It is not a privilege, it is a right guaranteed to us by The Bill of Rights. IT SAYS SO!!!!!!!

 

Unlike insurance, which is a privileged and is not guaranteed in the Bill of Rights........can't have it both ways.

Can't totally blame him, the government has been chipping away at our rights for some time now and it continues to get worse. It's getting to be people don't even mind losing rights......really sad.

Do they have an agenda? Sure. So does anit-gun control. News? They would argue you're (collective) ignoring deaths of children just to have your chance to own big guns. What's new here?

 

Your argument does not refute anything I've said. Shame on us for moving on from the real tragedy. The deaths are secondary (to both sides IMO).

The anti-gun control side, at least the ones I'm familiar with, supports the constitution. Horrible thing to do, I know. Don't care? No, we care, that's why we want real solutions that will actually address the problem, not more knee-jerk reactions that will stop nothing and solve nothing.

Big guns? What big guns are you referring to? Certainly you don't think a Bushmaster is a "big gun", or do you?

No! You're letting your endless, irrational, blind support for the president control your position on every issue. See, I can make that work for you as well.

You're ignoring the facts. He has been anti-gun long since before he was president. I'm not so easily duped as his followers. So, I know his motives because he made them clear a long time ago.

 

Any legislation in the works to ban any psychotropic drugs in the works? I haven't seen any and if there is, we sure don't see any push from the administration for it like banning guns. Why is that? Because it has zero to do with Sandy Hook, the children or protecting anyone.

 

Maybe I can give you a reading lesson. Maybe you could reread the second paragraph and note the point I was making. If you still don't get it, I'll explain it too you. Second, there is nothing in the President's proposals that is "anti gun". As far as the drugs issue, what are you talking about?

How about if he believes that his adenda IS what is best for the country as a whole? Then it makes perfect sense for him to push his agenda. In fact, he would be derelect if he didn't push his agenda.

 

But he lied about the agenda for 6 years.

 

He was on the board at the Joyce Foundation. As was top Iranian-born advisor Valerie Jarrett. Extreme gun control has been an objective but in 2 elections it was covered up.

The anti-gun control side, at least the ones I'm familiar with, supports the constitution. Horrible thing to do, I know. Don't care? No, we care, that's why we want real solutions that will actually address the problem, not more knee-jerk reactions that will stop nothing and solve nothing.

Big guns? What big guns are you referring to? Certainly you don't think a Bushmaster is a "big gun", or do you?

 

WOW, something we can agree on. We both support the constitution. I haven't seen any proposals out of the administration that violate the constitution. I am not a constitutional expert (but like a lot of folks I play one on message boards), but the administration proposals seem to me to conform with Heller.

Define "moved on", in this circumstance? What am I, a 31 year old construction estimator in greater Cincinnati, supposed to be doing about what took place in Sandy Hook? I'm paying attention to the gun-control debates and proposed legislature that has come into being largely as a result of the shooting. I have voiced my opinion directly to my legislators regarding those debates and that proposed legislature as well. I pray every night, literally, for the state of moral decay in the United States. If I'm in the wrong for "moving on", then someone explain to me what I should be doing instead.

Maybe I can give you a reading lesson. Maybe you could reread the second paragraph and note the point I was making. If you still don't get it, I'll explain it too you. Second, there is nothing in the President's proposals that is "anti gun". As far as the drugs issue, what are you talking about?

:lol2:

Perhaps I can give you one as well, I was pointing out that we know his motives. He made it clear years ago. If you still don't get that, it's only because to refuse to get it.

 

Second, yes, there is plenty in his proposal that is anti-gun.

 

You don't get the drug issue? Really? Psychotropic drugs? Seems a lot of these murderers were on them at the time they went off the deep end.

WOW, something we can agree on. We both support the constitution. I haven't seen any proposals out of the administration that violate the constitution. I am not a constitutional expert (but like a lot of folks I play one on message boards), but the administration proposals seem to me to conform with Heller.

Banning guns based on lies, half truths, ignorance, fear mongering, misinformation or just flat out appearance does nothing to support the constitution and worse it does nothing to solve the problem.

Define "moved on", in this circumstance? What am I, a 31 year old construction estimator in greater Cincinnati, supposed to be doing about what took place in Sandy Hook? I'm paying attention to the gun-control debates and proposed legislature that has come into being largely as a result of the shooting. I have voiced my opinion directly to my legislators regarding those debates and that proposed legislature as well. I pray every night, literally, for the state of moral decay in the United States. If I'm in the wrong for "moving on", then someone explain to me what I should be doing instead.

It's simple from their view. Agree with the president and no one else and comply with their agenda. Then, you care. Otherwise, you're a heartless right-winger that doesn't care about children.

Never let a crisis go to waste--Rahm Emanual

 

I'd say it's fair to assume what the President's motives are. And before you say it, yes I take everything that Obama says with a massive grain of salt because I believe that he is more interested in pushing his agenda then in what's good for the country as a whole. And I'm no worse in that position then you are in defending him on anything he says or does.

 

This.

It's simple from their view. Agree with the president and no one else and comply with their agenda. Then, you care. Otherwise, you're a heartless right-winger that doesn't care about children.

 

So sad, but true.