Monday, March 2, 2009
Obama overreach
Is Obama trying to do too much too soon. I kind of think so. Stimulus, credit crisis, energy, health care AND education reforms are all on his agenda, like a guy with too many cars in the garage. I wish he'd pick a couple things - economoy and health care — in my opinion, and to focus on. But, perhaps people are ready for massive change. Status quo kind of stinks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Add gun control to that list, as he and his cronies have already began their assault on the second amendment.
The right to bear arms was written for militias, not stupid drunk people...oh, let me guess, they have to pass a background check first. Does that test for stupidity and alchohol consumption?
I own guns. I am neither stupid, nor drunk. I have had many background checks, and have held high security clearances in the military. Anonymous@6:00 opinion holds no relevance to the vast majority of gun owners in the United States. Like most controversial subjects, it it a very small minority that everyone focuses on.
Of all the issues the country has right now, gun control (!?!) REALLY, your worried about gun control? Guns are a hobby, not an issue.
Do you really think that there should be no gun control?
For the majority of guys I know in this part of the country - if they want guns, they should not have any. If they care nothing about guns, they should be allowed to have them. Funny how that works.
Yes, it's that "small minority" that needs guns controlled. Nobody that I know of wants to take guns away from hunters.
It is a much "smaller minority" of citizens (if there are any) that actually thwart crime and protect themselves by carrying a gun in public.
Common sense and logic dictate that fewer guns in public translates to more public safety. It's that simple...
Wow... prime examples of the typical liberal response to the word "gun".
Listen to this friends:
GUNS won us our freedom from England.
GUNS defended our country from the Nazis.
GUNS have saved millions of lives, not only in wars and by police usage, but by law abiding folks defending themselves or their homes.
The right to bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. The person who posted at 6:00 PM is obviously ignorant to the fact that the supreme court of the United States (that's the country you live in... the one you have sworn your allegiance to) has recently ruled that the second amendment provides an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms.
@ Drew: While it's true that shooting is a hobby, the primary reason for gun ownership is SELF DEFENSE. To defend one's home and family against those who would do wrong.
Gun control does not lower crime. In fact, when D.C. instituted their now famous gun ban that was just overruled by the Supreme Court, their crime rate skyrocketed. NEWSFLASH Criminals don't follow the law! Criminals will always have guns.
Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens deter crime... it's a proven fact. If the bad guys don't know who has a gun, they will think twice before attacking them. For example, if a bad guy wanted to do a home invasion, who's house do you thin he'd choose, mine or yours? I bet you know the answer. Remember... when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Here, don't take my word for it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ
OK, so why don't we allow guns in public only while we are defending ourselves at war in the town we live in? I'll go for that.
Yes, militias and federal troops carried the guns against England, your point?
When did the Nazis threaten our country again?
That's a HUGE exaggeration by using "millions." Where's the proof?
Where's the proof that criminals "think twice" in areas that guns are allowed in public?
Since you like to talk about "hypotheticals," how about this one... Which situation is most likely to have the most people alive at the end of the story? 1. No guns in public. 2. One gun being used illegally by a criminal. 3. Two guns being used, one illegally by criminal and one legally by John Doe Citizen.
The same logic you'll try to use to defeat the right answer can be used to defeat your argument for number 3.
My issue with guns is when they are brought into public. Leave them in your home that you think you will need to defend sometime against all the "bad guys."
Here are the responses you asked for. I will give references when applicable:
"OK, so why don't we allow guns in public only while we are defending ourselves at war in the town we live in? I'll go for that."
How do you know when your life is going to be threatened? If the "bad guys" promise to call us ahead of time and tell us that they are going to abduct us or carjack us, or go on a shooting rampage in a crowded restaraunt, then I will promise to leave my gun at home until I get that call. DEAL?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp
"Yes, militias and federal troops carried the guns against England, your point?"
The point is, without guns in the hands of citizens... because militias back then were just groups of neighbors and citizens fighting for a common cause, much as we would today if a cause came along, we would all still be under English rule.
http://www.historycentral.com/revolt/
"When did the Nazis threaten our country again?"
Ever hear of WORLD WAR 2? Maybe you were gone that day in World History class. Oh what, did you think they would have stopped at the border if they hadn't been defeated? Surely Hitler didn't want to rule the WHOLE world, did he?? hmmm I guess we'll never know, because he was defeated by men with guns, including my father.
http://www.worldwar-2.net/
"That's a HUGE exaggeration by using "millions." Where's the proof?
Where's the proof that criminals "think twice" in areas that guns are allowed in public?"
Did you watch the videos in my post? I guess not.
http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx
Since you like to talk about "hypotheticals," how about this one... Which situation is most likely to have the most people alive at the end of the story? 1. No guns in public. 2. One gun being used illegally by a criminal. 3. Two guns being used, one illegally by criminal and one legally by John Doe Citizen.
Since number one is an impossibility, due to the fact that even if you pass the strictest gun control laws ever known, Criminals will still have guns, I say number 3. Easily. How many massacres or abductions or murders could have been stopped if a citizen would have been lawfully armed and ready to act?
http://www.wmsa.net/gratia-hupp_1992.htm
http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx
"The same logic you'll try to use to defeat the right answer can be used to defeat your argument for number 3."
Not. Go ahead and try... criminals will ALWAYS have guns. They don't go down to the local gun store and fill out an application and have their background checked. Sorry to break it to you, but they don't care about laws. Drugs are illegal... burglary, rape, murder... all illegal. Yet they happen avery day because criminals don't follow the laws. Why would you expect them to follow gun laws?
"My issue with guns is when they are brought into public. Leave them in your home that you think you will need to defend sometime against all the "bad guys."
See number one.
Let me sum it up for you. Guns are simply tools. Much as a hammer is to a carpenter. Yes, guns are dangerous if used improperly, and should only be used by people who know what they are doing. If you feel that you have no desire or need for a gun, then by all means, don't use one. I however, do have a right to bear arms, and to protect my family and myself from criminals who might prey on us. If you choose to lay down and die rather than fight back, then that is your right... just don't ask me to do the same. I worked in law enforcement for many years, and put my life on the line to protect people who were too weak or scared to protect themselves. I have seen families torn apart by violence. Violence that might have been stopped if they had acted. I don't rely on anyone but me to protect me and mine.
funny video on gun control
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dec_1236442486
Anonymous @9:36:
Great research! Too bad it doesn't make sense...nor apply to the arguement.
It was great research. They just don't have an answer to it, so they sling mud. Silly liberals.
Post a Comment