Obama Suggests That Terrorists Should Have Attacked A Different City

‘They picked the wrong city,’ Obama says

Boston bombings: ‘They picked the wrong city,’ Obama says – live | World news | guardian.co.uk

This happened under his watch.  Obama has been  obsessed with disarming Republicans and Libertarians for the past five months, and building up a massive domestic paramilitary.

Perhaps the White House and DHS should actually be doing their job of stopping terrorists?  You don’t need 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition, 2,700 tanks and 7,000 fully automatic rifles to fight against box cutters and pressure cookers.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Obama Suggests That Terrorists Should Have Attacked A Different City

  1. mf says:

    We can agree on global warming but definitely not on guns.

    No sane person would argue that private citizens should be allowed to possess nukes, tanks, or shoulder fired missiles. I do not think you would want to live in the world in which they can. This means that the government has not only a right but also an obligation to regulate military weapons. What remains is a practical question where the line is drawn. Persistent claims emanating from right wing and libertarian circles that any attempt to regulate guns violates the bill of rights are not only counterproductive, but could be interpreted as an incitement to violence.

    • You have no idea what you are talking about.

      The whole point of the second amendment was that the citizenry would be able to defend themselves from external and internal tyranny. The founding fathers wanted the public to have “military weapons.”

      That is why they wrote the second amendment.

      That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

      Virginia Bill of Rights

      • Luke of the D says:

        Yes, MF, you really don’t get it. I have every right to defend myself against tyranny. We are the power in this nation. Our representatives in the Government – Federal and State – serve we the citizens of this land. The military – Army, Navy, Air Force, National Guard, State Militias – serves we the citizens of this land. We paid for their “nukes” and their tanks and their weapons of war. We allow the Government to have the power they claim. They do not govern us… they serve us. We allow them to pass laws and fight wars, not because they have that “power” because we give it to them. That is what makes this Republic such an amazing place. We are one of the only nations on this Earth with a Constitution not based based on words, laws, or “civil” rights, but on our God-given rights. My rights of religion, speech, to bear arms, and all the others are granted to me by God. Not by those few who represent me in DC or Lansing or any other State of this Union. But I am not special. All citizens of this nation have those rights and they are protected by the Constitution. If you do not see it that way, MF, I pity you. I really do. But even if you believe different, that does not mean you can claim to take away what God gave me. Shrug it off if you wish, but I will.

    • Robertv says:

      Long rifle
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_rifle
      The English officers knew how deathly it was.

    • Oh, I just LOVE to slice and dice comments like this.

      “…No sane person would argue that private citizens should be allowed to possess nukes, tanks, or shoulder fired missiles. I do not think you would want to live in the world in which they can…”

      Yet there’s nothing in the “gun-grab bill” that says someone needs a background check for nukes, tanks, or shoulder fired missiles. If you don’t pass the background check for a rifle because of mental problems, then by default, you’re not sane. And, since the nukes might be hard to get, go buy an un-regulated flamethrower and have fun.

      BTW, several people live in a world where nukes, tanks and RPG’s are not available to the private citizen. N Korea comes to mind. Maybe they’re happier there without that pesky “right to bear arms”.

      “…This means that the government has not only a right but also an obligation to regulate military weapons. What remains is a practical question where the line is drawn…”

      They already have rules – try buying a full-auto or a .50 cal long rifle (sniper rifle). Anybody who takes a SEMI-auto AR-15 and converts it into a FULL-auto is breaking the law, and new laws won’t stop that.

      “…Persistent claims emanating from right wing and libertarian circles that any attempt to regulate guns violates the bill of rights are not only counterproductive, but could be interpreted as an incitement to violence…”

      Right wing and libertarian – quite a group to lump people into. And if the 2nd amendment is such a problem with you, let’s get rid of that pesky 21st amendment, too (repealed Prohibition). Or the 22nd (limits the number of times that a person can be elected president), or better yet, the ever popular 16th (allows the federal government to collect income tax).

  2. Lance says:

    Steve, being a non american…looking for quick blurb on what “Virginia Bill of Rights” means.
    I know there is a state called Virgina, was this second amendment signed there, and applies to all of the Union? I see many times quotes from past Prominent folks, who stated this and that, but somewhat confused on how these phrases are applied to the second amendment. If its a long convoluted answer, ignore this. If there is a quick and easy read somewhere, add a link, and i’ll have a read….thanks

    • Justa Joe says:

      It gives some context to the intent of the IInd amendment.to the US Constitution This is often needed because libz try to distort the meaning of the IInd amendment.

  3. Mike says:

    Virginia Colonial Gov’t Constitution had had 12 ‘rights’ They were the model for the US gov’t in1787. Ten were adopted quickly. The 2nd is to provide for a citizen militia. The 11th was adopted late 20th century. The 12th is viewed as obsolete, because it apportioned the house of Reps differently: way too many reps.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s