|
|
| |
Topic: White House weighs broad gun-control agenda in wake of Newtown shootings |
White House weighs broad gun-control agenda in wake of Newtown shootings
Washington Post, by Philip Rucker
|
|
Original Article
|
|
Posted By:Dreadnought, 1/5/2013 11:17:59 PM
|
| The White House is weighing a far broader and more comprehensive approach to curbing the nation’s gun violence than simply reinstating an expired ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, according to multiple people involved in the administration’s discussions. A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks
|
Reply 1 - Posted by:
NYbob, 1/5/2013 11:29:10 PM (No. 9100966)
The people who love draconian laws banning guns ought to live in the wrong part of town, or work the night shift at a store near a freeway, or have an order of protection against someone, or live alone and look at the wrong person or wear the wrong clothes. They won´t, but they will use this to put all those people in jeopardy. Pick a side, but do it honestly. Giving your freedom to liars who truly think they are far better than you, is not only crazy and sad, it is a fundamental betrayal of what America tries to be and what millions of Americans fought and died for.
|
Reply 2 - Posted by:
Mijcraw, 1/5/2013 11:37:04 PM (No. 9100970)
So, what they mean, for the responsible gun owner it will be tougher to get their legal 2nd amendment gun. So how are these new rules going to prevent illegal gun violence? In the end they´ll just cause the government to grow, create unneeded government jobs and add a cost to the growing debt. I wonder if these so-called leaders will ever just enforce the current laws, hold criminals to the highest standard and stop trying to score a victory out of a tragedy
|
| |
|
Reply 3 - Posted by:
texaspast, 1/5/2013 11:39:18 PM (No. 9100974)
From my cold, dead hands. I swear.
|
Reply 4 - Posted by:
mackrand, 1/5/2013 11:39:51 PM (No. 9100976)
4500 posts and counting on the original story. Most of it seems to be posted by mental cases. A few are reasoned but are hard to separate from the chaff.
|
Reply 5 - Posted by:
lotsamojo, 1/5/2013 11:41:42 PM (No. 9100980)
Another brilliant move by the Won who loves to play a devisive political game - a great way to rally the socialist base, get donations, take people´s minds off of higher taxes and high unemploynebt . . . but will sweeping gun restrictions sell in the general population and the Congress?
|
Reply 6 - Posted by:
grmacat, 1/5/2013 11:53:47 PM (No. 9100989)
I find these proposals very reasonable and absolutely necessary. In Texas there are no restrictions on buying guns and they enjoy very high incidences of homocides committed with guns. I am a conservative. Citizens need guns and have a right to them. I want the people who obtained them to be without a history of dangerous mental illnes and non violent in their past behavior. All these proposed measures could be applied and it would yet allow for a teacher or school martial to carry a gun inorder to protect the children. Nowadays there needs to be "air marshalls" in every public venue. Someone who is incognito but well armed to protect the public. In gun free zones the law needs to permit authorized people to have guns. Therefore, that one proposal I do not agree with.
|
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Citizen Plain, 1/6/2013 12:00:17 AM (No. 9100991)
The first Amendment is lost because the media is now an ideological organ of the state. Losing the second amendment marks the beginning of a totalitarian state. Time to wake up!!!!
|
| |
|
Reply 8 - Posted by:
thewarden, 1/6/2013 12:01:18 AM (No. 9100993)
So, what about the HIPA rules? I thought our health info was top secret. And, besides, there are a lot of undiagnosed whackos out there. While I agree mentally ill folks shouldn´t have guns, this isn´t practical on any level. Translation--libs will keep their guns and the rest of you can shove off, right, Barry?
|
Reply 9 - Posted by:
asu86pe, 1/6/2013 12:03:22 AM (No. 9100995)
Alright, Fine!!
OK, Let´s take this battle to him...........
President Obama,
I beseech you to do the following immediately. Repeal the 21st Amendment because "intoxicating liquors" kills more Americans by drunk drivers and kidney failures and is the leading product for more medical costs than any other product sold in the United States.
Yeah, I know, I know, ..... {cue crickets}
|
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Grant Hodges, 1/6/2013 12:06:46 AM (No. 9100997)
In the 70´s the Democrats opened the doors of the sanitariums and now those people live on the streets and are the "homeless" (Bush´s fault). I am sure crazy people will run down to Walmart and get checked out before they get their gun.....
Politicians hate guns for one reason, and you know what it is....
|
Reply 11 - Posted by:
ColonialAmerican1623, 1/6/2013 12:13:15 AM (No. 9101002)
People should get as riled up over this as Chick fil a.
Speak now or you will never know peace.
No mention of help for the mentally ill.
|
Reply 12 - Posted by:
jl80863, 1/6/2013 12:22:21 AM (No. 9101005)
Maybe they should start with the South side of Chicago where obama organized the community. Did I mention that part of the city is the murder capital of the US? (s/o) Look at the murder and crime statistics of jurisdictions ruled by dims.
|
| |
|
Reply 13 - Posted by:
Bobn.T, 1/6/2013 12:49:22 AM (No. 9101007)
Hollywood supports gun control and says movies don´t contribute to violence. Horse Crap. I just saw Django and Follywood overwhelmed the audience with gunfire, dynamite, horse whips, blood, guts, exploding bodies, and more.
Way to go Follywood. Get those guns. You lying hypocrites.
|
Reply 14 - Posted by:
PeoplesRepublikNY, 1/6/2013 1:32:32 AM (No. 9101016)
These proposals are from the same government which brought us Operation Fast and Furious. Ask Brian Terry´s family, as well as those of several hundred dead Mexicans, how well that gun control program worked.
|
Reply 15 - Posted by:
kafir091101, 1/6/2013 1:35:42 AM (No. 9101017)
#6:
I totally disagree with “In Texas there are no restrictions on buying guns and they enjoy very high incidences of homocides committed with guns”.
Jeez. I don’t know where to begin. First of all, Texas has the same restrictions as VT/NH/ME that rank among the lowest violent crime rates in the nation.
As a minimum, Texas follows the same guidelines/restrictions that every other state follows per federal law which requires an FBI criminal background and court order check.
BTW: There are 14 states that have a higher violent crime rate than Texas and many of them actually do have restrictive gun ownership laws like NY/IL/MA and DC.
It’s all a matter of demographics. Look at the people in your state that commit the violent crimes and you will know why the violent crimes are being committed. They are the same type of people who commit 85% of all violent crime in this country.
Most gun crimes are committed by people who by law aren’t allowed to poses a firearm and almost all crimes in this country are committed by repeat offenders.
The FBI estimates there are over 200 million firearms in possession of over 100 million owners and 99.999999 percent of them have never been used to commit a crime.
Personal possession of firearms in the UK is extremely restricted but violent crime there is now higher than in the US because people there do not have the capability to defend themselves from Dirt Bags!
Look at the demographics of Dallas/Houston/Los Angeles/Denver/Chicago/St Louise/Buffalo/Philadelphia/NYC/Boston/Miami/New Orleans because that is where the problem is. It’s not the availability of guns. It’s the availability of Dirt Bags and Freakoids!
Obama’s goal is to register all firearms in this country so he can restrict the type and number you own down to zero.
Kafir
|
Reply 16 - Posted by:
Grant Hodges, 1/6/2013 1:36:01 AM (No. 9101018)
Yeah, Stinky the Gunrunner is all for guns for Mexican cartels, guns for Al Qaeda in Libya, guns for Al Qaeda in Syria...but guns in the hands of Americans? Horrors!!!!! Something must be done!
Uh...I just like calling BO by Stinky the Gunrunner. I think you all should too! LOL
|
Reply 17 - Posted by:
veritas, 1/6/2013 1:51:24 AM (No. 9101020)
Molon labe, Usurper.
We are Leonidas.
|
| |
|
Reply 18 - Posted by:
spinpilot, 1/6/2013 2:13:09 AM (No. 9101025)
And, the revolution begins.....
|
Reply 19 - Posted by:
bob913, 1/6/2013 2:41:39 AM (No. 9101028)
obama sold thousands of weapons to mass murdering mexican drug cartels that resulted in over 300 people murdered and the killing continues.
|
Reply 20 - Posted by:
chumley, 1/6/2013 2:56:54 AM (No. 9101031)
When your rights exist at the pleasure of government, you have no rights. When you surrender them voluntarily you are a coward. When you surrender the rights of others you are a traitor.
|
Reply 21 - Posted by:
mercedesops, 1/6/2013 3:08:05 AM (No. 9101034)
Simply a wedge issue to take back the House.In 2012 it was the War on Women in 2014 Obama will claim the Republicans are waging a War on Children. The man has no shame.
|
Reply 22 - Posted by:
Crosscut, 1/6/2013 3:17:09 AM (No. 9101038)
It is our children who will need firearms, not us. What I am acquiring now is for them.
|
| |
|
Reply 23 - Posted by:
Deedo, 1/6/2013 3:22:30 AM (No. 9101040)
The second amendment was included because the founders knew that the people needed to be armed thus so that if the federal government grew to be tyrannical, the people would be able to fight back and overthrow it.
That the so-called "progressives" want to strip the people of the right to bear arms is indicative of their desire to institute tyranny. It´s obvious and all-over their policies and actions. They flat-out hate the constitution; the greatest government ever designed when it comes to individual freedom and liberty. What horrible people. They gain most of their political force from people who know almost nothing about history and policy. And with the progressives having a strong grip on the government monopoly on education, they keep the young folk in the dark and ignorant.
|
Reply 24 - Posted by:
osprey21, 1/6/2013 4:45:46 AM (No. 9101047)
Right on #17 - the battle of Thermopylae, so to speak, is now upon us! I cannot let my God-given (or natural, if you will) rights be trampled by men who would deprive me of them just to suit their own ends. Come and take them!
|
Reply 25 - Posted by:
Trigger2, 1/6/2013 5:01:09 AM (No. 9101053)
Isn´t it ironic that gang thugs never seem to have a problem getting a gun? Does Holder in his zeal for affirmative action have a secret gun running program going on with them? After all, they´re all disadvantaged and not getting their fair share.
|
Reply 26 - Posted by:
reilly, 1/6/2013 6:14:17 AM (No. 9101098)
These smarties should start by disarming only black people. We´ll try it with blacks and see how it works out for them. Didn´t work out so well for White Russians and East European Jews.
|
Reply 27 - Posted by:
DaddyO, 1/6/2013 6:36:20 AM (No. 9101116)
And the dept of justice (as previously mentioned) okayed the transfer of ´assault weapons´ to mexican gangs which resulted in the deaths of mexicans and americans.
I didn´t see that mentioned in the article.
|
Reply 28 - Posted by:
pineledger, 1/6/2013 7:11:52 AM (No. 9101147)
5 is exactly right, this is misdirection, an outrageous assault on the Constitution calibrated to divert our attention from the tax-and-spend (mostly spend) going on in the background.
And who, exactly, is going to decide who passes muster on these background checks??
|
Reply 29 - Posted by:
PoliticalJunky, 1/6/2013 7:20:29 AM (No. 9101164)
No 21 is exactly right. The goal is to get to the point where Obama, or some successor, can by executive order revoke all gun licenses, require the owner to surrender his guns, and assess a large penalty against him if he fails to do so. The fine will be large enough to bankrupt anyone who resists. This is the strategy they are attempting to use against Hobby Lobby by levying a million dollar per day fine.
All the reasonable arguments they are using are just pouring honey on the bear trap.
|
Reply 30 - Posted by:
rabbit, 1/6/2013 7:24:00 AM (No. 9101169)
I agree with #6. The current laws don´t work as well as they should. I like that the White House is talking to various groups to get their suggestions. None of these suggestions is cast in stone that it will become part of the plan.
They should be getting suggestions from the NRA as well. However, LaPierre himself took that option off the table. When someone takes a hard line and refuses to offer any ideas...then they don´t get an invitation to the bargaining table. And the fact is that LaPierre didn´t offer a single idea as to how to make it more difficult for mentally unbalanced people such as Lanza to get hold of weapons.
|
Reply 31 - Posted by:
Janjan, 1/6/2013 7:29:36 AM (No. 9101174)
When are people going to get over the idea that Washington politicians have our best interests at heart? Any initiative they take up that refers to ´control´ or ´reform´ is designed to remove more of our freedoms. Yet people continue to refer to this as ´reasonable´ and ´well meaning´. A lot of people are very easy to manipulate. Suckers.
|
Reply 32 - Posted by:
suziesuburbanite, 1/6/2013 7:34:12 AM (No. 9101184)
So will any of this prevent a mentally deranged person from stealing a gun from his mother?
|
Reply 33 - Posted by:
gwmcclintok, 1/6/2013 7:44:22 AM (No. 9101197)
#22 you are so right. That is why my purchases now are face to face with no registration. When I pass on I plan to leave thousands of rounds to my grand children along with heavy duty military type guns, especially the Springfield M1A. I also like the M&M Ak 47 out of Colorado. And the Armalite A10 .308. At age 12 I am going to have my grand children professionally trained with a fire arm instructor. Sooner or later bad days are coming. I want to leave an American legacy to my grand children and great grand children. My hunting guns will not fire thousands of rounds, but the above mentioned will. There are guns for hunting and guns for fighting. As in Viet Nam, I am locked and loaded.
|
Reply 34 - Posted by:
franq, 1/6/2013 7:48:36 AM (No. 9101200)
Dude, the only way to "make it more difficult for mentally unbalanced people such as Lanza to get a hold of weapons" (are all those people doing the drive-by shootings in large cities imbalanced?) is to make it harder (impossible) for EVERYONE to get a hold of weapons, or better, ammo. Didn´t you learn in school that group punishment works? /s
|
Reply 35 - Posted by:
Gretchen, 1/6/2013 7:54:23 AM (No. 9101204)
It really is quite the rabbit hole to suggest making more laws, which admittedly do not work, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane.
The law-abiding will be disarmed, and the criminals will have guns.
The insane will simply use another weapon to carry out their plans.
Think Prohibition. It did nothing to stop people from buying, selling, and drinking alcohol. The government will make criminals out of us all.
|
Reply 36 - Posted by:
Rolfnader, 1/6/2013 7:56:52 AM (No. 9101210)
I used to have quite a few guns but a couple of them were stolen and then there was that one that I loaned to my brother-in-law and he traded it to someone for a bottle of whiskey and the one that fell overboard and the one............
|
Reply 37 - Posted by:
tocsin, 1/6/2013 7:57:36 AM (No. 9101211)
There are a couple of posters here who should take Dr Sowell´s advice to heart: ´´If you don´t want to have a gun in your home or in your school, that´s your choice. (But)Is it worth a human life to be a politically correct moral exhibitionist?´´ BTW, moveon.org. is a gun free (as in free fire) zone.
|
Reply 38 - Posted by:
Rinktum, 1/6/2013 8:01:50 AM (No. 9101222)
What ails this country cannot be fixed by gun control. The violence we see is a result of the culture. A culture that has been drenched in violence at every level but with no moral authority to put it into perspective. Gun violence is glorified by the entertainment industry. Violent killing is a money maker that has driven Hollywood to produce ever more horrific violence and now they want to promote gun control? The industry´s lifeblood is moral depravity in every form. I would suggest they take a long hard look at their motives for producing this trash and the part it plays in the breakdown of society.
|
Reply 39 - Posted by:
rabbit, 1/6/2013 8:21:50 AM (No. 9101246)
Making it harder for a mentally unstable person to get hold of a gun isn´t liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat. If you are a law-abiding citizen without close family members or close friends with serious mental illness...fantastic! But...what are you willing to see happen so that it is more difficult than it is today for a mentally unstable person to get hold of guns? In my state, such a person, or his family, can´t even voluntarily put such a person on a ´do not sell´ list! (The person knows that he has occasional psychotic breaks during which he tends to think about getting a gun and doing something violent. He would like to be on the list so that someone wouldn´t sell him a gun in such a situation.) Now, how can a change to permit voluntary additions to a list affect your rights to your guns? This isn´t a black-or-white issue; there are areas where those who back full gun rights can step back and say, "Okay, I could live with that change."
The family I speak of are Republicans, including the person with mental illness. No interest in moveon, thank you. Mental illness is not a respecter of political parties.
|
Reply 40 - Posted by:
privateer, 1/6/2013 8:24:39 AM (No. 9101250)
I learned in school that group punishment is unfair to the innocent, and a tool of lazy and ineffectual teachers and administrators. Naturally, such tools appeal to the Tyrant Hussein.
|
Reply 41 - Posted by:
planetgeo, 1/6/2013 8:27:53 AM (No. 9101254)
Actually, I´d be glad to register all my guns...if they also registered and published the names and addresses of everyone who voted for Obama. That way, it´s a win-win. They will know where to come get my guns, and I will know where to dispose of my ammunition inventory. See, reasonable compromise can work.
|
Reply 42 - Posted by:
cobieone, 1/6/2013 8:28:12 AM (No. 9101255)
Number 38... actually, homicide is down in the US since the 80s. This is exactly what this administration, media, and all the rest of the commies want is for everyone to panic that gun violence is out of control and something HAS to be done. That way, they can come in and save us, don´t you see. They are coming for full gun registration, no doubt. Elections have consequences.
Number 6 and 30, of course the current laws aren´t working. That is what criminals do, they don´t obey the law. Last I heard, MURDER is still illegal in the US.
|
Reply 43 - Posted by:
bpl40, 1/6/2013 8:32:12 AM (No. 9101259)
Many times it is the intention that is more important than the act. That is the trouble with #6s arguments. Registration is DESIGNED to create a list and isolate those who exercise their Second Amendment Rights. This is a camel´s nose that will then be used to tighten the noose in many ways - as evidence in case you are in a lawsuit, higher insurance rates, even higher rate of tax auditing. And finally systematic confiscation by Executive Order. We have been here before.
|
Reply 44 - Posted by:
Chuzzles, 1/6/2013 8:34:07 AM (No. 9101263)
Poster still isn´t getting it. We do not ever ever ever want some incompetent in the government deciding on our mental fitness for any reason. There is so much evil that could be done under the guise of ´deciding mental fitness´. Stinky the gunrunner got a lot of people killed with his illegal plan. Why don´t we start with him if you want control?
|
Reply 45 - Posted by:
Chiritwo, 1/6/2013 8:39:26 AM (No. 9101278)
Can´t this gov´t do two things at once - figure out who gave the "stand down" order for Libya (that´s a pretty simple one, we´re just not privy to the info) and discuss how to keep guns from people who shouldn´t own them. From what I heard about Newtown, gun control worked. The kid tried to buy a gun and was turned down. Hollywood is hypocritical - it´s shown that when people see violence (tv, movies etc), they become more violent. This again is a side show.
|
Reply 46 - Posted by:
strike3, 1/6/2013 8:42:54 AM (No. 9101287)
The tyrant administration was going to make this gun grab whether Newtown had happened or not, the timing was just very convenient. Obama is deathly afraid that his reign will be challenged by the citizens when the more distasteful changes he has in mind are pushed into law.
Actions like gun control are only attempted by people who are too inept to do anything useful. We do know better than they how America should live and we will not comply with this blatant abuse of the Constitution.
|
Reply 47 - Posted by:
Dodge Boy, 1/6/2013 8:50:13 AM (No. 9101297)
I´ve said it before and I´ll say it again - if our elected officials do not believe in gun ownership and do not see our need to own guns for our own personal security, then they themselves must also acknowledge the lack of need for security and be required to perform their duties as elected officials and be seen in public, with no security details protecting them. Afterall, what are they worried about?
|
Reply 48 - Posted by:
LZK, 1/6/2013 8:50:16 AM (No. 9101298)
The bamboozler is at it again. "never let a crisis go to waste"....
It doesn´t matter folks. It´s all a razzle/dazzle game. Those of US who are "prepared" have nothing to fear -- but -- fear itself....
LZK
|
Reply 49 - Posted by:
disasterman, 1/6/2013 8:52:44 AM (No. 9101303)
I saw a really good movie a while back where only the police and military had firearms. It was called ´ Schindler´s List´.
|
Reply 50 - Posted by:
TunnelRat, 1/6/2013 9:01:23 AM (No. 9101317)
Thank you, #49. I had the opportunity a few years back to visit a country where only the police and the military had access to firearms. It was very peaceful there, in Red China...
|
Reply 51 - Posted by:
ledbythnose, 1/6/2013 9:15:11 AM (No. 9101348)
We may one day soon experience the feeling William B. Travis had that cold February Morning in the Alamo Court Yard. His letter of defiance to Santa Anna was and is what makes us all AMERICANS. I for one chose to stand with the 186. How about you?
|
Reply 52 - Posted by:
Grambo, 1/6/2013 9:15:48 AM (No. 9101349)
Well, we didn´t have to wait long to see the second term agenda, did we?
|
Reply 53 - Posted by:
gabula, 1/6/2013 9:17:17 AM (No. 9101352)
A dis-armed man is a Subject, an armed man is a Citizen!
Gabula
|
Reply 54 - Posted by:
noproblems, 1/6/2013 9:29:45 AM (No. 9101371)
The Repugs have been useless on the Debt. They can continue to be irrelevant on the latest gun control issue, time will tell.
|
Reply 55 - Posted by:
Sinatra5, 1/6/2013 9:30:35 AM (No. 9101374)
The insanity and group think in the Country is overwhelming....Damn difficult, no make that impossible, to reason with morons who don´t have the capability of understanding logic, dealing with facts or utilize critical thinking. OVERWHELMING...Here is a link to an article from Daniel Greenfield, Sultan Knish, that defines demographics in a whole new context.....
THIS IS NOT A GUN PROBLEM, IT´S A PEOPLE PROBLEM
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2013/01/friday-afternoon-roundup-boehner.html
|
Reply 56 - Posted by:
Salt5792, 1/6/2013 10:15:41 AM (No. 9101455)
You can depend on the Dems to come up with a plan that is expensive, stupid and useless.
|
Reply 57 - Posted by:
Italiano, 1/6/2013 10:18:09 AM (No. 9101456)
I wonder if they´ve done any informal polling of ATF agents and local LEOs to get a feel for how many of them are willing to "participate in implementing the ineitable gun confiscation phase."
You can read between the lines as to what I´m really getting at.
|
Reply 58 - Posted by:
MattMusson, 1/6/2013 10:34:10 AM (No. 9101475)
WATERLOO.
If Obama puts Gun Control as his first real iniative of his 2nd term - it is going explode in his face. The beginning of the end.
|
Reply 59 - Posted by:
curious1, 1/6/2013 10:43:53 AM (No. 9101487)
The gun-control solution to fix the problem should be to disarm every LP in the country, including the two trolls on this thread. This ´debate´ isn´t about ´safety´ - the socialists constantly bleated that back in the 60s and 70s and 80s when they rammed through their incremental unconstitutional laws. Only the truly, deeply, ignorant think it´s about safety this time around. Reality check - Lott and others published peer reviewed studies during and after the crazy gun-control talk of the last century - guess what? MORE guns, less crime! If the trolls and communists were truly concerned about safety they´d be pushing to eliminate their 20k+ asinine gun owner harassment laws already on the books and recognize the 2nd amendment. So it isn´t about safety, it´s about disarming the American population so socialism has an easy time taking over. If they seriously wanted to know what was right, there´s tons of fairly current research available to the public. You waste your time and breath arguing with socialists - they want their way, one way or the other.
|
Reply 60 - Posted by:
suncitypro, 1/6/2013 11:06:07 AM (No. 9101515)
The gun taker talkers will do just that--talk, talk, talk... And then it will go away--they get paid too well to upset the many people who will take that well paid job away from them. End of story. May God Bless Americans and their right to protect themselves.
|
Reply 61 - Posted by:
justavoter, 1/6/2013 11:07:09 AM (No. 9101516)
All of this gun talk is to distract us from this ludicrous spending. Obama is such a petulant child and it is high time the republicans ridicule Obama for what he is.
|
Reply 62 - Posted by:
RancherJack, 1/6/2013 11:40:53 AM (No. 9101572)
Ay Waco there was a holocaust of children
Holocaust in Hebrew means "burnt offering".
At Sandy Hook, one of the children murdered was Emile Parker, age 6.
So, why are there photographs of Emile Parker being hugged by Obama?
Photoshop is a marvelous tool, but seriously ...
Any of you who think the evil that is Washington DC is incapable of such planned horror as "sacrificing" children to drive the voters emotionally need to remember Waco and that Koresh could have been taken at any time away from the property yet the forces arrayed by Washington DC chose to burn children to death in a holocaust.
Please wrap your mind around that.
... and Washington murdering Vicky Weaver while holding her son in her arms.
... the Clinton death list
...in the last century over 250 million men women and children murdered by their own governments ...
|
Reply 63 - Posted by:
Zumkopf, 1/6/2013 11:49:06 AM (No. 9101586)
A wag once said that the Feds´ war on the Mafia was because the Government didn´t like the competition. The current wars on private enterprise, the "filthy rich" making $250k per year, and lawful gun owners provide further proof of the point.
|
Reply 64 - Posted by:
snichols, 1/6/2013 12:31:38 PM (No. 9101651)
Requiring registration only gives the government a list of where they can go to confiscate the weapon when the dictator takes over.
|
Reply 65 - Posted by:
mythman, 1/6/2013 12:35:48 PM (No. 9101657)
Hmm...a USA where the citizens will be deprived of guns, but where local and federal enforcement officers will have assault and automatic weapons to use against civilians. And the local police´s carrying out of Federal policies will determine whether they get Federal monies or not.
Sounds like Obama´s 2nd and 3rd term.
|
Reply 66 - Posted by:
Captain Howdy, 1/6/2013 1:11:05 PM (No. 9101699)
What possible use would knowing where every gun is and who owns it? I wonder, duh. Not that it would prevent any crimes or anything, but who cares. Also, I predict that the mere desire to own a gun is evidence of mental instability, therefore request denied.
|
Reply 67 - Posted by:
TXspyder, 1/6/2013 1:14:06 PM (No. 9101706)
One of my favorites!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis
|
Reply 68 - Posted by:
LadyHen, 1/6/2013 1:30:00 PM (No. 9101723)
Tired of magical thinking solutions that amount only to the penalization/hobbling of hundreds of millions of law abiding gun owning Americans to soothe the consciences of fool progressives (and even some people on this board) that think that if we just make the guns go away, read people´s minds, and predict the future via Obama´s mystical powers, we will all be safe and sound.
Get real and grow up!! The only thing that could have saved those people in Connecticut, Colorado, and elsewhere would have been a good guy with gun killing the bad guy with a gun. Until you come to this fact based realization, you are playing with illogical, magical, feelings based arguments and I don´t have time for you.
|
Reply 69 - Posted by:
flatwater, 1/6/2013 1:40:25 PM (No. 9101738)
Is Obama still selling guns to Mexican drug cartels?
We still haven´t received any answers as to WHY Obama was arming the world´s most violent drug cartels. There are over three hundred people MURDERED thanks to Barack Obama´s gun-running.
Shouldn´t we get answers from Wise King Barky first?
Shouldn´t the (p)Resident of the United States be forced to stop selling weapons to criminals?
If the (p)Resident wants to have a "national conversation on guns," I suggest we start by having him answer questions about "Operation Fast & Furious."
Stop hiding behind Executive Privilege, Barky.
Answer the damned questions, you corrupt Communist Coward.
|
Reply 70 - Posted by:
Penney, 1/6/2013 1:47:14 PM (No. 9101750)
0bama targets law abiding American taxpayers and the merit of the Constitution & Bill of Rights at every opportunity. That is his established political policy pattern. Yet he was apparently re-elected to continue his same old ignoring of the Constitution, The Bill of Rights and of his oath of office. Who knows what he will dream up next, ...or is it already scripted in leftist hollyweird?
|
Reply 71 - Posted by:
glcinpdx, 1/6/2013 1:59:02 PM (No. 9101766)
I´m with # 17...All In!
|
Reply 72 - Posted by:
uno, 1/6/2013 2:01:35 PM (No. 9101770)
Why go after responsible gun owners with new laws. Let´s face it, that is all they are really doing because they certainly aren´t enforcing the existing laws and they certainly aren´t keeping criminals off the streets as witnessed by the recent murders of firemen by a convicted murderer (oh snap, that´s right, he used a hammer...), and responsible gun owners are the only ones that actually follow laws. The Obamboozler is going after law abiding citizens because it is the path of least resistance. Law abiding people generally don´t fight back, so it´s just easier than going after the real criminals and potential criminals and placing the blame where it truly belongs. Just pass another law and hey, my job´s done, and if it furthers my agenda so much the better. It´s just like screaming “racism” at the drop of a pin. Even though there is no racism, reading “racism” into every obscure statement or word seems to work. So it´s a win-win for the Obamboozler who can use this to establish control over those “bitter hicks that cling to their guns and religion” while looking great to the dumbed-down Kool-Aid drinkers by couching it in something that sounds Politically Correct. And so he will continue to poke at the soft underbelly of law-abiding people because it´s just easier...for now.
|
Reply 73 - Posted by:
Lou E Brown, 1/6/2013 3:46:31 PM (No. 9101878)
This old saying can be applied by a little word substitution.´Your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins.´ Could be restated as ´My right to live by the clear meaning of the 2nd Amendment does not need to be determined by any body of government or of individuals.´ My gun is to protect what is mine, meaning my family and me. My property is mine to protect if need be, and I am an old lady, not a crazed hobbiest or nutcase out to enjoy loud noises and any kind of blood. I have the right to protect my home, and a county or city sheriff will agree that I can do what I must. And I shall. Joe Biden and crew are probably all armed and much more dangerous than I.
|
Reply 74 - Posted by:
bighambone, 1/6/2013 4:13:09 PM (No. 9101916)
Dangerous mentally ill people are the problem and that´s where the government should be directing its efforts. Everyone agrees that the dangerous mentally ill should not be able to purchase or possess firearms. There should be a narrow exception to the medical privacy laws so that medical records can be checked during background inquiries done on prospective firearms purchasers in relation to help identify people who are known dangerous mentally ill people.
Also the ATF Form 4473 that all gun buyers have to fill out could be restructured to require that all new gun buyers list three personal references who could be contacted, remember in each of the recent mass shootings just about all acquaintances of the perpetrators had knowledge that the perpetrator had serious mental problems but never told anyone because they were not asked.
While those initiatives might stop some dangerous mentally ill people from purchasing firearms, it certainly would not stop the the straw purchasers, and would not stop the dangerous mentally ill from stealing firearms from people who have a perfect right to possess firearms.
Obviously no gun control law is going to stop determined criminals.
|
Reply 75 - Posted by:
federale, 1/6/2013 4:25:26 PM (No. 9101931)
The dictator always wants to disarm his subjects because he fears them. That´s just the way it is.
|
Reply 76 - Posted by:
rc1776, 1/6/2013 4:30:46 PM (No. 9101937)
It is rumored that the feral gov.not House can and perhaps will deep six the revenoors (ATF) if the curtseying queen bath house queen Ø´blo the blamer tries to confiscate all guns with a marxist edict.
My questions is why can they not shut off the obscene splurging sasquatch and it´s mate spend on royalty style personal extravagances?
Personally I would prefer that we deport it to wherever it was manufactured and send sasquatch along with it´s groupies.
|
Reply 77 - Posted by:
Italiano, 1/6/2013 4:37:46 PM (No. 9101941)
Anyone who really believes that all of this has anything to do with Newtown, Columbine, Aurora or anywhere else, has his head up his...you get the idea.
Ergo, debate is pointless. Locking and loading, on the other hand, are not.
|
Reply 78 - Posted by:
fljack, 1/6/2013 4:45:37 PM (No. 9101948)
They will NOT take my guns. They were all destroyed by that big hurricane..yeah, that´s the ticket.
Seriously, the dems and the libs provided a much more dangerous activity by blocking any and all attempts at voter identification, voter roll verification and other such ilk. They naturally let the ACLU do the heavy lifting for them.
They killed America with voter fraud. The death of America as we knew it will lead to purges, sanctioned murders etc.
|
Reply 79 - Posted by:
bighambone, 1/6/2013 5:23:32 PM (No. 9101997)
What Obama and the liberal Democrats are really going for is the US small arms and related industries that are conservative Republican constituency groups.
Chances are the liberal Democrats will try to over reach on this issue, just as they did in the past, and just as they did before, will probably end up experiencing severe repercussions in the 2014 election.
|
Reply 80 - Posted by:
Medpig, 1/6/2013 5:49:28 PM (No. 9102011)
I believe the 1986 FOPA forbids the government from registering, or using Form 4473 in any electronic database. Of course, seeing as they stomp on every other rule in golf shoes, I´d expect them to do just this...
|
Reply 81 - Posted by:
LadyHen, 1/6/2013 6:21:18 PM (No. 9102037)
All the argument about "protecting people from guns" aside, truthfully THAT is the farthest thing from gun grabbers mind. They want to disarm us to make us easier to "manage" and control.
BUT to the mental health hand wringers on this forum... WHO gets to determine what is "dangerously mentally ill?" Obama? A band of doctors with an agenda? You? How can you guarantee sane law abiding people will not be re-categorized as "dangerously mentally ill" and completely disenfranchised from their constitutional rights simply because they don´t live the life you think is sane and safe? You can´t, so stop trying to do this touchy feely driven, magical thinking nonsense. That is the slipperiest of all slopes and you are willing to dive down it head first.
I will not hand over my right to protect myself and those I love to you or anyone who feels morally superior/politically correct enough to adjudicate my fitness as a human specimen without my consent nor my input.
Every law made in Washington can and will be abused by the right people at their right time. Less freedom is simply not the answer... more freedom is.
|
Reply 82 - Posted by:
Italiano, 1/6/2013 6:26:05 PM (No. 9102044)
"WHO gets to determine what is dangerously mentally ill?"
Kathleen Sibelius and Janet Napolitano, with Joycelyn Elders brought in as a medical expert tie-breaker. You got a problem with that?
|
Reply 83 - Posted by:
owl, 1/6/2013 8:28:37 PM (No. 9102200)
I invite the MEN of this site to go to American Spectator , where we can speak frankly .
|
Reply 84 - Posted by:
Susieq1, 1/6/2013 8:37:02 PM (No. 9102204)
So we should all ask our representatives, was this kid on medication for mental illness, if so what? All the other mass shooters were they also on drugs, check it out.
|
Reply 85 - Posted by:
Crosscut, 1/6/2013 11:21:28 PM (No. 9102365)
If there wasn´t such an idiot in the WH and Washington politicians and other public servants did their jobs competently, citizens wouldn´t be feeling the need to acquire firearms to protect their families and property. They are doing the responsible thing. They must also believe that there is some threat emanating from Washington, D.C. and big government.
|
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Dreadnought"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
|
Most Recent Articles posted by "Dreadnought"
|
GOP eager to link IRS scandal to ‘Obamacare’ takedown efforts
|
|
Washington Times, by Tom Howell Jr.
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: Dreadnought- 5/18/2013 1:27:20 AM
Post Reply
|
|
An exasperated Rep. Pat Tiberi on Friday asked the former acting chief of the IRS to explain to Congress why he would move the leader of the division that targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status to a branch that is overseeing one of the most partisan issues of recent memory — President Obama’s health care law. “Because she’s a superb civil servant, sir,” Steven Miller, who resigned under duress last week, told the Ohio Republican at a hearing before the House Committee on Ways and Means. The transfer of Sarah Hall Ingram to the helm
|
What If the Obama Scandals Had Surfaced Last Fall?
|
|
Power Line, by John Hinderaker
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: Dreadnought- 5/18/2013 1:19:58 AM
Post Reply
|
|
I was on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show last night, talking about the Benghazi talking point emails. Near the end of the segment, Hugh asked whether I thought the presidential election might have turned out differently if Obama and Clinton had not succeeded in covering up the truth about Benghazi. I was skeptical. The story of the election, I said, was the Obama campaign’s ability to turn out, once again, a large majority of the low-information voters who swept Obama into office in 2008. Few of those low-information voters, I said, would either have understood, or cared about, Benghazi
|
|
A Breach of Trust
|
|
Breitbart´s Big Government, by Susan Combs
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: Dreadnought- 5/18/2013 1:15:18 AM
Post Reply
|
|
As tax collector for the nation’s second-largest state, I know it’s a necessary function — from the fire station to the space station, nothing government does is possible without taxes. But it’s sure no path to popularity. Tax collectors have had a rotten reputation since biblical times. For all the services and all the people that depend on it, our work has to be viewed as fair and even-handed. It’s a basic bond of trust, and once that trust is lost, it’s hard to get back. Our entire nation was born when the colonists decided Britain’s taxes were unfair
|
Durbin Asked IRS’ Shulman to Probe ‘Several’ Conservative 501(c)(4) Groups in 2010
|
|
PJ Media, by Bridget Johnson
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: Dreadnought- 5/17/2013 10:28:31 PM
Post Reply
|
|
While many Democrats have joined Republicans in public shaming of the Internal Revenue Service for singling out conservative groups, others say the scandal is just a byproduct of muddied rules about nonprofits and political activity in the wake of the Citizens United ruling — and they’re hoping that they can steer the conversation from outrage over political targeting to fuel for campaign finance reform. But senior Dems may have much more than an opportunity to try to turn scandal to their advantage: they may have a degree of culpability as one especially vocal proponent
|
|
Higher-Ups Knew of IRS Case
|
|
Wall Street Journal, by John D. McKinnon*
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: Dreadnought- 5/17/2013 10:23:18 PM
Post Reply
|
|
The Internal Revenue Service´s watchdog told top Treasury officials around June 2012 he was investigating allegations the tax agency had targeted conservative groups, for the first time indicating that Obama administration officials were aware of the explosive matter in the midst of the president´s re-election campaign. The disclosure to the Treasury general counsel and the deputy secretary was a cursory one, according to J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration. He said he didn´t reveal conclusions of the probe, which was in its early stages, and his disclosure came as part
|
IRS Actions Show High- Level, Political Coordination
|
|
PJ Media, by Bryan Preston
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: Dreadnought- 5/17/2013 9:13:13 PM
Post Reply
|
|
In today’s hearing before the House Ways and Means Committee, outgoing not-really-fired commissioner Steven Miller admitted that a high-ranking member of the Internal Revenue Service planted the question that led to the agency’s apology for targeting conservatives. [IRS official] Lerner disclosed the information last Friday while speaking at a tax conference organized by the American Bar Association. Asked about the incident, she said only that she answered honestly a question that was posed to her. The question, however, was posed to Lerner by Celia Roady, a Washington, D.C. tax lawyer who sits
|
|
An Agency after Obama’s Own Heart
|
|
Tribune Media Services Inc., by Jonah Goldberg
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: Dreadnought- 5/17/2013 7:23:49 AM
Post Reply
|
|
Of course the president deserves some of the blame. Yes, it’s extremely unlikely he ordered the IRS to discriminate against tea-party, pro-life, or Jewish groups opposed to his agenda (though why anyone should take his word for it is beyond me). And his outrage now — however convenient — is appreciated. But when people he views as his “enemies” complained about a politicized IRS, what did he do? Nothing. Imagine for a moment if black civil-rights organizations, gay groups, or teachers’ unions loudly complained to members of Congress and the press that the IRS was discriminating against them.
|
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
|
Raindrops wash away reeling O’s fake veneer
|
|
New York Post, by Michael Goodwin
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: StormCnter- 5/17/2013 5:28:00 AM
Post Reply
|
|
Watching President Obama trying to dodge raindrops and responsibility yesterday reminded me of the moment when Dorothy pulls back the curtain and discovers that the Wizard of Oz is “just a man.” Stripped of his spell of mystery and power, the wizard is worse than mortal. He’s a fake. So it was with Obama in the Rose Garden. His performance was tired and trite, ordinary to the point of dull. His veneer of passion was so transparent that you could see him trying to summon his old-time magic by pushing the buttons
|
Obama a new Nixon? Oh, get serious.
|
|
Washington Post, by Editorial
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: Dreadnought- 5/16/2013 10:54:51 PM
Post Reply
|
|
STANDING BEFORE reporters Thursday, President Obama declined an invitation to compare the recent scandals weighing down his administration with those that forced President Nixon to resign in 1974. So allow us to do the work for him: There is no comparison. Nixon, in a series of crimes that collectively came to be known as Watergate, directed from the White House and Justice Department a concerted campaign against those he perceived as political enemies, in the process subverting the FBI, the IRS, other government agencies and the electoral process to his nefarious purposes. Mr. Obama has done nothing of the kind.
|
Weiner’s Wife Didn’t Disclose Consulting Work She Did While Serving in State Dept.
|
|
New York Times, by Raymond Hernandez
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: StormCnter- 5/17/2013 5:43:54 AM
Post Reply
|
|
The State Department, under Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton, created an arrangement for her longtime aide and confidante Huma Abedin to work for private clients as a consultant while serving as a top adviser in the department. Ms. Abedin did not disclose the arrangement — or how much income she earned — on her financial report. It requires officials to make public any significant sources of income. An adviser to Mrs. Clinton, Philippe Reines, said that Ms. Abedin was not obligated to do so. The disclosure of the agreement that Ms. Abedin made with the State Department comes as her husband,
|
NBC´s Todd Warns: If GOP Investigates Obama Scandals, ´The Voters Will Punish Them´
|
|
Newsbusters, by Kyle Drennen
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: Desert Fox- 5/16/2013 1:51:02 PM
Post Reply
|
|
On Thursday´s NBC Today, in a desperate attempt to deflect from the scandals engulfing the Obama administration, co-host Savannah Guthrie wondered: "I read a headline yesterday that said Republicans see blood in the water. That they see a president who´s very vulnerable politically. Is there a danger that they will overreach?" Chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd agreed with the slanted premise: "There is. I mean, that´s what happened to Republicans in 1998 with Bill Clinton.
|
When it rains, it pours: Ten press conference take aways
|
|
Washington Post, by Jennifer Rubin
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: Pluperfect- 5/17/2013 4:52:42 AM
Post Reply
|
|
President Obama’s press conference in the rain was not a success, if by success, his supporters would mean an event which convinces anyone who doesn’t work for him that he’s getting ahead of the scandal deluge. The sight of a Marine holding an umbrella over his head only added to the weirdness of the event. So what did we learn? 1. He has full confidence in Attorney General Eric Holder, the man who purportedly recused himself (whenever) without putting it in writing (whatever). When asked about the untrammeled snooping on Associated Press reporters and editors,
|
Obama 47 minutes late for his press conference; leaves reporters in the rain
|
|
Washington Examiner, by Charlie Spiering
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: KarenJ1- 5/16/2013 1:20:06 PM
Post Reply
|
|
“I look forward to taking some questions at tomorrow’s press conference,” President Obama said last night, after announcing the resignation of the acting IRS commissioner Steven Miller. The president scheduled a noon press conference today with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in honor of his visit. Reporters, however, found themselves waiting outside in the rain for Obama, who was 47 minutes late. Only New York Times reporter Mark Landler had an umbrella.
|
Fox’s Brit Hume: ‘Stupid’ For GOP To Think Of Impeaching Obama Over Recent Scandals
|
|
Mediaite, by Andrew Kirell
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: KarenJ1- 5/17/2013 5:05:46 PM
Post Reply
|
|
Appearing on Laura Ingraham‘s radio show this afternoon, Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume suggested some Republicans were “stupid” to consider impeachment of President Obama a viable response to the ongoing scandals regarding the Benghazi attacks, the IRS targeting of conservative groups, and the Justice Department secret seizure of AP phone records. Likely referring to some GOP lawmakers, including Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) who has put impeachment on the table as an option for handling the Benghazi fallout, Ingraham asked Hume to comment on how some Republican leaders have “ran to the microphone” to suggest removal
|
|
|

Home Page | Latest Posts | Links | Must Reads | Update Profile | Register | Rules & FAQs | Search | Post | Contact | RSS | Contribute | Logout | Forgot Password
© 2013 Lucianne.com Media Inc.
~~~c~~~
|