TEXAS GOVERNOR CHALLENGES OBAMA ON GUN CONTROL: ‘COME AND TAKE IT

[Rob Roy]

How will expanded background checks prevent any legit citizen from obtaining a fire arm. They wont.

Your logic which is the kind of genius that generates palins, trumps and romneys is rejected by anyone exercising any critical thinking.

Obama : thug ya ok he is a harvard thug? Critical thinking at its most laughable.

If they won't prevent "legit" citizens from getting a firearm and they won't prevent criminals from obtaining them, what is the PURPOSE?

Your attempt to paint me as a "republican conservative" is endearing, however it is completely wrong.

Yes, Obama is a thug, he has ordered military actions which he knew would result in the deaths of innocent people, he oversees the world's highest prison population, continues the DRUG WAR, and is willing to use force to make peaceful people buy something they prefer not to, which is the same tactic the mafia uses.

Even your insult was ill formed, Romney and Obama share alot of political ideology and both were heavily supported by Goldman Sachs. I'd put the old Bigfoot Salami to Ms. Palin, but then I'd kick her out the door clutching her panties and having to hitch hike home. Donald Trump is a comedian and great entertainment.

 

[UncleBuck]

We (Texas) are blessed to have 2 strong willed, rational governors who will and have stood up to the tyrant in office. Rick Perry who was re-elected for numerous terms (and would have made an excellent prez) and now Abbott.

 

[UncleBuck]

Obama is a thug

nice thinly veiled racial slur.

slightly less obvious than when you called him a mullato.

 

[testiclees]

No they're not falling for it. Most folks know his dog and pony show is just a bunch of worthless political correctness. Obama is a pussy when it comes to dealing with real world problems.

View attachment 3577205

Funny you mention dog and pony were you hired by the romneys to milk Rafalca?

 

[testiclees]

If they won't prevent "legit" citizens from getting a firearm and they won't prevent criminals from obtaining them, what is the PURPOSE?

Your attempt to paint me as a "republican conservative" is endearing, however it is completely wrong.

Yes, Obama is a thug, he has ordered military actions which he knew would result in the deaths of innocent people, he oversees the world's highest prison population, continues the DRUG WAR, and is willing to use force to make peaceful people buy something they prefer not to, which is the same tactic the mafia uses.

Even your insult was ill formed, Romney and Obama share alot of political ideology and both were heavily supported by Goldman Sachs. I'd put the old Bigfoot Salami to Ms. Palin, but then I'd kick her out the door clutching her panties and having to hitch hike home. Donald Trump is a comedian and great entertainment.

maybe we have a few points of agreement but you did not use the word 'thug' appropriately.

 

[see4]

How will expanded background checks prevent a person that is already a felon from getting a weapon via the black market?

Criminals who want guns will get their hands on them no matter what. The expanded background checks don't cover these individuals, just as auto insurance doesn't cover welfare recipients.
You are using the "criminal" argument as a straw-bitch, and your logic is flawed.


Please point out what provisions you are having a hard time with?

 

[see4]

Actually. Now having completely read the provisions: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf

Obama does want to take our guns away. -- Specifically he wants to limit magazine capacity to 10. And wants to ban assault rifles, even semi-automatic ones.
I'm with the Derps on this one. I don't agree with the entire proposal. The expanded background checks, fine, but the bans are just stupid.

 

[OddBall1st]

According to the United States constitution, "the real military" isn't supposed to exist at all times. It is only to be formed during "real wars", which are supposed to be declared by Congress.

I'm not endorsing that constitutional mechanism by the way, just pointing out how it was supposed to operate.

That was before advances in transportation and communications. The two most important parts of war after deseption.

 

[UncleBuck]

Actually. Now having completely read the provisions: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf

Obama does want to take our guns away. -- Specifically he wants to limit magazine capacity to 10. And wants to ban assault rifles, even semi-automatic ones.
I'm with the Derps on this one. I don't agree with the entire proposal. The expanded background checks, fine, but the bans are just stupid.

what's wrong with the lower magazine capacity? several massacres have been stopped when the shooter went to change magazines, and even more people have escaped during that time. these shooters are generally not well trained people who can switch out a magazine in a mere second or two.

it's probably one of the best ideas in stopping gun massacres.

 

[see4]

what's wrong with the lower magazine capacity? several massacres have been stopped when the shooter went to change magazines, and even more people have escaped during that time. these shooters are generally not well trained people who can switch out a magazine in a mere second or two.

it's probably one of the best ideas in stopping gun massacres.

Because 30 round magazines are a dime a dozen. I literally bought a 10 pack of pmag 30 round magazines for $59.99. I'm about to buy 100 more 10 packs. Because once they are banned I can sell them for 10 times the price.

If a bad guy wants to do bad things, he will get a hold of whatever it is he is looking for, especially simple things like 30 round magazines.

Other than that, 30 round magazines are great for military use and outdoor sport shooters like myself, and the occasional hog hunters. I suspect, military will get to keep 30 round magazines, because military aren't citizens, they're... military. Citizens are a mere 3/5 a person.

In the end though if there is ban on high capacity magazines and "assault" rifles, I can likely count on several things to happen. One being that the ban does not last long, and two I've already got dozens of 30 round magazines and a dozen assault rifles. So I'm cool either way.

 

[UncleBuck]

Because 30 round magazines are a dime a dozen. I literally bought a 10 pack of pmag 30 round magazines for $59.99. I'm about to buy 100 more 10 packs. Because once they are banned I can sell them for 10 times the price.

If a bad guy wants to do bad things, he will get a hold of whatever it is he is looking for, especially simple things like 30 round magazines.

Other than that, 30 round magazines are great for military use and outdoor sport shooters like myself, and the occasional hog hunters. I suspect, military will get to keep 30 round magazines, because military aren't citizens, they're... military. Citizens are a mere 3/5 a person.

In the end though if there is ban on high capacity magazines and "assault" rifles, I can likely count on several things to happen. One being that the ban does not last long, and two I've already got dozens of 30 round magazines and a dozen assault rifles. So I'm cool either way.

but you do recognize that there are firearms and ammo that are meant for civilian use, and those that are meant for military use. which is good.

civilians have no need or use for a 30 round magazine. that is a military tool meant only for killing many people very fast.

you even made my argument for me. if these massacre weapons are made illegal, they will be less available, and thus worth more. that will prevent a lot of adam lanza's of the world from getting their hands on them.

anyhoo, this is me disagreeing with you. so you must also be a racist. right?

 

[see4]

but you do recognize that there are firearms and ammo that are meant for civilian use, and those that are meant for military use. which is good.

civilians have no need or use for a 30 round magazine. that is a military tool meant only for killing many people very fast.

you even made my argument for me. if these massacre weapons are made illegal, they will be less available, and thus worth more. that will prevent a lot of adam lanza's of the world from getting their hands on them.

anyhoo, this is me disagreeing with you. so you must also be a racist. right?

We are both racist, because well, we are the same person. Amirite?

Military uses belt fed assault rifles when trying to clear an area with spray and pray. But most who carry SCAR 762 rifles prefer the semi auto feature and are generally held up in a location of cover, which allows them to take their time, and many use 20 and 10 round magazines because of the bulk factor.

But I do recognize the validity of your argument and agree that 30 round magazines are not necessary.

I suspect if the provisions Obama proposes are enacted in their entirety, the Supreme Court will get involved at some point.

 

[UncleBuck]

We are both racist, because well, we are the same person. Amirite?

I suspect if the provisions Obama proposes are enacted in their entirety, the Supreme Court will get involved at some point.

i would welcome that.

 

[Corso312]

I've been saying this for 12 years..Texas wouldn't last a decade on their own..hurricanes, floods, drought or tornadoes would bury them without the federal titty they need to suckle.

 

[Corso312]

That's nonsense, People are people. Nothing wrong with hand to hand combat but for some strange reason America has some odd fetish with guns.

 

[Harrekin]

Criminals who want guns will get their hands on them no matter what. The expanded background checks don't cover these individuals, just as auto insurance doesn't cover welfare recipients.
You are using the "criminal" argument as a straw-bitch, and your logic is flawed.

View attachment 3578211
Please point out what provisions you are having a hard time with?

3 is a bit shit...

 

[see4]

3 is a bit shit...

Yea. That's a tough one. But everything else is fine by me.

The ban on all "assault" rifles is quite harsh. A ban on 30 round magazines is silly. But I do see the argument for it though.

 

[Rob Roy]

nice thinly veiled racial slur.

slightly less obvious than when you called him a mullato.

I don't judge people on their race, their actions speak louder to me. Obama by virtue of droning innocent (brown) people and overseeing the drug war and threatening force against people via government is a thug in my book. I'd feel the same way if he were Chinese, Italian or Mongolian and did the same things.

Which part of Mr. Obama's racial background do you accuse me of slurring?

*Mulatto

Mulatto is a term used in large parts of the world to describe a person of mixed race, usually black and white. A while back, you had referred to Obama as "black" and I challenged that from a racial mix perspective only ,not as an indictment or a judgement based on his race.

Some people would say your calling him "black" it is racist and that it springs from the concept of something called the "one drop rule"
(look it up)

 

[Rob Roy]

what's wrong with the lower magazine capacity? several massacres have been stopped when the shooter went to change magazines, and even more people have escaped during that time. these shooters are generally not well trained people who can switch out a magazine in a mere second or two.

it's probably one of the best ideas in stopping gun massacres.

Will you propose that the police and military also have this reduced firepower to slow down any potential misuse they might engage in?

 

[Harrekin]

Yea. That's a tough one. But everything else is fine by me.

The ban on all "assault" rifles is quite harsh. A ban on 30 round magazines is silly. But I do see the argument for it though.

So they gonna ban duct tape too to stop you taping 10rnd magazines together?

Do they include a specific description of what they consider to be an "assault weapon" in this proposed executive action?

And from a Constitutional standpoint, wouldn't the "arms" mentioned in the 2nd be specifically of "military grade"? (I think that was the point)