Obama vows to pursue gun control ‘with or without Congress’

The Daily Caller ^ | 1/28/2014 | Alex Pappas

[rktman]

President Obama vowed on Tuesday night to pursue gun control “with or without Congress.”

In his State of the Union address, Obama referenced recent mass shootings and called for new gun laws. In the aftermath of mass shootings over the last several years, Obama and Democrats have unsuccessfully pushed for new gun control measures.

“Citizenship means standing up for the lives that gun violence steals from us each day,” Obama said.

[wku man]

Yeah, my bad. I'm jumping between a few threads, and lost track of which one I was posting to.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[glock rocks]

Aye, and there they sit ... pondering their magnificience, and denying and/or ignoring the ramifications of the candle they’re fixing to light.

Stay safe, Jim. We’ve got your six.

[from occupied ga]

They protect no one

Not true. First and formost they protect themselves, Secondly they protect the government.

[ExpatGator]

Your statement, repeated every chance you get on threads pertaining to the subject, ignores the following FACTS:

1. Many, many more of those who own modern semi-autos and full capacity magazines did NOT turn theirs in.

2. CT government is talking bout an “amnesty” due to the above fact (1.) Proof of the MANY who are refusniks.

3. CA is full of un-registered modern semi-autos. Many hundreds of thousands of them, if not millions.

Noone is more disgusted at those who sheepishly turned theirs in or registered them than I am. Correspondingly, noone is more proud of the majority who have refused to do so. I would rather accentuate the positive than constantly harp on the negative. You should try it sometime.

[Solson]

Huh? “Repeated every chance...”

[ExpatGator]

My mistake. I thought I had seen that on another thread. Mea Culpa!
Other than that error/mistake/goofup on my part, I stand by the post.

[El Gato]

“Citizenship means standing up for the lives that gun violence steals from us each day,” Obama said

Actually it means having the right to the means to shoot back, or first in the face of an imminent threat. Most especially in country whose Constitution says "..the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

[El Gato]

I used to think that until I saw the lemmings in CT lining up to register their guns.

Images can be deceiving.

Connecticut...refusing to register their “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines

There are always some sheeple in every group. But 5% isnt' bad at all. During the revolution, it was more like 1/3 to 2/3. 1/3 supported the Crown, another 1/3 supported whoever appeared to be winning or just didn't care one way or another. The 1/3 that did care.. was enough. Two of those were my direct ancestors. One of them responded to the Lexington Alarm (meaning he turned out on April 19, 1775) and was a member of the Committee of Correspondence too, so he was comparable to a Tea Party Member (and may have been that too, but he didn't live that close to Boston) The other one eventually married the older ones daughter.

[El Gato]

I’m ready for the ‘Reset’.

i'm not especially looking forward to it. But some things just need doing.

[El Gato]

Even in Ft. Worth Texas, a rookie police officer who shot a 72 y/o man in his own rear entry garage, while responding to a burglar alarm from the house across the street in a well to do neighborhood, in the well to do neighbor, was no billed by the grand jury, after prosecutors delivered over twenty hours of "evidence". Now, the prosecutor could get a ham sandwich indicted if he had a mind to do so, so clearly in this case he was not working for an indictment, not even on something like reckless endangerment. which surely responding to the wrong address in the middle of the night, and prowling around in the back, rather than knocking on the front door, would qualify as.

That could have been almost any Texan, woken up at O Dark Thirty, by loud noises and flashlights in his back yard. To make matters worse, evidence and testimony showed that the gentleman had put down his gun before he was shot. They alleged that he lunged for it when the non shooting officer moved to secure it.

I had a local policeman do pretty much the same thing at my house, except he was responding to a "loud and suspicious" noise call, and had the right house. But he also did not come to the door, instead I saw the tell tale flashlight beam in the back yard, and responded with a semi-auto, help initially behind my back, while I hit the outside lights. Then, seeing it was a police officer, I put the pistol on the bookshelf beside the door, and engaged the office with conversation instead.

[El Gato]

Does that mean he is going to “Ban” Chicago where “gun control” seems to not be working as planned?

It's working EXACTLY as planned. The Good Citizens are disarmed, but the thugs are not. This is used to increase the size and power of police, who don't go after the thugs as rigorously as they should, but do protect the hell out of the politicians.

Federal Courts have declared Chicago's gun laws to be unconstitutional. But I haven't heard about any changes yet. There have probably been some minimal ones, to keep the Court at bay, while Obama replaces the judges and Justices.