#845948 Jan 24, 2013
Given a choice to vote "for" or "against" nine of President Obama's key proposals to reform the nation's gun laws, Americans support all of them, a new Gallup poll released Wednesday found.
Notably, Americans back criminal background checks for gun sales 91% to 8%, more mental health programs 82% to 15%, reinstating a federal assault weapons ban 60% to 35% and limiting the sale of high-capacity magazines to 10 rounds per clip 54% to 43%, the poll finds.
"The question does not tell respondents that all nine proposals come from Obama's recently released plan to reduce gun violence; however, the wordings used to describe them intentionally follow the White House's "Now Is the Time" plan descriptions," Gallup says.
Since: Nov 09
#845949 Jan 24, 2013
You awarded yourself 10 brilliants for this dumbass post? It was 5 A.M., there weren't even ten people on this site. You are a pathetic piece of shit.
#845950 Jan 24, 2013
Pa. Lawmaker Introduces Bill To Make Federal Gun Laws Unenforceable In State
they wouldn't be worried if there was no reason to be worried.
they've been looking at the polls, and once again, they don't care what the majority wants.
#845952 Jan 24, 2013
Since: Dec 10
#845954 Jan 24, 2013
You are dancing around so much it looks like you are trying out for "Dancing with the Stars".
You still haven't answered the question. I'll help you. Here's the question you've been running away from for more than two weeks now:
So, where was Obama during the 7-hour battle between Al Qaeda and the stripped-down American security detatchment while the real-time video was being watched in the White House, and the orders for the AC-130 to stand down were given, the support mission from Tripoli was ordered delayed, and the Force Recon unit in Sigonella that was moved to Sigonella for the explicit and sole purpose of responding to an attack on the embassy in Libya was ordered to stand down?
Where was Obama for these 7 hours?
The White House watched the entire battle as it was happening. Where was Obama when the White House watched the Americans get hung out to dry in Benghazi?
The senior order giver is the White House. The White House is watching the battle in real-time. The orders to abandon the Americans in Benghazi came from the White House.
Where was Obama when the White House ordered all support for the Americans being killed by Al Qaeda in Benghazi to stand down?
Where was you boy?
If he was doing his goddam job, he would be watching the video real-time with everyone else in the White House and giving the orders.
Where was Obama during the 7-hour battle between Al Qaeda and the stripped-down American security detatchment while the real-time video was being watched in the White House?
And, what happened to the Obama lie that the event was the result of a spontaneous demonstration that got out of control (that was seen to be a blatant lie when the video was being watched real-time in the White House) caused by a video that didn't even exist when Al Qaeda planned the attack and had a whopping grand total of 17 hits world-wide before the Obama lie blamed the event on it?
Well? Got an answer for these questions?
Then, tell us where the money will come from to pay for Obama's government.
#845955 Jan 24, 2013
1289 days, 14 hours and 23 minutes and counting down.....till beat it-NEW material-FOR the United States of America, NOT the divided states of thieve from others robbinghoodieTicwink regimism!!!!
#845956 Jan 24, 2013
The Hitler gun control lie
Gun rights activists who cite the dictator as a reason against gun control have their history dangerously wrong
If you’re going to impose a brutal authoritarian regime on your populace, better to disarm them first so they can’t fight back.
Unfortunately for LaPierre et al., the notion that Hitler confiscated everyone’s guns is mostly bogus. And the ancillary claim that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust with more guns doesn’t make any sense at all if you think about it for more than a minute.
University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explored this myth in depth in a 2004 article published in the Fordham Law Review. As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitler’s, actually had tougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.
The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did.“The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.
The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general. Does the fact that Nazis forced Jews into horrendous ghettos indict urban planning? Should we eliminate all police officers because the Nazis used police officers to oppress and kill the Jews? What about public works — Hitler loved public works projects? Of course not. These are merely implements that can be used for good or ill, much as gun advocates like to argue about guns themselves. If guns don’t kill people, then neither does gun control cause genocide (genocidal regimes cause genocide).
some nutjob will hit us with: who cares what some professor said?
so Rush/FOX are accredited historians?
well they do know something about unicorns.
#845957 Jan 24, 2013
"Rush Limbaugh is a wind bag", but a high paid one. Ratings may come before the good of the Republican Party?
The GOP problem was R L was a leader of the Republican Party rather than Sen.John McCain, from 2009 to 2011.
Senator McCain's robust attack on Sec of State Hillary Clinton was in part theater.
McCain need to lead the party until someone can be found.
Bush family seems disinterested at the moment???
#845958 Jan 24, 2013
Start spreadin the news....
On pace for 100 this year!
Ban guns and Coca-Cola®
Since: Dec 10
#845959 Jan 24, 2013
Well, dufus, if it's that simple, just tell us.
Where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government?
A simple source of money is all that's required to answer this question.
#845960 Jan 24, 2013
Once again they see obama making a power grab ,nothing more , btw polls are easily manipulated , the best way to see how America feels about guns would be for you to volunteer to confiscate them .
#845961 Jan 24, 2013
Not enough brooms supplied there either following years of Oblowbag Kennedy regime huh?
How's the tax gouges going thar in Massa'gouge'emville this year? All the little working class above table peons gathering their pennies up okay?
#845962 Jan 24, 2013
now that they have guns they can just shoot all of the lowlifes who usually get away with rape.
Why Won’t the Military Take Troop-on-Troop Rape Seriously?
Rush will have a fit the first time one of his ilk gets shot.
#845963 Jan 24, 2013
Since: Dec 10
#845964 Jan 24, 2013
bullshit. Do you ever open your mouth and not lie....
He was making a statement in a one-way discussion. After getting to the part of the statement with generally nebulous definition, he uttered the words "act of terror" which could mean anything.
Then, the lies that would have been obvious to anyone in the White House who watched the 7-hour battle on the real-time video feed being watched in the White House started to come the very next day.
So, what happened to the Obama lie about the spontaneous demonstration that obviously didn't happen to everyone in the White House watching the real-time video of the 7-hour battle? You do remember Obama lying for two weeks about this, don't you?
#845965 Jan 24, 2013
The signification attributed to the term, Militia, appear from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense... And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of a kind in common use at the time.
--US Supreme Court, US v Miller
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States.
-- US Supreme Court, Presser v. Illinois
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
If women and girls would learn to shoot, they would add to their happiness by falling in love with one of the finest outdoor sports.
-- Annie Oakley
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1816
USC Title 10 (311 Militia: Composition and Classes) states, A: The Militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or have made declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States, and of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard.
Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.
-- Winston Churchill
#845966 Jan 24, 2013
All interesting partisan questions, repeated hour by hour, on f*x news since September 11.
Issue was to help the Romney campaign and never caught on as an issue. Did not help campaign at all!
Like 9/11 and Pearl Harbor was an intelligence failure when viewed from a Monday Morning Quarterback view.
Yesterday may have put the issue to bed.
Expect to find this on topix........repeated each day :-)
"Then, tell us where the money will come from to pay for Obama's government."
..........where money comes from
except under republicans where it comes from borrowing
Since: Dec 10
#845967 Jan 24, 2013
Russia is not the home of Marxist communism. If you were educated, you'd know that the movement spread internationally from Germany.
And, I only identified the self-admitted Marxist communists that indoctrinated Obama his entire life. Then, I identified the Marxist communist that has the office immediately adjacent to the Oval Office.
It's obvious Obama was indoctrinated with Marxist communism his entire life.
There is no evidence or indication that he received any other education.
The obvious conclusion is, since he was surrounded by Marxist communists his entire life, and a Marxist communist was placed in the office immediately adjacent to the Oval Office, Obama is a Marxist communist.
I really think he's just a dupe. I don't think he can even define Marxism. He just does what he's ordered to do to continue riding in the gold seat on the government gravy train, and the people giving him the orders are Marxist communists.
#845968 Jan 24, 2013
The truth is, the Founders understood a “well regulated” militia to mean a militia “functioning/operating properly,” not a militia “controlled or managed by the government.” This is clearly evidenced by Alexander Hamilton’s discussion of militias in Federalist #29 and by one of the Oxford Dictionary’s archaic definitions of “regulate;”“(b) Of troops: Properly disciplined.”
The Founders intended that a well-regulated militia was to be the first, not the last line of defense against a foreign invader or social unrest. But, they also intended militias to be the last, not the first line of defense against tyrannical government. In other words, the Second Amendment was meant to be the constitutional protection for a person’s musket behind the door, later the shotgun behind the door and today the M4 behind the door—a constitutional guarantee of the right of individuals to defend themselves against any and all miscreants, private or government, seeking to do them harm.
The unfettered right to own and bear arms consecrates individual sovereignty and ordains the right of self-defense. The Second Amendment symbolizes and proclaims individuals’ right to defend themselves personally against any and all threatened deprivations of life, liberty or property, including attempted deprivations by the government. The symbolism of a heavily armed citizenry says loudly and unequivocally to the government,“Don’t Tread On Me.”
Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence said,“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
Both Jefferson and James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, also knew that their government would never fear a people without guns, and they understood as well that the greatest threat to liberty was not foreign invasion or domestic unrest but rather a standing army and a militarized police force without fear of the people and capable of inflicting tyranny upon the people.
That is what prompted Madison to contrast the new national government he had helped create to the kingdoms of Europe, which he characterized as “afraid to trust the people with arms.” Madison assured his fellow Americans that under the new Constitution as amended by the Bill of Rights, they need never fear their government because of “the advantage of being armed.”
But, Noah Webster said it most succinctly and most eloquently:
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”
That is why the Founders looked to local militias as much to provide a check—in modern parlance, a “deterrent”—against government tyranny as against an invading foreign power. Guns are individuals’ own personal nuclear deterrent against their own government gone rogue. Therefore, a heavily armed citizenry is the ultimate deterrent against tyranny.
A heavily armed citizenry is not about armed revolt; it is about defending oneself against armed government oppression. A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government.
#845969 Jan 24, 2013
so let's ask the right wing media about 'manipulated' polls. they really got that one right on election day.
yeah, you wingnuts are really hitting new lows with your usual 'no one is credible but us" BS. but hey, when it's all you've got....
facts are not your friend. never have been, never will be.
Add your comments below
|BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09)||1 hr||david||184,801|
|Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08)||2 hr||IBdaMann||51,386|
|Dear Abby 2-26-15||2 hr||Kuuipo||8|
|Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10)||5 hr||Not Yet Equal||51,332|
|Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09)||5 hr||David Morrison||99,159|
Find what you want!
Search Chicago Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC