He's lying. Nuff said.
look at leftist societies throughout history, it's very, very clear why they restrict guns.
the only 'safety' a leftist is interested in is his own safety from those he rules when they figure out what he's up to.
And that's how you exclude yourself from an adult discussion on gun policy. With or without you, the national discussion is trending toward gun regulations, anyway. And if you can't defend your precisous rights rationally through dialogue and communication over policy....then the world will move on without you.
Funny video....
John Oliver learns that it's pointless for America to study the Australian gun control experience because the situations are just too similar....
:lamo
Actually, the national discussion isn't trending toward regulation.
Even if it was, there's still that pesky ol' Constitution that was designed to protect our civil rights from mob rule.
Yeah, at :39....the part where the pro gun-rights guy kept holding up his second amendment sign for every question posed to him about gun control was hysterical. :lamo
He starts out saying that he never proposed confiscating guns and while that's true it also ignores the issue. He and Hillary and a number of others have consistently and constantly proposed rules which restrict lawful individuals ability to obtain the firearms of their choice. He has, in fact, expressed appreciation for the laws of other nations which HAVE confiscated firearms. He also goes on to talk about the watch list stuff and outright suggests that the 5th Amendment is hindering him from doing what he wants to do.
I would suggest that if ANY elected official believes that it's in the best interests of the nation or of their office to circumvent, obviate or negate one of the most fundamental rights we have in this nation then they are also willing to circumvent, obviate or negate any of the other rights. As we see in the Senate today, the Democrats are a threat to the Constitution and to the people of this nation.
You'd have to watch it to understand.
Why was it hysterical? Do you oppose our civil rights?
Moot's history on this board is hostility to gun rights mainly because she sees most gun owners as conservatives. so the answer is-based on my review of her past history-is an undoubted yes
He starts out saying that he never proposed confiscating guns and while that's true it also ignores the issue. He and Hillary and a number of others have consistently and constantly proposed rules which restrict lawful individuals ability to obtain the firearms of their choice. He has, in fact, expressed appreciation for the laws of other nations which HAVE confiscated firearms. He also goes on to talk about the watch list stuff and outright suggests that the 5th Amendment is hindering him from doing what he wants to do.
I would suggest that if ANY elected official believes that it's in the best interests of the nation or of their office to circumvent, obviate or negate one of the most fundamental rights we have in this nation then they are also willing to circumvent, obviate or negate any of the other rights. As we see in the Senate today, the Democrats are a threat to the Constitution and to the people of this nation.
In general, liberals are all for The Constitution, until it no longer suits their agenda.
If he and the Dems consistently proposed such strict gun controls (bg checks, waiting periods, etc)....its probably because after each massacre, more and more people are demanding for their leaders to do more about the gun violence than just a moment of silence and a prayer and hope all will be forgotten. But a small group of wealthy and powerful people have poisoned the well of civil and national dialogue on gun regulation and influenced policy makers to ignore the pleas of the people, But I think the vast majority of people have finally reached a breaking point and are going to start demanding that government do their constitutional duty to protect all the people's rights instead of just the rights of the wealthy few and corporate interests capitalizing the ignorance and fear of a minority to divide the country with.
“It is above all in the present democratic age that the true friends of liberty and human grandeur must remain constantly vigilant and ready to prevent the social power from lightly sacrificing the particular rights of a few individuals to the general execution of its designs. In such times there is no citizen so obscure that it is not very dangerous to allow him to be oppressed, and there are no individual rights so unimportant that they can be sacrificed to arbitrariness with impunity.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville
What part of "you'd have to watch the video to understand" did you not understand?I asked why YOU think it's hysterical. Why would you ridicule someone, anyone, who is sticking up for our civil rights?
What part of "you'd have to watch the video to understand" did you not understand?
Obama again is dishonest. Just because he did not have the votes (Dingy Harry didn't want to lose his job as a senator and senate majority leader) does not excuse his anti gun idiocy-idiocy he would have visited upon us if he had the votes
His firs appointee to the USSC has proven to be a gun banner. I am sure Kagan will be too though Kagan admitted that Heller is settled precedent. We shall see.
Please have the civility and decency to hear the man out before responding, dismissing, calling him names, twisting his words, etc. If you think he's lying about something in the video ...quote him or show the time number and say why you think he's lying. Backing up your claim with links to credible sources without asking would be much appreciated.
When asked why he wants to restrict gun access for all owners, rather than just bad actors, President Barack Obama said, "It's just not true. ...There have been more guns sold since I've been president than just about any time in U.S. history."
He spoke at a town hall in Elkhart, Indiana, on June 1, 2016, hosted by PBS NewsHour co-anchor Gwen Ifill.
I think he's right.
de Tocqueville wrote about exactly what you're suggesting 180 years ago -
what part of I did and I know he's FOS do you not get?
He starts out saying that he never proposed confiscating guns and while that's true it also ignores the issue. He and Hillary and a number of others have consistently and constantly proposed rules which restrict lawful individuals ability to obtain the firearms of their choice. He has, in fact, expressed appreciation for the laws of other nations which HAVE confiscated firearms. He also goes on to talk about the watch list stuff and outright suggests that the 5th Amendment is hindering him from doing what he wants to do.
I would suggest that if ANY elected official believes that it's in the best interests of the nation or of their office to circumvent, obviate or negate one of the most fundamental rights we have in this nation then they are also willing to circumvent, obviate or negate any of the other rights. As we see in the Senate today, the Democrats are a threat to the Constitution and to the people of this nation.
And that's how you exclude yourself from an adult discussion on gun policy. With or without you, the national discussion is trending toward gun regulations, anyway. And if you can't defend your precisous rights rationally through dialogue and communication over policy....then the world will move on without you.
Funny video....
John Oliver learns that it's pointless for America to study the Australian gun control experience because the situations are just too similar....
:lamo
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?