Hunting Forum

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=446151755454455&set=a.199201850149448.49600.194105303992436&type=1&theater

I'll make another prediction...

All veterans will be deem high security risks and will be required to relinquish their rights to own firearms or government pensions and aid will be dropped.

Let's see if this comes up or possibly happens.

I saw on the news this morning that when Obama holds his press conference today, he will be surrounded by kids. ABC also read excerpts of letters supposedly written by children that were sent to the White House begging for gun control. I wonder who or what prompted or forced those kids to write those letters!?!?!?!?!?

Probably the teachers, and I'm sure they had the students singing the praises of the supreme leader while they wrote the letters.

I had the same thoughts gopher.

Did you see the kids hugging Obama before he sat down to sign those 23 EOs? I wonder who did the cherry picking for which kids would be at the presser?

Either the teachers or their parents told them what to write. Those kids could care less about gun control; they aren't old enough to even comprehend it. All they are interested in at that age is playing and other stuff that a kid would find exciting.

Another thing is that children that age are very eager to please any adult in an authoratative position.( at least till they get closer to being teenagers, then all bets are off)

IMHO those letters were probably written without prompting. Children that age see the world differently than we adults do. They don't yet fully understand the harsh realities of life.

But I think the NRA is right Obummer doesn't think armed security in schools is a good idea yet he has no problem with the FACT his two girls don't go ANYWHERE without ARMED SECURITY. And 5 will get you 10 some of those weapons are full auto.

I agree in that those children don't have the forsight of what they are writing and how it will affect their future.

Spending another 4 billion + 60 million that we don't have. Why have CDC study crime stats? Are we going to declare gun violence a desease?

Our Government is looking to the CDC for a study into mental health. And wants mental health added to the back ground checks in a stronger degree. Sounds good, or ok. Until you stop and think if congress passes something on mental health more so than now, in back ground checks, which sounds reasonable right, and it, would be. Except BO by executive order could, strengthen it to a point that if you said the wrong words, as PC crowd sees it, you could have a mental problem they feel should keep you from owning a gun. Think about some of the, somewhat heated debates and things said on this these very forums, and how some folks could use that. You don't have to ban guns; if no one is mentally stable enough own them, in and by their opinion. The executive order can not make new laws but it can make existing ones much tougher, and you don't thing he would have done it today if he could have. The liberals will paint anyone who says what I just say as un-reasonable, stupid, uncaring, fear mongering. They found another way to attempt to get our guns. Pass a reasonable law, with no restrictions no limits as to how it can or will be applied. Before long the mere accusation you could harm someone could be used to take your gun. I do not want mentally unstable people carrying, guns but who and what will determine that they are mentally unstable what standards will be used, can they be changed at the drop of a hat. Well they determine what the standard is, and make it so it must go though congress to be changed, the standards set by congress can not be made tougher by executive order at all, in no shape or way, and any attempt would be unlawful. I am sure the liberals would call that unreasonable.

Here is a suggestion a board, panel of the leading Psychologist, an equal number picked by each side, get together, determine what would make a person mentally un-stable enough, as to be prohibited from owning a firearm. Those standards must be agreed upon by 2/3 of the group, before it can be taken before congress. And do the same for any changes after its passage. We are talking about a Constitutional right here. It will not be an Amendment to the Constitution but must also be passed by 2/3 of both houses. Then that law could only be used against a person after going before a jury. We are talking about talk about taking away peoples Constitutional rights here, Based on their mental health. And it should not be an arbitrary thing at all. the liberals would say that is unreasonable. It does not meet their agenda. This mental health thing is a back door, and if not careful, could become arbitrary in its use.

The EO that he signed for the CDC is unconstitutional. He gave them authorities not granted under their charter. That type of action requires Congressional approval and a law that rewrites the charter!!!!!

Posted By rthomas4 on 17 Jan 2013 10:03 AM
The EO that he signed for the CDC is unconstitutional. He gave them authorities not granted under their charter. That type of action requires Congressional approval and a law that rewrites the charter!!!!!

True, but right now we have a problem with mental health, a desease Guns) that is killing our children and we (the liberals) must do everything we can to stop it. Any one who disagrees, is just clinging to their guns of fear, and does not care about our children.

I still say run every child through an intense mental screening at some early age, and the ones who have problems should have "mental defect" tattooed on their foreheads, especially if their parents are liberals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!