GOP congressman threatens impeachment if Obama uses executive action for gun control

[petegz28]

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/14/go...r-gun-control/


Glad someone has a set in Congress

[Pitt Gorilla]

Originally Posted by frazod

**** you.

Nice. You honestly think the 2nd amendment should have zero regulation?

[frazod]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

Nice. You honestly think the 2nd amendment should have zero regulation?

Maybe if you want nice you shouldn't call me stupid when you post, douche.

[HC_Chief]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

You are mis-informed. Obama wanted to keep it Tea Party Republicans didn't. But in order to make a deal it was dropped.

of course, it was anyone's fault but Obamas. How silly of me.

[LiveSteam]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

I do have a real job, and I understood that the tax holiday was temporary. Sounds like you would have been happier without the holiday in the first place, rather than have it and then have it go away.

Fry cook at the local Burger king dose not count

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

Nice. You honestly think the 2nd amendment should have zero regulation?

Not for law abiding citizens. No.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by LiveSteam

Fry cook at the local Burger king dose not count

Not sure what that would have to do with me. But aren't you a ditch digger or something? Between that and your third-grade spelling ability, you shouldn't knock people who do actually work at Burger King.

[LiveSteam]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Not sure what that would have to do with me. But aren't you a ditch digger or something? Between that and your third-grade spelling ability, you shouldn't knock people who do actually work at Burger King.

I run my own company. Something I'm sure you will never achieve,or have the motivation to do.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by LiveSteam

I run my own company. Something I'm sure you will never achieve,or have the motivation to do.

So does the guy I see collecting cans on the side of the road. Whoopee.
Hey, you started this with insulting by fictional BK job.

[HC_Chief]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

I do have a real job, and I understood that the tax holiday was temporary. Sounds like you would have been happier without the holiday in the first place, rather than have it and then have it go away.

no, the holiday was generally regarded a s a good thing for those who actually work. Of course, none of this posturing is actually in relation to the working man, but those who make huge amounts of money (good for them), and the liberal redistribution crowd (douches); (see:communisim)
http://www.slate.com/articles/busine...f_must_be.html

[CoMoChief]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Not sure what that would have to do with me. But aren't you a ditch digger or something? Between that and your third-grade spelling ability, you shouldn't knock people who do actually work at Burger King.

When there's nothing else left in the cupboard, fry guy cosmo goes w/ the spelling attacks.

DING FRIES ARE DONE DING FRIES ARE DONE DING FRIES ARE DONE DING FRIES ARE DONE!!!!

[Cave Johnson]

Originally Posted by HC_Chief

BTW, thanks to the douche in command allowing the tax holiday expiration, my check is $1000 lighter; my wife also says "**** YOU, Obama"

What part of temporary payroll tax holiday was unclear?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD

The problem is right's shouldn't be regulated just because people don't like them.

Well it depends why people don't like them.

If people don't like Direckshun practicing free speech like "I hate Mitt Romney" because they disagree, then it would be unconstitutional to regulate his ability to say that.

If people don't like Direckshun practicing free speech like "I will kill Mitt Romney on his next visit to [insert swing state here]" because it's a dangerous threat to someone's safety, than it would be perfectly constitutional to regulate his ability to say that.

Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD

There should be a very high standard to restrict a freedom. Our politicians should NEVER be asking why we need to do anything. The only time need should play in is when do we need to restrict a freedom. There are always cases, but it should require proof not just dislike.

Really the standard should be simple, you have to prove that what you want to restrict actually causes significant harm and then you have to prove that the solution you propose actually has a chance to address that harm versus the cost of the freedom you are remove. Really it shouldn't be rocket science but when all of our politicians are bigots asking for proof is like asking for a unicorn.

While I agree that's not a bad standard to use "what we want to restrict causes significant harm," experimentation is the nature of governance.

I agree we shouldn't embrace policies for no reason. We should embrace them for solid, justifiable reasons that are reasonable and evidential.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Ebolapox

freedom must be fundamental
from Johannesburg to south central

Right.

[Comrade Crapski]

[Pitt Gorilla]

Originally Posted by Brock

Not for law abiding citizens. No.

No age or diagnosis of extreme mental illness restrictions?