Obama's secret assassins

[EastUS1]

No where in the COTUS does it say that regulations cannot be placed upon the ownership of such weapons.

Stop your crying already.


Wow a marine who is against gun regulations. What next, a race car driver against racing restrictions?

"If the gun nuts had a brain.."? Sigh! Words just fail me here. You obviously presume yourself capable of judging "sanity" based purely on your estimation, and even more amusing, directly imply that YOU have "a brain", which has thus far, been nowhere evidenced in this discussion.

"Stop your crying already"...? Huh?

"Wow a marine who is against gun regulations. What next, a race car driver against racing restrictions?" Thanks for at once both displaying your contempt for his Service as a Marine along with the implied notion that he's unworthy of consideration as a thinking person, or even a citizen worthy of Rights....while of course, you and your "us" are? I just couldn't make this stuff up. 😉

Au final, and perhaps your most unintentionally hilarious part = "No where in the COTUS does it say that regulations cannot be placed upon the ownership of such weapons." Umm...Exactly WHAT part of "shall not be infringed" did you willfully miss here? 🙂

 

[Ms Tree]

What ever.

I have nothing but admiration for those in service. I just do not happen to think their opinion is worth any more that I anyone else.

Have you read the 1st? Where does it say that this right may be infringed upon? And yet you cannot cry fire, slander someone .... No rights are absolute.

By the way, the 2nd is based on occasion a well regulated militia, something that you seem to leave out when you speak of this right.

 

[EastUS1]

I have nothing but admiration for those in service. I just do not happen to think their opinion is worth any more that I anyone else.

"I have nothing but admiration for those in service." Umm...are you sure that's at ALL sincerely meant? After all...many such people are "gun nuts", and we musn't so quickly forget your "thoughts" as to "If the gun nuts had a brain.."? 😉

" I just do not happen to think their opinion is worth any more that I..." Of course you or your supposed "us" don't. That's axiomatic. 😉 Heck...You've made that VERY clear indeed. In much the same way as you would disregard a race car driver's notions on speeding...you show equal contempt for a trained and combat theater experienced Marine's thoughts on firearms. After all?...Who would ever reasonably defer to people that actually have the training and experience needed to have real knowledge of what they're discussing? Self-serving and entirely uneducated opinions are so much more fun to have, and a whole lot easier to generate, aren't they?

 

[Ms Tree]

Yes. My definition of gun nut apparently is different than yours.

And you place the opinion of a soldier over that of the police who deal with this on a daily basis here in the US. Why do you have such contempt for law enforcement? I know you don't so can we lay off the BS I have contempt for the military?

Soldier have expertise in combat and forgiven conflicts. Police have expertise in domestic gun policy and their use. So who has more experience and knowledge of guns in the US?

 

[EastUS1]

Yes. My definition of gun nut apparently is different than yours.

And you place the opinion of a soldier over that of the police who deal with this on a daily basis here in the US. Why do you have such contempt for law enforcement?


Soldier have expertise in combat and forgiven conflicts. Police have expertise in domestic gun policy and their use. So who has more experience and knowledge of guns in the US?

"Soldier have expertise in combat and forgiven conflicts." Umm..."forgiven" conflicts? That's sure kind-hearted on your part, I mean "forgiving" the soldiers and all. 😉

"Why do you have such contempt for law enforcement? " Hardly.


"Police have expertise in domestic gun policy and their use. So who has more experience and knowledge of guns in the US?" Good point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVTinsrDbQs


From yet another Sheriff: "Our Constitution is a sacred document.......and this is what's being assaulted right now".

 

[Ms Tree]

So now you are the spelling police? Meant to write foreign but you knew that didnt you?

Do you think if I look a little I might find one or two police chiefs who are in favor of stronger gun regulations?

http://www.ctmirror.org/story/18916/newtown-police-chief-meets-obama-biden

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=23891537

We can play this game all day. Bottom line is regulations will be placed on gun ownership. You can either help formulate them to make them more rational or not. I don't own a gun so I really don't care. Those who do own guns or want to buy guns might want ro get involved.

 

[EastUS1]

So now you are the spelling police? Meant to write foreign but you knew that didnt you?

I don't own a gun so I really don't care. Those who do own guns or want to buy guns might want ro get involved.

1) How would I presume telepathy? I figure it for more of a classic, Freudian slip. "Forgiven" doesn't match up well with Foreign, unless I'm really missing something here.

2) Great! How about taking the next step and placing "Gun Free Zone" signs around your house and a sticker or two on whatever vehicles you, for the moment at least, own? Be proud of your earnest convictions here! Oh!...I'd almost forgot that you "don't really care" 😉

"Those who do own guns or want to buy guns might want ro get involved." Sigh!...You've missed that such is already happening? Good luck trying to find any "assault rifles" currently in stock anywhere, since they're flying off display shelves and walls now faster than EVER before. That obama's a truly brilliant little punk. 😉

" Bottom line is regulations will be placed on gun ownership." Gee! That's going to fix everything then...especially considering that over two THOUSAND gun laws currently exist! The real bottom line is that your sort inevitably depend on others to protect you from harm. I can't even begin to tell you how truly pathetic I find that sort of "philosophy" to be.

 

[southwind]

I think we are focusing on the wrong issue. The capacity and capabilities of the weapons are secondary. What we should be focusing on is regulating access to weapons. They need to be titled, registered, back ground check for everyone and the weapons need to be secured.

Worrying about capacity and rate of fire will just get in you in a pissing match with the gun folks and nothing will get accomplished.

Yeah, we need to make it so criminals can't buy guns from criminals...................wait, they're going to do background checks on their clients, right ?

 

[KCFlyer]

Yeah, we need to make it so criminals can't buy guns from criminals...................wait, they're going to do background checks on their clients, right ?

So because our cursory background checks don't prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands, strengthening a background check won't do any good, so why bother. The guy that shot Gabrielle Giffords legally bought his gun because of a TECHNICALITY. Yet any attempt to eliminate that TECHNICALITY is viewed by those who like to cite the constitiution, but only seem to believe that it has a "bill of right" and all the others are just fluff, as an infringement of their right to protect themselves from the government, and by extension, from the US military, because they do not trust them any farther than they can throw them .

They ignore the "well regulated militia" part of the bill of right because, well, we didn't hae an army back then so the forefathers had to put it in there. But times change.

Apparently our super intelligent and scientifically gifted forefathers who KNEW that one day we would have weapons of firing over 100 rounds ln less than 10 seconds, but apparently DOUBTED that we would have an Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard and National Guard, so they needed to leave the reference to the militia in there.

 

[delldude]

So because our cursory background checks don't prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands, strengthening a background check won't do any good, so why bother. The guy that shot Gabrielle Giffords legally bought his gun because of a TECHNICALITY. Yet any attempt to eliminate that TECHNICALITY is viewed by those who like to cite the constitiution, but only seem to believe that it has a "bill of right" and all the others are just fluff, as an infringement of their right to protect themselves from the government, and by extension, from the US military, because they do not trust them any farther than they can throw them .

They ignore the "well regulated militia" part of the bill of right because, well, we didn't hae an army back then so the forefathers had to put it in there. But times change.

Apparently our super intelligent and scientifically gifted forefathers who KNEW that one day we would have weapons of firing over 100 rounds ln less than 10 seconds, but apparently DOUBTED that we would have an Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard and National Guard, so they needed to leave the reference to the militia in there.

Army and other military groups aren't a militia.

 

[southwind]

So because our cursory background checks don't prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands, strengthening a background check won't do any good, so why bother. The guy that shot Gabrielle Giffords legally bought his gun because of a TECHNICALITY. Yet any attempt to eliminate that TECHNICALITY is viewed by those who like to cite the constitiution, but only seem to believe that it has a "bill of right" and all the others are just fluff, as an infringement of their right to protect themselves from the government, and by extension, from the US military, because they do not trust them any farther than they can throw them .

They ignore the "well regulated militia" part of the bill of right because, well, we didn't hae an army back then so the forefathers had to put it in there. But times change.

Apparently our super intelligent and scientifically gifted forefathers who KNEW that one day we would have weapons of firing over 100 rounds ln less than 10 seconds, but apparently DOUBTED that we would have an Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard and National Guard, so they needed to leave the reference to the militia in there.

Is the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard or National Guard going to be at your house, when thugs kick in your door ? Or the police, for that matter ?

Let's see, six rounds and 4 thugs.................better be a good shot !

 

[KCFlyer]

Is the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard or National Guard going to be at your house, when thugs kick in your door ? Or the police, for that matter ?

Let's see, six rounds and 4 thugs.................better be a good shot !

Or use a shotgun where one shot can hit all 4. From what I have read from posters on this board, a shotgun is deadlier at close range than those Hello Kitty assault rifles. But if you want to expand on your ludicruious scenario...what if there are 35 thugs breaking into your home and you've only got 30 shots?

And don't confuse the issue...gun ownership isn't about protecting you or your home...it's for protecting the constitution. That's the argument given for the need for assault rifles. Read most any gun thread here...even this one. It's all about protecting the constitution.

 

[KCFlyer]

Army and other military groups aren't a militia.

Is the Michigan Militia "well regulated", or do they tend to ignore THOSE words in the discussion of their second amendment rights?

 

[delldude]

Or use a shotgun where one shot can hit all 4. From what I have read from posters on this board, a shotgun is deadlier at close range than those Hello Kitty assault rifles. But if you want to expand on your ludicruious scenario...what if there are 35 thugs breaking into your home and you've only got 30 shots?

And don't confuse the issue...gun ownership isn't about protecting you or your home...it's for protecting the constitution. That's the argument given for the need for assault rifles. Read most any gun thread here...even this one. It's all about protecting the constitution.

Its for the populace keeping the government in check.

And a shotgun isn't deadlier, its more effective or efficient at those ranges.

 

[KCFlyer]

Its for the populace keeping the government in check.

And a shotgun isn't deadlier, its more effective or efficient at those ranges.

So who do you shoot? Is it like Obama or Pelosi is going to go door to door? Or are we going to water down the definition of "assassination", or are you REALLY willing to stand there and face down an M1 tank with your AR15?