He said what he said. Two minutes of context, too. It's undeniable, yet here you are denying it. lOL.
You're the one that said that Britain had success with gun bans. I don't think they consider losing their colonies to be a success. You seem to for some strange reason.
“Nobody should have a gun who has a criminal background, who’s involved in domestic abuse situations. People should not have guns who are going to hurt other people, who are unstable. And second of all I believe that we need to make sure that certain types of guns used to kill people, exclusively, not for hunting, they should not be sold in the United States of America, and we have a huge loophole now with gun shows that should be eliminated.” Clear as the point on your head.
That's right! Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! Never give an inch! Fuck common sense and moderation. barfo
People wanting to ban guns are idiots. With guns, bad guys have to wonder if some random stranger has a gun. If they are banned, he will still be able to get a gun and might not be as scared. Crazy people can make bombs. I knew kids in high school that made bombs and would take them to fields to set them off. Dont think people will make bombs if they wanna kill large groups of people? Then youre an idiot. One on one murders can still happen with knives, suffocation, whatever. You want to make it harder to get guns? Fine. But having purchased one myself a couple years ago. It took them hours to perform a background check that i had to stand around for. Did i have an issue in doing so? No. But its not like background checks arent happening. And even if they didnt pass them, they still can get weapons on the black market.
Sometimes people use shorthand. He's been pretty clear in multiple other statements that the 'certain types' of guns he wants to ban is assault weapons. But do go ahead and tell us how Obama believes there are 57 states. That's always good fun. barfo
57 states just means he's prone to malapropism. Dan Quayle couldn't have said it better. A handgun is designed to kill people and shoot targets, not hunting. There are no assault rifles made anymore. He said nothing about self defense. You have to do more of this code translation for me.
I 100% agree. ^^^ My joke earlier about being cool with it was in jest. The 2nd amendment needs no fixing. It works just fine There is no universal common sense change to discuss. If there is a change to be made, it should be training for every person in self protection including the use of weapons. Fear of weapons is a large problem in this country and the weasle politician of the left exploit the fear. Perhaps during this training, we identify those that will not pass a background check. I take it to heart that every person has the right to defend them self using the best means possible. There are not many reason to strip a woman of the right to protect herself from would be attackers. The small caliber hand guns and small caliber rifle like the .223 are ideal for a small female. Banning those would be totally misguided in my view.
Hawaii becomes first U.S. state to place gun owners on FBI database Hawaii's governor signed a bill making it the first state to place its residents who own firearms in a federal criminal record database and monitor them for possible wrongdoing anywhere in the country, his office said. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-hawaii-gun-law-idUSKCN0ZA3IP :MARIS61: :MARIS61: :MARIS61: :MARIS61: :MARIS61: :MARIS61: :MARIS61: :MARIS61: :MARIS61: :MARIS61: :MARIS61: :MARIS61:
Compromise is inevitable in society - you can either participate in the process or you can be an extremist and be marginalized. For some reason, Libertarians prefer to be marginalized. There's nothing really wrong with Libertarianism other than the Libertarians. barfo
No, it doesn't mean that. 57 states isn't a malaprop. It's not code translation. It's context. I agree he said what you think he said. However, there's ample evidence that he didn't mean it exactly the way it came out of his mouth on that one occasion. But whatever. Go ahead and believe big bad Bernie is coming for your guns if that makes you happy. barfo
Compromise is done by amending the constitution. If (and since) you can't muster the votes to do that, it's not going to happen. It sucks to be you.
5th grade history. http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/explaining-bill-rights When the delegates sought to have the new Constitution ratified, they faced a similar problem. They thought everyone knew what individual rights were, so they did not define them in the Constitution. However, the lack of specific guarantees of personal liberty was one of the main reasons why a number of states were reluctant to accept the Constitution. Objections to the Constitution In order to approve the new Constitution, voters were to elect representatives to special state conventions. In New York, Virginia, and Massachusetts, the people and their representatives were strongly opposed to the Constitution. They were called the "Antifederalists." The Antifederalists included such patriots as Patrick Henry, the Virginia orator; Sam Adams, the Massachusetts agitator; George Mason, who had written much of the Virginian Constitution; and Richard Henry Lee, who had served as Virginia's delegate to the Continental Congress. The Antifederalists argued that the states would be absorbed into an all-too-powerful national government. They claimed that the limits on direct voting and the long terms of the president and senators would create an aristocratic class. They also feared that the president might become another monarch. In other words, these Antifederalists felt that the new Constitution was most undemocratic. Their major objection to the new Constitution was its lack of a bill of rights. "Bills of rights" list the specific freedoms that governments cannot threaten or take away. When the Constitution was being written, many state constitutions already had bills of rights. For that reason, the authors of the Constitution did not feel it was necessary to have another one. The antifederalists believed that without a list of personal freedoms, the new national government might abuse its powers. They worried that it would destroy the liberties won in the Revolution. ... The Ninth and Tenth Amendments: Reserved Powers The last two amendments address the liberties of citizens and the rights of states. The Ninth Amendment states that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights do not define all of the fundamental rights people have. Such rights exist whether or not they are defined. The Tenth Amendment makes a similar claim concerning the rights of the states. It holds that the states and the people have powers that are set aside and not listed item by item. These powers are called "reserved powers." They can be contrasted with "express powers," which are specifically defined in the Constitution. In this way the Constitution allows for growth and change. ------- The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. -- Associate Justice Joseph Story, appointed by James Madison, served 1812-1845, on the 2nd amendment
Well the right to bear arms will never be conceded or abandon. It seems every point in the Constitution is a point of contention these days. The Federalist and the Democrats of that day battled long and hard, but they did come to the common ground, the Constitution we see with few amendments since. Now how did we arrive at a place where we can not begin from the common place handed to all of us, along with a diaper. We can not even agree what the meaning of words used are, like "infringed". A well documented procedure exists to amend the Constitution but those would like a change, never offer an amendment. They prefer to ignore the process, change the definition of a word, ignore a word, or offer a new common sense (non sense) understanding. How did we arrive at a place where we can not begin with the common understanding we all were handed when we arrived? Does anyone else see this as bazaar? Is it the education system? Did anyone ever read the baloney in the Roe vs Wade decision? Was there ever an amendment offered to make a woman's choice a right? I don't recall it, but I would support it. I hate the idea of killing the child (yes right word) but the idea of forcing a woman to raise a child she does not want is even worse. More feral children is worse yet.
Because Liberals live in a Utopian world where everyone is going to get along, and we should feed everybody, and cloth everybody, and provide everyone a home and healthcare and a stipend to live off of. They want their iphones and their starbucks and their Prius, but they don't want to acknowledge how those things are made, what they're made of, and where those resources come from. America is the clueless rich people living upstairs while China, and India, and Mexico are doing all the polluting and manufacturing downstairs. Out of sight, out of mind. We just want everything made for us and we don't care how it came to be. We are the Downton Abbey of the global economy.
It's the marketplace of ideas, I guess. Shop there sometime, there have been some new ones introduced since you and the founding fathers got together. barfo
