I hear you. Then, again, what's their bitch???? What other conclusion can we deduce from this "show" except it is just that......For Show!!



TIS

You know, when I get up in the morning I don't say to myself "Today I think I'll exercise my right to free speech" and then go out and just say something. When I speak it is always to serve some specific purpose and not because I have a right to do so. Am I to understand that the Col. simply gets up in the morning and says "I think I'll exercise my right to bear arms" with no specific need or purpose in mind? If he does, that's kind of senseless. And by the way, the term "law-abiding citizen" usually accompanies statements such as yours about bearing arms. Why is that? Since you and your spouse are anonymous to we Board members, we don't know that either one of you is law-abiding? So, why state it?

TIS, as the recent Heller Supreme Court case illustrated, the 2nd amendment only applies to actions by or on behalf of the Congress. The President has no constitutional authority to act on his own in this regard. In fact, it may be unconstitutional for the Congress to restrict firearms even on Capitol grounds or even in the White House. It all comes down to "original intent", what the ratifiers of the 2nd amendment meant by its words. But that is a gigantic argument for another thread.

Yes we are law abiding citizens. The Col. don't get up in the morning and put his gun on his belt and go out looking for trouble. He wears his gun for self protection if the need arises to protect himself anf his family. I am glad that he packs cuz these days with city governments reduceing the police force they're aren't as many cops as they use to be.

And yes he has a AK47 and a AR15. He likes to collect guns. He uses them for target practice. So what the hell is wrong with that?

BTW some of the BB memebers have met me and the Col.

Gun and ammo prices have gone up big time since he took office though.

PB, it would take a Constitutional amendment. However, there are a number of qualifications upon the 2nd amendment. For example, Congress has empowered the Capitol Police and Secret Service to restrict the bearing of arms on the Capitol's grounds and on the White House grounds. The most widely known qualification though is the National Firearms Act which restricts automatic firearms ownership and the 1986 Act which bans private ownership of newly manufactured automatic weapons. So, despite what appears to be the unambiguous language of the 2nd amendment, Congress has infringed it. But you are right about the President. Without specific Congressional authorization through legislation, the President is pretty much powerless to restrict firearm possession unless he really stretches his authority as Commander in Chief.

Because an AK47 is for one purpose and one purpose only - overkill. All guns are instruments of death. That is their only purpose. However, an automatic weapon simply exists to deliver it over and over again in the most rapid way possible. It's overkill, pure and simple.

I've said this before, many times. The United States leads the world's richest countries in gun deaths. As a matter of fact, you would have to COMBINE the gun deaths in numerous other countries in order to equal the number of gun deaths in the United States.

In a study published in 1998, the USA had 14.24 gun deaths per 1,000. Canada, so similar to the US in demographics, had only 4.31. Is it because Americans are inherently more violent, or does it have to do with our gun laws and our attitude?

SC, I don't how much more restrictive our federal and state gun laws and associated penalties could be. We are a hugeley urban Nation of over 300 million people. Among those we have a large number who are willing to use violence to get what they want. There are those among them who do not value human life in that pursuit. Canada's population is about 30 million and its culture and population densities are vastly different from our Nation's. Canada lacks the ethic, racial, and religious diversity of the US. After Toronto, Calgary, and Montreal, the population in its remaining cities drops off quite a bit. On the other hand, in the US Texas alone has three cities of over a million in population.

Canada's gun laws are not all that different from ours. While those laws require gun registration, they do not severely restrict possession.

Have you seen "Bowling for Columbine"? If so, do you agree with its analysis?

I haven't seen it all, only the scene when they are at WalMart. I don't like Michael Moore very much, so I missed it, as much as I believe in its purpose.

The CDC study is unbelievable. The 36 countries in the study were the richest in the World Bank's World Development Report, having the highest GNP per capita income.

The United States accounted for 45 percent of the 88,649 gun deaths reported in the study, the first comprehensive international scrutiny of gun-related deaths.

* U.S.A. 14.24
* Brazil 12.95
* Mexico 12.69
* Estonia 12.26
* Argentina 8.93
* Northern Ireland 6.63
* Finland 6.46
* Switzerland 5.31
* France 5.15
* Canada 4.31
* Norway 3.82
* Austria 3.70
* Portugal 3.20
* Israel 2.91
* Belgium 2.90
* Australia 2.65
* Slovenia 2.60
* Italy 2.44
* New Zealand 2.38
* Denmark 2.09
* Sweden 1.92
* Kuwait 1.84
* Greece 1.29
* Germany 1.24
* Hungary 1.11
* Ireland 0.97
* Spain 0.78
* Netherlands 0.70
* Scotland 0.54
* England and Wales 0.41
* Taiwan 0.37
* Singapore 0.21
* Mauritius 0.19
* Hong Kong 0.14
* South Korea 0.12
* Japan 0.05

This is the conversation in the Obama thread, that people don't like him and the 2nd ammendment should be repealed? How about his plummeting approval ratings? Or the lack of any substantial improvements from his $787 B stimulus which was supposed to be making an affect by now? Or how he can't get a majority democratic congress to go along with his initiatives?

Where is this "change"? His flip-floping on healthcare is laughable. His next book should be titled "The Audacity of Hype"

We would be in a much better situation with John McCain as president.

Romney - Jindal '12

Thanks for the laugh. Really. I needed one today.

So freezing spending instead of wasting $787 Billion is worse? Bowing down and high fiving our enemies is ok? How would McCain be worse?

Or are mods allowed to make sarcastic comments without any back up?

What is it specifically about Keynesian Economics that Democrats find favorable over the Republicans theory of less government intervention and lower taxes?

It's hard to say, b/c the line between the two ideologies has become very hazy over the years.

Nixon once said that, "We are all Keynesians now." Which seems to be the prevailing attitutude today. But even then there's much dissention among the proponents. Alan Greenspan, while critical toward many of Keynes' theories is undoubtably a supporter. Many argue that Bush Jr. and Reagan were Keynesians. And most business colleges, while traditionally proponets of less fiscal and monetary policy, are more or less today centered on Keynesian principles.

I know that U. Texas' School of Business curriculum and theory is mostly Keynesian, while the more conservative Texas A&M business program has traditionally been the opposite.

YES! And Sarah "Death Panel" Palin as VP, because we really need more lies and misdirection after the last eight years. What a joke.

President Obama inherited a disaster of untold proportions. A ruined economy, a war based on lies that we know we can't win, and millions of Americans without healthcare, jobs or homes. So, in less than eight months, he's expected to turn around the shambles left behind by the previous administration.

I don't know if I agree with his healthcare plan in total, BUT I know that something has to be done. The working class in this country are unable to pay for insurance, as well as unable to pay for medical care. It's a disgrace, and at least he has the balls to stand up for something.

POLL: AMERICANS LOSING CONFIDENCE IN OBAMA

WASHINGTON -- A new poll says that Americans, concerned over the future of health care reform and anxious about the growing federal budget deficit, are losing faith in President Barack Obama.

The Washington Post-ABC News survey found that less that half of Americans -- 49 percent -- say they believe the president will make the right decisions for the country. That's down from 60 percent at the 100-day mark of the Obama presidency.

The poll published Friday says Obama's overall approval is 57 percent, 12 points lower than it was at its peak in April. Fifty-three percent disapprove of the way he's handling the budget deficit and his approval on health care continues to deteriorate.

The national survey was conducted Aug. 13-17 and has a sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

How anyone can expect a President to be responsible for or take blame for something that started way before his taking office is just unbelievable! President Obama has only been in office for 8 months and already there are people blaming him for things that were planned and put into motion before his being elected. The same kind of blaming and finger pointing was done to former President George W. Bush when he was only in office for the same short 8 months.

Poor guy has so much on his plate. One thing I do disagree with, at this point, is him trying to appease the Republicans. He's a nice guy, but now is the time to say "fuck you" and pass this thing without them. They have more than proven they are only after their own political gains, and NOT the welfare of the country. The Republicans approval rating is what, 37 per cent? Obviously, even less confidence in them.




TIS

I agree 100%. Bush was in office for the EXACT same amount of time as Obama is right now when a bunch of Arab terrorists changed all of our lives forever. Now I was as hard on Bush as anyone here, and I admit that. But what's right is right. 8 months after he was sworn in, and he already had to contend with the worst mass murder in the history of our country.

And you think that the Dems actually care about the country and not their own political gains? That's a joke. I don't think any one on either side gives a rats ass about the welfare of our country. JMO

Of course both parties have their politcally motivations, without a doubt, BUT I think, as a whole, at this time in history, if political motivation "tactics" were a "prize", yes, the Republicans take the cake.

I think this particular President irks the hell out of the Republicans for some reason. Probably much like Bush irked the hell out of a lot on the left. Only, the Right is so much better at "spin" than the Left is. It always seems to work for them. The left just seems to sit back and take it.

TIS

You got that right TIS. Just yesterday Tom Ridge fessed up to what I always suspected that the Bush crowd played fast and loose with "terror slerts," the most egregious being the one that probably cost Kerry the election.

Look how they have transformed complex healthcare proposals into one word "Obamacare."
Brilliant spin and as usual the Dems are flatfooted and divided.

When Bush made public appearances protestors were kept away and put in "Free Speech Zones."

Now, opponents of healsth care show up packing heat and carrying pictures of Obama with a Hitler style moustache, and slogans about cleansing ourselves with the blood of tyrants.

The fact of the matter is many critics of Obama are racist reactionaries who are simply afraid of the future, and afraid of the fact that the demographics of this country are rapidly changing to the degree that in about 40 years whites will be a minority.

Two astute observations you made. The first is a shocker to some people: politicians engage in political strategy pursuant to their political motivations. Second: Republicans still can't figure out how they lost control of both the White House and Congress in just four short years and they have turned on the President accordingly.

I can't believe you said that.

It's true, Miggie. Within 40 years, whites will be the minority in this country. They'll still be the biggest singular group and probably always will be, but if you add all of the other ethnic groups together (African, Latino, Asian, etc.), whites will add up to less than 50 percent of the population by the year 2050.

That's not what I was talking about. I can't believe he calls Obama critic's racists.

there are some that are raciests...others are idiots per say.

He refered to someObama critics as racists. It's statistically likely that there are Obama critics who are racists.

There are people out there who will hate this President because he is half black, plain and simple. Just as there are those who would never have voted for Secretary of State Clinton because she's a woman. There are racists out there; there are bigots out there. It's human nature, plain and simple. And if you have any experience in life, you are either extremely naive or blind if you think it's not true.

I'm just saying NOT everyone is a racist just cuz they didn't vote for the man or don't agree with him.