Michelle Obama's 'Plan B' Gun Control Effort

May 6, 2013 Full story: American Thinker 350

Michelle attempted to paint that picture during with Lee Cowan on "CBS Sunday Morning," when she dredged up sob stories from her gun violence visit to Chicago last month.

Full Story

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#209 May 11, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"It was known
Vikings: Spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#210 May 11, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The demonRats have NEVER changed. They have ALWAYS been gun grabbing racists, and ALWAYS will be.
Republicunts have changed: the in all the parties swarmed to them in the late Sixties and haven't left. Their rants are filled with tax and draft dodgers like you who haven't lifted a finger for this country and but bit¢h and whine 24/7.

Move to the tea fagger party, GayDavy: it's a natural fit,

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#211 May 11, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Republicunts have changed: the in all the parties swarmed to them in the late Sixties and haven't left. Their rants are filled with tax and draft dodgers like you who haven't lifted a finger for this country and but bit¢h and whine 24/7.
Move to the tea fagger party, GayDavy: it's a natural fit,
More ignorant droolings, from a treasonous troll. Here you go, traitor-troll:

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I ask the committee to pause for a moment and to reflect on the character of these prohibitions. What must have been the jealousy of those who deemed it necessary to guard against the abuse of power, by such restrictions, on a Government of limited, defined, and delegated authority? Under what pretence could Congress dare to interfere with affairs of religion--with the freedom of speech or of the press? Under what state of things could it be presumed to be necessary for the sovereign people of the United States to retain to themselves the poor privilege of assembling peaceably to petition, not their sovereign lords and masters, but their public servants and agents, for a redress of grievances? To what daring usurpations must they have looked, when it was deemed necessary to secure freemen the privilege of keeping and bearing arms? But, sir, constitutional securities against the abuse of power, of delegated and limited power, seem to be but beautiful and splendid illusions."

- U.S. Rep. James Johnson, of Virginia, Feb. 10, 1820,[Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856. FROM GALES AND BEATON'S ANNALS OF CONGRESS, FROM THEIR REGISTER OF DEBATES; AND FROM THE OFFICIAL REPORTED DEBATES, BY JOHN C RIVES. Pgs. 545-46]

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#212 May 11, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
"A well-regulated militia
Lovely spam
wunderful spa-a-m
lovely spam
wunderful s spam
spa-a-a-a-a-a-a-am
spa-a-a-a-a-a-a-am
spa-a-a-a-a-a-a-am
spa-a-a-a-a-a-a-am

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#213 May 11, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lovely
"To what daring usurpations must they have looked, when it was deemed necessary to secure freemen the privilege of keeping and bearing arms? But, sir, constitutional securities against the abuse of power, of delegated and limited power, seem to be but beautiful and splendid illusions."

- U.S. Rep. James Johnson, of Virginia, Feb. 10, 1820,[Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856. FROM GALES AND BEATON'S ANNALS OF CONGRESS, FROM THEIR REGISTER OF DEBATES; AND FROM THE OFFICIAL REPORTED DEBATES, BY JOHN C RIVES. Pgs. 545-46]

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#215 May 11, 2013
Why are people the problem when they use a bomb to blow up a crowd but the gun is the problem when people shoot people?

Both result in death but the "object" changes for no reason.
Also, a minor overlooked fact is: NO MATTER WHAT LAWS ARE PASSED, A LAW ABIDING MOTHER BOUGHT THE GUNS LEGALLY AND HAD THEM LOCKED AWAY,THE MENTAL PATIENT DIDN'T BUY OR EVEN APPLY FOR THE GUNS. SO NEW LAWS STILL WOULD NOT STOP A VERY DISTURBED PERSON FROM DOING THE SAME THING.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#216 May 11, 2013
GeauxSaints wrote:
Why are people the problem when they use a bomb to blow up a crowd but the gun is the problem when people shoot people?
It is illegal to possess and manufacture a bomb, dear.

PS: Lanza's mother didn't lock up her weapons.

And she took her nutso kid to the gun range.

Since: Mar 09

The Left Coast

#217 May 11, 2013
I say wrote:
<quoted text>
prosecute them. But you know, of course, that the NRA and death lobby have had their paid toadies do everything they can to reduce the efficiency and effectiveness of background checks. Quit playing games.
You are delusional, but here, the NRA does not, repeat, does not get to decide who is prosecuted. The Attorney Generals Office does. Now if you think Eric Holder (he's the AG) does the bidding of the NRA you're a, well, you're a fcking idiot. Why won't Holder prosecute criminals trying to buy guns? The ATF (look it up) sets the requirements for background checks, if they are inefficient they need to do better. Allowing hundreds of thousands of criminals try to buy guns and then don't prosecute them is the federal systems fault. This is almost funny, they have the names and addresses of those trying to buy guns illegally and they still don't go after them. If the laws on the books were being enforced instead of ignored, you might have more people listen to your argument.
JoeytheIII

Philadelphia, PA

#218 May 11, 2013
nuts

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#219 May 11, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
e.
Hey, democtat party HYPOCRITES.

Care to explain THIS?

BUCHANAN AND BRECKINRIDGE

THE DEMOCRATIC HAND-BOOK,

COMPILED BY

MICH. W. CLUSKEY,

OF

WASHINGTON CITY, D.C.

RECOMMENDED BY THE

DEMOCRATIC MATIONAL COMMITTEE.

The success of the Democracy essential for the preservation of the Union and the protection of the integrity of the Constitution

WASHINGTON:

PRINTED BY R.A. WATERS
1856

Mr. COLFAX. What is the date of that?

Mr. STEPHENS. Last November. Now ....

"... I will not go to the gentleman's State, or to any other gentleman's State, to find laws that I do not approve. We have plenty of them in my own State. And the gentleman ought to feel highly blessed if he has none in Indiana that he disapproves. We have a great many in Georgia I do not approve. There is one in particular which I fought in the legislature and opposed before the courts with all the power that I had. It was a law making it penal to bear concealed deadly weapons. I am individually opposed to bearing such weapons. I never bear weapons of any sort; but I believed that it was the constitutional right of every American citizen to bear arms if he chooses, and just such arms, and in just such way, as he chooses. I thought that it was the birthright of every Georgian to do it. I was defeated in our legislature. I was defeated before our courts. The question went up to the highest judicial tribunal in our State, the Supreme Court*, which sustained the law..." [*Nunn v. State, 1 Ga.(1 Kel.) 243 (1846).]

[Hon. Alexander H. Stephens, June 28, 1856, U.S. House of Representatives.(Mr. Stephens served as a U.S. Representative from Georgia,(before and after the Civil War). He was also Vice President of the Confederate States of America, and the 50th Governor of Georgia from 1882 until his death in 1883).]
That

Santa Fe, NM

#220 May 12, 2013
RustyS wrote:
<quoted text>
You are delusional, but here, the NRA does not, repeat, does not get to decide who is prosecuted. The Attorney Generals Office does. Now if you think Eric Holder (he's the AG) does the bidding of the NRA you're a, well, you're a fcking idiot. Why won't Holder prosecute criminals trying to buy guns? The ATF (look it up) sets the requirements for background checks, if they are inefficient they need to do better. Allowing hundreds of thousands of criminals try to buy guns and then don't prosecute them is the federal systems fault. This is almost funny, they have the names and addresses of those trying to buy guns illegally and they still don't go after them. If the laws on the books were being enforced instead of ignored, you might have more people listen to your argument.
But the NRA doesn’t help the government prosecute accused criminals..

In 2009, Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., and Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., introduced the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act. The bill would have given the U.S. attorney general authority to block weapons sales to anyone on the government’s terrorist watch list. Supporters of the legislation noted that in the preceding five years, people on the list had tried to buy firearms at least 963 times, with an 89 percent success rate. They reasoned that it made no sense to pull such people aside as they were boarding airplanes but to look the other way when they purchased guns. Under the bill, anyone barred from buying a weapon could challenge the government’s determination of his ineligibility.

The NRA opposed the bill, claiming it would “deny law-abiding people due process and their Second Amendment rights.”

That same year, Maryland lawmakers introduced a bill that would give judges authority, when issuing protective orders against potential domestic violence, to “order the respondent to surrender to law enforcement authorities any firearm in the respondent's possession, and to refrain from possession of any firearm, for the duration of the temporary protective order.” Under the bill, this restriction couldn’t apply for more than a week. Nevertheless, the NRA called the legislation “unnecessary and unfair,” arguing that it would render “a victim of false allegations” unable to “defend himself at home or simply possess his own guns for any other lawful purpose.”

In March 2011, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., introduced the Fix Gun Checks Act. The NRA blasted the bill, protesting that it would “expand the range of persons prohibited from owning firearms” and “eliminate private sales and gun shows as we know them.” The NRA saluted one of its members, law professor Dave Kopel, for pointing out in a hearing that the bill “would deprive gun owners of their rights” by including, among the grounds for rejecting a gun sale, the buyer’s “arrest for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past 5 years.”

In August 2012, the Department of Justice issued a rule allowing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives “to seize and administratively forfeit property involved in controlled substance offenses.” The rule was limited to “a trial period of one year,” but that didn’t stop the NRA from attacking it..”

Now the NRA says it’s a friend of law enforcement and an enemy of thugs and crooks.“I'll tell you what would work right now,” says NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre.“Tomorrow morning—and the NRA would be there every step of the way—if President Obama would walk in and tell the attorney general of the United States to tell every U.S. attorney,‘If you catch a drug dealer on the street with a gun, I want you to prosecute him.’”

Drop the act, Wayne. You’re not fighting to protect us from accused drug dealers, wife beaters, and terrorists. You’re their lawyer

Since: Mar 09

The Left Coast

#221 May 12, 2013
That wrote:
<quoted text>
But the NRA doesn’t help the government prosecute accused criminals..........
Does the FFA or AARP or any other non-governmental organization help prosecute criminals? Your speech was about creating more laws, the point was we don't enforce the laws we do have. Holder doesn't need permission from the NRA to enforce laws that are on the books, he just chooses not to. I realize the progressive left operates on emotion and not fact, but you have the tools in your hand and yet you refuse to use them. Enforce all the existing laws and see what happens, if they don't work then come back and ask for more.
Still

Santa Fe, NM

#222 May 12, 2013
RustyS wrote:
<quoted text>
.
dancing. As if the NRA and the toadies in Congress that they own want the Attorney General to do any enforcement with regard to guns.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#223 May 12, 2013
RustyS wrote:
<quoted text>
You are delusional, but here, the NRA does not, repeat, does not get to decide who is prosecuted.
The NRA does, repeat, influence lawmakers on what laws a created and in that way, repeat, in that way: influence who can be arrested.

And the overwhelming majority of Americans, repeat, the overwhelming majority of Americans want laws restricting the sales of firearms to felons and wife beaters while the NRA fights that legislation.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#225 May 12, 2013
Still wrote:
<quoted text>
dancing. As if the NRA and the toadies in Congress that they own want the Attorney General to do any enforcement with regard to guns.
Hey traitor, what part of "shall NOT be infringed" do you NOT understand?

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#226 May 12, 2013
That wrote:
<quoted text>
But ...
More demnRat HYPOCRISY:

The Democratic National Convention which gathered at Chicago on the 29th of August[1864], and presented the names of GEORGE B. McCLELLAN for President, and GEORGE H. PENDLETON for Vice-President, agreed on and adopted the following PLATFORM.

Resolved, That the aim and object of the Democratic party is to preserve the Federal Union and the rights of the States unimpaired; and they hereby declare that they consider the Administrative usurpation of extraordinary and dangerous powers not granted by the Constitution, the subversion of the civil by military law in States not in insurrection, the arbitrary military arrest, imprisonment, trial and sentence of American citizens in States where civil law exists in full force, the suppression of freedom of speech and of the press, the denial of the right of asylum, the open and avowed disregard of State rights, the employment of unusual test-oaths, and the interference with and denial of the right of the people to bear arms, as calculated to prevent a restoration of the Union and the perpetuation of a government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#228 May 12, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>I see nothing can stop your interminable one-sided quoting.
If you have an opinion about background checks that comes directly from that dome attached to your neck, get in touch. In the meantime, I'll while away my time reading the phone book.
Let's see, they rarely enforce the penalty for giving false information on Fed Form 4473(back ground check ) so your answer is to expand the system to expand the non enforcement.That makes sense.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#229 May 12, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey traitor, what part of "shall NOT be infringed" do you NOT understand?
JusticeScalia wrote:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Justice Scalia
Writing for the majority of the real Supreme Court
Based on the real US Constitution
This century
[United States v.] Heller... 2008

Since: Mar 09

The Left Coast

#232 May 12, 2013
Still wrote:
<quoted text>
dancing. As if the NRA and the toadies in Congress that they own want the Attorney General to do any enforcement with regard to guns.
Actually the Attorney General works for Obama. That explains the lack of any gun law enforcement, you know like the Holder Fast & Furious scam.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#233 May 12, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Justice Scalia
Writing for the majority of the real Supreme Court
Based on the real US Constitution
This century
[United States v.] Heller... 2008
Based on the real US Constitution:

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".

The 'opinion' of feces flinging monkeys in black robes does NOT outweigh the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

Our governments were EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN from enacting ANY 'law' which contravenes that specific right.

You and treasonous 'scalia' can both go straight to the pressure cooker way down south.

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.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second ... (Nov '13) 2 hr Captain Yesterday 10,763
Opinion Line 2 hr kuda 26
3 year old shoots AR and survives 4 hr Tory II 4
30-06 (7.62X63) vs .308 (7.62X51) (Feb '11) 4 hr Tory II 96
Chicago Liberals Outlaw the Firearm Industry 4 hr Tory II 1
Cops Says Use RAID on Intruder 8 hr Tory II 1
Moms Demand Action Calls On Kroger Family Of St... Sun Halftone175 8
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Guns People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••