E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSPresident Obama’s gun policies are viewed favorably by majorities in both a new Washington Post/ABC poll (52%/41%) and Gallup, which asked about specific recommendations rather than the plan as a whole.
Gallup: “The two least-broadly supported proposals, but ones majorities of Americans still favor, are reinstating and strengthening the 1994-2004 ban on assault weapons (60%), and limiting the sale of ammunition magazines to those with 10 rounds or less (54%). The 60% saying they would vote "for" the assault weapons proposal is higher than the 44% support Gallup found with a similar measure in December that described assault weapons as ‘semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles.’ Also, the current wording reminds respondents that this would be a renewal of a law that existed previously."
It’s not all good news for Obama. Despite pledges of post-partisanship in 2008, Gallup writes, “Obama's Fourth Year in Office Ties as Most Polarized Ever.” From the poll: “During his fourth year in office, an average of 86% of Democrats and 10% of Republicans approved of the job Barack Obama did as president. That 76-percentage-point gap ties George W. Bush's fourth year as the most polarized years in Gallup records.”
“Hillary wasn’t about to be pilloried,” the New York Post writes. “An enraged Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday fired back at congressional Republicans who charged she failed to heed warnings about lax security at a Libyan consulate where four Americans died in a terroristic attack last Sept. 11.”
Clinton rapped Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), mostly ignored and smirked at Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who said he would have fired her, disagreed with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). And that was just the Senate session. In the afternoon, over at the House hearing, the Post writes that she “fenced” with Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX). Here was the exchange:
CLINTON: “A million cables a year come to the State Department. They’re not all addressed to me.
MCCAUL: “This cable went unnoticed by your office. That’s the bottom line.”
There were a couple of Democrats – Sens. Menendez (D-NJ) and Boxer (D-CA) – who hinted at a potential 2016 run. But a Republican did, too – Rep. Steve Chabot: "I wish you the best in your future endeavors...mostly." (H/T: Political Wire.)
“Senator John F. Kerry and his wife have agreed that should he become secretary of state they will divest nearly 100 separate investments in the United States and abroad -- ranging from oil companies to weapons makers and a Chinese food company -- in an effort to avoid conflicts of interest, according to a copy of his so-called ethics agreement,” the Boston Globe reports, adding, “The divestitures of Kerry and Teresa Heinz Kerry, the heir to the Heinz ketchup fortune, include Cenovus Energy Inc., the Canadian company that would benefit from the proposed Keystone XL pipeline; Waltham-based Raytheon Co.; Exxon Mobil Corp.; drug maker Pfizer; communications giant Qualcomm Inc. and AT&T; American Express; Microsoft; a number of international private equity firms; and dozens of others.”
John McCain on Kerry’s hearings: “We will bring back for the only time waterboarding to get the truth out of him.”
Expect Syria to be something McCain brings up.
More: “McCain is not expected to go so easy on another Vietnam veteran and former senator, Chuck Hagel, who goes before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday for his conformation hearing to be secretary of defense.”
Some trivia from the Boston Globe: Kerry will be the eighth secretary of state from Massachusetts, but only the second in the past 100 years. He would also be the fifth chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee to be appointed, but the only sitting chairman.
As we’ve previously written: “The special general election is required by state law to take place 145 to 160 days after a vacancy occurs. … The primary is required to be six weeks before the general.”
That means if Kerry were to step down Monday, Jan. 28th, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) would have to set the date between Saturday, June 22 and Sunday, July 7. A primary would have to take place between Saturday, May 11 and Sunday, May 26.
“Senior defense officials say Pentagon chief Leon Panetta is removing the military's ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war,” the New York Daily News writes.
For winning the NBA championship last year, “The Miami Heat will be in suits and ties when they visit the White House on Monday. Unless, of course, someone invites them to play some ball,” AP writes. “After all, President Barack Obama does enjoy some pickup games. ‘Everybody will bring their shoes — just in case,’ Heat coach Erik Spoelstra said.”
Flashback: LeBron James is, of course, now the star of the Heat, but in 2004, he was a phenom between his rookie and second year in the NBA playing for the Cleveland Cavaliers. Backstage at the Democratic National Convention -- as told to author David Mendell in the book about Obama, “From Promise to Power” -- then state-Sen. Barack Obama, about to go on stage to deliver the address that would launch his meteoric rise was asked if he was nervous. His reply? “I’m LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game."
Politico looks at what President Obama could do on climate change through executive action. And apparently Derek Jeter talked in support of action at Davos.
Al Gore’s richer than Mitt Romney now?
Leave a Comment:
There is only one use for these types of weapons and a majority of Americans know it. Most gun owners take the responsibility of the 2nd amendment seriously enough to understand that these weapons do not belong in civilian hands and should be in no way available to the general public. This is not taking away your guns it is a reasonable response to the mass slaying that have become a every week occurrence someplace in the U.S. with the use of weapons designed for the sole purpose of killing as many people as possible in as short a time as possible. The magazines that are capable of 30 to 100 shot non-stop are as big a problem as the guns themselves and must be also taken out of the public's hands. I propose to recall all of these weapons and magazines and if you are caught with them after a certain date you will be arrested, and taken through the court system and if found guilty you will have a felony against you that will not allow you to own any guns what so ever. Don't like it migrate to a country that allows you and your gun, Somalia might be an answer to your perfect world with guns.
Obviously you missed the guy who uses one of these weapons to control the wild, feral hogs that attack his crops out in the countryside where he lives, so your first statement is rapidly debunked.
What you propose to take away guns is a direct violation of the 2nd amendment. To void the second amendment, 3/4 of the states must agree. Any power grab by this administration otherwise is likely unconstitutional. Of course, Obama appears to have little regard for the Constitution !
There is only one purpose for these guns and you know what it is. It is not a violation of the 2nd amendment and you should know that too. It is not unconstituioal to regulate guns, ie, tommy guns, rocket launchers and nukes. You cannot own any of them only under special license. So as always jim, bite it.
Oh johnny boy, once you use the word "only" you paint yourself into a corner. Then, when I give you a clear example of another use which was aired on TV recently, you run back to your talking points before going into a personal attack ... you self-proclaimed "progressives" seem to have that as your plan B when you can't win an argument.
No one said anything about nukes so you need to go back to the bong and see what else your drug-induced imagination can come up with ! I will let you bite youself... rumor has it you're double-jointed and enjoy such activities.
Have a blessed day !
Johntho
great, so now one guy shooting hogs is classified as a reasonable alternative purpose for assault rifles or large magazines (whichever you're defending). And still when Jim mentions that gun 'regulation' does not violate the 2nd ammendment and that 'tommy guns, rocket launchers and nukes' are not allowed to be owned by the public, you jump on the nukes and poke fun, completely skipping over the machine guns. How convenient for you.
oops...directed previous post to wrong commentor. sorry Johntho...this is meant for Jim-14.....
Jim, I will state it one more time for your too thick headed to understand mind. The only use for military style assault rifles is to kill as many human beings as possible in as short a time as possible. Ferrel hogs be damned as another stupid example of gun nuts in motion.
And as far as the 2nd amendment goes it is not unconstitutional to regulate and licence guns. Here lets see what the president of the NRA said in 1934 before the NRA became a lobby for gun manufactures.
"I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses: Karl Frederick 1934
Reasonable restrictions on the types of weapons and who can own them has been around for a long, long time and in no way is unconstitutional. If it was, there would be machine guns and other weapons available for the general population. They are not available, anyone with a hat bigger then size two should be able to figure out they are wrong to advocate the constitution in this instance. Obviously you do not have a hat any bigger.
johnny boy, Once again you are acting like a whiny baby and still trying to assert something you are totally incapable of understanding ... these guns CAN have other purposes ! I gave you a clear example, you deny the reality of such and run fleeing back to your talking points.
The 2nd amendment contains the words ".. shall not infringe upon" and that is exactly what you are promoting.
Again, the personal attack attemy from you ... such is to be expected from liberals, libtards, libturds, self-proclaimed "progressives" and forom people like you.
No jim they have no other purpose other then killing humans as fast as they can. You can try to deflect that but for every lame example you have I can show you a mass murder done with these guns. Two last week.
The second amendment also says the words "well regulated". "Shall not infringe" does not mean that they cannot be regulated, and as an example I give you rocket launchers, and you scoff. Personal attack, here, you suck. Of course that is to be expected of righty fascist, knuckle draggers with no brains, like you.
Some advice johnny boy, Go to the drug store, buy the largest tube of Preparation H you van find, then apply LIBERALLY (LOL!) ..... all over your body !
As soon as you claim "only purpose" you lose all credibility. All it takes is one example to burst your tiny little "soap bubble" and you are done .... your bubble has been burst and the entire premise of your rant has burst as well.
The 2nd.Amendment has NOTHING TO DO WITH HUNTING, SKEET SHOOTING, TARGET PRACTICE OR SHOOTING COMPETITIONS..... When are you'se gonna get that through your thick skulls and into that mush for brains given to you by the Elitist Collegiate Professorial Ivory Tower Progressives ????
It is a Fundamental Right, Not granted by the Government so it can't be taken away by the Government.
This is EXACTLY what Candidate 0bama meant in 2008 when he said " We are 5 days away from FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMING the United States of America" ....
That FUNDAMENTAL is The Constitution.....
The Founders made provisions for changes in it....They made changing it a difficult task by design...any attempt to alter it outside the proscribed process is in itself Unconstitutional....
Progressives have been weaving their web of lies and deceptions for 100 years now in order to thwart The Constitution.
"THIS Gun Is Banned but THIS One Isn’t?
http://conservativebyte.com/2013/01/this-gun-is-banned-but-this-one-isnt/#ixzz2IhKyDjpt
Enlarged Photo:
http://conservativebyte.com/2013/01/this-gun-is-banned-but-this-one-isnt/16n_rifles_ipad-525x300/
Great posts Mike, but don't expect them to understand ! They believe what they want to believe even when reality is put before them.
Jim, shooting wild boar is not an excuse to own one of the weapons in question. One who is having an issue with them should talk to the fish and game department of their state and possibly set up a hunting party where people who want the thrill of the hunt can get together and take down the menacing porkers. After the hunt the victims can be dressed and made into pork chops etc. and they could have a luau with one of those fine oinkers as guest of honor, right in the center of the table with an apple in his mouth.
The 2nd Amendment does not allow anyone to own what they darn well please in the way of firearms. As mentioned before, a private citizen may not own a tommy gun, grenade launcher etc. Adding one or two more especially dangerous ones isn't going to hurt anyone and may actually save lives.
Even the 1st Amendment doesn't allow one to yell fire in a crowded theater or to libel or slander someone under the free speech and free press provisions.
The way freedom gets eroded is when irresponsible people do things that harm many others. A like minded group such as NRA for guns or people who are responsible users of firearms don't squelch the would be wrong doers, support legislation that would prevent unstable or unscrupulous people from ruining things for others.
Those of us advocating gun control aren't willing to accept an all out ban on all firearms and ammunition but want a common sense approach that eliminates or significantly reduces the death toll from the use of the weapons we are asking to be banned such as the automatic and semi-automatic military type weapons and clips of more than 10 rounds. Left to continue as it is now we will see many gun fights with thousands of innocent people killed in the process. If that doesn't bother you I recommend you move to Somalia or Syria where you can feel free to excercise your authority to carry and use whatever weapon you have.
Once again, establishing "new laws" will be absolutely NO DETERRENT to the law breakers. It will, indeed, infringe on 2nd amendment rights while restricting law abiding citizens. A new law might "feel good" but it will do nothing to curb those who would commit violent acts anyway.
Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country, and it also has one of the highest rates of murder and gun violence in the country. Criminals pay little or no attention to new laws !
You and your law abiding citizens can go jump in a lake. The fact is you are not a law abiding citizen if these control measures are passed and you don't give up your gun. You are as guilty as the common thief. You scum use Chicago, how droll, lets look at the crime in Canada as compared to any American city if you want to compare gun laws to crime.
Oh johnny boy, thank you for your continuing, "revealing" posts ! You see, most liberals say the laws are not designed to take away "your gun" ... but you just revealed the true liberal mindset showing THAT IS the intention ! LOL !!
By the way, Chicago is a valid example ! I wonder how that "global warming" thingy is treating them today.
Johntho, little jimmy is as crazy as his hero Wayne LaPerrier. He just keeps repeating everything he hears Laperrier say.
Mo, If you want to change the constitution then go ahead and try it.
Mo, little jimmy, is a bore. His ignorance is only matched by lisa s. It is not unconstitutional not does the constitutional need to be changed to regulate military style assault rifles nor the extended magazines that make them mass murder machines. He knows that I am talking specifically about these guns and yet he has to make it about all guns. No brain, no gain jimmy.
Johntho, If you have nothing intelligent to say I guess it's acceptable to insult other people. Have a nice day.
Lisa, screw you without the kiss. It is you that is unintelligent. You think its ok to own a gun capable of killing 20 first graders. I don't. You think regulation of guns and registering of guns and licencing of guns is unconstitutional and yet it isn't.
Johntho, What a dignified response. As I said have a nice day.
It wasn't meant to be dignified, when dealing with fascist I have no problem with slapping you back into reality. You are wrong and will always be wrong. NRA slogans will do nothing to stop the mass killings that you advocate for. Hope your day goes down from here, you deserve the worst.
I grew up on a farm and we had lots of guns. We had two duck lakes on the property that were rented out to duck and goose hunters and we hunted them as well. Lots of shotguns in our gun cabinet. We also had rifles for dealing with varmints such as weasels and ferrel cats. I remember several ..22 calibers, a 30.06 and a 30.30. We also enjoyed target shooting, plinking and trap shooting. Guns were simply a part of our way of life.
Having said all of that, we never even thought of the need for a 30+ round clip or military type weapons; although my older brother did have a WWII Garrand M-1 .30 caliber which held eight rounds.
Seems to me that if someone says they need a super sized clip to defend themselves, I can only say that anyone who needs more than three or four rounds to hit something needs to learn how to hit what he is aiming at.
Thanks Bruce, I also own guns, of different caliber, I have hunted since I was old enough to carry a gun and was taught responsibility. I do have one 22 semi auto that holds 15 shots that I inherited from my dad. Hasn't been shot in years. But the gun that is my favorite is a double barrol 20 gauge. If I can't get what I am shooting at in two shots then I didn't learn the proper sportsmanship that my grandpa and father tried to teach me.
Bruce, your post has some validity, but, alas, not everyone grows up on a farm, has ample shooting opportunities and becomes an excellent marksman ! I would venture the average American homeowner trying to protect himself from intruders breaking into his house at 2:00 AM may need more than 6 or 7 rounds ... possibly more than 10 !
Under that scenario, I would feel more confident having a 9mm pistol and a magazine of say ... 14 or 15 shots !
jim, when people ask my advice as to what kind of gun is best for protecting oneself from an intruder, I remind them that the scenario will likely be dark, in close quarters, and with an adrenaline rush that will amaze. Given that situation, I always recommend a small guage shotgun; such as a .410 or .20 guage. Even if the homeowner misses, the noise and mayhem of shot going everywhere will likely cause the intruder to leave the premises,
The last weapon I would recommend would be a lethal guage handgun!
I had actually heard similar advice from someone here at work.
I do, however, envision a possible breakdown of our society(if we have a monetary system failure) when attackers may become larger in numbers, openly aggressive, bold and coordinated. Perhaps, both types would allow options.
HONEST QUESTION!!!!
Common belief among both gun advocates and gun control proponents is that we need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. I agree. But the question I ask current gun owners....
"Would you be willing to undergo a psychological exam to determine if you are mentally healthy enough to own a gun?
Sure, however, it seems to me at 67 years old and I haven't bagged a conservative yet ( - :, should be record enough that I shouldn't need an exam.
lol...good point. perhaps exemption for those who have owned guns for a long time without incident is in order.
The 'majority' mostly consists of city slicker liberals in the 22% of counties won by Obama, who like laboratory rats have been conditioned to accept their cramped living space, the futility of resistance and the benevolence of their masters.
Since Obama likes to answer on letters so much I was wondering if he ever got back to the mother of the ambassador to Libya.
The NRA is absolutely correct and furthermore the lobbyist will prevail regardless of any and all polls.