Pres. Obama America say to NRA leadership..
- Thread starter Roger35
- Start date
Clean
5,000+ Posts
The American public says F.U. They're buying up evey gun in sight and stock piling ammo like the Zombie Apocalypse is eminent. Americans will never surrender their guns. B.O. and the Libs are pissing into a Hurricane.
By the way, when Clinton rammed gun control through in the 90s, it launched the Republican Revolution.
By the way, when Clinton rammed gun control through in the 90s, it launched the Republican Revolution.
State and local officials have also started saying FU to the federal government. Executive order is a very poor leadership decision in addressing this problem, especially when it involves constitutional rights.
The most divisive President in history is leading us to a potential revolution. But congrats on your excitement for a President who does not believe in the Constitution.
The most divisive President in history is leading us to a potential revolution. But congrats on your excitement for a President who does not believe in the Constitution.
NEWDOC2002
1,000+ Posts
frm Michtex
if a random black child gets killed in LA, Chicago, Detroit, etc?
" Random black child"
REALLY
Wow Mich is showing his true racist attitude.
that is really disgusting
hey Mich, go ask a grieving family of any " random black child that was killed over the week end how they feel
That may be the worst coldest post on WM
if a random black child gets killed in LA, Chicago, Detroit, etc?
" Random black child"
REALLY
Wow Mich is showing his true racist attitude.
that is really disgusting
hey Mich, go ask a grieving family of any " random black child that was killed over the week end how they feel
That may be the worst coldest post on WM
majorwhiteapples
5,000+ Posts
Well said Newdoc!!!!
texas_ex2000
2,500+ Posts
Limit on magazine capacity (10 rounds) fine. It's not going to save more lives, but if that makes gu-control advocates feel any better, whatever.
But what exactly are these "military-style" assault rifles Obama just said he wants to prohibit? I know some AR-15s may look like a M4, but they don't have anywhere near the firepower and capability as a M4. Is Obama proposing to ban AR-15 simply because they "look" like an M4? That doesn't really make any sense...that's ceratinly not common sense.
But what exactly are these "military-style" assault rifles Obama just said he wants to prohibit? I know some AR-15s may look like a M4, but they don't have anywhere near the firepower and capability as a M4. Is Obama proposing to ban AR-15 simply because they "look" like an M4? That doesn't really make any sense...that's ceratinly not common sense.
hornyhoosier
500+ Posts
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
upset_horn
100+ Posts
texas_ex2000
2,500+ Posts
I'm obviously one of the "gun-rights" folks here, and after just a tertiary first glance, the 23 EOs seem fine to me. Some might be unnecssary spending, e.g. national gun saftey/responsible ownership campaign, and some privacy issues relating to health care (not something where both sides coudln't find common ground though), but otherwise I think the EOs here are essentially what EOs are suppose to be, orders to enforce the existing law (wish he would do thr same for immigration).
The big fight will be in Congress over the greater 4 part plan.
The big fight will be in Congress over the greater 4 part plan.
none of those will be very intrusive and none will have a noticeable effect on gun violence.
Obama is being politically disingenuous saying these are much of anything, He can't pass serious gun control legislation and knows it. So he says he is doing something.
One bothersome thing is that they are dropping safeguards on limits to the extent the feds can share info. That will be subject to abuse unrelated to gun crime.
And to the poster who thinks Obama is the most divisive president ever: get some education. FDR was much more divisive and when Lincoln got elected nearly a dozen states bailed out of the union because they thought he was going to take their slaves away. Even with those states not participating in the election, his re election in 1864 was in serious doubt for a good while.
The defamatory over reaction to Obama is worse than the over reaction to Clinton's election but not by much.
Some people just love to wet the bed when someone they don't know anything about or constantly misinterpret gets elected.
Obama is being politically disingenuous saying these are much of anything, He can't pass serious gun control legislation and knows it. So he says he is doing something.
One bothersome thing is that they are dropping safeguards on limits to the extent the feds can share info. That will be subject to abuse unrelated to gun crime.
And to the poster who thinks Obama is the most divisive president ever: get some education. FDR was much more divisive and when Lincoln got elected nearly a dozen states bailed out of the union because they thought he was going to take their slaves away. Even with those states not participating in the election, his re election in 1864 was in serious doubt for a good while.
The defamatory over reaction to Obama is worse than the over reaction to Clinton's election but not by much.
Some people just love to wet the bed when someone they don't know anything about or constantly misinterpret gets elected.
H
Hu_Fan
Guest
NOTE: These are the kinds of posts that get me beat up really good and proper and that I usually delete after I can't stomach the insults that come back to me, so I'll see if I can let this stand and not be so sensitive about it. I think I came up with some fun arguments that make no less a hollow ring than listening to Piers Morgan. But he gets paid millions for his ******** while I just suffer criticism. So here goes. Skim it if you like. And call it beer talk if you wish.
--------------------------------
Piers Morgan has been conducting his own one-man dog & pony show railing against certain aspects of gun ownership. Piers is a Brit and evolved as a journalist through UK's sensationalist media. Now he's positioned himself here posturing as King George III.
He asked a guest "Why do you need a [semi-automatic rifle... ie., 5.56x45 NATO / .223) for self defense?" They man did not know a suitable and rational comeback on that question. Here it is, and it's one that should be in the right to bear arms debate.
Ask back to Morgan, and to the President and Vice-President, and all those saying we have to "do the right thing" and give peace a chance kind of thing...
The question is this, Mr. President: "Why do you need 5,113 nuclear warheads?"
As soon as the US government bans all nuclear weapons and disarms those 5,113 warheads, you can prove by your actions that you don't need high-powered weapons to protect yourself.
Further, a DoD report in 2010 stated the US government, as of 2009, maintained 662 military 'sites' (bases, whatever) in 38 countries around the world. At that time Deptuty Sect of Defense Dorothy Robyn referenced, at a Senate appropriations hearing, the Pentagon's 507 permanent installations, while a 2010 Pentagon report listed 4,999 sites in both the US, its territories, and overseas.
Mr. President and anti-NRA representatives, or whomever is insisting that peace will come from lowing the level of weapons... The question I have is: Why that much military presence in a world that needs "to do the right thing" and give peace a chance instead of being freaking armed to the teeth?" Today Obama said let's do the right thing. Well, why doesn't the US government, military and CIA also do the right thing? In their total policy of living on this planet? I am not a supporter of either major political party as I am a supporter of smaller less encroaching government that stays the hell out of both foreign and domestic affairs.
So Mr. Morgan... why does the US government feel it has to have a military footprint that freaking huge and overpowering? Isn't a standing army with rifles good enough? And stationed here and not there?
If you can answer that, then you have the answer why a 2nd Amendment proponent feels he or she has the right to bear arms without anymore regulation that the Planet Earth seems capable of regulating the all-powerful encroaching United States government.
In other words, put up or shut up. Lead by example!! Disarm the nukes, pull back to the shores of this country, or get out of the affairs of the USA, which is it citizenry...because the government is not the country. The people are the country. And there is a Bill of Rights that has jurisdiction over any elected officia's solitary whims. That's what makes this country what it is.
That's my say on it. I wish I could have been asked that question by Piers. My reply: "Why does the UK have nukes? Do they plan to use one anytime soon? Why does France and the US have nukes? Do they plan to use one? And why hundreds and thousands? One can ruin your day. You argue against 30-round magazines... then why have a ballistic sub with a dozen nuclear warheads? You need five of them at once? Ten? More than one, at any rate? And who do you plan to use them on? If you don't really plan to use them, why do you have them? And what background checks by Planet Earth did you pass to get them? And what if they get in the hands of bad guys? Would't it be prudent to just get rid of them and nobody have them?"
End of argument. Obama cannot issue any leadership on this whole subject while Commander of Chief with thousands of nuclear warheads in his holster. Who is he to speak about regulating arms?
You wanna do the right thing? Total nuclear disarmament. Oh, you say the others won't do the same? Other countries, including renegade bad guys might have them?
Then what the hell do you think is the reason an American citizen might like to have a semi-automatic rifle in the closet or under the bed? And with more than a 10-round magazine? After all look at the arms on an Ohio-class sub?
The data is complex due to rebuilding, but there are 18 total:
14 Ohio-class subs armed with 24 Trident II ballistic missiles
4 Ohio-class subs, EACH armed with 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles with either conventional or nuclear warheads
And you are freaking out over 30 round magazines for a semi-automatic rifle? Beg pardon? Rifles not even with Selective Fire for Burst or Full Auto?
Beg pardon? Well I think I made my point. And I'm prepared for baby seal clubs and the usual bashing my posts get here and at On The Field.
Also if you think the US plays fair internationally with it's Billy Club of a Military and CIA, read Stephen Kinzer's OVERTHROW and see the **** that's been going on for the past century, and most of it has caused untold deaths INCLUDING DEATHS OF CHILDREN!! It's not a conspiracy book. The guy is a professional journalist with a track record. His data is largely a result of the Freedom of Information Act, so now everyone can know those truths. If they care to take their head out of the sand and know it.
So when the government and it's CIA can take responsibility for killing women and children around the world, then we'll talk. Until then you ain't got no place to posture as Mr. Saint and Mr. Nice Guy telling us we... WE... we're all going to do the right thing. Dictators and tyrants the US government has backed, has imprisoned, tortured and/or killed countless of it's own citizens, and that means women and children who are no different than the innocents killed at Colorado and Conn. An op-ed piece in this weeks American Statesman (from LA Times) was just about that CIA topic. Kinzer does an outstanding job detailing it, and it includes why Iran became our enemy.
Facts speak for themselves.
--------------------------------
Piers Morgan has been conducting his own one-man dog & pony show railing against certain aspects of gun ownership. Piers is a Brit and evolved as a journalist through UK's sensationalist media. Now he's positioned himself here posturing as King George III.
He asked a guest "Why do you need a [semi-automatic rifle... ie., 5.56x45 NATO / .223) for self defense?" They man did not know a suitable and rational comeback on that question. Here it is, and it's one that should be in the right to bear arms debate.
Ask back to Morgan, and to the President and Vice-President, and all those saying we have to "do the right thing" and give peace a chance kind of thing...
The question is this, Mr. President: "Why do you need 5,113 nuclear warheads?"
As soon as the US government bans all nuclear weapons and disarms those 5,113 warheads, you can prove by your actions that you don't need high-powered weapons to protect yourself.
Further, a DoD report in 2010 stated the US government, as of 2009, maintained 662 military 'sites' (bases, whatever) in 38 countries around the world. At that time Deptuty Sect of Defense Dorothy Robyn referenced, at a Senate appropriations hearing, the Pentagon's 507 permanent installations, while a 2010 Pentagon report listed 4,999 sites in both the US, its territories, and overseas.
Mr. President and anti-NRA representatives, or whomever is insisting that peace will come from lowing the level of weapons... The question I have is: Why that much military presence in a world that needs "to do the right thing" and give peace a chance instead of being freaking armed to the teeth?" Today Obama said let's do the right thing. Well, why doesn't the US government, military and CIA also do the right thing? In their total policy of living on this planet? I am not a supporter of either major political party as I am a supporter of smaller less encroaching government that stays the hell out of both foreign and domestic affairs.
So Mr. Morgan... why does the US government feel it has to have a military footprint that freaking huge and overpowering? Isn't a standing army with rifles good enough? And stationed here and not there?
If you can answer that, then you have the answer why a 2nd Amendment proponent feels he or she has the right to bear arms without anymore regulation that the Planet Earth seems capable of regulating the all-powerful encroaching United States government.
In other words, put up or shut up. Lead by example!! Disarm the nukes, pull back to the shores of this country, or get out of the affairs of the USA, which is it citizenry...because the government is not the country. The people are the country. And there is a Bill of Rights that has jurisdiction over any elected officia's solitary whims. That's what makes this country what it is.
That's my say on it. I wish I could have been asked that question by Piers. My reply: "Why does the UK have nukes? Do they plan to use one anytime soon? Why does France and the US have nukes? Do they plan to use one? And why hundreds and thousands? One can ruin your day. You argue against 30-round magazines... then why have a ballistic sub with a dozen nuclear warheads? You need five of them at once? Ten? More than one, at any rate? And who do you plan to use them on? If you don't really plan to use them, why do you have them? And what background checks by Planet Earth did you pass to get them? And what if they get in the hands of bad guys? Would't it be prudent to just get rid of them and nobody have them?"
End of argument. Obama cannot issue any leadership on this whole subject while Commander of Chief with thousands of nuclear warheads in his holster. Who is he to speak about regulating arms?
You wanna do the right thing? Total nuclear disarmament. Oh, you say the others won't do the same? Other countries, including renegade bad guys might have them?
Then what the hell do you think is the reason an American citizen might like to have a semi-automatic rifle in the closet or under the bed? And with more than a 10-round magazine? After all look at the arms on an Ohio-class sub?
The data is complex due to rebuilding, but there are 18 total:
14 Ohio-class subs armed with 24 Trident II ballistic missiles
4 Ohio-class subs, EACH armed with 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles with either conventional or nuclear warheads
And you are freaking out over 30 round magazines for a semi-automatic rifle? Beg pardon? Rifles not even with Selective Fire for Burst or Full Auto?
Beg pardon? Well I think I made my point. And I'm prepared for baby seal clubs and the usual bashing my posts get here and at On The Field.
Also if you think the US plays fair internationally with it's Billy Club of a Military and CIA, read Stephen Kinzer's OVERTHROW and see the **** that's been going on for the past century, and most of it has caused untold deaths INCLUDING DEATHS OF CHILDREN!! It's not a conspiracy book. The guy is a professional journalist with a track record. His data is largely a result of the Freedom of Information Act, so now everyone can know those truths. If they care to take their head out of the sand and know it.
So when the government and it's CIA can take responsibility for killing women and children around the world, then we'll talk. Until then you ain't got no place to posture as Mr. Saint and Mr. Nice Guy telling us we... WE... we're all going to do the right thing. Dictators and tyrants the US government has backed, has imprisoned, tortured and/or killed countless of it's own citizens, and that means women and children who are no different than the innocents killed at Colorado and Conn. An op-ed piece in this weeks American Statesman (from LA Times) was just about that CIA topic. Kinzer does an outstanding job detailing it, and it includes why Iran became our enemy.
Facts speak for themselves.
Horn,
Would "random white kid" be a racist statement?
Would "random white kid" be a racist statement?
Ain't it funny how the gun nuts freaked out Crockett?
This is the Obama that I wanted to see - decisive, bold, willing to take on the extreme rw'ers and FINALLY take on the menace of weapons of mass murder. For too long we've had essentially thugs, the rw extremists who strutted around like bullies. We needed someone to stand up to the bully/thug, and call him out. That is what the Prez did today and the majority of Americans are proud to have re-elected a great leader.
Thank You Mr. President!!!
This is the Obama that I wanted to see - decisive, bold, willing to take on the extreme rw'ers and FINALLY take on the menace of weapons of mass murder. For too long we've had essentially thugs, the rw extremists who strutted around like bullies. We needed someone to stand up to the bully/thug, and call him out. That is what the Prez did today and the majority of Americans are proud to have re-elected a great leader.
Thank You Mr. President!!!
Guns rights hysteria is a billion dollar business. The NRA, weapons and ammo dealers are raking in bucks in amounts the could not have been imagined with a Republican-controlled House except for this massacre of kindergarteners. Maybe the conspiracy nuts should take Ross Perot's advice and follow the money .... though I think all roads lead back to a homicidal lunatic acting alone.
zork
2,500+ Posts
Would it be fair to say that there is an inverse relationship for cities with respect to murder rate and how restrictive their gun laws are? Meaning cities like Chicago, with highly restrictive gun laws, have the high gun related murder rates?
Any thoughts on that? Were guns allowed at the Sandy Hook Elementary?
Any thoughts on that? Were guns allowed at the Sandy Hook Elementary?
I think if that Lunatic in Connecticut could have gotten his hands on a WWII Browning Automatic Rifle, he would have used it and the carnage would have been vastly more horrific. The much maligned "assault rifle" shooting in semi-auto version is admittedly not the same value close range killer as the Tommy Gun of Pretty Boy Floyd or John Dillenger.
hornyhoosier
500+ Posts
H
Hu_Fan
Guest
My sister emailed me this link to a nifty graphic showing where Congress stands on the gun issue. I'm not completely sure the bias of the site showing this but assume it is more pro-gun rights.
Where Congress Stands on Guns
Where Congress Stands on Guns
I've read everything, and I agree with Huisache. These executive orders are being celebrated or demonized with a lot more intensity than they deserve. Will they do anything to stop crime? No. Are they stupid waste of time that Obama is exploiting to make himself look good? Yes. Are they a gross abuse of executive power that should trigger the consideration of impeachment articles? No. (If he had tried to impose substantive legal changes or reinstate the assault weapons ban by executive order, my answer would have been Yes.)
hornyhoosier
500+ Posts
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
Happy Thanksgiving to all
- Started by Seattle Husker
- Replies: 5
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
New Jaguar TV Commercial!?
- Started by WorsterMan
- Replies: 3
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
