RejectedStone Posted April 18, 2013 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 40 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/02/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/03/1980 Share Posted April 18, 2013 Obama shows anger at those interfering with his anti-gun policies, but he doesn't get angry over the deaths of innocent people such as the Boston Marathon attacks or the Sandy Hook massacre. In fact Obama shows no anger over the things that would make most people angry but only shows anger when someone or something is interfering with his political agenda. What does this say about the President? You can decide. I think the President DID show anger and consternation about both the Sandy Hook and Boston atrocities. He also suffered a stinging defeat with his own party not supporting the proposed gun laws. The people don't want tighter restrictions and the Congress doesn't want to suffer the consequences of passing them. IMO, it's DOA... Actually, a majority of congress did support the Manchin-Toomey amendment, but it fell short of the 60 votes needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted April 18, 2013 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 599 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,254 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,983 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted April 18, 2013 But, I know he won't give up on his pursuit of the destruction of the US Constitution, so we have to challenge him every time he tries to undermine/usurp it. How exactly does expanding criminal background checks for firearm purchases destroy the Constitution? It gives them the ability to log all gun users after a time and makes it very easy to confiscate all of them at some time......... which has happened so many times in history, we don't want to give them the opportunity to do it again....... To the point, we don't trust the government with that information, and it's none of their business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted April 18, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.09 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted April 18, 2013 Obama shows anger at those interfering with his anti-gun policies, but he doesn't get angry over the deaths of innocent people such as the Boston Marathon attacks or the Sandy Hook massacre. In fact Obama shows no anger over the things that would make most people angry but only shows anger when someone or something is interfering with his political agenda. What does this say about the President? You can decide. I think the President DID show anger and consternation about both the Sandy Hook and Boston atrocities. He also suffered a stinging defeat with his own party not supporting the proposed gun laws. The people don't want tighter restrictions and the Congress doesn't want to suffer the consequences of passing them. IMO, it's DOA... Actually, a majority of congress did support the Manchin-Toomey amendment, but it fell short of the 60 votes needed. I beg to differ, R.S.; if a majority had supported it, it would have been sent on to the House. Of course, it would have died there anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qnts2 Posted April 18, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 20 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,875 Content Per Day: 0.70 Reputation: 1,336 Days Won: 9 Joined: 03/13/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted April 18, 2013 its the first step to complete confiscation rejected, first off, second, its none of the governments business. The second ammendment says we have the right to keep and bear arms-not the right only keep and bear arms that the government knows about. Seeing as the second amendment was put there, as a fail safe in case the government falls to tyranny, the government knowing where the guns are so they can confiscate them, kinda defeats the entire purpose of the second amendment. Saying that it's the first step to confiscation is ridiculous. This is akin to saying that there can be no limit to any constitutional rights. This isn't the case, and never has been. Are anti-libel laws the first step to the abolition of free speech? Are city permits the first step to taking way the right to peaceably assemble? Of course not. Also, the law in question didn't create a mechanism for the government to "know about" where all the guns were. It provided for criminal background checks for most (not all) gun sales. If the goverment wanted to know who legally owned guns, they could check the state permits. I suppose those are unconsitutional as well? Not all states require permits. While the federal government guarantees the right to bear arms, which no state can violate, it is up to the individual states to require permits or not, to exercise that right, and some state do not require permits of any kind. The question then becomes, if the feds were to require a criminal background check, how long are those records kept? That is how long the feds would be able to know who legally owned guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted April 18, 2013 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 27 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,714 Content Per Day: 2.45 Reputation: 8,535 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted April 18, 2013 its the first step to complete confiscation rejected, first off, second, its none of the governments business. The second ammendment says we have the right to keep and bear arms-not the right only keep and bear arms that the government knows about. Seeing as the second amendment was put there, as a fail safe in case the government falls to tyranny, the government knowing where the guns are so they can confiscate them, kinda defeats the entire purpose of the second amendment. Saying that it's the first step to confiscation is ridiculous. This is akin to saying that there can be no limit to any constitutional rights. This isn't the case, and never has been. Are anti-libel laws the first step to the abolition of free speech? Are city permits the first step to taking way the right to peaceably assemble? Of course not. Also, the law in question didn't create a mechanism for the government to "know about" where all the guns were. It provided for criminal background checks for most (not all) gun sales. If the goverment wanted to know who legally owned guns, they could check the state permits. I suppose those are unconsitutional as well? If you think that its ridiculous, then you really need to re-examine history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RejectedStone Posted April 18, 2013 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 40 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/02/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/03/1980 Share Posted April 18, 2013 But, I know he won't give up on his pursuit of the destruction of the US Constitution, so we have to challenge him every time he tries to undermine/usurp it. How exactly does expanding criminal background checks for firearm purchases destroy the Constitution? It gives them the ability to log all gun users after a time and makes it very easy to confiscate all of them at some time......... which has happened so many times in history, we don't want to give them the opportunity to do it again....... To the point, we don't trust the government with that information, and it's none of their business. You conspiracy theorist people really need to knock it off. It wouldn't be possible for the government to confiscate all the guns in a country this size. Not to mention dealing with the political backlash of even considering such a notion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RejectedStone Posted April 18, 2013 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 40 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/02/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/03/1980 Share Posted April 18, 2013 Obama shows anger at those interfering with his anti-gun policies, but he doesn't get angry over the deaths of innocent people such as the Boston Marathon attacks or the Sandy Hook massacre. In fact Obama shows no anger over the things that would make most people angry but only shows anger when someone or something is interfering with his political agenda. What does this say about the President? You can decide. I think the President DID show anger and consternation about both the Sandy Hook and Boston atrocities. He also suffered a stinging defeat with his own party not supporting the proposed gun laws. The people don't want tighter restrictions and the Congress doesn't want to suffer the consequences of passing them. IMO, it's DOA... Actually, a majority of congress did support the Manchin-Toomey amendment, but it fell short of the 60 votes needed. I beg to differ, R.S.; if a majority had supported it, it would have been sent on to the House. Of course, it would have died there anyway. The vote was 54-46: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/04/17/manchin-toomey-gun-amendment-fails/ But I agree, it was DOA in the House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted April 18, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.09 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted April 18, 2013 Obama shows anger at those interfering with his anti-gun policies, but he doesn't get angry over the deaths of innocent people such as the Boston Marathon attacks or the Sandy Hook massacre. In fact Obama shows no anger over the things that would make most people angry but only shows anger when someone or something is interfering with his political agenda. What does this say about the President? You can decide. I think the President DID show anger and consternation about both the Sandy Hook and Boston atrocities. He also suffered a stinging defeat with his own party not supporting the proposed gun laws. The people don't want tighter restrictions and the Congress doesn't want to suffer the consequences of passing them. IMO, it's DOA... Actually, a majority of congress did support the Manchin-Toomey amendment, but it fell short of the 60 votes needed. I beg to differ, R.S.; if a majority had supported it, it would have been sent on to the House. Of course, it would have died there anyway. The vote was 54-46: http://www.washingto...mendment-fails/ But I agree, it was DOA in the House. Okay, you're right; I forgot that they needed 60 votes. Still, the political courage is just not there to pass that bill. It would be career ending and the congressional sheep know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinky Posted April 18, 2013 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 200 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 1,602 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 291 Days Won: 8 Joined: 10/24/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/01/1986 Share Posted April 18, 2013 But, I know he won't give up on his pursuit of the destruction of the US Constitution, so we have to challenge him every time he tries to undermine/usurp it. How exactly does expanding criminal background checks for firearm purchases destroy the Constitution? It gives them the ability to log all gun users after a time and makes it very easy to confiscate all of them at some time......... which has happened so many times in history, we don't want to give them the opportunity to do it again....... To the point, we don't trust the government with that information, and it's none of their business. You conspiracy theorist people really need to knock it off. It wouldn't be possible for the government to confiscate all the guns in a country this size. China did it, and the USSR also - both bigger than the United States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RejectedStone Posted April 18, 2013 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 40 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/02/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/03/1980 Share Posted April 18, 2013 its the first step to complete confiscation rejected, first off, second, its none of the governments business. The second ammendment says we have the right to keep and bear arms-not the right only keep and bear arms that the government knows about. Seeing as the second amendment was put there, as a fail safe in case the government falls to tyranny, the government knowing where the guns are so they can confiscate them, kinda defeats the entire purpose of the second amendment. Saying that it's the first step to confiscation is ridiculous. This is akin to saying that there can be no limit to any constitutional rights. This isn't the case, and never has been. Are anti-libel laws the first step to the abolition of free speech? Are city permits the first step to taking way the right to peaceably assemble? Of course not. Also, the law in question didn't create a mechanism for the government to "know about" where all the guns were. It provided for criminal background checks for most (not all) gun sales. If the goverment wanted to know who legally owned guns, they could check the state permits. I suppose those are unconsitutional as well? If you think that its ridiculous, then you really need to re-examine history. Have the existing gun regulations proven to be the first steps to confiscation? Nope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts