Chris Matthews: Gun Control Speech Coming Soon

[Mr. T]

 

 

[calfoxwc]

Well, that was why I posted about the attempt by anti-gun Senators, to change the filibuster rules.

 

But, they lost. And yes, a gun control speech, as well as disdaining the decision by the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,

 

that's just the "nudge" all over again. The sick, out of control arrogance of leftists, as well as their greed for power

 

and wealth, will never let anything stop them from taking over control ... if they ever can.

 

And Heck seems like he's one of them. Sad.

[calfoxwc]

the White House/ObaMao is going to USE the Arizona tragedy, to further their own slurping up to his leftist base.

 

There's no honor in marxist liberal land, for CERTAIN, now:

 

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/27/white-h...un-control.html#

[heckofajobbrownie]

Good. Bringing back some common sense restrictions on the types of guns and ammunition American citizens can possess is long overdue.

[Kosar_For_President]

Good. Bringing back some common sense restrictions on the types of guns and ammunition American citizens can possess is long overdue.

 

Just like is says in the Constitution. Heck 1 - Constitution 0.

[calfoxwc]

Said Heck who apparently knows nothing about guns and ammo.

 

What kind of ammo do you think needs to be outlawed Heck?

 

Meanwhile, a national concealed carry sounds good to me...

*********************************************

We've all long known the right to armed self-defense

 

 

Wyoming Gun Owners is just a step away from passing Constitution Carry. Click here to support the bill's final passage with a donation.is a basic human right that is guaranteed by our Constitution.

 

And quite frankly there is no better example of legislation that embodies the Second Amendment, than Constitutional Carry. It's the law of the land in Vermont, Alaska, and Arizona -- and that's just the start.

 

States across the country are considering legislation to do away with government tracking databases and bypass the mother-may-I permit processes. The law is simple -- if you're allowed to own a gun, you're allowed to carry it with you.

 

Constitutional Carry doesn't repeal the permit process, but gives an option to law-abiding citizens that is more in line with a right.

 

This week in Wyoming, our state affiliate is in the thick of a fight to have Wyoming join the ranks of Constitutional Carry states.

 

Wyoming's Constitutional Carry law carries nationwide importance. You see, when each state passes Constitutional Carry it creates a domino effect that brings your state closer to its own freedom-enabling law.

 

State by state, step by step, Constitutional Carry is becoming the law of the land and gun owners are regaining their right to self defense without governments monitoring, fingerprinting and registering them like criminals.

 

Wyoming Gun Owners have been working hard, but this has been no easy task. Earlier this week, the Wyoming bill passed the State Senate and moved over to their State House.

 

 

[calfoxwc]

Here in Ohio, we HAVE ccw, and the Castle Law was passed.

 

Courtesy, of a Democratic governor, Strickland.

 

It's stupid to think that lowering the magazine size would keep that Arizona killer from

 

doing what he did.

 

All he'd have to do, is get two freakin guns.

 

Let me know when Heck decides we need to make it harder to own a knife...

 

Actually, "when his lib superiors tell him to support making it harder to own a knife"

[heckofajobbrownie]

So our current gun laws are unconstitutional, Kosar? The 2nd Amendment is absolute? Really?

 

It's funny. I asked all of you guys what kind of gun laws you wanted and you all wrote back that you accept certain restrictions on gun ownership, and you're for many of them. Steve thought the whole concept of the Second Amendment is out of date and no longer useful.

 

But suddenly debating what those restrictions should be is clearly going to result in some sort of unconstitutional behavior and will lead to liberals stealing your Constitutional rights.

 

Jeez. You guys are hilarious/helpless.

[calfoxwc]

You agreed with me, Heck, on my stances on guns.

Common sense, we already have.

 

there is no debating the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment and what it means.

There is no limit or restriction that will stop some nut from commiting a crime with a gun.

Or a car, or whatever.

 

If you banned all guns, the nut will buy some illegally made gun at some low life, black market machine shop,

like a lot of criminals do.

Anything further than common sense, is NOT common sense. The debate is over.

 

Try teaching liberal Dem activist Sheriffs and deputies to do their freakin job and ignore

aliances to the Dem party. That's how the nutcase in Arizona kept out of the problems that would have

gotten him failing a background check.

[heckofajobbrownie]

There's no debating the 2nd amendment and what it means? You sure?

 

Isn't that what courts do all the time?

 

Maybe there's no debate in your house, but trust me, people try to figure out what restrictions to gun ownership are and aren't constitutional all the time.

 

You might also want to try to avoid contradicting yourself in a single post:

 

"There is no limit or restriction that will stop some nut from commiting a crime with a gun.

Or a car, or whatever."

 

"That's how the nutcase in Arizona kept out of the problems that would have

gotten him failing a background check."

 

 

...Well, if no limits or restrictions will keep some nut from committing a crime with a gun, why have background checks?

 

 

I don't think certain types of mentally ill people should be allowed to buy guns. I know that sounds crazy, but I tend to be for this type of craziness.

[Mr. T]

"There is no limit or restriction that will stop some nut from commiting a crime with a gun.

Or a car, or whatever."

 

"That's how the nutcase in Arizona kept out of the problems that would have

gotten him failing a background check."

 

...Well, if no limits or restrictions will keep some nut from committing a crime with a gun, why have background checks?

 

 

I don't think certain types of mentally ill people should be allowed to buy guns. I know that sounds crazy, but I tend to be for this type of craziness.

 

 

Plus we need to add this nutcase had made 3 death threats within this past year and Sheriff dipshit never acted on any of them because he is good friends with the nutcases mother who works for the county government.

 

If he had acted on any of them and followed though and done his job this nutcase would not of been able to purchase a firearm.

 

The laws are allready there.

[calfoxwc]

...Well, if no limits or restrictions will keep some nut from committing a crime with a gun, why have background checks?

 

********************

I was talking about the magazine size, dummy. I even said if you banned all guns, the nutcase would

 

get another black market home made special somewhere.

 

Background checks is not what I was talking about. Can't you ever freakin keep up

 

with a current subject at hand? The reason for background checks is to TRY to be responsible,

 

while NOT violating the 2nd Amendment rights of American citizens.

 

The continual attempts to do as much damage to gun ownership across the board, is what isn't going to help.

 

I said, if you limited the size of the magazines, he could simply bring two guns.

 

The idea, is, to identify those who have serious problems, and act accordingly.

 

We have all the common sense laws we need, with maybe a few exceptions.

 

but what happened in Arizona, could have happened in New York city. He could just make his own gun

 

in a machine shop.

 

Violating the 2nd Amendment rights to account for one traumatic tragedy, perpetrated by a nutcase,

may be your idea of freedom...

 

but then again, you don't think. You go by your emotions.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Dick Cheney says we should look at limiting magazine size.

 

"I'd certainly be willing to listen to ideas. I have always been a gun advocate, obviously had a strong voting record on behalf of the Second Amendment. That's just what I believe, and whether or not there's some measure there in terms of limiting the size of the magazine that you can buy to go with semi-automatic weapons -- we've had that in place before. Maybe it's appropriate to reestablish that kind of thing, but I think you do have to be careful, obviously."

 

 

[calfoxwc]

your hero is NOW Dick Cheney? ROF,L !

 

I disagree with him. The only magazine size that would "work", would be to eliminate them.

 

But "restricting the size" is just a nudge in the banning all guns and ammo direction.

 

In other words, it sets a stonger precedent for stopping magazines altogether.

 

Of course, that doesn't do much if a nutcase gets a bolt action, where the bullets

 

are loaded in the cylinder below the barrel, like our old .22 rifle.

 

So THEN, you have to ban all bolt actions. So, that won't work, because a nutcase

 

could just get three revolvers of 6 or 9 shots. So then you have to ban all revolvers...

 

You know, Heck, that it will be a never ending fiasco undermining the 2nd Amendment rights of

 

American citizens, about 300 MILLION of them or more. And, no matter how many "rules" you put in place,

 

you will never stop some nutcase from acting out a hideous act of violence, one way or another.

 

So, restricting the magazine size is totally futile, and anti gun people KNOW that. So, the ulterior motive

 

is, stopping gun ownership, stopping hunting, etc.

 

Nope. After common sense laws are already in place, the stupid stuff that violates, even "ever so nudgingly",

 

the 2nd Amendment, is out of here.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Let's try this one more time: you can be for stricter gun laws, like Dick Cheney suggests, and it doesn't mean you're trying to ban hunting and take away everyone's guns.

 

Stop being a shrieking hysteric.

[calfoxwc]

I'm not being any such thing.

 

We already have all the laws we need here in Ohio.

 

Any more laws, and it defies common sense, and is actually counter-productive,

 

and a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

 

If you want to restrict who can own a car, a knife, a rope, rat poison,

 

coat hangers, javelins, rocks, tree branches and hands, as well

 

as guns, then at least you'd be being consistent.

 

But, alas, there is no consistency in liberalville, your imaginary hometown.

 

Go ahead. Bet me that I can't find a bunch of articles where it is admitted that

 

gun restrictions are just a step in the total ban direction. And no, I didn't do a search ahead of time.

[calfoxwc]

Okay. I searched "gun control just a step in the total gun ban direction.

 

You try it. Here's a few of the best selections, just from the first page.

 

It's not "hysteria", Heck. It's reality. Check it out for yourself. And remember, I said it here,

 

BEFORE I went and looked it up.

 

You don't deal well with reality. And you don't seem to be able to

 

stay on any particular topic consistently.

*******************************

 

mediamatters.org/reports/200907290052 - Cached<LI sb_id="ms__id279"><H3 sb_id="ms__id282">U.S. Agrees to Timetable for UN Gun Ban | Gun Digest - The ... </H3>... is just the first step toward their plans for total gun confiscation. The worldwide gun control mob will ... Clinton steps in. Once the UN Gun Ban is ... Greatest Guns of Gun ...www.gundigest.com/article/​U.S.%20Agrees%20to%20Timetable... - Cached<LI sb_id="ms__id288">

What is the difference between gun control and gun ban ... <LI sb_id="ms__id297">A gun ban means that guns "aren't allowed" or are even outlawed. At ... Gun control is "a good first step" towards a total gun ban, just ask chuck schumer, he says it all the ...answers.yahoo.com/question/​index?qid=20080530221447AAebLak - Cached

[calfoxwc]

Furthermore, let me kick your backside once more:

 

It isn't any kind of "hysteria".

 

Here's the article from the first link above, since you won't read it otherwise:

***************************

.S. Agrees to Timetable for UN Gun Banadmin | Jan 27, 2010 | Comments 0

 

The United Nations and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are moving forward with their plan to confiscate your guns.

 

The United States joined 152 other countries in support of the Arms Trade Treaty Resolution, which establishes the dates for the 2012 UN conference intended to attack American sovereignty by stripping Americans of the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Working groups of anti-gun countries will begin scripting language for the conference this year, creating a blueprint for other countries when they meet at the full conference.

 

The stakes couldn’t be higher.

 

Former United Nation’s ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners about the Arms Trade Treaty and says the UN “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there’s no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

 

Establishing the dates for the Arms Trade Treaty Conference is just the first step toward their plans for total gun confiscation.

 

The worldwide gun control mob will ensure the passage of an egregious, anti-gun treaty…

 

. . .and that’s where Secretary of State Hillary Clinton steps in.

 

Once the UN Gun Ban is passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations it must be ratified by each nation, including the United States.

 

As an arch enemy of gun owners, Clinton has pledged to push the U.S. Senate to ratify the treaty. She will push for passage of this outrageous treaty designed to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU. Read more

 

Source: National Association for Gun Rights

 

 

 

[Legacy Fan]

Dick Cheney says we should look at limiting magazine size.

 

"I'd certainly be willing to listen to ideas. I have always been a gun advocate, obviously had a strong voting record on behalf of the Second Amendment. That's just what I believe, and whether or not there's some measure there in terms of limiting the size of the magazine that you can buy to go with semi-automatic weapons -- we've had that in place before. Maybe it's appropriate to reestablish that kind of thing, but I think you do have to be careful, obviously."

 

 

I'm 100% positive the wackos that currently own "Extenze flavored" magazines will be willing to hand them in if a "new law" is enacted prohibiting them.

 

Because when I am getting ready to go on a shooting rampage, and editing my youtube manifestos, I make a quick trip to the local constable to make sure I'm using the right sized magazine. I'd hate to break a law, when I'm out killing folks.

 

 

Embarrassing.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Aren't you sort of missing the point, Leg? No one is imagining the scenario you're imagining, so pointing out how ridiculous it is isn't a very good argument.

 

Unless you can find me someone out there suggesting that if we enact the kind of restrictions Dick Cheney is talking about lunatics will hand in their extended magazines.

[Westside Steve]

Aren't you sort of missing the point, Leg? No one is imagining the scenario you're imagining, so pointing out how ridiculous it is isn't a very good argument.

 

Unless you can find me someone out there suggesting that if we enact the kind of restrictions Dick Cheney is talking about lunatics will hand in their extended magazines.

 

 

You're not suggesting that there aren't plenty of reasonably sane Americans who'd like to see guns banned altogether are you Heck?

They might see this as a step in the right direction.

I was gonna end with a "no?"

 

WSS

[Legacy Fan]

Aren't you sort of missing the point, Leg? No one is imagining the scenario you're imagining, so pointing out how ridiculous it is isn't a very good argument.

 

Unless you can find me someone out there suggesting that if we enact the kind of restrictions Dick Cheney is talking about lunatics will hand in their extended magazines.

 

No, you're sort of missing the point. My point is that a new law wont fix the problem of extended magazines currently in the hands of nut-jobs. I'm saying they wont be lining up to hand in the newly illegal clips. (Remember: the nut-jobs are the problem, not the magazine size.) Therefore, a new law isn't the solution, but colossal waste of legislative resources.

[calfoxwc]

For example:

 

The nutcases who went into the Colorado school and shot up the place?

 

They had more than one weapon.

 

Reduce the size of a 20 shot clip, to only 10 shots allowable,

 

and a nutcase will simply carry two pistols to act out in violent crime.

 

But, I think the anti gun wackos know that.

 

After the clip smaller size doesn't work, then they can happily

 

call for a ban of all guns.

 

It isn't the guns. A mother drove her car into a lake, and her young sons drowned.

 

People get stabbed. Auto hit and run murders.

 

There is a good reason why the Nazi's took all the guns from the German people.

 

Note: there is a statue of a pistol with a twisted barrel at the U.N.

 

Don't go there with "gee, all we have to do is er... restrict ownership just a wee bit more"

 

Nobody believes that.

[calfoxwc]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7202153@N03/532519876/

[heckofajobbrownie]

You're not suggesting that there aren't plenty of reasonably sane Americans who'd like to see guns banned altogether are you Heck?

They might see this as a step in the right direction.

I was gonna end with a "no?"

 

WSS

 

 

There are some, sure. And they're also irrelevant because it'd clearly be unconstitutional to do so. And they're even more irrelevant because I'm not sure you could find a single member of Congress who takes that position, or even something close to that.

 

No one is seriously trying to "take away your guns", nor could they. This is why people who trade in that kind of stuff are woefully uninformed or paranoid, probably both.

[heckofajobbrownie]

No, you're sort of missing the point. My point is that a new law wont fix the problem of extended magazines currently in the hands of nut-jobs. I'm saying they wont be lining up to hand in the newly illegal clips. (Remember: the nut-jobs are the problem, not the magazine size.) Therefore, a new law isn't the solution, but colossal waste of legislative resources.

 

I know what your point is, and that's exactly what my comment was referring to. I'm saying those are not very good arguments. Because they're not.

 

And why would you imagine that magazine restrictions would only be designed to stop this exact incident, with this exact type of nutjob, from happening again? Again, you're missing the point by focusing on the idea that any new law would be a) a foolproof way to stop this type of thing from happening again, or would get nutjobs to hand in their illegal clips. But that wouldn't be the point of new legislation.

 

Also, it seems clear that if this nutjob hadn't been able to so easily obtain an extended magazine he wouldn't have been able to shoot so many people so quickly. And we also know that he was stopped when he finally had to reload.

 

So here's the upside of the law: in some situations, these types of events won't bring the same body count.

 

Or let me give you another example: the cops pull over a guy with a small arsenal of legal guns, but with illegal magazine clips, on his way to shoot up the ACLU and Tides Foundation. In addition to charging him with conspiracy to commit murder, you can charge him with additional firearm violations and get him off the streets for a longer period of time.

 

Or here's another example: a cop pulls a nutjob like Jared Loughner and finds his gun with an extended ammo clip. Jared gets arrested, found to be insane, and put in the system and can no longer legally obtain a gun.

 

The downside of the legislation: some people will have to reload more often at shooting ranges.

 

Now, is that a common sense gun law? We've had it before, and recently. Seems to make sense to me. Will it make a huge dent in gun crimes in America? I wouldn't think so, but it would have some impact, and would not violate anyone's 2nd Amendment rights. If you need to own a gun for your personal protection, it's hard to imagine a scenario where you're in a shootout requiring 30 rounds at once. These clips will be used almost exclusively by gang members, criminals, and people on murder sprees. I don't see the need to defend that.

 

So I don't think it's a colossal waste of legislative time at all. Assault weapons bans can be riddled with holes and end up being more for show than anything, but that's no reason we shouldn't try to make one that isn't riddled with holes.

 

PS - When did cops shoot the guy who wanted to kill everyone at the ACLU and the Tides Foundation? When he paused to reload.

 

PPS - In addition to Dick Cheney, cops also don't like extended magazines in the hands of nutjobs and criminals. So let's stop pretending this is some bleeding heart issue driven by people who want to ban guns altogether.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Also, does anyone want to guess where that guy was inspired to "start a revolution" by shooting up the ACLU and the Tides Foundation, the latter being an obscure environmental organization that no one had ever heard of until recently?

 

Just take a guess.

[calfoxwc]

A former Bush aid was murdered and dumped in a dumpster.

Sarah Palin gets death threats from the left.

President Reagan was shot.

Sarah Palin's children receive death threats.

 

Want to know where those violent, threatening people get their ideas?

 

From you and Shep, maybe. From CNN and MSNBS, Solon and MoveonupObamaosshorts.orgy.

 

There isn't any "paranoia" when we can point out, that Hillary and Obamao et all, AGREE with

the UN's stance on disarming civilian populations. As a non-gun owner, Heck, you are out in left field,

and don't understand gun owenship, responsibilities, and the attacks on gun ownership.

 

If you applied the same rationalization to other murders, Heck, it isn't guns that consistently is used

by nutcases in the crimes. So, you tell me, why is it, that ONLY guns are targeted @@ for "restrictions" and

not any other weapon? That in itself, is a leading indicator of the bigotry toward gun ownership, and also,

the ulterior motives of those on the left who espouse gun control, knowing full well it won't stop that crime.

 

Was Bobby Kennedy killed with a pistol with a huge clip? Take a guess, Heck...

[calfoxwc]

Nah, you won't answer that question, like you ignore the UN stuff, with Hillary and Obamao support.... etc.

 

I suppose we should limit revolvers to TWO shots, eh?

 

It's all bogus, beyond common sense. And the ulterior motive is, yes it is...

 

banning hunting, and gun ownership.

************************

 

"Convicted assassin Sirhan Sirhan shot and killed Presidential candidate United States Senator Robert F. Kennedy in Los Angeles, California on 5 June 1968 with an eight-shot Iver Johnson .22 caliber Cadet 55-A revolver (serial number H-53725, Trial-People's Exhibit #6, misidentified in trial testimony as S/N H-18602).".

 

 

 

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

Again, Cal, you're not understanding what I'm writing. No one is suggesting that a law like this would stop all gun crimes. Don't be ridiculous and hysterical.

 

Anyone else?