Remember when he also said this in 2008.
"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."
However this in 2012
He might as well have said, “If you like your guns, you can keep your guns.”
Journalists should be licensed. You should not be able to print your opinion through any media outlet unless politicians give you permission. And all articles should be short — no one needs to write a long article.
“Her (Kimberly Corban )question inadvertently exposed the mortifying fact that many people who distrust Obama on guns have no clue what he’s done on guns. His new plans will not impede any law-abiding citizens from getting the firearms they want or using them for protection inside the home or in public.”
im·pede
imˈpēd/
verb
delay or prevent (someone or something) by obstructing them; hinder.
Notice that Ms. Corban was using the word in the context of “delay,” but Steve Chapman purposely uses the “prevent” meaning of the word to try and make his opinion piece make sense and be relevant.
Of course he failed, but it is always worth nothing the liberal media’s relentless attempt to undermine the Constitution and to mislead the public.
Cass Sunstein is one of the most vile Statist pieces of dog squeezins around.
It wouldn't surprise me if some of the other three authors of "Constitutional Law" were the same.
I’m saddened by Townhall’s decision to feature crap from lefties. It would be one thing if it were a thoughtful essay but this is just transparent propaganda.
My criticism is not aimed at you Kaslin!
0bama to John R. Lott, Jr.:
So Townhall publishes lib garbage?
Hey, Steve Chapman, is yo mama so stupid she gave birth to you on the expressway cause she heard that’s where accidents happen?
I can’t believe a Townhall piece gets a “Barf!” warning!
“...a law professor wrote that the 2nd amendment is not taken seriously by most scholars....”
Translation: “The 2nd Amendment is a serious impediment to the full implementation of the revolution so it must be minimized, denigrated and weakened at every opportunity.”
(definition of scholar: brilliant, intellectual,
very very smart, Progressive genius, who can’t wait to wear his laborer’s cap with the little red star on the top.)
IMHO
This is all a head fake distraction.
Check out this link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3381625/posts
Listen.
It will be over by election time.
There's your problem right there. If Goebbels wrote case law...
The author misses the key to the question in the headline.
Obama threatens the second amendment through his stated intentions. Being able to abrogate the amendment is immaterial - although the author’s faith in the supreme court is quaint and dangerous.
Democrats are rust on liberty. It never stops trying to rot liberty until there is nothing left but decay.
Is there a dearth of liberal news outlets that is causing Townhall to run liberal opinion pieces?
“Her question inadvertently exposed the mortifying fact that many people who distrust Obama on guns have no clue what he’s done on guns”
Yes, he has done nothing on guns.
Precisely because the law it’s absolutely clear he can’t, and precisely because he knows doing so would unleash CWII via a heavily armed lawful militia itching for an excuse.
Nonetheless, the Obama has made it perfectly clear he’d violently confiscate every gun tomorrow if he could, and that he’s looking for a way to do exactly that.
“Is Obama a Threat to the 2nd Amendment?”
Hmmm. That’s such a hard question.
Recently, at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, she was asked about adopting a federal gun control program like the one enacted in Australia in 1996, which banned automatic and semiautomatic rifles and shotguns and mandated the buyback of those already present. Some 650,000 guns were taken from citizens and destroyed.
Clinton replied, "I do not know enough details to tell you how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australian example is worth looking at." The reason, she said, is that "by offering to buy back those guns, they were able to curtail the supply and to set a different standard for gun purchases in the future."
At this, the NRA activated the air raid sirens. Obama and Clinton, it declared, have "made clear what they're really after -- national gun confiscation."
It was an unforced error that she will never hear the last of. From how Clinton phrased her answer, though, it's pretty clear that she was thinking of a voluntary buyback. She compared it to Obama's Cash for Clunkers program and cited voluntary programs done in various cities.
http://townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/2015/10/25/hillary-clinton-and-gun-buybacks-n2070272
Chapman is a damned liar and it's obvious. If it's a voluntary buy back, how will it set a different standard for gun purchases in the future? Democrats want a ban.
In a word: YES
Molon Labe! Talk of Gun Confiscation reference
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3379859/posts
#StopGunViolence
Where will you be when Obummer assumes his third and final term?