I take it that a business should not manage their business in the manner they see fit considering whatever criteria
they see fit at the time ! I guess that is a liberty they shouldn't enjoy.
Bruce Libby....they certainly can enjoy the liberty of not selling guns and, I can enjoy the Liberty of boycotting them. They have their reasons and I have mine.
A little irony to go with your lead . .
So, what went wrong in Benghazi, Mdm Sec?
Well, not enough guns, I guess.
Good find on that Piers Morgan/Larry Pratt interview. Larry owned Piers.
With this hysteria going on, we all should be paying careful attention to those who capitulate to the hysteria and those that resist it. Those that resist it are the true patriots and we need to remember them when the dust settles.
Don't go back to those businesses, politicians or friends that could not take the heat, once the heat subsides.
"Psychiatry goes insane: Every human emotion now classified as a mental disorder in new psychiatric manual DSM-5" link below
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038322_DSM-5_psychiatry_false_diagnosis.html#...
Seems we all my have mental disorders requiring medication and gun ownership denial by the feds
I have been thinking a bit about all of this........and have concluded that it is NOT really a battle over guns or gun control.
I believe the "leftists" are feeling really cocky about the big wins last month, and see this latest escapade as the dream of their lives. What this is really all about, perhaps, is a pitched battle to the finish, to destroy conservatives and conservative ideas.
Put em all in the bag in one fell swoop so-to-speak.
I have never seen as much outright venom and hatred directed towards conservatives, as I have in the last 5 days. They are wanting people they disagree with dead, for god's sake. How much worse than that can it get?
Well, their leader has said "America must change" and appears quite a few are ready to change us.
I see some major stumbling blocks to them taking over. one, not many gunowners are going to voluntarily give up their only means of defense.
Two, this economy is bad, intelligent people see the writing on the wall. Intelligent people know that government will not be there to help them when the SHTF.
In fact intelligent people know that government will harm them when the SHTF.
Even if they institute bans in 2013 a vast amount of people will ignore them, because government is not our friend.
The leading media outlets running this story non-stop at Reuters, WaPo, CNN and the far left outlets. They are creating the ILLUSION that it is a popular issue. The fact is, among the people I have spoken to the last week or so, this topic has come up only once, and then indirectly.
Dose anyone find it rather unusual that the lawmakers who will be debating and deciding on our constitutionally afforded right to keep arms, all have armed protection in the form of Secret Service, Marines, and entourages of armed personnel?
Dose anyone think even for a moment that the gun regulations about to be discussed will in any shape or form have an impact the weapons their armed staff will be using to defend them?
If they so strongly believe guns are bad, why then do they not fire all their armed protection and defend themselves with ink pens, I-Phones, and their households pets?
My experience has been similar to Tom's. Many of my more liberal friends and family members don't understand the call for gun bans, etc. Even the folks who I would expect to be jumping on the ban band wagon - Obama voters, hippie-type environmentalists, tax and spenders - are against the idea. And I have to say that in some cases, I am truly surprised.
It seems that the liberal intelligentsia/ruling class is trying to foist the "need" for gun control upon us all.
In this latest horror, how much gun control will have any effect on the mentally ill that steal a gun ?
One child was shot eleven times with an automatic. Would one shot from a single shot gun had a different result?
I sort of enjoy discussions about the Evil in the Heart of Liberalism, always have, but it's time to recall its relevance to the question of what a real debate or "national conversation" about gun rights/gun control would look like. To summarize much of the commentary it appears to me to be this: they really aren't interested in debate. They see the school tragedy as a political and ideological opportunity. It would be unfair to suggest that they are not horrified by the Kindermord, It's just that political calculation is always a factor, for them and for us as well.
In their eagerness to exploit the public's horror (which we all share) they are launching into demands for "sensible" (but undefined) gun control laws, intermixed with demands for a reduction of gun ownership and empty sermonizing about "the American gun culture." And all this is garnished with ignorant babble about "assault magazines," automatic weapons. Their sincerity/insincerity is irrelevant to the question I raised. There is no real debate and no series proposals to discuss. And public horror seems to be translated into one single concrete action---buy guns.
And when these anti gun people need help, who do they call, the police, who have guns. W by not just skip a step, save time and maybe your life by having your own gun?
Here's a little different angle on the gun control 'debate'. Obama and his minions are advocates of disarming Americans , no need for automatic weapons here in America... But they have and continue to fund and arm anti government and insurgent forces all over the world WHO OPPOSE THEIR CURRENT GOVERNMENTS,these are governments that are recognized as legitimate governments by other countries. ....Tens of thousands of people , old young women and children have died on the receiving end of American issued weapons...Don't you find it a little paradoxical that on one hand obama is ok with arming militias and insurgents with automatic weapons because it fits his agenda...... but is advocating disarming the American people and militias who have a constitutional right to them because it fits obama's agenda. and anti gun narrative..... More far left hypocrisy......think it through
There is never going to be a "national debate" over gun control. The left has already decided what the results of that "debate" are going to be, now it is up to us to just let them shove it down our throats.
They could never lower themselves to having any kind of real "debate" with people that are beneath them, and they think of as "conservative, ignorant hillbillies!
Our thoughts and voices will never matter to the self-appointed "enlightened ones".
Why would Obama appoint Vice President Buffoon to head up a committee on banning guns? Even Obama knows the guy is an abject moron.
Dec 18 Gallup poll:
The public, in general, believes that "banning assault weapons" is the LEAST effective approach to stopping school shootings.
Review of the internals shows that support for gun bans is primarily a DEMOCRAT idea.
Piers Morgan may have put the nail in the coffin for new gun control with his over-the-top rants the last few days, he got a day of sensational headlines followed by what I guess will be at least a week of regret.
As far as Biden leading the cause, I think Obummer thinks it will give "Stand up, ChucK" Joe something to do, and Obummer doesn't have the attention span to be interested in this issue for more than a couple of weeks, and he won't care about it in a month.
Hey, Obummer - how about the 10,000 civilians killed in Syria the last year or so? Any chance of making a speech there? Maybe have your synchophants in the media give a little coverage to your failed foreign policy? Hey Piers, want to do a story on Benghazi?
These people are hypocrites. They don't care about death and destruction, the killing of innocents. They only care about what emotions that can use to advance their political causes.
If there is to be a serious discussion about the issue,then it would be nice to deal with what has happened to date in response to the latest incident.
The three general things I have heard going to be proposed are:
Banning sale of Military Like weapons :
Banning large capacity ammo magazines:
Require background checks for gun show sales:
With the exception of the first one I believe the last two would pass constitutionally!
Note: I am not advocating for them or against them at this time.
To date everything else is pure conjecture.
At News Conference, Reporters Skip Past Gun Control and Face Instant Criticism
Stay on script! Remeber: EVERYONE is calling for gun control, and don't report anything other than that!
Gross. Barack Obama Uses Sandy Hook Massacre to Push Tax Hikes
More evidence for "sociopath".
Dose anyone find it rather unusual that the lawmakers who will be debating and deciding on our constitutionally afforded right to keep arms, all have armed protection in the form of Secret Service, Marines, and entourages of armed personnel? Dose anyone think even for a moment that the gun regulations about to be discussed will in any shape or form have an impact the weapons their armed staff will be using to defend them? If they so strongly believe guns are bad, why then do they not fire all their armed protection and defend themselves with ink pens, I-Phones, and their households pets?
I just caught up on the latest posts, and the above and others touch on the points I wanted to make.
First, equal rights under the law. If LEO's, bodyguards, secret service personnel, and others who 'carry' as part of their job are permitted to defend themselves and others against dirt-bags, shouldn't we have the same rights? Or, as suggested, should they have to give up their weapons too? And what about the military? Look at Major Hassan!
Many of us probably consider ourselves bodyguards for our family, and a few others.
As to enhanced background checks, etc, look at the CT case. The shooter, as I understand it, was denied purchase last week.
But his mother, who presumably had a clean background when it comes to such purchases, apparently bought and stockpiled in significant quantity. And the demented son could get to this stockpile. What about friends who knew about her weapons? What about burglars who come upon them? (I had a gun stolen from my house by 13 year olds who broke in a long, long time ago. I got it back.)
How are you going to prevent these paths to gun possession? Mandate and inspect for safes, home security systems, and broad family background checks, etc?
All of these things call for more or less honesty and integrity on the parts of many, and more government intrusion.
In the limit, none of these will work, so the inevitable conclusion will be that the only solution is to search for and round up all firearms held by the population, and eliminate production of such firearms. Which won't work either, except as political posturing.
I suppose you can liken this to a 'serious national debate' about obesity, or dishonesty, or, well, you name it.
Interesting data on firearm ownership and violence
.Tens of thousands of people , old young women and children have died on the receiving end of American issued weapons.
another issue you will never see debated by MSM especially now that their hero is prez, can you imagine Obomba talking about "love" after he predator bombed a wedding party to get one guy? The Gambinos vs the Scalias and even the mob would have higher morals than that.
Some contributors to this thread appear to share the liberal faith in the omnipotence of government, i.e., comment as if they really believe that the elites operating through government power have the ability to disarm the citizenry. Yet the IRS calculates that it regularly fails to collect almost half a trillion dollars in taxes from cash income the government is "due." No reliable figures on how much money is filched annually, but I suspect---we all suspect---that it is not a low number. And then there was Prohibition. And currently the War of Drugs.
Now look at the vacuity and pointlessness of the actual legislation proposed---an "assault weapons" ban!
They way it looks to me is this: the bigger the government grows the more impotent it becomes to achieve liberal hopes.
The longer the media harps on the issue of gun control the more guns and ammo people will buy. I called around today looking for a couple of firearms that I've been eyeing for a while. The answer? Sold out! Ditto for bulk ammo locally.
Ethan Strimling's name was mentioned earlier. Years ago, I asked him why are the laws that are currently on the books now concerning "gun control" have a history back in the deep post Civil War South, which kept firearms out of the hands of the recently freed slaves? He replied that this wasn't true. I told him to do some research instead of advancing propaganda. I then asked what was the difference between an M-16 and an AR-15? He didn't know. I'm so shocked.
Secondly, let's use the term "victim disarmament" and not "gun control".
Thirdly, highly reccomend watching the great documentary "Innocence Betrayed" put out by the Jews for Preservation of Firearms Ownership. They are by far, the best advcoate for getting rid of these laws. I have no use for the NRA.
Finally, if we were to ban all items used in killing people, we wouldn't be able to travel, have to eat with our hands, and walk around with our hands tied up.
Also, Who owns yourself? If you own yourself, isn't it in one's best interest to be able to protect oneself against anyone who brings harm??
Politicians and pundits say action must be taken.
Congressmammals proposed legislation was has no useful purpose.
Pollsters collect opinions.
And real action is being taken. People buy guns.
Republican or Democrat, Liberal or "Conservative", once these guys get to Washington, everyone else is "little people".
Any serious debate should begin only after a thorough review of ALL such 'gun control' laws already in place federally and in the several states.
Each law should be reviewed as to whether it is serving the purpose intended, and is being enforced rigorously. After all that data is compiled, we can think about a 'serious debate.'
Me? I'd like to call for a 'serious national debate' on bloated government. Maybe we should start a program similar to Weight Watchers; could we call it Waste Watchers, or something similarly ironic?
Law makers would be given a quota of 'points' that they could apply in 'governing.' And every month, they would have the body of statute and rules weighed to see if they are making progress in losing waste.
The Ugly Politics of Piers Morgan
Piers Morgan is just Simon Cowell with nicer clothes, posh manners and haircut. Both men are a complete waste of space, IMO.
Stephen Carmichael wrote:Dose anyone find it rather unusual that the lawmakers who will be debating and deciding on our constitutionally afforded right to keep arms, all have armed protection in the form of Secret Service, Marines, and entourages of armed personnel?
BINGO. Let's see how fast Pelosi, Pingree and Obama are willing to divest their own guards of those weapons. Money/Mouth.
You forgot Bloomberg and Emmanuel, mayors of gun free cities ( at least for the law abiding citizens).