Nationwide Ban On Criminals

[Concerned Citizen]

Professor wrote:

<quoted text>
Chavez & Putin are opening an assault weapons facility in South America. Can't wait to see the product!

We've been funneling weapons to South America for years now.

Your criticism can't be taken seriously if you only object when America's enemies do something, ignoring instancing where the US does pretty much the exact same thing.

[Professor]

Concerned Citizen wrote:

<quoted text>
We've been funneling weapons to South America for years now.
Your criticism can't be taken seriously if you only object when America's enemies do something, ignoring instancing where the US does pretty much the exact same thing.

And to the drug cartels. They didn't call it "The Fast and Furious" for nothing. Thank You Obummer. You made America safer??????

[Unincorporated]

Can you own a personal firearm in Venezuela? Um, nope.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/helenwhalencohen...

[Concerned Citizen]

Professor wrote:

<quoted text>
And to the drug cartels. They didn't call it "The Fast and Furious" for nothing. Thank You Obummer. You made America safer??????

Every president since WW2 has been involved in supply of arms to some nefarious individuals. Even Jimmy Carter, who people remember as a pacifistic wimp, gave lots of support (in both money and arms) to the Shah and Suharto throughout their worst atrocities.

[Professor]

Unincorporated wrote:

Can you own a personal firearm in Venezuela? Um, nope.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/helenwhalencohen...

This is the same thing democrat leaders want to do in the United States. Communist Dictator Bastards!

[Professor]

Obama should grant an executive order immediately banning all criminals. Without criminals everyones worries are over, everyone will be safe, we will be the safest nation in the world. All our problems will be solved with ONE executive order.

[saul alinsky]

how is barry going to take law abiding citizens guns away without continued mass shootings? he needs the murders to continue so he can advance the gun confisgation agenda. That's the first step in socialism. don't you know anything?

[Sceptikul 1]

Obama isn't interested in disarming "bad guys."

The phrase:

"Only a goverment that is afraid of its citizen tries to control them."

This should tell you all you need to know.

The 2nd Amendment wasn't written for hunting or sports. It was written on the heels of a bloody revolutionary war. In the aftermath of that death, the founders specifically and deliberately deliniated this right. The founders knew exactly what they were writing.

Read the Federalist papers. Read the multitudes of correspondence from the era.

There is no mystery what they were thinking. There was no ambiguity as to why they wanted the citizens armed.

On the heels of a bloody Revolutionary War, the founders wanted the citizens armed against a government so the freedoms won would never again be taken from a tyrannical government.

In other words, the founders saw the "progressive democrats" coming 100s of years ago, and wanted people armed against them.

Yes, to put a fine point on it. The founders wanted citizens of this new nation to be armed against what the progressives wanted. A big, overbearing, all powerful government.

Yes, the founders are thwarting democrats from their graves.

Yes, the founders wanted people armed against today's progressives. And that's what makes the democrats quesey to think about. People are armed against them.

Yes, these guns are capable of large amounts of destruction in a short period of time. No debate. Yes, these big scarey guns are for shooting people. Again, no debate.

Yes, these guns are for shooting people who would undermine our freedoms.

You may not agree with my gun rights. But my gun rights are the only reason the government hasn't taken your other rights away. Make no mistake about it.

My 2nd Amendment rights put the "teeth" in the rest of the bill of rights.

If my "inalienable" rights to guns in taken away or chipped away at, what makes you think your rights aren't negotiable in the future?

If they take my guns away, who will fight for your rights later?

Think that one through you left win nutters.

[Professor]

I agree with your ideology of the left's agenda. I think the term "progressive" is too mild though. I say if we are going to be honest, let's be honest. Radical communists is a more apropriate label for them!

[Lance Armstrong]

I say just do drugs. It really helped me.

[Concerned Citizen]

Sceptikul 1 wrote:

If they take my guns away, who will fight for your rights later?
Think that one through you left win nutters.

I'm anti-gun-control, I just don't find this particular argument compelling. The government has better guns that fire faster and more accurately, soldiers that are better trained that most gun-owners, tanks, air-craft carriers, nuclear bombs, etc. Our guns can't fight against the US' military might.

[Concerned Citizen]

Professor wrote:

I agree with your ideology of the left's agenda. I think the term "progressive" is too mild though. I say if we are going to be honest, let's be honest. Radical communists is a more apropriate label for them!

Professor clearly isn't a professor of political philosophy; he doesn't really understand what a communist is.

[Professor]

Concerned Citizen wrote:

<quoted text>
Professor clearly isn't a professor of political philosophy; he doesn't really understand what a communist is.

Obama and the democratic leaders are communists!

[Sceptikul 1]

Concerned Citizen wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm anti-gun-control, I just don't find this particular argument compelling. The government has better guns that fire faster and more accurately, soldiers that are better trained that most gun-owners, tanks, air-craft carriers, nuclear bombs, etc. Our guns can't fight against the US' military might.

The military won't side with the government. A few would, but most would not. They swore an oath to the constitution, not Obama.

If he did something horrible like turn the military on his own nation, he would become the al-Asad of Syria, here in the US.

He would run, and the nation would reject him. He would be deposed, the leader of nothing. Hence the reason he would never risk this. He would have nothing, lead nothing, lose everything.

That's why this would never happen.

[Obama]

Sceptikul 1 wrote:

<quoted text>
The military won't side with the government. A few would, but most would not. They swore an oath to the constitution, not Obama.
If he did something horrible like turn the military on his own nation, he would become the al-Asad of Syria, here in the US.
He would run, and the nation would reject him. He would be deposed, the leader of nothing. Hence the reason he would never risk this. He would have nothing, lead nothing, lose everything.
That's why this would never happen.

I wish I could get away with that.

[Concerned Citizen]

Sceptikul 1 wrote:

<quoted text>
The military won't side with the government. A few would, but most would not. They swore an oath to the constitution, not Obama.
If he did something horrible like turn the military on his own nation, he would become the al-Asad of Syria, here in the US.
He would run, and the nation would reject him. He would be deposed, the leader of nothing. Hence the reason he would never risk this. He would have nothing, lead nothing, lose everything.
That's why this would never happen.

So I guess since the military wouldn't side with him Obama can take away our guns and we'd still be in good shape because the military wouldn't be on his side!

[Mrs Obama]

Obama can only make you a criminal. He can't take anything. Unless you give it to him.

[uncle sam]

Mrs Obama wrote:

Obama can only make you a criminal. He can't take anything. Unless you give it to him.

He is evil for trying..........

[Professor]

uncle sam wrote:

<quoted text>
He is evil for trying..........

Without a doubt!