Skip to comments.Obama's 23 Executive Gun Control Actions (Here's the list for the high information voter)
Posted on 01/16/2013 10:46:25 AM PST by SeekAndFind
click here to read article
Oh my goodness... NO, FRiend! I know you're not one of the "Romney's a Commie, Abortionist, Gun-Grabber, Axe Murderer, etc." crowd.
I agree with you... in a choice between the current white hut occupant (who IS an abortionist, and definitely a Gun-Grabber and Commie) and Romney, the latter is far preferable.
I'm afraid to even guess where this country - IF we still have a country - will be by 2016... :-(
It is head over heels more vile than that. The American Pediatric Association is radical leftist, and their idea in Florida was opening the door to the declaration that having a gun in the home makes parents unsuitable to raise children.
With a pipeline to still left-wing controlled state agencies, this could be used both to deny prospective parents the right to adopt, or used as “evidence of an abusive household”, in seeking to take children away from their parents.
It is that vicious, and raised the bar for the evil lengths gun controllers will go to, to deny others their rights.
And it goes far beyond the APA. The CDC in Atlanta was really winding up to use extremely weak statistics as an excuse to call for the banning of guns. Then a Republican congress told them to cut that crap out. They were at least smart enough to twist in the wind, but with an iota of pressure from the Democrats, they will fully support the gun control agenda again.
BTW, as a heads up, I believe the Democrats are planning to attack on a second front now, sending out trial balloons to fully restore abortion as a national law, overcoming all the state laws limiting it. That is, as soon the Republicans get the momentum against gun control, the Democrats will open up a second front, to attack them where they are not currently expecting an attack.
Sounds like a guy whose family needs subscriptions to Soldier of Fortune and several other gun magazines, or at least for somebody who doesn’t use his services to drop off a bunch of such magazines in his waiting room, underneath the Woman’s Day and other such femizines.
“I do agree we need to get the seriously mentally ill off the streets and in a safe environment.”
It’s an issue that has concerns both ways - public safety AND essential Liberty. I think the problem is that the pendulum got swung too far away from the public safety side.
That does not mean that we should abandon safegaurds for the individual when it comes to involuntary commitment of an individual to analysis, treatment and if needed confinement.
But we do need to “walk back” SOME of the lines we have drawn protecting the individual for whom mental health analysis, treatment or confinement might be indicated.
And yes, if obtaining those things is not covered in someone’s health insurance (and no, no such coverage should be mandatory by law), then, erring on the side of public safety can mean greater public expense than we are now doing in these cases. If we don’t think it’s worth more POSSIBLE public expense, if necessay, then I would say we’re not serious about doing it at all.
Think back to 2000....the Rats constant chant was "more people voted for algore than Bush therefore Bush is illegitimate".The nationwide vote count is important...not legally but psychologically and politically.I'll always vote for the candidate who both had a chance to get at least some Electoral Votes *and* who'll do me and my country the lesser amount of harm.They'll never be another Ross Perot in *my* future.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.