Assault Weapons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldno7

I didn't watch zeros entire speech, but it seems he never mentions keeping schools safe.

---

I watched Obama's speech and I noticed he never once mentioned drones and the large number of people he was killing with them. Not one mention of the civilians killed, the US citizens killed, or the foreign nationals who oppose the US that have been killed.

Mark my words, this drone shit is going to come back and bite the US in the ass big time. Even our closest allies are distancing themselves from the US use of drones. They want no part of what is US assassination by executive order. The Obama administration is now attempting to get the use of drones on US soil against US citizens. That's the gun ban people should be worried about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

I watched Obama's speech and I noticed he never once mentioned drones and the large number of people he was killing with them.

---

Will be interesting to watch. If you watch the foreign press, these drone attacks have gotton a fair amount of airplay across the puddle. "They" (you know, the other side) use them as propaganda against the US no doubt.


Well, we picked up Harry Truman floating down from Independence
We said "What about the war?", he said "Good riddance"
We said "What about the Bomb, are you sorry that you did it?"
He said "Pass me that bottle, and mind your own business"


Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Thursday promised to be more forthcoming with the American public on his administration's campaign of lethal drone strikes amid criticism over the targeting of suspected U.S. terrorism suspects abroad.Obama, under pressure from the left and right to allow greater scrutiny of the secret decision-making process for killing Americans overseas, vowed to work with Congress to craft a "mechanism" to be more open about how the drone war is conducted.
"What I think is absolutely true is it's not sufficient for citizens to just take my word for it that we're doing the right thing," Obama said in an online video question-and-answer session sponsored by Google.
Asked whether the U.S. government could target a citizen on American soil, Obama appeared to rule that out.
"There has never been a drone used on an American citizen on American soil," he said. "We respect and have a whole bunch of safeguards in terms of how we conduct counterterrorism operations outside of the United States. The rules outside of the United States are going to be different than the rules inside the United States."
The issue moved to the forefront last week when Obama yielded to congressional demands and in a policy reversal provided access for House of Representatives and Senate intelligence committees to a classified legal opinion on killing U.S. terrorism suspects with drone strikes abroad.
The release on the eve of a Senate confirmation hearing last Friday appeared intended to avoid a clash in testimony by John Brennan, the president's choice for CIA director. He has overseen the use of armed, unmanned aircraft in counterterrorism operations in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen.
During last week's debate, some lawmakers proposed creation of a special federal "drone court" that would approve suspected militants for targeting. But a number of U.S. officials said at the time that imminent action on this was unlikely.
However, Obama, in his annual State of the Union address on Tuesday, said he intended to engage with Congress to make sure "our efforts are even more transparent to the American people and to the world.
"CHECKS AND BALANCES"
On Thursday, Obama said it was his responsibility to work with Congress to ensure that "we have a mechanism to also make sure that the public understands what's going on, what the constraints are, what the legal parameters are."
"That's something that I take very seriously. I'm not somebody who believes that the president has the authority to do whatever he wants or whatever she wants, whenever they want, just under the guise of counterterrorism," Obama said, insisting on the need for "checks and balances."
Civil liberties groups have criticized the drone program as effectively a green light to assassinate Americans without due process in the courts under the U.S. Constitution.
In 2011 a drone strike killed U.S.-born Anwar al-Awlaki, described by U.S. investigators as a leader of al Qaeda's Yemen-based affiliate. His 16-year-old son, also a U.S. citizen, was killed in a separate drone strike in Yemen that year. The administration has fought lawsuits filed by Awlaki's relatives.
Administration officials insist that Obama is acting legally to protect the United States from further attacks like the September 11, 2001, strikes.
The president, who banned the harsh interrogation techniques of the Bush era when he took office in 2009, has intensified the drone program started by his Republican predecessor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian in SLC

Its mostly about endless and mindless rhetoric from unintelligent people.

---

But by only placing rules on intelligent people....?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sombeech

But by only placing rules on intelligent people....?

---

We all got rules...even the great unwashed masses...

What one would hope for is something intelligent and reasonable to come out of all this. Pipedream.

I'll have to say, even when I didn't agree with the prior president's policies, I didn't personally denigrate the man. Folks that refer to Obama as "barry" and "zero" show little respect for the office. I guess I should just ignore them and their opinions...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian in SLC

I'll have to say, even when I didn't agree with the prior president's policies, I didn't personally denigrate the man.

---

You didn't watch SNL and other mock him for silly things like "bushisms", and you didn't laugh at jokes about him? I don't buy that at all. I don't see anything terribly wrong with mocking someone for their actions or words. I am not saying that having silly pet names for the President of the US is cool or that I use any of them I just want to bring this into perspective.

Everyone gets made fun of sometimes...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian in SLC

I'll have to say, even when I didn't agree with the prior president's policies, I didn't personally denigrate the man. Folks that refer to Obama as "barry" and "zero" show little respect for the office.

---

What's the matter Brian... that damn Bill of Rights getting in the way of things again? I know, I hate freedom of speech as much as the next guy... Sticks and stones don't break bones, but words do...

One of the great things about this country is we get anther chance in 4 more years.... I try to respect the office, if not the man.

But I do have a question, What's with "zero", what is that referring to? I understand the Barry as that was the name he went by until college and what some family members still call him.

My biggest grip with Obama getting re-elected has little to do with the man personally. My grip was that Washington would be stuck in four more years of the same-old-same old. Somehow that has got to change, we probably need to vote them all out and start with a fresh batch. I'd also really like to see term limits set on congress as it was never meant to be a life long job.

I know... a bit off topic... but I'd like to know the history of "zero".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PunchKing

You didn't watch SNL and other mock him for silly things like "bushisms", and you didn't laugh at jokes about him? I don't buy that at all. I don't see anything terribly wrong with mocking someone for their actions or words. I am not saying that having silly pet names for the President of the US is cool or that I use any of them I just want to bring this into perspective.

Everyone gets made fun of sometimes...

---

I am shocked, shocked I say, to learn that a satirical, topical, "edgy" comedy show made jokes about our president!!! Next thing you know, Colbert and Stewart will be doing the same... a slippery slope for sure!

:cool2:

Brian: "Folks that refer to Obama as "barry" and "zero" show little respect for the office. I guess I should just ignore them and their opinions."

I agree, and my reaction is much the same. I just ignore them and their opinion.

:moses:

On a similar note... From one of the few musicals I have enjoyed...

http://youtu.be/RXnM1uHhsOI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

I know... a bit off topic... but I'd like to know the history of "zero".

---

Never mind... I found it...

Why Obama is being called 'President Zero'
Baltimore, Maryland

Poor Mr. Obama. They're calling him "President Zero." Why? Because August produced zero new jobs.

But we Daily Reckoners were way ahead of the story. Almost everywhere we look we see a circle with a hole in it.

How many new jobs have been created in the last 10 years? Zero. There were about 130 million jobs in America in the year 2000. There are about 130 million today.

How much more does the average wage-earner make? Zero. Adjusted for inflation, he made about $16 an hour in 2001. He still makes about $16 an hour.

How much more are stocks worth? Zero.

How much more does a house sell for? Zero.

By all the important measures, Americans are Zero better off than they were a decade ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

What's the matter Brian... that damn Bill of Rights getting in the way of things again? I know, I hate freedom of speech as much as the next guy... Sticks and stones don't break bones, but words do...

---

Yeah, I know. Folks want their ignorant rants protected too. I'm fine with that. When called on their BS they're quick to run and hide behind the first amendment. Doesn't mean I have to like it. Easier for me to put their square peg in that square hole.

Westboro Babtist Church comes to mind. Well guess what? Those folks make me ill, and, so does the rest of the hate speech that masquerades as protecting my rights. It absolutely reeks of ignorance. And, that's fine. I'd rather know than have that stuff hidden in a closet. Bring 'em out and let 'em shine. Their chickens will come home to roost, sooner or later.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/02...sident-images/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

:roll: Not at all...

I'll make this really simple for you.... Until doctors are forced to submit the medical records of the mentally ill into a database that is accessible to those doing a universal background check, doing a universal background check is not worth the time or effort.

Currently the medical profession opposes such a database, and because of their lack of support the NRA has withdrawn support for a Universal Background Check. The part of the video the pro-gun crowd conveniently dismisses is the "No Loopholes". Until the medical records loophole is closed the universal background check is nothing but a giant loophole you could drive a tank through.

Something else to keep in mind, something like 90% of guns used in crimes were obtained illegally. Criminals by definition do not follow the law. If the existing laws were enforced, theoretically those guns would be off the street and those criminals would be locked up for illegal possession.

---

eyeroll right back 'atcha, shane. you jumped from mental patients to confiscation, seemingly ignoring everything else. and spare me the distorted NRA rhetoric about criminals, it's already been demonstrated that background checks can and do filter out a large number of criminals (not zero as they'd like you to think).

I agree the existing laws should be enforced and the NRA shouldn't obstruct progress to accomplish that either.

i read this article a few years ago and found it the other day. feel free to punch holes in it and show where it's wrong. i'm sure you'll have a lot to say ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102505823.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

I watched Obama's speech and I noticed he never once mentioned drones and the large number of people he was killing with them. Not one mention of the civilians killed, the US citizens killed, or the foreign nationals who oppose the US that have been killed.

Mark my words, this drone shit is going to come back and bite the US in the ass big time. Even our closest allies are distancing themselves from the US use of drones. They want no part of what is US assassination by executive order.

---

X2


This is one of the reasons why the rest of the world hates us, and I would posit that this attitude is what led to the toppling of the Twin Towers.

What color is the sky in your world? I see no mention of gun confiscation in what you quoted.

As an FFL holder I can tell you the article is filled with errors. Somewhere earlier in this thread I detailed some of them. FYI - the ATF has changed drastically over the past 10 years. The article referenced above pulls most of it's "facts" from an article written over 10 years ago, it's not even original journalism. Anything written on what they do and how they do it that is more than a couple years old is nothing but fire starter.

Do you understand that gun registration and universal background checks are two separate issues, each with there own own problems?

If registration is so valuable why did Canada just dump it? I know the reason, do a little homework an educate yourself. It was a 10 year process so it takes some time to understand all the reasons.

I could possibility get behind background checks. As an FFL holder, a CCP holder, and someone who has passed numerous government background checks that allowed me access to restricted areas of Hill AFB, Dugway and Area 51 for my job I have no problems.

But I probably don't know shit. I have only been a gun dealer and FFL permit holder for 30 years and deal with this stuff daily while you read a couple internet blogs so I'm sure you know much more than me.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

For the record. I'm not a cheerleader for the NRA. I think they are often over the top and would be more effective if they toned it down a couple notches. They have a lot of good information and facts that are accurate in what they say and would be better off not trying to sensationalize everything.

There are numerous other pro gun groups that are doing a much better job of educating the public. And make no mistake, the general public is becoming educated. Most now understand the difference between a real assault weapon and what gun control defines as an assault weapon. Most understand a high capacity magazine is a standard capacity magazine. Many understand mental health has to be included in a background check for the check to be effective.

Anyhoo... I have tried to be very fair in all my replies. I lived firearms daily for my entire life. My family contains gun dealers and gunsmith's, they are state, national and Olympic shooting champion's. I have tried to use my in-depth knowledge to fairly educate when legitimate questions have been asked.

My personal take is gun control in the form of banning specific firearms because they are a tangible item you can physically touch is silly. If you want real gun control that will make a difference you need a multi pronged approach that closes ALL the loopholes and keeps the 2nd Amendment intact.

I'm also a big believer in personal rights and personal accountability.

YMMV

If you really want to learn ask real questions and discuss. Don't post links to a decade old article and than run and hide.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

If you really want to learn ask real questions and discuss. Don't post links to a decade old article and than run and hide.

---

You really want to impart something useful to folks, then don't denegrate them and act like smug, know-it-all asshole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian in SLC

You really want to impart something useful to folks, then don't denegrate them and act like smug, know-it-all asshole.

---

Sorry to call Stefan out on that.... but look back through the thread and that is his standard operating procedure. I'm not going to waste my time on that type of crap considering he doesn't even bothers to read the replies which is evident from some of his posts.

There have been many that asked legitimate questions and I hope I have at least supplied them with some useful information. If you ask me a question I expect you at least extend the courtesy of reading the reply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockgremlin

X2


This is one of the reasons why the rest of the world hates us, and I would posit that this attitude is what led to the toppling of the Twin Towers.

---

Oliver Stone just did a 10 part documentry titled "Untold History of the United States" for Showtime. It's an excellent series.

http://www.sho.com/sho/oliver-stones...ed-states/home

Episode 10 is tilted: Bush & Obama - Age of Terror

It should be a must watch and I highly suggest it for anyone with Showtime. It does a good job of explain why the rest of the world hates us. The rest of the series was good, but Episodes 8, 9 and 10 were by far the most interesting to me (they cover Regan through Obama).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian in SLC

Its mostly about endless and mindless rhetoric from unintelligent people.

---

I noticed that too and was wondering if you might ever come up with an intelligent idea.......

but you can always hope, zero will bring some change--I guess destroying the Constitution was what he had in mind for change.......

ahh but he only has been struck down once by a court this year by acting against the Constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian in SLC

You really want to impart something useful to folks, then don't denegrate them and act like smug, know-it-all asshole.

---

Hey man, I'll proudly carry that banner!!!:cool2: In regards to Ice, I'll gladly listen to him all day...nodding in agreement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

If registration is so valuable why did Canada just dump it?

---

If the 2nd amendment is so valuable, why have so many other countries rejected it? :cool2: