All Tell

Maybe the presence of a point shaver has something to do with that?

I was more referring to the tags of unprecedented that people like Biden have used concerning this letter. I find both objectionable, but what I find even more objectionable is the lefts seeming ignorance of history when it suite their needs.

Looks like liberal hero and secretary killer Ted Kennedy penned a letter to Soviet leadership at the same time Ronald Reagan was negotiating with them. Can you say precedent? Funny how the networks don't say anything about that while vilifying this letter as undermining the president. LINK

Good to see libs are consistent in their attack idiocy. We didn't like Obama because he was black, we don't like Hillary because she's a woman (at least she says she is, I'm not sold). How can anyone take any claim of racism or misogyny from them. Peter had nothing on them.

Didn't Nancy Pelosi visit Bashar Assad while she was speaker and GWB was trying to weaken and isolate him? Maybe the precedent has already been set?

I would really love to see how some "experts" would fare if they actually coached

I really want to get in on this but I'm going to refrain because I don't want to get banned for slamming fellow posters. Everyone has opinions on what should have happened and you're entitled, regardless of how wrong you are.

I don't agree with the letter but with Obama setting himself above congress in all matters I can somewhat understand. People have spoken in this thread about precedents, please remember that there is a Republican in the White House and by fiat basically does whatever he or she wants.

But it does have to do with your insistence to say that they are right because the right to keep a loaded gun is not specifically mentioned in the constitution.

Is the right to privacy? The right to abortion? The right to affordable health insurance?

How long before the chorus of misogyny rings through the dems?

Anyone who thinks that evil does not exist needs to read this.

So then states have a right to regulate who can and can't vote? Would that include literacy tests and poll taxes? Here's a question how many of the people on here who see no problem with this would also have no problem if states mandated picture IDs to vote. I sure seem to remember a bunch of the people that were the harshest critics of those proposed limitations on a constitutional right being the ones that are OK with this one.

And I disagree. The people are following legal guidelines to participate in a constiuitionally guaranteed right and yet they are being turned away, thus the need for the new statute protecting their right. And before you say their right to arms hasn't been denied I would again go back to the gay couple example. If a gay couple were denied in this instance but were told they could adopt if they slept on separate beds would they have been discriminated against? I'm not getting into the "gay is a choice debate" rather I'm saying that if they chose to sleep together as a couple and were told they could foster kids if they gave up that choice the same people who are saying choose between the two in this situation would be outraged.

From what I've read none of the restrictions that are being pushed for would have prevented most of the school incidents because the guns were legally obtained. Again, I have no issue with the gun owner being held accountable if the negligently store the weapon.

How so? I'll bet before the Boston bombing the thought of a pressure cooker being weaponized was seen as absurd by many. Could a kid not take matches to a school, start a fire and cause tragedy? Would a child killed in that situation be any less dead then a kid killed by a gun?

What if the adopted or foster kid takes mom's box of kitchen matches to school and starts a fire and something awful happens? Where does it stop?

But the rule that guns and ammo be stored separately is over kill, no pun intended.

The absurdity of being mandated to store the guns and ammo separately.

My point is that if the CPS is going to mandate that anything that could possibly cause an accidental death be locked up that would be seen as absurd. Just as absurd as requiring guns and ammo be stored separately.

Exactly. And that's what the perspective foster parents are asking for. A change in the rule so that the guns can be securely stored while loaded. They are currently being denied because they want the guns and ammo is separate locations.

Can a child kill himself, his siblings or Dad 1, Dad 2 or whatever if they accidentally get their hands on a kitchen knife? Should we mandate that kitchen utensils be locked in a knife safe? I have no problem with gun safety, I also have no problem with gun owners who through acts of negligence in gun safety being held accountable when a tragedy occurs.

I've got no problem with that at all. They are being denied currently because they want the guns and ammo secured in separate locations.

I see it differently. What if they imposed "rules" on a gay couples, mandating they sleep in separate rooms for instance. If they choose not to follow those rules are they being discriminated against? It's their choice after all.

And I think it's absurd to have a an unloaded gun. Home owner to intruder, hold on a second while I get my bullets. Absurd. Maybe we can get the intruder to call ahead so they can be ready. I have no issue with practicing gun safety. I have no issue with mandating training and certification to have a concealed carry permit. How do off duty police store their weapons? And for the record I'm not a gun owner but 100% support the right to get one if I want.