Obama's welcome assault on the NRA and gun lovers

ed hardy ed hardy
ed hardy clothing ed hardy clothing
ed hardy shop ed hardy shop
christian audigier christian audigier
ed hardy cheap ed hardy cheap
ed hardy outlet ed hardy outlet
ed hardy sale ed hardy sale
ed hardy store ed hardy store
ed hardy mens ed hardy mens
ed hardy womens ed hardy womens
ed hardy kids ed hardy kids ed hardy kids

interesting read I really like this story.
walk in bathtubs, electric cigarette, steam shower reviews, american electronic cigarette, e cigarette

Stunning silver jewellery from tiffany, Gucci, Links of London; quality designer silver jewelry at online prices. We have silver Bracelets, Solid Silver ...

Shop creations of timeless beauty from cheap tiffany jewelrythat will be treasured always. You can buy cheap tiffany jewelry but high quality from us

العاب ستروبري شورت كيك
العاب رقص
العاب بنات
العاب
العاب بنات
العاب تلبيس
العاب اولاد
العاب براتز
العاب باربي

العاب طبخ
العاب مكياج وميك اب
العاب اطفال
العاب سيارات
العاب قص الشعر
العاب
العاب فلاش
العاب ماريو
العاب بنات
العاب g9g
العاب
العاب بنات
العاب طبخ
العاب اكشن
العاب سيارات
العاب باربي

العاب طبخ
العاب باربي
العاب بنات جديدة
العاب
موقع العاب
العاب سيارات
العاب سبيستون
العاب براتز
العاب اولاد
العاب بنات فقط
العاب قص شعر
العاب مجانيه
العاب ستروبري شورت كيك

العاب رقص
العاب بحرية
العاب زوارق
العاب جديدة

العاب فلة
العاب هانا مونتانا
يوتيوب
العاب
العاب بنات
girls games
العاب g9g
العاب براتز
العاب اولاد
hguhf
عيش سفارى
العاب تلبيس باربي
العاب براتس
العاب بنات شمس
يوتيوب
العاب
العاب بنات
العاب
العاب بنات
العاب تلبيس

Well let me start by saying this.. If there is ever a ban on weapons,there will be a HUGE surge of crimes and murders..Why you ask? I'll tell you. The criminals will be the only ones with guns.You truly think if you take guns away crimes with them go down? Heck no! Criminals will never turn them in. And if they know people are not armed,they will not even hesitate to rob or kill somebody.For example look at Australia and the United kingdom, they have a complete ban on all weapons and there crime rates have surged out of control.But will you ever hear that one the news in the United States? No,the liberals control the air waves.Plus there to busy riding obama's nuts. I didnt vote for him,But he's my president now and will try to support his agenda.

As for the so called assault weapons we own, They may look like the military versions. But are weapons are just semi-auto, and they are no different then a semi-auto hunting rifle.Hell most hunting rifles are way more power then are so-called "assault rifles". Please go to this link for a educated look at "Assault Rifles" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0

And as for blaming President for the economy and other stuff. OK he wasnt the best president out there.But guess what? The democrats where in charge of the Senate and congress the last two years he was president.But do the democrats blame themselves? Nope!! Lets just hope Obama does what he promised.But i trult doubt he be any better..

Interface,

The problem is your idea of reasonable isn't the same as my idea of reasonable or the next persons. Since the second amendment doesn't specify what arms you can bear then why should it be considered reasonable to ban any guns. You are assuming that your idea of a resonable ban is the standard. Sorry doesn't really work for many of us.

Never saw a hunter use either. Assualt rifles seem to be well suited for college campus shootings or high schools. Handguns are a must in our nations large city.

Nothing makes us safer then gunfire in crowded cities or people excersizing their rights to carry weapons used to wiping out a squad of the enemy while in combat.

What ever happened to owning a shotgun and a dog when living in the country?

I never have seen a story of somebody fending off the British or Al Qaeda with their assualt rifles. I am sure it must be common out in the rural areas where the panic buying is going on.

I guess at least some sector of the economy is not having problems from the recession.

Yael,
This is America where our god given rights are spelled out in our bill of rights. We do not have to have a NEED in order to exercise our rights.
So let's turn this around. Yael, why on Earth do you need to use your first amendment rights to post blogs here? Why do you need the internet? why do you need a computer? why do you need anything other than paper and a pen, I mean that's obviously all the Founder's ever intended. They NEVER could have imagined radip, tv, the internet, computers and typewriters. So you really don't NEED any of those things do you in order to exercise your 1st Amendment rights, do you?

So why do liberals always go to the "need" when it comes to guns. Why do you care. Liberals always want to talk about gun owners not needing that many guns. They are not the problem and banning me from buying a gun is not going to solve gun crime anymore than making drug illegal has solved the drug crime or making driving drunk illegal has ended that practice.
Do some research. An assault weapon is not different than many deer rifles and hunting rifles they just look "meaner" really.

Hell yes on arm ourselves---since the crowning of O B I have bought three new firearms

I am livid. Absolutely filled with righteous anger. How dare you take away my right to hunt or practice shooting at targets with my own guns? How dare you silence my right to free speech and pass around a petition to silence radio commentators who disagree with the president's policies? How dare you tell me that my child can have an abortion and she doesn't need to tell me about it, but I can't let her have an aspirin without a signed permission slip? How dare you take my hard earned taxes that I pay every year and turn around and fund abortions in other countries? How dare you take our taxes and use them to "bail out" the pornography-producing NEA when Kansas is $300 million in the hole and our district has to fire our teachers? What's with these new cars for government employees when we have the highest unemployment rate since WWII? And Nancy Pelosi smuggly says, "We won, therefore we can do what we want!" The murdering terrorists will be moved to Kansas - why not San Francisco? Those who voted for the current occupant should have their heads examined.

So you know what the intent was behind the second amendment eh. Well you apparently are the only one. You have figured out what people have been arguing about for quite some time. Wow. The state of law of course has put limits on many things that some would say it shouldn't have. Is it right that we pay a hefty amount in income tax? Sure it funds many government programs but tax wasn't put in place until around WWI. Whatever did we do before that? Government has grown into the money nicely wouldn't you say? At any rate new law is beginning to dictate the constitution rather than the constituation dicate law. Dangerous ground. Anywho it has been interesting. Take care!

I think that actually it was good that I was called out on one thing. I shouldn't have said there should be a limit. If you obey the law then why not own whatever you want. If you think it is not necessary then think about why people own really expensive cars and such. Is that necessary? Nope. And if you are concerned about somebody snapping and going on a rampage,...well that can happen just as easily with someone taking a kitchen knife and running around killing. So are going to put a ban on assult knives vs. butter knives? Anyway our points are made. We probably will never change each others minds but the points are made so enjoy.

If you haven't broken any laws then why shouldn't you be able to own a gun. Be it a machine gun or hand gun or whatever. For many people this is a matter of collecting and shooting for sport. Why shouldn't I have the right to do that? Who is the government to tell me(when it comes to guns)hey you can't own this or that when I don't break the rules. I pay my taxes and just happen to have different interests than you do. Sorry I just don't agree with your generalizations.

Interface,

You are a textbook example of someone who has no reasoning skills. Should there be a limit on SOME things...well of course. For example you don't have the right to steal from someone or to kill someone. But to own a gun in whatever form (mind you I said gun, not missles, cannons or bombs), that is a right that was given to us by the founding fathers. This is a matter of the rights given to us as Americans form the founding of our country.

Interface,

Ok you are missing the point. If you were to walk into the Federal Court house with a gun then you would not be a lawful citizen since there are laws that say you should not do that. As far as something that shoots napalm well thats just silly for one but it is a far cry from a fully automatic weapon. You are talking about bombs with mass distruction I am talking about GUN control. Stay on topic.

I agree that assult weapons are designed to kill people. However that does not mean that because you purchase one, you intend to use it for that. If you are a lawful citizen then you should have the right to purchase whatever firearm you wish. Again I will reiterate that criminals do not and will never register their guns so no measure of gun control will help keep them out of their hands. This is about rights that were given to use by our founding fathers and should never be toyed with.

Ok you sir are not as intelligent as you think you are. The fact is the second amendment is more clear than politics and people like you have made it out to be. We have the right to bear arms in any form that we see fit provided we have not violated any laws. As for why a person wants an assult rifle? Well why do people drive hummers around and other large or expensive vehicles? Because you can and you enjoy it. We don't get guns to use them on a person. We get them because we are interested in them. As far as reducing violence, the fact is if you put laws on guns the people who are law-abiding won't have them but criminals will still get them on the black market. You are solving nothing and reducing the defense of lawful people.
In short, get over yourself and come down off your high horse. Wake up!

This was a real nice try to get folks reading your paper again, trying to attract both liberals and gun owners with inflammatory rhetoric to buy your papers to see what you write again.

Hopefully writing more sensational editorials using dime store paperback drama will help bring back those hundreds laid off at your paper of the last couple of years.

I'm pretty conservative and I own more guns for that. Apparently you've never hunted or gone shooting for recreation or even thought about self defense.

This is a pretty simple list.

1) Shotgun to hunt pheasants, ducks and maybe even rabbit
2) 30.06 rifle or 30-30 rifle used to hunt deer.
3) .22 lr rifle used to hunt rabbit, squirrel and just plinking.
4) 9 mm is my personal defense weapon.

Oooops I'm already up to 4 which is what you think the maximum number of guns should be per person.

Well I still have a shotgun I got from my grandfather and two shotguns I got from my father. These you will never take from me.

I also have a small .410 shotgun I keep for teaching young people hunter safety.

I also have a .22 lr pistol I use for target practice because the ammo is much cheaper than my 9 mm. Besides my wife enjoys this gun too.

OK I think I've made my point. I have a few guns. I'm not a gun nut. I'm actually very conservative.

I believe in the 2nd Amendment and I KNOW it stands for much more than guns that are used for hunting.

You sir need to get out of the big city.

As a former News Director I'm shocked by the garbage I read from this and other slanted journalistic rags today.

"Because many people fear that Obama and a Democratic-controlled Congress will try to stop them from buying assault rifles -- as if there's any reason in the world for a citizen to own such a thing."
You are just another emasculated panty waste that considers himself a journalist.
Semi-automatic rifles, though confusingly classified in the USA as assault weapons by the now defunct 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, are not assault rifles as they are not selective fire. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with fixed magazines also do not meet the definition of an assault rifle.
Why don't you learn your facts before you dribble on about things your are ignorant about?
If the dim-witted dems are stupid enough to mess with law abiding citizens gun rights they will get broomed out just like they did in 94. Gun haters are ignorant on the subject of gun ownership...the very people that advocate gun bans are the very people that will be slaughtered by extremists that would like to do great harm to this country.
They will be the first in-line to buy a gun when criminals or terrorists attack them.

I honestly don't know why the Star employs you.I will cancel our office subscriptions to the paper and I certainly will not read his stupidity any more!
Paula Davis

Shocking discovery! A team of constitutional scholars, working under the supervision of the Library of Congress, has discovered a transcription error in the second amendment. It seems that the original document, handwritten, signed and dated, reads the right to BARE arms! News accounts from the time confirm that the delegates were torn over the issue of stripping down to their sleeveless undershirts in the hot Philadelphia summer. After heated debate a compromise to allow the wearing of sleeveless "spouse beaters", as they were known at the time, in work chambers when ladies were present. That agreement was formalized in the second amendment.

Upon notification Justice Antonin Scalia (a strict interpretationalist) declared all weapons outside the police and military illegal and ordered all patriots to surrender their weapons. He did make provision for the use of sparklers and cap pistols on the 4th of July.

Unreasoned, illogical, and wrongheaded emotional clap-trap. Abouhalkah would be submitting blank articles if he was required to be factual and truthful.

I propose a new term:

Wednesday Morning Special: A firearm purchased immediately following a leftist electoral victory in anticipation of an attempt to trample the fundamental rights of the people.

Fact: the 1968 Gun Control Act as introduced by Thomas Dodd (father of Chris Dodd) was a direct translation of a Nazi firearms law intended to help disarm the people.

What other right do US citizens possess where they have to ask permission from the government to exercise?

What if all newspapers had to submit all article to the government for approval before publishing them?

What if you had to get permission to attend church, not attend or change your religious affiliation?

What if the lawmakers said that the freedom of the press only extended to hand cranked printing presses?

What if the government decided how big your house should be or what car you had to drive based on what some group that hated you decided you "needed"?

Listen, it is none of your business how many guns I have or what I plan to do with them nor do I have to prove a need to exercise my right to keep and bear arms.

In EVERY instance of governments murdering or imprisoning large percentages of their populations, it was preceded with "common sense gun control" that eventually led to confiscation.

No, I probably won't do much against the US military with my puny semi auto rifle, but should it come to the point where I have to defend my life against government goons, I'm not going after them. I'm going after the people who passed the laws and sent them.

And THAT is exactly what the 2nd Amendment was put in the Constitution for.

And people don't NEED 150 thousand dollar sports cars. Or plasma TV sets. Or 500 watt stereo systems. Or homes with 4 or 5 bathrooms. Where will it all end??

Besides, it is a CONSTITUTIONAL right to own firearms for any legal reason. Such as self-defense, gun collections, or simply as wall hangers or door stops.

How would you like a seven day waiting period before your columns are allowed to be printed? Or only allow you to print articles with less firepower?

Say we eliminate your right to use the letters A, E, I, O, or U when writing?

Also if you want to take the time to see the sources of this information. http://www.gunfacts.info/
when you get the facts you find there is NO reason for more gun control laws, unless of course you want a more tyranical government. The top requirement of socailism or communism is to get the gun and disarm the populace.

Myth: You are more likely to be injured or killed using a gun for self-defense
Fact: You are far more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun. In episodes where a robbery victim was injured, the injury/defense rates were:
Resisting with a gun 6%
Did nothing at all 25%
Resisted with a knife 40%
Non-violent resistance 45%
Myth: Guns are not effective in preventing crime against women
Fact: Of the 2,500,000 annual self-defense cases using guns, more than 7.7% (192,500) are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.
Fact: When a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of rape attacks are completed, compared to 32% when unarmed.120
Fact: The probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the benefits are smaller at 1.4 times more likely to receive a serious injury.
Fact: 28.5% of women have a gun in the house.
Fact: 41.7% of women either own or have rapid access to guns.
Fact: In 1966, the city of Orlando responded to a wave of sexual assaults by offering firearms training classes to women. Rapes dropped by nearly 90% the following year.

Myth: One out of five police officers killed are killed with assault weapons
Fact: This “study” included firearms not on the former Federal “assault weapons” list. Including various legal firearms45 inflated the statistics almost 100%.
Fact: Only 1% of police officers murdered were killed using “assault weapons”. They were twice as likely to be killed with their own handgun.
Fact: One federal government study found zero “assault weapons” were used to kill cops.

Myth: Assault weapons are favored by criminals
Fact: Only 8% of criminals use anything that is classified (even incorrectly) as an "assault weapon"4849, though less than 1% claimed to use these firearms when committing crimes.
Fact: Criminals are as likely to carry single shot (derringer-type) handguns as they are to carry "assault weapons".
Fact: "Assault rifles have never been an issue in law enforcement. I have been on this job for 25 years and I haven't seen a drug dealer carry one. They are not used in crimes, they are not used against police officers."
Fact: "Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that "assault weapons" are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets."
Thoughts: “Assault weapons” are large and unwieldy. Even misclassified handguns tend to be bigger than practical for concealed carry. Criminals (who, incidentally, disregard concealed carry laws) are unlikely to carry "assault weapons."

Myth: Assault weapons can be easily converted to machine guns
53Fact: Firearms that can be “readily converted” are already prohibited by law.
Fact: None of the firearms on the list of banned weapons can be readily converted.
Fact: Only 0.15% of over 4,000 weapons confiscated in Los Angeles in one year were converted, and only 0.3% had any evidence of an attempt to convert.

Myth: Assault weapons are used in 16% of homicides
Fact: This figure was concocted to promote an “assault weapons” bill in New York. The classification scheme used encompassed most firearms sold in the U.S. since 1987 (center fire rifles and shotguns holding more than six cartridges, and handguns holding more than 10 rounds). By misclassifying “assault weapons”, they expanded the scope of a non-problem.

Myth: Nobody needs an assault weapon
Fact: Recall the Rodney King riots in that anti-gun city of Los Angeles. Every major news network carried footage of Korean storeowners sitting on the roofs of their stores, armed with “assault weapons”.61 Those were the stores that did not get burned to the ground, and those were the people that were not dragged into the street and beaten by rioters. "You can't get around theimage of people shooting at people to protect their stores and it working. This is damaging to the [gun control] movement."
Fact: There are many reasons people prefer to use these firearms:
• They are easy to operate
• They are very reliable in outdoor conditions (backpacking, hunting, etc.)
• They are accurate
• They are good for recreational and competitive target shooting
• They have value in many self-defense situations
Fact: There are many sports in which these firearms are required:
• Many hunters use these firearms
• Three-gun target matches
• Camp Perry competitions, especially the Service Rifle events
• DCM/CMP competitions
• Bodyguard simulations
Fact: Ours is a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs.

Myth: Gun shows are supermarkets for criminals
Fact: Only 0.7% of convicts bought their firearms at gun shows. 39.2% obtained them from illegal street dealers
1997 study that found 1.7% - 2% of guns used in criminal offenses were purchased at gun shows.
Fact: The FBI concluded in one study that no firearms acquired at gun shows were used to kill cops. “In contrast to media myth, none of the firearms in the study were obtained from gun shows.”
90Fact: Only 5% of metropolitan police departments believe gun shows are a problem.
Fact: Only 3.5% of youthful offenders reported that they obtained their last handgun at a gun show.
Fact: 93% of guns used in crimes are obtained illegally (i.e., not at gun stores or gun shows).
Fact: At most, 14% of all firearms traced in investigations were purchased at gun shows. But this includes all firearms that the police traced, regardless of if they were used in crimes or not, which overstates the acquisition rate.
Fact: Gun dealers are federally licensed. They are bound to stringent rules for sales that apply equally whether they are dealing from a storefront or a gun show.
Fact: Most crime guns are either bought off the street from illegal sources (39.2%) or through family members or friends (39.6%),

Myth: Only police should have guns
Fact: “...most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.”
Fact: 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person.
Fact: Police have trouble keeping their own guns. Hundreds of firearms are missing from the FBI and 449 of them have been involved in crimes.
Fact: People who saw the helplessness of the L.A. Police Department during the 1992 King Riots or the looting and violence in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina know that citizens need guns to defend themselves.

Are you tired of having a Democratic President already? Can't wait for another repeat of 1994? You want Barak to enhance the credibility of the NRA so _everyone_ believes them next time -- and to turn working class whites against the Democratic Party _permanently_? All of this for gun control?

I would have thought liberals would have had higher political priorities.

And if you want to convince people that there is no place for "assault weapons" except on the battlefield, then stop exempting police from your bans. If police need this option, then so do we. That is, if we're still a system of _self_-government -- government _of_ the people, _by_ the people, and not merely claiming to be "for" the people. That is, if we are to continue viewing police officers as public servants rather than as our masters.

In any case, you can no more keep drug dealers and their customers from getting guns than you can prevent them from getting, well, illegal drugs. But if a law _could_ make it difficult (not merely somewhat less easy) for criminals to get guns, they'd always be able to get guns by assassinating police officers. (They could tackle one cop, and use his gun to ambush others.) If I were a cop, if I couldn't kill all the criminals then I'd make _sure_ they had ways to get guns to kill one another other than by ambushing cops.

Oh, and a sheet of kevlar doesn't stop a bullet; it merely slows it down. Stopping a slow pistol bullet takes a dozen layers -- more layers and the vest would be too stiff and heavy to wear. That's why _all_ hunting rifle ammo will penetrate, not merely the less powerful "assault weapon" ammo.

Myth: Assault weapons are favored by criminals
Fact: Only 8% of criminals use anything that is classified (even incorrectly) as an "assault weapon", though less than 1% claimed to use these firearms when committing crimes.
Fact: Criminals are as likely to carry single shot (derringer-type) handguns as they are to carry "assault weapons".
Fact: "Assault rifles have never been an issue in law enforcement. I have been on this job for 25 years and I haven't seen a drug dealer carry one. They are not used in crimes, they are not used against police officers."
Fact: "Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that "assault weapons" are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets."
Thoughts: “Assault weapons” are large and unwieldy. Even misclassified handguns tend to be bigger than practical for concealed carry. Criminals (who, incidentally, disregard concealed carry laws) are unlikely to carry "assault weapons."
Myth: Assault weapons can be easily converted to machine guns
53Fact: Firearms that can be “readily converted” are already prohibited by law.
54Fact: None of the firearms on the list of banned weapons can be readily converted.
Fact: Only 0.15% of over 4,000 weapons confiscated in Los Angeles in one year were converted, and only 0.3% had any evidence of an attempt to convert

I can go on but suffice to say just about everything you have heard from the anti-gun left is a lie.

And it is these dopes that want us to hand over our guns. Why would I trust them?

Fact: Only 1.4% of recovered crime weapons are models covered under the 1994 "assault weapons" ban.
Fact: In Virginia, no surveyed inmates had carried an "assault weapon" during the commission of their last crime, despite 20% admitting that they had previously owned such weapons.
Fact: Most “assault weapons” have no more firepower or killing capacity than the average hunting rifle and “play a small role in overall violent crime”.
Fact: Even the government agrees. “... the weapons banned by this legislation [1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban - since repealed] were used only rarely in gun crimes”

even the Washington Post said:
"No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished (by the ban). Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control."
Washington Post editorial
September 15, 1994

A steping stone to braoder gun control.

so it isn't about saftey or the children it IS about control and banning guns.