DaVinci

And Obama's claims and past actions show he wanted to limit gun purchases and remove semi auto weapons and handguns. It is only his lack of political ability that has prevented him from following through on his goals. What better idea of what a person plans to do is there than his statements and earlier actions? Simple question for you: Do you think Obama would ban handguns and semi auto rifles (like he has claimed he wanted to do) if he could and would suffer zero political damage?

I do love how you seem to relish in others pain.

It did actually snow in N Florida in 2010. (8 times to be exact).

It is also 4.5B years old. But if it is 4.5B, it is also 8,000 But there is more than: 1. Alarmists 2. Deniers There are also: 1. Those that think global warming is real, but not influenced by man 2. Those that think it is real and influenced by man but not willing to destroy society to live in grass huts and cook by fire. Until the second set of groups is acknowledged, then any discussion is pointless. I do appreciate the irony of skydivers who use fossil fuels for pure recreation being alarmists.

Police off duty should not be allowed something the average citizen is not allowed to own or do.

His past voting record and statements showed he did want to remove the right. 1. Opposed bill okaying gun use in home invasions in IL. 2. Fact check said this was all true on a survey sent to Obama: 35. Do you support state legislation to: a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes. b. ban assault weapons? Yes. c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes. 3. OBAMA: Let’s be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004 His position can best be answered by his answer in the 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008: "Q: When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president? A: I don’t think that we can get that done." So he would LIKE to do it, but does not think he could actually pull it off. Lets say you wanted a Pitts Special plane and told everyone you wanted it, but could just not afford an 80k dollar toy. JR saying that you want a Pitts would be 100% true. Me saying that you clearly don't since you have not bought one would not be true. Obama's repeated statements and prior actions show he wants to remove handguns and semi auto rifles. Just because he does not have the *ability* does not mean he does not want to do it.

And yet another nutter with a gun... Good thing he accidentally shot the other home invader and not the innocent home owner huh? http://www.wtsp.com/news/florida/article/228488/19/Police-Would-be-robber-beaten-with-baseball-bat-shot

Pretty nailed it.

If he had done it at say a mosque.... Yes.

The location of the speech was one from Teddy, not FDR.

Terrorist act that took place at his workplace.

You are going to force a DR to heal you????

It is just as rude to blast liberal programing.

That does not mean: 1. That it should be banned 2. That you can assume that everyone is a douche bag that has one.

And I am sure that FELON bought the gun legally too!

Yes, and Yes. BUT, the thing is that if all hell really did break lose that there is enough ammo to carry the survivors for a VERY long time. Depending on the type of disaster, supplies will be or not be available. For example, a localized rebellion would still have manufacturing facilities open in other areas. (And 'local' could even mean the whole US) Now, say it is a pandemic... Well, the population is going to be reduced quite a bit and the available ammo will last a long time. (There are not only individual stock piles, but military as well). The thing most people seem to ignore (and I find funny as hell) is medical care. I see a guy with food, water, guns and ammo... And not so much as a bandaid, I can't help but laugh. I have enough guns to handle pretty much any emergency... And enough ammo to last YEARS. My focus has been on medical training and supplies. A Dr would be a VERY valuable commodity.

WOW, you DO just make shit up.

The appear to on the rise because we are inundated with news 24/7 from all over the World. A girl in Tokyo kills herself from online bullying and we know about it in hours. That kind of news might NEVER have made it to the mainstream media over here 20 years ago, and would not 50 years ago. I DO think that it has to do with how soft some people have become. I watched a special on the "dust bowl"... those people lived for 10 years in hell. Old and young were dying everyday. If you had a baby sister the odds of her surviving were terrible. Today people freak out over losing internet on an airplane.

29 out of 77 troops fired. Which is to say 57 troops DIDN'T fire. 57>29... So you kinda proved MY point. Oh and Just five days after the shootings, 100,000 people demonstrated in Washington, D.C., against the war and the killing of unarmed student protesters. Again proving MY point again. A nice try however, better than normal from you... Still a massive failure, but better than normal.

You would have preferred the girl was raped? And for the record, I am against felons from getting back the right to vote OR own a gun.

I think you forgot who signed the law that allowed for these creative investments.... Hint: It was not Reagan, or Bush.

Don't know about just Michigan.... But, Wisconsin: 600,000 Pennsylvania : 750,000 Michigan: 700,000 West Virginia: 250,000 The total population of registered hunters in America today is between 23m to 43.7m. This is from the 2001 National Survey Of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Related Recreation, which was based on the annual data provided by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Active military personnel 1,477,896, reserve 1,458,500 So, when people try to claim that an armed populace cannot possibly stand up to the US Army.... I like to point out: 1. 2,936,396 M active troops in ALL of the Armed forces and 23,000,000 hunters in the US. Yes, some of the hunters are active duty military. 2. Not every soldier will fire on US citizens. Not every troop will side with one side... They will be split. The Revolutionary war, only 40-45% supported separation from England. 25,000 Loyalists fought on the side of the British. Lets not forget that in the US civil war not all troops joined either one side. 3. A good number of FORMER soldiers are no longer in service. Some will side on one side, some will side on the other. 4. US troops will not automatically fire on civilians In fact, just like the recent overthrow in Egypt the govt tried to control through the military and for the most part the military did nothing against the civilians. And the civilians took up arms to defend themselves The presence of Egypt's Central Security Forces police, loyal to Mubarak, were gradually replaced by largely restrained military troops. In the absence of police, there was looting by gangs that opposition sources said were instigated by plainclothes police officers. In response, watch groups were organized by civilians to protect neighborhoods Fleishman, Jeffrey and Edmund Sanders (Los Angeles Times) (29 January 2011) 5. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan all proved to not be "easy" and the US forces have much greater firepower in each of these cases. So to claim that it is not possible is ignoring data and history. To claim that armed citizens would stand no chance is not very realistic given the examples cited above.

No, he asked for more details. You really need to quit jumping to conclusions when you are unable to back your original post up with data.

Wow.... My irony scale just blew up.

No, but doing ok since I made good choices when all hell broke loose. I did GREAT under Bush, I was laid off under Obama. You can try to claim that it was Bush's fault.... But that is just trying to pass the buck. Did I agree with Bush spending money like it is water? No... But I also don't agree with Obama doing it. You seem to be mad at Bush, but be OK with Obama doing the same thing. How much longer are you and your ilk going to blame Bush???? Obama has been in control for almost 4 years now. I know that you will not respond with anything close to an actual answer but instead with some attack... But every once in a while I feel I need to at least TRY to get you to engage in thoughtful debate..... It always fails, but it is always worth a shot.