White House to Push Gun Control

Thunder · Jul 10, 2011

ptif219 said:
That is seldom used. Do you want a mental evaluation to buy a gun?

to purchase a firearm, I have to answer a question stating whether or not I have been committed to a mental institution. If I answer "yes", I must then get a letter from a shrink stating that I am now mentally fit to own a gun.

I have no problem with this question. We don't need insane people owning firearms.

ptif219 · Jul 11, 2011

Thunder said:
to purchase a firearm, I have to answer a question stating whether or not I have been committed to a mental institution. If I answer "yes", I must then get a letter from a shrink stating that I am now mentally fit to own a gun.

I have no problem with this question. We don't need insane people owning firearms.

So I guess no one lies on those forms? Nice try but I don't trust the background forms. They can't even keep track of people on visa's and some how the form to buy a gun matters?

Boo Radley · Jul 11, 2011

ptif219 said:
Holder knew and said so in a speech

Holder bragged about Operation Gunrunner in 2009 | Barbara Hollingsworth | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

I know you're not really listening to what is being said, but read his comments. Do they sound like the program that actually was in progress?

Regardless, you're skipping the point. I have no doubt they were all told we have a program designed, as Holder said, "a major new effort to break the backs of the cartels." To indict Holder, which isn't Obama btw, you have to show he knew the details, was part of the designing of the plan, and OK the specifics. What you show in the Examiner seems to support that he didn't have a clue about the actual program.

ptif219 · Jul 11, 2011

Boo Radley said:
I know you're not really listening to what is being said, but read his comments. Do they sound like the program that actually was in progress?

Regardless, you're skipping the point. I have no doubt they were all told we have a program designed, as Holder said, "a major new effort to break the backs of the cartels." To indict Holder, which isn't Obama btw, you have to show he knew the details, was part of the designing of the plan, and OK the specifics. What you show in the Examiner seems to support that he didn't have a clue about the actual program.

He talks about it in a speech and knows nothing about it? That is just crap. The fact is this is being twisted and Holder is blocking the investigation. This seems to be a way Obama wanted to get at gun control.

For you to say all these agencies were involved and Holder is trying to stop the investigation shows me Obama and Holder are in this up to their necks.

Breitbart.tv » ATF Director: Holder Obstructing ‘Fast and Furious’ Probe

“Fast and Furious” Indeed – The Real Motive Behind the “Gun Walker” Fiasco | RedState

Boo Radley · Jul 11, 2011

ptif219 said:
He talks about it in a speech and knows nothing about it? That is just crap. The fact is this is being twisted and Holder is blocking the investigation. This seems to be a way Obama wanted to get at gun control.

For you to say all these agencies were involved and Holder is trying to stop the investigation shows me Obama and Holder are in this up to their necks.

Breitbart.tv » ATF Director: Holder Obstructing ‘Fast and Furious’ Probe

“Fast and Furious” Indeed – The Real Motive Behind the “Gun Walker” Fiasco | RedState

You jump to too many conclusions based on questionable sources. Sheep are easily led. Again, read what he said. Does it sound like the program to you? Be honest. Stop thinking about making political hay.

BTW, just so you know, it says nothing about Obama at all. You make a wild leap with that.

ptif219 · Jul 11, 2011

Boo Radley said:
You jump to too many conclusions based on questionable sources. Sheep are easily led. Again, read what he said. Does it sound like the program to you? Be honest. Stop thinking about making political hay.

BTW, just so you know, it says nothing about Obama at all. You make a wild leap with that.

You deny anything that is negative for Obama. Have a better idea why Obama and Holder are did this program. They got caught and are now trying to deny any involvement and are trying to block the investigation.

Boo Radley · Jul 11, 2011

ptif219 said:
You deny anything that is negative for Obama. Have a better idea why Obama and Holder are did this program. They got caught and are now trying to deny any involvement and are trying to block the investigation.

You can't just throw **** up and think that is enough. You actually have to have evidence. You lack that, that's all.

The Prof · Jul 11, 2011

Boo Radley said:
I have no doubt they were all told we have a program designed, as Holder said, "a major new effort to break the backs of the cartels."

LOL!

you don't know what you're talking about

the ag testified before house judiciary on may 3 that he only learned of this program---which put thousands of assault rifles into the coke stained hands of maybe the cruelest and most crazed terrorists on the planet---after cbs broke its story in march

Attorney General Eric Holder grilled by Congress on ATF "Gunwalker" controversy - CBS News Investigates - CBS News

on top of being an idiot, the ag's a liar

j-mac · Jul 11, 2011

Boo Radley said:
You can't just throw **** up and think that is enough. You actually have to have evidence. You lack that, that's all.

Evidence isn't ours on some message board to compile, it is for congress to gather. And from the look of redaction, and obfuscation coming from the administration, and Justice Dept. I would say that a reasonable person at this point would have to conclude that it doesn't look good for either Obama, or Holder.

j-mac

ptif219 · Jul 11, 2011

Boo Radley said:
You can't just throw **** up and think that is enough. You actually have to have evidence. You lack that, that's all.

You refuse to accept the evidence. You are defending the fact the Obama administration made gun dealers sell weapons to known criminals which is the mexican drug cartels. You should be outraged not defending them.

So the blood of people killed with these weapons like the border patrol are on Obama's hands

PzKfW IVe · Jul 11, 2011

SypherAL said:
All the people on here that a oppose gun restriction laws have never endured a tragedy that involves the death of a child, friend, or family member as a direct result of POOR gun restriction laws.

You have absolutely no way of knowing that.

Why do Americans feel the need to carry Ak47 assault rifles, Uzi's, and M4A1's?

You fail to understand the issue. One need not show a need in order to exercise a right.

I agree that using them for sporting is completely ok, but we all know 50% of people that own firearms do not lock them up properly to avoid theft and accidents with chilidren.

You cannot possibly show this to be true.

Its amazing how easy some kids can buy guns, and that includes semi-automatic guns on the streets these days..

All of which is illegal. How do you propose w emake it more illegal?

Republicans complain that making it hard to buy a gun, is just another stupid Obama policy.

They are, of course, correct. Making it harder for the law abiding to get a gun doesn't make it harder for a criminal to get a gun.

May I ask these people what THEIR solution is?

Enforce the laws we have now. Punish criminals to the full extent of the law.

Its pretty easy to understand that our founding fathers did not mean Army-Grade assault rifles, and semi-automatic weapons when they wrote "the right to bare arms".

They meant to preserve the effectiveness of the militia. To do that, the right to keep and beard arms suitable for this purpose were protected.
Thus, "army-grade assault rifles" are EXACTLY the kind of "arms" protected by the 2nd; it is impossible to soundly argue otherwise.

Times have changed, and that calls for gun regulations to change. Pretty simple to understand really, if your not an arrogant red neck republican.

Ah - the ad hom, final refuge of those who have run out of talking points.

Boo Radley · Jul 11, 2011

j-mac said:
Evidence isn't ours on some message board to compile, it is for congress to gather. And from the look of redaction, and obfuscation coming from the administration, and Justice Dept. I would say that a reasonable person at this point would have to conclude that it doesn't look good for either Obama, or Holder.

j-mac

J, if you're going to make claim, it is yours to present. Sorry. And your willingness to accept anything only speaks to your bais and grasping at straws.

Boo Radley · Jul 11, 2011

ptif219 said:
You refuse to accept the evidence. You are defending the fact the Obama administration made gun dealers sell weapons to known criminals which is the mexican drug cartels. You should be outraged not defending them.

So the blood of people killed with these weapons like the border patrol are on Obama's hands

You haven't presented any evidence. And no where did I say the program was a good one. You're using the same silly illogic to state my position as you use to convict Obama without evidence.

ptif219 · Jul 11, 2011

Boo Radley said:
You haven't presented any evidence. And no where did I say the program was a good one. You're using the same silly illogic to state my position as you use to convict Obama without evidence.

Yes I showed it was in the stimulus and that Holder talked about it in a speech in 2009 in Mexico. It was known in the Obama administration.

Boo Radley · Jul 11, 2011

ptif219 said:
Yes I showed it was in the stimulus and that Holder talked about it in a speech in 2009 in Mexico. It was known in the Obama administration.

1. No one denys it is in the stimulus. So, that is not evidence that either Holder or Obama knew the details.

2. Read what Holder said in 2009. He doesn't say anything that would suggest he knew the details. In fact, if you actually read his comments, he seems to be speaking of something else entirely.

So, no, you have not presented any actual evidence of what is actually being questioned. It is not knowledge of the name of the program, not that it was funded, but whether they knew the actual details of the program. You have to show they knew the actual details. You have not done this.

The Prof · Jul 11, 2011

Boo Radley said:
You have to show they knew the actual details.

a lack of knowledge of the movement of thousands of assault rifles to mexican drug cartels is the administration's defense?

LOL!

what an idiot---holder, i mean

ptif219 · Jul 11, 2011

Boo Radley said:
1. No one denys it is in the stimulus. So, that is not evidence that either Holder or Obama knew the details.

2. Read what Holder said in 2009. He doesn't say anything that would suggest he knew the details. In fact, if you actually read his comments, he seems to be speaking of something else entirely.

So, no, you have not presented any actual evidence of what is actually being questioned. It is not knowledge of the name of the program, not that it was funded, but whether they knew the actual details of the program. You have to show they knew the actual details. You have not done this.

Your spin shows you are to partisan to see the truth.

Obama knew what democrats put in the stimulus and Holder spoke on it because he knew what was happening. This is a disgusting display of politicians breaking the law.

Boo Radley · Jul 11, 2011

ptif219 said:
Your spin shows you are to partisan to see the truth.

Obama knew what democrats put in the stimulus and Holder spoke on it because he knew what was happening. This is a disgusting display of politicians breaking the law.

Again think. You too J. Do you really believe he had all the details? Come on now, be honest. Try.

Thunder · Jul 11, 2011

ptif219 said:
Your spin shows you are to partisan to see the truth.

did you mean "too" partisan?

The Prof · Jul 11, 2011

Boo Radley said:
You jump to too many conclusions based on questionable sources

the acting director of the atf?

LOL!

appointed by barack the slasher hussein himself?

a questionable source?

while holder---whose fbi AND dea AND atf were busy running a thousand guns a thousand miles into mexico---says he DIDN'T KNOW, model of CREDIBILITY?

what an idiot...

holder, i mean

apdst · Jul 11, 2011

Thunder said:
judges restrict a person's right to own firearms all the time, whether or not they have been convicted of a crime.

Gun Control Act of 1968 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the Gun Control Act of 1968 forbids the sale of guns to anyone who:

(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been
committed to any mental institution;

who does this adjudicating? a Judge.

They enforce the law. It's the law that says who doesn't get to own a gun, not a judge. Judges don't make laws.

who commits a person to a mental institution? a Judge.

Umm...no judges don't.

Boo Radley · Jul 11, 2011

apdst said:
They enforce the law. It's the law that says who doesn't get to own a gun, not a judge. Judges don't make laws.

Umm...no judges don't.

They do rule on the law. The hair you're splitting is mighty thin.

apdst · Jul 11, 2011

Boo Radley said:
They do rule on the law. The hair you're splitting is mighty thin.

True, but they don't make the law. Congress makes the law. It's the whole three co-equal branches of government thing that Libbos hate so much.

Boo Radley · Jul 11, 2011

apdst said:
True, but they don't make the law. Congress makes the law. It's the whole three co-equal branches of government thing that Libbos hate so much.

I think we all accept that, though I think some msitakenly think ruling on law is making it.

The Prof · Jul 11, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Do you really believe he had all the details?

well...

if his employees from the dea AND the fbi AND the atf are running all over mexico selling ak47's to crazed killers...

if holder DIDN'T know...

what the heck's goin on around here, BROWNIE?

LOL!

think much?