[cdad]

No one is taking away anyone's guns.

Who were the children?

Ones that wrote letters and some from the school where the shooting happened. It is a true shame our president hides behind children.

[talaniman]

Obviously you don't read your own constitution, or have knowledge of the court cases that have already been decided by SCOTUS. I gave you these links before but obviously a review is needed.

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

[paraclete]

Ones that wrote letters and some from the school where the shooting happened. It is a true shame our president hides behind children.

Is that really your opinion "hiding behind children"? Rather he is protecting children because children are for some pecular reason the victims of these gun rampages in a number of cases, meanwhile the parents rant and rave about rights rather than protecting children

[talaniman]

Looks to like he is in front of the children he wants to protect. I guess that infringes on your rights too?

[paraclete]

Yes you can't stand between a gunnut and his victim, you must wait until he kills someone, then lament the horror

[cdad]

Is that really your opinion "hiding behind children"? rather he is protecting children because children are for some pecular reason the victims of these gun rampages in a number of cases, meanwhile the parents rant and rave about rights rather than protecting children

Yes it is my opinion that he is hiding behind the children. That is all part of his MO. They didn't need to be there at the news conference. He put them there as props. That is very sad to me to try to use children in such a manner.

[tomder55]

That's my take too. The Obots use kids as props

Indoctrinated Lib-Kids Shriek About How Horrible The World Will Be If We Don't Reelect Obama - YouTube

[paraclete]

Yes it is my opinion that he is hiding behind the children. That is all part of his MO. They didnt need to be there at the news conference. He put them there as props. That is very sad to me to try to use children in such a manner.

Any excuse not to get the message, he is not hiding behind children but reinforcing the message effectively, and obviously it hit home because I can hear the bleating from here

[cdad]

any excuse not to get the message, he is not hiding behind children but reinforcing the message effectively, and obviously it hit home because I can hear the bleating from here

Are we talking about the same man that endorses infantacide? He is using the children for pawns in his game. It is not about reinforcing anything. Nothing really changed with what happened today except the erosion of yet more rights and his taking back parts of what he and his cronies already had put into law. He repealed sections of his own law with the stroke of a pen.

[talaniman]

Endorses infantacide?? Oh boy!!

[paraclete]

Someone is really peed off over there about loss of an inappropriate weapon. Let's face this, this is not about gun rights, this is about pride and ego. The "my gun is bigger than your gun" lobby is in full flight, retreating into their eighteenth century nirvana. I can hear the "you'll never take our freedom" shout from here. When you see the bare buttocks on the hill side, shoot

As Obama pointed out 900 people have died in a month from gun violence, do these people care, obviously not, it didn't happen to them, yet...

The issue has become large because it is out of control, laws flauted, innocents massacred, common sense no where in sight

[speechlesstx]

Looks to like he is in front of the children he wants to protect. I guess that infringes on your rights too?

Bullsh*t. Obama doesn't give a crap about you or the children. Stop being so naïve Tal.

[tomder55]

Michael Ramirez Political Cartoons 01/16/2013 - Investors.com

[paraclete]

Speech refer above, your pride and ego is showing

[cdad]

Someone is really peed off over there about loss of an inappropriate weapon. Let's face this, this is not about gun rights, this is about pride and ego. The "my gun is bigger than your gun" lobby is in full flight, retreating into their eighteenth century nirvana. I can hear the "you'll never take our freedom" shout from here. When you see the bare buttocks on the hill side, shoot

As Obama pointed out 900 people have died in a month from gun violence, do these people care, obviously not, it didn't happen to them, yet...................

The issue has become large because it is out of control, laws flauted, innocents massacred, common sense no where in sight

Sure he pointed it out. It is part of the grand plan. But lets look at real numbers.

According to 2011 statistics in the last 30 days:

1,441,666 people died from cardio vascular diseases of some form

383,333 people died from diabetes

133,055 people died from cancer

3,123 people died from drug overdoses

2,692 people died from traffic accidents

852 people died in drunk driving incidents

So really, the liberals could care LESS about the U.S. public. If they did they would be banning hearts, sugar, cancer, drugs (oh wait, they ARE banned), cars and alcohol. Pfft, 900 gun deaths make up less than .001% of the total deaths from just these 6 categories. And they wonder why we question "gun legislation" and their claim they are saving innocent lives.

Source:
900 people died in the last 30 days from guns says Obama

[paraclete]

Tom all you have demonstrated is the debate needs to widen to ban more weapons. If a ban doesn't work then perhaps financial penalties would work. Let's see, if we valued a human life at a million dollars then each year those who killed using a gun would owe 10 billion dollars, if you did the same for those killed by automobile, at fault drivers would owe 30 billion dollars

[talaniman]

Bullsh*t. Obama doesn't give a crap about you or the children. Stop being so naive Tal.

Obviously you don't care either because you rather holler about your own rights and beliefs, and do nothing about the killing of the born babies.

Make them have a baby, and let a nut kill them. That's crazy!!

[paraclete]

Sure he pointed it out. It is part of the grand plan. But lets look at real numbers.

According to 2011 statistics in the last 30 days:

1,441,666 people died from cardio vascular diseases of some form

383,333 people died from diabetes

133,055 people died from cancer

3,123 people died from drug overdoses

2,692 people died from traffic accidents

852 people died in drunk driving incidents

So really, the liberals could care LESS about the U.S. public. If they did they would be banning hearts, sugar, cancer, drugs (oh wait, they ARE banned), cars and alcohol. Pfft, 900 gun deaths make up less than .001% of the total deaths from just these 6 categories. And they wonder why we question "gun legislation" and their claim they are saving innocent lives.

source:
900 people died in the last 30 days from guns says Obama

Not true Obamacare addresses some of these issues but there is such a thing as personal responsibility, something that is as much out the window in the gun debate and it is in the health debate

[cdad]

Not true Obamacare addresses some of these issues but there is such a thing as personal responsibility, something that is as much out the window in the gun debate and it is in the health debate

Personal responsibility is at the forefront of the debate. And obamacare doesn't do anything for most of that list.

But here is some more informal reading if you would like from the other side of the pond.

Guns save lives « Abundant Truth

[excon]

Hello again,

I don't know how SOME people can't get that a shooter with a HUGE magazine can kill a lot more people than a shooter with a small magazine..

Instead, they'll show me a picture of a hammer and say, LOOKIE HERE.

excon