Hd can't even get the prime purpose of the 2nd Amendment in his statements. It's not about teaching your kids to shoot or hunting. It's about self defense from tyrants foreign and domestic. Since he wants to restrict us to single shot or bolt action weapons ONLY for hunting he clearly doesn't support the prime basis for the 2nd Amendment or it's exercise.
He wants to crack down on the abuses in the streets of chicago? Fine, make sure the violent offenders STAY in jail. Clean up the Chicago PD, take the fiefdom away from the Daley family. Make it so if I come for a visit, My State issued firearms license is valid there just like my state issued Drivers license is.
If Georgia stopped accepting New York or Illinois Drivers licenses and started arresting people from those states what drove through because we don't recognize their licenses, you'd have people coming out of the wood work screaming about violations of rights. I'd agree, but why does the Full Faith and Credit Clause NOT apply to CCW permits issued by states?
Do you honestly think you'll ever hear Obama defend your right to purchase ammo, a handgun or your legal ability to carry a firearm?
He also voted in 2004 on a law allowing retired law enforcement to carry concealed weapons.
Great. So the agents of the state get a pass while the rest of us have to stay in our place. Gotta love equal protection under the law as exacted from a supposed liberal.
Your link does not provide the quote you show. Your analysis of his statement though is faulty. He is calling for a surgical strike against these targets, not rolling in with the 7th Cavalry. Kind of like this attack on Thursday. Just a note from the article, "The United States is officially barred from conducting operations in Pakistan, but it has launched several aerial attacks in the country's tribal areas, including the one that killed Libi, according to U.S. intelligence sources."
Well, I can't know exactly what he means because he's not really giving solid intentions. My understanding is that we get approval from the Pakistani government for the air-strikes either before or after while we're working with them. Of course if we're already performing specific strikes with Manned and UnManned fighters, and Obama thinks we need change and wants MORE action, presumably he does mean ground forces forcing the border with out Pakistani permission.
So it's okay if we do it under Bush, but not if a democrat does it?
If the Left gets to pillory President Bush as dangerous and a terrorist because of unilateral action and the left at the same time endorses a candidate who has called for it on multiple times I get to point out the utter inconsistencies of the candidates position vis a vis the complaints with George Bush as President.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
Obama on Guns and Pakistan part II
Date: 2008-02-29 05:18 pm (UTC)Hd can't even get the prime purpose of the 2nd Amendment in his statements. It's not about teaching your kids to shoot or hunting. It's about self defense from tyrants foreign and domestic. Since he wants to restrict us to single shot or bolt action weapons ONLY for hunting he clearly doesn't support the prime basis for the 2nd Amendment or it's exercise.
He wants to crack down on the abuses in the streets of chicago? Fine, make sure the violent offenders STAY in jail. Clean up the Chicago PD, take the fiefdom away from the Daley family. Make it so if I come for a visit, My State issued firearms license is valid there just like my state issued Drivers license is.
If Georgia stopped accepting New York or Illinois Drivers licenses and started arresting people from those states what drove through because we don't recognize their licenses, you'd have people coming out of the wood work screaming about violations of rights. I'd agree, but why does the Full Faith and Credit Clause NOT apply to CCW permits issued by states?
Do you honestly think you'll ever hear Obama defend your right to purchase ammo, a handgun or your legal ability to carry a firearm?
He also voted in 2004 on a law allowing retired law enforcement to carry concealed weapons.
Great. So the agents of the state get a pass while the rest of us have to stay in our place. Gotta love equal protection under the law as exacted from a supposed liberal.
Your link does not provide the quote you show. Your analysis of his statement though is faulty. He is calling for a surgical strike against these targets, not rolling in with the 7th Cavalry. Kind of like this attack on Thursday. Just a note from the article, "The United States is officially barred from conducting operations in Pakistan, but it has launched several aerial attacks in the country's tribal areas, including the one that killed Libi, according to U.S. intelligence sources."
Well, I can't know exactly what he means because he's not really giving solid intentions.
My understanding is that we get approval from the Pakistani government for the air-strikes either before or after while we're working with them. Of course if we're already performing specific strikes with Manned and UnManned fighters, and Obama thinks we need change and wants MORE action, presumably he does mean ground forces forcing the border with out Pakistani permission.
Between his stance on Lebanan, Iraq, Afghanistan and his inability to tell the difference between US troops vs Brits and who leads a platoon, Obama doesn't really strike me as a very good choice for president.
So it's okay if we do it under Bush, but not if a democrat does it?
If the Left gets to pillory President Bush as dangerous and a terrorist because of unilateral action and the left at the same time endorses a candidate who has called for it on multiple times I get to point out the utter inconsistencies of the candidates position vis a vis the complaints with George Bush as President.