Meese: Obama Risks Impeachment If He Uses Executive Order for Gun Control

Ahh yes, a compromise "victory". Once again the compromise is how much more our rights are to be curtailed in this particular increment. Some really bad measures that might have the countryside up in arms are traded for lesser intrusions that will be accepted because "it could be a lot worse"...until the next time.

By the way, in spite of Tikka's rather bizarre interpretation of my statements, I do not in any way advocate armed resistance, especially that which might be fatal...kinda silly to prepare for the aftermath and then throw oneself against the point of the sword.

I don't advocate much of anything...do whatever you think is right and called for as far as I am concerned. I'm just not going to act like the idea of a bunch of the corporate statists in congress manage (with a few liberty minded types for flavoring) to pass a bill of impeachment so that the majority socialist statists in the senate can vote it down excites me a whole lot.

PS...Just to piss off a few more, I think the idea of background checks is ridiculous...if you cannot trust a free person to be armed, you cannot trust them in society period. Fortunately, I have cut my personal firearms inventory to a very small number already, because the idea that I would run a background check to sell a gun to someone I know at the range or a friend is ludicrous.

 

I would suggest to you that the backgound checks that Lord Obummer has in mind are more along the lines of data collection. ie: who are the gun owners, where do they live, what purchases have they made. ................... where do you think that will lead? History tells us it leads to confiscation, harrassment, invasion of privacy, and worse. Be careful that you understand what these so called new background checks will entail before you compromise so easily.

 

I am referring only to the NCIS check that I have to pass every time I purchase a weapon from a retailer. I am not in the habit of buying guns from people I do not know. If the purpose of the check would be to collect data then I would be against that kind of check. We did have 2 felons just arrested outside of the last gun show for purchasing weapons from a private seller. So as far as keeping weapons out of the hands of convicted felons then that is appropriate. That is just my opinion take it for what it is worth. I am all against any kind of database to keep track of the weapons.

 

you as always put it more eloquently than I could BT... exactly my sentiments.

 

I think we can quit stressing, but I don't think we should even BEGIN to let up on it yet. I'm going to keep sending letters and emails to the WH and my state and federal reps, praising those who stand with us and reminding those who don't that we will not tolerate any attempt by them to infringe, and I hope everyone else does as well. Keep the pressure on until they all slink away from the issue like rats from sunlight.

 

libs are like wolves at the edge of shadow . . . you let the fire die down, they will get closer and closer. Keep the flame burning bright.

 

As HRH 0bama does not lose easily, I don't. One of the best times to attack is when your opponent is celebrating their victory.

I wrote mine and still do. However, once I said that if she continued I would donate my time and money to her opponent. The answer thanked me for my willingness to donate my time and money. Obviously a computer scan or as she is a liberal democrat they could have been stoned....

As it keeps on trying until it finds its way through a maze, liberals have a lot in common with black slime mold.

It’s Still the Slime Mold Story « Gödel’s Lost Letter and P=NP

0bama is taking his lies to the road. He seems to be getting some activity at the State level.

 

However, Bruce, once you start saying that someone has the right to designate people to whom the second amendment does not apply, you open up the opportunity for someone to categorize you as one of those people...whatever their reason.

"Federal statutes" do not trump the constitution and I have seen them twisted around way too many times. Accept someone's rights being taken because they are convicted of a crime (such as carrying a gun without a "license"), because they meet some official's definition of mental disturbance (hell, to many...probably the majority, everyone on this site is "disturbed") or any other reason and you are inviting those who would limit everyone to add categories of "unfit" citizens.

Who gets to decide who has the right to self-defense? The majority? The politicians? I still submit that the right of self-defense is a basic human right that NOBODY has the right to curtail. We have the right to exclude people from society if they are dangerous. We have the right to punish people if they do wrong. We do NOT have the right, once that punishment has been served..or once it has been determined that a person is now safe to be returned to society or at any other time to say that the basic right of humans to protect themselves (or to speak freely, worship or not worship as they please or any other of the basic rights recognized by our constitution) no longer applies to that person.

JMO...YMMV
Pax

 

OK..good luck to you on that.

Personally, I am not going to be surprised at all, in Mr Holder's "reexamination" of the categories of folks denied the right to self defense, to end up on the prohibited list because my "hoarding", history of PTSD treatment, stated distrust of the government and prescription for pain medication are proof that I am unfit to be "trusted" to defend myself according to some lapdog panel of doctors...