Gun for me, but Not for Thee.

Posted in the Hatch Forum

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 2 of2
invicta

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

2

It is interesting that after the 1994 Gun Banning votes that when it passed the Pro Gun side ACCEPTED the vote and worked with it.
In 2013 Progressives by their very nature seem to have a problem with the Constitution getting in the way of their "Agendas" and cannot accept a vote that was a defeat for them. The Congress is the final say in the laws of our land!
The pro gun people worked with the Law passed in 1994 and although it solved none of the problems it was supposed to(according to the justice Dept)followed what the outcome of the vote was. There was no trying for "end runs" around the vote,or attacking people who voted against their side in the issue. This is called being Civil.

I'm pleased that our Congress voted on the "real facts",and not the cooked facts,and emotional knee jerking that took place in trying to force the Progressive will on everyone else.

I also find it gratifying to see Bloomberg and his nanny state 22 million dollar attempt at buying the American People go into the trash can.

Also it is interesting that NY,and CA the States with the most restrictive,and failed anti gun laws are the ones spearheading the writing of the "New" laws,which basically are the same passed in 1994 which failed to stop all the gun problems they have conjured up.

And a President that comes from a City(Chicago) that has the largest murder rate in the country to try and impose their Restrictive Gun Laws that failed City has on the rest of the Nation.

I'm sure the response to this will be damning from the Progressives. But I'd like them to answer this question: If you want a new law passed that is the same ones that is already on the books since 1994 and not enforced, what is your reasoning. It sounds like the "definition of insanity".
Ex- El Paso Resident

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

invicta wrote:
It is interesting that after the 1994 Gun Banning votes that when it passed the Pro Gun side ACCEPTED the vote and worked with it.
In 2013 Progressives by their very nature seem to have a problem with the Constitution getting in the way of their "Agendas" and cannot accept a vote that was a defeat for them. The Congress is the final say in the laws of our land!
The pro gun people worked with the Law passed in 1994 and although it solved none of the problems it was supposed to(according to the justice Dept)followed what the outcome of the vote was. There was no trying for "end runs" around the vote,or attacking people who voted against their side in the issue. This is called being Civil.
I'm pleased that our Congress voted on the "real facts",and not the cooked facts,and emotional knee jerking that took place in trying to force the Progressive will on everyone else.
I also find it gratifying to see Bloomberg and his nanny state 22 million dollar attempt at buying the American People go into the trash can.
Also it is interesting that NY,and CA the States with the most restrictive,and failed anti gun laws are the ones spearheading the writing of the "New" laws,which basically are the same passed in 1994 which failed to stop all the gun problems they have conjured up.
And a President that comes from a City(Chicago) that has the largest murder rate in the country to try and impose their Restrictive Gun Laws that failed City has on the rest of the Nation.
I'm sure the response to this will be damning from the Progressives. But I'd like them to answer this question: If you want a new law passed that is the same ones that is already on the books since 1994 and not enforced, what is your reasoning. It sounds like the "definition of insanity".
That pesky consitution and bill of rights just keeps getting in their way.

If Bloomberg is really as much against guns as he says he is then he needs to get rid of all those "armed" guards around him.

Typical elitest liberal.

My safety is important enought to be protected by guns but your safety is not that important.

Which branch of the Government is responsible to enforce the laws on the books. That would be the executive branch.

Boy are they failing and not just on gun laws on the books (Fast and Furious for example) but also on illegal immigration and may other laws.

Sounds like the blame lays with the chief executive.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 2 of2
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Hatch Discussions

Search the Hatch Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Debate: Marijuana - Las Cruces, NM (Aug '10) 3 hr kimberly atencio 183
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 6 hr HughBe 68,160
Bird hunting to be allowed along parts of Rio G... 7 hr Johannes Dough 1
imperial presidency Thu Bloodonhishands 3
affrique (May '12) Thu Sailboat1107 209
Review: Pueblo Cafe Jul 9 Super hungry 1
Looking for Curtis and Dana Adams Alm (Apr '13) Jul 7 looking 3
•••
•••
•••
•••

Hatch Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Hatch People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Hatch News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Hatch
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••