DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
18 comments:
Common sense measures to reduce gun violence means go after the THUGS that voted for you Mr. Obama.
God Bless Senator Ted Cruz and the rest of the bipartisan senate that shot this down!
"Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told the assembled body that Congress should be focused on “stopping violent criminals” but not “targeting law-abiding citizens.”
“The approach that is effective is targeting violent criminals while safeguarding the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens,” he said.
5:12 you hit the nail on the head. Obonehead leave me alone
Obama, common sense. How can these words be used together?
I bet he will issue an executive order that background are now law. If he does this he should be charged with treason and obstruction of justice.
Hey, it's worked in Chicago....right?
Cancelled trying to find a White Guy to take the blame.
As the president would say THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN. YOU LOSE. AND STAY OFF MY GUNS.
Ob's "common sense" means to take all guns away just like Hitler did..
Did any of you right wing nuts actually read the proposal? Clearly not, because the only thing it actually proposed was requiring background checks for gun sales and gun shows and over the internet. There was actually language specifically about the fact that there was NO gun registry involved. Read. Learn. Know. (You've done none of these things)
6:40 The problem with your statement is that Once the NUTJOB liberals pass things like background cks they never Know when to STOP. (That is the real issue)
Really, 6:40, I hope you are not nieve enough to think that the "proposal" would be approved just as put forward.. Once the foot is in the door anything can and will happen. Best way to keep your horse safe is to keep the barn door closed.
640, what part of the Constitution haven't you read? shall not infringe. we should have the right to have whatever we want. 240 million people own guns legally and did NOT kill anyone today unless it was self-defense. get a life!!
Here's the real issue. I, along with many others have no problems with background checks. Maryland has background checks. But, with background checks, registration to purchase is required. Once your gun is registered it can be taken from you because they know where it is and will come get it. There lies the problem.
6:40 You are a liar! That language and stipulation is in the bill. That's why it was voted down. You must be a liberal loving Obama Democrat.
Chuck Cook said...
Did any of you right wing nuts actually read the proposal? Clearly not, because the only thing it actually proposed was requiring background checks for gun sales and gun shows and over the internet. There was actually language specifically about the fact that there was NO gun registry involved. Read. Learn. Know. (You've done none of these things)
April 17, 2013 at 6:40 PM
Chuck, my friend, you are the real wing nut! Here's your Kool Aid.
Obammy and biden both looked like they wanted to cry. Go ahead. Better you two cry than someone who just lost a loved one because you took away their ability to defend themself.
Gun control protects no one, except the government.
Gun control does not protect anyone except the government. The founding of this country was based upon the citizens having control over the government, NOT the other way around. Government is scared of an armed citizenry, as well it should be. Government was established to do the will of the people, NOT the other way around. Government's job is to protect this country from foreign attacks and to encourage and oversee the commerce. This country was founded with and by guns. We have always had firearms, and we will always have firearms. It is our unalienable right that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON IN ANY MATTER. Banning felons from owning firearms is itself an infringement but allowed since most believe it is correct to do so. It is not. Our founding fathers were also considered criminals. How far would we have gotten if they obeyed that infringing law? Now they are saying returning vets have mental issues that would also ban them from owning firearms. Just how insane is that and the other restrictions I have named? There are plenty more but I think yoiu should have gotten the message.
Most of the mass murderers had a clean criminal record. They will acquire firearm readily any time they wish to do so. No law will stop that. Gun dealers are not the source they go to acquire firearms. Nobody would go to one if they thought they would be denied and have it in writing that they attempted to buy a weapon. Guns have not changed, people have changed.
Making new laws may make some feel better and think they are doing something to address the problems, but in reality, it would just be one more law that is ignored and broken. Disarming people is the complete opposite of what needs to be done. More armed citizens is the best answer, not less guns and fewer people allowed to carry them. Disarming anyone only serves to make them easier targets and victims.
The powers that be really need to find some common sense and stop with the knee jerk, feel good legislation that does absolutely nothing in reducing or eliminating crimes. You may get re-elected, or not, but people die for your vanity.
Oh 7:22 there's 325 million people in America there's no chance in hell 240 mil own guns legally. Your opinion is from here on worthless
Answer to post headline; So (yawn).
Just turn on CBS news and you get to hear a continual droning of the need to eliminate the 2nd amendment. Why do I need to hear it from a communist Muslim?
Post a Comment