Obama considering an executive order on gun control (Page 11)

Not really a counter, just pointing out that the NRA was ridiculed that their only answer was more guns. SROs are more guns. You (general you) can't ridicule and endorse something at the same time.

Ehhh... care to apply the same test the rest of the rights? That's the sticky thing about rights... they apply to everyone not just who you consider worthy. That would just be a privilege.

And no, I do not agree with "more guns" for everyone. Some choose not to go that route and that's OK. "More guns" is not the solution to violence... because there is no solution to violence. Gun control isn't  a "solution", locking up mentally ill isn't a solution. There isn't "A" solution. Violence will be a part of us until the red giant swallows us up.

Yep, nothing here to see but your bias. Move along...

And we know that he would never invite NYPD or NYFD to the White House or hold a press conference with them in the background.  Oops.....

Homeland Security....nah, certainly he wouldn't

They are politicians.  Of course they use people as props.  They ALL do.  In fact, they have staff members whose job is to do these types of things. 

This one makes my eyebrows perk up.  As they say the devil is in the details.

What if he considers a DUI conviction to make you a dangerous person?
What about a speeding ticket?

Making up unrealistic examples, but this line item basically tells me the AG gets to decide what crimes ban people from owning a firearm which seems pretty unconstitutional.

Well this is step one.

Tuwood mentioned one of my first concerns about Holder re-defining who can own a firearms and the details.

How many Billions are we spending on this and what will it likely accomplish?

So far all I really know is what I heard him say earlier today and a bit of what I heard on the radio and read here this evening. I remember him saying he'd cut the deficit in half so I don't put a lot of stock in his words. I'll wait to see what he does and encourages the congress to pass.

I thought he should have had a #24, no soda's bigger than 7 ounces. Oh well.

As I said before, I hope you are right.

Don't worry, just move south of the border and the AG will send you one courtesy of the Justice Dept.

The difference is that the prop people in these pictures had something to do with the laws being passed. No child left behind, a homeland security speech. Obama picks kids to stand by him while talking about gun control.

I know they all do it. I was a prop a few times (The Citadel, Marine Corps, veteran). My point is how over the top this administration does it. He didn't need to have kids next to him for this. It's tacky and you know it.

But that isn't what you said.  Bolded the first and then your clarification.

How about this one, taken when Bush vetoed federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. What's the correlation between these babies and stem cell research? These babies were all the result of "adopted embryos". But Bush was not signing a law stating that all leftover embryos must be given up for adoption. He was not making it illegal to destroy unused embryos. He used the babies as a cheap ploy to make Americans relate stem cell research with killing cute, little, innocent babies. Just as Obama used the children as a cheap ploy to make Americans relate his gun control measures as necessary to prevent these cute, little, innocent 1st graders from being mowed down by evil guns.

Yes, it's tacky. Yes, every politician does it. There's a reason politicians have kissed babies for hundreds of years. It tugs at the heartstrings to see them caring about the future of our country. But if you think either side wouldn't step over their mother to get an extra vote or a bigger campaign finance check, you haven't been paying attention.

(bush.jpg)

Politicians are lame no matter the party. For all the Obama haters you have the Bush haters so it's nothing new and people need lighten up Francis.

Let's all just cut to the chase!

(kitteh.jpg)

The kitten never would have been put into that position if he was packing heat!  

Fortunately, the gun will be limited to 7 bullets...quick math tells me kitty will still be left with 2 lives thanks to the new 7 round limit.  

Thank you so much for this post! I have been wracking my brain trying to figure out why 7 rounds is so much better than 10. Know that I know it is to protect the kittys it all makes sense!

I think CD's post is hilarious,

but the 7 round magazine is a standard magazine for a .45 acp 1911.  That's what it was when they made the first one in response to the need for "stopping power" to kill guerillas in the Philippines.  I think that's the reason for the 7 round clip.  If you stack 7 .45 acp rounds on-top of each other, they fit in your hand (or in a pistol grip).

A revolver usually holds 5 or 6 depending on the caliber so 7 was just one more in 1911. And they could load so much quicker than they could load a revolver.

The 10 round clip seems a little more arbitrary. The magazines used in the original M16s in Vietnam (the predecessor to the AR15) had a 10-round magazine which was twice the rounds of the standard M14 clip which had 5. 

Of course nowadays, riflemen carry 30-round clips for M16A2s and other variants and 100 round drums for the 5.56 mm Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW).

Of course, you always add 1 to the capacity of a magazine because you could have a round chambered so 7 round clip + 1 in the chamber for the .45, 11 for the M16, etc.  The SAW doesn't count because it's an open-bolt weapon...

I also think that gun is a 9mm Beretta.  Those have a 10 and a 15 round clip.  We had the 15 round clips in the Military.  So that cat is toast either way.