Rand Paul hurts Obama's Feelings

[Bo's Pelini]

"I've heard folks say that having the families of victims lobby for this legislation was somehow misplaced–a 'prop,' somebody called it," he said. "Are they serious? Do they really think that thousands of families whose lives have been shattered by gun violence don't have a right to weigh in on this issue? Do we think their emotions, their loss is not relevant to this debate?"

"So all in all, this was a pretty shameful day in Washington," he added.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...lies-as-props/
-





What a crybaby.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by WhawhaWhat

It's certainly a fear but I don't think it's always grounded. Sometimes it's fun to poke the bear on those less grounded.

We disagree. Obama is a community organizer a l'Alinsky. He's not to be trusted.

[WhawhaWhat]

Originally Posted by LiveSteam

& your response would be?

The government isn't coming to get anyone's guns. A background check is not that same as seizure. I know the new legislation is more complicated than that and probably has room for improvement, however I don't think more in-depth background checks are a bad thing. I say this while acknowledging that the gun issue isn't hugely important to me, I just like reading people's opinions.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by WhawhaWhat

The government isn't coming to get anyone's guns.

There are people in govt that do want our guns and will chip away at the right until it's gone for one reason or another. It's best to stop them early and never test it.

A background check is not that same as seizure. I know the new legislation is more complicated than that and probably has room for improvement, however I don't think more in-depth background checks are a bad thing. I say this while acknowledging that the gun issue isn't hugely important to me, I just like reading people's opinions.

It's an infringement though.

[frazod]

Originally Posted by WhawhaWhat

The government isn't coming to get anyone's guns. A background check is not that same as seizure. I know the new legislation is more complicated than that and probably has room for improvement, however I don't think more in-depth background checks are a bad thing. I say this while acknowledging that the gun issue isn't hugely important to me, I just like reading people's opinions.

It is a STEP. Do you think the anti-gun lobby would have disbanded had they pushed through registration? If they push through a high capacity magazine ban, or assault* weapon ban, they'll declare victory and call it a day? No, they will not. Ever. They just move on to the next step, and then the same dumbass sheep will be crying about how the NRA isn't being reasonable. Don't believe me? Are you at work right now? Try lighting up a cigarette and see what happens. Then remember that the anti-smoking craze started with removing ads from TV and banning smoking on airplanes back in the 70s. Look where we are now. That's what reasoning with hellbent extremists gets you.

That's why these vermin must be fought tooth and nail, on every issue, without fail, from now until the end of ****ing time.

* made up liberal douche term

[Raiderhader]

Originally Posted by jettio

So do you practice civil disobedience and make sure not to follow the requirements or do you just go along with it?

I reject the question. I reject the notion that as long as someone is acting with in their Constitional right that they are being disobedient.

Disobedience is what is being practiced by those who ignore the Constitutional restraints on government.

[Raiderhader]

Originally Posted by jettio

Tell that to convicted felons that can only afford to live in a neighborhood where it might be reasonable for them to feel that possessing a gun is necessary.

The proposed bills would all pass a constitutional review by the Supreme Court. It would not even be a close question.

In reality, this is a political decision by individual legislators, does not really have anything to do with what you might imagine the 2nd Amendment could mean to you. The constitution is a governing document not a poem or a movie or a painting that is "experienced" subjectively in some new age kind of way.

Exactly. It is NOT subjective. When it says "shall not be infringed" it means just that and nothing else. No matter how you feel about it personally.

[Raiderhader]

Originally Posted by Douchemaster General

It is a STEP. Do you think the anti-gun lobby would have disbanded had they pushed through registration? If they push through a high capacity magazine ban, or assault* weapon ban, they'll declare victory and call it a day? No, they will not. Ever. They just move on to the next step, and then the same dumbass sheep will be crying about how the NRA isn't being reasonable. Don't believe me? Are you at work right now? Try lighting up a cigarette and see what happens. Then remember that the anti-smoking craze started with removing ads from TV and banning smoking on airplanes back in the 70s. Look where we are now. That's what reasoning with hellbent extremists gets you.

That's why these vermin must be fought tooth and nail, on every issue, without fail, from now until the end of ****ing time.

* made up liberal douche term

[Chief Faithful]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Well, you were acting like they had to be banned for an infringement to occur. The federal govt has no right to even know who has a gun. It keeps them honest. Reasonable laws can be passed by the states.

And it has no right to tell me I can't have an AA12.