Source: Obama to act next week on gun background checks

[Pinot]

No surprise here...Obama has been acting for the past 7 years...some might say more like a single source for all government decisions...rather than the head of the Executive Branch...

Indeed. A dictatorship.

Sorry, I couldn't get past "Obama has inflicted the filthiest perversions on our children." This passes as political discourse for the wingnuts. Just pathetic.

You see what normal people are up against with this nonsense. Why isn't Wild Bill running for POTUS? He'd fit right in with the rest of the clowns.

Wingnuts and their guns and their fear and their hate . Oh my Buddha.

[Prbkk]

No surprise here...Obama has been acting for the past 7 years...some might say more like a single source for all government decisions...rather than the head of the Executive Branch...

Indeed. A dictatorship.

Yes, it's crackpot, whack-jobs like the guy in this clip ( let's pray to God to destroy the liberals but pass the a munition just in case) that leave the rest of the world wondering about the USA, even accepting the fact that these loonies represent only a tiny proportion og the population. Scary.

[samran]

No surprise here...Obama has been acting for the past 7 years...some might say more like a single source for all government decisions...rather than the head of the Executive Branch...

Indeed. A dictatorship.

Yes, it's crackpot, whack-jobs like the guy in this clip ( let's pray to God to destroy the liberals but pass the a munition just in case) that leave the rest of the world wondering about the USA, even accepting the fact that these loonies represent only a tiny proportion og the population. Scary.

There must have been a tin foil hat underneath his cowboy hat. He has probably got a video predicting the second coming.

War my arse. Don't let child protection services into your house! A pedo's dream!!

Four yearly elections presidential elections, two yearly congressional elections. Presidential term limits. Four yearly gubernatorial elections. Recal powers. And this is a dictatorship??

Where do you yanks mint these guys? Clearly the US has a mental health problem - and they are making videos wearing cowboy hats!

[mopar71]

I don't hold out much hope for America with the gun control disaster. The NRA owns the Republican party. Massacres are just common place at this point. I don't see a possible tipping point. Anything goes. It's excused as a second amendment right (as interpreted by the right).

The NRA is a small time player in campaign contributions...

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2016&ind=Q13

[samran]

No surprise here...Obama has been acting for the past 7 years...some might say more like a single source for all government decisions...rather than the head of the Executive Branch...

Indeed. A dictatorship.

The radical imams of America clearly are stupid getting themselves put on watch lists and what not. They clearly haven't been doing it right.

In addition to their rantings about God and armed violence towards America and its elected government, they need to dress up like Yosemite Sam when spewing their vitriol, making sure they drop sufficient reference to the second ammendment and infidels coming to get their precious guns.

Splodge in a bit of whitening cream imported from LOS, and bingo boingo - you have a perfectly 'credible' message that Fox News would have no issue with.

[arjunadawn]

No surprise here...Obama has been acting for the past 7 years...some might say more like a single source for all government decisions...rather than the head of the Executive Branch...

Executive Orders are simply dictatorship wrapped in a pleasant sounding package.

The Congress and Senate are the institutions created to pass legislation in the United States. Executive Order was never meant to usurp the power of the Congressional Branch of government. Gun control legislation should rest with the duly elected representatives sent to Washington by each State's constituents.

Sad that the Executive seat has become almost Imperial in it's scope.

Guess you dont know that the constitution of the US gives the president the authority to use it. Also, guess you dont know that Abe Lincoln freed the slaves with it....

Sad to see that people dont understand their own constitution....

You are incorrect. The constitution in no place gives the president authority to use executive orders, in the manner you suggest. As the executor of that branch he enacts orders relative to the scope of his branch to execute the will of congress/Executive- ie, law. Congress passes his laws, he acts upon the administrative manner in which those laws are put into effect. Without question, you do not understand the constitution.

One cannot argue the behavior of Lincoln and his impact on America but his behavior was a entirely novel usurpation of powers into the grossly expanded. Whatever the stalking horse- that which Lincoln feared- he expanded the executive into new territory. It was highly extra-constitutional, but over time became the slippery slope we note today. Find me a place in the constitution for which you smugly state your place. It does not exist. Executive orders became no more than Standard Operating Procedures, like any manager would employ to act out the will of the Board- congress. When congress later abdicated more and more authority (which they actually have no authority to abrogate- line item, trade up/down, etc) congress contributed to their own diminution. Add the additional abomination of the War Powers Act and you have the final elevation of the executive way beyond constitutional powers.

Guess you didn't know that "Abe Lincoln [did not] free[d] the slaves with it..." Show us where you are correct. Its predictable to see that (some) people don't understand their own Constitution.

[arjunadawn]

No surprise here...Obama has been acting for the past 7 years...some might say more like a single source for all government decisions...rather than the head of the Executive Branch...

Indeed. A dictatorship.

President Obama has not issued as many executive orders as his two most recent predecessors.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders

Did you refer to their presidencies as dictatorships?

It's just more of the empty, hyperpartisan rhetoric that is all too often passed off as "analysis".

Not sure if any other has answered your very fair request.

Yes, I consider them enablers and I suppose by a general definition, dictators as well- yet past presidents are hardly THE threat vigilance warns us to guard for- Obama is. Still complicated? This is the slippery slope and often in human industry when things go very wrong one can look back and see the efficient cause and effect more clearly. Example: It is argued by the right today that democrats should not encourage Obama to act unilaterally because...well, because next time it may be a right president imposing his will upon you/us- inflicting his will upon you/us. The shortsighted do not grasp this and shout "act." However, Obama is able to do what he is doing because of these previous presidents and their clown cohorts shouting "act." Obama did not cause this wound in the Constitution, he just opted to eviscerate the patient from his mercenary Rules for Radicals angle of attack.

There is a palpable and vivid chain of events that can be traced back a very long time slowly setting the stage for someone to act in the executive in such a way that fundamentally threatens the constitutional landscape. Obama is without question the threat that has been predicted consistently; the obvious result of the slippery slope started long ago. An idiot could have foreseen this and certainly every wise person for 200+ years has warned of this. "Hyperpartisan rhetoric?" Consider this legal "analysis" from one of America's leading liberal law professors regarding the very same black magician's hat Obama pulls some Executive Orders from and the very same top-hat rabbits and unilateral actions of law derive- and there threat to America.

"The beginning of Wisdom is to call things by their right names."

[arjunadawn]

What's even better is that it's by and large the same people who get their knickers in a twist over Muslims immigrating into the USA actually oppose denying access to guns for people on the FBI's terrorist watch list. http://abcnews.go.com/US/individuals-fbis-terrorist-watchlist-allowed-legally-purchase-firearms/story?id=35264669

Apparently when it comes to this civil liberty, their hearts do bleed figuratively. Whether our physical hearts will end up bleeding is immaterial to them.

This is what it appears like when people incredulously march in line to the forest and later kneel before men with guns. "Let's place people on the FBI's terrorist watchlist" on the do not buy guns list. 'Yeah, lets do it. Its for the children. What could go wrong?'

A few problems:

It is not the FBI's list.

Terrorists have been given passes to enter the US on flights under the Obama administration; people on these lists. Its grossly apparent it is selective, mistaken, or irrelevant as suits the government. http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2014/05/dhs-emails-reveal-u-s-may-terrorist-hands-list/

The list is comprised of numerous agencies, with varying internal rules for placing someone on the list. https://theintercept.com/2014/07/23/blacklisted/

The list is not transparent. It is not possible to actually know you are on it. It is virtually impossible to get removed from it.

The Obama administration has consistently listed returning US veterans as a greater terrorist threat than islamic terrorism; in fact, islamic terrorism was later removed from DHS LEA bulletins and returning veterans remained on the list.

People who support the Constitution of the 2nd Amendment have been listed as threats to the USA in release bulletins by DHS including to BOLO bumper stickers that reflect constitutional or gun support.

With no discernible mechanism for getting on or off the watch list, no adjudication, etc., suggesting any American should be deprived of their right to freedom of speech is because they wound up on a watchlist is outrageous. In a nation where the burden of proof is always on the accuser the right not to self incriminate should never be compromised. It is a slippery slope to deprive someone of their right to worship as they see fit, or associate with others even if the government does not like it. To suggest a person on the watchlist should be required to quarter soldiers in their home and suffer bills of attainder is typical of a progressive (read despotic) mind. None of these things should be forfeited because someone has been labeled by flunkies in a dark trailer in McLean, Virginia or Utah.

Likewise, the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed either. Its emphatic... should not be infringed. Separate one right from the others to make your point and you demonstrate its infringement. They are inseparable. If you assert guns are different you only concede its infringement. The Right to infringe does not rest with you, others, or even every other American together. My right to keep and bear arms is far more important then the desire of every other American alive to take my right.

No Natural Right of Mankind should ever be compromised because some progressive flunky and his stooges on the Rules for Radicals extreme Left choreograph a drama- a crisis- and then offer us solutions. I have often used the term 'stalking horse' to describe the mechanics of the progressive left in overthrowing the US Constitution but this Watch List and its various Hydras are a core linchpin. It is by this mechanism that indefinite detention of Americans (NDAA), habeus corpus, labeling financial incompetence as mental incompetence, gun confiscation (taking place now in numerous municipalities), and other seemingly unrelated "for your own good" pogroms thread together into the new American Landscape that has legal, honest Americans outlawed in their own country. This is a net designed to catch undesirables, not actually threats. In any case, if it even accidentally catches the Rights of one American the whole system should be scrapped. Kant's categorical imperative of the greatest good for the greatest amount of people does not apply. In this case, it is better that 100 walk rather than one American lose their Rights! Period!

Were there even one single thing the government did that was not broken or honest one could loan some trust. Government has become the threat and liberals are too busy rejoicing that America's slide into despotism is happening on their watch, not a Right president, to care that tomorrow may hold something very different for them. Shortsighted is an understatement.

[Scott]

An inflammatory post has been removed. Keep your remarks to the topic and not your opinion of other posters.

[ggt]

No surprise here...Obama has been acting for the past 7 years...some might say more like a single source for all government decisions...rather than the head of the Executive Branch...

Indeed. A dictatorship.

Sorry, I couldn't get past "Obama has inflicted the filthiest perversions on our children." This passes as political discourse for the wingnuts. Just pathetic.

You see what normal people are up against with this nonsense. Why isn't Wild Bill running for POTUS? He'd fit right in with the rest of the clowns.

Wingnuts and their guns and their fear and their hate . Oh my Buddha.

Dare to listen to a Uni-Prof...

https://youtu.be/5lkhhQS1sBc

[Pinot]

No surprise here...Obama has been acting for the past 7 years...some might say more like a single source for all government decisions...rather than the head of the Executive Branch...

Indeed. A dictatorship.

Sorry, I couldn't get past "Obama has inflicted the filthiest perversions on our children." This passes as political discourse for the wingnuts. Just pathetic.

You see what normal people are up against with this nonsense. Why isn't Wild Bill running for POTUS? He'd fit right in with the rest of the clowns.

Wingnuts and their guns and their fear and their hate . Oh my Buddha.

Dare to listen to a Uni-Prof...

https://youtu.be/5lkhhQS1sBc

A Fox News Uni-Prof...no less.

That's what Fox News does. They find wingnuts like this, that say crazy stuff and you guys drink it up. (Kool Aid reference)

You guys don't get it. This is really, really weird. This only appeals to wingnuts. Normal people find this...really weird.

When you offer it here as proof of your point of view. We stand back in awe. This is outer wingnut stuff, Uni-prof et al.

That video makes me sad for where we're at as Americans.

[Ulysses G.]

Normal people find this...really weird.

Some of the obsessive far-left posts on this forum show that the writers have no idea what "normal" people think. Channeling Michael Moore, Jane Fonda and Abbie Hoffman is not very convincing to the average Joe.. Edited January 2, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Publicus]

It is where the whinge nutosphere is, not where the USA are as Americans. The vast majority of Americans want new and better gun laws; more of 'em. Comprehensive immigration reform, not walls. Etc.

These extreme rightists are too many Americans, yes, 15% to 20% concentrated in the Red states. (Others among 'em dominate in tropical paradise where they thrive on saluting and star gazing.) Red states form an L on the map, down the Rocky Mountain states to Texas, then east across the South.

When Americans are asked in the election of our president who we are, we choose Barack Obama. We wanted Al Gore who won the popular vote. That is our identity.

Now comes the next election of the new POTUS. In the process we see who is on the right of the USA political-cultural center, and we watch how far over to the right extremes they go. Some go all the way over to the right margin.

The approach is to make disorder worse then to cash in on the reaction. Like the dinosaurs, their views fall only when the environment changes.

Baffling demographic imbalances, unfamiliar ethnic mixtures and terrifying external threats encourage people to turn to "noisy little men" with loud solutions - which include "final solutions". In recoil from the problems of pluralism, people demand uniformity. Trapped in "future shock" by the fear of unprecedented, uncontrollable change, voters reach for deadly certainties, "men of destiny" and prophets of order.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/the-threat-of-fascism-1091077.html

Edited January 2, 2016 by Publicus

[stillbornagain]

Normal people find this...really weird.

Some of the obsessive far-left posts on this forum show that the writers have no idea what "normal" people think. Channeling Michael Moore, Jane Fonda and Abbie Hoffman is not very convincing to the average Joe..

President Romney agrees with you.

[Pinot]

Normal people find this...really weird.

Some of the obsessive far-left posts on this forum show that the writers have no idea what "normal" people think. Channeling Michael Moore, Jane Fonda and Abbie Hoffman is not very convincing to the average Joe..

Channeling Abbie Hoffman? Who would you rather hear, Michael Moore or Hannity? Who do you think the American public would rather hear from? See, you chose Hannity didn't you?

The average Joe would find the Wild Bill video really, really weird. That's what is going to be the downfall of the Republican party. The wingnuts are so far out there, they have no idea what normal is anymore. Fox only gets 3 million regular viewers.

By the number of crazy responses TV gets, you would think that Republicans have a majority of the electorate. They don't. The Republicans are going to get beaten like a bad little girl in the general election and they're going to be just as surprised as they were when Romney got his ass handed to him in 2012.

Instead of opening up the Republican party to be more inclusive (as they said they needed to do), they've gone full bore right wing crazy. All minorities are the enemy. Women have no rights. We decide what's right and if you don't elect us, you'll die.

It's over before it begins.

Edited January 3, 2016 by Pinot

[Ulysses G.]

Normal people find this...really weird.

Some of the obsessive far-left posts on this forum show that the writers have no idea what "normal" people think. Channeling Michael Moore, Jane Fonda and Abbie Hoffman is not very convincing to the average Joe..

Who would you rather hear, Michael Moore or Hannity?

I would rather not hear either one of them. They are partisan clones and your posts are right on the same wave length.

Edited January 3, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[OMGImInPattaya]

I've had guns most of my life, indeed I've have a gun here if they weren't so darn expensive.

But I've always been perplexed by the virulent opposition to background checks. It just seems common sense.

If I have seizures, my Doctor is required to report it to the DMV, since it has an impact on my ability to drive.

If I apply for a job, the prospective employer can run a background check to see if I have a felony conviction which would make un unsuitable for the job.

But the argument seems to go; if you have mental condition, a convicted felon, when it comes to guns somehow that persons suitability to purchase a lethal weapon without any check is OK

With this logic I assume the same people who object to firearm background checks are equally opposed to an epileptic being able to apply and obtain an unchecked drivers license, or a convicted pedophile applying for a teaching position without any kind of background check.

Seems logical, in a bizzaro kind of world doesn't it

Because owing a gun is an individualized Constitutional right, which shouldn't be "checked" by the government.

[Publicus]

Sounds like the gun nuts believe they are exempted from the rule of law.

Second Amendment is not an exemption from anything, much less an exemption from living under the rule of laws that apply to you as a citizen who is a gun nut.

Saying too that the only gun laws that are allowed are the gun laws the NRA determines to be consistent with the Second Amendment is yet another extreme notion and belief. Nothing at all gives the NRA a constitutionally embedded right to veto gun law legislation, which is what it does do.

There are gun owners such as myself (in USA) among others and then there are the gun nuts. One is easily identifiable and distinguishable from the other.

Edited January 3, 2016 by Publicus

[OMGImInPattaya]

Sounds like the gun nuts believe they are exempted from the rule of law.

Second Amendment is not an exemption from anything, much less an exemption from living under the rule of laws that apply to you as a citizen who is a gun nut.

Saying too that the only gun laws that are allowed are the gun laws the NRA determines to be consistent with the Second Amendment is yet another extreme notion and belief. Nothing at all gives the NRA a constitutionally embedded right to veto gun law legislation, which is what it does do.

There are gun owners such as myself (in USA) among others and then there are the gun nuts. One is easily identifiable and distinguishable from the other.

I suppose you're in favor of "checking" other constitutional rights too...like the current effort of th GOP to limit the voting rights of minorities like blacks and Hispanics. You see, the problem with these "checks" is that two can play these games. When you make a right so onerous to exercise, you have effectively curtailed or eliminated it.

[Publicus]

 

Sounds like the gun nuts believe they are exempted from the rule of law.

Second Amendment is not an exemption from anything, much less an exemption from living under the rule of laws that apply to you as a citizen who is a gun nut.

Saying too that the only gun laws that are allowed are the gun laws the NRA determines to be consistent with the Second Amendment is yet another extreme notion and belief. Nothing at all gives the NRA a constitutionally embedded right to veto gun law legislation, which is what it does do.

There are gun owners such as myself (in USA) among others and then there are the gun nuts. One is easily identifiable and distinguishable from the other.

I suppose you're in favor of "checking" other constitutional rights too...like the current effort of th GOP to limit the voting rights of minorities like blacks and Hispanics. You see, the problem with these "checks" is that two can play these games. When you make a right so onerous to exercise, you have effectively curtailed or eliminated it.

OTT gun nutter stuff.

Jim Crow laws are per se unconstitutional. Conversely, voting rights laws such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 have been found constitutional.

Gun legislation is normal governance and comes from government in regular and routine action. Gun owners or anyone who wants to buy a gun are not exempted from the rule of law as provided in the Constitution. Same for the entire gun chain, from design, manufacture, distribution, retail or wholesale commercial activity.

Second Amendment is not an exemption. It is a right. Voting is a right. They are rights of a fundamentally differentiated nature.

Striking down a Jim Crow law is not same, like or similar, to enacting a gun law.

Still, a certain percentage of the population really lose their marbles when it comes to guns and laws.

[OMGImInPattaya]

 

Sounds like the gun nuts believe they are exempted from the rule of law.

Second Amendment is not an exemption from anything, much less an exemption from living under the rule of laws that apply to you as a citizen who is a gun nut.

Saying too that the only gun laws that are allowed are the gun laws the NRA determines to be consistent with the Second Amendment is yet another extreme notion and belief. Nothing at all gives the NRA a constitutionally embedded right to veto gun law legislation, which is what it does do.

There are gun owners such as myself (in USA) among others and then there are the gun nuts. One is easily identifiable and distinguishable from the other.

I suppose you're in favor of "checking" other constitutional rights too...like the current effort of th GOP to limit the voting rights of minorities like blacks and Hispanics. You see, the problem with these "checks" is that two can play these games. When you make a right so onerous to exercise, you have effectively curtailed or eliminated it.

OTT gun nutter stuff.

Jim Crow laws are per se unconstitutional. Conversely, voting rights laws such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 have been found constitutional.

Gun legislation is normal governance and comes from government in regular and routine action. Gun owners or anyone who wants to buy a gun are not exempted from the rule of law as provided in the Constitution. Same for the entire gun chain, from design, manufacture, distribution, retail or wholesale commercial activity.

Second Amendment is not an exemption. It is a right. Voting is a right. They are rights of a fundamentally differentiated nature.

Striking down a Jim Crow law is not same, like or similar, to enacting a gun law.

Still, a certain percentage of the population really lose their marbles when it comes to guns and laws.

All I gather from your argument is that constitutional rights I agree with are free from attack but the ones to which I don't should be restricted. Nice.

[sirineou]

 

Sounds like the gun nuts believe they are exempted from the rule of law.

Second Amendment is not an exemption from anything, much less an exemption from living under the rule of laws that apply to you as a citizen who is a gun nut.

Saying too that the only gun laws that are allowed are the gun laws the NRA determines to be consistent with the Second Amendment is yet another extreme notion and belief. Nothing at all gives the NRA a constitutionally embedded right to veto gun law legislation, which is what it does do.

There are gun owners such as myself (in USA) among others and then there are the gun nuts. One is easily identifiable and distinguishable from the other.

I suppose you're in favor of "checking" other constitutional rights too...like the current effort of th GOP to limit the voting rights of minorities like blacks and Hispanics. You see, the problem with these "checks" is that two can play these games. When you make a right so onerous to exercise, you have effectively curtailed or eliminated it.

OTT gun nutter stuff.

Jim Crow laws are per se unconstitutional. Conversely, voting rights laws such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 have been found constitutional.

Gun legislation is normal governance and comes from government in regular and routine action. Gun owners or anyone who wants to buy a gun are not exempted from the rule of law as provided in the Constitution. Same for the entire gun chain, from design, manufacture, distribution, retail or wholesale commercial activity.

Second Amendment is not an exemption. It is a right. Voting is a right. They are rights of a fundamentally differentiated nature.

Striking down a Jim Crow law is not same, like or similar, to enacting a gun law.

Still, a certain percentage of the population really lose their marbles when it comes to guns and laws.

All I gather from your argument is that constitutional rights I agree with are free from attack but the ones to which I don't should be restricted. Nice.

Constitutional right have their limitations

Freedom of speech has it's limits .

The supreme court acted a couple of weeks ago when it agreed with lower courts that local governments had the right to place limitations in gun ownership, and their regulations were constitutional

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-guns-idUSKBN0TQ1SU20151207

[chuckd]

Sounds like the gun nuts believe they are exempted from the rule of law.

Second Amendment is not an exemption from anything, much less an exemption from living under the rule of laws that apply to you as a citizen who is a gun nut.

Saying too that the only gun laws that are allowed are the gun laws the NRA determines to be consistent with the Second Amendment is yet another extreme notion and belief. Nothing at all gives the NRA a constitutionally embedded right to veto gun law legislation, which is what it does do.

There are gun owners such as myself (in USA) among others and then there are the gun nuts. One is easily identifiable and distinguishable from the other.

I suppose you're in favor of "checking" other constitutional rights too...like the current effort of th GOP to limit the voting rights of minorities like blacks and Hispanics. You see, the problem with these "checks" is that two can play these games. When you make a right so onerous to exercise, you have effectively curtailed or eliminated it.

You mean by requiring voters present a photo ID, much as they would have to do to get on an airliner, cash a check or enter a federal facility to apply for their food stamps?

Yeah, those Republicans are real meanies alright.

[Publicus]

 

 

Sounds like the gun nuts believe they are exempted from the rule of law.

Second Amendment is not an exemption from anything, much less an exemption from living under the rule of laws that apply to you as a citizen who is a gun nut.

Saying too that the only gun laws that are allowed are the gun laws the NRA determines to be consistent with the Second Amendment is yet another extreme notion and belief. Nothing at all gives the NRA a constitutionally embedded right to veto gun law legislation, which is what it does do.

There are gun owners such as myself (in USA) among others and then there are the gun nuts. One is easily identifiable and distinguishable from the other.

I suppose you're in favor of "checking" other constitutional rights too...like the current effort of th GOP to limit the voting rights of minorities like blacks and Hispanics. You see, the problem with these "checks" is that two can play these games. When you make a right so onerous to exercise, you have effectively curtailed or eliminated it.

OTT gun nutter stuff.

Jim Crow laws are per se unconstitutional. Conversely, voting rights laws such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 have been found constitutional.

Gun legislation is normal governance and comes from government in regular and routine action. Gun owners or anyone who wants to buy a gun are not exempted from the rule of law as provided in the Constitution. Same for the entire gun chain, from design, manufacture, distribution, retail or wholesale commercial activity.

Second Amendment is not an exemption. It is a right. Voting is a right. They are rights of a fundamentally differentiated nature.

Striking down a Jim Crow law is not same, like or similar, to enacting a gun law.

Still, a certain percentage of the population really lose their marbles when it comes to guns and laws.

All I gather from your argument is that constitutional rights I agree with are free from attack but the ones to which I don't should be restricted. Nice.

I see my post flew over the cuckoo's nest.

Also see marbles down on the ground again.

Assorted nuts.

[Scott]

Please stay on topic and stop with the inflammatory, baiting remarks.

[OMGImInPattaya]

Constitutional right have their limitations

All I gather from your argument is that constitutional rights I agree with are free from attack but the ones to which I don't should be restricted. Nice.

Freedom of speech has it's limits .

The supreme court acted a couple of weeks ago when it agreed with lower courts that local governments had the right to place limitations in gun ownership, and their regulations were constitutional

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-guns-idUSKBN0TQ1SU20151207

The problem with your argument, and those of other "gun control" advocates, is that everyone "speaks," therefore we have some base level of agreement on what the parameters of limiting speech might look like. However, everyone doesn't own a gun for sporting use or personal protection and therefore, there is no baseline experience for which to have a discussion on the parameters of owning a gun should be. Those that don't own guns or for whatever reason dislike them, just want personal ownership of them banned. They don't say that openly because of the legal and political consequences of doing so but believe you me, if there was no Second Amendment, they would attempted to do it long ago. And this is why gun owners will never work with such activists to limit gun rights...because the interests are fundamentally opposed to each other.

[CMNightRider]

We need stricter background checks for Syrian refugees, not stricter background checks for American gun owners. Who on earth voted for this guy? Obama is the worst president to ever occupy the White House.

[Publicus]

We need stricter background checks for Syrian refugees, not stricter background checks for American gun owners. Who on earth voted for this guy? Obama is the worst president to ever occupy the White House.

In 2008 Barack Obama won 53.8 percent of the popular vote.

In 2012 President Obama won re-election with 51.9 percent.

That made President Barack Obama the first president since Dwight Eisenhower to be elected then reelected with at least 51% of the vote each time. Ronald Reagan could not accomplish it.

In 2013, 54 of the 100 US Senators voted for better background check legislation. The bill however failed to pass because on the particular vote 60 Senators were needed. NRA now requires a super-super majority for gun legislation to pass.

President Obama supported the legislation as did three-quarters of all Americans.

[mopar71]

We need stricter background checks for Syrian refugees, not stricter background checks for American gun owners. Who on earth voted for this guy? Obama is the worst president to ever occupy the White House.

In 2008 Barack Obama won 53.8 percent of the popular vote.

In 2012 President Obama won re-election with 51.9 percent.

That made President Barack Obama the first president since Dwight Eisenhower to be elected then reelected with at least 51% of the vote each time. Ronald Reagan could not accomplish it.

In 2013, 54 of the 100 US Senators voted for better background check legislation. The bill however failed to pass because on the particular vote 60 Senators were needed. NRA now requires a super-super majority for gun legislation to pass.

President Obama supported the legislation as did three-quarters of all Americans.

Reagan didn't have the IRS doing his bidding either. :-)

Let's compare Reagan's two victories to Obama's..

Total electoral votes both elections:

Reagan: 1014 electoral votes (489 in 1980 and 525 in 1984) compared to only 62 for his opponents (49 & 13 respectively). The 3rd party guy Anderson got nearly 7% of the popular vote.

Obama: 697 electoral votes (365 in 2008 and 332 in 2012 ) compared to 379 for his opponents (173 & 206 respectively)

Reagan was re-elected with 58.8% of the vote, Obama with 51.1% (with the help of the IRS)

Even so, Republican Reagan worked with Tip O'Neil and a Democrat-led Congress to conduct the nation's business. You might think it is great that Obama is ruling by Executive Order, but just remember that if a Republican (maybe Trump) wins in November, they will have the same presidential powers that Obama has expanded for himself. So applaud now as Obama unilaterally acts on guns, but be prepared to get your panties in a bunch when Trump does the same with whatever issue pops in his head that day.

[OMGImInPattaya]

We need stricter background checks for Syrian refugees, not stricter background checks for American gun owners. Who on earth voted for this guy? Obama is the worst president to ever occupy the White House.

In 2008 Barack Obama won 53.8 percent of the popular vote.

In 2012 President Obama won re-election with 51.9 percent.

That made President Barack Obama the first president since Dwight Eisenhower to be elected then reelected with at least 51% of the vote each time. Ronald Reagan could not accomplish it.

In 2013, 54 of the 100 US Senators voted for better background check legislation. The bill however failed to pass because on the particular vote 60 Senators were needed. NRA now requires a super-super majority for gun legislation to pass.

President Obama supported the legislation as did three-quarters of all Americans.

Three-quarters of all Americans deny climate change and evolution too so I wouldn't put much stock in what most Americans support...even three-quarters of them.

Edited January 3, 2016 by OMGImInPattaya