3 hots and a cot, cable TV, air conditioning and heat, a job provided for you, exercise, the ability to get an education without paying for it, free medical and dental...the list goes on. So I ask how is that good? Where is the fear of reprisal? Sure, you can't vote or own a gun, but so what? You are taken care of. And, the funniest thing about it is if you get a twenty year sentence, you're probably out in seven due to overcrowding. There are days that I wonder why more people aren't doing this just to get caught and get away from responsibility.
Sorry folks, that's all for tonight. The beautiful wife wants me to come to bed with her. Enjoy what is left of your freedoms, your government will make sure you have none before it is over.
Seymour, finally someone I can agree with. That would be a good start by getting all we can off the drugs. Although I am lucky to never had a gun instance in my life, it could only be a matter of time. Other peoples drug use has affected me almost like I was the one using. I don't. So, that would be a good start.
Ken, people in the rest of the world watch all those same movies and play all the same video games, but yet their gun violence problems are about the same as in the US, all of the rest of the "developed" world combined. What is different?
Fender, he has mentioned it. He is NOT against your guns and has recognised what has been done is not working. Hell, he even added in some of the NRA's suggestions. Watch them run the other way now.
Falor, and Bush sent even more jobs out of the country. Ronny Reagan started it. But then, why let facts get in the way of Obama and Clinton bashing?
I would rather everyone who can pay a tax for health care rather then to have the poor go see the EM at $1,000 to treat a common cold. OR pay the insurance company half my wages and hope I don't get sick. How about all who can't get affordable insurance because they either got sick beyond their control or injured and now have pre-existing conditions. Or hey, how about those who would love to create a business but are afraid to move because they would lose their insurance if they leave their employment?
At any rate, still haven't heard any suggestions on how to prevent more of these tragedies and gun deaths going forward. To do nothing is no longer acceptable.
Take this militia business and shove it. The people had and have the right to bear arms. When this was written people had to have rifles to hunt,feed their families and protect themselves. It wasn't just for militia bull@!$%#. However i believe that most of those with the big guns are people with disposable income or are making damn good money. With the cost of shells just your average person can't afford to get out and shoot those things.
Let the DR ask me about guns in my house.I will tell them I have sawed off machine guns. That should leave a sparkle in his eye. Then when the feds come to get it they will be surprised to find it was just a 16 ga single shot that was NOT cut at all. You do NOT have to tell the DR the truth. Just like you can LIE to the police. Crimminals get away with it all the time. Us law abiding citizens should be able to also.
Make them waste money they will get tired of it and stop the BS.
The Five Rules of Propaganda:
The rule of simplification: reducing all data to a simple confrontation between ‘Good and Bad’, ‘Friend and Foe’.
The rule of disfiguration: discrediting the opposition by crude smears and parodies.
The rule of transfusion: manipulating the consensus values of the target audience for one’s own ends.
The rule of unanimity: presenting one’s viewpoint as if it were the unanimous opinion of all right-thinking people: draining the doubting individual into agreement by the appeal of star-performers, by social pressure, and by ‘psychological contagion’.
The rule of orchestration: endlessly repeating the same messages in different variations and combinations.
Example: GUNS=MONEY=NRA=RICH WHITE GUYS!
"I sympathize with people who want to ban guns, but I can't agree with them. We have to be careful in our zeal to abolish guns that we don't wind up with counter-productive legislation that will leave armed only the people most likely to do harm with them."
To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding.
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with "hunting" it has to do with the right to defend yourself. When it was written it was written to address the British Colonial Monarchy which had a single King ruling over his subjects. It's intent was to acknowledge that individuals not just kings had an already existing right to defend themselves.
The founders wrote the 2nd amendment to secure that right, and to ensure that no king could ever “rule” over subjects in America. That’s made clear by this quote:
Banning: 1.Officially or legally prohibit
Banning Semi-automatic rifles and pistols is by definition prohibiting them. Prohibit = Can't have = taking away your right to own. That's the "equation"
I don't mind background checks at all. But taking away my rights? That's not going to happen without a fight.
Gun control IS taking away guns. Certain ones to be specific and ones which the 2nd amendment (the highest law in the land) implicitly says CANNOT BE INFRINGED.
Garbabeman: I have signed the White House petition to "Cease all attempts to ban military style sport rifles". Let's see if we can get the signatures necessary to FORCE Obama to recognize the 2nd Amendment has more power than he does!!
petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/cease-all-attempts-ban-military-style-sport-rifles-and-limit-capacity-rounds-10-magazine/vCmWpb01
The nra and a good portion of their members are hands down the biggest terrorist threat to America right now. The nra is one of the biggest lobbyists in D.C. and they have bought/bribed the gop(guns over people) to keep the flow of arms whether legal or illegal moving throughout America. The nra sponsors the proliferation of American vs. American gun violence and murder to boost their profit margins which enable the nra to make more bribes, sell more guns, spread more fear and so it goes on and on. Luckily for America, the rational thinking majority of Americans have rejected the nra and the gop/teabag crazy right wing extremism and our fine President is doing exactly what the majority of Americans like me elected him to do. And that my friends, that is exactly how DEMOCRACY is supposed to work! I'll be more than happy to show the door to anybody that doesn't like it. PEACE
Laura-3089574 said:
I'm not near as concerned about people with assault rifles as I am with:
All these things cause over 50,000 deaths per year compared to the 18 killed by assault rifles. Yes, any death should be saved, but the reality is you are only responding by emotion, not facts. Which is typical of people on the left like you!
And maybe you don't have kids, but for those that do, their kids are just as important as the Tyrant-in-Chiefs. If you don't see the hypocrisy in that, then you are just the kind of mindless sheep that Obama likes!!
You are the pathetic one.
Lets have a violence tax on hollyweird movies. Lets say if they make a violent movie the first murder is a freebie.
After that a $100,000 fee is levied for each murder portrayed in the film where a gun is used.
$75,000 if a bomb is used.
$50,000 for all other acts of violent murder are portrayed.
On top of that lets have a gun shot fee impossed on them as well. For each time a gun is fired in a movie there should be a $10,000 tax.
Each time a gun is portrayed in a life threatening measure then they would have to pay a $5,000 tax.
So on and so forth. Of course we really are not going to call this a tax but instead we shall refer to
as a fee.
Read it and weep, America
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/15/graphic-31-days-later-u-s-gun-deaths-since-newtown/
Screw lawmakers...we the people will pressure them to conform on this. And believe me, they will.
So you are advocating a MOB MENTALITY on this ? LOL !!
"Screw the laws, by golly ... we'll do what we want" !
Hate to break it to you genius... you are only "part" of we the people ! Many, many will oppose this knee-jerk legislation based on the emotion of a tragedy, and designed to limit the 2nd amendment !
Hey, Jim. Take another look at the polls that show that Americans do want what President Obama wants.
Intelligent & Independent, at least that is what the MSM would like you to believe.
Exactly. Little enthusiam huh?? Well let's see how we can light a little fire under their a$$e$!!!
According to the headlines Obama's priority is "Keeping our children safe". How many kids die from rifles? In 2009, the latest year with stats from the FBI, there were only 349 murders with rifles of any sort. Today while this is debated 11 kids will die from texting and driving. That's the equivalent of a Sandy Hook every other day. Where is the task force to combat this mass killer of kids? Don't kid yourself. This isn't' about keep our children safe. It's about political capital.
Skup, how many shredded children does it take to have some sane, rational laws regarding dead kids, or dead people for that matter.
Planned Parenthood murdered 333,000 babies in 2011 alone! Where is your outrage over that, Oh I remember that's none of our business! Hypocrite!
skyparrot - It's not about how many shredded kids there were in this one incident. It's about using sensationalism for political gain. If the 11 kids who are going to die today texting were the lead story on every news channel everyday with their shredded bodies being removed from the wreckage played in front of every person who turned on a TV then there may enough outrage to warrant politicians taking an interest. Ban the guns or don't, I don't care. At the end of the day it's just a way to make yourself feel better by not having to watch it on the evening news. The politicians could care less until there are enough outraged voters to get them interested.
Skup,
I think it's part political opportunism, and part emotional policy making. I do think many on the left want to ban guns because they think they are evil, but I also don't think they are looking at the situation rationally.
I wish we could get some non-biased studies done and then come up with potential changes (if we still think they are needed).
One thing I think people forget is resources are limited and nothing is free. So, we may save 11 lives at a cost of hundreds of other lives lost while law enforcement devotes it's limited resources to monitor everyday citizens.
@ Forrest Grump 2.0
If you would actually use that common sense logic that Obama himself should use you would realize then James Madison said the militia was the people. The 2nd Amendment was made to prevent against tyranny from the government not hunting or whatever else Obama likes to think. A common sense answer would be when the government that enforces the law in the US gets rid of their FULL AUTO rifles the American people might need to consider getting rid of the SEMI AUTO rifles. Like or dislike the 2nd Amendment it was designed for only one reason and that was for the people to have a way to protect themselves from the government. The simple fact that the weapons he's targetting are used in less than 3% of murders shows his lack of intelligence. Yes their should be backgrounds run on all indiduals that purchase weapons but you have nothing to argue on the fact that this is specifically what the 2nd Amendment was written for. And for the arguement where does it stop why not allow grenade launches ect.. the American government doesn't use these as enforcement in the states.
Skup, thats a terrible analogy. Your comparing txt'ing and driving, an action that potentially deprives self of L,L, and P of H, versus this gun bill which is designed to reduce one ability to rob ANOTHER of L, L, and P of H. Thats true for both child and adult.
There needs to be a sensible limit to the 2nd amendment and this seems to it. I fail to understand why individuals need assualt weapons (like the bushmaster used in SH). No it won't eliminate gun violence completely, but its a good step. In 10-15 years, im sure the law and its effectiveness will be investigated.
while standing in the blood of children Obama signs an action to force more children to be defensless when at home by banning guns that their parents need to defend them from hoards of Illegal Aliens who just walk across the border with their Fast and Furious assault weapons.
What is most irrational is that NRA fanatics are allowing themselves to be led by Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the NRA, who dodged the Vietnam draft in 1969 by having his family doctor write a letter saying he had a nervous disorder.
Seems like he would have wanted to go into battle and use all that military weaponry he advocates so much.
If he really has a nervous disorder, should he be the one leading the charge promoting more weapons in this country?
And if he does not have a nervous disorder and just used that for an excuse, shouldn't his followers be concerned about him being an unpatriotic liar?
This is most disturbing.
I watched several news videos about the shooting there at the school. The assailant was armed with 2 handguns at the scene. The assault rifle was in the trunk of his car. Now why would he shoot all those children with the rifle; run back and put it in his trunk, then return inside the school to shoot himself with a handgun? I dunno, something just doesn't make sense.
Most gun violence is with a handgun. How is restricting assault rifles going to change that? It will raise the rate people murder with handguns, that's how. It is like when the government tells you they are cutting federal taxes. They don't lie when they say that because that is what they did. What people didn't see was they created a new tax which is actually higher than the tax they cut. These gun restriction on assault rifles are so the American people can't be armed with weapons comparable to the foreign soldiers who will be here from the U.N. to enforce our government's will upon us soon. Just wait and see; but by then, it will be too late. That is the real reason the government wants a ban on assault rifles and high capacity magazines.
An assault weapon ban does not make any sense. The data does not support it at all. Out of all gun crime involving an assault weapon and deaths due to them in the US do not even make up 1%. Why go after assault weapons and high capacity mags? There must be another agenda if there is any rational reason for this
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave the"
-George Mason, during Virginia's ratification convention, 1788
johngis,
What really doesn't make any sense is that Wayne "Warlord" LaPierre dodged the Vietnam draft by saying he had a "nervous disorder."
And now he wants us to believe HIM when he says we all need to arm ourselves with more weapons.
I guess he thinks we are all just as cowardly as he is.
I have read these posts and find that the anti gunners are responding from emotion not logic. I have seen the list of obamas proposals and funny enough but most of them concerning educating people are already being done by the NRA where they get permission to do so. The repair to the ACA (shall now allow doctors to ask about guns in home ) is obama changing the act after the fact because he could not get it approved before hand. It is still an invasion of privacy! the clinton ban defined any weapon with a bayonet mount or a flash suppressor to be illegal that means a revolutionary war musket would be banned due to its bayonet mount. why ban a black powder single shot rifle that probably would not survive more than 2 or 3 shots! An assault rifle is a rifle that is capable of full auto the weapons being banned are semi auto. it takes 2 seconds to change a magazine so a crazy person carrys more than 1 and can do the same damage. if we want to stop these things from happening then treating symptoms wont work we have to cure the disease! has anyone noticed that all these people who go on shooting sprees have a history of mental illnes either diagnosed by a doctor or noted by people who dealt with them on a regular basis. If the anti gunners really want to change some of the gun laws then get some that may actually help none of the suggestions would have stopped any of the attacks except the mental health one MAY have stopped the theater shooting. Rather than fighting with the supporters of the second amendment try to see what will work to prove my point clinton suggested putting armed police/guards in schools during his terms and it was well accepted but funding was never found but when the NRA suggested it the anti gunners scoffed and made fun of the suggestion...why is it good if it comes from a democrat but bad if from the NRA. stop using emotions to think please. and if anyone thinks this is not the beguing of a grab for arms them go look at obamas senate voting record over 15 times he voted anti guns to claim he supports the second amendment NOW with no reason for the change is so hard to believe that Ill believe outer space aliens have landed first
You are so right, Silverton. LaPierre is a hyppocrate as well as all his BRAINLESS followers...
Silverton and Apollo are both mindless trolls that are not contributing anything intellegent to this discussion.
The Founding Fathers put the 2nd Amendment there to protect your right to sit in front of a keyboard and spew mindless drivel. Without the 2nd Amendment the rest of the Constitution will fall.
ChevsMark,
When is serving your country considered "mindless drivel?"
I know you would rather that American citizens not know about LaPierre's nervous disorder, but please stop trying to impede our First Amendment Right of Speech again.
silverton
your entire existence is mindless drivel
@silverton-2953905
So exactly when did you serve in Viet Nam? Or anywhere for that matter?
@Intelligent & Independent
You are neither!
OldDog,
I graduated from high school in 1975 and went to college. The Vietnam War was over in 1973.
There was no war or draft when I was eligible to serve.
Both of my parents were in the Air Force during the Korean War. I would have served my country had there been a need or a draft.
And I certainly would not have claimed I had a nervous disorder.
I have two sons that are in college now. If they were drafted, I would be ashamed of them if they tried to weasel out of it.
@Simple Minded Theory,
Oh, come on. You can do better than that. Try to think of something witty for a change. LOL
Spiddas: That is the manual for faux noise and the NRA.
All of my guns are legal under that New York law. It should be made the national law.
Miklkit what part of just because you like it everyone else doesn't have to don't you get? Maybe everybody doesn't conform to your view of "standard" Maybe other people like large clips and AR style guns to shoot, for hunting, for fun, for no reason at all there doesn't have to be. What part of giving up freedom of any level do you not get. You lefty New Yorkers and Chicagoans just seem to love to be locked up and whipped with someone elses orders of the day. Go move to Cuba or something, we don't like your vote to give up something that isn't yours to give.
These laws help nothing and do nothing other than restrict law abiding citizens and give you libs a woody. Just another power grab as usual, please go focus your efforts on legal weed or something achievable.
Miklkit:
Bad news for ya bub.
I don't waste my time with Faux News-less and have never been, nor plan to be, a member of the NRA.
Screw New York. They've been the hemorrhoid of the country ever since the beginning.
Mayor Bloomers and his food nazi attitude. "No soft-drink for you!"
And now Governor Cum-O.
And the best thing about New York... It ain't here!
Ironic that Vermont has virtually no gun laws on the books, and anyone who is lawfully allowed can buy a gun and carry it damned near anywhere, and no one bats an eyelash, and they have the lowest crime rate in the whole country. Yet NYC, Chicago and DC have the strictest, most invasive gun control laws on the books... Ban this! Restrict that! Yet they have the highest violent crime rates in the country. And the kicker! The Brady Campaign website backs every bit of this up! D'oh!!!
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/15/graphic-31-days-later-u-s-gun-deaths-since-newtown/
Well that quote from Obama settles the argument. Tyrant!
Sig ... oh, Hell!
you fanatic gun nuts need to get a life! grow up, we live in a democracy where the majority rules and your type is on the lossing end.
Actually, our type did not lose the House. So therefore, you don't have a majority, you only have the Senate and Presidency. Which means you can't just stand there and stomp your foot like a little kid to get your way but actually have to compromise.
" Democracy is two wolves and a lamb negotiating lunch! Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote" Ben Franklin
Actually we live in a REPUBLIC!!!
The govt. took the Indians guns away...Result...Wounded Knee Massacre...Lotsa women & children massacred...
kr
YOU are incorrect and that is exactly why we have courts and the bill of rights to guard against exactly what you said. IF you were correct, christians would rule the schools, etc. Shall we get into votes on gay rights, marriage, want to go on?????
Actually you live in where the Constitution rules. Glad you learned in school, oops not allowed to say that since I believe in the constitution that must make me a conservative or Gun Nut. You can argue anything you want the 2nd Amendment was designed for one reason to allow the American People this was James Madison answer to who the Malitia was to have weapons to defend against the possiblity of tyranny. The people have the rights to have the same arms that their government uses against them. FYI the government does not use nukes, ect.. against it's own people. When their weapons hold 10 rounds so will mine.
The "gun nuts" are in Chicago and New York City and they will keep shooting each other no matter what laws are passed legally or illegally. The honest law abiding citizens are not the gun nuts that you were told to think they are.
Cuomo is as much a terrorist as bin laden was. Bloomberg was a socialist and now he is a full blown comunist.
The people who have legal guns are not going to help you when you keep calling us these names.
The police are not paid to protect you.
They are paid to protect the public from you, and not to protect any specific person.
when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
What is most irrational is that NRA fanatics are allowing themselves to be led by Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the NRA, who dodged the Vietnam draft in 1969 by having his family doctor write a letter saying he had a nervous disorder.
Seems like he would have wanted to go into battle and use all that military weaponry he advocates so much.
If he really has a nervous disorder, should he be the one leading the charge promoting more weapons in this country?
And if he does not have a nervous disorder and just used that as an excuse, shouldn't his followers be concerned about him being an unpatriotic liar?
This is most disturbing.
Silverton, do you think repeating the same thing makes it true, get a clue
Let me guess Silverton, your a non-native Coloradoan, smoking weed and hanging out in a ski town.
stopfreeloaders,
Hey, Wayne LaPierre can't deny it himself.
Why should you?
stopfreeloaders. I wonder if you would feel the same way if your younhg child was one of those killed in New Town?
The CEO of the NRA hides behind heavily-armed people that give him millions of dollars.
The question is: Why would so many people want to follow a man who says we need to arm ourselves to the teeth, but he was too cowardly to serve his own country during the Vietnam War?
I seriously doubt any comment contradicting your opinion will have much, if any, effect on you but hey...what the hell.
No, moron...we don't live "where the majority rules". We have a Constitution, which defines our rights and is not subject to "majority rules" of any sort. Maybe if you had payed attention in high school, you would have learned that we don't live in a democracy but a REPUBLIC...
We dont live in a republic. one third of our gov. is "rule of law" one third is "unitary leader." and the other third is half democracy and half republic. THAT WOULD MAKE US ONE SIXTH REPUBLIC. do the math Ringo.
and the pledge should say "and to the PEOPLE for which it stands" not republic. but then it was a republican who demanded such a pledge instead of trusting us. our founders did not demand a pledge. Joe McCarthy did. a paranoid republican like many today.
Where does the 2nd admendment say you have the same rights to guns owned by military/gov. it says "arms" it does not state what kind or how many other than the "s" at the end that means plural, which the no.2 qualifies! The type ect... falls under the phrase "well regulated" and for those that think otherwise than maybe we should make the 2nd admendment 100% true for the times it was written ban all guns except for muskets! Nobody is leaving you without a gun(s) for protection or infringing on your rights as written, only the way you read them and comprehend them, which will never be true! Get some guns upstairs to be able to read and comprehend before owning a gun!
@silverton-2953905
Again I ask: When, exactly did you serve in that war? Or any war?
@AlfredtheGreat
Have you lost a child to senseless violence? If you haven't you have no knowledge of what you're talking about! Not everybody wants to give up liberty because of personal tragedy!
OldDog,
I graduated from high school in 1975 and went to college. The Vietnam War was over in 1973.
There was no war or draft when I was eligible to serve.
Both of my parents were in the Air Force during the Korean War. I would have served my country had there been a need or a draft.
And I certainly would not have claimed I had a nervous disorder.
I have two sons that are in college now. If America went to war and they were drafted, I would be ashamed of them if they tried to weasel out of it.
Uh... No.
We just use the democratic process.
Silverton-
Hey there! So we meet again! Can you please provide a truthful link to your source of information that you posted about Wayne La Pierre? The actual nervous contition, its diagnosis and prognosis etc? I'm not an NRA member. I'm just interested in reading it. You post many things yet don't offer any sources. My brothers wife died of Huntington's Chorea, and although a disease deteriorating the central nervous system in the brain, she still had her faculties. Thanks kid!
we need to impeach obamas, socialist, anti american anti constitution, ass ................like yesterday, this man is tearing america in half, pitting the left against the right. he needs to go, you cannot tell me that the statement of,.......congress must pass this and if they dont, i will see that it does, saying that HIS way is best and the vote does not matter. the america people deserve better than this, sneaky, lying, no good weasel of a president whos arrogance goes beyond reproach . he should be arrested for treason. there i said it, if you don't agree fine, i dont care. but the emperor is buck freakin naked!!!!!!!!!!!!
The 2nd amendment was originally intended to help southern states control their slaves with state militias. It was never intended to give unlimited gun rights. The 1st amendment has restreictions and so does the 2nd already.
Daily Kos: The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery
VRT1968 Wrote;
Spoken like a true treasonous sycophant!
The founding fathers intended for "We the people" to have "arms". ALL ARMS! It has NO notation or stipulation stating that to be limited, despite your uneducated opinion. (You show me where it does!)
At what point has the line been established that they are, and shall be limited? The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States has nothing to do with hunting. It has to do with the militias.. both organized (Government military), and the Unorganized ( The citizenry aka you and I). It clearly states, " the right of the people to keep and bear "arms" "shall NOT be infringed". " Not "limited arms", "arms except", "arms omitting", 'arms excluding" or "arms with the exception of" We are entitled to have, and use EXACTLY what they have. From small arms, to battleships. Agree or not, like it or not, that is the intent of the "Founding Fathers" Where is it written that the government, (other than their own treasonous proclamations) aka police, military, should be able to move forward with, and have the latest technology, and or the ability to limit the citizenry of their ability, or the types of weapons and their improvements needed to defend itself from a tyrannical and oppressive government, or from threats foreign or domestic? At what point has the line been scribed that the lives of " Government officials aka "YOUR" masters, military or police, are deemed greater, or more worthy than yours or mine? It is true that they risk their lives on a daily basis, perhaps only elevating probability. That point is both their choice, and irrelevant to the 2nd amendment. They remain first responders, (Much can happen in 10 minutes!) to a victim, from an either involved, or already committed crime, or an invasion of ANY kind.
"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.” -- Wilson v. State
SHOW ME!
Militia:
If you look up militia, (USDOJ) you will find that it includes ALL able bodied men, both military/ organized, and non military/ UNORGANIZED, including from the citizenry from 17 up. (Women too) .
The Second Amendment
There is no confusion as to its meaning as you imply. It means what it has always meant.
Well regulated means well supplied and trained. Obviously, you've never heard of the term "regulations" when used in reference to the daily ration of beans, coffee and salted pork that each soldier/ volunteer was to be allotted per day in accordance with army "regulations". When the "UNORGANIZED" militia is called into service, the federal government is required by "REGULATION" to feed, arm, clothe and train them. Hence the term, "well regulated".
Revisionist crap...
Neither the First or Second Amendments have restrictions on them.
Both have consequences for abusing them.
I do NOT belong to the NRA. Never was and never will I do NOT waste my money on any of those type of things. I do NOT support the DEMS with money either I keep my money I work hard for it, I will NOT just give it away to others. I have children & grandchildren that will get anything left when I die. It will NOT the some government agency or any other agency.
I think Obama is going crazy. He needs to be tested. To think he has the pwer to change the 2nd admendment, he must be dilusional.
I am not saying that the kids of Sandy Hook deserved to die. I am saying that if you keep signs up saying that guns are NOT allowed here then that is where you will have the mass killers going to shoot people. It will NOT be every place that has that sign, but that seems to be the place they pick. Schools & Theatres
Get over your paranoia people, seriously. If you are brain-washed and insecure enough to think that commonsense measures to approach weapon ownership are a bad idea, you need more help than your gun can provide for you.
speaking of brainwashed
I've read enough of your comments over the last year to know exactly who the brainwashed dolt is... and it isn't me.
Fired Up in NC . . . .
You can't see it but I'm giving you a standing ovation for your retort back to CA. Well done.
The NRA says Paul Revere had a semi-automatic musket.
Fired Up in NC,
I wish I could vote for both your comments a dozen times!
Well played...
RIGHT ON NC! Where have we heard this before?.... I remember.. "This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer and our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" Adolf Hitler 1933 Now that worked out very well for the German people didn't it?
Common sense as in Obama's kids are worth protecting but yours aren't? That kind of common sense? You libs are exactly what the lame stream media has crafted you to be--mindless lemmings. Real common sense is supporting a Constitution that has provided the framework to ensure the freedom from oppressive government that we have enjoyed throughout this country's history. Limiting magazine capacities and banning "Military style"(cosmetic mostly) rifles will do nothing to keep our children safe despite the tantilazing photo op. Common sense would conclude that a federal government that cannot even prevent 12 million illegal aliens from entering it's borders will hardly stand a chance of preventing containers filled with firearms from entering. Common sense is exactly what politicians who want to stay on the payroll beyond 2014 will use when they strike the knee-jerk components of this garbage dump down.
While reading the comments I couldn't help but notice that the national debate has nothing to do with saving our kids and only to do with people attacking each other concerning gun control. Looks just like the congress we all complain about.
"Nothing the president is proposing would have stopped the massacre at Sandy Hook. President Obama is targeting the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens instead of seriously addressing the real underlying causes of such violence," Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said. "Rolling back responsible citizens' rights is not the proper response to tragedies committed by criminals and the mentally ill."
Read more: #ixzz2IB31nx67
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I don't have assualt rifles. I do have pistols. I don't mind background checks. I think guns sales at open markests not requiring back ground checks should be abolished. I don't personally see the need for large clips, but even smaller clips can be taped together so there goes that argument.
My biggest concern as an American citizen at this time is the "Shall Not Be Infringed" part.
You liberals and Democrats and the VERY few Conservatives and Republicans are ALL NUTS!!!! You think that by banning a gun that looks Military (IT IS NOT A FULL AUTO SO NO!! IT IS NOT AN ASSUALT RIFLE) will save us from gun violence? When does it stop? Until all the law abiding citizens have to give up all of their guns? Criminal won't and by the way, there are enough guns on the black market that many innocent lives would be slaughtered before criminals would have no more guns (Which still won't happen).
The AR-15 (since it is the one everyone is focused on) shoots a .223. (GASP!) I can buy a hunting rifle that is a semi-auto (Just like the AR-15) and can shoot just as fast AND shoots .223 ammo but nobody cares? Why? Because it doesn't look like an assault rifle? What if I like the feel of the AR-15 over the Hunting Rifle? They both shoot the same but I like the pistol grip. And before anyone says anything I KNOW that the AR-15 can also shoot the 5.56 ammo (military grade) BUT do you know how hard it is to find that ammo? Most shoot the .223 because it is cheaper and you can find it in more locations.
Mark my words, THIS will NOT solve anything. It's about control and right now they have the sheople in the palm of their hand.....
Fired up in NC, if the redhead witch is agreeing with you it must be your paranoia you have to worry about.
I'm a different fired up in NC.
I own two guns, a Mossberg 500 and a Ruger 1022. I agree with sensible gun laws. Tighter background checks are NOT unreasonable, despite what the yahoo "good guys with guns" might think.
@Michele, your not correct there, Lanza did use high compacity magazines, which allowed him to fire over 100 rounds, each child shot multiple times, which also allowed it to be difficult to take him out, and many tried and would have succeeded had he had to reload, the same with the theater! If one had 3guns, this is 30 rounds, before the need to reload, but would have to switch weapons after 10, that is a far cry from one gun shooting out 100 rounds in around one minute. Yes, it could have still happened but not on the same scale, and it also takes fear to the shooter who is protected by that magazine. I am willing to bet that if the magazines are no longer availabe, and a shooting does happen with your child involved, and come to find out your child was saved because the shooter was taken out, compared to the danger your child would have been in if he had the ability to fire off more rounds, you would be saying thank heavens for the ban on higher magazines. Also stopping the online sale, means someone who wants to stock up must do it in person, and that means if someone wants to stock up on 10round magazines, they are on radar!
Seig-Heil!.....
@vrt nope you are wrong he was dead when they found him so your comment "allowed it to be difficult to take him out" makes no sense. also reloading takes less than 2 seconds and if someone had rushed him he had 2 pistols (according to some media reports when the cops came the rifle was in the car but I degress). neither attack you mentioned had 100 round magazines!!!! they reloaded !!!! your statement "it takes fear to the shooter who is protected by that magazine" does not make sense did you mean takes fear away from the shooter? My child would be safer with armed police/guards in his/her school but when they are with me they are safe the theater attacker would have been put down after 3 or 4 shoots!!!! I understand you are afraid of guns so dont want anyone to have them but your fears will not control the safety of me and mine. the police cannot and as ruled by the supreme court ARE NOT responsable for your protection, YOU ARE. To use your analogy if you are fired upon you will wish you had the means to protect yourself from the criminals with guns. remeber what you bet when you bet a magazine limit will make things safer...you bet your life along with your loved ones. still want to make that bet?
last but not least the police/fbi are better able to track all sales over the internet than in person...over the internet they use credit cards and have delivery addresses in person its cash and see ya. please think logicaly using emotions to think will never help that is better advise than use some common sense since there is nothing common about having sense
Fired up,
I wouldn't be to sure of your statement on who the brainwashed dolt its. Look in the mirror.
Fired up in NC wrote;
Eric Holder 1995 "Brainwashing" against guns
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/03/18/Holder-Outlines-How-To-Change-Public-Opinion-On-Guns
You were saying?
@Layton-3733410
You can't see it but I'm giving you the middle finger for such a stupid comment!
Yankee in NC
The 10 round magazine in your Ruger 10/22 is now outlawed in New York state. I'm sure that "deadly" assault rifle is next on the list.
All of my guns are already legal in New York under that new law. Funny thing is, the only time I had to defend against a robber I used an empty wine bottle, and it worked quite well.
No amount of legislation will stop a mentally unstable person from committing these violent acts.
They will always find another way to cause carnage.
Until we address this issue of identifying and helping these people, It stands to reason that we will likely see more these unfortunate massacres.
look at the stats shooting during the ban and shootings when the ban was lifted. OMG, an epidemic!!!
FreeThinker... There you go thinking again! (and actually making sense - you do know that is frowned upon here at FR don't you?)
(voted you up!)
If you have actual statistics about changes in violent crimes involving assault weapons during and after the ban, that would be good to see. I've seen some posts saying the difference was negligible, but I haven't found any definitive results yet in my searches so I don't know what the reality is. Thanks!
Good luck Ron! You won't find any of those stats here either... you see... these loons love to quote stats that are completely and totally MADE UP!
SO... sorry my friend... but don't hold your breath.
FT. I don't know if that's entirely true. Yes, some are methodical and creative, but some just picking up whatever is handy at the spur of the moment.
When the "Biden / Feinstein Columbine Massacre" happened
the biden-Feinstein assault weapons ban was in force.
Who did it save?
Ron, here are some stats, DC banned all guns in 1993, thier murder rate went up every year until it hit 457 in 2007, the law was changed to allow guns and the next year the death rate went down to 186, in in 2012 the rate was 88, end of story.
The whole Country is held hostage so that the conspirict theorists and other adult children don't get their toys taken away
so very uninformed really its sad.
nobody is telling you to buy a gun,you don't want one,fine just move to Ill. or Chicago or NYC where you will be well protected by obama's boys rahm, bloomberg.(armed body guards with high capacity clips and more than likely fully automatic weapons as backup.California might be better sen. boxer will protect you since she carries a gun.Stop KILLING KIDS BAN ABORTION(I forgot that's a legal right)at rate of approx 350,000 a year.
I think what everyone with half a brain is trying to say...is that there should be respect for all human life from the very beginning...that would be conception. There is little respect for life in this world. You can call it whatever you want, put any name to it, try to twist it with scientific words and time lines to try to make it less than what it is...but in truth, it's taking a human life. To say otherwise is being hypocritical. That's what's missing in all these equations...true sanctity of life. Everyday, children are being born into a world that they could have just have easily been erased from. What does that say to them about the value of their life..or anyones's life for that matter? That there is none. Everyone wonders why the world keeps going further and further down the drain...
Thank you President Obama! Now it is up to Congress to do it's job! It is sad that the GOP is willing to fight for an unborn child, but will allow a born child to be killed just for sport.
What an "a$$hole" statement from you Tommy !! Let me guess ... you consider yourself a "Progressive" don't you ? I would give you the daily award for a certain feminine hygeine product if I was allowed .......
Thats right Tommy...Please congress, pass a law banning abortion!!!
Abortion is none of your business, however, shredding children with a Bushmaster type weapon is my business as it is the Nations.
Jim, stop the foul language, resorting to low down verbiage and mocking rhetoric only makes you look foolish and nasty.
If I were to look at someone as foolish it wouldn't be Jim! it might be someone who claims the moral high ground by defending the murder of over 300,000 children , last year alone, by One intity supported by tax dollars, Planned Parenthood, supported and financed through Progressive policies as acceptable!
Really skyparrot? That's where you stand? Abortion is OK? Both are murder. How can progressives really try to take the moral high ground?
Heres the criminal folks -- hes got his but dont want you to have yours -- only a criminal would not want anyone to have a gun-- makes their activities easier.
Skyparrot #7.3, I beg to differ with your opinion. If we do not seek to protect those weak and unable to protect themselves who will protect them? Abortion is the business of all caring people!
Abortion is simply a private issue between a woman and her physician--20 shredded children is a national concern, zygotes are not human, it only has the potential to be.
don't thump the bible at me, the bible is silent on abortion, not one word, nada, zippo--20 living, birthed, breathing, 6 & 7 year old being shredded is Murder, no getting around that.
Skyparrot, didn't see a Bible mentioned anywhere in my post. Did not say anything about murder. My comment was about protecting all that cannot protect themselves. "Potential to be"? If they are not going to be human children, what are they going to be? Aardvarks?
Unborn heart beating children are no less alive than any 7 year old you moron. and you are so wrong.... you killing your unborn baby is my business, especially if I as a tax payer has to fund it.. People with the pea brain narrow minds like Sky Parrot are much more dangerous than anyone packing a gun.
"Nothing the president is proposing would have stopped the massacre at Sandy Hook. President Obama is targeting the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens instead of seriously addressing the real underlying causes of such violence," Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said. "Rolling back responsible citizens' rights is not the proper response to tragedies committed by criminals and the mentally ill."
Read more: #ixzz2IB31nx67
Then think of the 2nd Amendment as a right to choose. I believe in the right to choose to own a gun that will be stored in a safe and hopefully never used on a bad guy.
Abortions can actually be very brutal. I saw a presentation given by a medical doctor that described late term abortions and honestly, I dont know how a doctor can perform such an atrocity and sleep at night. Abortions are legal in the state of Washington all the way up to the ninth month. It would be more humane to let the child be born and put it to sleep like you would your pet.
Abortion is absolutely OK when people are too dumb to know how birth control works. But I think it has NOTHING to do with gun control. You boneheads are talking about abortion while out there are idiots gunning down innocent, already BORN children!!!
Skyparrot,
According to science, life begins at conception. There is no arguing this so dont try. Do 30 seconds of research to dispel any other liberal lie you cling to in order to make yourself feel better. Abortion ends that life by murdering the child. By you advocating this and promoting it on this newsvine, makes you no better than the mother that murdered her own child. The fact that you say its none of my business when my government forces me to pay for it is wrong. That makes it my business.
People who believe in upholding the 2nd ammendment are not advocating the killing of little children. They are taking a stand to protect children. That is why the areas with the most strict gun laws in America such as New York, Chicago, and Philedalphia also have the highest crime rate in America.
You f*cking liberals need to be gathered up and kicked out of this country. The U.S. might then have a chance at being a successful nation again.
Who in the he** said you couldn't have a gun? What you need is some gun upstairs to be able to comprehend what you read and hear, and until you have that, you shouldn't own a gun!!!!!
sky parrot, you have been mislead the issue is the mentally ill people who misuse tools (guns autos knife whatever) to harm people (not just children although I do find the harming of children more distasteful than adults) the fact that democrats want to ban guns because they are what was used in this particular incident is sad, guns are used daily to protect people by police armed security and the general public defending home and loved ones.. say what you will but even if all guns just disappeared off the face of the earth tonight the mentally ill will find something from a sword all the way to a rock to hurt others and please dont bring up the issue of quantity I find even 1 to be to many.
Hey Haggis, how does this grab ya?
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — An Oregon sheriff has sent a letter to Vice President Joe Biden saying his department will not enforce any new gun laws it considers unconstitutional.
that's gonna piss in his wheaties...........get mad..............funny made me laugh and gave me hope that there are some commonsense people out there!
All of my guns are legal under that New York gun law, and it should be the national law.
And that sherrif should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.
Ooops, got another one, this time from Texas.
Texas Republican Rep. Steve Toth wants to make it a felony for any federal official to try to enforce future gun control laws that would ban or limit ownership of semi-automatic weapons or reduce the size of gun magazines in his state. "If a federal official comes into the state of Texas to enforce the federal executive order, that person is subject to criminal prosecution," Toth said. He added that he welcomes a legal fight over the Supremacy Clause, a section of the Constitution that gently reminds us all that federal law is the "supreme law" of the country. Sorry, states. "It is our responsibility to push back when those laws are infringed by King Obama," Toth said.
Yup, one by one the states are dropping out of Obama's gun grabbing insanity.
Just a month ago states were dropping out of Obamacare. This president cant get anything right.
yes here in texas the word secede has been coming up a lot lately..............ha! obummer is gonna be backpedaling on this one !
Resource Officer = Armed Guard.
At Mandeville High School, Mandeville, La. resource officer was a cop, as was the Resource Officer, Covington, Hight School, Covington, La.
The difference between a permanently assigned cop and an armed guard is trivial at best.
A Resource Officer = a Trained Professional . positive role model students can look up too !
"Screw the lawmakers" - Democrat
"Don't forget the 'Well regulated'" part. - Moron (who doesn't know that in 1789 the word Regulated meant "To make Regular" - not "To Infringe Upon"). It doesn't translate to "An Infringed-Upon Militia... shall not be infringed".
Source: http://www.thinking-catholic-strategic-center.com/gun-control.html
The second amendment DOES NOT PROTECT the rights of HUNTERS to own weapons that are satisfactory for hunting ... the founding fathers put the second amendment there to protect americans from the tyrranny of their own government.... PLEASE stop with the reasonable clip sizes and the rest of the BS .... the second amendment has NOTHING to do with Hunting or Self Defense !!!! can anyone do basic research about the second amendment - can u say WIKIPEDIA ?????
Amen! But there will always be those that read the 2nd admendment to say what they wish it said to back their failed argument!
The 2nd amendment was intended to make it easier for southern slave owners to control their slaves with state militias.
Daily Kos: The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery
Daily Kos is a Liberal think tank. Totally unreliable. l
FreeThinker... that is most likely true. However, is that reason to just do nothing, just because we might not get full results from the measures? If even one person, one CHILD is saved, isn't it worth it?
Too often lately we're hearing that same stupid argument "Oh, raising taxes on the rich won't come close to fixing the deficit", yada, yada.... that's true. Does that mean just because one measure doesn't in and of itself solve the entire issue, we shouldn't do it? Most problems require multiple acts to solve them, sheesh...
Enough already... any action taken is POSITIVE action. Trying instead of sitting on our hand and waiting for the next mass shooting is the way to go...
Actually I believe that every current and future gun owner should be required to pass a psychological evaluation.
The Presidents executive actions are a positive step in helping to address mental illnesses role in these mass shootings.
But if We The People don't demand action immediately, legislation could take years.
I believe that every current and future politician should be required to pass a psychological evaluation. They should also be tested for drug usage and drug abuse.
Fired Up in NC, a meaningful action would be appreciated and not the "feel-good we are doing something actions." Until you address the issues of criminals that are using a firearm, you will not stop anything. There are approximately 2,000 gun laws on the books now and criminals break them currently!
See, that is the problem. You think that ANY action is positive action. Ever hear of the law of unintended consequences? There are most certainly Negative actions. People think the only way to fix things is to pass laws....good grief, give it a rest.
An even more meaningful action would be to stop paroling murderers and other violent offenders who perpetrate most of the homicides in this country. Stop giving gang members' baby momma's WIC and EBT assisstance and stop paroling the baby daddies after they committ a violent crime. Stop with the lenient sentences and start executing all the trash, be they white, black, hispanic, asian, I don't care. Let's cut the cancer out instead of trying to impose more restrictions on law abiding citizens.
Freedom isn't free... There are downsides to all of our freedoms. Some people decide to use their freedoms for evil ! but the majority of us use them to enjoy the best country in the world.
Ironic that you will arm US soldiers with the very weapons you plan to ban to kill or be killed but when they come home they will not have access to them. I guess 18 is old enough to serve and die for your country but not to be responsible enough to choose the weapons they own. Because you know better what we should have access too. Why would they want the weapon that that they trained to use and has been shown to be a superior handling weapon. I wonder?
Oh and please why dont we drag in the unrelated topic of abortion while were at it. PATHETIC all of you.
And thank you all for making legal gun owners into criminals. So much for the concept of due process. Oh thats right, it only applies to you.
I would be willing to take a drug test, psychological evaluation, hardcore background check, gun safety classes, and shooting classes. These are all great ideas, but banning assault weapons and large magazines are wrong and thats why this will fail in both senate and congress
Freedom isn't free,the thousands of men and women who have died protecting this country in the last 100 yrs are more than likely turning over in their graves because of what's going on now.
Hey blackandwhite and Sick--
Quit pretending anyone's taking ALL your guns. We're limiting the capacity of the guns to shoot more than 10 rounds and we're stopping you from having assault rifles. So quit yer bitchin'.
Not really. Under the definitions of assault weapons currently in effect I could own an M-1 Carbine. Look it up if you don't know what it is. I could own any number of magazine fed, semi-automatic rifles sans "military features", with all of the capalities and fire power.
Fancy, what exactly is an assault rifle? Please tell...
Fancy, at the end of the day you're not limiting anything because neither of those will be passed into law. Just because the executive branch says something, or wants something does not make it so. It will be so entertaining when the vote actually happens, because a lot of Dems are also in bed with the NRA and have constituents who will not support these proposals. They are politicians first and the first rule is to ensure re-election.
an assault rifle is defined as capable as full auto. THEY ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL TO OWN. so what is being done is you and everyone else are being fooled into supporting a gun ban that will only grow. the clinton ban which they are basing this ban on says if the gun has a bayonet mount it is banned so a revolutionary musket would be banned (some assault weapon) if the anti gun people would only learn about what they want to ban then maybe something could be worked out that both sides would accept....unless the democrats really want to ban all guns and this is just the start afterall this is how it happened in england and in germany in the 1930's
assault weapon is what ever you have in your hands when you are coming at me with the intent of doing bodily harm,be it a stick or knife,gun (single shot or machine gun)that's an assault weapon)or a rock.
No gun bans for the Democrats....
No Democratic politician from a Red State is going near this... Obama will now lose his Senate in 2014
thomaswardoo - nope Democrats will retain the Senate and take the House in 2014! The GOP is going DOWN!!!!
It goes to show how clueless the people in the NY DC area of the country are ... there are large and many ares in this country where people would rather give up anything except their guns .... the dems lose the senate this time ... they are TOAST !!!!!
you sir are correct I know quite a few democrats who said I was overreacting to obama being anti second amendment. well they are changing positions now. ALL the dems in office need to be careful they have some upset people who will be voting soon
The 2nd amendment was originally intended to make it easier for slave owners to control their slaves with state militias. It even says "state" instead of "country".
Daily Kos: The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery
AND y'all get to keep whatever assault weapons you already have. So quit lyin' too.
Check again, the proposal does not have a grandfather clause. This means that legally purchased piece of your property can now be taken because the government says so.
What piece of your legal property would you like taken?
Fancy must be a big fan of "We have to pass the bill before, you know, we can actually read it" Nancy. Typical ill-informed lib.
not in NY they want to take it all ! and 7 rounds only ,even in a 10 round mag ,phuck gov Cuomo,aka Mussulini, he is a facist tryant ,they did this behind "CLOSED DOORS"
Mark don't forget bloomberg no soft drinks over 12 oz $200 fine after March 3
All of my guns are legal unde that New York law. Why do you want people to think you might be a mass murderer by buying a high capacity magazine? Some people might want to defend themselves from you.
Are all Republicans mentally challenged? What part of this don't you understand?
All the law proposes to do is try to prevent criminals, wackos and those who pose a danger to society from obtaining a gun. No one is proposing to take away a responsible law-abiding citizen's gun.
It will not be perfect, but it will be better than what we have now. Again, if you're a law-abiding, sane person, you have nothing to worry about.
Nothing in this proposed law will stop a criminal from getting a gun. Criminals don't pay attention to laws !
Only extreme leftist morons believe criminals and the mentally will will pay attention to a new gun law !!
Do you realize how stupid you sound???
The point is to do something that will BEGIN the process of slowing down the wrong people getting guns who will kill a large number of people at a time. You don't have to be a very good shot to use a weapon that can fire hundreds of bullets in a few minutes. You just point it in their general direction and fire. Maybe that's why idiots, such as yourself, are so eager to keep gun magazines. If fewer people are killed, that's a very good thing.
"Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." Joe Scarborough quoted someone - Winston Churchill? - on Morning Joe. It states the core logic of Obama's attempt to change the direction of violence and mass murders in this country.
It will take GENERATIONS for what has been started to make significant changes to gun violence in the U.S. The American people don't mind tackling difficult problems, even if it takes a long time to solve.
What the American people DO mind is not tackling difficult problems at all. That's why the public is so disgusted with our Do-Nothing Congress and the "Just Say No" Republicans especially.
OK, Jim, lets do nothing--criminals already get all the weapons they want and can pay for, most are stolen from "responsible" gun owners or bought by straw buyers, status quo to keep the carnage numbers up. Listen don't lock your doors, after all the robbers are going to get in anyway, makes sense to me, not.
I know! Their argument has absolutely no logic to it!
REALLY?
Tell that to Obama and Congress regarding the National Debt! (there is a difficult problem for you)
But no... their attitude is.. Just keep spending... spending... spending... Raise that Debt Limit... raise it... raise it...
(you idiot!)
I never fully realized how many short-peckered men dot the countryside thinking that the size and firepower of their guns make up for their anatomical deficiencies. But what is even more surprising is that so many who claim real common sense can be sold the bill of goods that the United States government is going to confiscate their firearms in direct violation of the Second Amendment right to keep arms. But keeping them is just half of the rights guaranteed ~ what about 'bearing' them? Toting a gun in plain sight seems to grab the full attention of police and toting them out of sight without benefit of a state-issued license is unlawful. The Constitution conveys the right to "bear arms." Since we can't do that without restriction, is that the basis for their fear that we will no longer be able to "keep' arms? The gun freaks may have a point.
Don't know much about Texas law do you Jim???
@ 9ball are you retarded? you believe anything told to you? I bet you still think obama is pro 2nd amendment. guess what your wrong!!! go look at his senate voting record over 15 times he voted anti gun from raising tax on ammo by 500 (yes five hundred) percent to banning all guns.
@ intelligent? no your wrong running in circles and screaming and shouting will not get the right things started. all the things obama did are already in effect either from the government or in the case of educating people about guns the NRA the ONLY thing he suggested thay would have stopped 1 of the shootings is the mental health aspect (doctors should report patients with issues)
@skyparrot lol your funny and your argument is also enforce the laws we have ...if someone straw buys a gun for someone put them in jail duh if someone has a break in and things are stolen including a gun you want to put them in jail? so if someone breaks into your house and steals something (a car or knife) and uses it to hurt someone you should be punished?
@ jim seems you are the one lacking in the pants jim a little afraid of guns? why cant seem to hold one up? tend to drop on ya? goes off to soon?since you want to make it personel rather than logical enjoy the above anyone can make schoolyard insults but you cannot seem to find an actual real and decent reason for posting here.
Federal agents saw people walking into gun stores, buying thousands of dollars of guns, walking out and selling them on the street. So they decided to find out where those guns were going. So they sold some themselves on the street. Guess where they ended up? Smugglers were using them.
That New York gun law needs to become the national law to stop the criminals from getting so many guns.
as a small business gun owner it sucks. where i'm from we like to deer hunt and like to shoot,period.
but what creacks me up, the president can have 11 armed guards watching his kids and not worry about the other school districts. the guy doesn't care about no one else except himself and his family.
all schools should be protected, just like the presidents kids are being protected. it's not fair, especially to those in newton, conn
Stooge. Fall right in line with the attack from the NRA on the children of the President. The President and his family is always protected because they are the target of right wing lunatics and idiots and wackos, etc. who have threatened President Obama more than any other president. There are people in prison for making death threats against him. His family deserves the protection that every president receives you low intelligent Foxified creep.
Right! The NRA is comparing apples to oranges.
How many people have chosen not to run for high public offices because they didn't want to put their families at risk?
How many security guards does Wayne L. have, I wonder?
this is the government for the people and by the people, a democracy where the majority rules.
let your reps know that you dont care about their A rating with the NRA, but your own safety.
It's not about the NRA dummy, it is about infringement upon 2nd amendment rights !
The 2nd Amendment is already regulated.
SCOTUS=Heller, Scalia wrote the opinion--2nd A has limits so says SCOTUS.
We don't have a democracy, we have a Republic - a representative government ruled by law (Constitution).
your safety is whats at risk I am protected. you have to wait what 15 min. for police to show up. hope they dont kill ya while your waiting
"And by the way, we live in a REPUBLIC, not a pure democracy. That means, the rights of the few aren't subject to the will of the majority"
I couldn't resist...that quote was taken from another vine...from a Democrat.
Nobody in the military likes or respects the Jackass-in-Chief. They'd ignore any executive order, as would most Americans.
Obama Lies - No YOU lie! The Commander in Chief - President Obama - is well-respected by military men and women. They would NOT ignore an executive order you twit!
Executive orders are not directed at citizens. They are policy/operating instructions for members of the executive branch and members of the Military will not ignore them.
OL, why would the military dislike the President, after all he is the only President that has taken up the Vets cause and done everything he could for Vets. GOP is held bent on slashing the VA Budget, voted down every GI Bill submitted, latest VETS Jobs Bill, voted no, you are full of sh!t.
H-m-m-m- does Colin Powell qualify as someone in the military?
No, Colin Powell qualifies as a FORMER military member. John McCain is a FORMER military member as well, as am I. As someone who still works around the military on a daily basis, I can tell you that the majority of the comments are not kind to Obama. Not everybody worships him, as hard as that must be for you to accept.
That pretty much sums up liberals today, they really do believe everyone should and does worship obama.
while in service military members are not supposed to voice views on potus but ALL of the ones I have spoken with are derogatory when he is mentioned. will they obey his orders? depends on what he wants them to do...disarm the public no they wont listen to him for many reasons not least it is illegal for the president to use the armed forces against the american public
Agreed with everyone, about the use of kids being a ploy to illicit an emotional response. At the end of the day these kids are impressionable and naive. There is not a law abiding gun owner that does not mourn for the loss of life in Sandy Hook or any loss of human life for that matter.
But the President much like the kids he used as pawns is naive. But unlike those kids he is calculating and irrational in his response to this tragedy. Who protected him and those kids??? Secret Service agents armed to the teeth with AUTOMATIC machine guns. The same AUTOMATIC machine guns that they wrote in their letters about getting rid of.
But there he stands talking about gun violence with Mayor Bloomberg and Diane Feinstein. Who have round the clock protection and by their own admittance (Feinstein) Have a weapons permit and carry a gun. Now Bloomberg has 18 armed officers in 3 shifts protecting him. But talk about gun violence!!! One of his own officers shot an unarmed man in the back because of a quarrel with his ex-girlfriend.
The hypocrisy does not escape me but it does them. Pretty sure this will not make it off the congressional floor. If it does ...... Well then we will see what other rights they start taking from our kids and future generations.
Scared little boy, how many death threats have you received this past year? Elected officials regularly receive death threats from mouth breathing rednecked racists who've been whipped into a frenzy by the NRA, Faux Noise and the likes of rush limbo.
I've managed to live 71 years without ever feeling the need to arm myself, but then I'm smarter then you are.
I warned conservatives, including my retired parents, that the power wielded by imperial presidents like George W Bush would eventually be wielded by someone they don't like, someone like Obama.
We need less government regulation and intrusion in our lives, whether it is regulating 32 oz sodas, abortions, guns or drugs.
Passing an infinite amount of laws and restricting rights will never create an utopia but it will create a police state.
Couldn't agree more. We should all feel this way regardless of politicalparty.
" Quit worrying about what your brothers are doing and worry about yourself" My Dad: 1984
1Individual......which of my brothers are you? I have 3 older brothers and my dad use to tell all of us that
NYC mayor bloomberg limited our sodas to only 16 oz ,now gov Cuomo limits our bullets to 7 rounds, WTF its getting way out of control p.s. both the mayor and gov support "cum rights" though as in gay marrage ,its o.k. for a "BIG GULP" of cum shot ,but not a soda or guns
All of my guns are already legal under this New York law. It sounds to me like you enjoy wasting your money.
Not one thing any liberal has proposed would have prevented sandy hook, this includes the leftist deity's proposals.
If only libs cared about actually saving lives as much as taking guns, then maybe some good, affective ideas would come put, but alas, liberals are just mere sheep driven by their politicians agendas.
#18; A resource officer in the school might have.
Which liberals hate the idea of, despite pretend they love cops so much, just not near their kids. Hypocrites.
trudat -
In spite of his previous statements to the contrary Obama put incentives for schools hiring resource officers in his executive orders.
baloney, Trudat, we had resource officers, Cops, at our son's High schools: Mandeville High school, Mandeville, La. and Covington High school, Covington, La., just fine with their presence, you don't know what you speak of and making blanket statements.
Oh so i guess you libs didnt all jump on the NRA for suggesting officers in school, must have been my imagination.
as said on a previous post; FIRST DEFINE WHAT IS A ASSAULT WEAPON, u.n. TREATY signed by Hillary, defines a assault weapon as any semi-automatic handgun, rifle, shotgun .
It would be nice to blame Congress for the political stalemate. Unfortunately they aren't really causing the problems of dissension this country faces. If we the people can't discuss these serious issues in a rationale manner how do we expect the "followers" we elect to Congress to do so. Obviously there is a midpoint between the paranoia of the right and the "I am my brothers keeper" ideology of the left.
While the courts have upheld clearly the right to own guns, they have also upheld that the right may be regulated with reasonable regulations.
While Obama may wish to have all the power the right wingers thinks he has, he doesn't. Disagreeing with an untrammeled or unregulated right to bear arms doesn't make someone a dictator or king, just an optimist.
To: USCG MKC vet It's not just the executive who wants reasonable gun control, so do the majority of American people. Check any poll.
To: Those of you digressing to abortion, debt ceiling and other issues: Please stay on topic.
To: Gun owners fearing loss of their second ammendment rights: Stop being paranoid.
To: All: Can someone please explain to me how an organization of about 3 million (NRA) can weild so much power over a country of 300+million? COuld it the the almighty $
@ parapluierouge you say paranoid I say seeing what obama really intended he is anti gun go look at his senate voting record ALL anti gun votes!!! hi has lied and is lying to everyone about supporting the 2nd amendment and just like many other places the anti gun people start small and work up as the plans they propose dont work they say "it needs more" so they take more
The 1st amendment has restrictions on it, and so does the 2nd amendment. Judges including some currently sitting on the Supreme Court have already said so.
Guns should be well regulated just like cars are.
Tell me... what is wrong with having universal background checks? If one individual's background has to be checked, why wouldn't everyone's background need to be checked?
We the People need to send a message to the people who say they are representing us that they need to listen to us. We the People should not let institutions like the NRA or those in congress not listen to us. We the People need to let Washinton know we will not stand having our children being killed by people with assault weapons! It doesnt matter that they are mentally ill they still have access to these killing machines. Only We the People can change Washington and their mentality by letting them know they will not have jobs if they don't start doing theirs in all matters.
The NRA is being painted as a lobbyist group. Someone needs an education, the NRA is a coalition of CITIZENS who believe in the second ammendment. They speak only on behalf of their millions of members. The "People" you speak of make up the NRA and what you ask is exactly what they do.
"We the People need to let Washinton know we will not stand having our children being killed by people with assault weapons!"
So to your point you will stand for having children killed by people by other means? What kind of logic is that? Murder is murder and is illegal. That's what congress does..make laws. The amount broken is of no interest to the criminal willing to kill children and then take their own life.
Nothing being proposed that removes any law abiding citizen's right would have stopped these acts. Look for solutions. Have an honest debate. Leaders do not focus on feelings, they focus on solutions.
Recklessly just doing something is of no help. Look at what our country is focused on right now. It certainly is not focused on solutions.
The president has been succesful yet again in dividing the public again.
so when you dont want the nra to speak for you but you will allow lobbyists you like and support? yes you will. if ya dont like guns go to england they are illegal there just be ready for a huge increase in crime bwahaha
We have had these laws before and they did not work. We had both a ban on so-called assault weapons and a ban on high capacity gun magazines. They were allowed to expire. So why do some people think they will work this time?
Because, reducing crime in general, or murders in particular, are not the point. The people pushing for these laws want to incrementally remove all guns from society.
An "Assault" weapons ban cannot have any meaningful impact on the murder rate in the US, of all the homicides in the US in 2011(according to the FBI Unified Crime Report) only 323 involved rifles(that is 323, total, across all 50 states and DC), and many of those do not fall under the made up category of "assault weapons".
An "assault weapons" ban is simply another step in doing away with the second amendment entirely. Nothing else
Liberals Exposed: The Obama administration and his liberal media followers, are trying to con naive American’s by demonizing semi-auto rifles. How? By calling them “assault weapons” which is a lie (look up definition). They also keep saying “assault weapons are not needed for hunting”. The real truth: the second amendment was not designed by our founding fathers for hunting (and liberals know this). This is nothing more than a con job to confuse naive American’s into following their ideological beliefs. It’s really about power and control from both liberals and the Obama administration. History shows that if you strip the guns from the people you control the people. Hopefully the liberals and government will not continue to test the power of the second amendment and push this into an ugly repeat of the past.
AMERICANS! PLEASE STOP BEING CONNED!
Agreed.
I don't need to look it up, I just have to read the Hunting Mags. AR-15's ARE Assualt Weapons. They are built to kill enmasse and are not proper hunting weapons.
History shows if you allow the paranoid peoiple to run the country you will go down in flames. You sir are a great example of Nero. Fiddle away fool.
Mark ... the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting ! ... go to wikipedia for 10 minutes and read the info... it's not that hard to be well informed on this issue !
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA (wringing hands while laughing) We are coming to take all the conservatives guns and then make them our slaves. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...but what I want to know is how did you all find out our diabolical plan? This is supposed to be top secret among us liberal communist bastards! No matter, our liberal armies are secretly in place, so we can drop the charades now. Oh you clever right wing patriots.....
Mark-lapsed Catholic and full time Irish,
My daughter harvested her first deer this year with an AR-15 Type Semi-Automatic Rifle. It is an excellent choice for younger hunters due to the light weight, the light recoil, and the telescoping stock to adjust for length of pull with shorter arms and heavy hunting jackets. It is also extremely accurate and very well suited for medium sized game like White Tail Deer.
The AR-15 is not an assault rifle by DOD Definition. It's even gone down in history under a misconceived name. AR does not stand for Assault Rifle, it stands for ArmaLite Rifle named for the ArmaLite division of Fairchild Aircraft Corp that originally produced the rifle in the late 1950s'.
In it's semi-automatic Civilian version, it does not "spray bullets" at a high rate, but discharges one round for every pull of the trigger. It operates no differently than a Remington 742 Semi-Automatic rifle, but just looks different and that's why it's labeled as one of the evil "Assault Weapons".
@ mark assault weapon= capable of full auto fire. you sir do not have a clue and have not done your research!
bobass, you'er correct, the second amendment doesn't have anything to do with hunting, the second amendment has to do with a well regulated militia.
A bunch of gun nuts armed to the teeth doesn't constitute a well regulated militia.
And just what kind of well regulated militia are we talking about? Southern slave owners.
Daily Kos: The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery
What proposals generated by the Biden task force? These are the same infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms the Brady Bunch have been spouting for years.
Does anyone else find these baffoons as hypocritical as I do? This administration gives guns to Syrian rebels and Mexicans (Fast and Furious anyone?). Are you telling me that those guns haven't been used to kill children or other innocent people? SMH!
Limbaugh, Beck and Fox news's Pig is what you are mean girl.
Look at Kateygus, can't STAND the TRUTH---yep--Liberals are always right--IN YOUR OWN MINDS---OH WAIT--you can't think for yourselves--you follow King Obama.
Same person that said my taxes would not go up. He can kiss my ass
I don't think he would care to do this since he never said your taxes wouldn't go up. You people should get your news somewhere else. Fox, Limbaugh and Beck certainly aren't the most truthful bunch but people like you just eat their s**t up. The more anti they preach the more you crawll into that swill with the rest of the pigs.
And he wants to put us another 500 million in debt, I want to see a budget before he spends another dime.
kategus you are a jerk. Obama has said over and over he will not raise taxes on the middle class. They must be protected. His re-election campaign was all about not raising taxes on the middle class. Where have you been?
Why do the extremist gun nuts keep trying to switch the argument about Obama's plans for universal background checks and other sensible, popular gun regulations to spending cuts? Those are two different subjects.
I DO support sensible spending cuts to entitlement programs and probably agree more with conservative Republicans like Joe Scarborough and Jon Huntsman on this subject than Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
The implementation of the items on Biden's proposal will cost money, so we'll have to make some cuts in entitlement and defense programs to pay for them. I have no problem with that.
IMPEACH
THE BASTARDS
Congressman
Stockman has pledged to move for impeachment against Obama. I am standing up
against Obama right beside him, will you?
“The
President’s actions are an existential threat to this nation,” reads a
statement by Rep. Steve Stockman. “The right of the people to keep and bear
arms is what has kept this nation free and secure for over 200 years. The very
purpose of the Second Amendment is to stop the government from disallowing
people the means to defend themselves against tyranny. Any proposal to abuse
executive power and infringe upon gun rights must be repelled with the stiffest
legislative force possible.”
-
He has aided America’s enemies, violating his oath, by sending funds to
insurgents in Syria who are being commanded by Al-Qaeda terrorists.
-
He has violated federal law by overseeing a cover-up surrounding Operation Fast and
Furious,
the transfer of guns to Mexican drug cartels direct from the federal
government.
-
He has lied to the American people by overseeing a cover-up of the Benghazi
attack which directly led to the deaths of four American citizens. The cover-up has been called “Obama’s Watergate,” yet four months after
the incident, no one in the administration has been held accountable.
-
He has brazenly undermined the power of Congress by insisting his authority
came from the United Nations Security Council prior to the attack on Libya and
that Congressional approval was not necessary. “I don’t even have to get to the
Constitutional question,” said Obama. This is an act that “constitutes an
impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the
Constitution,” according to Congressman Walter Jones.
-
He has ignored Congressional rejection of the cybersecurity bill and instead
indicated he will pursue an unconstitutional executive order.
-
He has signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act which includes
provisions that permit the abduction and military detention without trial of
U.S. citizens, violating Habeas Corpus. Despite Obama claiming he would not use
the provisions to incarcerate U.S. citizens, it was his administration that specifically demanded these powers be included
in the final NDAA bill.
-
He has enacted universal health care mandates that force Americans to buy
health insurance, a clear violation of the Constitution in exceeding
congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. Obama has also handed outpreferential waivers to corporations friendly to his
administration.
-
He has declared war on America’s coal industry by promising to bankrupt any company that attempts to build a
new coal plant while using unconstitutional EPA regulations to strangle competition,
ensuring Americans see their energy costs rise year after year.
-
He has violated the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses when he bullied the secured creditors of automaker Chrysler into accepting 30 cents
on the dollar while politically connected labor unions and preferential others
received better deals.
-
He has violated Article II of the Constitution by using signing statements as part of his executive
usurpation of power.
“I
will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not
limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House,
and even filing articles of impeachment.”
Rep.
Steve Stockman, Texas.
For
these, and other offenses which constitute high crimes and misdemeanors,
including perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation,
misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty,
conduct unbecoming and refusal to obey a lawful order, we call
for the immediate impeachment of Barack H. Obama.
Intelligent. Don't debunk the right wing mantra of cutting spending. Obviously they are all for spending more money to police every school in America. It will be really cool when the house members step up for the Law Enforcement In Our Schools Act.........and the Tea Party faction won't play ball because the Dems will not agree to cuts in school lunch programs, unemployment, and Childrens Health Programs to offset the new expenditures. Now who really cares for our kids? The NRA? Rush Limbaugh?
It is bad enough that the Republicans have taken their 2012 loss so poorly- now you think Obama should be impeached? What is it about our Democratic presidents that arouse such ire? Impeachment is a gross distraction that will do nothing but harm to our nation. It would be an embarrassment on many levels and make our country look foolish.'
Move on to real issues!!!
RandogM if you cant afford to raise your own kids, dont have them, DUH.
How much more foolish if we succumbed to the 'soft-it's for your own good' despotism the libs have in mind for all of us?
Hey Pogo1 , we are already an embarrasment on many levels ..... and as far as impeachment goes , I'm all for it if the President's acts are impeachable ..... the President may just find out that a significant portion of the voting public , don't appreciate being forcefed his liberal views via an executive order .
@ intelligent? the items proposed by obama are NOT popular if they would there would be no discussion!! duh plus they are NOT sensible there is only 1 that may prevent future incidents and that is the one where doctors will be allowed to report the mentally ill (which is already allowed but not enforced like most gun laws!) I wont give obama credit for the police/guards in schools that was proposed by clinton a few years back and the NRA (where almost all democrats scoffed at it).
@ pgog yes he should be impeached due to his actions with benghazi and a few other items its not a question of what party or his beliefs but of his actions. wake up up a republican did those things you would be saying the same thing
Stopfreeloading. You missed my point because you have an agenda and you are stupid. By the way, I do not have kids. I hope that you don't either because you would be passing on the type of ignorance that we hope to breed out of our society in a few generations.