Obama considering an executive order on gun control (Page 9)

STOP APPLYING LOGIC!!!

Looks like the executive order is being announced tomorrow.

The use of children as props for political gain is absolutely sickening. 

The very basis of what makes us human is the emotional reflexes we have to protect our children. Playing to that emotion makes us vulnerable to latch on to any solution - real or not- that would end human suffering. 

A man that preys on that emotion, that human vulnerability, for political gain knowing full well that he will not reduce human suffering uses power for contemptible purposes  

http://wapo.st/UoTLmf

Jackemy for Pres 2016!

awesome.

So regardless of how I store my firearms or the precautions I take, if a criminal somehow manages to steal them,,,,, according to you, I'm irresponsible? 

Pardon me while I call this bulls snot!

Is this your idea of a compromise?

"Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. I received it from the 2nd amendment and the Dick act of 1902.
...
Along you come and say, "Give me that cake." I say, "No, it's my cake." You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

You say, "Let's compromise once more." What do I get out of this compromise? I get to keep one eighth of what's left of the cake I already own?

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Machine gun ban of 1986 -- and I'm left holding what is now just an eighth of my cake.

I sit back in the corner with just my eighth of cake that I once owned outright and completely, I glance up and here you come once more.

You say nothing and just grab my cake; This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise"."

https://www.facebook.com/PATRIOTS4GUNS?ref=ts&fref=ts

Anybody who thinks obama is completely ignoring the economy has it all wrong.  Gun & ammo sales at a local gun show last weekend were off the charts.

It made most of the local newscasts and the reason every single person there cited was this administrations fervent desire to limit access to guns.

I just wish someone had spent a fraction of the intellectual & political capital to actually think about school safety!

Really, could you tell me what the difference is?

Based on what you said I can't see a bit of difference.

Tell me what compromise you are referring to. I've not seen one proposed.

Since you are the one asking for more "compromise" tell me what I've received as a benefit for the "compromises" that have been forced on me since 1968.

How many gun laws were on the books in 1968 that directly affect law abiding citizens and how many are there now?

jobaxas - 2013-01-15 10:37 PM well news headlines in Australia - New York imposes stricter gun laws - haven't read the details but it was newsworthy here (after Lance!)

Toughest restrictions ever. So glad to hear gun crimes will be down this year in New York.

powerman - 2013-01-15 11:47 PM

jobaxas - 2013-01-15 10:37 PM well news headlines in Australia - New York imposes stricter gun laws - haven't read the details but it was newsworthy here (after Lance!)

Toughest restrictions ever. So glad to hear gun crimes will be down this year in New York.

Nobody will pay attention to the numbers (facts).....it just doesn't fit the emotional "feel good" that some people need.  Admittedly, I don't get it.  Crime is down on the path we're on......look at the facts, not the emotion.

And yeah......it's easy to play to the emotions of people, as a politician, when you have bodyguards and CCW licenses and want votes...I guess I just don't like being "played".

Perhaps since ideas are also so dangerous that we should limit the number of words that news papers can print in a new article, or limit the number of pages of a novel. 

Anyone in favor of this?  Why not?

I've re-read the Heller decision, yet again.  And I am struck by one thing, the actual lack of veracity of those that argue that "no one" is trying to take your guns away.  This simply isn't true.  The D.C. law challenged in Heller, was according to the U.S. Supreme Court: "The District of Columbia generally prohibits the possession of handguns. It is a crime to carry an unregistered firearm, and the registration of handguns is prohibited."

In Analysing the specifics of the D.C. law the Courted noted: "We turn finally to the law at issue here. As we have said, the law totally bans handgun possession in the home."

Hmmmmm....the Supreme Court in Heller noted "It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed."

So, accuse me if I don't buy the line that "no one is trying to take away your guns", because the FACTS of pro-control history, yes the FACTS, show something totally different. 

Hehe...I hope not!