Just read the cliff notes on the proposal and they are gonna try to reinstate the assault weapon ban and then a bunch of other mental health things as well.
The problem with the Supreme court, is if Obama gets one more appointment he'll pretty much have free rein to do as he wants. Lets face it, I'm pretty sure Roberts has a year 2 at best left, and he was the most vocal for the 2nd. I've lived in California all my life and been subjected to poor at best gun laws, in fact everything proposed or most everything is already in affect here. What most upset me was the theatrics of little kids on stage while he talked about all this...Anti-Gun legislation will be incredibly tough to do. A lot of democrats are from states that do not want more gun control and they do not want to risk thier seat. Harry Reid is a good example of this. In the House most republicans will block it. The only way Obummer can get his way is by acting like a dictator and I am sure we will see the Supreme Court have to put him back in his place. For those of you who enjoy or recognize our second amendment rights I ask you to please support the NRA as they are fighting tirelessly to protect our God given right.
Really? Then who was it that just stood up in front of America exercising Executive privileged and calling for new gun control laws while flanked with little children showing off hand written letters that in no way came from children without coaching? Pretty sure that was the President. The man can't be reelected, so I'm sorry but I don't buy the "he just HAS to do SOMETHING because of all of the PRESSURE". He's doing what he always has, taking a crisis and exploiting it for his party's benefit.Stop putting this all on the president. I don't wanna make it THAT discussion and i dont agree that gun control is the answer....but every other post is blaming and calling names at the wrong person.
I agree with the sentiment of what you're saying and I did not see the broadcast. All I am saying is whoever was in office right now would have to make a changes or pretend to make an effort because the public is demanding it. If Romney was in office he too would be "taking a crisis and exploiting it for his party's benefit." Just you may agree more his views. I also believe Obama will concede on some aspects of his proposal and that is by design. That is the nature of politics and that is why I am not a politician.Really? Then who was it that just stood up in front of America exercising Executive privileged and calling for new gun control laws while flanked with little children showing off hand written letters that in no way came from children without coaching? Pretty sure that was the President. The man can't be reelected, so I'm sorry but I don't buy the "he just HAS to do SOMETHING because of all of the PRESSURE". He's doing what he always has, taking a crisis and exploiting it for his party's benefit.Stop putting this all on the president. I don't wanna make it THAT discussion and i dont agree that gun control is the answer....but every other post is blaming and calling names at the wrong person.
Sorry for the snarkiness, but this is laid squarely at the President's feet. He may be doing other's bidding, but it's still him doing it.
Oh, and for the record, there are parts of his "proposal" I don't have problems with. I just think he went too far (big surprise), and I don't like the exploitation of children for political purposes.
I am an NRA law enforcement instructor for the record.
NicEI am an NRA law enforcement instructor for the record.
I did the LEO handgun/shotgun program in Pearl, MS back in the late 90's and their patrol rifle instructor course in 2000...
been an NRA "Basic Pistol Shooting" instructor (civvy cert) since the mid 90's...
Really? That's exactly what the NRA did with it's recent ad referencing Obama's children. Don't be a hypocrite, Jason.I don't like the exploitation of children for political purposes.
I'm not a fan of the recent NRA commercial. I think it was pointless. No one (or almost no one) is going to fault the POTUS for having SS protection on their children. I'm perfectly happy with part of my tax dollars going towards that. There is some hypocrisy there, but pointing it out does not help the conversation. That said, what they did was different from what the President did having children surround him and using their letters. That is flat out using children. Not the same thing as the NRA commercial, IMO.Really? That's exactly what the NRA did with it's recent ad referencing Obama's children. Don't be a hypocrite, Jason.I don't like the exploitation of children for political purposes.
Here, here. That's always been the problem with this conversation, at least when having it with the "average Joe". The minute the conversation turns to the real reason for the 2nd, the "average Joe" who is for gun control or who is OK with guns but doesn't understand why you need anything other than a single shot hunting rifle immediately labels you as a kook.What part of "shall not be infringed" don't all you "on the fence" people not understand? Why is the argument so off course with practically NO ONE addressing the real issue?? The second Amendment has absolutley nothing to do with hunting or personal protection. It is there so that we can keep ourselves free from an oppressive government. The president should rot in hell for dancing on the graves of innocent murdered children to push his Communist agenda which is to disarm the American people so the elitists can rule without fear!
No one has the right to question why a citizen needs a weapon with 30 round clips....as long as the military and police have them, then we need them. Please do not flame me as this post is NOT directed at anyone here.
I know they have training...it's about how many places they offer so people don't have to travel to parts unknown to get the training...make it easy for them to do this.The NRA DOES offer training, just fyi.