Tyranny of Obama's Government

[Royverl]

I made reference to his color only for the reason that most likely the southern part of the US voted against President Obama because he is black. I have no problem with this issue. I have no problem with a Native American or anyone that is not white. As long as they demostrate that they have the education and temperment to do the job well and not think they are God gift to man like Romney and his wife because they have money. This last election was just dumb. Any one of the other Republican people would have been better than Romney. Just because you close down plants and ship alot of jobs overseas and make alot of money doing it does not make you a good president. You people as Mrs Romney refered to some people  wanting more than 2 years of tax returns.

 

My apology for refering to President Obama as black but I really to like this guy and what he stands for. He is a good man and a good family man. He is a very educated man and I respect him for that. People make fun of him for being President of Harvard Law Review. This is the cream of the corp people and education is the key.

Wow, that's not cool at all.  I, you , or anyone may not agree with the president or his policies, but saying black president as in there is something wrong with him being black is way out of line.   That's a bad and incentive remark that implies racism.  I am not assuming but it did come off wrong to me.   I don't agree with the policies of O but I ain't no hater either.

[Jeopardy319]

I see both sides, but do you need a 30 clip to go deer hunting. That would be like putting a pile of corn in a open field and hunting over the corn. Iowa that is not legal but I  know people that do this anyway.  You might need to go hunting inside a mall or a school for people with that kind of fire power. This is what it is all about. No one is going to take your guns from you but do you need military styles of weapons. It is part of the constitution that we have a gun but the idea that we need a large clip to take down as many people as possible and as fast as possible is not common sense practice.

Switzerland probably does not issue an automatic weapon or a gun with a thirty bullet clip. I have heard it mention that anything that manufactures can produce is what the gun people think they need. Do we need to start arming ourselves with bombs because they are manufactured also? Common sense tells most people that normal people do not need 25 or 30 guns to protect themselves.

 

I voted for Obama and am in favor of this black president. The goof balls in the house and senate that of both parties are so stubborn that they are the one taking this county down this path. The president can suggest but he can not command a change. Obama is a well liked president by a high percentage of people.

You're right.  You don't need a 30 round magazine (it's a magazine: 'clips' are disposable and come loaded from the factory.  Magazines are re-loadable) But you're also missing the point and therefore not "seeing both sides" of this issue.  The point he's making has absolutely nothing to do with hunting; it has everything to do with self-defense.  If any of these people had still owned firearms, they could have defended themselves against the government.  From your response it's as if you thought the main thrust of his posting was "If any of these people had still owned firearms, they would have been able to hunt for food (while the government rounded them up and killed them)."  The necessity for a large magazine and military-style weapons is the whole point of the constitution: as the final, ultimate check on the power of the government.  Granted, the framers of the constitution could not have known about advancements in firearms technology, but then, they also made a point of not limiting the right to bear arms in any way.  On the contrary, they made sure to explicitly say that nothing could be done constitutionally to infringe on that right, regardless of whatever advancements might be made.  Since firearms had already made huge advancements in technology up to the Revolutionary War, it's ridiculous to think that they didn't anticipate further advancements, which they very conspicuously did not limit.  

 

To admit that it is a right to own a gun, but that a large magazine is unneeded is analogous to saying that it is your right to own a car to run away from danger, but you can't have more than a half-gallon tank.  

 

Switzerland does issue 30-round magazines and automatic weapons.  

 

The issue in consideration is the ownership of firearms of certain types, as well as the size of magazines.  Bombs aren't the issue.

 

And Obama's approval rating is irrelevant to the constitutionality of legislation under consideration.  Popularity does not confer legality.