September 21, 2009

GOA Asks Gunowners to Support Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina

SPRINGFIELD, Va. — The Gun Owners of America pro-gun-rights group has come to the defense of Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina, who yelled out "You lie!" to President Obama during a speech to the Congress on health care.

In an email alert, Tim Macy, vice chairman of GOA wrote:

Most notable was the fact that pro-gun congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina -- rated "A" by GOA -- decided to call out the president because of Obama's his failure to communicate truthfully.

Rep. Joe Wilson, R-South Carolina


Rep. Joe Wilson, R-South Carolina

No matter what you think about the time and place Wilson chose to tell President Obama "You lie," the facts are on Joe Wilson's side.

The President lied repeatedly throughout his speech. Even the Associated Press -- hardly a bastion of conservatism -- noted that the President failed to accurately articulate the truth in several instances.

Wilson's opponent, however, is trying to use the national attention on Wilson to raise money for his campaign. In fact, Wilson's opponent says he raised over $1 million in the first 48 hours following the speech.

It's up to the pro-gun community to respond in kind and help Wilson through this difficult time. But first, who is Rep. Joe Wilson and what has he done for gun owners?

Not only has he consistently supported the Second Amendment with his votes, he has also cosponsored needed gun rights legislation. This year, he has cosponsored two reciprocity bills in the House -- including the GOA-supported HR 1620, which protects Vermont-style carry -- plus a bill that removes certain restrictions on the interstate sale of firearms.

In previous years, Wilson was the chief sponsor of the Citizen's Self-Defense Act, a bill that would protect individuals who successfully defend themselves or others from violent attack, only to find themselves in the clutches of anti-gun prosecutors.

And when a conference committee watered down GOA's language to arm airline pilots following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Rep. Wilson stepped up to the plate. He successfully pushed through legislation to allow all commercial pilots (not just passenger pilots) to carry guns. Further, when TSA bureaucrats dragged their feet once armed pilots became the law of the land, Wilson authored yet another bill that streamlined the certification process.

Here's the bottom line: Joe Wilson couldn't stand listening to the President dish out lie after lie. He says his emotions got the best of him, and he yelled "You lie" in the midst of a presidential address. He regrets the time and place he did it... but he is not sorry for what he said.

He was ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. He did what millions of Americans -- many people like you -- would have loved to do. How many of us would like the chance to tell the President, to his face, to stop lying?

It's ironic. The President stood there on national television and said his opponents were lying. But when Joe Wilson countered that it was the President who was, in fact, lying...it was Wilson who came under attack from the liberal media.

That's why we need to stand with Rep. Joe Wilson. If we lose a pro-gun stalwart because of his willingness to call out the President on his lies, it will be a crying shame.

You can contribute to the Wilson campaign by going online at www.CompleteCampaigns.com.











An Important Note for GunReports.Com Readers:

Our goal on this website is to foster a free expression of views while reining in language that crosses the line of civil discourse. Accordingly, the comments areas are intended to expand the knowledge of all users of this site. But site administrators wish to discourage the use of profanity, insults, disrespect, the advocacy of lawlessness, violence or sedition, or attempts to impinge on the rights of others.

While GunReports.Com encourages robust discourse that furthers our understanding of all the issues affecting gun owners, comments that break GunReports.Com’s rules will be removed. In addition, we reserve the right to edit or delete individual comments, and in extreme cases, to ban commenters at our discretion.

--Tim Cole
Publisher, GunReports.Com

Comments (76)

Gaviota, I don't think you could be more right. I thought that this open exchange of ideas was healthy until this last batch where David C refused to recognize the facts. I don't believe that David C was ever interested in open dialogue or even gun rights. I think he is a liberal who intentionally got on this site to argue. I think he hates the military and appears as though he is above anyone who has served. People like him are whats wrong with this country. Good day!

Posted by: Robert J | October 5, 2009 7:22 AM    Report this comment

80 plus posts on the topic of Joe Wilson being irreverent to the Savior. I am sure we all agree that this is one of the things that make this country GREAT! We have the priviledge of voicing our opinions in a public forum WITHOUT excessive government intervention. Liberals aren't moving the goalposts, they are standing stalwart in front of them DARING us to take them down or lay down our weapons. For now, the whack jobs like Hannity and Limbaugh can spout what they want but the senior problem here is APATHY in our ranks. Where were all the conservatives in the 08 election? Gun Control is a microcosm of our National Politics and rampant economy woes. David C., please go balance the budget and leave us gun toting , bible hugging, ignorant conservatives alone. Your higher intellect is wasted on us.
Cheers, Lee W, Jeff W, Canovack,A Goodstat et al. Semper Fi

Posted by: Sharps | October 3, 2009 12:49 PM    Report this comment

You're in the X-ring, Jeff. That liberal reminds me of Monty Python's "Argument Sketch."

Sad, because I really began to believe in him. Too bad that, for liberals, ideology ALWAYS trumps truth.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | October 2, 2009 10:48 PM    Report this comment

Gaviota, your final comment and his were posted while I had the page open. I visted fatcheck.org after his posting and recognized the site was anti-NRA. I also found validity in your posts after reading some of the literature from different sites. Kinda hard to misguide an old dog when he's familiar with the field around him.

Posted by: JWallace | October 2, 2009 9:29 PM    Report this comment

Jeff, did you know that the Annenberg foundation funds Factcheck.org, and two of the most viciously, virulently, and venomously anti-gun organizations in the country, The Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center? Did you know that George Soros is a major contributor to both the Annenberg and the Tides Foundations, both of which openly support many other gun control organizations, including Mayor Bloomberg's gun ban outfit? Did you know that only a gormless liberal could point to a liberal-funded smear site and claim that it supports the truth of his views?

That's why there's such a strain in the public dialogue nowadays. Liberals keep moving the goalposts, hiding the ball, and claiming that everyone ELSE is cheating.

No point in staying to play a rigged game.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | October 2, 2009 7:17 PM    Report this comment

I found the following information @ onthe issues.org regarding Barack Obama on Gun Control:
Opposed bill okaying illegal gun use in home invasions. (Aug 2008)
Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

I'm sure someone else will come up with the Bills and Dates but this will get the feedback started. I believe this information supports our speculation that Obama is anti-gun. Not sure how you can respect the 2nd Amendment but ban guns though.

Posted by: JWallace | October 2, 2009 6:56 PM    Report this comment

NO. I'm done. They're on the internet, I found them easily, so you can look them up yourself. I'm through with you.

I should have known. I knew better. David (and that's the last time I will mention his pseudonym) is a liberal, and liberalism is not so much a political philosophy as it is a pernicious mental disease. Well, fine, I am no longer interested in continually repeating myself and continuing this conversation with this liberal, because I believe that he is deliberately being, with malice aforethought, dishonest with us. If I had any faith left in this liberal's integrity I would go back and list each of Obama's antigun votes by bill number and title, in both Illinois and Washington DC, but I am now firmly convinced that I could hand this liberal the bills themselves and he would still find an excuse to disbelieve me. During this entire debate, every post of this liberal has been slyly disparaging of us, our beliefs, our rationales for those beliefs, and contemptuous of our convictions regarding the philosophical, moral, and political basis for our liberty and government. He asks questions of us, then he ignores the answers, he can only mock and sneer when he is challenged to refute our ideas, and when he is asked questions, he simply ignores them.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | October 2, 2009 6:28 PM    Report this comment

So give me the bills and dates.

Posted by: broadswordsman | October 2, 2009 5:50 PM    Report this comment

"...not one of you!! Not one!! Has even gone to the trouble of investigating and stating what his voting record is!!

Voting records are facts!!! so show me!


I am simply aghast at David's statements. After I went to all the trouble of looking up Obama's voting record, and carefully transcribing the bills he voted for, and posting them here, David tells me that: a) I have not investigated, b) have not stated what his voting record is, and have not shown him Obama's voting record. I simply don't know how to get through to someone who insists, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that there IS NO evidence, and so he will not be persuaded.

Here is a RE-post of Obama's voting record:

He has voted to ban handguns and semi-automatic rifles in Illinois. He has voted to place prohibitive taxes on guns and ammunition. He has voted to ban all rifle ammo because it can penetrate handgun-bullet-resistant vests. He has voted to require that every gun owner and buyer in Illinois be required to undergo State-approved psychiatric testing, and submit those results to the State. He has voted to require micro-stamping by all handguns, he has voted to require serial numbering of every round of ammo. He has voted AGAINST every effort to repeal, or even modify, the unconstitutional anti-gun laws in effect in Illinois. THESE ARE NOT THINGS HE ONLY TALKED ABOUT. THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT HE DID!

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | October 2, 2009 5:25 PM    Report this comment

Voting records are facts!!! so show me!

Posted by: broadswordsman | October 2, 2009 12:19 PM    Report this comment

David C, I think we can all agree on the gun laws that Gaviota labeled people control laws. The problem is the 1994 Assault Weapons ban you mentioned. Before 1994 these weapons were only used in less than 1% of crimes. To pass the ban the best you could hope for is a reduction in crime of less than 1%. However, even that didn't happen because those less than 1% would use other weapons. The stats on the 10 year ban did nothing to reduce crime. So why do members of the Democratic party want to reintroduce this ban? Not for public safety, stats have proven otherwise. Their goals are to ban guns completely. The Brady Bunch has a 17 step program of what you call common sense gun laws with the end result of a total gun ban. You your self did not understand why anyone would want to own these scary weapons and did not see the harm in banning them. The agenda is baby steps towards a total ban, sold to the public as common sense gun laws because they are dangerous scary weapons. A .233 bullet is far less lethal than any deer hunting round out there. We are not paraniod, as you previously labeled us, about Obama wanting to take our guns. He not only supports that agenda, he has voted for bills to support that agenda, and surrounds himself with people who support that agenda. If it smells like dog poo, it probably is.

Posted by: Robert J | October 2, 2009 11:51 AM    Report this comment

"Where liberty dwells there is my country," and, furthermore,"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety." Benjamin Franklin.
Is this hyperbole for you as well David?

Posted by: aGoodstat | October 2, 2009 6:04 AM    Report this comment

You agreed with me that certain felons among others should be prevented from owning guns, but you called this legislation “People Control Laws”; I don’t know what that means.

It means, my friend, that criminal offenses can be broken down into two general categories: malum in se and malum prohibitum. The distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum offenses is best characterized as follows: a malum in se offense is "naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community," whereas a malum prohibitum offense is wrong only because a statute makes it so.

So, a law prohibiting provision of guns to minors, incompetents, and criminals is a malum in se law, or what I call "people control laws," and those are reasonable laws. Laws which prohibit a free citizen from exercising his civil right to carry a concealed weapon in public are malum prohibitum laws, or what I call unconstitutional human rights violations.

Reasonably speaking, of course, with no hyperbole.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | October 1, 2009 10:58 PM    Report this comment

Hey, extremism in support of liberty is no vice.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | October 1, 2009 10:22 PM    Report this comment

If I believe in licensing laws regarding auto ownership does that mean I am “anti car”?

Do you honestly believe that you should have to put up with, say, New Jersey's gun laws as applied to buying a car? Should you have to apply to the police for permission to buy, get three character references from non-family members, undergo a mental health screening test, pay for a permit to keep it at home, and another permit to take it out of your garage, and still another permit to conceal it under a tarp, go through state and federal background checks, wait for six months, and then finally get to drive it off of the lot, but only if it is on the state-approved car list, and the police have inspected it for seven different safety interlocks to prevent you from driving drunk, running out of gas on the Garden State Parkway, or rear-ending someone at a busy intersection?

Doesn't sound like fun to me. I wouldn't call supporting all that crap being "anti-car," I'd call it insane. Which is what I call New Jersey's gun laws.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | October 1, 2009 10:21 PM    Report this comment

Gaviota I’m not given to hyperbole and before this post I didn’t think you were.

Posted by: broadswordsman | October 1, 2009 10:06 PM    Report this comment

Out of curiosity what would you have us do? No laws restricting access to guns at all?

YES! YES! YES! Finally you speak truth to power! We are law-abiding, righteous, honorable, and free citizens, and we don't have to prove our worth to unelected kommissars. Back when you could buy a Thompson submachine gun at the hardware store with a wad of cash and a handshake, the Prohibition gangsters were stealing BAR Light Machine guns from US Government armories. Most of them held the Thompson in contempt, regardless of what Hollywood protrayed. The gangsters were shot, jailed, killed, stuck into boxes, and their gang existence terminated, all without any gun laws. Did gun laws help stop the gangsters? NO, cops and citizens with guns stopped the gangsters. That's how it was, how it is, and how it always will be.

Moderates are people who believe in bending with the wind to avoid breaking. Those of us who build skyscrapers have no use for them.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | October 1, 2009 10:02 PM    Report this comment

Burglaries, straw-buyers, community gang property, or loaners, it doesn't matter HOW violent criminal actors (VCAs) get their guns. It's already illegal, and piling on more and more pieces of paper to make it MORE AND MORE illegal cannot do anything to help. It makes absolutely no difference what tools a VCA uses! The only way to control crime is to bodily seize the VCA and stick him in a box. You cannot stop a VCA unless and until you stick him in a box, and demanding that I surrender my civil rights in order to prevent a VCA from committing a crime is either sheer lunacy or malignant tyranny.

I’m glad you brought up armor-piercing bullets, machine guns and plastic firearms.

David! I didn't bring up armor-piercing bullets, machine guns and plastic firearms! Josh Sugarmann did when he was describing for Violence Policy Center staffers the best way to LIE to the American people about semi-auto rifles! And, morally speaking, there is no reason why a cop should have a select-fire rifle, but a citizen should not. The average law-abiding citizens in America are arrested at about the same rate as cops are, and if you don't believe me, look up Tennessee's CHL statistics. We don't live in a totalitarian country, and it is our right to have any damn thing we want without having to justify or prove a "need" to the government. It's up to the government to prove we don't deserve it, because we are innocent until proven guilty. How could you forget such a basic tenet of liberty?

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | October 1, 2009 10:00 PM    Report this comment

"...it looks like we just have a difference of opinion..."

Difference of opinion? Holy Tapdancing Abraham, David! We don't just have a difference of opinion, we have a difference of planets! How have you managed to read through ELEVEN paragraphs of my long-winded, blowhard dissertation, and still completely miss the point?

"...you do not accurately understand those who do not share your view..."

But I do understand them, all too well. There's no such thing a moderate when it comes to liberty, anymore than there's such a thing as "slightly dead" or "a little bit pregnant." Liberty is not a static condition, it is a constant firefight between those who want to destroy it, and those who want to enjoy it. People who consider themselves as 'moderates' on the subject of liberty are sheep, and are fit only for shearing and eating, and that's usually how they end up.

Again, and again, and again, the point is that you cannot control crime, or even slow it down, by restricting the civil rights of law-abiding citizens. EVER. The very fundamental philosophical principles on which gun control arguments are based are fatally flawed at their core and cannot be repaired. Didn't that concept just jump out at you? Gun control doesn't work, has never worked, and never will work because it is a violation of human nature, and that is why gun control arguments are based upon lies, misdirection, and deception, because if you tell the truth, clear-thinking, honest Americans don't want any part of gun control.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | October 1, 2009 9:58 PM    Report this comment

Of course I am familiar with the old adage that criminals who want guns can always get them. That is part of my point. It is already illegal for these people to own guns, how do they get them? I’m sure you will weigh in on this, but from my understanding they get their guns for the most part from burglaries of legitimate gun owners and straw buyers. I am not in favor of penalizing a person just because he was robbed, but I can say we can crack down on straw buyers.

I’m glad you brought up armor-piercing bullets, machine guns and plastic firearms. I failed to mention that I believe these should also be illegal. There is no legitimate reason an average citizen needs access to these weapons. For machine guns it is reasonable that police (including off-duty) should be able to possess. Also police departments and the military should have access to armor piercing bullets so that they can deal with circumstances that require their use.

BTW I am well acquainted with the distinctions between Assault Rifles (firearm possessing selective fire with an intermediate power cartridge utilizing a box type magazine and capable of being fired from the shoulder) and “Assault Weapons (general term for outlawed rifle)”; I was using the commonly used term for its usage.

Out of curiosity what would you have us do? No laws restricting access to guns at all?

Posted by: broadswordsman | October 1, 2009 8:18 PM    Report this comment

Gaviota, I guess I did not realize which questions you asked. I was attempting to address what I thought you had brought up. Why don’t you state the points you want addressed and I will make an attempt to deal with them?

I have read your post and it looks like we just have a difference of opinion of what is good public policy as far as gun control goes. From your post I take it that you really believe no “gun control” laws are legitimate or warranted. You agreed with me that certain felons among others should be prevented from owning guns, but you called this legislation “People Control Laws”; I don’t know what that means. Whatever you call it these are laws designed to keep firearms out of the hands of certain groups. If you don’t have laws enforcing this there is no way of restricting the distribution of firearms.

I think its disengueous and inaccurate when you characterize the president as an, “…anti-gun, gun-grabbing, gun-banner “. Just because a person believes in some legislation regarding gun ownership does not mean they are anti-gun and a gun grabber. If I believe in licensing laws regarding auto ownership does that mean I am “anti car”? I think there is a wide spectrum of gun control points of view, some like mine that I think are pretty reasonable all the way to those who believe guns should not be owned by private citizens at all. To group all these people in one group as “anti-gun” is inaccurate and only does your side a disservice because you do not accurately understand those who do not share your view. You make it easy for those with moderate points of view to dismiss your opinion because when you characterize them as “gun banners” and since we know that is not the case your credibility is compromised.

Posted by: broadswordsman | October 1, 2009 8:17 PM    Report this comment

Part 5

The only bill to my knowledge that has come before him that pertains to gun control is the Amtrak bill and he has chosen to allow that to become law (I don’t know if he signed it or chose not to veto it). In my view so far his gun control record has been pretty reasonable.

The AMTRAK bill wasn't a gun-control bill. Once again, it's a matter of record that Obama has voted FOR every single restriction of gun rights that has come up on his watch. He has voted to ban handguns and semi-automatic rifles in Illinois. He has voted to require every gun-owner to be licensed. He has voted to allow police to enter and inspect every gunowner's home without notice and without a warrant. He has voted to place prohibitive taxes on guns and ammunition. He has voted to ban all rifle ammo because it can penetrate handgun-bullet-resistant vests. He has voted to require that every gun owner and buyer in Illinois be required to undergo State-approved psychiatric testing, and submit those results to the State. He has voted to require micro-stamping by all handguns, he has voted to require serial numbering and registration of every round of ammo and every buyer. He has voted AGAINST every effort to repeal, or even modify, the unconstitutional anti-gun laws in effect in Illinois. THESE ARE NOT THINGS HE ONLY TALKED ABOUT. THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT HE DID!

If this guy were any more "reasonable" on the issue of guns, and actually succeeded in getting his "reasonable" agenda enacted, we'd all be fighting over his unconstitutional atlatl ban.

Sorry about the length. I've tried to be concise, but some things take a while to explain.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | October 1, 2009 7:26 PM    Report this comment

Part 4

There is one issue that we are not in agreement and that is the president believes there should be a ban on assault weapons. I believe they should be legal.

Good for you. However, for your information, the term "assault weapon" was a term of deliberate deception invented by the viruently, stridently anti-gun Violence Policy Center's Josh Sugarmann, who made this statement back in 1992:

"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."

The actual full-auto, select-fire, military firearm is called an "assault RIFLE." Ironically under the Clinton AWB, these were NOT banned. Only semi-auto rifles were banned, and the list of banned weapons was created by one of Sen. Chris Dodd's staffers who got hold of a Gun Digest annual issue, and copied the names of any guns with a picture that looked scary. Obviously that guy was a real crimefighting hero.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | October 1, 2009 7:14 PM    Report this comment

Part 3

The gun show loop hole should be closed. This allows our laws to be circumvented. There should be an instantaneous verification process.

There is no such thing as a "gun show loophole." The term "gun show loophole" was invented by the people who believe that individual citizens do not have the right to sell their personal property to each other without the government's say-so.

3) The second amendment should be respected and people right to own and process firearms should not be abridged.

And yet, every single one of your proposals will do exactly that. Infringe upon, abridge, and restrict a constitutionally enumerated right, for no valid reason, based upon a false and purposely misleading syllogism.

As far as I can tell from President Obama’s stated views and legislative history he shares similar views.

And that is precisely why we call him an anti-gun, gun-grabbing gun-banner.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | October 1, 2009 7:11 PM    Report this comment

Part 2

This is the basis of state rights and gun control laws should be no different than any other type of legislation.

Once again, there is no such thing as "states rights." States have authorities, responsibilities, and powers. Only individual citizens have rights. AND YES! Gun control laws should be no different! They are as illegitimate and unconstitutional as computer registration or newspaper reporter licensing. Gun rights under the 2nd Amendment are no different than free speech rights under the 1st.

2) There should be common sense licensing for gun ownership. This would screen out people who should not own or process firearms.

Licensing serves one purpose, and one purpose only - to identify and locate gun owners. People who should not own or possess firearms do not get their guns from dealers who screen buyers (with rare exceptions). Criminals who want guns always get what they want.

Felons, people convicted of domestic abuse, drug addicts or the mentally ill should not be able to own guns. Children should not be able to purchase guns (under parental knowledge they can use family guns).

Yes, of course, this is fine, because these are not gun control laws. They are people control laws. For the same reason that we don't sell whiskey and automobiles to teenage boys, or bleach and ammonia to little girls, we keep dangerous products out of the hands of criminals, incompetents, and children. However, the term "felon" is too broad. The only felons who should be disenfranchised are violent felons. Tax protesters, people who refuse to cooperate with law enforcement officers, insider traders, and other non-violent types should not lose their constitutional rights after they have paid their debts.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | October 1, 2009 7:10 PM    Report this comment

David, you didn't answer a single one of my questions. You do that a lot, you know. Now let ME explain why I believe YOUR beliefs to be in error.

Gun control legislation like any nuanced complex issue deserves thoughtful analysis.

Gun control legislation has been analyzed and reanalyzed continuously for years, ever since 1964, after JFK's assassination. The only truly scientific, academic studies that have ever been done (even the ones done by scientists with anti-gun leanings) have ALL concluded that gun control laws do not work to control crime. Every single one. I refer you to the CDC, Don Kates, Gary Kleck, John Lott, et. al.

I know for many posters on this blog that they consider their views black and white and that any gun control is too much. But I wonder if this is entirely true.

Yes, it is. Since is has been scientifically documented that strict gun control laws serve only to increase crime rates by causing skyrocketing smuggling, formation of crime cartels, home manufacturing, and public turf wars over market share, any gun control laws enacted based upon the false premise that laws reduce crime is a violation of our civil rights. That is undeniably true. It happened after the Volstead Act of 1919, aka Prohibition, and it's happening right now with our War on Drugs. How much more evidence does a "reasonable" man need?

1) Cities and states should have the power to legislate on gun control issues as long as it does not violate the 2nd amendment.

But those laws DO violate the 2nd Amendment. They are a clear infringment upon the right to keep and bear arms, and have been since the Sullivan law was enacted in 1911 by Tammany Hall.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | October 1, 2009 7:08 PM    Report this comment

Gun control legislation like any nuanced complex issue deserves thoughtful analysis. I know for many posters on this blog that they consider their views black and white and that any gun control is too much. But I wonder if this is entirely true. For example let me state my views on this subject:
1) Cities and states should have the power to legislate on gun control issues as long as it does not violate the 2nd amendment. This is the basis of state rights and gun control laws should be no different than any other type of legislation.
2) There should be common sense licensing for gun ownership. This would screen out people who should not own or process firearms. Felons, people convicted of domestic abuse, drug addicts or the mentally ill should not be able to own guns. Children should not be able to purchase guns (under parental knowledge they can use family guns). The gun show loop hole should be closed. This allows our laws to be circumvented. There should be an instantaneous verification process.
3) The second amendment should be respected and people right to own and process firearms should not be abridged.
As far as I can tell from President Obama’s stated views and legislative history he shares similar views. There is one issue that we are not in agreement and that is the president believes there should be a ban on assault weapons. I believe they should be legal. The only bill to my knowledge that has come before him that pertains to gun control is the Amtrak bill and he has chosen to allow that to become law (I don’t know if he signed it or chose not to veto it). In my view so far his gun control record has been pretty reasonable.

Posted by: broadswordsman | October 1, 2009 2:05 PM    Report this comment

Obama seems to have earned LESS respect around the world than the respect the Dems have for him as their savior. I'm with Robert J on this one. Obama's actions speak far louder than his rhetoric.

Posted by: Sharps | October 1, 2009 9:55 AM    Report this comment

David C you are correct, the President of the United States does deserve respect while addressing Congress, however lets not be selective with this incident with Mr. Wilson. This appears to be a case of you reap what you sew. For the last couple of years there has been a handful of Congressional memebers call President Bush a liar on the House floor. Additionally, while President Bush was addressing Congress Democratic members booed(sp) him. Niether one of these cases I find acceptable behavior either, however it was allowed to happen so each year the bad behavior gets ramped up a little more. To get respect you have to give respect. Democrats like to look over that and are appalled when someone disrespects Obama, however were totally fine with disrespecting Bush. Double standard? You bet. The media has blame to share in this also. It used to be that the media watched over politicians and reported these actions to the masses so we could be informed. Then it was discovered that by using biased reporting you could change the course of politics. This was obvious in the last election. You like proof, and independent research study found that air time for Obama was considerably more than air time for McCain on every network accept for one. Our biased media is changing the shape of politics. Now, I'll stop because your response will be about FOX news. Fox news was the only news station that had an even amount of news coverage for both candidates, most stations didn't even come close. Most liberals don't mind this fact because it leans in their favor and they tell themselves its for the greater good. The greater good in this country is letting the people decide, not the media, who our next president should be. Therefore, I think the cause of Mr. Wilson's outburst can be linked to two reasons. Up to this point, disrespecting the President was acceptable and fustration from the media not putting the truth out there. So this is looking at the big picture, not a convienent snap shot you have zeroed in on.

Posted by: Robert J | October 1, 2009 9:31 AM    Report this comment

David C,
Are you refering to Chappaquidick? Barney Franke's shennagins? Pelosi's conflicts of interest? Selling of Senate seats? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's congressional wholesale robbery of the U.S.?. What behavior isn't acceptable in Congress anymore?. Drunk driving? Sexual assault? Tax Evasion? Where do you think Joe Wilson was, CHURCH???????
David C, POTUS has to earn the respect of the body he addresses, it is one priviledge we have never voted on before. Being POTUS is a priviledge that is as illusive as respect itself. Look what Mr. Obama's agenda did for Chicago,Ill.(the graft and murder capitol of this country). As I said before, HONESTY is ALWAYS the best policy. Do you really think he commands respect while apologizing for the common citizenship of the USA all over the globe?. Glad to see that you think POTUS should be held to a different standard than those paying his salary.

Posted by: Sharps | October 1, 2009 12:37 AM    Report this comment

Yes, those five Obama gun control record questions. If you would, please.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | September 30, 2009 8:08 PM    Report this comment

Just so I have it correct: The one about President Obama's record on gun control legislation?

Posted by: broadswordsman | September 30, 2009 5:22 PM    Report this comment

David: Yes, and yes. Now, would you care to address the questions I asked you in my 9/29 post?

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | September 30, 2009 5:14 PM    Report this comment

Sharps, are there any limits on what is acceptable for behavior in congress when the President of the United States is addressing the body? Does the office of the President deserve any deference or respect?

Posted by: broadswordsman | September 30, 2009 2:09 PM    Report this comment

Thus far, Obama has lied about his education, his teaching credentials,his dual citizenships, his relationship with Robert Ayers, Fullbright Scholarship?????,and most importantly to THIS group, his position on the 2nd Amendment. He has teetered around the globe making apologies for the U.S. that are uncalled for and off point. He has surrounded himself with a huge crowd of liberals that really believe "money grows on trees". His campaign to let any and ALL illegal immigrants into this country is in full force. He is sworn to uphold the laws of this great nation and he has not done so . WE HAVE IMMIGRATION LAWS that are not enforced, and actually countermanded by his entourage. He endorses federal programs to provide health care for illegal immigrants( please note the term illegal)and is doing all he can to transfer OUR freedoms to the "Underserviced". This man thinks that Obama is glass transparent and needs a real awakening in 2012! Hoo Rah Joe Wilson and keep telling it like you see it. HONESTY is the best policy.

Posted by: Sharps | September 30, 2009 10:05 AM    Report this comment

David C,
If we look closely at Obama's group of czars, his appointment of Sotomayer, and all of his voting thus far, we get a very clear picture of the man you and your son's debate team voted for. That's YOUR perogative. However, instead of insulting the likes of Robert J. and Lee W. perhaps you should be thanking them for your right to disagree in public AND in English! I am going to go out on a limb and project that you never offered up your life for our precious country. I suspect that you know nothing of the military OR it's intelligience community. Sit back by your home fire and bad mouth this country to your hearts content. We will STILL be safeguarding your safety and your right to be liberal. You could use a few weeks in the dust and heat with nothing but your fat head to keep you alive. Semper Fi.

Posted by: Sharps | September 30, 2009 1:02 AM    Report this comment

DAVID C. I don't know what posts of Robert J's you are reading but every one that I have read from him has said that he is judging people by what they say and what they do. He is even telling you the deeds that he is going by. It looks like to me you are just talking about "facts" that back up what you want to believe and you are not looking into the facts that don't go along with what you think or want to think. The best way to measure a man is to look at his past actions. This is what Robert J.is telling you that he is doing. It seems like to me you have not really looked into Obama's past so it looks like you are the one that is judging people by just their words and their labels.
From my previous post to you David C.I am still waiting for you to show me where you are getting the facts you were basing your earlier comments on. It seems to me that you are just on here to argue your point and try to tell other people that what they believe is wrong. If you can back up what you say with facts I will be more than willing to read your post with an open mind. But you haven't given me any facts. And you don't listen when people give you facts.

Posted by: aGoodstat | September 29, 2009 8:42 PM    Report this comment

You know, guys, I'm voting with Jeff, here. There are posters on this site who can do differential and integral calculus with a pen, but they have lousy handwriting and can't remember the distinction between 'their' and 'there.' I can spell and write fluently, but I have difficulty remembering the multiplication tables.

Let's all give each other a break here, and quit with the cheap shots. We're all on the same side, remember?

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | September 29, 2009 8:20 PM    Report this comment

May I have the pleasure of pointing out to David C his spelling error? "So what anti-gun legislation as (sp) he passed since he became president?" I guess none of us are infallible. With that being said, I'll return to my seat in the audience.

Posted by: JWallace | September 29, 2009 7:31 PM    Report this comment

Robert, I've learned several things about responding to David's posts. Use no humor. Use no pejoratives. Use no generalizations. Use no colloquialisms. State no beliefs. Cite all sources to back up any statements.

David, you posted: "4) You said President Obama “want[s] to take our guns”. You said “[the president] has spend (sp) his entire political career passing anti-gun legislation.” So what anti-gun legislation as he passed since he became president?"

In his legislative past, both as Illinois State Senator from Chicago, and as the Junior Senator from Illinois in the national congress, Obama has supported gun control legislation. Any and all gun control legislation. Every single gun rights restriction bill that Obama has EVER had the chance to vote on, he has voted "Aye." This is demonstrably true, and is a matter of historical record. So why would you ask that question about his passing gun control legislation during his presidency? With his record, and considering the obvious facts that the President doesn't "pass" legislation, he just signs it, and knowing, as you must, that Congress has not sent the President any gun control legislation to sign, why would you ask an invidious, narrowly focused question that doesn't apply to either Robert's statement or Obama's record? What is your point? That Robert's belief that Obama is anti-gun is wrong? Or were you just zinging him?

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | September 29, 2009 4:45 PM    Report this comment

I guess you and I are different. I judge people based on their words and deeds and not on labels that some people come up with.

Posted by: broadswordsman | September 29, 2009 3:20 PM    Report this comment

1) I do not have any evidence other than the numbers he quoted included illegals, so I used the 2+2=4 theory. I have no proof other than doing the math. 2) Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was using the stimulus plan as an example of how they pushed through a bill before anyone knew what was in it. I didn't mean there was anything in it for illegals. 3) Sorry once again for not being clear, when I stated numbers I meant number of people not budget numbers. If you noticed, after he was confronted about illegals his new numbers were minus the illegals. I think he wants illegals, however if it becomes a liability he will throw them under the bus to get his plan passed if need be, and then go on to plan B which will be to make them legal so they will then get the health care, more than one way to skin a cat. 4) Your wrong, the word I used was not. Please read my post again, I may make a spelling error here and there that you are so nice to point out, however I can read. I feel you get more out of reading to understand than reading to find fault in everything someone says. As for the Clinton question you answered it just as I thought, I just wanted to expose your political bias. You were really worked up about Bush lying, however was very forgiving when it came to Clinton. I don't know how it is where you work, most people would get fired for banging an intern.

Posted by: Robert J | September 29, 2009 2:05 PM    Report this comment

Robert J you have said four things that I wonder if you would give me some insight in where you got your information.
1) The president wanted illegal aliens covered by health care until he was exposed by the tea parties. Does that mean he no longer wants to include illegal aliens? As I said in the earlier post what evidence do you have that he wanted to extend benefits to illegal aliens?
2) You talked about the Democrats trying to slip into the Stimulus Bill provisions to extend benefits to illegal aliens but this too was exposed and he is now back tracking. Do you realize the Stimulus Bill is an entirely different piece of legislation and not the healthcare proposal? The stimulus bill was actually several different pieces of legislation that was first passed by President Bush and later by President Obama and concerned the bank bailouts and economic stimulus.
3) The next thing you said is that the budget includes money to cover illegal aliens. How do you know this? Whose analysis are you relying on?
4) You said President Obama “want[s] to take our guns”. You said “[the president] has spend (sp) his entire political career passing anti-gun legislation.” So what anti-gun legislation as he passed since he became president?
As far a Clinton being impeached for lying in a civil deposition about having an extramarital affair, I do not believe impeachment was warranted. What someone does behind closed doors between consenting adults is none of the government’s business.

Posted by: broadswordsman | September 29, 2009 1:35 PM    Report this comment

I do think President Obama and the Democratic Party want illegals in the health care plan to expand the Democratic voter base. I think that was a for sure plan up until the tea parties when this desire got exposed. I think they were going to do the same thing they did with the Stimulous Bill and insert whatever they wanted and pass it real quick before anyone has a chance to read it. Of course, that plan failed and now when confronted Obama has said that is not his desires. The numbers he first quoted for people who need health care coverage included illegals, so you tell me his desires? You are correct, I have not heard him say that he wanted illegals in his plan, however would he really come out and say that or sneak it in the bill unnoticed? I will say this, President Obama is a very intelligent man and does an excellent job shielding himself from the dirty work or looking bad. I judge politicians on their actions, not on what they say because I have found that the two do not correspond all the time. To give you an example, Obama said he did not want to take our guns, however his actions have shown that he has spend his entire political career passing anti-gun legislation. Actions speak louder than words. If I were to believe Obama when he said, only once confronted not volunteering the statement, he didn't want illegals in the health care plan, I would be a fool. I'm curious David C, Did you agree with impeaching President Clinton when he lied?

Posted by: Robert J | September 29, 2009 12:49 PM    Report this comment

Robert J, you say that the President wants illegal aliens included in the health plan even though he explicitly said that this is not his desire. How do you know this is his intention? Is he quoted somewhere saying that? Have you read the legislation and this is what it says? It is my understanding that the dispute surrounds the fact that the legislation that the president is endorsing does not contain an identity card provision. This would potentially allow people who should not qualify for benefits to receive some benefits. Many people are opposed to requiring an identity card to receive medical benefits this includes many conservatives who have traditionally been opposed to national ID cards. It looks however that the final bill may well include a requirement to verify identity for benefits.
As far as 20 Democratic members of congress requesting Nancy Pelosi to include coverage of illegal Immigrants into the legislation, I have not heard that but it may be true. Most members of congress who are Hispanic are Democrats and there certainly may well be some who wish benefits be extended to illegal aliens. That however does not mean that Nancy Pelosi is going to lobby their position.

Posted by: broadswordsman | September 29, 2009 9:36 AM    Report this comment

Just last night it was reported that 20 some Democratic members of Congress requested Nancy Pelosi to put coverage for illegal immigrants into the health care plan. Bottom line is Obama and the Democratic Party want coverage for illegal immigrants into the health care plan. When somebody posted they read the bill and it doesn't contain such coverage, Impossible. The final bill that will get voted on is not in place yet. This issue has been smoke and mirror game, its obvious what Obama wants illegals in the health care bill. I don't agree with the actions of Mr. Wilson, however when our media is biased and the truth is not out there to be found, I think frustration got the best of him, still inappropiate action. Just for the record there has been a handful of members of Congress that have called Bush a liar on the House floor, not during a speech, both cases inappropriate. Obama wants illegals in the bill and that is why there was a big rush to get it passed so people wouldn't find out what their tax dollars were being spent on. The numbers he quoted included illegals. I guess we need to set aside further discussion on this issue until the final Health Care Bill is passed, until then this is all speculation.

Posted by: Robert J | September 29, 2009 6:56 AM    Report this comment

Just out of curiosity can any of you tell me what the President said that is a lie? I mean specifically. That means no "He can't be trusted". Specifically the legislation that allows illegal immigrants to gain access to his proposed healthcare system.

Posted by: broadswordsman | September 28, 2009 8:22 PM    Report this comment

I would rather have a rude congressman standing against a lie, than a whole congress unwilling to take a stand for the truth.

Posted by: Vernon R | September 28, 2009 7:49 PM    Report this comment

I feel like, yeah it was a bit rude of Wilson to say what he said in the manner in which he said it. But I can deal with this better than I can deal with some of the sh!t that other people in Congress do and say! At least he was telling the truth! I was beginning to believe that nothing of truth could come out of Congress. If the liberal media showed half of the dirt on the rest of Congress, the way they have broadcasted Wilson's statement, that would be all that would be on the news for the next 6 months. I can't relly speak of Congress as being upstanding gentlemen. Not as a whole anyway.

Posted by: aGoodstat | September 28, 2009 3:09 PM    Report this comment

After 9-11 the ENTIRE country shouted for retaliation in one form or another. Bush or no Bush, we WOULD STILL BE IN IRAQ,IRAN, AND AFGHANISTAN, as well as 50 other countries around the globe because of our CONGRESS and the need for fossil fuels. We also owe a great deal of money to these countries.David C. probably gets a great deal of funding in his career from local gov't agencies, so calling them by their real name is taboo.We have only the U.S. Congress to blame for their extension of power to the oligarchy. Leave a puppet like Bush out of the mix and you STILL have the same struggle. Obama will be no different. Congress is the "Commander in Chief" and it is a miserable failure to date. Semper Fi.

Posted by: Sharps | September 28, 2009 10:32 AM    Report this comment

Thank you Robert J.! Very well put! You said in plain english what I was trying to get across by asking David C. questions. I was asking him those questions to maybe get him to think about what he was saying and figure out for himself if he could actually back it up with facts. I agree with you whole heartedly Robert J. And Thank You for your service!
Justin

In God we Trust

Posted by: aGoodstat | September 28, 2009 8:53 AM    Report this comment

I believe Bush was justified going into Iraq for numerous reasons that I know about and I believe there are probably more that I don't know about. David C you only seem to focus, with tunnel vision, on one point while this issue is much more complex. For all we know, one of the reasons may have been for a staging area for dealing with Iran's nukes. Could you imagine at this point if we were forced to take military action against Iran and we had never went into Iraq. We would not be able to use Iraq as a staging area to deal with Iran. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say Bush did not tell the whole truth. This may have been for military strategy and not to show your poker hand so to speak. I don't think the president is required to check in with the liberal media or even the people at large to justify a military action. Ike didn't do it for Normandy for example. Bush had Congressional approval, end of story. I am not a big huge Bush fan as you may think, however I think he has been smeared for political gain and thats what I find irresponsible. I apologize if my wording has not been on the level of your debate team. My point all along was that neither one of us can prove that our country was justified or not for going into Iraq, due to classified information. I feel it is for political gain that people smeared Bush. I guess I am sensitive about that when the mother of my friend that was killed in action in Iraq has people like yourself, who do not have all the facts, telling her her son died due to a lie. That to me is disgraceful to her and her son Andy, to our military, our leaders sticking their necks out for the protection of freedom, and our country as a whole. To disgrace all these people so you can get your candidate elected, hope your proud of yourself. I believe in fredom of debate and challenging our leaders, I feel that debate ends once this country commits to war and puts troops on the ground. David C. if you like the fact that you can debate in english, your welcome!

Posted by: Robert J | September 28, 2009 8:33 AM    Report this comment

Did someone actually raise their head when one politician called another a liar? Interesting, two wars, a depression and the truth should not be heard.

Posted by: JWallace | September 27, 2009 3:54 PM    Report this comment

In my opinion, attacking Iraq was justified when attempts were made to shoot down our military planes patrolling and enforcing the no fly zone over Iraq. That reason alone was good enough for me. Then again, I haven't studied political science. You are not required to look for other justifiable excuses if you react at the time of agression. I also do not wish to turn this into a debate so someone can practice their single talent in life.

Posted by: JWallace | September 27, 2009 3:49 PM    Report this comment

I am obviously interested in where you are getting the facts to back up your comments but you do not seem to be willing to share this.
I don't have all of the information concerning us invading Iraq.I feel like we invaded Iraq because of the information available at hand. And yes, I am glad that Hussein is no longer in the picture.
I don't have all the facts. I don't claim to! And I am also not being disrespectful of our previous President or our military by "parroting" what the liberal media has published. Like so many people I have seen over the last several years.

Posted by: aGoodstat | September 25, 2009 9:42 PM    Report this comment

From your post I presume that you believe the United States was justified in invading Iraq. Just out of curiosity could you tell me the justification for the invasion? Was it that Saddam Husain had something to do with 9/11? Or was it that he possessed undisclosed WMD that he might use against us or his neighbors? Or was it that he was a cruel despot who killed his own citizens and therefore could not be trusted? Did we want to control the oil in this country? Or is it something else? I am interested in your take on this.

Posted by: broadswordsman | September 25, 2009 8:23 PM    Report this comment

I am saying that there are a lot of people that think they know all of the facts about Iraq but until one of them(maybe that's you,DAVID C.) can prove what they are saying is fact then I don't feel like their argument has any credibility.
I don't know if you have ever been in the position to where you had to make a decision based on the information at hand, but some people have to. Some people even have to do this while in the national spotlight.Sometimes while in the spotlight you have to make yourself look bad for the good of the people that you are over.(I'm not insinuating that this is the case but I can't prove that it's not and I have a feeling that you can't either) And you cannot give all of the details that have been uncovered.
You keep saying that what people write should be backed up by facts. Where are your facts? The only thing you have submitted as fact was a youtube link that you copied from someone else's post.And this youtube video is of a person that you insist is a perpetual liar. How can you say that this is fact?

Posted by: aGoodstat | September 25, 2009 6:50 PM    Report this comment

I applaud your sagacity in not defending Bush. But isn’t it backwards to ask if I can prove Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? If you postulate a premise you need to prove it. Saddam may have been a nasty guy but that does not mean he is responsible for all the bad things that happened.

From your argument I guess you are unconvinced that Al-Qaeda was responsible and you believe Saddam was behind 9/11? Is that correct?

Posted by: broadswordsman | September 25, 2009 5:11 PM    Report this comment

First off, I was not defending Bush. I said nothing about Bush. I asked if you could prove that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?
I understand that Bush made a comment on this saying that Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11. But I don't understand how that, when according to you, Bush was nothing but a liar and that everything he said was a lie, that you can all of the sudden take what he says as fact when it is what you want to hear.
In God we Trust.

Posted by: aGoodstat | September 25, 2009 3:48 PM    Report this comment

Dear Gun Reports site users: While I don't think these postings have degenerated into the name-calling we're all trying to avoid, they are sliding that way...so allow me to invite everyone to re-read the civil discourse blurb at the top of this thread. I would like involvement of GRC administrators to be kept to a bare minimum (because monitoring means time and therefore money)... but I will have to take the thread down if the verbal hand grenades continue. We can disagree with one another (vociferously!) without hurling insults...Best wishes, and thanks for contributing...Tim Cole, Publisher

Posted by: TCole | September 25, 2009 12:38 PM    Report this comment

I would like to apologize, I should not have tried to engage with someone who greatly suffers from Bush Derangement Syndrome. I did not mention you by name first, you attacked me. That my friend was rude. I was trying to discuss concepts and ideas and you went right for the personal attacks on me and how my family raised me. You were right in your last post, you are confused. It is rather obvious that you have not served in the military so maybe its my fault thinking those who have not would understand. I do stand behind aGoodstat's comment, for he understands. The facts about Iraq are many, not just your little piece about 9/11, like Gaviota said there is a difference between lying and being wrong. Have you forgot about Kuwait? Do you remember those years of sanctions under President Clinton for Iraq that did not work? Should we have just left Iraq alone so they could become what Iran is today? We could debate the issues of Iraq all day long, however I thik you have developed such a hatred of Bush that no logical discussion can take place which expains your personal attacks on me. I'm a big boy, I can take it. I have no problem standing up for what I believe in and its not clouded by politics. You did a nice job of trying to play the victim to start, that's how I knew you were a liberal and therefore suffered from BDS.

Posted by: Robert J | September 25, 2009 11:16 AM    Report this comment

Robert J, I confess I am now thoroughly confused……In your latest post you said, “It was you that personally attacked me, which I find rude.” Where did this come from? My previous posts are right there, point it out. If I did I would be happy to apologize. What I did was point out the flaws in your argument and called you out for your rude language.

The next thing I’m trying to figure out is your next sentence, “I never attacked you personally by name because I was being polite in generalizing.” What does this mean? If someone says something that you take offense to--call them out! Don’t pussy foot around with “generalizing”. I’m still trying to get my arms around that! Generalizing and omitting my name is no cover.

This leads me to my next point. Why is it that you keep launching into some liberal vs. conservative generalization? Don’t you get it--this is between you and me!!!--your comments and mine.

BTW I wouldn’t throw my hat in with the comments by aGoodstat he already got shot down in his defense of George Bush by booth516’s post.

Posted by: broadswordsman | September 25, 2009 10:46 AM    Report this comment

David C., I think the aGoodstat comment said better what I was trying to say. But first lets address the rude issue. It was you that personally attacked me, which I find rude. I never attacked you personally by name because I was being polite in generalizing. That is the difference I find between conservatives and liberals, conservatives attack principles and concepts and liberals personally attack people. So thank you, you made that point for me. When I made the comment about you not knowing everything I was not insulting your intelligence. I don't know everything about the Iraq situation either, that was my point. What I do know for a fact is that our leaders have intelligence reports that we will never see. With that being said, by judging our leaders on their actions without all the imformation is "arm chair quarterbacking" the situation which I find ignorant and irresponsible. I find that alot of what some of our media, politicians, and others were saying about Iraq was for political gain and not for the good of this country. Trying to undermine the President for political gain during a war I find disgraceful and disrespectful to those of us who have serve and are currently serving in our arm forces.

Posted by: Robert J | September 25, 2009 7:10 AM    Report this comment

Many people called Bush a liar because he lied saying Iraq was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center.

There's a difference between lying and being wrong. Many, many times George Bush has admitted that he had been wrong about Saddam's involvement in 9/11, and possession of WMD's. That doesn't make him a liar.

It's being a politician that automatically makes him a liar.

James H - My information was that there are presently four or five different bills, and over 200 amendments pending on this issue. Some of the bills and amendments do indeed contain provisions for illegals, and some deny coverage. Nothing has been finalized.

While Joe Wilson's outburst was impolite, discourtesy is a minor sin. Like the Democrats booing Bush during his 2005 State of the Union Address. None of them got censured like they did Joe. All of this niggling wrangling is meaningless, anyway. This is what happens when party loyalty becomes more important than the Constitution. Congress fiddles while America burns.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | September 24, 2009 10:04 PM    Report this comment

Iraq was about WMDs, Saddam had them and the whole world knew about it, and, what he had up untill the prez of that time frame had Bagdad bombed to get peoples minds off Monica. The WMDs were found but not in the quantities they knew he had, they did find five hundred tons of yellow cake that they kept under wraps untill they could get the stuff out of the country. Canada now has all of the yellow cake in its possesion, there was a lot of crap that Bush took for the benefit of the American people, also for their safety, you will not see the present administration do anything for the people, except take from them.
The present administration has no experience sacrificing for themselves let alone the country, untill you've experienced being on a perimeter all night watching the darkness get so thick you can feel and taste it as it gets into all your senses, you don't know what its like to sacrifice for your country, if you haven't been there don't criticize the military experience.
As far as the illegals, Obama was going to legalise them from the beginning, they want to "bullit proof" their voting block, HC is just iceing on the cake.
The MSM is the reason we "lost" the war in Nam, even General Giap wrote about how the MSM of America helped N. Viet Nam win the war. Lets give credit where it's due.
We need to show support to all those who actually "care" about the American people enough to speak out for us, regardless of who they are speaking against, politicians who "choose" to lie to the people to project an agenda that in the end will do far more harm than good, need to be called on it.

Posted by: Vernon R | September 24, 2009 9:23 PM    Report this comment

First off, David C., can you actually prove that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? Or are you just going by what the liberal media told you?
Second, technically, Robert J.,didn't call you names. He gave his opinion of people, that say things, in the manner that he described or act, in the manner in which he described.
I would dare say that it is just as offensive to him, for you to say the things that you said, as it was to you, for him to say the things that he said. Have you ever thought about how it makes a veteran feel when you say that their service (or those that are still serving) was/is in the wrong(or it was for the wrong reasons) or that all the service people that have died for a particular cause died because of a lie, when you cannot actually prove it. When you say something about Bush being in the wrong and just blaming Bush for all of it(first of all your not seeing the whole picture) you may not realize it but you are talking about all of the troops that have served under Bush and the ones that are still serving.
One more thing, serving in the military helps you to see the reality of life. It helps to remove a person's "dreamy-eyes" so they can see reality.

Posted by: aGoodstat | September 24, 2009 3:50 PM    Report this comment

“Illegal immigrants, I'm sorry undocumented workers ( I want to be politically correct, however this is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist )” Actually not. Your logic is failing you again. A drug dealer traffics in illegal drugs (and perhaps as well as legal drugs).

Posted by: broadswordsman | September 24, 2009 3:05 PM    Report this comment

Robert J you are being disingenuous now. You never addressed me? There is no other post regarding Bush’s responsibility for misleading the US population. So whose comments were you addressing? Is it just a coincidence that your comment came right after mine? “Ignorant and irresponsible is a state of being”. What does this mean? Not name calling? They are adjectives just like “stupid” is an adjective. If I said you were stupid wouldn’t that be name-calling? If I said it was just your state of being would that negate this usage?

What is the non-sequitur about your service in the military? Good for you but how does this buttress your argument that I, “have absolutely no idea what [I am} talking about.” Your argument would be more persuasive if you did not employ logical fallacies and buttressed your arguments with facts.

Posted by: broadswordsman | September 24, 2009 2:37 PM    Report this comment

Illegal immigrants, I'm sorry undocumented workers ( I want to be politically correct, however this is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist ) will actually be covered because the next move is to make them legal citizens. One way or another these people will be covered. There are a number of bills floating through Congress, no one knows which one is going to be passed. Obama did want illegals covered in a health plan, the hope was to get it passed through like the Stimulous Plan and Cap and Trade before anyone knew what was going on. Our mainstream media has done a poor job reporting, they are just pushing an agenda these days.

Posted by: Robert J | September 24, 2009 2:33 PM    Report this comment

David C., I never addressed you, please read my post again, your name never appeared once. This leads me to another saying "If you throw a rock at a pack of dogs, the first one that hollered is the one the got hit". Ignorant and irresponsible is a state of being, not name calling. I have been with the military for almost 25 years. I'm proud of my service, I'm proud of the men I serve with, I'm proud of our military, and I'm proud of our country. I take offense to the criticism of the Bush and Iraq topic by people who have absolutely no idea what their talking about in which the only facts they think they have come from the liberal base media with an agenda to win the last election by any cost. I guess if you would like an apology I can say I'm sorry the rock I threw hit you.

Posted by: Robert J | September 24, 2009 1:53 PM    Report this comment

Robert did your parents raise you to call people names and insult them? Either they did or you did not listen to them. I will not get into the merits of the argument. I would just like to point out your rude and demeaning post. You first called me naive and stupid. Then you said I was ignorant and irresponsible. To judge Bush alone for the Iraq war is both nieve (sp) and stupid. I would say that by commenting on such a subject where you will never have all the facts is "arm chair quarterbacking" which not only shows your ignorance but is publically irresponsible.

If that weren’t enough in the next sentence you again said that I was stupid. Please take the information you get from the lamestream media with a grain of salt before you go shooting your mouth off. Like my Sgt. used to tell me "Its better for people to think your stupid, rather than opening up your mouth and confirming it".
Shame on you Robert J! Its hateful demagogic posts like yours that lead these discussions to the gutter! If you have logical valid points say them and don’t demean yourself with name-calling.

Posted by: broadswordsman | September 24, 2009 1:03 PM    Report this comment

It is funny how some people just don't understand how the government works. It is not like the Wizard of Oz where there is one man behind the curtain, Oz, controlling everything. I believe there was Congessional approval to go into Iraq. I also believe there is more information on intelligence than any of us knows, which were factors in the decision to go into Iraq. Classified information we will never know or hear of. Additionally, some of these same Congress people who voted to go into Iraq latter changed their position, for political gain, and pointed their finger at Bush because that's all it takes to get the masses of uneducated Democrats going. Quick lesson: One man, Bush, was not solely responsible for going into Iraq. Additionally, one man, Bush, was not responsible for the collapse of the economy.

Have you noticed our overseas "war plan" did not change when we changed Presidents? To judge Bush alone for the Iraq war is both nieve and stupid. I would say that by commenting on such a subject where you will never have all the facts is "arm chair quarterbacking" which not only shows your ignorance but is publically irresponsible. Remember how much the Democrats were against torture and were on a witch hunt, until they found out that Nancy Pelosi knew about it all along. Please take the information you get from the lamestream media with a grain of salt before you go shooting your mouth off. Like my Sgt. used to tell me "Its better for people to think your stupid, rather than opening up your mouth and confirming it".

Posted by: Robert J | September 24, 2009 12:26 PM    Report this comment

Most of you are missing the point! It is not what Joe Wilson said, but when and where he said it. Wilson's "you lie" shout was wrong! President Obama did not lie about the illegal imigrant question! The protection is written into the bill I have read it!

Posted by: jehayes2 | September 24, 2009 12:06 PM    Report this comment

Many people called Bush a liar because he lied saying Iraq was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center.

Posted by: broadswordsman | September 24, 2009 11:27 AM    Report this comment

Fox News is almost the last bastion of responsible journalism in the US today.

Fox News and Gun Tests Magazine are almost the last bastions of responsible journalism in the US today.

There. Fixed it.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | September 23, 2009 5:19 PM    Report this comment

I'm glad someone finally called out Obama on his lies, the media sure as hell aren't doing it. FOX news is the only ones out there doing true reporting, that's why Obama won't go on their network. Regardless, the liberals are using the victim and racism cards to respond. They forget so fast, I wish I had a nickel for every time a liberal called Bush a lier the past 8 years.

Posted by: Robert J | September 22, 2009 12:52 PM    Report this comment

Add your comments ...

New to Gun Tests? Register for Free!

Already Registered? Log In