Posted on 01/20/2016 12:05:55 PM PST by Kaslin
Before Christmas break the President vowed to make some changes for his swan song year. When he returned he went to work with his Attorney General Loretta Lynch strengthening gun control laws. Then last Tuesday in his final State of the Union Address the President made it sound as if it was absurd to think that he was after America's guns.
On Wednesday night's GOP debate every single candidate saw this rouse. Ted Cruz laid it all out for America when he sited Eric Holder's mission to brain wash the American people against guns, and the fact that Obama appointing Sonya Mayor's appointment to the Supreme Court. Mayor being as Cruz put "Someone who has been a radical against the 2nd Amendment the right to keep and bear arms."
Rubio was not silent on the issue either. The Florida senator explained how ineffective the left's plan to control guns is in stopping criminals from obtaining guns. "Criminals don't get their guns from a gun show..." He further dismantle the argument for stricter gun control laws by saying "...and let me tell ya ISIS and terrorists don't get their guns from a gun show."
Essentially, this is a law enforcement issue. To spite what the left is saying, the issue is criminals breaking the law. Great Britain proved this when they took away guns. Then instead of a problem with gun violence, they had a problem with sharp pointy knives. Answers... outlaw pointy knives?
Although passing laws is not the president's job, enforcing federal law is. Obama's attempt to tame the concerns of the people by saying this executive action does not bring any new legislation. If that is the case, then why file the action in the first place? Why not simply enforce the federal laws on the books, instead of pointing at congress and complaining about how they won't pass the laws you want.
Of course everyone agrees that no one should be able to own a tank. There does need to be gun control to some extent background checks are a good thing. Like Presidential hopeful Rand Paul said in an interview on ABC's The View. "If you allow a president to pass laws instead of Congress doing it. You might get very dangerous things like the internment of the Japanese, spying on all the civil rights leaders, or spying on the Vietnam War protesters. All that had been done, because of too much executive power. The checks and balances are extremely important."
The quintessential gun nut, who believes in a second amendment without limitations, does not exist. No one believes that private citizens should own a tank or nuclear missile. The fact is, we as Americans already have those weapons at our disposal. We have a government, of for and by the people. The only issue is that perhaps there are those in government who forgot to whom they report.
The gun control debate is a farce. Criminals have an agenda that is fed by gun control. Criminals want to victimize people, pure and simple. The idea that somehow building a system that seeks to impede a criminal's ability to obtain firearms by presupposing that they will abide by that system is fundamentally flawed. Criminals by definition; have no respect for the law. As long as guns are in existence criminals will be able to obtain them. Making it more difficult for the general public to obtain firearms, will only benefits criminals. Newtown, UCC, and San Bernardino, we are told time and time again by experts in law enforcement, none of the legislation on the books would have done anything to stop these atrocities. By now those that are for further gun control must understand that. If the Obama administration is not after our guns then why bring countries like Great Britain, or Australia into the conversation.
It is time to change the conversation when it comes to controlling violent crime in America. While Obama has made the case that he wants gun control. He has not proven that he wants to hold criminals accountable for their crimes, or protect the American people.
How do you stop people from speeding? You handle it by punishing criminals for perpetrating crimes. That is exactly how Rudy Giuliani curbed violent crime in New York City. As soon as Giuliani took office in 1993 violent crime was cut in half and New York's murder rate dropped an astonishing 67 percent, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Report. The correlation is staggering. He got these results by keeping his eye on the ball, and good old fashioned law enforcement. So long as the conversation remains about guns, and we don't hold criminals accountable for their actions, this epidemic will persist. Background checks are supported by both sides of the aisle. The right to bear arms has nothing to do with perpetrating a crime. Those who victimize law abiding Americans need to fear the sword of the government. Americans must have the ability to defend themselves with similar force as their assailants. We need to be a country of both law and grace.
“Of course everyone agrees that no one should be able to own a tank.”
Why not?
Agreed, in the beginning field pieces were privately owned because the people were the army. We moved away from that model because the govt must be in control. They sold that on the basis of professionalism. The reason we’re have any ‘gun control’ debate today is becuase those in the past gave away their rights without so much as a whimper.
There are people who own tanks.
What? I'd love to own a tank, not that I could afford to drive it much, and the shells would be prohibitively expensive. As for a 'nuclear missile', the missile is not the nuclear part, the warhead is. I really don't have the appropriate facilities or know how to keep or maintain either, and that's pretty much it.
Strategic weaponry should remain the province of Governments, but anything smaller the people can afford, so long as it is not misused, should be okay. Misuse of such could be seen as an act of war, and dealt with appropriately.
Exactly. 18th century private citizens owned sloops, manowars, etc, fully armed with naval howitzers!
I have no problem with any law abiding citizens owning tanks......just keep it in your lane and don't fire the main gun after I put the kids to bed. (unless you invite us over).
Obama to America: “Turn in your guns and trust the Muslims!”
I remember reading of a man who bought a tank. He used it to demolish abandoned houses.
I agree with other posters-why shouldn’t I own a tank if I could afford one, and I didn’t use it to run down someone’s gate, squash their truck, etc? Or own a battleship for that matter-as long as I paid for the slip space for it? Here in BFE, there is more than one person in the woods in possession of a cannon they either built or bought, and MrT5 was looking for one-so what?
A neighbors and I were going to build a catapult a few years ago-since there really wasn’t anything to use it for, we didn’t do it-but no one should have been able to prevent us from having the thing...
“There are people who own tanks.”
Arnold Shwarzenwhatever owns a tank.
Wrong.
About40 years ago one of the large movie studios in L.A. Had a garage sale on a large amount of its props.
Some guy got a world war tank, the kind with hard rubber tires instead of tracks,
He made it street legal with lites turn signals etc and drove it to work going down the Harbor freeway.
Write up in the Times when it was a reasonable paper
I know, and have known, people who own tanks. I’ve ridden in some of their tanks. And enjoyed every minute of doing so.
Google “Jacques Littlefield collection” and go to the Militiary Vehicle Preservation Associations (MVPA) website.
Arms includes any and all weapons necessary to defend oneself and family as well as to defend against tyranny!
As I recall, we moved away from that model because Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders took over what the US Military started and couldn’t finish and embarrassed the hell out of the government forces with their privately owned and loaned arms including Colt Browning machine guns and artillery.
Whenever I see an “Everyone agrees” I’m prepared for a line of crap.
If I could afford a tank, I should be able to buy a tank. I can see the government making it improper to drive it where it becomes a public safety issue, like car pooling or going shopping. But I should be able to buy a gun that big mounted on an armored vehicle if I wanted. AND, I remember a nutcase stealing a tank in San Diego, CA and driving it quite recklessly through town until his fatal showdown with police. If criminals want to get a tank, they will get a tank.
I’m one person, so not everyone agrees.
Liberals just love to make crap up and try to pass it off as fact. Even if impractical, why should I not own either one? A-skeered I might use it?
when he sited ('cited'?)
every single candidate saw this rouse. ('how about 'ruse'? 'Rouse' is a verb meaning to drink or toast.)
mission to brain wash ('brain wash' is a noun. I remember getting introduced to compound words in 2nd Grade. Maybe this clown will have that to look forward to.)
and the fact that Obama appointing Sonya Mayor's appointment to the Supreme Court. (appointing an appointment? How about reading your own dreck before publishing?)
He further dismantle the argument (pitiful)
To spite what the left is saying (Oh boy!)
will only benefits criminals (more of the same)
These are only a few examples. This is unreadable.
Got news for that jerk: MANY private citizens own tanks! AND ammo!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
