Baucus, Manchin Find Obama's Gun Proposals Wanting

Jan 16, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Roll Call

Montana Sen. Max Baucus , one of the Democratic Party's foremost gun rights supporters, cautioned Wednesday against overreaching federal mandates that could adversely affect law-abiding gun owners.

Comments (Page 4)

Showing posts 61 - 80 of91
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
more

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63
Jan 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rem223 wrote:
<quoted text>

.
from the paranoid lunatic fringe. I can see why you wouldn't want to tell your doctor about your delusions.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64
Jan 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rem223 wrote:
<Anyone who when asked by his or her doctor Do you own a firearm tells them yes then you will go to the top of the list when they stsrt
Tell us about the black UN hellycopters, PA!
Cat74

Mchenry, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65
Jan 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

If Exec Orders are not laws what are they, and why have them? I am sure Obama thinks they are legal. According to the 1994 gun ban the weapons could be kept if you were a collector, or the member of a gun club. At least that is what we discoveed in another state, not Illinois. The Illinois law was shot down last October, and they had 6 months to rewrite their ban. I really believe it will be Democrat legislators, with Republicans that protect my 2nd amendment rights. There will be some liberal kooks that vote against it, but there are not enough to make a huge difference. What we have to worry about is the brain washing of the next generation.
Please

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66
Jan 19, 2013
 
Cat74 wrote:
If Exec Orders are not laws what are they, and why have them? I am sure Obama thinks they are legal.
try not to be stupid. EOs are legal. They are directives but they are not laws - every president does them.

You probably believe there are czars, too.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#67
Jan 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

duzitreallymatter wrote:
<quoted text>Based on your comeback are we to suspect you can not prove the post was accurate?
It is not my burden to prove someone else's claims, especially claims which are clearly the ravings of a psychotic fool. For example, if someone can be seriously wonder about a president's kids needing secret service protection, that someone is not capable of rational discourse.
Cat74

Mchenry, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68
Jan 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

So we can ignore the President's Executive orders? No matter what he says or does, he cannot effect gun law around Congress. He can jump up, and down, and have a temper tantrum, but he cannot take the guns. Reid, and McConnell will do what is right in the end.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor Au Dumbo: all that off topic, cross posted Spam left over from the election and no place to put it.
How are those 14 swing states working out for you DUMBO?
You know... for Au DumboSpam...
Poor Mykro, posting under his 4th alias.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Please wrote:
<quoted text>
try not to be stupid. EOs are legal. They are directives but they are not laws - every president does them.
You probably believe there are czars, too.
The are not for going around the constitution nor congress. They sure aren't to make law. Maybe if you and Obama could read, you would know that.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Cat74 wrote:
So we can ignore the President's Executive orders? No matter what he says or does, he cannot effect gun law around Congress. He can jump up, and down, and have a temper tantrum, but he cannot take the guns. Reid, and McConnell will do what is right in the end.
==========
Well, EO's can have the effect of law by clarifying existing law, but if the President can not get funding from Congress to implement them the EO's are of little if any consequences.

It is why the President keeps saying that what he is proposing about gun regulation is left up to the people and therefore Congress if it is to be. He is taking his case to the public and it seems he is losing except for the background check. Seems most will go for that, in which case Congress will pass it.

So what does Obama get for his efforts to further control gun rights? Universal background checks. That's it.
he is

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72
Jan 20, 2013
 
WMCOL wrote:
<quoted text>
==========
Well, EO's can have the effect of law by clarifying existing law, but if the President can not get funding from Congress to implement them the EO's are of little if any consequences.
It is why the President keeps saying that what he is proposing about gun regulation is left up to the people and therefore Congress if it is to be. He is taking his case to the public and it seems he is losing except for the background check. Seems most will go for that, in which case Congress will pass it.
So what does Obama get for his efforts to further control gun rights? Universal background checks. That's it.
is not trying to control gun rights. This is about responding to the public's demand for public safety and rationality. It is the lunatic fringe that have been sold the lie that actual rights are the target.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73
Jan 20, 2013
 
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Poor Mykro, posting under his 4th alias.
Gosh, Au Dumbo: I have NEVER posted under another alias, anytime, here at Topix EVER.

Why you find a need... I don't know, maybe it's because of the 100,000+ comments makes you look like you are on the staff.

I suggest that Topix stamps whenever anything is posted with a time and we can map when you (and yours) post.

It would be interesting to see if you ever take a breather...
au contraire wrote:
I am sorry you don't like the second ammendment, but bet you sure do the 8th and 14th.
Le Jimbo
#62
Jul 11, 2012
Le Jimbo wrote:
What do you call the second ammendment..........duh.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74
Jan 20, 2013
 
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Gosh, Au Dumbo: I have NEVER posted under another alias, anytime, here at Topix EVER.
Why you find a need... I don't know, maybe it's because of the 100,000+ comments makes you look like you are on the staff.
I suggest that Topix stamps whenever anything is posted with a time and we can map when you (and yours) post.
It would be interesting to see if you ever take a breather...
<quoted text>
Le Jimbo
#62
Jul 11, 2012
<quoted text>
All you suggest is your gay fantasy and hate for the constitution. Keep you chin up cupcake, you're drooling.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Le Jimbo wrote:
All you suggest is your gay fantasy and hate for the constitution.
You keep swallowing, Au Dumbo, once for every post.

And you keep telling yourself it's not gay as long as you charge for it...

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wow wrote:
<quoted text>
you have basketful of off-topic things and people you hate for no apparent reasons.
Bring on those mental heath checks!
You are an Obama voter which by the rules of the background check disqualify you for approval to buy a gun. Liberalism is a mental disease.
1 post removed

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78
Jan 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>I suggest you read the Second Ammendment.
Thursday Jan 17
au contraire wrote: I suggest you read the Second Ammendment.

au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>The constitution told us to be paranoid........hence the second ammendment.

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH

(quote)
Le Jimbo
Since: Nov 08
84,105

#62
Jul 11, 2012

What do you call the second ammendment..........duh.

++
Le Jimbo
#10
Jan 31, 2012

Is this a California Ammendment?
++

Le Jimbo
#67
Oct 20, 2011

The 14th ammendment refered to children of slaves,

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thursday Jan 17
au contraire wrote: I suggest you read the Second Ammendment.
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>The constitution told us to be paranoid........hence the second ammendment.
HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH
(quote)
Le Jimbo
Since: Nov 08
84,105
#62
Jul 11, 2012
What do you call the second ammendment..........duh.
++
Le Jimbo
#10
Jan 31, 2012
Is this a California Ammendment?
++
Le Jimbo
#67
Oct 20, 2011
The 14th ammendment refered to children of slaves,
60% DID NOT WATCH SWEAR IN CEREMONY...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>60% DID NOT WATCH SWEAR IN CEREMONY...
so what, Dumbo?

More than 60 percent did not vote for Romney.

Since: Nov 11

Anderson, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81
Jan 23, 2013
 
Obama 51.1% Romney 47.2%

But 60/40, 50.000000001/49.999999999 or 99.999/.001 Obama still won.

I'll wager that, at best, the only gun control change we'll see is background checks on all sales with an exception for gifts to immediate family (other than in already anti-gun states - NY, CA, IL, NJ et al).

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82
Jan 23, 2013
 
duzitreallymatter wrote:
Obama 51.1% Romney 47.2%
But 60/40, 50.000000001/49.999999999 or 99.999/.001 Obama still won.
I'll wager that, at best, the only gun control change we'll see is background checks on all sales with an exception for gifts to immediate family (other than in already anti-gun states - NY, CA, IL, NJ et al).
Wow, 3% out of 300 million. A drop in the bucket. You want real results, look at Reagans two elections, now that's landslides.

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83
Jan 23, 2013
 
duzitreallymatter wrote:
Obama 51.1% Romney 47.2%
But 60/40, 50.000000001/49.999999999 or 99.999/.001 Obama still won.
I'll wager that, at best, the only gun control change we'll see is background checks on all sales with an exception for gifts to immediate family (other than in already anti-gun states - NY, CA, IL, NJ et al).
It's only right that the states with the most treason have the gun laws that keep the sheep in line better. We don't want their disease to spread.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 61 - 80 of91
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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 Washington Discussions

Search the Washington Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
WV Who do you support for U.S. Senate in West Virg... (Oct '10) 17 min bacon hater 51,821
wanting a kitten 11 hr $$ 4
Pennell crowned at Interstate Fair and Exposition 20 hr Aliester Crowley 16
Lowes campground 20 hr Kayla 1
Speedway "Salutes the Troops" 21 hr transporter 1
Mineral Wells Rest Area guy getting trucks to b... Wed curious 3
Michael Haught Tue Played 4
•••
•••
•••
Washington Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Washington Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Washington People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Washington News, Events & Info

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

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••