Obama will be speaking to all the school children of America this week

[noobiechickenlady]

Well, we all have our political opinions. What I'm concerned with is that the media threw this out there for the right and the left to chew on and they fell for it. Fighting over this issue for the past two weeks...it's a shame people don't realize what's going on here.

The media runs this country, more than Obama and more than our own local governments. They steer the wheel and we are all just along for the ride. I knew this would happen as soon as they hollered that Obama wants to know how the kids can help him.

 

[reinbeau]

the right to bear arms?
that is the BIG zero respect for consitutional rights.
WOOF!
not good enough for me.
Presidents have done much worse in the past and it was allowed by the citizens. In reality, it is probably too late to change much of the illegal growth of government that has occurred to-date. Its analogous to closing the door after the horses have bolted from the barn.

I love guns, have many. I want MORE gun control also.
We are not talking banning hunting rifles and all guns. We are talking about common sense control to keep handguns out of stupid hands.

The Constitution gives "basics" from times long past. The 2nd amendment gave the citizens the right to bear arms to protect themselves against infringement of a new government, a new country, a new nation.

In context that it was written, YOU MUST bring it up to current date. You can not use a statement from centuries ago to modern times. While we must keep the basic right, we must update to current times. Gun control is necessary as I see it.

Don't worry, our hunting rifles and such are going no where. Our handguns are going nowhere any time soon. BUT the control to keep it out of criminal hands etc. is very important.

Just which ones of all the gun laws already in existance keeps them from bad guys' hands? How have so-called gun control laws worked so far? Not very well, because it's impossible to control guns that way - by definition criminals break laws. So let me know when that great gun control starts working. It won't. Enforce the laws already on the books, but don't take away our means of self-protection, and that is what the 'gun control' advocates ultimately want. I sincerely hope you're happy when they come for all of our guns, because that most definitely is going to happen, if we allow it.

Did any of you follow that link posted by SKR8PN? Did you read what Obama says about the Constitution? I'll post a bit of it below. Thank you, SKR8PN, for finding the article I've been looking for, where Obama talks about the 'fundamentally flawed Constitution' and that he wants to 'break free from the essential constraints' of the Constitution. He's a constitutional scholar? Right.

Have any of you read the Federalist Papers (I have)? In there it's all laid out for you. The crafters of the Constitution wrote it specifically to limit big government. It was written to preserve individual rights first, then states' rights. But as has been said, this country will cease to exist as the United States, land of the free, when people figure out how to get the government to do more and more for them - until it tips to the point that the government controls all.

From that article:

Seven years before Barack Obama's "spread the wealth" comment to Joe the Plumber became a GOP campaign theme, the Democratic presidential candidate said in a radio interview the U.S. has suffered from a fundamentally flawed Constitution that does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.

In a newly unearthed tape, Obama is heard telling Chicago's public station WBEZ-FM in 2001 that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.

The Warren court, he said, failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.

Can I point out how fundamental the thought of 'redistribution of wealth' is to the tenants of socialism? A guy like that cares what's written in the Second Amendment? Nevermind the Tenth. He's a constitutional scholar who chafes at the constraints of the Constitution. Sorry, I do not feel safe with such a man at the helm of our government.

 

[Dace]

I just want to poke my little bitty head in here and say that I read the speech and I thought it was nicely done.

I have 4 kids all in school from freshman year in college down to 2nd grade. I think it is important that kids hear from folks other than their parents that school is important.

As a coach I will be sitting with my girls tonight asking them how their first day was an reminding them that school work comes first. I encourage them to do their best and manage their time well between school and practice, to get their homework done and out of the way. They get rewarded by skipping a lap when they bring me a 100% on a test/project/ assignment.

I think that we all have the obligation to support each other as parents and support the kids by letting them know that school is important and that we care.

BTW...I am not getting parental permission first either

 

[Big Daddy]

the right to bear arms?
that is the BIG zero respect for consitutional rights.
WOOF!
not good enough for me.
Presidents have done much worse in the past and it was allowed by the citizens. In reality, it is probably too late to change much of the illegal growth of government that has occurred to-date. Its analogous to closing the door after the horses have bolted from the barn.

I love guns, have many. I want MORE gun control also.
We are not talking banning hunting rifles and all guns. We are talking about common sense control to keep handguns out of stupid hands.

The Constitution gives "basics" from times long past. The 2nd amendment gave the citizens the right to bear arms to protect themselves against infringement of a new government, a new country, a new nation.

In context that it was written, YOU MUST bring it up to current date. You can not use a statement from centuries ago to modern times. While we must keep the basic right, we must update to current times. Gun control is necessary as I see it.

Don't worry, our hunting rifles and such are going no where. Our handguns are going nowhere any time soon. BUT the control to keep it out of criminal hands etc. is very important.

Just which ones of all the gun laws already in existance keeps them from bad guys' hands? How have so-called gun control laws worked so far? Not very well, because it's impossible to control guns that way - by definition criminals break laws. So let me know when that great gun control starts working. It won't. Enforce the laws already on the books, but don't take away our means of self-protection, and that is what the 'gun control' advocates ultimately want. I sincerely hope you're happy when they come for all of our guns, because that most definitely is going to happen, if we allow it.

Did any of you follow that link posted by SKR8PN? Did you read what Obama says about the Constitution? I'll post a bit of it below. Thank you, SKR8PN, for finding the article I've been looking for, where Obama talks about the 'fundamentally flawed Constitution' and that he wants to 'break free from the essential constraints' of the Constitution. He's a constitutional scholar? Right.

Have any of you read the Federalist Papers (I have)? In there it's all laid out for you. The crafters of the Constitution wrote it specifically to limit big government. It was written to preserve individual rights first, then states' rights. But as has been said, this country will cease to exist as the United States, land of the free, when people figure out how to get the government to do more and more for them - until it tips to the point that the government controls all.

From that article:

Seven years before Barack Obama's "spread the wealth" comment to Joe the Plumber became a GOP campaign theme, the Democratic presidential candidate said in a radio interview the U.S. has suffered from a fundamentally flawed Constitution that does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.

In a newly unearthed tape, Obama is heard telling Chicago's public station WBEZ-FM in 2001 that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.

The Warren court, he said, failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.

Can I point out how fundamental the thought of 'redistribution of wealth' is to the tenants of socialism? A guy like that cares what's written in the Second Amendment? Nevermind the Tenth. He's a constitutional scholar who chafes at the constraints of the Constitution. Sorry, I do not feel safe with such a man at the helm of our government.

You probably need to determine what he actually means by redistribution of wealth. Please don't bother telling me what's in his head. You don't know.

As for gun laws. There's not much you can do at this point. There's already millions of guns in the system. When I bought my 1st gun at the age of 32 I thought all guns were registered. It's the only sensible and prudent thing for a civilized society to do. I was a little embarrassed when I found out anybody could own something that makes killing so easy.

If some gun owners weren't so paranoid that guns will someday be outlawed. What would be wrong with guns being registered to their owners. The answer is nothing. The only reason to be afraid of that is if you think they will come take them away. Of course I did read a post were somebody thought a Red Dawn scenario was a possibility. I guess that culd always happen. LOL

 

[Big Daddy]

Just wanted to add. The town I live in is so screwed up that they didn't even give the kids a choice about watching Obama. They just didn't allow it.

 

[delia_peterson]

Just wanted to add. The town I live in is so screwed up that they didn't even give the kids a choice about watching Obama. They just didn't allow it.

Same here..Galveston, Santa fe,Texas City and alot of other schools did not show it. In Hitchcock and LaMarque they got to watch with permission slip.

 

[FarmerChick]

There is not one country where handguns are banned.

They are "more strictly controlled" Read up on other countries and their gun control. the UK and Belgium etc. still has handgun permits. They are just harder to get. But they allow them. AND in countries where handguns are strictly controlled, yup, there are WAY lower death by handguns.




Gun Deaths - International Comparisons
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)
Numbers are Homicide, Suicide, Accident
USA (2001) 3.98 5 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0 .06 0.2 0.02
Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0

Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic.

The only countries that top us are the likes of Colombia being number 1 in high deaths from guns, Panama, Mexico, El Sal., Equador, etc. etc.

Our nation is out of control with gun deaths for "as forward and great a nation we are"---and I for one would not mind tighter handgun control. Seriously. There must be a fix for the death by guns in this country.

Yes criminals can get guns. Yes I want a gun for protection...but most of the deaths are not in our perfect neighborhoods, it is out of control in inner cities etc. So just to say the people with the "good homes and nice areas" feel they might need a gun in their lifetime where they live, just to assume they might need that handgun protection, etc.....remember that everyday life is drive by shootings, guns in schools, kids killing kids, gang wars, etc. etc. is a way of life in other areas.

Guns need control. It must happen! We must find a way to move forward!!


Remember that the Constitution for Right to Bear Arms was truly enacted to ensure the citizens had defense AGAINST the govt. To ensure a growing and newly formed government WOULD not infrige on the citizens. It was a way to keep the citizens armed against the NEW govt. in this new country.

While I agree I don't want my rifles etc. taken away for hunting and I can use them for protection purposes, handguns are a big problem in this country and MANY others. Handguns usually are what is killing people. Not a hunting rifle. Handguns are what criminals use mostly.

I truly don't know the right way to go in this issue. I know handgun control must happen. It must. Our nation is shameful in the number of deaths from handguns. We are right up there with the "bad drug" countries. Yet, so many other countries have controlled handguns better and their low death tolls are superior to the US.

They won't come "for all your guns" at all.....not a country in this world has done it. It is just stricter controls.

I don't know .....I have alot of I don't know on this issue seriously.

I know we need help in handgun deaths. Our numbers are out of control for our superior nation......yet I don't want to ban our second amendment obviously.

I am still on the fence about this issue as you can see.

 

[patandchickens]

the thought of 'redistribution of wealth' <snip>Sorry, I do not feel safe with such a man at the helm of our government.

Well there ya go, then, it just goes to show that there are different sorts of people in the world.

Because, *I* don't feel safe with someone at the helm of the government who does NOT believe in redistributing wealth to some reasonable degree.

Being as how some people have massively stupidly more than anyone needs and are not using it as (IMO) honor and decency demand to help those who are SERIOUSLY having trouble getting through life at all.

BTW I say this as not really belonging to either group, except insofar as even the poorest Americans are living hugely better than hundreds of millions of people who happened to be born elsewhere on the globe.


Pat

 

[Quail_Antwerp]

Would ya'll please explain to me what you are meaning be redistributing wealth???

If you're meaning that of a "Robin Hood" ideal, take from the rich and give to the poor, then I ask why?

Should someone who worked hard for their money, earned their millions, and made something of themselves be forced to share their money? Give it to someone who needs it just because they (rich) aren't using it?

That's like giving an "A" to a student who didn't study, pay attention in class, or take notes at all. Let's just give that kid the same grade that the A students actually worked for.

Everyone complains about people living on Welfare and not working for what they have...um, wouldn't taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor be just about the same thing?

Oh, you've a million extra dollars in the bank you've not used. We're going to take that and give it to the lazy bum down the road because he earned it by breathing the same air as you.

 

[patandchickens]

Should someone who worked hard for their money, earned their millions, and made something of themselves be forced to share their money? Give it to someone who needs it just because they (rich) aren't using it? That's like giving an "A" to a student who didn't study, pay attention in class, or take notes at all. Let's just give that kid the same grade that the A students actually worked for.

How is that the same? People do not die of not having an 'A'.

People do OTOH die of things like starvation, lack of basic medical care, lack of shelter or heat. Usually not for reasons that are in any way their "fault".

And even when they don't die, their children and their children's children get sucked into a squalid cycle from which it can often be darn close to impossible to escape.

It's not a competition, it's not a hobby, it is LIFE, and PEOPLE.

Life is not always fair. That's a given - it cannot always be fair. Personally, I think that when there is a clash of two things that cannot both be equally fair, helping those in serious need should win out.

The folks I've known and seen, who really need help, are not in their current circumstances because they are lazy (your "didn't study, pay attention in class, or take notes"). In many cases, there but for the grace of God go any one of us.

<shrug>

Pat