Obama’s speech with fake tears that we need to do something about guns was a joke. When you have tears you noise will also run his did not. He did not have tears for the million/billions of people the US have been killing all around the world. Actually when Clinton said we went into Libya we seen and he died [Kaddafi] and laugh. This is a sign of a government out of control. Obama is trying to find ways of limiting gun ownership in the US on the other hand selling guns to mentally imparted people overseas. What a double standard the amount of crime is decreasing and they still blame guns if the guns are all the US ‘s problem why do they allow police to carry them most of the killing is done by police. Who do they sell most guns to S. Arabia who has the worst record of human rights and they pass them along to the terrorist.
It's not about the safety of American citizens. Obviously we will be less safe without any means of protecting ourselves. It's about trampling the hated Constitution, yet again! It's about being in control of the country and the citizenry that he has such a loathing for! It may also be about a revolution, albeit a smallish one. Some people will not bow to the socialist, totalitarian agenda, even if we have to go down fighting.
The president does not have the power to make laws or change the constitution. Any executive action he makes that does either of these is not a law and we, the people, are not obliged to obey them.
Unfortunately, he does have the power to jail you for not obeying his personally crafted laws, power given to him by a Congress that refuses to deny him anything, and a Supreme Court which has upheld the enforceability of executive orders. Congress could fix it, but they won't.
Will only say this........have nothing against Obama. If I didn't like him, nothing I could do about that either. Just saying.
Oh, Brittany, you said that so very well! A loud "hear hear!" from Mari's soapbox. I know that you're right... little by little our constitutional rights are being taken away. Now I *know* that not everyone in Congress or other positions of authority want that to happen, so I don't understand why they don't SEE it happening. Is staying with the party line so all-fired important that they'll risk freedom, security, the FUTURE?! Apparently so. Is it not a no-brainer that anyone who'd use guns in a terroristic way probably [sarcasm mode on] aren't going to waltz into WalMart and register their AK47 at the gun counter! Good gracious!
Oh, for crying out loud! So THIS is what I've been hearing about. (the photo, I mean) I thought it was made up. Sheesh. I look like this when I peel onions. It's really not a hardship to produce crocodile tears... it's taught in drama and acting schools every day. I can make myself cry in half a minute flat if I think about certain things... Thank goodness it's finally 2016. But wait... what if.... NOOOO, it couldn't be. Our fellow countrymen and women couldn't *possibly* replace this man with ... oh Lordy, God Bless America Again. (old Loretta Lynn song... goes through my mind a LOT lately.)
A body language expert says, in her book written long before Obama's last speech, that when sociopaths cry, they usually tear up one eye at a time, wiping each eye individually, while when normal people cry, they tend to tear up in both eyes at the same time. Sociopaths cry real tears but they learn how to do that for effect, rather than it being something that comes naturally.
I am confused. Why aren't assault rifles banned from public purchase…no background checks needed…just say no? Assault rifles aren't used for personal protection. They aren't used for hunting. Assault rifles are for mass killing only and should only be allowed for military. Why doesn't everyone, Obama, lawmakers, NRA, etc understand this?? Seems like such simple logic.
Lara, assault rifles have been banned for civilian use since the Mobster era of the 1930s. The media and those wanting to ban guns have found using the term "assault rifle" to be effective to people who have no or limited knowledge about guns. The military does use assault weapons and soldiers became familiar with using them and liked them so gun manufacturers started changing the style of deer and target rifles to look and handle like the rifles soldiers were familiar with. The function of these rifles is no different than your fathers old Winchester, they only look different. They are used for hunting and target shooting, and personal protection. So the simple truth is those wanting to do away with the right to own guns are lying to mislead the public.
Please forgive my unfamiliarity with assault rifle jargon. The NY Times (Dec 3, 2015) called them assault rifles used in recent mass killings (also NBC and the Washington Examiner)…so I think you know what I'm referring to. We all know what the NY Times is referring to. Here is the link to their pictures of the rifles and what they call them: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=0 Excepts from the NY Times link above: "Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, husband and wife, killed 14 people at a holiday office party in San Bernardino, Calif. Four guns were recovered: a Smith & Wesson M&P assault rifle, a DPMS Panther Arms assault rifle, a Smith & Wesson handgun and a Llama handgun." Christopher Harper-Mercer, 26, killed nine people at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, where he was a student. He was armed with six guns, including a Glock pistol, a Smith & Wesson pistol, a Taurus pistol and a Del-Ton assault rifle, according to The Associated Press. So my point is "Why aren't these assault rifles or assault-style rifles (whatever you want to call them) banned from public use since they aren't used for squirrel hunting nor personal protection?"
The N Y Times don't know a clip from a barrel. Technically, any rifle used in an assault on someone is an assault rifle. The rifle don't have to be black and scary looking. Military rifles or assault rifles, to the non shooting masses, are used for defense, hunting and competition shooting. The camp Perry national matches use some military rifles and are open to civilian shooters. If you were responsible for protecting your home and family, wouldn't you want a gun at least equal to or better than those used by the dirt bags?
I raised a family of 4 (from ages 1 - 8yrs) as a single mom and never owned a gun. I've never owned one. So I really can't answer your question. All I want to know is why we can't ban rifles that can kill masses of people without reloading even. And ban violent video games while they're at it.