STAND BY FOR IMPEACHMENT
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC TODAY!
He asked if the “gun violence victims” should not have a say in gun control. NO! RIGHTS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO POPULAR VOTE OR THE WHIMS OF THE PUBLIC.
If a Youtube comes out, will somebody ping me? Thanks. I want to see his face.
He wasn't this passionate about the bombing.
Hey Zippy, stick it up your a** and light a match.
We're keeping the Second Amendment.
Wonder if he will invite Larry Sinclair to come over tonight. O-hole needs some comfort.
LOL, talking head anchor on channel 5 Boston just said that “the president’s gun legislation was defeated by a majority of Americans”, then when her partner just blinked at her, she said, “I mean, by a majority of Republicans”.
Hey Barry, the tribe has spoken. You’re off the Island.
Just like I’ve said....Obama is already a “Lame duck: POTUS!!! You poor folks that hail from Connecticut have been used, abused, fooled and led to the chopping block by buffoon Obama!!! Want to save your wonderful, innocent precious children, get congress to be real. Forget gun control and get those mental nutcases out of society where they are free to murder children in schools and innocents watching a movie. Obama does notwant to insure your safety....he wants to deny your freedom to protect yourself. He needs to be impeached!!! Wake up fools in Sandy Hook, Newtown, etc.
I watched it. That was pretty gloat-worthy. The stern faces, the lips bitten...Made me feel pretty good. Watching the CNN babe after was priceless.
Common sense gun control is an oxymoron.
Because to exercise “gun control” in the manner which seems to be preferred by the Current Regime, is to effectively criminalize the very possession of any kind of weapon capable of discharging a high-velocity projectile of any kind.
And that just isn’t common sense when the principle of self-defense in the very critical moments after first being assaulted is not allowed to come into play. Theoretically, an individual well-practiced in martial arts COULD disarm and overcome even a well-armed adversary, if the adversary is the least bit clumsy or unsure in asserting the initial advantage. But trading aimed projectiles at 1,400 fps kind of equalizes the confrontation.
Especially when the assailant does not realize the victim is armed.
Mommy need to change your diaper, dear leader?
Has anyone seen Napolitano in front of tv recently?
and Why? Is she pouring through the Gang of Eight bill in order to testify?
Shouldn't she be doing her job, (re: Boston bombing, ricin letters or suspicious packages), giving public statements?
He made reference to politicians who are worried about re=elections and what their constituents say rather than doing what is right. Is he threatening not only congress but we the people?
The constitution means nothing to this little tyrant, and infringement is just a word he loves to ignore. Nixon was impeached for less!
The Blumenthal mag capacity ban Amendment is up. About to go down too. :-)
I think I’ll go buy a gun from a total stranger this weekend.
FYI...on the NY Safe Act
Albany Police Officers Union, local 2841, “We respectfully demand that you do the right thing and repeal the law.”
The letter:
To: Andrew M. Cuomo / Dean G. Skelos / Neil D. Breslin / John T- McDonald III / Phil Steck / Sheldon Silver / Jeffrey D. Klein / Cecilia Tkaczyk / Patricia Fahy Note; see the formal list of people this letter went to at the bottom.
April 15,2013
Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Albany Police Officers Union condemns and opposes the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act (the SAFE Act) Substantively, we believe that it violates fundamental constitutional rights, that it is unduly and purposely burdensome on law-abiding citizens, and” that it will not deter criminals or menially ill individuals from plotting and carrying out bloodshed and violence. Procedurally, we believe that the way in which the bill was rammed into law via an unjustified and expedient “message of necessity”, which circumvents the right and the ability of the citizens of this State to voice their concerns about the bill and have them addressed, is an outrage. This flawed law’ and the w ay in which it was rushed and passed., shows the apparent contempt that those who govern have for the governed, and. calls into question whether we truly have a representational government. Morally, we believe that this law is about ideology and politics and not about making anyone any safer. We respectfully demand that you do the right thing and repeal the law.
First, while we applaud and support your overall concern for public safety and your desire to improve it. The SAFE Act will not improve public safety. Criminals and the mentally ill will not abide by it, and it is either foolish or dishonest to think or suggest otherwise. While law-abiding citizens will abide by the law and not load a ten-round magazine with more than seven rounds, do you really expect a criminal or mentally ill individual intent on doing violence not load ten rounds into a ten-round magazine? While law-abiding citizens will abide by the law that previously legal thirty-round magazines must be sold within one-year to an out-of-state resident or turn in to local authorities, do you really expect a criminal or mentally ill individual intent on doing violence to sell or turn in his thirty-round magazines? While law-abiding citizens will abide by the law requiring that they register weapons which they already do and which have been deemed “assault weapons”, do you really expect a criminal or mentally ill individual intent on doing violence to do so? Do you really expect a criminal or mentally ill individual intent on doing violence to be concerned about any increase in penalties for shooting first responders? Do you really expect that a mentally ill individual who owns firearms and who is intent on doing violence will voice his intentions to his or her mental health professional and thus put into motion the confiscation of his or her firearms? Do you-really expect that a mentally ill individual will “safely store” his firearms? Of course you don’t. Again, only law-abiding citizens, who are not intent on doing violence, will abide the NY SAFE Act criminals and the mentally ill who are intent on doing violence will not do so. The public will not be any safer under this 1aw. What then, have you accomplished?
Second., the SAFE Act carries with it unfair burdens on law abiding citizen. What is the point of making law-abiding citizens register their previously lawfully owned and lawfully used firearms which are now deemed to be “assault weapons”? What is the point of making law-abiding citizens who affirmatively “opt into” protection from public identification that they hold permits or own firearms? What is the point of making law-abiding citizens renew their pistol permits or “assault weapon” registrations every five years? Why are you preemptively punishing those who have done nothing wrong?
Third, -we fully believe that the SAFE ACT broad prohibitions against will not. withstand constitutional challenge and scrutiny. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides and U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the right of individuals to possess and carry firearms and to use them for lawful purposes. The SAFE Act, however, infringes on that right as it bans the possession and use of certain firearms that were heretofore possessed and” used lawfully for the defense of life, liberty, and property, and as it bans the possession and use of certain firearms that were heretofore possessed and used lawfully for safe use of firearms recreation, hunting, and shooting.
We as police officers are on the front lines of public safety. Respectfully, none of you are. We see, feel, work, and live with the effects of gun violence in ways that you cannot. We believe that you see gun violence as a means to move your agenda and your ambitions forward. You know that the SAFE Act will not work in the way that you pretend it will. You know that this shameful SAFE Act was about ideology and politics and not about making anyone safer.
Regarding the reduction in violent crime this new legislation is proposed to have, in 2011 the most current year for which FBI crime statistics are available, New York State had 77l homicides, 445 were committed with a firearm, 394 of that 445 were committed with a handgun, 5 were committed with a rifle, 16 were committed with a shotgun, in 30 the firearm type was unknown, 160 were committed with a cutting instrument, 143 were committed with another type of weapon, and 26 were committed with bare hands. We believe based on these statistics, that the SAFE Act will do nothing to reduce violent crime as the primary target of the legislation is the “assault rifle” which would be included statistically with standard rifles and used in less than 1% of New York homicides in 2011.These so called “Assault Weapons” were not used in the commission of one reported crime in Albany County in 2011.
For the reasons set forth above, the Albany Police Union believes that the SAFE Act is wrong - substantively, procedurally, and morally. The SAFE Act infringes on the rights of law-abiding citizens, it will burden and negatively impact firearms ownership by law-abiding citizens and will not affect the willingness of criminals or those who are mentally ill from perpetrating violence. Again, we respectfully demand that each and all of you do the right thing and repeal the law. Very truly yours,
Thomas Mahar: President Albany Police Officers Union, local 2841 Council 82, AFSCME, AFI-CIO
Well, I couldn’t watch the sob. I tried but failed. Threw up in my boots. He is pissed though!
Here is another news flash... he is a liar.
I see they found Big Foot. Did you see the size of the moose behind them on the steps?
With her mental condition Gabby Giffords would have likely have had her firearms confiscated , had the law passed.
On second thought I’m sure she could have weaseled out of it, being one of the ‘chosen ones’.
This thread almost made me want to turn on my TV and watch him - but no - I’ve heard enough of his NLP to last me a lifetime.