Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is the NIH also prohibited from using it's funds to promote gun ownership?
I would think so since their reason for existence is to study national health and I don't really see anything about gun ownership that could be used to uphold them helping research the effects of guns on health.
Take a moment and look at what other articles the Writer of the piece has written. Nothing nice about Obama at all. This article has a lot of assumptions. SLANTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Are you saying that Holder is trying to do away with 2nd Amendment rights outside what his boss wants him to do? Maybe you need to take a non-partisan look at this problem
The Democrats went along went along with this bull****??? You gotta be ****ing kidding me! They should have told the Republicans to go to ****ing hell. WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO GET SOME DAMN BALLS?????
Also. WHAT ANTI GUN AGENDA?? IT DOESN'T EXIST! OBAMA ISN'T TRYING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY! DEAL WITH IT!
Uh...that treaty isn't even finished yet and you're already blaming Obama for it?
The new ATF rules expands an already existing requirement of more than 40 years which affects hand gun sales. All it does is include so-called "assault weapons," which is defined. (ps: Who was President 40 years ago? Richard Nixon. I guess he was coming to get your guns too, huh?)
In any case, it seems more designed to "get" the guns of Mexican drug cartels than ours. You're OK with that in principle, right? Or, do you think anybody ought to have the unfettered right to sell as many weapons to anybody they like, including the cartels?
You asked for examples of Obama's anti-gun agenda.
No. That's second or third-hand reporting of supposed conversations. You'll have to do better than that to convince me.
And besides, let's admit there is always going to be SOME kind of gun regulation. There is ample evidence in the past of what we like to call "gun control," and for valid reasons, just as there is today. I personally don't know anybody who would suggest that everybody should be able to own, sell or transfer, any weapon they like. Even the most ardent NRA supporter doesn't want that nut job down the street to get a .50 cal. machine-gun and I doubt you do either. Neither do I. Nor would most of like to know our neighbors have mortars, hand grenades or tanks. The Second Amendment does not say "guns," it says "arms" and that's a pretty broad description which could easily be defined as most anything without some kind of "gun control," no?
The point is that the Obama administration is hardly the first to suggest that weapons availability should be curtailed. Every administration for at least the past century and a half have done so too and so have every state and every city. The country is awash in gun laws which curtail, but do not eliminate, the rights contained in the Second Amendment and there's no reason to suspect that's going to change. I hope it doesn't. Moreover, the Supreme Court ruled a couple of years ago that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and that's where it stands now, barring the Court deciding to revisit that, which it shows no indication of wanting to do.
Consequently, the only thing we have to argue about is just what "gun control" will look like and what weapons it will affect. You may continue to blame Obama for his part in a long, historic process of gun control, but I don't know what you'll accomplish by doing so, other than to keep yourself upset over phantoms.
No. That's second or third-hand reporting of supposed conversations. You'll have to do better than that to convince me.
And besides, let's admit there is always going to be SOME kind of gun regulation. There is ample evidence in the past of what we like to call "gun control," and for valid reasons, just as there is today. I personally don't know anybody who would suggest that everybody should be able to own, sell or transfer, any weapon they like. Even the most ardent NRA supporter doesn't want that nut job down the street to get a .50 cal. machine-gun and I doubt you do either. Neither do I. Nor would most of like to know our neighbors have mortars, hand grenades or tanks. The Second Amendment does not say "guns," it says "arms" and that's a pretty broad description which could easily be defined as most anything without some kind of "gun control," no?
The point is that the Obama administration is hardly the first to suggest that weapons availability should be curtailed. Every administration for at least the past century and a half have done so too and so have every state and every city. The country is awash in gun laws which curtail, but do not eliminate, the rights contained in the Second Amendment and there's no reason to suspect that's going to change. I hope it doesn't. Moreover, the Supreme Court ruled a couple of years ago that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and that's where it stands now, barring the Court deciding to revisit that, which it shows no indication of wanting to do.
Consequently, the only thing we have to argue about is just what "gun control" will look like and what weapons it will affect. You may continue to blame Obama for his part in a long, historic process of gun control, but I don't know what you'll accomplish by doing so, other than to keep yourself upset over phantoms.
THe problemI have with people like you is that you jump straight into the the FULL AUTOMATIC machine guns, and mortors and tanks and all this other BS just to advance your agenda...period.
There are laws that protect even the average citizen form getting these weapons you speak of. Can you get them legally? Yes you can, but you will have certian aspects of the government up your a$$, and I agree with that, it will also cost you lots of $$$ to aquire these types of weapons legally.
However, there is a difference between an automatic and a fully automatic, I hope you know and understand the difference. But when the new talks about an automatic rifle, they show a machine gun, when they are not actually talking about that. The new is tlaking about a semi-auto, not a fully auto.
The other problem I have is, no matter what laws are in place, lets enforce them...not make new laws that nobody is going to enforce, cause lets face it...they do not enforce the current laws on the books anyway.
Are you saying that Holder is trying to do away with 2nd Amendment rights outside what his boss wants him to do? Maybe you need to take a non-partisan look at this problem
I was in no way talking anything about Holder. You re trying to change what i said. Go to the article and click on the reporters name and you will see all the articles she has written and everyone of them is against President Obama.Almost everyone of her articles are loaded with negative rhetoric that is yet to be anywhere true. Thus they are SLANTED! Don't you want to read true articles?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
