Ex-News Anchor's Husband Shoots Robber Dead.

[JQPublic1]

Stop trying to derail this thread. It favors the Conservatives on gun control. This is one you should be applauding instead of trying to attack me for posting it!

Why would I want to derail it? I'd rather expose your hypocrisy (again). You praise somebody for using a firearm to protect himself and his family while at the same time denying that your messiah in the White House is a gun grabbing commie, then try to deny he's a gun grabbing commie. No, I hope the thread continues on and I'm glad you posted it. And I like how you tried to escape by posting a meaningless picture and using it to claim victory. That's perfect.

I have nothing to gain by saying I am for the 2nd AMendment. Who am I impressing? YOU? heh heh heh!

Look, I don't have time for small talk... You are just venting and that isn't contributing anything of substance. The picture of your sinking troll machine is symbolic and patently accurate. You continue to prove that with every post....Yawwnnnn1 Good note , Yall...see ya in the morning!

I didn't say you are not for the second amendment, I said you support Obama even though he isn't. You have to pretend he's not a gun grabber to avoid exposing yourself as a racist who voted for him based on race. Your only rebuttal to that obvious and accurate assessment is a link to a pro Obama hate site and a childish picture, like that's supposed to mean you won an argument. Let me know when you want me to hand you your ass again.

You have shown nothing of substance to prove Obama is anti-2nd Amendment. All you have is conjectural BS gleaned from RW saturated networks.

This thread isn't about Obama, it is about a famous couple engaging a criminal in a gun battle and living to tell the tale. Yet, your obsession with Obama drives you to include him in almost every thread you visit.

The "child-like" picture is now a valued treasure that has been copied many times by people who think it was clever and creative. It fits the present scenario to a "T"(tea}.
You are sinking because I won't take your trolling bait and join you in the muck at the bottom of the pond.

Your undocumented and unlinked drivel is not enough to "hand anyone their ass." let alone a fine debater of MY caliber. Keep spouting and let the word see you for the racist discourteous asshole you really are... I'll sit back and watch!

Obama is a leftist....they are by nature gun grabbers.....he also told John Lott that he didn't think people should own guns.....he constantly preaches gun control....especially laws that do nothing to stop crime, but do make it more difficult for the law abiding to own guns...

Deny it all you want...he is a class A gun grabber.....

I don't think Obama is a leftist at all. I think he is a moderate conservative democrat.

Did he really tell John Lott that he didn't think people should own guns? I cant believe a professor of Constitutional law wold say something like that! That is hearsay and has no validity, Jon Lott is an author trying to sell a book to right wing readers. Obama knows the 2nd Amendment is almost as infallible as the pope.

I haven't seen or heard everything Obama has said on gun control but I would disagree with him making it harder for good citizens to get guns. However,here are a few things to consider in your quest for the truth about Obama:
1. He signed a bill allowing concealed and loaded firearms in national parks

2. He also signed a bill that allowed Amtrak customers to store handguns in their checked baggage

3. He’s been in office for two terms, there have been several mass shootings, you still have your guns and that doesn’t look like it will change anytime soon

 

[S.J.]

Why would I want to derail it? I'd rather expose your hypocrisy (again). You praise somebody for using a firearm to protect himself and his family while at the same time denying that your messiah in the White House is a gun grabbing commie, then try to deny he's a gun grabbing commie. No, I hope the thread continues on and I'm glad you posted it. And I like how you tried to escape by posting a meaningless picture and using it to claim victory. That's perfect.

I have nothing to gain by saying I am for the 2nd AMendment. Who am I impressing? YOU? heh heh heh!

Look, I don't have time for small talk... You are just venting and that isn't contributing anything of substance. The picture of your sinking troll machine is symbolic and patently accurate. You continue to prove that with every post....Yawwnnnn1 Good note , Yall...see ya in the morning!

I didn't say you are not for the second amendment, I said you support Obama even though he isn't. You have to pretend he's not a gun grabber to avoid exposing yourself as a racist who voted for him based on race. Your only rebuttal to that obvious and accurate assessment is a link to a pro Obama hate site and a childish picture, like that's supposed to mean you won an argument. Let me know when you want me to hand you your ass again.

You have shown nothing of substance to prove Obama is anti-2nd Amendment. All you have is conjectural BS gleaned from RW saturated networks.

This thread isn't about Obama, it is about a famous couple engaging a criminal in a gun battle and living to tell the tale. Yet, your obsession with Obama drives you to include him in almost every thread you visit.

The "child-like" picture is now a valued treasure that has been copied many times by people who think it was clever and creative. It fits the present scenario to a "T"(tea}.
You are sinking because I won't take your trolling bait and join you in the muck at the bottom of the pond.

Your undocumented and unlinked drivel is not enough to "hand anyone their ass." let alone a fine debater of MY caliber. Keep spouting and let the word see you for the racist discourteous asshole you really are... I'll sit back and watch!

Obama is a leftist....they are by nature gun grabbers.....he also told John Lott that he didn't think people should own guns.....he constantly preaches gun control....especially laws that do nothing to stop crime, but do make it more difficult for the law abiding to own guns...

Deny it all you want...he is a class A gun grabber.....

I don't think Obama is a leftist at all. I think he is a moderate conservative democrat.

Did he really tell John Lott that he didn't think people should own guns? I cant believe a professor of Constitutional law wold say something like that! That is hearsay and has no validity, Jon Lott is an author trying to sell a book to right wing readers. Obama knows the 2nd Amendment is almost as infallible as the pope.

I haven't seen or heard everything Obama has said on gun control but I would disagree with him making it harder for good citizens to get guns. However,here are a few things to consider in your quest for the truth about Obama:
1. He signed a bill allowing concealed and loaded firearms in national parks

2. He also signed a bill that allowed Amtrak customers to store handguns in their checked baggage

3. He’s been in office for two terms, there have been several mass shootings, you still have your guns and that doesn’t look like it will change anytime soon

Can you really be as stupid as the shit you say? Look at your statements. You black people are the most brainwashed fuckers I've ever seen. You'll swallow anything Obama shoves in your mouth. The MF is a damn communist and doesn't want ANY citizen owning a gun. If you don't know that, you're one dumb SOB.

 

[2aguy]

Why would I want to derail it? I'd rather expose your hypocrisy (again). You praise somebody for using a firearm to protect himself and his family while at the same time denying that your messiah in the White House is a gun grabbing commie, then try to deny he's a gun grabbing commie. No, I hope the thread continues on and I'm glad you posted it. And I like how you tried to escape by posting a meaningless picture and using it to claim victory. That's perfect.

I have nothing to gain by saying I am for the 2nd AMendment. Who am I impressing? YOU? heh heh heh!

Look, I don't have time for small talk... You are just venting and that isn't contributing anything of substance. The picture of your sinking troll machine is symbolic and patently accurate. You continue to prove that with every post....Yawwnnnn1 Good note , Yall...see ya in the morning!

I didn't say you are not for the second amendment, I said you support Obama even though he isn't. You have to pretend he's not a gun grabber to avoid exposing yourself as a racist who voted for him based on race. Your only rebuttal to that obvious and accurate assessment is a link to a pro Obama hate site and a childish picture, like that's supposed to mean you won an argument. Let me know when you want me to hand you your ass again.

You have shown nothing of substance to prove Obama is anti-2nd Amendment. All you have is conjectural BS gleaned from RW saturated networks.

This thread isn't about Obama, it is about a famous couple engaging a criminal in a gun battle and living to tell the tale. Yet, your obsession with Obama drives you to include him in almost every thread you visit.

The "child-like" picture is now a valued treasure that has been copied many times by people who think it was clever and creative. It fits the present scenario to a "T"(tea}.
You are sinking because I won't take your trolling bait and join you in the muck at the bottom of the pond.

Your undocumented and unlinked drivel is not enough to "hand anyone their ass." let alone a fine debater of MY caliber. Keep spouting and let the word see you for the racist discourteous asshole you really are... I'll sit back and watch!

Obama is a leftist....they are by nature gun grabbers.....he also told John Lott that he didn't think people should own guns.....he constantly preaches gun control....especially laws that do nothing to stop crime, but do make it more difficult for the law abiding to own guns...

Deny it all you want...he is a class A gun grabber.....

I don't think Obama is a leftist at all. I think he is a moderate conservative democrat.

Did he really tell John Lott that he didn't think people should own guns? I cant believe a professor of Constitutional law wold say something like that! That is hearsay and has no validity, Jon Lott is an author trying to sell a book to right wing readers. Obama knows the 2nd Amendment is almost as infallible as the pope.

I haven't seen or heard everything Obama has said on gun control but I would disagree with him making it harder for good citizens to get guns. However,here are a few things to consider in your quest for the truth about Obama:
1. He signed a bill allowing concealed and loaded firearms in national parks

2. He also signed a bill that allowed Amtrak customers to store handguns in their checked baggage

3. He’s been in office for two terms, there have been several mass shootings, you still have your guns and that doesn’t look like it will change anytime soon

One...he wasn't a professor, he was a guest lecturer......and obama has had other bigger things to focus on wrecking, healthcare and our foreign policy and there is too much resistance to gun grabbing right now. That was one reason he and holder sold guns to the Mexican drug cartels through the fast and furious program...they wanted American guns turning up in Mexican crime scenes.

And yes...obama is a hardcore leftist.....his relationships and policies show this.

 

[2aguy]

Obama is a progressive, and all progressives want gun control. It's one of the core pillars of being a progressive.

Really? Can you back that up? C'mon you can do it ...can't you?

Too lazy to use google?

Start here: Barack Obama on Gun Control

He is a progressive, which means he has to hide is beliefs or he would be rejected at the ballot box.

He often claims he supports the second amendment, but also says and votes on measures that infringe on that right.

He is dishonest, just like you.

You don't even know what a Progressive is, pig face. Are you an ostrich or something? I ask because it looks like you've got your head in the sand. You don't seem to want to be objective about Obama's so-called "gun grabber" status, otherwise you would have researched deeper and weighed both sides of the issue. As I suspected, your source emanates from the RW circle Jerkers who have made a profession of cooking up and dispensing anti- Obama rhetoric. And, with friends like SJ, you have certainly hit bottom.

You don't know me, yet you try to label me dishonest. Typical of sad losers who have no credible debating skills. WHen you can't get your specious points across you resort to personal attack. I usually just let people like you and SJ make fools of themselves
and quit responding to nonsense. You are getting close.

Yes, anti-Obama rhetoric....his own voting record and quotes from his debates when he was a Senator. My gosh, only right wing hate sites use things like actual voting record and debate transcripts!

You asked for links for proof, I gave it to you. More is out there too. But, like a good progressive, you ignore the facts and attack.

Carry on, dipshit.

I took the liberty to analyze the points of your link. Here is what I think about the first two false "indictments"of Obama as a "gun grabber."

Stricter gun rules, with or without Congress


Citizenship means standing up for the lives that gun violence steals from us each day. I have seen the courage of parents, students, pastors, and police officers all over this country who say "we are not afraid," and I intend to keep trying, with or without Congress, to help stop more tragedies from visiting innocent Americans in our movie theaters, shopping malls, or schools like Sandy Hook.


Source: 2014 State of the Union address , Jan 28, 2014


This is an excerpt. Where is the rest of the speech showing the measures Obama intends to take “with or without Congress?” There is no indication he is going to make new laws or do anything outside of his purview. Nothing here to indict Obama as a “gun grabber.”



Gun violence victims deserve a vote

It has been two months since Newtown. This is not the first time this country has debated how to reduce gun violence. But this time is different. Overwhelming majorities of Americans--Americans who believe in the 2nd Amendment--have come together around commonsense reform--like background checks that will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on a gun. Senators of both parties are working together on tough new laws to prevent anyone from buying guns for resale to criminals. Police chiefs are asking our help to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our streets.

Each of these proposals deserves a vote in Congress. If you want to vote no, that's your choice. But these proposals deserve a vote. Because in the two months since Newtown, more than a thousand birthdays, graduations, and anniversaries have been stolen from our lives by a bullet from a gun.

Gabby Giffords deserves a vote. The families of Newtown deserve a vote. The families of Aurora deserve a vote.

Source: 2013 State of the Union Address , Feb 12, 2013


I don’t want to overwhelm a small mind like yours with too much data.

Did you miss the emboldened text above where Obama said “Overwhelming majorities of Americans--Americans who believe in the 2nd Amendment--have come together around commonsense reform--like background checks that will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on a gun?

That was followed by: “Senators of both parties are working together on tough new laws to prevent anyone from buying guns for resale to criminals. Police chiefs are asking our help to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our streets.” What do you see in either of the two proposals that threatens your gun rights? It doesn’t seem as if the president is dictating , he is revealing a concerted bipartisan effort toward keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Obama is not involved in some unilateral mission to eradicate gun ownership. He isn’t even conspiring with others to do anything of the sort.

He says police chiefs are asking for help to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines of our streets. You got a problem with that?

Even your Right WIng link falls short of the mark thus far. There is nothing of substance yet, to implicate the president as a "gun grabber."Maybe later when we get to the rest of the “evidence.”

Did you miss the emboldened text above where Obama said “Overwhelming majorities of Americans--Americans who believe in the 2nd Amendment--have come together around commonsense reform--like background checks that will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on a gun?

He lied....Americans who don't study the issue don't realize that the measures he wants won't stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns, and they ask questions that keep that reality out of the question.

They want universal background checks, magazine limits and registration....

Universal background checks will do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or mass shooters. Criminals bypass current background checks with straw purchasers and just stealing guns...which will be the same way they get around Universal background checks. What will universal background checks do...it will make it harder for you to give a gun to a friend or neighbor, or for a widow to get rid of a dead husbands guns without committing a felony. They will be targeting the law abiding citizen, not criminals...funny how all of their efforts always target the peaceful, law abiding citizen and do nothing to stop criminals.

Magazine limits......the church shooter changed magazines 5 times, dittos the Sandy Hook shooter, the Santa Barbara shooter used legally mandated 10 round magazines in his shooting spree....magazine limits do not affect criminals either, they use whatever they want, just ask the guys who killed the cartoonists in France....you can't have any magazines in France and they used fully automatic rifles and 30 round magazines...dittos the shooters in Marseille france and beligiumn and Sweden......

So again....he is lying....American people do not know the issue so he tells them crap that they don't understand to push his gun ban....since a limit on magazine capacity will make whole models of pistol illegal...without having to ban them directly.

As far as police chiefs go...they are political offices controlled by their political bosses, mayors.....they follow the party line.....actual police officers on the street by far support the right of people to carry guns for protection.

 

[theHawk]

What Obama and every other progressive don't seem to get, is if someone is so dangerous that they should be on a no-gun list, why are they free in the first place?

Criminals should stay locked up, and mentally ill in hospitals. But common sense is an abstract concept for progs.

 

[JQPublic1]

Really? Can you back that up? C'mon you can do it ...can't you?

Too lazy to use google?

Start here: Barack Obama on Gun Control

He is a progressive, which means he has to hide is beliefs or he would be rejected at the ballot box.

He often claims he supports the second amendment, but also says and votes on measures that infringe on that right.

He is dishonest, just like you.

You don't even know what a Progressive is, pig face. Are you an ostrich or something? I ask because it looks like you've got your head in the sand. You don't seem to want to be objective about Obama's so-called "gun grabber" status, otherwise you would have researched deeper and weighed both sides of the issue. As I suspected, your source emanates from the RW circle Jerkers who have made a profession of cooking up and dispensing anti- Obama rhetoric. And, with friends like SJ, you have certainly hit bottom.

You don't know me, yet you try to label me dishonest. Typical of sad losers who have no credible debating skills. WHen you can't get your specious points across you resort to personal attack. I usually just let people like you and SJ make fools of themselves
and quit responding to nonsense. You are getting close.

Yes, anti-Obama rhetoric....his own voting record and quotes from his debates when he was a Senator. My gosh, only right wing hate sites use things like actual voting record and debate transcripts!

You asked for links for proof, I gave it to you. More is out there too. But, like a good progressive, you ignore the facts and attack.

Carry on, dipshit.

I took the liberty to analyze the points of your link. Here is what I think about the first two false "indictments"of Obama as a "gun grabber."

Stricter gun rules, with or without Congress


Citizenship means standing up for the lives that gun violence steals from us each day. I have seen the courage of parents, students, pastors, and police officers all over this country who say "we are not afraid," and I intend to keep trying, with or without Congress, to help stop more tragedies from visiting innocent Americans in our movie theaters, shopping malls, or schools like Sandy Hook.


Source: 2014 State of the Union address , Jan 28, 2014


This is an excerpt. Where is the rest of the speech showing the measures Obama intends to take “with or without Congress?” There is no indication he is going to make new laws or do anything outside of his purview. Nothing here to indict Obama as a “gun grabber.”



Gun violence victims deserve a vote

It has been two months since Newtown. This is not the first time this country has debated how to reduce gun violence. But this time is different. Overwhelming majorities of Americans--Americans who believe in the 2nd Amendment--have come together around commonsense reform--like background checks that will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on a gun. Senators of both parties are working together on tough new laws to prevent anyone from buying guns for resale to criminals. Police chiefs are asking our help to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our streets.

Each of these proposals deserves a vote in Congress. If you want to vote no, that's your choice. But these proposals deserve a vote. Because in the two months since Newtown, more than a thousand birthdays, graduations, and anniversaries have been stolen from our lives by a bullet from a gun.

Gabby Giffords deserves a vote. The families of Newtown deserve a vote. The families of Aurora deserve a vote.

Source: 2013 State of the Union Address , Feb 12, 2013


I don’t want to overwhelm a small mind like yours with too much data.

Did you miss the emboldened text above where Obama said “Overwhelming majorities of Americans--Americans who believe in the 2nd Amendment--have come together around commonsense reform--like background checks that will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on a gun?

That was followed by: “Senators of both parties are working together on tough new laws to prevent anyone from buying guns for resale to criminals. Police chiefs are asking our help to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our streets.” What do you see in either of the two proposals that threatens your gun rights? It doesn’t seem as if the president is dictating , he is revealing a concerted bipartisan effort toward keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Obama is not involved in some unilateral mission to eradicate gun ownership. He isn’t even conspiring with others to do anything of the sort.

He says police chiefs are asking for help to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines of our streets. You got a problem with that?

Even your Right WIng link falls short of the mark thus far. There is nothing of substance yet, to implicate the president as a "gun grabber."Maybe later when we get to the rest of the “evidence.”

Did you miss the emboldened text above where Obama said “Overwhelming majorities of Americans--Americans who believe in the 2nd Amendment--have come together around commonsense reform--like background checks that will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on a gun?

He lied....Americans who don't study the issue don't realize that the measures he wants won't stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns, and they ask questions that keep that reality out of the question.

They want universal background checks, magazine limits and registration....

Universal background checks will do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or mass shooters. Criminals bypass current background checks with straw purchasers and just stealing guns...which will be the same way they get around Universal background checks. What will universal background checks do...it will make it harder for you to give a gun to a friend or neighbor, or for a widow to get rid of a dead husbands guns without committing a felony. They will be targeting the law abiding citizen, not criminals...funny how all of their efforts always target the peaceful, law abiding citizen and do nothing to stop criminals.

Magazine limits......the church shooter changed magazines 5 times, dittos the Sandy Hook shooter, the Santa Barbara shooter used legally mandated 10 round magazines in his shooting spree....magazine limits do not affect criminals either, they use whatever they want, just ask the guys who killed the cartoonists in France....you can't have any magazines in France and they used fully automatic rifles and 30 round magazines...dittos the shooters in Marseille france and beligiumn and Sweden......

So again....he is lying....American people do not know the issue so he tells them crap that they don't understand to push his gun ban....since a limit on magazine capacity will make whole models of pistol illegal...without having to ban them directly.

As far as police chiefs go...they are political offices controlled by their political bosses, mayors.....they follow the party line.....actual police officers on the street by far support the right of people to carry guns for protection.

Thanks, for a well written post. This is exactly the kind of persuasive input that sparks a closer look at an issue. You did not attack me .Instead you made great points that definitely got my attention. It is quite refreshing to exchange views with a civil articulate
debater without having to wade through insults and ad hominems just to get to a relevant point.

I am researching your material and will respond in due time. BTW, we already agree that gun controls usually affects the decent law-abiding citizens more than it does the crooks.



.

 

[JQPublic1]

I have nothing to gain by saying I am for the 2nd AMendment. Who am I impressing? YOU? heh heh heh!

Look, I don't have time for small talk... You are just venting and that isn't contributing anything of substance. The picture of your sinking troll machine is symbolic and patently accurate. You continue to prove that with every post....Yawwnnnn1 Good note , Yall...see ya in the morning!

I didn't say you are not for the second amendment, I said you support Obama even though he isn't. You have to pretend he's not a gun grabber to avoid exposing yourself as a racist who voted for him based on race. Your only rebuttal to that obvious and accurate assessment is a link to a pro Obama hate site and a childish picture, like that's supposed to mean you won an argument. Let me know when you want me to hand you your ass again.

You have shown nothing of substance to prove Obama is anti-2nd Amendment. All you have is conjectural BS gleaned from RW saturated networks.

This thread isn't about Obama, it is about a famous couple engaging a criminal in a gun battle and living to tell the tale. Yet, your obsession with Obama drives you to include him in almost every thread you visit.

The "child-like" picture is now a valued treasure that has been copied many times by people who think it was clever and creative. It fits the present scenario to a "T"(tea}.
You are sinking because I won't take your trolling bait and join you in the muck at the bottom of the pond.

Your undocumented and unlinked drivel is not enough to "hand anyone their ass." let alone a fine debater of MY caliber. Keep spouting and let the word see you for the racist discourteous asshole you really are... I'll sit back and watch!

Obama is a leftist....they are by nature gun grabbers.....he also told John Lott that he didn't think people should own guns.....he constantly preaches gun control....especially laws that do nothing to stop crime, but do make it more difficult for the law abiding to own guns...

Deny it all you want...he is a class A gun grabber.....

I don't think Obama is a leftist at all. I think he is a moderate conservative democrat.

Did he really tell John Lott that he didn't think people should own guns? I cant believe a professor of Constitutional law wold say something like that! That is hearsay and has no validity, Jon Lott is an author trying to sell a book to right wing readers. Obama knows the 2nd Amendment is almost as infallible as the pope.

I haven't seen or heard everything Obama has said on gun control but I would disagree with him making it harder for good citizens to get guns. However,here are a few things to consider in your quest for the truth about Obama:
1. He signed a bill allowing concealed and loaded firearms in national parks

2. He also signed a bill that allowed Amtrak customers to store handguns in their checked baggage

3. He’s been in office for two terms, there have been several mass shootings, you still have your guns and that doesn’t look like it will change anytime soon

One...he wasn't a professor, he was a guest lecturer......and obama has had other bigger things to focus on wrecking, healthcare and our foreign policy and there is too much resistance to gun grabbing right now. That was one reason he and holder sold guns to the Mexican drug cartels through the fast and furious program...they wanted American guns turning up in Mexican crime scenes.

And yes...obama is a hardcore leftist.....his relationships and policies show this.

It appears that Obama was more than a "guest" lecturer. I went to the Factchecker website and found this statement from the Chicago Law School:

UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year.

Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching.

Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

In the school's own words,due to his Senior Lecturer status, Obama was regarded as a professor. He could have been tenured but turned it down. Obama wins this one... He certainly wasn't a "guest" lecturer.

 

[2aguy]

I didn't say you are not for the second amendment, I said you support Obama even though he isn't. You have to pretend he's not a gun grabber to avoid exposing yourself as a racist who voted for him based on race. Your only rebuttal to that obvious and accurate assessment is a link to a pro Obama hate site and a childish picture, like that's supposed to mean you won an argument. Let me know when you want me to hand you your ass again.

You have shown nothing of substance to prove Obama is anti-2nd Amendment. All you have is conjectural BS gleaned from RW saturated networks.

This thread isn't about Obama, it is about a famous couple engaging a criminal in a gun battle and living to tell the tale. Yet, your obsession with Obama drives you to include him in almost every thread you visit.

The "child-like" picture is now a valued treasure that has been copied many times by people who think it was clever and creative. It fits the present scenario to a "T"(tea}.
You are sinking because I won't take your trolling bait and join you in the muck at the bottom of the pond.

Your undocumented and unlinked drivel is not enough to "hand anyone their ass." let alone a fine debater of MY caliber. Keep spouting and let the word see you for the racist discourteous asshole you really are... I'll sit back and watch!

Obama is a leftist....they are by nature gun grabbers.....he also told John Lott that he didn't think people should own guns.....he constantly preaches gun control....especially laws that do nothing to stop crime, but do make it more difficult for the law abiding to own guns...

Deny it all you want...he is a class A gun grabber.....

I don't think Obama is a leftist at all. I think he is a moderate conservative democrat.

Did he really tell John Lott that he didn't think people should own guns? I cant believe a professor of Constitutional law wold say something like that! That is hearsay and has no validity, Jon Lott is an author trying to sell a book to right wing readers. Obama knows the 2nd Amendment is almost as infallible as the pope.

I haven't seen or heard everything Obama has said on gun control but I would disagree with him making it harder for good citizens to get guns. However,here are a few things to consider in your quest for the truth about Obama:
1. He signed a bill allowing concealed and loaded firearms in national parks

2. He also signed a bill that allowed Amtrak customers to store handguns in their checked baggage

3. He’s been in office for two terms, there have been several mass shootings, you still have your guns and that doesn’t look like it will change anytime soon

One...he wasn't a professor, he was a guest lecturer......and obama has had other bigger things to focus on wrecking, healthcare and our foreign policy and there is too much resistance to gun grabbing right now. That was one reason he and holder sold guns to the Mexican drug cartels through the fast and furious program...they wanted American guns turning up in Mexican crime scenes.

And yes...obama is a hardcore leftist.....his relationships and policies show this.

It appears that Obama was more than a "guest" lecturer. I went to the Factchecker website and found this statement from the Chicago Law School:

UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year.

Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching.

Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

In the school's own words,due to his Senior Lecturer status, Obama was regarded as a professor. He could have been tenured but turned it down. Obama wins this one... He certainly wasn't a "guest" lecturer.

So his title was Senior Lecturer...and they sided with him, the sitting President when he claims Professorship........yeah...that is solid truth right there......

 

[Moonglow]

Albuquerque? motel 6?i would of had the gun on me all the time.

I agree. Ms Russell and her husband should have both been armed.

i just cant imagine going to a motel 6 in south chicago without a gun.

I can't image ever wanting to be in Shitcago...

 

[Rexx Taylor]

Albuquerque? motel 6?i would of had the gun on me all the time.

I agree. Ms Russell and her husband should have both been armed.

i just cant imagine going to a motel 6 in south chicago without a gun.

I can't image ever wanting to be in Shitcago...

I only stop in Chicago on the way to Wisconsin to take a really mean chit on a sidewalk. isnt that the norm there? when locals cant find a toilet in an "emergency" they just crap or pee anywhere?

 

[Moonglow]

Albuquerque? motel 6?i would of had the gun on me all the time.

I agree. Ms Russell and her husband should have both been armed.

i just cant imagine going to a motel 6 in south chicago without a gun.

I can't image ever wanting to be in Shitcago...

I only stop in Chicago on the way to Wisconsin to take a really mean chit on a sidewalk. isnt that the norm there? when locals cant find a toilet in an "emergency" they just crap or pee anywhere?

That's what we do around here, just stay out of the poison ivy.......

 

[Rexx Taylor]

Albuquerque? motel 6?i would of had the gun on me all the time.

I agree. Ms Russell and her husband should have both been armed.

i just cant imagine going to a motel 6 in south chicago without a gun.

I can't image ever wanting to be in Shitcago...

I only stop in Chicago on the way to Wisconsin to take a really mean chit on a sidewalk. isnt that the norm there? when locals cant find a toilet in an "emergency" they just crap or pee anywhere?

That's what we do around here, just stay out of the poison ivy.......

well, would u rather take a crap on an infested public toilet in chicago, or just go hide in the bushes.

 

[JQPublic1]

You have shown nothing of substance to prove Obama is anti-2nd Amendment. All you have is conjectural BS gleaned from RW saturated networks.

This thread isn't about Obama, it is about a famous couple engaging a criminal in a gun battle and living to tell the tale. Yet, your obsession with Obama drives you to include him in almost every thread you visit.

The "child-like" picture is now a valued treasure that has been copied many times by people who think it was clever and creative. It fits the present scenario to a "T"(tea}.
You are sinking because I won't take your trolling bait and join you in the muck at the bottom of the pond.

Your undocumented and unlinked drivel is not enough to "hand anyone their ass." let alone a fine debater of MY caliber. Keep spouting and let the word see you for the racist discourteous asshole you really are... I'll sit back and watch!

Obama is a leftist....they are by nature gun grabbers.....he also told John Lott that he didn't think people should own guns.....he constantly preaches gun control....especially laws that do nothing to stop crime, but do make it more difficult for the law abiding to own guns...

Deny it all you want...he is a class A gun grabber.....

I don't think Obama is a leftist at all. I think he is a moderate conservative democrat.

Did he really tell John Lott that he didn't think people should own guns? I cant believe a professor of Constitutional law wold say something like that! That is hearsay and has no validity, Jon Lott is an author trying to sell a book to right wing readers. Obama knows the 2nd Amendment is almost as infallible as the pope.

I haven't seen or heard everything Obama has said on gun control but I would disagree with him making it harder for good citizens to get guns. However,here are a few things to consider in your quest for the truth about Obama:
1. He signed a bill allowing concealed and loaded firearms in national parks

2. He also signed a bill that allowed Amtrak customers to store handguns in their checked baggage

3. He’s been in office for two terms, there have been several mass shootings, you still have your guns and that doesn’t look like it will change anytime soon

One...he wasn't a professor, he was a guest lecturer......and obama has had other bigger things to focus on wrecking, healthcare and our foreign policy and there is too much resistance to gun grabbing right now. That was one reason he and holder sold guns to the Mexican drug cartels through the fast and furious program...they wanted American guns turning up in Mexican crime scenes.

And yes...obama is a hardcore leftist.....his relationships and policies show this.

It appears that Obama was more than a "guest" lecturer. I went to the Factchecker website and found this statement from the Chicago Law School:

UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year.

Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching.

Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

In the school's own words,due to his Senior Lecturer status, Obama was regarded as a professor. He could have been tenured but turned it down. Obama wins this one... He certainly wasn't a "guest" lecturer.

So his title was Senior Lecturer...and they sided with him, the sitting President when he claims Professorship........yeah...that is solid truth right there......

Well, your source, what ever that is, had it completely wrong. And your nitpicking is just that, nitpicking.
Gosh, the man turned down a tenured position that would have made him a full blown professor. He had all the qualifications so , heck yes he can say he was a professor. He wasn't rejected. He turned it down. The ONLY difference between a Senior Lecturer and a Professor turns upon the word "tenured." That has nothing to do with performance, or duties. He had all of that and refused several times to be tenured. LAw Professor Obama is NOW the president of the USA and i likely far more Constitutionally literate than anyone posting here.

 

[JQPublic1]

So again....he is lying....American people do not know the issue so he tells them crap that they don't understand to push his gun ban....since a limit on magazine capacity will make whole models of pistol illegal...without having to ban them directly.

As far as police chiefs go...they are political offices controlled by their political bosses, mayors.....they follow the party line.....actual police officers on the street by far support the right of people to carry guns for protection.

A recent CNN poll, shows only moderate support for bans on guns of any kind, including bans on "assault" rifles. Most Americans are not in favor of new bans or stricter gun control. The CNN poll results were mirrored by a recent MSNBC Poll.

Still, Obama;s statement "Overwhelming majorities of Americans--Americans who believe in the 2nd Amendment--have come together around commonsense reform-" was made more than 2 years ago and cannot be applied to events occurring today, although that is precisely what some RW strategists do regularly to create the illusion that the president is lying.

In contrast to that earlier speech, currently Obama has all but conceded defeat on gun control and bans. One target , though, is a standard type of ammunition: M855 AR15 rounds are being considered for banning due to purported armor piercing capabilities according to ATF. However, until it is proven those rounds can pierce armor, that "backdoor" approach to gun control will wither too.


Obama loses that one, thus far, but he takes a lot of critics with him who are convinced he is still a threat to the 2nd Amendment! Most are just pissing in the wind while Obama is facing reality: Do not mess with the 2nd Amendment, the majority of Americans do not like that!

 

[JQPublic1]

What Obama and every other progressive don't seem to get, is if someone is so dangerous that they should be on a no-gun list, why are they free in the first place?

Criminals should stay locked up, and mentally ill in hospitals. But common sense is an abstract concept for progs.

Well. now you have hit on something worth replying to. Every human being out there is a potential killer or psychopath. Many hide their predilection very well until something triggers it. There is no way to even discover who these people are let alone keep track of them until their insanity is manifested overtly. The remedy?

Guns for everyone, JUST IN CASE YOUR NEIGHBOR GOES BONKERS.

 

[2aguy]

Obama is a leftist....they are by nature gun grabbers.....he also told John Lott that he didn't think people should own guns.....he constantly preaches gun control....especially laws that do nothing to stop crime, but do make it more difficult for the law abiding to own guns...

Deny it all you want...he is a class A gun grabber.....

I don't think Obama is a leftist at all. I think he is a moderate conservative democrat.

Did he really tell John Lott that he didn't think people should own guns? I cant believe a professor of Constitutional law wold say something like that! That is hearsay and has no validity, Jon Lott is an author trying to sell a book to right wing readers. Obama knows the 2nd Amendment is almost as infallible as the pope.

I haven't seen or heard everything Obama has said on gun control but I would disagree with him making it harder for good citizens to get guns. However,here are a few things to consider in your quest for the truth about Obama:
1. He signed a bill allowing concealed and loaded firearms in national parks

2. He also signed a bill that allowed Amtrak customers to store handguns in their checked baggage

3. He’s been in office for two terms, there have been several mass shootings, you still have your guns and that doesn’t look like it will change anytime soon

One...he wasn't a professor, he was a guest lecturer......and obama has had other bigger things to focus on wrecking, healthcare and our foreign policy and there is too much resistance to gun grabbing right now. That was one reason he and holder sold guns to the Mexican drug cartels through the fast and furious program...they wanted American guns turning up in Mexican crime scenes.

And yes...obama is a hardcore leftist.....his relationships and policies show this.

It appears that Obama was more than a "guest" lecturer. I went to the Factchecker website and found this statement from the Chicago Law School:

UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year.

Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching.

Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

In the school's own words,due to his Senior Lecturer status, Obama was regarded as a professor. He could have been tenured but turned it down. Obama wins this one... He certainly wasn't a "guest" lecturer.

So his title was Senior Lecturer...and they sided with him, the sitting President when he claims Professorship........yeah...that is solid truth right there......

Well, your source, what ever that is, had it completely wrong. And your nitpicking is just that, nitpicking.
Gosh, the man turned down a tenured position that would have made him a full blown professor. He had all the qualifications so , heck yes he can say he was a professor. He wasn't rejected. He turned it down. The ONLY difference between a Senior Lecturer and a Professor turns upon the word "tenured." That has nothing to do with performance, or duties. He had all of that and refused several times to be tenured. LAw Professor Obama is NOW the president of the USA and i likely far more Constitutionally literate than anyone posting here.

If he was more Constitutionally literate than those posting here he wouldn't be doing the anti Constitutional things that he is doing now would he?

 

[JQPublic1]

I don't think Obama is a leftist at all. I think he is a moderate conservative democrat.

Did he really tell John Lott that he didn't think people should own guns? I cant believe a professor of Constitutional law wold say something like that! That is hearsay and has no validity, Jon Lott is an author trying to sell a book to right wing readers. Obama knows the 2nd Amendment is almost as infallible as the pope.

I haven't seen or heard everything Obama has said on gun control but I would disagree with him making it harder for good citizens to get guns. However,here are a few things to consider in your quest for the truth about Obama:
1. He signed a bill allowing concealed and loaded firearms in national parks

2. He also signed a bill that allowed Amtrak customers to store handguns in their checked baggage

3. He’s been in office for two terms, there have been several mass shootings, you still have your guns and that doesn’t look like it will change anytime soon

One...he wasn't a professor, he was a guest lecturer......and obama has had other bigger things to focus on wrecking, healthcare and our foreign policy and there is too much resistance to gun grabbing right now. That was one reason he and holder sold guns to the Mexican drug cartels through the fast and furious program...they wanted American guns turning up in Mexican crime scenes.

And yes...obama is a hardcore leftist.....his relationships and policies show this.

It appears that Obama was more than a "guest" lecturer. I went to the Factchecker website and found this statement from the Chicago Law School:

UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year.

Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching.

Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

In the school's own words,due to his Senior Lecturer status, Obama was regarded as a professor. He could have been tenured but turned it down. Obama wins this one... He certainly wasn't a "guest" lecturer.

So his title was Senior Lecturer...and they sided with him, the sitting President when he claims Professorship........yeah...that is solid truth right there......

Well, your source, what ever that is, had it completely wrong. And your nitpicking is just that, nitpicking.
Gosh, the man turned down a tenured position that would have made him a full blown professor. He had all the qualifications so , heck yes he can say he was a professor. He wasn't rejected. He turned it down. The ONLY difference between a Senior Lecturer and a Professor turns upon the word "tenured." That has nothing to do with performance, or duties. He had all of that and refused several times to be tenured. LAw Professor Obama is NOW the president of the USA and i likely far more Constitutionally literate than anyone posting here.

If he was more Constitutionally literate than those posting here he wouldn't be doing the anti Constitutional things that he is doing now would he?

To be succinct , the more one knows about something the better they can apply that knowledge for good or bad in dealing with it. A layman reading the Constitution will take what is written there at face value but the Supreme Court may interpret it another way entirely.

I can't say Obama doesn't border on circumventing some Constitutional dogma but he is one of the experts who can do it right up to the point that stops short of an impeachable offense. Why? Because he knows when to stop!

 

[2aguy]

One...he wasn't a professor, he was a guest lecturer......and obama has had other bigger things to focus on wrecking, healthcare and our foreign policy and there is too much resistance to gun grabbing right now. That was one reason he and holder sold guns to the Mexican drug cartels through the fast and furious program...they wanted American guns turning up in Mexican crime scenes.

And yes...obama is a hardcore leftist.....his relationships and policies show this.

It appears that Obama was more than a "guest" lecturer. I went to the Factchecker website and found this statement from the Chicago Law School:

UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year.

Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching.

Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

In the school's own words,due to his Senior Lecturer status, Obama was regarded as a professor. He could have been tenured but turned it down. Obama wins this one... He certainly wasn't a "guest" lecturer.

So his title was Senior Lecturer...and they sided with him, the sitting President when he claims Professorship........yeah...that is solid truth right there......

Well, your source, what ever that is, had it completely wrong. And your nitpicking is just that, nitpicking.
Gosh, the man turned down a tenured position that would have made him a full blown professor. He had all the qualifications so , heck yes he can say he was a professor. He wasn't rejected. He turned it down. The ONLY difference between a Senior Lecturer and a Professor turns upon the word "tenured." That has nothing to do with performance, or duties. He had all of that and refused several times to be tenured. LAw Professor Obama is NOW the president of the USA and i likely far more Constitutionally literate than anyone posting here.

If he was more Constitutionally literate than those posting here he wouldn't be doing the anti Constitutional things that he is doing now would he?

To be succinct , the more one knows about something the better they can apply that knowledge for good or bad in dealing with it. A layman reading the Constitution will take what is written there at face value but the Supreme Court may interpret it another way entirely.

I can't say Obama doesn't border on circumventing some Constitutional dogma but he is one of the experts who can do it right up to the point that stops short of an impeachable offense. Why? Because he knows when to stop!

No...because he knows the democrat media will spin whatever he does to protect him, as they are doing right now.....and the D.C. republicans don't have it in them to hold him to account or to stand up to him...........

 

[depotoo]

Sure, just like East Timore-
East Timor
Under East Timorese law, only the military and police forces may legally possess, carry and use firearms. Despite these laws, East Timor has many problems with illegally armed militias, including widespread violence in 2006 which resulted in over 100,000 people being forced from their homes, as well as two separate assassination attempts on the Prime Minister and President of the country in early 2008.

Where's the outrage over Chuck having a gun? Shouldn't he have been unarmed and relied on 911 to save them from the robber?

The problem is that because there are so many guns out there, the need for protecting oneself is much greater. The argument from gun owners is that if we remove them only the criminals will have them, but that is not true if we remove all guns from society. I'm not really taking a side on this one way or the other, I never really have. I don't own a gun because I see more danger in them than good, but that is my choice. I would prefer our society had no guns other than rifles for hunting, but that isn't going to happen. In this case, I'm glad they had a gun to protect themselves.

And how do you propose to remove ALL guns from society? Do you think the criminals who murder people with them are gonna turn them in because they've been outlawed?

If the government wanted to take all the guns off the streets, they could do it. You would be surprised, but it could be done. It will never happen though because too many Americans have a love affair with guns. On a side note, gun bans in big cities don't work because you can go outside the city and buy a gun, or cross the state line and you can buy a gun. Have you ever been in a dry county? Have you ever seen people drinking alcohol in a dry county?

 

[JQPublic1]

It appears that Obama was more than a "guest" lecturer. I went to the Factchecker website and found this statement from the Chicago Law School:

UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year.

Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching.

Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

In the school's own words,due to his Senior Lecturer status, Obama was regarded as a professor. He could have been tenured but turned it down. Obama wins this one... He certainly wasn't a "guest" lecturer.

So his title was Senior Lecturer...and they sided with him, the sitting President when he claims Professorship........yeah...that is solid truth right there......

Well, your source, what ever that is, had it completely wrong. And your nitpicking is just that, nitpicking.
Gosh, the man turned down a tenured position that would have made him a full blown professor. He had all the qualifications so , heck yes he can say he was a professor. He wasn't rejected. He turned it down. The ONLY difference between a Senior Lecturer and a Professor turns upon the word "tenured." That has nothing to do with performance, or duties. He had all of that and refused several times to be tenured. LAw Professor Obama is NOW the president of the USA and i likely far more Constitutionally literate than anyone posting here.

If he was more Constitutionally literate than those posting here he wouldn't be doing the anti Constitutional things that he is doing now would he?

To be succinct , the more one knows about something the better they can apply that knowledge for good or bad in dealing with it. A layman reading the Constitution will take what is written there at face value but the Supreme Court may interpret it another way entirely.

I can't say Obama doesn't border on circumventing some Constitutional dogma but he is one of the experts who can do it right up to the point that stops short of an impeachable offense. Why? Because he knows when to stop!

No...because he knows the democrat media will spin whatever he does to protect him, as they are doing right now.....and the D.C. republicans don't have it in them to hold him to account or to stand up to him...........

The democrat media? Do you mean CNN or Yahoo? Does Fox and Rush protect him as well?

I'm sure that Hannity, O'reilly , Savage or Levine more than mke up for any "protection" given Obama by the "democrat" media!

I assume we are still talking about gun rights. Can you give me an example of which part of the 2nd Amendment of any other part of the Constitution Obama has violated in that regard?