Obama may push for ban on assault wea...

Obama may push for ban on assault weapons

There are 667 comments on the The Indian Express story from Oct 17, 2012, titled Obama may push for ban on assault weapons. In it, The Indian Express reports that:

Democratic President Barack Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney engaged in a rare tussle over gun control on Tuesday, and Obama opened the door to pushing for a ban on assault weapons if he wins a second term.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Indian Express.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#323 Nov 13, 2012
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>On what basis?
I would start with self interest over the Constitution.

Anyone who would think a label would identify the career politician from partisan politics and lobbing interest over the needs and wants of the individual needs some honest soul searching.

Give me a Republican like Harry Truman or
a Democrat like Ronald Reagen and I will start believing we have a system worth believing in.

Our Congress is the biggest bunch of do nothing corporate hacks that would give away our Constitutional principles in exchange for being re-elected that I have ever seen.

To them the word compromise is best defined as a one way street to no where.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#324 Nov 13, 2012
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Well some of us are better at math than others.
Massive amounts of ammunition purchased by Dept. of Homeland Security + DHS's FEMA Youth Graduates = Something is up!
Fascism.
Conservative

United States

#325 Nov 13, 2012
WDRussell wrote:
You can see why the GOP,NRA,and religious right are so close to each other.
All three will lie about anything to support their dream of fascism.
What do you call what Nobama is pushing?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#326 Nov 13, 2012
Where Is My America wrote:
There are days I find you to( be ) the one sane voice in a forest of emotion and accusation
I was typing faster then my brain can keep up !
{hat-tip} I try.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#327 Nov 13, 2012
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>On what basis?
Just days after winning a handy reelection to his Chicago-area district, 17-year Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., D-Ill., has entered negotiations for a plea deal that would include his resignation from Congress and likely jail time.


Jackson, Jr., the son of civil rights activist Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr., and husband to Chicago Alderman Sandi Jackson, has not yet pleaded guilty to alleged misuse of campaign funds to decorate his house and purchase a $40,000 Rolex watch for a female friend. But CBS Chicago reports the congressman's lawyer, white-collar criminal defense attorney Dan Webb, is negotiating with the federal government a plea bargain that will likely be reached by year's end.

Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. "not well," he says
Jesse Jackson, Jr. "completely debilitated by depression," wife says


The tentative deal includes Jackson, Jr.'s resignation from Congress for health reasons, a "guilty" plea involving misuse of campaign funds, and repayment of any contributions that were converted to personal use. At least some jail time is expected. Jackson, Jr.'s pension, which would pay out between $65,000 and $80,000 a year when he turns 62, is also part of the talks.


Webb, who served as Chicago's top federal prosecutor during the 1980s, helped strike a plea deal for the late Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, D-Ill. Rostenkowski got 17 months in jail after pleading guilty to converting a congressional postage allowance into personal money, but was allowed to keep his $126,000-a-year pension for the rest of his life.


Jackson, Jr. has been on medical leave of absence since June for treatment of bipolar depression. He has been back and forth between Minnesota's Mayo Clinic and his Washington, D.C. home.

© 2012 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-5754817...

Since: Jul 12

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#328 Nov 13, 2012
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>I would start with self interest over the Constitution.
Anyone who would think a label would identify the career politician from partisan politics and lobbing interest over the needs and wants of the individual needs some honest soul searching.
Give me a Republican like Harry Truman or
a Democrat like Ronald Reagen and I will start believing we have a system worth believing in.
Our Congress is the biggest bunch of do nothing corporate hacks that would give away our Constitutional principles in exchange for being re-elected that I have ever seen.
To them the word compromise is best defined as a one way street to no where.
Two ammendments to the Constitution:

1. Only US citizens eligable to vote are allowed to make political contributions or participate in the political election process.(This eliminates foreign influence and corporate influence to include unions, PACs, etc... Certain exceptions could be made for people like school children being taught the political process or doing volunteer work for a campaign.

2. Politicians are only allowed to accept contributions that originate from US Citizens within the area they will represent.(This will make them pay attention to those they will represent.)

Change the law to reinstitute honesty in political advertisements. Ammendment #1 above would eliminate all ads by non-voting entities in the US.

Since: Jul 12

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#329 Nov 13, 2012
Conservative wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you call what Nobama is pushing?
With the exception of the socialism of the Affordable Healthcare Act he has pushed Americanism. About the same thing the Patriot Millionaires push.

http://patrioticmillionaires.org/

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-...

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#330 Nov 13, 2012
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>You are being irrational. The ammunition will not be aimed at you.
And you know, and can prove that how?

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

#331 Nov 13, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice charts, but no cause and effect linkage. The collapse was directly caused by corporate greed.
So, you would place the entire blame on corporate blame. There are so many factors which combined to allow the collapse to occur. But, like a good little liberal youíre willing to lay the entire blame at the feet of greedy corporations.

Do you also support the efforts of Occupy Wall Street?

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

#332 Nov 13, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Fannie and Freddie make no loans. They purchase loans made by others that meet their standards.
2. Countrywide, Golden West and other non-banking lenders were not subject to CRA or any provision within CRA. They also were not regulated by the federal government......at all.
3. Countrywide, Golden West and other non-banking institutions issued about 90% of all sub-prime loans if not more.
4. When the state of Georgia tried to sue non-banking lenders for predatory lending practices the bush administration told Georgia to back off.
5. Bank of America (bought CountryWide) and Wells Fargo (bought Golden West) had to pay billions back to Freddie and Fannie for slipping non-qualifying loans into mortgage bundles that were certified to meet Fannie and Freddie standards.
6. Sub-prime loans meeting Fannie and Freddie standards (at least 3% down, no teaser rates, no rates that reset significantly higher) had a much lower default rate than CountryWides teaser rates or Golden Wests "Pick-Pay" loans.
7. Moody's who rated mortgage bundles "AAA" containing sub-prime mortgages argued in a lawsuit against them that their ratings which which they get paid to give were protected "free speech."
The Bush administration told Georgia to ďback offĒ? I donít see either side of that happening. Bush telling Georgia to back off or Georgia listening even if they did. Georgia has never had a reputation of caving into federal pressure.

Why stop where you did? Thereís so many others left to blame.

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

#333 Nov 13, 2012
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>I have no objection to knowing about firearms, especially from a historical perspective. I am referring to those people who are obsessed with firearms, and who believe an attack from the federal government is imminent.
I donít believe an attack from the federal government is imminent or even likely. However your exact words were
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>I don't envy your "great experience" with firearms. Inn fact, I feel sorry for anyone who finds the subject that appealing.
Now youíre attempting to placate.

Read the words of our founding fathers on the purpose of the second amendment. Itís crucial we exercise and defend our rights. It is possible the government may abandon their responsibility to the people and institute tyrannical policy.

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

#334 Nov 13, 2012
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>You are being irrational. The ammunition will not be aimed at you.
You donít aim ammunition.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#335 Nov 13, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Two ammendments to the Constitution:
1. Only US citizens eligable to vote are allowed to make political contributions or participate in the political election process.(This eliminates foreign influence and corporate influence to include unions, PACs, etc... Certain exceptions could be made for people like school children being taught the political process or doing volunteer work for a campaign.
2. Politicians are only allowed to accept contributions that originate from US Citizens within the area they will represent.(This will make them pay attention to those they will represent.)
Change the law to reinstitute honesty in political advertisements. Ammendment #1 above would eliminate all ads by non-voting entities in the US.
You cannot eliminate ads.

That is in violation of free speech.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#336 Nov 13, 2012
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>
Just days after winning a handy reelection to his Chicago-area district, 17-year Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., D-Ill., has entered negotiations for a plea deal that would include his resignation from Congress and likely jail time.
Jackson, Jr., the son of civil rights activist Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr., and husband to Chicago Alderman Sandi Jackson, has not yet pleaded guilty to alleged misuse of campaign funds to decorate his house and purchase a $40,000 Rolex watch for a female friend. But CBS Chicago reports the congressman's lawyer, white-collar criminal defense attorney Dan Webb, is negotiating with the federal government a plea bargain that will likely be reached by year's end.
Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. "not well," he says
Jesse Jackson, Jr. "completely debilitated by depression," wife says
The tentative deal includes Jackson, Jr.'s resignation from Congress for health reasons, a "guilty" plea involving misuse of campaign funds, and repayment of any contributions that were converted to personal use. At least some jail time is expected. Jackson, Jr.'s pension, which would pay out between $65,000 and $80,000 a year when he turns 62, is also part of the talks.
Webb, who served as Chicago's top federal prosecutor during the 1980s, helped strike a plea deal for the late Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, D-Ill. Rostenkowski got 17 months in jail after pleading guilty to converting a congressional postage allowance into personal money, but was allowed to keep his $126,000-a-year pension for the rest of his life.
Jackson, Jr. has been on medical leave of absence since June for treatment of bipolar depression. He has been back and forth between Minnesota's Mayo Clinic and his Washington, D.C. home.
© 2012 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-5754817...
What has any of this to do with the price of Goobers?

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#337 Nov 13, 2012
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
And you know, and can prove that how?
I can't prove that the federal government is not after you. I also can't prove there's no Santa Claus, but I choose to live as though there isn't.

I'm not directing this to anyone in particular, but the primary characteristic of paranoia is the ability to take the barely possible and turn it into the probable.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#338 Nov 13, 2012
eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
I donít believe an attack from the federal government is imminent or even likely. However your exact words were
<quoted text>
Now youíre attempting to placate.
Read the words of our founding fathers on the purpose of the second amendment. Itís crucial we exercise and defend our rights. It is possible the government may abandon their responsibility to the people and institute tyrannical policy.
Just be careful not to shoot first.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#339 Nov 13, 2012
eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
You donít aim ammunition.
Good, though petty and irrelevant, point.
Dr Freud

Iceland

#340 Nov 13, 2012
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>I can't prove that the federal government is not after you. I also can't prove there's no Santa Claus, but I choose to live as though there isn't.
I'm not directing this to anyone in particular, but the primary characteristic of paranoia is the ability to take the barely possible and turn it into the probable.
"I'm not directing this to anyone in particular, but the primary characteristic of paranoia is the ability to take the barely possible and turn it into the probable."

It's not a conspiracy theory if 'they' are actually after you.
And, the 'barely possible' is indeed probable, especially when a turn of events happens to become most opportune.
All cognizant beings live long lives by being suspicious, i.e., by being paranoid enough to realize that life is short for the unwary.
Your statement therefore, is invalid.
Dr Freud

Iceland

#341 Nov 13, 2012
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Good, though petty and irrelevant, point.
How so, in both cases?
How was it 'petty,' and how was it 'irrelevant'?
The fact of the matter is that you misspoke your case.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#342 Nov 13, 2012
Dr Freud wrote:
<quoted text>
"I'm not directing this to anyone in particular, but the primary characteristic of paranoia is the ability to take the barely possible and turn it into the probable."
It's not a conspiracy theory if 'they' are actually after you.
And, the 'barely possible' is indeed probable, especially when a turn of events happens to become most opportune.
All cognizant beings live long lives by being suspicious, i.e., by being paranoid enough to realize that life is short for the unwary.
Your statement therefore, is invalid.
Just have your mace ready. Check the cabinets, the woodwork, and under your bed.

You are the poster child for unwitting paranoia. Your statement, therefore, is disturbed.

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.

Mitt Romney Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News GOP at war with itself (Mar '16) 1 hr propa my ganda 4,008
News Democrats aim to blast Trump for favoring wealthy 11 hr flack 1,073
News Top Clinton and Romney campaign heads to jointl... Wed Marco R s Secret ... 3
News The costs of unraveling Obamacare (Jun '12) Jul 5 Geezer 5
News Romney on minimum wage: 'We ought to raise it' (May '14) Jun 25 Backroom healthcare 30
News Romney claims outsider role in tea party speech (Sep '11) Jun 24 Backroom healthcare 38
News Mitt Romney surges, leads Obama in polls (Oct '12) Jun 24 BOTH partys Crooks 11
More from around the web