Check out some similar questions!

speechlesstx · Jun 20, 2011, 08:17 AM

"Faced with a Congress hostile to even slight restrictions of Second Amendment rights, the Obama administration is exploring potential changes to gun laws that can be secured strictly through executive action, administration officials say."

Hence the gun control by fiat title.

excon · Jun 20, 2011, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Hence the gun control by fiat title.

Hello again, Steve:

There's PLENTY to be pissed about based on what he's actually DOING - not what you THINK he's going to do.

excon

speechlesstx · Jun 20, 2011, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by excon

There's PLENTY to be pissed about based on what he's actually DOING - not what you THINK he's gonna do.

So, trying to prevent him from screwing up my rights isn't important?

talaniman · Jun 20, 2011, 09:29 AM

Easy to blame one guy when there are 535 other policy makers, and 9 more to referee, that make policy also. That's the way it is, especially when money is tight, and you ain't getting in on it. The US is hardly bankrupt, but the fear of whatever has everybody running around repeating exaggerated talking points, of gloom, and doom. The right wants to go back to the way it was, and the left wants to move into the way it should be so while I have my own conflicts with this president, and his administration, I also know that changing generations of thinking can be easier said than done.

Getting beyond your own fear, and recognizing that adjustment have to be made, in many areas, would go a long way in identifying, and implementing those adjustments. And that goes beyond worrying about how many guns you get to buy at a gun show, to add to your collection.

When you talk about YOUR gun rights, what about my right to not get shot by anyone's guns? Hey can't we have a reasonable policy that protects everyone from abuses of your second amendment rights? Like prove you aren't a criminal, or a crazy??

Not everyone who buys or sells a gun is a criminal. Not everyone is a responsible citizen either. Its funny how the gun crowd has always been scared craplesss waiting for them to come get their guns, and nobody, not especially not this administration has shown up demanding anything but common sense from you.

The real issue is manifest in a segment of the American population not being able to give credit for what HAS been accomplished, and building on it, yet just seeing only their own scaredy cat FEARS about what they THINK will happen.

I don't mind at all you having as many guns as you want STEVE, but that nut across the street, I mind that a lot. If he ain't certified crazy, he sure is headed that way. His second amendment rights, I would take away with no hesitation. Can't believe you would have a problem with that.

tomder55 · Jun 20, 2011, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, clete:

Um, uhh, I think the thrust of my post is that my support for him is lagging...

excon

I know someone who wants him re-elected
Medvedev says wants to see Obama re-elected - Yahoo! News

Dr1757 · Jun 20, 2011, 10:16 AM

I shudder to think of 4 more years of Obama. All I can see so far, is business as usual. I wish there was some we could flush the toilet and rid ourselves of all the crap in DC.

speechlesstx · Jun 20, 2011, 10:31 AM

Tal, I don't want the nut across the street to have one either and I darn sure don't want ATF letting AK's "walk."

tomder55 · Jun 20, 2011, 11:25 AM

There was a special prosecutor for Iran-Contra .14 people were charged with criminal offenses .Among them were high ranking cabinet members like Defense Sec. Cap Weinberger ,National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane,and Assistant Sec State Elliot Abrams .

I wonder how many Obots like Holder are going down ?

talaniman · Jun 20, 2011, 12:06 PM

They got pardons back then, they will get pardons now. And we still will never know when the president knew what.

paraclete · Jun 20, 2011, 05:58 PM

Interesting how the debates get back to gun limitation, which incidentally isn't a bad thing. If you want to reserve your rights why not limit each person to the possession of one weapon, duly licensed and adequately and securely housed, instead of the free for all you now have

talaniman · Jun 21, 2011, 08:27 AM

The National Rifle Association is a powerful, anti gun control lobby. Many believe that a right to bear arms holds no limit.

So do I frankly, but it's the loonies, and criminals who should have to rights. Steve was referring to a problem we are having with the Mexican drug cartels getting guns from America. It's a problem for sure, but the majority of the weapons come from over seas via South America.

cdad · Jun 21, 2011, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by paraclete

Interesting how the debates get back to gun limitation, which incidently isn't a bad thing. If you want to reserve your rights why not limit each person to the possession of one weapon, duly licensed and adequately and securely housed, instead of the free for all you now have

So what your saying is that you want the government in your home to inspect it for safety reasons and as far as the 1 gun is that choice going to be yours or the one the government says you can have ?

excon · Jun 21, 2011, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by califdadof3

So what your saying is that you want the government in your home to inspect it for safety reasons

Hello again, dad:

You're not playing the small government card, are you?? Nahhh. You wouldn't... That's because you don't mind a LARGE HUMONGOUS, very intrusive government, as long as it meets YOUR particular social agenda...

To wit: since the recent Republican takeover of the states, instead of working on JOBS, they enacted some of the most restrictive abortion laws since Roe v Wade... I'll bet you're just FINE with that, aren't you?

So, while you decry the government in your HOME, you absolutely WANT government in the doctors office making SURE that what happens is what the GOVERNMENT wants to happen...

Let's talk about that for a minute.

excon

cdad · Jun 21, 2011, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, dad:

You're not playing the small government card, are you??? Nahhh. You wouldn't... That's because you don't mind a LARGE HUMONGOUS, very intrusive government, as long as it meets YOUR particular social agenda...

To wit: since the recent Republican takeover of the states, instead of working on JOBS, they enacted some of the most restrictive abortion laws since Roe v Wade... I'll bet you're just FINE with that, aren't you?

So, while you decry the government in your HOME, you absolutely WANT government in the doctors office making SURE that what happens is what the GOVERNMENT wants to happen...

Let's talk about that for a minute.

excon

I thought we already hashed out ObamaCare? And my forcefullness in the 2nd amendment stems from the fact that that amendment alone is what protects all the others. We don't need a California style nor Chicago style gun laws to keep people from owning guns. Im not against checks and balances in the system but I am against the intrusion beyond normal reason. In some coutries they actually issue every citizen a rifle so they may muster a national army if needed. What a concept. You will never keep guns nor other weapons from reaching criminals hands. But Im sure the criminal always has it in mind if he chooses to rob someone if it's a gun carrying state or not. Somehow they don't seem to like assuming room temprature. Keeping the guns from those that are allowed to own them is a hotly debated issue. In the end We the People should prevail.

cdad · Jun 21, 2011, 04:21 PM

In case this wasn't posted anywhere.

Obama Eyeing Anti-Gun Backer to Run ATF

paraclete · Jun 21, 2011, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by califdadof3

So what your saying is that you want the government in your home to inspect it for safety reasons and as far as the 1 gun is that choice going to be yours or the one the government says you can have ?

Not at all, people only do what they have to, obviously that gun shouldn't be a military assault rifle or a machine gun, the alternative is that guns could be housed in an armory. The swiss for example have even had military weapons on issue to militia housed in a persons home for years and they don't have the gun problems the US has because of the level of responsibility expected. It is about getting an effective message into the community, not forced entry on any excuse.

The gun should be safely housed to prevent theft and children getting hold of the weapon. When I was a child I picked up my uncle's hand gun and pointed it at another child, obviously he was careless. When my son was a teen he stole rifles from a neighbour and went on a rampage. Neither event could have happened if the weapons were securely housed.

talaniman · Jun 21, 2011, 05:02 PM

Responsibility and the safe use of guns, what a novel idea, but totally un-American.

paraclete · Jun 21, 2011, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by talaniman

Responsibility and the safe use of guns, what a novel idea, but totally un-American.

There in lies the problem, apparently it is all-american to be stupid

cdad · Jun 21, 2011, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by paraclete

There in lies the problem, apparently it is all-american to be stupid

Not exactly. When the libs took over the schools and decided to experiment with our school children then all good sense went out the window. They used to teach those things in school and if you did bring a gun you most likely were involved with R.O.T.C. program. (introduction to military). Gun education and hunter education was taught to all children to respect a gun. Its not happening enymore but sorely needs to be.

paraclete · Jun 21, 2011, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by califdadof3

Not exactly. When the libs took over the schools and decided to experiment with our school children then all good sense went out the window. They used to teach those things in school and if you did bring a gun you most likely were involved with R.O.T.C. program. (introduction to military). Gun education and hunter education was taught to all children to respect a gun. Its not happening enymore but sorely needs to be.

So it's back to politics and the Democrats are to blame. Look I had three years in school in what you would call ROTC and it didn't do me any harm, should be compulsory. I expect you would see that as some sort of unfringement of the rights of the child, or teaching a gang-banger to shoot.