Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yes, I am, everyone in this nation has a right to bear arms, and it's too expensive for gun store owners to give everyone a background check. Though, if we really wanted to keep criminals from buying guns legally, they could get background checks when attempting to get permits instead.Are you opposed to background checks being the law? I thought that was already the law? are people supposed to be able to just walk into a store and by a gun no matter what their background?
I feel like this situation is so bloated. Existing law has been for licensed gun store owners to run BG checks, this was bipartisan. They cost about $5- 20 bucks. New rules by Obama are trying to extend this requirement to gun shows and private sales. I own a dozen guns and I want to be able to sell them without having to go run a bg check, but I also understand why the rules are being proposed. It's a fine debate to have but I don't see this jump from trying to make the sale of a lethal weapon a safer/stricter process to the claims of him trying to take guns away.Yes, I am, everyone in this nation has a right to bear arms, and it's too expensive for gun store owners to give everyone a background check. Though, if we really wanted to keep criminals from buying guns legally, they could get background checks when attempting to get permits instead.Are you opposed to background checks being the law? I thought that was already the law? are people supposed to be able to just walk into a store and by a gun no matter what their background?
You're right, no guns have been taken... yet. Democrats are slowly trying to restrict, and restrict, and restrict access until nobody has them. If we don't protect our rights, we won't have them anymore. They're taken away bit by bit, that's how it has always been done. This isn't even a productive measure, it won't stop criminals, they'll still obtain them illegally. It will only stop reformed criminals from being able to exercise their right to bear arms.I feel like this situation is so bloated. Existing law has been for licensed gun store owners to run BG checks, this was bipartisan. They cost about $5- 20 bucks. New rules by Obama are trying to extend this requirement to gun shows and private sales. I own a dozen guns and I want to be able to sell them without having to go run a bg check, but I also understand why the rules are being proposed. It's a fine debate to have but I don't see this jump from trying to make the sale of a lethal weapon a safer/stricter process to the claims of him trying to take guns away.
The reality is, no guns have been taken away from gun owners and responsible individuals can still very easily go buy guns.
I understand why the NRA promotes like it's been doing. Strike fear of the Obama gun banner so people go buy more guns... It's genius and has worked like a charm. But anybody that really buys all that over exaggerated BS is just a puppet.
I don't think all the gun control measures are the smartest and most effective actions but I don't think it needs to be taken to this crazy extreme that all the pro gunners are taking it too. It makes civil and productive conversation nearly impossible and makes it a yelling match of extremes
You have every right to make the arguments you make about criminals and regulations, I agree with most of them. I am just sick of the claim that Obama is trying to take our guns away. It's bloated and unrealistic... If you actually look at the logistics of what it would take to actually take people's guns away, I think you'll see how far fetched it is. The NRA is pumping out those talking points and playing their supporters like puppetsYou're right, no guns have been taken... yet. Democrats are slowly trying to restrict, and restrict, and restrict access until nobody has them. If we don't protect our rights, we won't have them anymore. They're taken away bit by bit, that's how it has always been done. This isn't even a productive measure, it won't stop criminals, they'll still obtain them illegally. It will only stop reformed criminals from being able to exercise their right to bear arms.I feel like this situation is so bloated. Existing law has been for licensed gun store owners to run BG checks, this was bipartisan. They cost about $5- 20 bucks. New rules by Obama are trying to extend this requirement to gun shows and private sales. I own a dozen guns and I want to be able to sell them without having to go run a bg check, but I also understand why the rules are being proposed. It's a fine debate to have but I don't see this jump from trying to make the sale of a lethal weapon a safer/stricter process to the claims of him trying to take guns away.
The reality is, no guns have been taken away from gun owners and responsible individuals can still very easily go buy guns.
I understand why the NRA promotes like it's been doing. Strike fear of the Obama gun banner so people go buy more guns... It's genius and has worked like a charm. But anybody that really buys all that over exaggerated BS is just a puppet.
I don't think all the gun control measures are the smartest and most effective actions but I don't think it needs to be taken to this crazy extreme that all the pro gunners are taking it too. It makes civil and productive conversation nearly impossible and makes it a yelling match of extremes
Obama has a long list of executive orders that have violated the constitution. As of 2013, it was 64. He CAN take them away, he WANTS to take them away, however, he will not, because wouldn't be able to get away with doing it to such an extreme degree, that's why Democrats do it bit by bit. So, to reiterate, yes, he wants to, Liberals want to. If we keep letting them take these steps they will. Not during Obama's presidency, maybe not during the next Democrat president, but eventually. That's why we can't let them take these steps.You have every right to make the arguments you make about criminals and regulations, I agree with most of them. I am just sick of the claim that Obama is trying to take our guns away. It's bloated and unrealistic... If you actually look at the logistics of what it would take to actually take people's guns away, I think you'll see how far fetched it is. The NRA is pumping out those talking points and playing their supporters like puppets
Yes, the slippery slope fear tactic... I am well aware. Fact is, he hasn't taken peoples guns away or done anything to make it significantly harder to legally buy a gun . If your claims are true that he wants to and has the ability to, then he would. Just maybe that isn't his goal. I'm a gun owner with liberal views. I support some gun control measures and oppose others... I've never felt a threat of getting my guns taken away. Everything I read about the subject just sounds like poorly stated over whatever's propaganda. I'm actually amazing that so many people actually believe that crapObama has a long list of executive orders that have violated the constitution. As of 2013, it was 64. He CAN take them away, he WANTS to take them away, however, he will not, because wouldn't be able to get away with doing it to such an extreme degree, that's why Democrats do it bit by bit. So, to reiterate, yes, he wants to, Liberals want to. If we keep letting them take these steps they will. Not during Obama's presidency, maybe not during the next Democrat president, but eventually. That's why we can't let them take these steps.You have every right to make the arguments you make about criminals and regulations, I agree with most of them. I am just sick of the claim that Obama is trying to take our guns away. It's bloated and unrealistic... If you actually look at the logistics of what it would take to actually take people's guns away, I think you'll see how far fetched it is. The NRA is pumping out those talking points and playing their supporters like puppets
No, he couldn't keep it that way if he achieved it through Executive Order, the next president could repeal it. That's why he hasn't. They need the next Supreme Court Justice to be Liberal, then they will start quickly taking steps.Yes, the slippery slope fear tactic... I am well aware. Fact is, he hasn't taken peoples guns away or done anything to make it significantly harder to legally buy a gun . If your claims are true that he wants to and has the ability to, then he would. Just maybe that isn't his goal. I'm a gun owner with liberal views. I support some gun control measures and oppose others... I've never felt a threat of getting my guns taken away. Everything I read about the subject just sounds like poorly stated over whatever's propaganda. I'm actually amazing that so many people actually believe that crap
It's an impossible task that would likely lead to huge civil unrest and violence. You really think this is their goal??? Perhaps there are some extremist on the left that want all guns gone... But any realist, the prez included, is smarter than that. There are plenty of good legal uses for guns aside from it being a constitutional right, these have been acknowledge by most liberal lefties. The whole point of control is to make it harder for criminals to gain easy access and to help decrease gun violence. Nobel goals. Some efforts are misguided and ineffective and some could be effective. This is what the debate should be about... Not the looney slipery slope fallacy that's designed to make people blindly oppose anything put forth by liberals regarding gun control. Can't you see what the puppet masters are trying to do?No, he couldn't keep it that way if he achieved it through Executive Order, the next president could repeal it. That's why he hasn't. They need the next Supreme Court Justice to be Liberal, then they will start quickly taking steps.Yes, the slippery slope fear tactic... I am well aware. Fact is, he hasn't taken peoples guns away or done anything to make it significantly harder to legally buy a gun . If your claims are true that he wants to and has the ability to, then he would. Just maybe that isn't his goal. I'm a gun owner with liberal views. I support some gun control measures and oppose others... I've never felt a threat of getting my guns taken away. Everything I read about the subject just sounds like poorly stated over whatever's propaganda. I'm actually amazing that so many people actually believe that crap
Russia did it. Germany did it. Most socialist countries accomplish this task.It's an impossible task that would likely lead to huge civil unrest and violence.
I'd say most of them. The left is almost entirely populated by Socialist whackjobs.You really think this is their goal??? Perhaps there are some extremist on the left that want all guns gone...
Calling him a realist or smart is outright misusing the word. He's a Socialist, that makes him unrealistic and dumb as bricks by default. Not only that, but his record speaks for itself.But any realist, the prez included, is smarter than that.
Outright false.There are plenty of good legal uses for guns aside from it being a constitutional right, these have been acknowledge by most liberal lefties.
No, it isn't. Socialists want us unarmed so that we'd be at their mercy, as when Socialism fully takes over, we're nothing but property. It's not loony, we've seen it happen in other countries, where the slow burn has been used in order to completely take over, and give the government full control over everything.The whole point of control is to make it harder for criminals to gain easy access and to help decrease gun violence. Nobel goals. Some efforts are misguided and ineffective and some could be effective. This is what the debate should be about... Not the looney slipery slope fallacy that's designed to make people blindly oppose anything put forth by liberals regarding gun control. Can't you see what the puppet masters are trying to do?
You Obviously don't know the definition of socialism nor understand the differences in our system of government and that of the ones you pointed out. Straight out of the NRA, how to control the puppets, handbookRussia did it. Germany did it. Most socialist countries accomplish this task.It's an impossible task that would likely lead to huge civil unrest and violence.
I'd say most of them. The left is almost entirely populated by Socialist whackjobs.You really think this is their goal??? Perhaps there are some extremist on the left that want all guns gone...
Calling him a realist or smart is outright misusing the word. He's a Socialist, that makes him unrealistic and dumb as bricks by default. Not only that, but his record speaks for itself.But any realist, the prez included, is smarter than that.
Outright false.There are plenty of good legal uses for guns aside from it being a constitutional right, these have been acknowledge by most liberal lefties.
No, it isn't. Socialists want us unarmed so that we'd be at their mercy, as when Socialism fully takes over, we're nothing but property. It's not loony, we've seen it happen in other countries, where the slow burn has been used in order to completely take over, and give the government full control over everything.The whole point of control is to make it harder for criminals to gain easy access and to help decrease gun violence. Nobel goals. Some efforts are misguided and ineffective and some could be effective. This is what the debate should be about... Not the looney slipery slope fallacy that's designed to make people blindly oppose anything put forth by liberals regarding gun control. Can't you see what the puppet masters are trying to do?
I know the definition of Socialism, the fact that from that, you concluded that I don't, only shows that you're just as confused as every Democrat.You Obviously don't know the definition of socialism nor understand the differences in our system of government and that of the ones you pointed out. Straight out of the NRA, how to control the puppets, handbook
Then In What way is our president a socialist? Do you realize that instituting some government run and regulates agencies is far for the government control long all the production, distributions, and exchanges of a country? We aren't even close. Plus we have way more guns in our country than your other examples and it is a right granted to is iN Our constitution. The comparison is apples to orangesI know the definition of Socialism, the fact that from that, you concluded that I don't, only shows that you're just as confused as every Democrat.You Obviously don't know the definition of socialism nor understand the differences in our system of government and that of the ones you pointed out. Straight out of the NRA, how to control the puppets, handbook
He's redistributing wealth, expanding government power(Notice he's using his Executive powers without restraint, stomping all over the Constitution, clearly seeing it as nothing but hurdle), further regulating businesses, and hates the private sector. He's not socialist to the extent Bernie Sanders is, because he thinks Obama is too Conservative(Delusional loon), but he's definitely a Socialist. Also, the examples I pointed out are places with mostly 'completed' socialist agendas, they're the goals of the Democratic Party. You're right, we're not close, but that's where they want to go. It would take them many years using this method, but it's the destination. Liberals were inspired by Russia, that's why they love FDR so much, he made massive strides in achieving what Russia did. He failed to keep us that way, but he showed that the steps can be taken.Then In What way is our president a socialist? Do you realize that instituting some government run and regulates agencies is far for the government control long all the production, distributions, and exchanges of a country? We aren't even close. Plus we have way more guns in our country than your other examples and it is a right granted to is iN Our constitution. The comparison is apples to oranges
You speak of small elements and programs in our system that all serve a noble purpose but also have massive inefficiencys that need to be fixed, and like the gun arguement your fears are of the slippery slope of what you think the ultimate agenda is. It blinds you from acknowlging the issues at face value. The contrast between conservatives and liberals is very healthy and even a necessity to prevent either ideology from completely taking over. What bothers me is the fact that both sides can no longer work together as a team to find the right solutions. Respect is out the window and both sides just try and Demonize the other side, invoke fear of an invisible agenda, and discredit their opponents by distorting the facts. It's ugly and extremely unproductiveHe's redistributing wealth, expanding government power(Notice he's using his Executive powers without restraint, stomping all over the Constitution, clearly seeing it as nothing but hurdle), further regulating businesses, and hates the private sector. He's not socialist to the extent Bernie Sanders is, because he thinks Obama is too Conservative(Delusional loon), but he's definitely a Socialist. Also, the examples I pointed out are places with mostly 'completed' socialist agendas, they're the goals of the Democratic Party. You're right, we're not close, but that's where they want to go. It would take them many years using this method, but it's the destination. Liberals were inspired by Russia, that's why they love FDR so much, he made massive strides in achieving what Russia did. He failed to keep us that way, but he showed that the steps can be taken.Then In What way is our president a socialist? Do you realize that instituting some government run and regulates agencies is far for the government control long all the production, distributions, and exchanges of a country? We aren't even close. Plus we have way more guns in our country than your other examples and it is a right granted to is iN Our constitution. The comparison is apples to oranges
Those small elements and programs are already rapidly damaging the economy and degrading the health of the nation, while putting us further in debt.You speak of small elements and programs in our system that all serve a noble purpose but also have massive inefficiencys that need to be fixed, and like the gun arguement your fears are of the slippery slope of what you think the ultimate agenda is.
He says, ignoring the fact that we've been too far left for some time now.It blinds you from acknowlging the issues at face value. The contrast between conservatives and liberals is very healthy and even a necessity to prevent either ideology from completely taking over.
What's unproductive is being distracted by trying to appear for both sides, not recognizing the fact that one side has gone too far along with its agenda. The economy and those that run it are suffering because the Democratic Party is intentionally trying to replace the Private Sector, and turn the people into property to grovel before them.What bothers me is the fact that both sides can no longer work together as a team to find the right solutions. Respect is out the window and both sides just try and Demonize the other side, invoke fear of an invisible agenda, and discredit their opponents by distorting the facts. It's ugly and extremely unproductive
If you are a libtard.Haha... I'm always lying... Aren't we all?I dont know much about the gun situation...Really ...
"Obama then claimed that there have actually been more guns sold since he has been president than any time in US history."
Ain't it the truth.
The Democrats would take them. If they could.
Obama had some strong words for a gun-store owner who confronted him at a town-hall event in Indiana
You're lying.
I was actually really hoping to get a republican In here this term to balance it up. Thought Kasich would do a pretty good job but they put Trump up as a confidante... Wtf????Those small elements and programs are already rapidly damaging the economy and degrading the health of the nation, while putting us further in debt.You speak of small elements and programs in our system that all serve a noble purpose but also have massive inefficiencys that need to be fixed, and like the gun arguement your fears are of the slippery slope of what you think the ultimate agenda is.
He says, ignoring the fact that we've been too far left for some time now.It blinds you from acknowlging the issues at face value. The contrast between conservatives and liberals is very healthy and even a necessity to prevent either ideology from completely taking over.
What's unproductive is being distracted by trying to appear for both sides, not recognizing the fact that one side has gone too far along with its agenda. The economy and those that run it are suffering because the Democratic Party is intentionally trying to replace the Private Sector, and turn the people into property to grovel before them.What bothers me is the fact that both sides can no longer work together as a team to find the right solutions. Respect is out the window and both sides just try and Demonize the other side, invoke fear of an invisible agenda, and discredit their opponents by distorting the facts. It's ugly and extremely unproductive
There's not a single one that I have found which I don't object to. Though, if you want specifics on the ones I object most to; His Obamacare Executive Order, his Gun Control Executive Order, the Iran Deal, his Overtime Executive Order, his Benefits Executive Order, artificially propping up the Wind and Solar industries, repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", his action on Illegal Boarder Hoppers, ending the use of Torture in Interrogations, his "Green Jobs Bill", the "DREAM Act", the Guantanamo Shutdown, suspending Deportations, the "Stimulus", "My Brother's Keeper", "New Start Treaty". To name a few.I was actually really hoping to get a republican In here this term to balance it up. Thought Kasich would do a pretty good job but they put Trump up as a confidante... Wtf????
Which programs are you objecting to?
Guess you're gonna be a happy camper to see him go in Nov. I'm gonna miss him, he was a bad ass. Made a few mistakes, but overall a job well doneThere's not a single one that I have found which I don't object to. Though, if you want specifics on the ones I object most to; His Obamacare Executive Order, his Gun Control Executive Order, the Iran Deal, his Overtime Executive Order, his Benefits Executive Order, artificially propping up the Wind and Solar industries, repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", his action on Illegal Boarder Hoppers, ending the use of Torture in Interrogations, his "Green Jobs Bill", the "DREAM Act", the Guantanamo Shutdown, suspending Deportations, the "Stimulus", "My Brother's Keeper", "New Start Treaty". To name a few.I was actually really hoping to get a republican In here this term to balance it up. Thought Kasich would do a pretty good job but they put Trump up as a confidante... Wtf????
Which programs are you objecting to?
I wanted Ted Cruz to win, Christy, Kasich, Jeb, and Carson leaned way too far left.
HA! He tanks the economy, makes businesses leave, PLOWS the constitution in every direction, gives us a completely dysfunctional healthcare system that tanks the economy even further, leaves our soldiers overseas while he holds their hands behind their backs, funds terrorists, and you're going to MISS him? Right. There are people who don't pay enough attention to politics to understand the effects he has had.Guess you're gonna be a happy camper to see him go in Nov. I'm gonna miss him, he was a bad ass. Made a few mistakes, but overall a job well done
