CNN-Turns Off Comments-Pres Obama's S...

CNN-Turns Off Comments-Pres Obama's Secret Service Protection For Life

Posted in the Placitas Forum

Vox Populi

Albuquerque, NM

#1 Jan 12, 2013
Typical CNN pseudo-Liberal's attitude. When the comments don't go your way, turn them off. President Obama is beginning to act more like a Roman Emperor than an American President. Let's keep an eye on him to make sure he doesn't buy a harp and some incendiaries. Look up the English meaning of "Nero" in your Latin-English Dictionary, what am I saying: Google it you lazy buzzards! lol

Since: Sep 08

Neon City Oh.

#2 Jan 12, 2013
Why don't you go to Fox and comment?
Hagar

Sterling Heights, MI

#3 Jan 12, 2013
Why should Obama want Secret Service Protection when those guys carry guns! Sounds a little hypocritical to me. When the SS and the cops give up their guns and the big shots fire their body guards I'll believe they are sincere in their gun grab, however I will continue to believe in the 2nd Amendment, AS WRITTEN.
good

United States

#4 Jan 12, 2013
Hagar wrote:
.
have your musket ready in case we need to raise a militia to fight the brits.

Sorry with all the gun nuts, terrorists and anti-government lunatics out there, protection by trained professionals is a necessity. One of the sad results of second amendment extremists and the violence merchants who egg them on.
It is

United States

#5 Jan 12, 2013
for all ex-presidents, by the way.

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#6 Jan 12, 2013
Hagar wrote:
Why should Obama want Secret Service Protection when those guys carry guns! Sounds a little hypocritical to me. When the SS and the cops give up their guns and the big shots fire their body guards I'll believe they are sincere in their gun grab, however I will continue to believe in the 2nd Amendment, AS WRITTEN.
Given the SS's propensity for Ho-downs lately, they may not be the best choice for protection<G>.

Whatever happened to "If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander!". Something politicians of all affiliations quickly forget, like those in congress...
Hagar

Sterling Heights, MI

#7 Jan 12, 2013
good wrote:
<quoted text>
have your musket ready in case we need to raise a militia to fight the brits.
Sorry with all the gun nuts, terrorists and anti-government lunatics out there, protection by trained professionals is a necessity. One of the sad results of second amendment extremists and the violence merchants who egg them on.
So, you are admiting that protection is needed. Why just for the president? Why can't law abiding citizens protect themselves? It is for certain that the cops can't protect the citizens. Cops carry guns to protect themselves from the threat you have mentioned and citizens have that right also.

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#8 Jan 12, 2013
good wrote:
<quoted text>
have your musket ready in case we need to raise a militia to fight the brits.
Sorry with all the gun nuts, terrorists and anti-government lunatics out there, protection by trained professionals is a necessity. One of the sad results of second amendment extremists and the violence merchants who egg them on.
Your intentional refusal to see that mental illness is the root of this issue is typical of you anti-gun fanatical extremist zealots. Don't like guns, don't own one!

2nd amendment says nothing about "muskets" and "Brits". Interesting that you relate the 2nd amendment to the past like that and not the future too as was intended when it was written.

HOWEVER - nothing prevents changes in amendments etc at the voting booth if the PEOPLE choose to do so!!
You are

United States

#9 Jan 12, 2013
Hagar wrote:
<quoted text>So, you are admiting that protection is needed. Why just for the president? Why can't law abiding citizens protect themselves? It is for certain that the cops can't protect the citizens. Cops carry guns to protect themselves from the threat you have mentioned and citizens have that right also.
not the president or a likely target. And who said law abiding citizens can't defend themselves? The issue at hand is easy access to arsenals not designed for personal defense.
There

United States

#10 Jan 12, 2013
CornDogz wrote:
<quoted text>
Your intentional refusal to see that mental illness is the root of this issue is typical of you anti-gun fanatical extremist zealots. Don't like guns, don't own one!
2nd amendment says nothing about "muskets" and "Brits". Interesting that you relate the 2nd amendment to the past like that and not the future too as was intended when it was written.
HOWEVER - nothing prevents changes in amendments etc at the voting booth if the PEOPLE choose to do so!!
is nothing extreme about my views. The extremist is the one who thinks he needs to be ready and fully equiped for a shooting war with his own country, those that feed irrational fears, and those that profit from promoting violence and the presence of extreme weapons as normal parts of everyday life.

The context of the second amendent had everything to do with supplementing the small standing army of the new nation against the real threat of brits (who they fought a few years later). Anybody try to quarter soldiers on your plantation, lately?

The framers would think us crazy. They were pragmatic people.

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#11 Jan 12, 2013
You are wrote:
<quoted text>The issue at hand is easy access to arsenals not designed for personal defense.
Seriously, you don't believe it would stop here do you? I've some Ocean front property in Tucson, oh, and the surf is up on Tingley Beach today too. The current attempts at gun control go far beyond what you'll admit to. Have you read what it is D Feinstean is after @ the federal level?
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index....

In January, Senator Feinstein will introduce a bill to stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices.

Following is a Cut-n-Paste summary of that 2013 legislation:

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
- 120 specifically-named firearms;
- Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and
- Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
- Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
- Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
- Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and
- Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.
- Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
- Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
- Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
- Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
- Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.
- Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
- Background check of owner and any transferee;
- Type and serial number of the firearm;
- Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
- Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
- Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.
and

United States

#12 Jan 12, 2013
CornDogz wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously, you don't believe it would stop here do you? I've some Ocean front property in Tucson, oh, and the surf is up on Tingley Beach today too. The current attempts at gun control go far beyond what you'll admit to. Have you read what it is D Feinstean is after @ the federal level?
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index....
In January, Senator Feinstein will introduce a bill to stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices.
Following is a Cut-n-Paste summary of that 2013 legislation:
Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
- 120 specifically-named firearms;
- Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and
- Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
- Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
- Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
- Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and
- Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.
- Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
- Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
- Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
- Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
- Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.
- Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
- Background check of owner and any transferee;
- Type and serial number of the firearm;
- Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
- Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
- Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.
what?

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#13 Jan 12, 2013
There wrote:
<quoted text>
is nothing extreme about my views. The extremist is the one who thinks he needs to be ready and fully equiped for a shooting war with his own country, those that feed irrational fears, and those that profit from promoting violence and the presence of extreme weapons as normal parts of everyday life.
The context of the second amendent had everything to do with supplementing the small standing army of the new nation against the real threat of brits (who they fought a few years later). Anybody try to quarter soldiers on your plantation, lately?
The framers would think us crazy. They were pragmatic people.
I'm not in fear of my Government in that respect, the need to arm myself, so much as I am the druggies and other societal vermin roaming this city and nation. That is where I have a problem and the state of our pathetic judicial system doesn't leave me with a warm fuzzy feeling either. That's why I choose to be armed and side in general with those who do. You may view this as a cliché but it holds a great ring of truth: Outlaw our guns and only criminals will have guns. And there's a serious ring of truth in this too - I saw a movie once where only the police and military had guns. It was called "Schindler's List".

This is a violent world, and unless you protect yourself from those who would harm you and yours, as well as take what doesn't belong to them (not a victimless crime) then you are a strong candidate to be bowled over and become another statistic. Not all actions call for the use of a firearm, far from it, but many do as a deterrent. I choose to be one of the patter. Again, don't like guns, then don't own one.

The 2nd amendment was a document meant to apply within reason to the future too IMO, a living document if you will BECAUSE it can be changed at the voting booth if enough people choose to do so. Although written long ago it was not meant to serve that era of a few decades alone. That's why I mentioned your reference to musket and brits, neither of which are applicable now.

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#14 Jan 12, 2013
and wrote:
<quoted text>
what?
yeah, what? If her legislation is what you choose to be comfy with, fine. I don't.
controls

Albuquerque, NM

#15 Jan 12, 2013
So in the above bill if passed, all grandfathered guns need the owners fingerprinted, background checked (which they did when they bought the firearm LEGALLY), put in a database that newspapers will print all registered owners. In that scenario there will be tens of millions newly declared criminals that will not comply. So will they go after them with all the fervor and tenacity that they go after the 11-12 million illegal persons known to be living, working and going to school and visiting state/federal benefit offices and healthcare providers ? I think not and don't blame a single american citizen that thumbs there nose at these dictates just as the illegals do.
Hagar

Sterling Heights, MI

#16 Jan 12, 2013
You are wrote:
<quoted text>
not the president or a likely target. And who said law abiding citizens can't defend themselves? The issue at hand is easy access to arsenals not designed for personal defense.
BS!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Placitas Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News State senator to file bill requiring presidenti... 2 min slick willie expl... 42
36 Dems not Attending the Inaugration 51 min Not 10
Today I Saw (Nov '09) 3 hr Frmr-fmer505-1951 63,264
Good Old Days 2 (Apr '10) 3 hr Frmr-fmer505-1951 114,251
News The Latest: Slain girl's relatives express sorr... 4 hr insanity becomes me 4
News GE to close South Valley plant (Sep '09) 5 hr Robert D 49
You know you were engaged to a filthy slut when... 6 hr Bad taste in your... 1

Placitas Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Placitas Mortgages