[Bob Seger]

Did you play for the Dodgers? LOL. The mass kill stuff is a red herring. Every idiot knows the only time a gun becomes to mass kill weapon, is when it's in the hands of a murderer. Mass kill also applies to buses, trucks, vans, jets, and volks wagons for that matter. And please tell us how tighter gun ownership regs will get the illegal guns off the streets? You can't. The illegal guns will stay in the shadows with the criminals who have them. Now, the guy who works and pays his bills and raises his family, he's the one whose home the gun confiscators are going to come to seize guns. The idea of the 2nd Amendment is such that law abiding citizens do not become victimized by criminals with guns.

Did you know one of the first questions an injured person is asked at the ER is if he is a gun owner, or if anybody in their household is a gun owner? What would that have to do with medical records? The information framework is in place, all that is lacking is the legislation.

I wouldn't hold my breath expecting an honest straight up answer. Matter of fact, I wouldn't even expect an answer, period...For someone who is not an Obama guy he sure does condone just about everything he says and does...My money says he is an ardent Obama liberal to the core.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Did you play for the Dodgers? LOL. The mass kill stuff is a red herring. Every idiot knows the only time a gun becomes to mass kill weapon, is when it's in the hands of a murderer. Mass kill also applies to buses, trucks, vans, jets, and volks wagons for that matter. And please tell us how tighter gun ownership regs will get the illegal guns off the streets? You can't. The illegal guns will stay in the shadows with the criminals who have them. Now, the guy who works and pays his bills and raises his family, he's the one whose home the gun confiscators are going to come to seize guns. The idea of the 2nd Amendment is such that law abiding citizens do not become victimized by criminals with guns.

Did you know one of the first questions an injured person is asked at the ER is if he is a gun owner, or if anybody in their household is a gun owner? What would that have to do with medical records? The information framework is in place, all that is lacking is the legislation.

I keep coming back to the FACT that the historicity of the 2nd Amendment is not "any gun, any person, any time." That is a "Antonin come lately" reading.

If there were a baseball team tagged the "EitherOrs," you'd be a star. A citizen's right to protect his or her family, property is not in peril from sensible, enforceable gun laws.

My guess is emergency personnel have an interest in knowing if they are working in a gun-rich environment. I just don't buy the "the Feds will do a bum rush gun grab" NRA propoganda line.

[The Urban Sombrero]

I wouldn't hold my breath expecting an honest straight up answer. Matter of fact, I wouldn't even expect an answer, period...For someone who is not an Obama guy he sure does condone just about everything he says and does...My money says he is an ardent Obama liberal to the core.

I did not say that I agreed with everything President Obama said in Dallas. I said it was within the realm of Presidential scope to go beyond simple eulogy.

Is it necessary to demonize politicians simply because you disagree with them? Stalin was a dictator. Simply because you disagree with how President Obama has used executive orders (a valid objection) doesn't make him a dictator. Simply because he is careful about recognizing ISIS as a legitimate part of Islam (again, it is fine to dissent from this practice) doesn't mean he is a closet jihadi who sympathizes with terrorists.

[Granny Bear]

I saw. Why do you ask?

Because I had JUST then heard the news.....knee jerk reaction, I guess.

[Granny Bear]

I did not say that I agreed with everything President Obama said in Dallas. I said it was within the realm of Presidential scope to go beyond simple eulogy.

Is it necessary to demonize politicians simply because you disagree with them? Stalin was a dictator. Simply because you disagree with how President Obama has used executive orders (a valid objection) doesn't make him a dictator. Simply because he is careful about recognizing ISIS as a legitimate part of Islam (again, it is fine to dissent from this practice) doesn't mean he is a closet jihadi who sympathizes with terrorists.

It is within the realm of Presidential scope; however, I still disagree with his subject matter given within memorial service. JMO

I didn't say Obama was a dictator or a closet jihadist.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

[Bob Seger]

It is within the realm of Presidential scope; however, I still disagree with his subject matter given within memorial service. JMO

I didn't say Obama was a dictator or a closet jihadist.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

No you didn't Granny, I DID........However I stated it as "would be"....Shocking that a liberal would spin the wording though, right?....lol

And I certainly don't apologize for saying it.....The man is one of the most corrupt and evil men the United States has ever seen...And that is saying a lot...The only thing that has kept him from being a dictator is that he just hasn't had enough time to water down the few laws we have protecting us from that...Give him a second 8 year stint and we would be calling him Mr. Emperor. It is perfectly obvious the depths of how corrupt this administration is...Just look at how they have corrupted the IRS, the FBI, 2 different Attorney Generals, and now the Supreme Court and brain washed a huge segment of Americans into thinking it's OK to do that, (and yes I am referring to Urban Sombrelo as one of the devoted yes men who would kneel and kiss his ring).

Obama is a Muslim sympathizer without a doubt in my mind..He has family ties to Islam, his closest advisor is a Muslim who is on record of stating that she wanted to change America regarding Islam, and he has filled his cabinet with Islamic followers....

But I am dead wrong on that, Right Mr. Sheep?

[Bob Seger]

No you didn't Granny, I DID........However I stated it as "would be"....Shocking that a liberal would spin the wording though, right?....lol

And I certainly don't apologize for saying it.....The man is one of the most corrupt and evil men the United States has ever seen...And that is saying a lot...The only thing that has kept him from being a dictator is that he just hasn't had enough time to water down the few laws we have protecting us from that...Give him a second 8 year stint and we would be calling him Mr. Emperor. It is perfectly obvious the depths of how corrupt this administration is...Just look at how they have corrupted the IRS, the FBI, 2 different Attorney Generals, and now the Supreme Court and brain washed a huge segment of Americans into thinking it's OK to do that, (and yes I am referring to Urban Sombrelo as one of the devoted yes men who would kneel and kiss his ring).

Obama is a Muslim sympathizer without a doubt in my mind..He has family ties to Islam, his closest advisor is a Muslim who is on record of stating that she wanted to change America regarding Islam, and he has filled his cabinet with Islamic followers....

But I am dead wrong on that, Right Mr. Sheep?

*Sombrero

[The Urban Sombrero]

It is within the realm of Presidential scope; however, I still disagree with his subject matter given within memorial service. JMO

I didn't say Obama was a dictator or a closet jihadist.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

I was responding to BS (ironic), not you in the post, so I wasn't referencing your words.

[The Urban Sombrero]

*Sombrero

President Obama does not sympathize with terrorists. That is unbalanced and offensive and worthy of the initials of your screen name.

One wishes you had lived under a dictatorship such as Stalin. Perhaps you would be more cautious in careless hate mongering. But, as they say, "Haters gonna hate."

It is possible to disagree with a President's policies, and vehemently, without getting into the vitriolic animosity that spouts words like "evil" and "dictator" and "Muslim sympathizer." In my view, whether one is "liberal to the core" or conservative, poison politics and debate are not necessary.

[Bob Seger]

President Obama does not sympathize with terrorists. That is unbalanced and offensive and worthy of the initials of your screen name.

One wishes you had lived under a dictatorship such as Stalin. Perhaps you would be more cautious in careless hate mongering. But, as they say, "Haters gonna hate."

It is possible to disagree with a President's policies, and vehemently, without getting into the vitriolic animosity that spouts words like "evil" and "dictator" and "Muslim sympathizer." In my view, whether one is "liberal to the core" or conservative, poison politics and debate are not necessary.

Bull Shit!!, he don't!!!....There is no point in sugar coating the initials...

He is a full fledged supporter of Black Lives Matter, The New Black Panthers, and the likes of George Soros and his sponsored terror networks...Don't tell me he doesn't...And further more, if you support Barack Obama and his policies, (which you whole-heartedly do) that makes you an accessory.....Now how's that?:biggrin:

The only reason that we are not yet to the Stalin, Castro, Chavez, Mussolini, Mao, Kim Jong-un stage yet is because he just hasn't had time...You have to have a start somewhere and systematically massage and brain wash your electorate bits and pieces at a time. That my fiend is where we are at...Yes, some very extreme examples I know...You confiscate the citizenry's guns, then piece by piece, by piece indoctrinate one more policy after another...Then you take control of the what are the separate branches of government and gradually make them subject to your control...We are already seeing that happen with the likes of Lois Lerner, John Koskinen, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, James Comey, and now Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Then you have propaganda experts control the information your subjects see and hear, (aka as ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post). Government takes control of industry, (i.e. GM), and disallow private business to run their business as they see fit, (i.e. as The Boeing Corp relocating to South Carolina). You make religion a taboo subject and indoctrinate your youth as such (i.e. America's colleges and universities) and finally you make your subjected population totally dependent upon the government for every phase of everyday life. You following me here? Don't you see the correlation? Am I being hyper extreme? Yeah probably, but make no mistake that that is not the desired ultimate desire of Obama and his regime...Some of his sheep are too stupid to understand what is going on, but nonetheless accomplices.

Thankfully I don't personally think we will ever quite get to that point, but make no mistake, that that is not the plan that is in full action...

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆⬆ If ever I've seen firsthand a mind propogandized outside the bounds of balance and reason, it is now.

In the United States, we don't have regimes. We have "an administration."

It is possible to believe that racial injustice still exists within the structures of America and not advocate violence. Similarly, it is possible to find fault with some of Israel's dealings with Palestinians and not be anti-semitic.

The utter, complete "either-or," black or white mindset is easily radicalized, propogandized, and made immune to balance.

You, BS, obviously have your beliefs. Of course, you are entitled to them.

[jetpilot]

Bull Shit!!, he don't!!!....There is no point in sugar coating the initials...

He is a full fledged supporter of Black Lives Matter, The New Black Panthers, and the likes of George Soros and his sponsored terror networks...Don't tell me he doesn't...And further more, if you support Barack Obama and his policies, (which you whole-heartedly do) that makes you an accessory.....Now how's that?:biggrin:

The only reason that we are not yet to the Stalin, Castro, Chavez, Mussolini, Mao, Kim Jong-un stage yet is because he just hasn't had time...You have to have a start somewhere and systematically massage and brain wash your electorate bits and pieces at a time. That my fiend is where we are at...Yes, some very extreme examples I know...You confiscate the citizenry's guns, then piece by piece, by piece indoctrinate one more policy after another...Then you take control of the what are the separate branches of government and gradually make them subject to your control...We are already seeing that happen with the likes of Lois Lerner, John Koskinen, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, James Comey, and now Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Then you have propaganda experts control the information your subjects see and hear, (aka as ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post). Government takes control of industry, (i.e. GM), and disallow private business to run their business as they see fit, (i.e. as The Boeing Corp relocating to South Carolina). You make religion a taboo subject and indoctrinate your youth as such (i.e. America's colleges and universities) and finally you make your subjected population totally dependent upon the government for every phase of everyday life. You following me here? Don't you see the correlation? Am I being hyper extreme? Yeah probably, but make no mistake that that is not the desired ultimate desire of Obama and his regime...Some of his sheep are too stupid to understand what is going on, but nonetheless accomplices.

Thankfully I don't personally think we will ever quite get to that point, but make no mistake, that that is not the plan that is in full action...

And doesn't have all the guns (yet).

[Bob Seger]

⬆⬆ If ever I've seen firsthand a mind propogandized outside the bounds of balance and reason, it is now.

In the United States, we don't have regimes. We have "an administration."

It is possible to believe that racial injustice still exists within the structures of America and not advocate violence. Similarly, it is possible to find fault with some of Israel's dealings with Palestinians and not be anti-semitic.

The utter, complete "either-or," black or white mindset is easily radicalized, propogandized, and made immune to balance.

You, BS, obviously have your beliefs. Of course, you are entitled to them.

You mean, "we didn't use to".

Yeah, you go right ahead and stick your head in the sand, you, you, you, you SHEEP!!!:yawn:

[The Urban Sombrero]

You mean, "we didn't use to".

Yeah, you go right ahead and stick your head in the sand, you, you, you, you SHEEP!!!:yawn:

Had you ever have lived in a dictatorship, or under a regime... but you haven't. Thus, carry on.

[Bob Seger]

Had you ever have lived in a dictatorship, or under a regime... but you haven't. Thus, carry on.

It's with great risk and with sure expectations that I will receive your wrath for sounding sophomoric, that I shall have to respond with Baaaa.......Baaaa......Baaaa....:Shaking:

[The Urban Sombrero]

It's with great risk and with sure expectations that I will receive your wrath for sounding sophomoric, that I shall have to respond with Baaaa.......Baaaa......Baaaa....:Shaking:

Wrath? This is a political forum. Carry on.

[Bob Seger]

Wrath? This is a political forum. Carry on.

Sorry, but I cant help it...I must respect the senior liberal leaders in this forum....It's the way I was raised. It's how I'm built.

[TheRealThing]

I wouldn't hold my breath expecting an honest straight up answer. Matter of fact, I wouldn't even expect an answer, period...For someone who is not an Obama guy he sure does condone just about everything he says and does...My money says he is an ardent Obama liberal to the core.

I'll take some of that action!

[TheRealThing]

I keep coming back to the FACT that the historicity of the 2nd Amendment is not "any gun, any person, any time." That is a "Antonin come lately" reading.

If there were a baseball team tagged the "EitherOrs," you'd be a star. A citizen's right to protect his or her family, property is not in peril from sensible, enforceable gun laws.

My guess is emergency personnel have an interest in knowing if they are working in a gun-rich environment. I just don't buy the "the Feds will do a bum rush gun grab" NRA propoganda line.

You are wrong. Completely wrong.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/29...15969.html
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Sunday that there are “undoubtedly” limits to a person’s right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, but that future court cases will have to decide where to draw the line.


During an appearance on “Fox News Sunday,” Scalia was asked whether lawmakers have the right to ban high-capacity gun magazines without violating a person’s constitutional right to bear arms. The question comes less than two weeks after the Colorado shooting massacre that left 12 dead and dozens more injured — and at a time when neither President Barack Obama nor Congress appear willing to touch the issue of gun control.


“We’ll see,” Scalia said, suggesting that future court cases will determine what limitations on modern-day weapons are permissible.


“Some undoubtedly are [permissible] because there were some that were acknowledged at the time” the Constitution was written, Scalia said. He cited a practice from that era known as “frighting,” where people “carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head axe or something. That was, I believe, a misdemeanor.”

“So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed,” Scalia said. “What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time.”

The conservative justice notably authored the Supreme Court’s 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which ruled that the Second Amendment protects a person’s right to bear arms and struck down a D.C. ban on handguns. The court also ruled, though, that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”



Now lets see you gas your way out of that one.

[The Urban Sombrero]

"Antonin come lately"...not Justice Scalia himself, but the "come lately" versions that act like the 2nd Amendment is carte blanche. I try not to refer to our leaders by first name, as that is, in my view, disrespectful. I did not know Justice Scalia said what you quoted, but I knew that his view of the 2nd Amendment was not bereft of historical perspective. But I was not debating with him, or you for that matter, in many of these posts and threads. As I have said before, my relatives have all manner of guns. I just don't think an extreme view of the slippery slope is valid here, nor do I believe President Obama's "agenda" is a Naziesque bum rush to "get all the guns."

[TheRealThing]

"Antonin come lately"...not Justice Scalia himself, but the "come lately" versions that act like the 2nd Amendment is carte blanche. I try not to refer to our leaders by first name, as that is, in my view, disrespectful. I did not know Justice Scalia said what you quoted, but I knew that his view of the 2nd Amendment was not bereft of historical perspective. But I was not debating with him, or you for that matter, in many of these posts and threads. As I have said before, my relatives have all manner of guns. I just don't think an extreme view of the slippery slope is valid here, nor do I believe President Obama's "agenda" is a Naziesque bum rush to "get all the guns."

Fair enough. And thank you for being reasonable about the true conservative perspective with regard to the 2nd Amendment. Which perspective BTW, is completely mischaracterized by the left who use words to wage war. Whether a massacre perpetrated with a gun at a gay bar, or a massacre perpetrated with a box van on the French Riviera, the problem is the war between good and evil, not gun ownership here in the USA. I have shown you that the Arab World has been at war with Israel and other infidels from the beginning. The difference now is communication which gives them hope and unity, and organization which gives them lines of logistics and recruitment.

In the case of gun control, anybody who wants to be the least bit honest with himself will see, if he allows the fog of controversy created by the left to dissipate for just a moment, the goal of the left is to remove guns from inside our borders. In their minds we have police and military to ward off threat and there is no need for gun ownership in this day in time. To them, the notion of an armed citizenry is an antiquated perspective of a bunch of guys who wore powdered wigs and had to fight off England and others who challenged our statehood.

Further, they reason that if all guns are gone there will be no way for the criminals to lay hands on them. On the one hand they insist on European-esque wide open borders through which drugs and guns pour through, while on other they want to end legal gun ownership. All of which is a complete sidestep of reality. Only killers shoot people, and man is not evolving toward godhood. 21st Century thinking is a joke, so is the Émile Coué inspired blather which went as follows (but liberals still love it); "Every day, in every way, I'm getting better and better"

[The Urban Sombrero]

Fair enough. And thank you for being reasonable about the true conservative perspective with regard to the 2nd Amendment. Which perspective BTW, is completely mischaracterized by the left who use words to wage war. Whether a massacre perpetrated with a gun at a gay bar, or a massacre perpetrated with a box van on the French Riviera, the problem is the war between good and evil, not gun ownership here in the USA. I have shown you that the Arab World has been at war with Israel and other infidels from the beginning. The difference now is communication which gives them hope and unity, and organization which gives them lines of logistics and recruitment.

In the case of gun control, anybody who wants to be the least bit honest with himself will see, if he allows the fog of controversy created by the left to dissipate for just a moment, the goal of the left is to remove guns from inside our borders. In their minds we have police and military to ward off threat and there is no need for gun ownership in this day in time. To them, the notion of an armed citizenry is an antiquated perspective of a bunch of guys who wore powdered wigs and had to fight off England and others who challenged our statehood.

Further, they reason that if all guns are gone there will be no way for the criminals to lay hands on them. On the one hand they insist on European-esque wide open borders through which drugs and guns pour through, while on other they want to end legal gun ownership. All of which is a complete sidestep of reality. Only killers shoot people, and man is not evolving toward godhood. 21st Century thinking is a joke, so is the Émile Coué inspired blather which went as follows (but liberals still love it); "Every day, in every way, I'm getting better and better"

Isaac and Ishmael "ain't" never been too close.

While I think an armed citizenry would be little resistance for a modern, mechanized military, the vast majority of gun owners commit no crimes, though I am a little concerned about my great uncle (joke).

Laser eye surgery, the Concord, even smarter phones, none of this means the human heart is improved from "desperately wicked," and that is not "getting better every day."