TexasCHLforum.com

President Obama writes about guns in an editorial in the Arizona Daily Star.

http://azstarnet.com/article_011e7118-8 ... dc89d.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From the editorial:

" Most gun owners know that the word "commonsense" isn't a code word for "confiscation." And none of us should be willing to remain passive in the face of violence or resigned to watching helplessly as another rampage unfolds on television."

Question:
So what IS commonsense a code word for?

I am glad to see him go on record.

Never let a good tragedy go to waste.

I love the part where he said since then 2000 people have died.
Wow really 2000 people were killed by individuals that bought guns legally. Humm or was it 2000 gang, drug, and crime related deaths.

Of course we get the obligatory "What about the children" remark.

Nothing new here folks, same old gun grabber mantras.

What is common sense code for?
It's code for as much as we can take away this time.

" Most gun owners know that the word "commonsense" isn't a code word for "confiscation." And none of us should be willing to remain passive in the face of violence or resigned to watching helplessly as another rampage unfolds on television."

I have today, therefore, signed commonsense legislation authorizing every adult United States citizen with no criminal record, to carry on all Federal property, with the exception of secure facilities such as prisons. This includes all property owned or leased by the United States, from post offices to COE lakes. Secure facilities must provide secure storage for visitors' weapons in order to prohibit weapons within the facility.

Additionally, the legislation withholds Federal funds from states which do not follow suit. The funding provision takes effect on July 4th, allowing states sufficient time to update their laws to comply with the Second Amendment.

My fellow Americans, a wise man once wrote that it is high time for society to stop worrying about the criminal, and to let the criminal start worrying about society.

And by "society" I mean you.

lsat I heard, 2ndA is to protect the right of minorities to be armed. How many of said minorities excersice their right without regard to common sense law?

apostate wrote:

" Most gun owners know that the word "commonsense" isn't a code word for "confiscation." And none of us should be willing to remain passive in the face of violence or resigned to watching helplessly as another rampage unfolds on television."

I have today, therefore, signed commonsense legislation authorizing every adult United States citizen with no criminal record, to carry on all Federal property, with the exception of secure facilities such as prisons. This includes all property owned or leased by the United States, from post offices to COE lakes. Secure facilities must provide secure storage for visitors' weapons in order to prohibit weapons within the facility.

Additionally, the legislation withholds Federal funds from states which do not follow suit. The funding provision takes effect on July 4th, allowing states sufficient time to update their laws to comply with the Second Amendment.

My fellow Americans, a wise man once wrote that it is high time for society to stop worrying about the criminal, and to let the criminal start worrying about society.

And by "society" I mean you.

Wasn't this, more or less, already done some 224 years ago?

When you see the guy slipping in the polls this week and taking a lot of stick for his stance on Libya , Wisconsin etc. The joker releases this for the Monday morning jocks to run with it and change the subject away from his failings of the last week .

Is this to take the heat out of Project Gunwalker /ATF ?

Poldark wrote: Is this to take the heat out of Project Gunwalker /ATF ?

I wondered the same thing. I find it frustrating that they still won't comment on Project Gunwalker.

Folk,

I don't think this President or any other writes much about nothing. They have a bunch of staff that does the writing, all the POTUS has to do is sign it...or not.

He (or his staffers) probably neglected to read this first http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/ ... _wars.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PappaGun wrote: Question:
So what IS commonsense a code word for?

I am glad to see him go on record.

I think the answer to that one is easy: "common sense" means sharing the values and beliefs of of the gun grabbers and anti self-defense crowd, and it means whatever they say it means as it pertains to any specific issue. It's also a "pre-positioning" term, and it means they're going to propose specific measures they know will be fiercely opposed, and they'll characterize their opposition as being anti "common sense," hence, crazy and irrational. The term is a set-up to convince those who aren't invested in the debate to believe those in opposition are just a bunch of nuts.

The problem is they have the mindset that no one needs or should have guns.

So to them, here are some common sense ideas that they don't understand us not liking:

bans on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds (because anything else is obviously for mass murder)
month long waits to pick up a purchased gun (because who needs a gun right now unless they want to kill someone?)
ban on military type rifles (again, baby killing machines)
ban on lead ammo (killing the environment and children at the same time...man we're monsters.)
restricting carry (who needs to carry a gun? thats what cops are for, you wanna be murder thinking psychopath)



Gee, I wonder why we can't find common ground. These people are emotionally driven, fact ignoring, power grabbing, holier than thou (see the california bill sponsored by 2 anti gun legislators to let legislators carry guns), fools who ignore the sad history of gun bans and disarmed populaces.

(and because I saw loadedliberals off topic comment on the amount of lib bashing on the board, a disclaimer: This is directed at ANYONE, R, D, or alien, that thinks us little people shouldn't have guns. This is a gun board and I'm talking about gun issues...period.)

lkd wrote:He (or his staffers) probably neglected to read this first http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/ ... _wars.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's a quote from the NYT's article referenced in the article at the link you provided:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/nyreg ... .html?_r=2

"Holding a top-of-the-line gun is supposed to make a person feel powerful, confident, in control. Instead, I felt ridiculous. My stance was all wrong, aand in any case I would never pull the trigger — not to kill an intruder, not to kill a bird. That moment of truth reaffirmed what was already beyond doubt: I am a pacifist, or a coward, depending on your perspective. But just as important, I am a New Yorker. In a city where we all live right on top of one another, playing with guns feels as out of place as wearing prairie dresses and engaging in plural marriage."

This is what the anti-gun crowd wants for us all: complete capitulation to predators. Several comments following the article reflect the same mentality --even that defense is impossible (except of course for soldiers and LEO's), so you shouldn't even be allowed to try. This kind of "pacifism" is a complete moral abdication --though the people with these attitudes all appear to consider themselves superior to everyone else. This reporter could "never pull the trigger to kill an intruder," which means she would watch a child be raped or murdered rather than take action that would lead to the death of a vicious predator. She won't even kill a bird, so it follows she wouldn't shoot a dog mauling someone to death. What you want to bet that she'd be willing to let a police officer do the dirty work for her? --she didn't say, but didn't suggest either that she has any problem with the police killing people. What a piece of work.

On the positive side, most of the comments following the article were rational and pro self-defense.

This article "outs" some of the rich and powerful residents in NYC who have handgun permits (I like Robert DeNiro better now already).

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/nyregion/20guns.html

Obama is surrounded by guns in order to protect HIS LIFE, but he doesn't think you and I are entitled to the same "common sense" approach to OUR survival. They are all hypocrites of the highest order.

PappaGun wrote:President Obama writes about guns in an editorial in the Arizona Daily Star.

http://azstarnet.com/article_011e7118-8 ... dc89d.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From the editorial:

" Most gun owners know that the word "commonsense" isn't a code word for "confiscation." And none of us should be willing to remain passive in the face of violence or resigned to watching helplessly as another rampage unfolds on television."

Like my signature says, that's why we need more good guys carrying guns. Commonsense says the bad guys are not stopped by running away or submitting, the bad guys are stopped with force (including deadly force) wielded by the good guys.

Like PATHFINDER says, Obama has armed gunmen protecting him. As long as that's true, commonsense says the voters and taxpayers in a non-dictatorship must be allowed to carry their guns for their own protection. In all 50 states, same as his gunmen.

And, in fact, my administration has not curtailed the rights of gun owners - it has expanded them, including allowing people to carry their guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.

Wasn't it one of the last acts of the Bush Administration that changed the policy against concealed carry in National Parks? I seem to remember the Obama Administration fighting to repeal the policy change.