When Discussing the Second Amendment, Keep the First in Mind Too - WH petition response.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    When Discussing the Second Amendment, Keep the First in Mind Too - WH petition response.

    White House response to the Deport Piers Morgan petition (over 100K signatures).  I fully support what the response is; but I believe the agenda goes much further.

     

    When Discussing the Second Amendment, Keep the First in Mind Too

    By Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary

    Thank you for participating in We the People to speak out on an issue that matters to you.

    Let’s not let arguments over the Constitution’s Second Amendment violate the spirit of its First. President Obama believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. However, the Constitution not only guarantees an individual right to bear arms, but also enshrines the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press -- fundamental principles that are essential to our democracy. Americans may disagree on matters of public policy and express those disagreements vigorously, but no one should be punished by the government simply because he or she expressed a view on the Second Amendment -- or any other matter of public concern.

    We recognize that the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, sparked an intense, and at times emotional, national conversation about the steps we can take as a country to reduce gun violence. In fact, your petition is one of many on the issue, and President Obama personally responded by sharing his views on this important issue.

    In a recent press conference, President Obama also addressed the Second Amendment and the important perspective that law-abiding gun owners bring to the public conversation on this issue:

    Look, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. This country has a strong tradition of gun ownership that's been handed down from generation to generation. Obviously across the country there are regional differences. There are differences between how people feel in urban areas and rural areas. And the fact is the vast majority of gun owners in America are responsible -- they buy their guns legally and they use them safely, whether for hunting or sport shooting, collection or protection.

    But you know what, I am also betting that the majority -- the vast majority -- of responsible, law-abiding gun owners would be some of the first to say that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few from buying a weapon of war. I'm willing to bet that they don't think that using a gun and using common sense are incompatible ideas -- that an unbalanced man shouldn't be able to get his hands on a military-style assault rifle so easily; that in this age of technology, we should be able to check someone's criminal records before he or she can check out at a gun show; that if we work harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be fewer atrocities like the one in Newtown -- or any of the lesser-known tragedies that visit small towns and big cities all across America every day.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: When Discussing the Second Amendment, Keep the First in Mind Too - WH petition response.

    In response to Newtster's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Again, the aspect of mental health and managing patients on psychotropic drugs goes ignored. With improvements there, crimes of all sorts with ANY weapon could be avoided.

    The anti-gun nuts have blood on their hands for they ignore real solutions to these problems in pursuit of power and control. The fact they are going after hand guns when it was an assault rifle used at Newtown is proof of their zeal to inflict their control on the American people. They are eager to use every incident for political purposes

    [/QUOTE]

    The pro-gun nuts have blood on their hands if they ignore real solutions to these problems... 

    How about addressing BOTH issues.  Or do your ideological limitations forbid such an approach?

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: When Discussing the Second Amendment, Keep the First in Mind Too - WH petition response.

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Newtster's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Again, the aspect of mental health and managing patients on psychotropic drugs goes ignored. With improvements there, crimes of all sorts with ANY weapon could be avoided.

    The anti-gun nuts have blood on their hands for they ignore real solutions to these problems in pursuit of power and control. The fact they are going after hand guns when it was an assault rifle used at Newtown is proof of their zeal to inflict their control on the American people. They are eager to use every incident for political purposes

    [/QUOTE]

    The pro-gun nuts have blood on their hands if they ignore real solutions to these problems... 

    How about addressing BOTH issues.  Or do your ideological limitations forbid such an approach?

    [/QUOTE]

    Institutionalize the nuts; put much stronger controls and monitoring requirements on the prescribing and use of psychotropic drugs, require criminal record checks to purchase guns, close the gun show loophole

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: When Discussing the Second Amendment, Keep the First in Mind Too - WH petition response.

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Newtster's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Again, the aspect of mental health and managing patients on psychotropic drugs goes ignored. With improvements there, crimes of all sorts with ANY weapon could be avoided.

    The anti-gun nuts have blood on their hands for they ignore real solutions to these problems in pursuit of power and control. The fact they are going after hand guns when it was an assault rifle used at Newtown is proof of their zeal to inflict their control on the American people. They are eager to use every incident for political purposes

    [/QUOTE]

    The pro-gun nuts have blood on their hands if they ignore real solutions to these problems... 

    How about addressing BOTH issues.  Or do your ideological limitations forbid such an approach?

    [/QUOTE]

    Institutionalize the nuts; put much stronger controls and monitoring requirements on the prescribing and use of psychotropic drugs, require criminal record checks to purchase guns, close the gun show loophole

     [/QUOTE]

    Criminal checks are already required. What "gunshow loophole"?

    There should be a poulated database for people with certain professionally documented mental disorders as well. The current one in place is not being used nd people are hiding behind privacy laws.

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: When Discussing the Second Amendment, Keep the First in Mind Too - WH petition response.

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Newtster's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Again, the aspect of mental health and managing patients on psychotropic drugs goes ignored. With improvements there, crimes of all sorts with ANY weapon could be avoided.

    The anti-gun nuts have blood on their hands for they ignore real solutions to these problems in pursuit of power and control. The fact they are going after hand guns when it was an assault rifle used at Newtown is proof of their zeal to inflict their control on the American people. They are eager to use every incident for political purposes

    [/QUOTE]

    The pro-gun nuts have blood on their hands if they ignore real solutions to these problems... 

    How about addressing BOTH issues.  Or do your ideological limitations forbid such an approach?

    [/QUOTE]

    Institutionalize the nuts; put much stronger controls and monitoring requirements on the prescribing and use of psychotropic drugs, require criminal record checks to purchase guns, close the gun show loophole

     [/QUOTE]

    Criminal checks are already required. What "gunshow loophole"?

    There should be a poulated database for people with certain professionally documented mental disorders as well. The current one in place is not being used nd people are hiding behind privacy laws.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    This loophole.

     

    Gun Show Loophole

    In 33 states, private gun owners are not restricted from selling guns at gun shows. Buyers who purchase guns from individuals are not required to submit to the federal background checks in place for licensed dealers. Critics say that firearms can be obtained illegally as a result, calling it the “gun show loophole.” Proponents of unregulated gun show sales say that there is no loophole; gun owners are simply selling or trading guns at the shows as they would do at their residence.

    Federal legislation has attempted to put an end to the so-called loophole by requiring all gun show transactions to take place through FFL dealers. Most recently, a 2009 bill attracted several co-sponsors in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. However, Congress ultimately failed to take up consideration of the legislation.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: When Discussing the Second Amendment, Keep the First in Mind Too - WH petition response.

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Gun Show Loophole

    In 33 states, private gun owners are not restricted from selling guns at gun shows. Buyers who purchase guns from individuals are not required to submit to the federal background checks in place for licensed dealers. Critics say that firearms can be obtained illegally as a result, calling it the “gun show loophole.” Proponents of unregulated gun show sales say that there is no loophole; gun owners are simply selling or trading guns at the shows as they would do at their residence.

    Federal legislation has attempted to put an end to the so-called loophole by requiring all gun show transactions to take place through FFL dealers. Most recently, a 2009 bill attracted several co-sponsors in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. However, Congress ultimately failed to take up consideration of the legislation.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's not a "gunshow loophole". Any law abiding private citizen can sell or trade his legally owned firearm without requiring back ground checks. Gunshow or no gunshow!!

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: When Discussing the Second Amendment, Keep the First in Mind Too - WH petition response.

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Newtster's comment:

     

    I wouldn't have any problem closing the so-called "gun show loophole". But it won't do anything to stop these attacks.




    This is hilarious!

     

    All the whacko wingnuts claim they just "know" what will or won't work despite not having a shred of evidence to support their claims and with many studies showing the exact opposite of their magical omniscience.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    It will make it more difficult for the nuts to obtain guns as they are the ones who are causing the horriffic and tragic slaughter events of innocents.  It won't slow the bad guys down or fix the problem in urban America as highlighted by Chicago's record breaking year, but its a start to protect the innocents from the crazies.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: When Discussing the Second Amendment, Keep the First in Mind Too - WH petition response.

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Gun Show Loophole

    In 33 states, private gun owners are not restricted from selling guns at gun shows. Buyers who purchase guns from individuals are not required to submit to the federal background checks in place for licensed dealers. Critics say that firearms can be obtained illegally as a result, calling it the â€ÂÂœgun show loophole.” Proponents of unregulated gun show sales say that there is no loophole; gun owners are simply selling or trading guns at the shows as they would do at their residence.

    Federal legislation has attempted to put an end to the so-called loophole by requiring all gun show transactions to take place through FFL dealers. Most recently, a 2009 bill attracted several co-sponsors in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. However, Congress ultimately failed to take up consideration of the legislation.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's not a "gunshow loophole". Any law abiding private citizen can sell or trade his legally owned firearm without requiring back ground checks. Gunshow or no gunshow!!

    [/QUOTE]

    Well maybe we need to rethink the private sales aspect to ensure the nuts and criminals can't buy guns.  A private sale to a family member of friend is one thing as you have personal knowledge; but selling your gun on craigslist to a stranger is another issue.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: When Discussing the Second Amendment, Keep the First in Mind Too - WH petition response.

    By some of this logic, we shouldn't ban people under 18 from buying cigarettes or people under 21 from buying alcohol - or certain stores from selling them or tobacco companies from advertisiing them, because they're going to get them anyway...

    ...and we shouldn't bother banning abortions, because women will find a way to get them anyway, like they did for eons.

    Because who are to infringe upon the rights of kids to smoke or women to abort their fetuses, right...?

     

     

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: When Discussing the Second Amendment, Keep the First in Mind Too - WH petition response.

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    That's not a "gunshow loophole". Any law abiding private citizen can sell or trade his legally owned fire. Gunshow or no gunshow!!


    Hey spanky, it's a catch-all phrase to highlight the loophole.

    If you don't think someone selling guns to whomever they want, legally, isn't a loophole, then you're just a freakin moron.

    [/QUOTE]

    Fall in line little sheep

    So you want to take away individuals rights to trade their own property!?

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: When Discussing the Second Amendment, Keep the First in Mind Too - WH petition response.

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    By some of this logic, we shouldn't ban people under 18 from buying cigarettes or people under 21 from buying alcohol - or certain stores from selling them or tobacco companies from advertisiing them, because they're going to get them anyway...

    ...and we shouldn't bother banning abortions, because women will find a way to get them anyway, like they did for eons.

    Because who are to infringe upon the rights of kids to smoke or women to abort their fetuses, right...?

     [/QUOTE]

    It has nothing to do with minors. idiot!

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: When Discussing the Second Amendment, Keep the First in Mind Too - WH petition response.

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Gun Show Loophole

    In 33 states, private gun owners are not restricted from selling guns at gun shows. Buyers who purchase guns from individuals are not required to submit to the federal background checks in place for licensed dealers. Critics say that firearms can be obtained illegally as a result, calling it the â€ÂÂÂœgun show loophole.” Proponents of unregulated gun show sales say that there is no loophole; gun owners are simply selling or trading guns at the shows as they would do at their residence.

    Federal legislation has attempted to put an end to the so-called loophole by requiring all gun show transactions to take place through FFL dealers. Most recently, a 2009 bill attracted several co-sponsors in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. However, Congress ultimately failed to take up consideration of the legislation.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's not a "gunshow loophole". Any law abiding private citizen can sell or trade his legally owned firearm without requiring back ground checks. Gunshow or no gunshow!!

    [/QUOTE]

    Well maybe we need to rethink the private sales aspect to ensure the nuts and criminals can't buy guns.  A private sale to a family member of friend is one thing as you have personal knowledge; but selling your gun on craigslist to a stranger is another issue.

    [/QUOTE]

    Good point, That should be part of the discussion!

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: When Discussing the Second Amendment, Keep the First in Mind Too - WH petition response.

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    By some of this logic, we shouldn't ban people under 18 from buying cigarettes or people under 21 from buying alcohol - or certain stores from selling them or tobacco companies from advertisiing them, because they're going to get them anyway...

    ...and we shouldn't bother banning abortions, because women will find a way to get them anyway, like they did for eons.

    Because who are to infringe upon the rights of kids to smoke or women to abort their fetuses, right...?

     [/QUOTE]

    It has nothing to do with minors. idiot!

    [/QUOTE]

    Neither does my point, you feather in a wind tunnel.

    The point is about restrictions on legal vs. illicit commerce.

    Besides, quite a few gun rights advocates have shown less-than-adult intelligence on the matter, yourself included

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: When Discussing the Second Amendment, Keep the First in Mind Too - WH petition response.

    I like how the supporters of 2nd Amendment are more than happy to sacifice other rights.  Somehow we want to allow people's medical records public but we can't touch the gun rights.

    Hows this, gun owners have to prove they're not crazy in order to keep their guns?

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: When Discussing the Second Amendment, Keep the First in Mind Too - WH petition response.

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    but I believe the agenda goes much further



    How dare the man say anything other than "I'll do whatever the NRA demands".

     

     

    How moderate of you.

     

    Apparently the only way to not have an "agenda" to a moderate is to not say anything at all about gun control.

    [/QUOTE]

    My agenda comment is just that.  The President has spoken about much more in gun control  recently then he did in his statement today.  So you see there is a conflict in expectations between the recent spoken word and today's statement.

    Not a moderate statement just a fact.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: When Discussing the Second Amendment, Keep the First in Mind Too - WH petition response.

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I like how the supporters of 2nd Amendment are more than happy to sacifice other rights.  Somehow we want to allow people's medical records public but we can't touch the gun rights.

    Hows this, gun owners have to prove they're not crazy in order to keep their guns?

    [/QUOTE]

    We already require medical review for a number of professions such as commercial operators of transportation vehicles; planes, trains and buses.  Medical review to obtain a gun is OK with me.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: When Discussing the Second Amendment, Keep the First in Mind Too - WH petition response.

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I like how the supporters of 2nd Amendment are more than happy to sacifice other rights.  Somehow we want to allow people's medical records public but we can't touch the gun rights.

    Hows this, gun owners have to prove they're not crazy in order to keep their guns?

    [/QUOTE]

    You already lost your medical privacy rights with Obamacare. Your health records and your doctors decisions are being rolled up into a national data base.

     

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: When Discussing the Second Amendment, Keep the First in Mind Too - WH petition response.

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Newtster's comment:

    I'd also love a coherent explanation for why partial solutions should not be pursued. There is no panacea for any ill in any context. But you insit on one. Or that we do nothing. 

    [/QUOTE]


    All "partial solutions" should be discussed and pursued if, they prove worthy; just not only a few cherry picked politically correct partial solutions.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: When Discussing the Second Amendment, Keep the First in Mind Too - WH petition response.

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I like how the supporters of 2nd Amendment are more than happy to sacifice other rights.  Somehow we want to allow people's medical records public but we can't touch the gun rights.

    Hows this, gun owners have to prove they're not crazy in order to keep their guns?

    [/QUOTE]

    lol, innocent until proven guilty; not guilty I say so, you must now prove yourself innocent or lose rights!

    Good one Stalin

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: When Discussing the Second Amendment, Keep the First in Mind Too - WH petition response.

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Is there a Godwin's law for Stalin references?

    [/QUOTE]


    wouldnt matter, laws are only for the other 47%

     

Share