Those sorts of facts, like that he has actually expanded gun owners’ rights, are absolutely worthless in the minds of those who oppose him and are convinced he wants to confiscate their guns. Ideology and reality/reason don’t mix.

“Then Obama outlined a few practical beginning steps, including “enforcing laws that are already on the books,” s”

what a novel idea!
you know,, there are other areas of the law i wish he would do that!!!

I know that every time we try to talk about guns, it can reinforce stark divides. People shout at one another, which makes it impossible to listen. We mire ourselves in stalemate, which makes it impossible to get to where we need to go as a country.

Obama is penning an article on his own divisiveness? How suitable.

WCinWI said:
Obama is penning an article on his own divisiveness? How suitable.

HA!

And it begins…

What part of “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is so hard to understand?

“Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. . . . ”

Now with that statement, how many will still insist that Obama wants to take their Second Amendment rights and their guns along with them? How many will continue to hoard away weapons and ammunition and continue to exploit loopholes in gun laws, rules, and regulations because of the “fears” they continue to harbor?

Along with citizenship should come the responsibility to be informed of facts and a certain understanding of what is actually going on in the local community, the country, and the world at large. With knowledge and understanding comes power in many different forms. If more of us would seek knowledge and understanding of each other both here and abroad, we all could accomplish so much more.

Paul D. Powell said:
“Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. . . . ”

Now with that statement, how many will still insist that Obama wants to take their Second Amendment rights and their guns along with them?

GITMO!

“Common sense gun control” is an oxymoron. Control of those who abuse the freedom to own and bear arms is what’s “common sense.” Nothing will improve until we shift focus away from the inanimate object, and onto the PERSON GUILTY of the crime.

Paul D. Powell said:
Now with that statement, how many will still insist that Obama wants to take their Second Amendment rights and their guns along with them?

He’s a democrat, which means he’s a liar.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

Paul D. Powell said:
Now with that statement, how many will still insist that Obama wants to take their Second Amendment rights and their guns along with them?

He’s a liberal and liberalism is about control. Liberals don’t like individual rights. How many liberals here believe him?

Atticus Draco said:
GITMO!

What do you mean? One of Obama’s first acts as president was to sign an executive order to close Guantanamo within one year. Since that was over two years ago, I’m quite sure it has happened by now.

That’ll teach’em “person guilt”!

Paul D. Powell:

With respect, Obama has also stated:

* His stimulus would keep unemployment under 8 and a fraction percent – FALSE
* Obamacare would impose no new taxes – now his AG argues in court that the individual mandate is, in fact, a tax – FALSE
* He would march in solidarity with unions – See Wisconsin – FALSE
* He would close Gitmo – FALSE
* Teddy Kennedy was a great statesman – FALSE

The list could be much longer. He simply cannot be believed. The safer course is to assume he’s lying.

Snidely has it right – the gun laws we have now are already infringements and need to be repealed.

President Obama never said the stimulus would keep unemployment under 8 percent and your other charges are simply politics!

BadGenome said:
What do you mean? One of Obama’s first acts as president was to sign an executive order to close Guantanamo within one year. Since that was over two years ago, I’m quite sure it has happened by now.

LMAO,,, Paul D. Powell believes his bullShit!!!
“HELL THE PREZ SAID IT,,, SO IT MUST BE TRUE,, HOW THE HELL CAN YOU GUYS QUESTION THAT?!?”

Obama is just deflecting so we don’t pay attention to his socialist/Cloward-Piven policies.

mcf1757 said:
President Obama never said the stimulus would keep unemployment under 8 percent and your other charges are simply politics!

Even Tim Magazine, which is very infested with liberals, is pointing out the failure:
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1910208,00.html

he’s a few months late….

ne ways hows lybia and japan doin?

Obama isn’t going to the take the gun, he’s going to take the ammo. You just watch, high capacity magazines will be the first to go and on down the line it’ll go until having a gun is just a prop in your home.

2012 can’t come fast enough.

Obama said: “Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms.”

The 2nd Amendment reads: “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.”

Now WHY would Obama leave the word “KEEP” out of prepared text? It isn’t because he didn’t know it was there – after all – he is a CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERT who taught at a University…..

He did it because he is a liberal and LIBERALS always LIE!

Oregon Conservative said:
Obama isn’t going to the take the gun, he’s going to take the ammo. You just watch, high capacity magazines will be the first to go and on down the line it’ll go until having a gun is just a prop in your home.

2012 can’t come fast enough.

As a fellow Oregonian, I have to ask… why the hell does someone need a high capacity magazine?

Because if you can ban high capacity magazines, the next step will be to ban 10 shot magazines, then magazine fed firearms, then pumps, etc., etc.. Soon all you will be able to own is a single shot 22..

Don’t believe it? This is precisely the road the Brits went down among others. Same thing in Mexico.

Snidely said:
What part of “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is so hard to understand?

The supreme court has consistently allowed free speech and freedom to exercise religion to be regulated. Why shouldn’t guns? Just because you have the right to own guns doesn’t mean you have the right to build a deadly arsenal with the capacity to kill many people in a short amount of time.

We have adequate gun control.

We have inadequate DA’s who like to drop gun charges in order to get a plea.

Get mandatory sentancing for the use of Gun’s in a crime and the problem will be eliminated.

Also, we might want to eliminate ATF sending guns to Mexico…just saying…I don’t think that works out too well.

BatBoy said:
Also, we might want to eliminate ATF sending guns to Mexico…just saying…I don’t think that works out too well.

LOL

Obama for more gun control? The democrats need to revoke their own ruling which made the Tucson massacre by Laughner possible

The left immediately rushed out to falsely assign blame onto Governor Sarah Palin for the Tucson massacre and Gifford’s attack . Now Obama speaks out for more gun control, using Tucson as his centerpiece reasoning? All that he quoted about Laughner being tuned down by the military as a habitual drug user etc, yet was still able to legally purchase a firearm is all true.

But in reality, Obama needs to look no further than President Bill Clinton and his Attorney General Janet Reno, for the answer. With Clinton’s blessing, Janet Reno forbade such information from the military being entered into the FBI background database for firearms purchases. As the Clinton-Reno ruling remains in effect to this day. Why does Obama not simply instruct his own Attorney General Eric Holder, to undo what Clinton and Reno did? Problem solved.

["Jan. 19, 2011
Janet Reno-Era Policy Kept Loughner off FBI List"]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/19/politics/washingtonpost/main7262057.shtml?source=related_story

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&ei=UDh9TfykO8aBrQHsvb3DBQ&ved=0CBMQBSgA&q=Reno+ruling%2Bmilitary+recruit+drug+users%2Binfo+in+FBI+firearms+purchase+database&spell=1

Alz said:
Even Tim Magazine, which is very infested with liberals, is pointing out the failure:
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1910208,00.html

That article was written july 14 2009.

Ugh. Mediaite has become such a haven for tea party trolls. No reasonable discourse to be had here.

I see no reference made to all those ‘pitchforks’ Obama is fond of. You know, the ones that are now pointed AT him rather than BY him. I guess they must pass some sort of ‘reasonableness’ test.

struckgld said:
Because if you can ban high capacity magazines, the next step will be to ban 10 shot magazines, then magazine fed firearms, then pumps, etc., etc.. Soon all you will be able to own is a single shot 22..

Don’t believe it? This is precisely the road the Brits went down among others. Same thing in Mexico.

Now the Brits are wondering, “Who needs a sharp knife, really?”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

jay7381:

You can’t scream fire in a theater nor can you open up with a handgun there – obviously. The government can’t build churches and tell us to go to them and so the government shouldn’t build firearms and tell us we have to buy them.

There. Everything is reconciled with your ideas of what the Constitution says.

struckgld said:
jay7381:

You can’t scream fire in a theater nor can you open up with a handgun there – obviously. The government can’t build churches and tell us to go to them and so the government shouldn’t build firearms and tell us we have to buy them.

There. Everything is reconciled with your ideas of what the Constitution says.

Congrats, you’ve just demonstrated you lack of knowledge pertaining to constitutional law.

jjay7381 said:
Ugh. Mediaite has become such a haven for tea party trolls. No reasonable discourse to be had here.

Surely there must be a haven for Tweed-jacketed pipe smokers with elite degrees SOMEWHERE. You ought to go seek it out and commiserate there.

ChrisNH said:
Surely there must be a haven for Tweed-jacketed pipe smokers with elite degrees SOMEWHERE. You ought to go seek it out and commiserate there.

LOL,,, YEAH,, THIS

ChrisNH said:
Surely there must be a haven for Tweed-jacketed pipe smokers with elite degrees SOMEWHERE. You ought to go seek it out and commiserate there.

Do you have a problem with people who work hard to get an education?

jjay7381 said:
why the hell does someone need a high capacity magazine?

If we ban everything except what we actually _need_, we wouldn’t have much. This argument always comes up, but I’ll ask, why does anyone _need_ a Ford Mustang, or a set of golf clubs? Do you need a computer?

ChrisNH said:
Surely there must be a haven for Tweed-jacketed pipe smokers with elite degrees SOMEWHERE. You ought to go seek it out and commiserate there.

If you’re implying that liberals are made up of educated people, you must also be implying that the tea party is made up of uneducated idiots…. that sure sounds like a group I would want to join!!

jjay7381-”why the hell dose someone need a high capacity magazine(clip)’

Answer- because its fun!

Question why dose someon need a 220Mph Pagani Zondu?

struckgld said:
Because if you can ban high capacity magazines, the next step will be to ban 10 shot magazines,

High capacity magazines were banned at one time. Under the Bush Admin. the law expired and was never renewed.

jjay7381 said:
As a fellow Oregonian, I have to ask… why the hell does someone need a high capacity magazine?

The first mass shooting after a ban of high capacity magazines will result the ban of the type used in said shooting and on and on it’ll go. When you start banning you’re on a slippery slope. Socialists like Obama don’t mind slippery slopes when the slope sends everyone into their idea of utopia, individual rights be damned.

jjay7381 said:
As a fellow Oregonian, I have to ask… why the hell does someone need a high capacity magazine?

Struckgld answered you well. There are other important reasons as well. How about the collector who simply enjoys collecting, or the shooting enthusiast who enjoys making noise in the safety of a shooting range? And example I’ve thought of before is the lucky sucka who has enough juice to own a 200 MPH Ferrari when he’s bound by the speed limits.

The reasons one has for simply owning something is none of our business. However, if that person steps over the line and causes damage, injury, or death, THEN it becomes our business. The inanimate object is not the problem…………….the person is. And anyone who would use a deadly weapon improperly would also turn a normally non-deadly item into a deadly weapon.

Liberals always try to punish the innocent in order to avoid punishing the guilty.

Mr.Papshmer said:
If we ban everything except what we actually _need_, we wouldn’t have much. This argument always comes up, but I’ll ask, why does anyone _need_ a Ford Mustang, or a set of golf clubs? Do you need a computer?

Guns are made for two purposes only. To shoot things and to practice shooting things. Acts of violence. Cars and gulf clubs can be used for violence, I don’t think anyone will deny that, but that isn’t what they were explicitly designed for. See the difference?

Davo said:
Struckgld answered you well. There are other important reasons as well. How about the collector who simply enjoys collecting, or the shooting enthusiast who enjoys making noise in the safety of a shooting range? And example I’ve thought of before is the lucky sucka who has enough juice to own a 200 MPH Ferrari when he’s bound by the speed limits.

The reasons one has for simply owning something is none of our business. However, if that person steps over the line and causes damage, injury, or death, THEN it becomes our business. The inanimate object is not the problem…………….the person is. And anyone who would use a deadly weapon improperly would also turn a normally non-deadly item into a deadly weapon.

Liberals always try to punish the innocent in order to avoid punishing the guilty.

I just don’t see why an “innocent” person would want to own a weapon specifically designed to inflict a huge amount of damage.

Oregon Conservative said:
The first mass shooting after a ban of high capacity magazines will result the ban of the type used in said shooting and on and on it’ll go. When you start banning you’re on a slippery slope. Socialists like Obama don’t mind slippery slopes when the slope sends everyone into their idea of utopia, individual rights be damned.

Obama is not a socialist and anyone who says he is has obviously never seen a socialist nor understands the definition of socialism. By calling Obama a socialist, you’ve lost my attention and shut down the conversation.

The data shows conclusively that people are at greater risk of accidental death if they have a swimming pool at home versus having a gun at home. So why doesn’t the Left try to but legal limits on swimming pool ownership? Or maybe they will, after eliminating Happy Meals, circumcision, etc. etc. etc. etc.

jjay7381 said:
Do you have a problem with people who work hard to get an education?

I just hate it when they sniff their own farts.

jjay7381 said:
I just don’t see why an “innocent” person would want to own a weapon specifically designed to inflict a huge amount of damage.

I answered that in the quote you provided. What business is it of yours that you must understand why someone else desires something?

Davo said:
I answered that in the quote you provided. What business is it of yours that you must understand why someone else desires something?

Because the rest of us have to worry about getting shot when people out there have these things.

Mr.Papshmer said:
I just hate it when they sniff their own farts.

Sounds like you’re just jealous because you couldn’t measure up. Well that’s fine. You just stay classy.

including “enforcing laws that are already on the books,” strengthening the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, rewarding states that provide the best data, and making the background check system “faster and nimbler” so that criminals can’t escape it.”

Wow, that’s quite a strong stand you are taking there, Butch!

He took 1000 words to say that?

LOL

jjay7381 said:
I just don’t see why an “innocent” person

LOL

now that’s funny, son.

If you purchase a certain type of gun, you are “guilty” of something.

Personally, I don’t know why anyone needs a car that goes faster than 70 MPH since that is the maximum speed almost everywhere in the US.

We need to check into banning engines that will allow a car to go faster than that speed. Not just governors since smart people could just engineer around them. The motors have to be specifically unable to generate enough horsepower to push a car over that speed period. When people get around this ban, we will just have to engineer the motors smaller and smaller to punish the violators. If we all end up with 6 HP engines, well, that is the price we have to pay for safety.

And don’t give me this garbage about needing a car that can exceed the speed limit in case you have an emergency – that is what we have police and first responders for. You know, how many people REALLY get that call that says you need to be here now or your loved one may not be alive when you get here…really…

the real john t said:
High capacity magazines were banned at one time

You can’t even read a magazine let alone fire one.

jjay7381 said:
Guns are made for two purposes only. To shoot things and to practice shooting things. Acts of violence. Cars and gulf clubs can be used for violence, I don’t think anyone will deny that, but that isn’t what they were explicitly designed for. See the difference?

You’ve outed yourself, as though we didn’t know anyway, as a gun banner. Your problem is not with hicap magazines, your problem is with guns, and you’re a glaring example of why we need to fight hard to ensure that our Second Amendment right shall not be infringed. Banning hicap mags is just step # 1 for people like you.

Mr.Papshmer said:
You’ve outed yourself, as though we didn’t know anyway, as a gun banner. Your problem is not with hicap magazines, your problem is with guns, and you’re a glaring example of why we need to fight hard to ensure that our Second Amendment right shall not be infringed. Banning hicap mags is just step # 1 for people like you.

I was responding to someone’s comparison of guns with cars and gulf clubs. That doesn’t mean I’m anti-gun. I don’t have a problem with gun ownership, I have a problem with certain kinds of guns.

notsofast said:
LOL

now that’s funny, son.

If you purchase a certain type of gun, you are “guilty” of something.

I didn’t say that, I said I don’t understand why an “innocent” person would want one.

jjay7381 said:
Because the rest of us have to worry about getting shot when people out there have these things.

Then you need to outlaw bottled beer and baseball. People have been beaten to death with beer bottles and baseball bats. Is it OK for YOU to own an hammer or a length of rope?

I’m afraid that you may use them on me, so I demand you forfeit your choice to own ANY of those things. BTW, start practicing eating with your fingers…………………

jjay7381 said:
I didn’t say that, I said I don’t understand why an “innocent” person would want one.

hunting, protection, recreation

jjay7381 said:
I didn’t say that, I said I don’t understand why an “innocent” person would want one.

So only “guilty” people would want a certain type of gun, eh?

What exactly are they “guilty” of?

jjay7381 said:
I didn’t say that, I said I don’t understand why an “innocent” person would want one.

Would only guilty people want a lawyer if charged with a crime?

notsofast said:
You can’t even read a magazine let alone fire one.

Hey stupid, nobody can fire a magazine. You can only fire the GUN that holds the magazine, skippy.

jjay7381 said:
Do you have a problem with people who work hard to get an education?

Uhhhh…be careful with that phrase ‘work hard.’ The world is FULL of ‘elites’ whose silver-spoon degrees weren’t anywhere NEAR a byproduct of hard work.

jjay7381 said:
Ugh. Mediaite has become such a haven for tea party trolls. No reasonable discourse to be had here.

Did you copy and paste this on every thread? And who’s the troll?

the real john t said:
Hey stupid, nobody can fire a magazine. You can only fire the GUN that holds the magazine, skippy.

Son, go back to your cave!

notsofast said:
So only “guilty” people would want a certain type of gun, eh?

What exactly are they “guilty” of?

Dont-cha just love it when a Liberal tries to find logic in their illogical emotionalism? jjay7381 is now thoroughly confused.

jjay7381 said:
If you’re implying that liberals are made up of educated people, you must also be implying that the tea party is made up of uneducated idiots…. that sure sounds like a group I would want to join!!

No, small ‘uneducated’ child. That’s you ‘inferring.’ Once you learn the difference between ‘infer’ and ‘imply,’ come back and we’ll test your intelligence again. For now, though, FAIL.

Davo said:
Dont-cha just love it when a Liberal tries to find logic in their illogical emotionalism? jjay7381 is now thoroughly confused.

I just want to get away from people who buy these certain guns, because they are guilty of something.

notsofast said:
Son, go back to your cave!

You show your ignorance with every comment you make Skippy.

notsofast said:
jjay7381

Yeah………..I get it. Although someone has done nothing wrong, they must be punished because jjay7381 doesn’t understand. Friggin’ Liberal “logic” at it’s best.

jjay7381 said:
Guns are made for two purposes only. To shoot things and to practice shooting things. Acts of violence. Cars and gulf clubs can be used for violence, I don’t think anyone will deny that, but that isn’t what they were explicitly designed for. See the difference?

Actually guns were/are made to KILL. You threaten me, take my stuff, try to harm me or my family and I will KILL you with my gun.

It needn’t be “nuanced”. I carry a gun and own guns in my home in case I need to kill someone who means to do me or mine harm. That’s as American as apple pie folks. It’s called “common sense”.

You know what criminals call a gun free zone? A target.

timzank said:
It needn’t be “nuanced”. I carry a gun and own guns in my home in case I need to kill someone who means to do me or mine harm. That’s as American as apple pie folks. It’s called “common sense”.

One thing that gun owners might consider, and something that I do from time to time, is to put an ad in the paper, “various rifles and handguns for sale”. Yup, I “sell” every single one of them. I assume that at some point, several of my guns may be declared illegal, but the government can’t confiscate what I’ve already “sold”. :)

timzank said:
I carry a gun

What are you so afraid of you have to carry a gun? You must make a lot of enemies, and I can understand why.

real john t -

I carry a gun, too.

It’s this way: there are only two ways someone can get me to do something: persuasion or force. With a gun, I’m in a position to effectively resist being forced into doing something. Without a gun force could enter into the equation. My possession of a gun civilizes my interchanges with others, since it eliminates force from the equation.

I’m not afraid. I carry a gun so I won’t have to be afraid.

Montana Libertarian said:
My possession of a gun civilizes my interchanges with others

You must think you live back in the wild west. Or are you a drug dealer?

“Common Sense Gun Control” – Don’t let the murders stop in Chicago! Strip this nation! Let the innocent die because everyone knows everyone obeys the laws!

People aren’t allowed to carry guns on planes. That makes sense.

Calm down. Common sense doesn’t mean disarm you crazy people.

catfishjuggling said:
People aren’t allowed to carry guns on planes. That makes sense.

Calm down. Common sense doesn’t mean disarm you crazy people.

No, but past statements show he supported what Chicago did. He ma say this this time, but that’s not last time. He’s quick to lie and anyone who believes him on face value of what he says he’s pushing and the like is beyond naive to clear stupidity.

“People aren’t allowed to carry guns on planes. That makes sense.”
—Yes, because we all know terrorists follow the law and would never dare hire a corrupt airport worker or flight attendant to smuggle some guns onboard.

You know what does make sense? Freedom. Having faith in law-abiding individuals who are willing to kill criminals makes more sense than treating everyone like a criminal so the actual criminals can do what they like against an unarmed public.

OBAMA WANTS “COMMON SENSE” GUN CONTROL. SO DID THE KLAN.
http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/2011/03/obama-wants-common-sense-gun-control.html

Did all you RWers scream and yell about Bush wanting to take your guns away when he supported gun control laws? I’ll bet you never made a peep.

the real john t said:
What are you so afraid of you have to carry a gun? You must make a lot of enemies, and I can understand why.

I have my CCW as well. FYI… drug dealers don’t carry CCW’s. We are law abiding citizens exercising our right under the 2nd amendment. Do you hate the Constitution… the Bill of Right… our founding fathers?

the real john t said:
Did all you RWers scream and yell about Bush wanting to take your guns away when he supported gun control laws? I’ll bet you never made a peep.

That depends… I don’t remember which gun control laws he supported. Please illuminate me…

the real john t said:
Did all you RWers scream and yell about Bush wanting to take your guns away when he supported gun control laws? I’ll bet you never made a peep.

No, we’re not like lib / progs, we don’t feel compelled to march in lockstep.

tatboy said:
I have my CCW as well. FYI…

And there’s another RWer that’s afraid of his own shadow. Does that gun make you feel like a tough guy. I own guns, but I sure as hell don’t carry any with me. I’m not afraid of anything that moves.

the real john t said:
That article was written july 14 2009.

Yes, but it’s worse now.

tatboy said:
Please illuminate me…

Go google- bush on gun control.

Gun control is using two hands.

Again, crazy people:

He isn’t taking your guns.

Worry about something more likely like an asteroid killing you.

Calm down.

catfishjuggling said:
He isn’t taking your guns.

You’re right, he’s not, no one is.

catfishjuggling said:
Worry about something more likely like an asteroid killing you.
Calm down.

stfu.

the real john t said:
And there’s another RWer that’s afraid of his own shadow. Does that gun make you feel like a tough guy. I own guns, but I sure as hell don’t carry any with me. I’m not afraid of anything that moves.

Ah yes… the none stereotyping liberal. Any other sweeping generalities you’d like to put forth?

the real john t said:
Go google- bush on gun control.

Are you referring to this…

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/george_w__bush_gun_control.htm

Nothing there I have a problem with… thanks.

Mr.Papshmer said:
stfu.

Yes catfishjuggling, they want you to shut up. Because they want to keep up their fear of the big bad mean guy in the White House.

Alz said:
Gun control is using two hands.

And a scope…

tatboy said:
Nothing there I have a problem with… thanks.

There’s other ones on there you could have read.

the real john t said:
There’s other ones on there you could have read.

Ok… I don’t know what your problem is. Even though yOu were rude to me I asked you to illuminate me about Bush’s position on gun control you felt I needed to know. Your response was to tell me to google it. I did now your not happy I cited the first result that popped up. I don’t know if your just in a bad mood or just want to act like a jerk. But if you want to have an honest debate you could site the info you brought up. If you still want to site the info you feel is pertinent feel free.

tatboy said:
Nothing there I have a problem with… thanks.

Then why are you getting on Obama? He’s basically supporting the same things Bush and Clinton did.

the real john t said:
There’s other ones on there you could have read.

Bottom line, it doesn’t matter when it comes to Bush and gun control.

He’s not president anymore and hasn’t been for two years and two months. Plus, he’s also said he’s done with politics so its not like he’ll morph into a Carter or Clinton like presence in the future.

tatboy said:
But if you want to have an honest debate you could site the info you brought up.

No, I’m just saying the same thing the RWers tell me to do when I ask for proof of something. They say google it and don’t be lazy.

the real john t said:
Then why are you getting on Obama? He’s basically supporting the same things Bush and Clinton did.

Where did I get on Obama? Please post my comment that attacked Obama? What are you talking about? You are being very confusing right now.

the real john t said:
No, I’m just saying the same thing the RWers tell me to do when I ask for proof of something. They say google it and don’t be lazy.

Don’t stereotype and treat me like and individual.

tatboy said:
Do you hate the Constitution… the Bill of Right… our founding fathers?

Talk about stereotyping.

the real john t said:
No, I’m just saying the same thing the RWers tell me to do when I ask for proof of something. They say google it and don’t be lazy.

So, you’re embracing right wing tactics?

the real john t said:
Talk about stereotyping.

I did not call you a name or anything else you did. I asked a question since you seem so against me defending myself within the confines of the law. You simply could answer yes or no.

tatboy said:
I did not call you a name or anything else you did.

Where did I call you a name?

the real john t said:
Where did I call you a name?

He didn’t say you called him a name; he said he didn’t call you a name.

the real john t said:
Where did I call you a name?

Afraid of my own shadow? Tough guy? I can assure you, my friends would laugh at you calling either of those things.

tatboy said:
Afraid of my own shadow? Tough guy? I can assure you, my friends would laugh at you calling either of those things.

Technically, he’s not calling you a name; he’s just inferring a characteristic . . .

tatboy said:
or just want to act like a jerk.

You must have forgot you said that. OH! I called you a tough guy. Now that’s a very, very bad name. Did it make you cry?

the real john t said:
You must have forgot you said that. OH! I called you a tough guy. Now that’s a very, very bad name. Did it make you cry?

Technically, “act like a” is just inferring a characteristic as well.

Double-count-out?

MR. PRESIDENT, I have a silly idea …

Why don’t you just begin to seriously enforce the current gun laws all by yourself.
You don’t need anybody’s approval.
You don’t need campaign funds.
You don’t need people to like you before you start.

Like Nike says: Just Do It!

Then, during your 2nd term (cough,cough) you can have your “discussion”.

Paul D. Powell said:
“Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. . . . ”

http://www.tooshocking.com/videos/2048/Family_Guy__Right_to_Bear_Arms

Paul D. Powell said:
Now with that statement, how many will still insist that Obama wants to take their Second Amendment rights and their guns along with them? How many will continue to hoard away weapons and ammunition and continue to exploit loopholes in gun laws, rules, and regulations because of the “fears” they continue to harbor?

Along with citizenship should come the responsibility to be informed of facts and a certain understanding of what is actually going on in the local community, the country, and the world at large. With knowledge and understanding comes power in many different forms. If more of us would seek knowledge and understanding of each other both here and abroad, we all could accomplish so much more.

Wow.
It’s encouraging to hear you say that and yet
Lots of readers (thumbs down) don’t like common sense.

Newt Limbaugh said:

Wow.
It’s encouraging to hear you say that and yet
Lots of readers (thumbs down) don’t like common sense.

“Common sense” as defined by a Liberal means promoting something that has a historical track record of 100% failure, as if somehow those results are not relevant and it will be better this time. Welfare, disarmament, removed borders, high taxation, strangling regulation, oppression of society’s producers, and government take-over of healthcare are just a few of the “common sense” policies of Liberals that have non-contestable results in disaster.

That a Liberal considers something “common sense” is immediate cause for alarm in rational people who consider results relevant. As you noticed, the ‘results” here are that “lots of readers (thumbs down) don’t like common sense,” Liberal style.

Paul D. Powell said:
“Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. . . . ” Now with that statement, how many will still insist that Obama wants to take their Second Amendment rights and their guns along with them? How many will continue to hoard away weapons and ammunition and continue to exploit loopholes in gun laws, rules, and regulations because of the “fears” they continue to harbor? Along with citizenship should come the responsibility to be informed of facts and a certain understanding of what is actually going on in the local community, the country, and the world at large. With knowledge and understanding comes power in many different forms. If more of us would seek knowledge and understanding of each other both here and abroad, we all could accomplish so much more.

Don’t listen to what he says. Watch what he does.

jjay7381 said:
Obama is not a socialist and anyone who says he is has obviously never seen a socialist nor understands the definition of socialism. By calling Obama a socialist, you’ve lost my attention and shut down the conversation.

You’re right. He’s not a socialist. He’s a Marxist.

In Obama’s world, ‘common sense’ gun control means that the government controls the guns

Who is Salacious Crumb said:
Technically, he’s not calling you a name; he’s just inferring a characteristic . . .

You have a point. Just wish he could have debated his point and had a conversation instead of just being hateful.

Umm were there semi-automatic guns when they wrote the 2nd amendment? Were there Representatives, cops, children, innocent bystanders being killed every day by guns back when they wrote the 2nd amendment? How many more people have to die before you idiots to understand we need stricter gun control? No one is trying to take your guns away. You gun and bible people are living in a world that doesnt exist.

Onesweetworld79 said:
How many more people have to die before you idiots to understand we need stricter gun control? No one is trying to take your guns away.

Genius. I love self-refuting comments.

Mr.Papshmer said:
He’s a democrat, which means he’s a liar.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

Thanks for the link.

If you read it without his name and this little bit of conjecture
“It wasn’t until a few weeks later that another theory came forward about the uncharacteristic vote. Obama was battling with his GOP opponent to win the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police”

It could actually be someone who supports States Rights.

Onesweetworld79 wrote:
“Umm were there semi-automatic guns when they wrote the 2nd amendment? Were there Representatives, cops, children, innocent bystanders being killed every day by guns back when they wrote the 2nd amendment? How many more people have to die before you idiots to understand we need stricter gun control? No one is trying to take your guns away. You gun and bible people are living in a world that doesnt exist.”

Um…you are not really living in reality are you. The reality is that those who legally own firearms are not the ones causing the gun violence. Criminals, who do not follow the law or care about the law, are not going to abide by any of these laws. A good example is Chicago as one of the worst city crime/gun violence laws, yet they have some of the most restrictive gun laws. Gun control isn’t working for that city, nor is it working for DC – another city with huge amounts crime.

People have a right to defend themselves. It’s a natural law, as well as a Constitutional law.

Also, there was no internet or TV when the US Constitution. Does that mean to you, in your distorted anti-individual liberty mind, that the government can disallow that free speech? You fascists always amaze me.

Once again, is Mediaite a site that posts articles about media, or is it a site that reports on the news by using the work of someone else. The site refuses to even report on war deaths from Afghanistan, yet they all all over themselves when President “57-states” Obama writes an article.

Davo said:
That a Liberal considers something “common sense” is immediate cause for alarm in rational people who consider results relevant. As you noticed, the ‘results” here are that “lots of readers (thumbs down) don’t like common sense,” Liberal style.

Those red thumbs down aren’t a bother to the la-la-land lotus eaters on the left. They like Obama can convince themselves that somehow thumbs down means they’re brave and don’t care about public opinion—-hence the deceptive term “Democrat” is applied to them, just as the tiny minority of leftists in the USSR called themselves “Bolsheviks” = “majority.”

Let us all give a cheer for the Clanton gang! Those boys died for their 2nd Amendment Rights.
While we are at it, it’s time to make a movie about the true story of that Socialist/Marxist/Nazi Wyatt Earp, who wanted to take their guns.

I am 100% for gun rights. ….But there is one gun right that should be outlawed. …30 round clips!!! the shooter in Amazon had a 30 round clip which there is no need for that large of a clip. 10 round is the max! if you cant protect yourself with the first 10 rounds you should not have a gun!

@ LibertySister,

The 2nd Amendment was also place in the US Constitution not for only personal protection, but for protection against a tyrannical federal government.

I worry that Obama’s version of common sense for guns would be similar to his views on common sense for marijuana. Based on the government’s baffling refusal to back down on its misguided pot prohibition, gun owners have a right to be concerned every time a president brings up gun control.

More Liberty3 said:
@ LibertySister,

The 2nd Amendment was also place in the US Constitution not for only personal protection, but for protection against a tyrannical federal government.

So that’s why they specify a “well-regulated militia”?

Image posted without comment: http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Obama-gansta.jpg

OxyCon said:
Image posted without comment: http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Obama-gansta.jpg

Or reason.

jjay7381 said:
Because the rest of us have to worry about getting shot when people out there have these things.

.
Do we have to worry about EVERY gun owner or EVERY illegal gun owner?

Start enforcing all gun laws relating to criminal acts with a no tolerance policy and work towards adding even more penalties for the use of a gun in a crime.

If that doesn’t significantly reduce the problem then I’ll be willing to talk about other measures.

Obimbo has openly stated that he believes in the 2nd Amendment right to bare arms. The 2nd Amendment says, the right of the people to bare arms shall not be infringed. So, “I vote present”, makes his remarks but adds a caveat. He believes States have a right to constrain those rights? Beyond law prohibiting a felon, or person with a history of mental problems from owning rifles and handguns, what part of “shall not be infringed”, doesn’t this inept dupe understand?

AND he got ANOTHER – “press conference!

CAconservative said:
Obimbo has openly stated that he believes in the 2nd Amendment right to bare arms. The 2nd Amendment says, the right of the people to bare arms shall not be infringed. So, “I vote present”, makes his remarks but adds a caveat. He believes States have a right to constrain those rights? Beyond law prohibiting a felon, or person with a history of mental problems from owning rifles and handguns, what part of “shall not be infringed”, doesn’t this inept dupe understand?

So, why do you jokers keep getting mad at Michelle Obama for baring her arms?
Seriously, learn to spell. It makes it easier to consider your points
A “law prohibiting a felon, or a person with a history of mental problems…” IS an infringement.
THIS Court has interpreted “the people” to mean each individual. Others have said it merely differentiated between the Federal Govt. (which was being defined by the Constitution) and state and local govts.
THAT interpretation has been accepted since the time of the Sullivan Law in NYC.
The “Gunfight at the O. K. Corral” was over a local ordnance banning guns in Tombstone, Az.
Today, the gun-control advocates (the Earps & Doc Holliday), are usually considered the heroes.

Joseph Glackin said:
So that’s why they specify a “well-regulated militia”?

The right to keep and bear arms predates our Constitution and is part of our natural law that the Constitution was based on. You quoted “well regulated militia.” Do you understand what that means? The term regulate in our founders time meant “well practiced or trained” with the arms that the militia men used, the term regulation today for most Americans means restricted or governed and definitely not what our founding fathers had in mind when they created the Bill of Rights which BTW was an afterthought and considered so self-evident that it wasn’t needed but a few of the delegates refused to sign on to the Constitution until the BOR was included, where would we be now if they hadn’t? Considering the fact that the second amendment is so clearly understandable when looked at in its original context, which brings to mind an insightful quote, “Text without Context Is Pretext.”

Don’t be confused by the Hegelian dialectic tactics used by those fighting against second amendment guaranteed right of individuals to keep and bear arms. They mix apples and oranges and expect to get meat loaf.

Joseph Glackin said:
The “Gunfight at the O. K. Corral” was over a local ordnance banning guns in Tombstone, Az.
Today, the gun-control advocates (the Earps & Doc Holliday), are usually considered the heroes.

Don’t you feel a little silly missing just HOW the Earp ban was enforced at the OK Corral? Being LIberal, you must enjoy imagining your fellow citizens gunned-down by a Left-Wing fascist tyranny.

PCKryptonite–So nice of you to pop out of your DeLorean after a trip back to the 1780′s to tell us what was in the FF’s MINDS!
The Bill of Rights was such an afterthought there would have been NO CONSTITUTION without it.
Forget your fruit cocktail. When you can cite Madison on banana clips and full-auto M10′s, I’ll listen.

Davo said:
Don’t you feel a little silly missing just HOW the Earp ban was enforced at the OK Corral? Being LIberal, you must enjoy imagining your fellow citizens gunned-down by a Left-Wing fascist tyranny.

Considering YOUR avatar, gunning down people must be considered an occupation.
Of course, they all deserved it, I’m sure.

Hey he is doing his best to piss off EVERYONE, left,right,center.

Gun Control is simply being able to hit your target with one shot.

Why do I carry a gun? Because a cop is to heavy to carry.

Ratkiller said:
Gun Control is simply being able to hit your target with one shot.

andthehorseyourodeinon said:
Why do I carry a gun? Because a cop is to heavy to carry.

Brilliance from rocks! Whodathunk? The day either of you Rambos actually uses the “gun” you love to brag on, we’ll all read about it–in your obituaries. Grow up. This ain’t the movies. You ain’t John Wayne. Neither was John Wayne.

I think it’s just crazy for this President to be doing anything remotely connected to gun control. Leave this issue to the Republicans (yes, even a Republican can want gun control). This issue is just way too dangerous for a leader who is viewed by many as a socialist.

no!