Jump to content

Obama gun issue


new tobie

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, baddog said:

Let someone you love be gunned down by these savages while screaming "death to Americans", you will change your tune. For the record, I hope you don't lose anyone that way. Sometimes it has to become personal before some see the light.

I would feel thel same if blacks or whites did it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/23/2016 at 9:15 AM, Englebert said:

new tobie, I want to ask you a question and see if you can answer honestly. If for some reason Congress lost their minds and passed a bill prohibiting gun ownership is the U.S., do you think Obama would sign that bill into law?

I can't answer the question because this will NEVER happen. Even if the dems controlled congress this will never happen. Many dems want to own guns also. Gun ownership is not just a republican thing. Obama just wants to try and DO SOMETHING about high powered rifles getting into the wrong hands. Their are many problems in the world today, some can be solved, some can be made better. Nothing will ever happen unless we do something. I said it before, and i don't give a.... what was done in the past but it is a congressional failure when they refused to vote on Garland.....vote NO, but do your job and vote. Would say the same thing if the situation was reversed. Healthcare: if the pubs would have done something about the medical facilities, doctors and pharmeseudical companys out of control cost, the affordable care act would not be in existence. Insurance companies have been and are out of control. Many people paid state farm and farmers premiums for 20 to 30 years, but after the two big hurricanes and they had to pay out so they dropped some of these customers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, nappyroots said:

I can't answer the question because this will NEVER happen. Even if the dems controlled congress this will never happen. Many dems want to own guns also. Gun ownership is not just a republican thing. Obama just wants to try and DO SOMETHING about high powered rifles getting into the wrong hands. Their are many problems in the world today, some can be solved, some can be made better. Nothing will ever happen unless we do something. I said it before, and i don't give a.... what was done in the past but it is a congressional failure when they refused to vote on Garland.....vote NO, but do your job and vote. Would say the same thing if the situation was reversed. Healthcare: if the pubs would have done something about the medical facilities, doctors and pharmeseudical companys out of control cost, the affordable care act would not be in existence. Insurance companies have been and are out of control. Many people paid state farm and farmers premiums for 20 to 30 years, but after the two big hurricanes and they had to pay out so they dropped some of these customers. 

So this is strictly the fault of pubs.  That is laughable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nappyroots said:

I can't answer the question because this will NEVER happen. Even if the dems controlled congress this will never happen. Many dems want to own guns also. Gun ownership is not just a republican thing. Obama just wants to try and DO SOMETHING about high powered rifles getting into the wrong hands. Their are many problems in the world today, some can be solved, some can be made better. Nothing will ever happen unless we do something. I said it before, and i don't give a.... what was done in the past but it is a congressional failure when they refused to vote on Garland.....vote NO, but do your job and vote. Would say the same thing if the situation was reversed. Healthcare: if the pubs would have done something about the medical facilities, doctors and pharmeseudical companys out of control cost, the affordable care act would not be in existence. Insurance companies have been and are out of control. Many people paid state farm and farmers premiums for 20 to 30 years, but after the two big hurricanes and they had to pay out so they dropped some of these customers. 

I absolutely disagree that it will never happen...ask Britains, Canadians and Australians. The question was would Obama sign a bill that prohibits gun ownership if given the opportunity. We can disagree on whether a bill would ever reach a president's desk, but again, hypothetically, if one inexplicitly does, would Obama sign it? I have no doubt as to the answer to that question. What do you think?

I agree with you that many Democrats want gun ownership, but I will contend that number is shrinking. The Democrat leaders have adopted the policy of strict gun control and the Democrat constituents are not fighting them on this issue. Case in point, California, New York and pretty much most of the northeastern states and northwestern states.

And as for high powered rifles, more people are killed yearly by hammers than by high powered rifles. You, Obama, and the Democrats are trying to solve an imaginative problem when pushing for "assault" (definition needed) rifle bans. The reason the Democrat leadership is so gung ho on banning "assault" rifles because it is a stepping stone leading to total gun control. That is very obvious to many of us. I'm not sure why many of the Democrat members can't see it. How many lives would be saved yearly if "assault" rifles are banned versus handguns? Please answer that question then ask yourself why the Democrat leaders are targeting "assault" rifles instead of handguns. I will go ahead and answer. It's not because they don't want to, it's because they can't. By getting some bans in place, say on "assault" rifles, they can use this as a counter to the "shall not be infringed" argument. Again, very obvious to many of us.

Ask Joe Biden as to the reason for not voting on Garland. It's on video, a simple google search will provide you with his explanation.

Why do you want government to solve everything? The cost to attend any NFL, MLB, NHL, NBA game is out of control. Should the government step in to "solve the problem". Maybe they can implement an Obamacare style plan in which the object is the reduce prices but the solution ends up raising costs even more. I'm kind of curious as to what would happen to these professional sports if the people showed unity and started boycotting them. How long would it take for the prices to drop versus government intervention. The people have the power to solve these problems, but you want government to do your job...the same government that begs these entities/companies for "campaign" donations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nappyroots said:

This is the hidden content, please

I agree with much of what the author says. But he gives examples of some infringements on gun ownership by Conservatives but fails to mention the many, many restrictions instituted by Liberals. If a basketball team wins a game 120-2, you don't really need to concentrate on the 2 points given up like this author is trying to push. And if you want a scorecard to verify this, the NRA rates all politicians as to their adherence to Second Amendment rights. The overwhelming majority of bad grades are on the Democrat side, basically the same ratio as winning a basketball game 120-2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Englebert said:

I absolutely disagree that it will never happen...ask Britains, Canadians and Australians. The question was would Obama sign a bill that prohibits gun ownership if given the opportunity. We can disagree on whether a bill would ever reach a president's desk, but again, hypothetically, if one inexplicitly does, would Obama sign it? I have no doubt as to the answer to that question. What do you think?

I agree with you that many Democrats want gun ownership, but I will contend that number is shrinking. The Democrat leaders have adopted the policy of strict gun control and the Democrat constituents are not fighting them on this issue. Case in point, California, New York and pretty much most of the northeastern states and northwestern states.

And as for high powered rifles, more people are killed yearly by hammers than by high powered rifles. You, Obama, and the Democrats are trying to solve an imaginative problem when pushing for "assault" (definition needed) rifle bans. The reason the Democrat leadership is so gung ho on banning "assault" rifles because it is a stepping stone leading to total gun control. That is very obvious to many of us. I'm not sure why many of the Democrat members can't see it. How many lives would be saved yearly if "assault" rifles are banned versus handguns? Please answer that question then ask yourself why the Democrat leaders are targeting "assault" rifles instead of handguns. I will go ahead and answer. It's not because they don't want to, it's because they can't. By getting some bans in place, say on "assault" rifles, they can use this as a counter to the "shall not be infringed" argument. Again, very obvious to many of us.

Ask Joe Biden as to the reason for not voting on Garland. It's on video, a simple google search will provide you with his explanation.

Why do you want government to solve everything? The cost to attend any NFL, MLB, NHL, NBA game is out of control. Should the government step in to "solve the problem". Maybe they can implement an Obamacare style plan in which the object is the reduce prices but the solution ends up raising costs even more. I'm kind of curious as to what would happen to these professional sports if the people showed unity and started boycotting them. How long would it take for the prices to drop versus government intervention. The people have the power to solve these problems, but you want government to do your job...the same government that begs these entities/companies for "campaign" donations.

Good question...tickets for any Broadway show are ridiculous...should they regulate play prices?

Lots of things are expensive, and if you don't make enough money, you aren't "entitled" to them...want a nicer car, earn more money, want a bigger house, earn more money!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    46,206
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    Ceb2000
    Newest Member
    Ceb2000
    Joined


  • Posts

    • You got a LOT more than that, you’ve got Riceland filling up. GCM is dropping down from 23-6A back down to 5A in ‘26.  GCCISD is redrawing attendance zones to make sure of that.  At the same time, BH was only about 100 students under the 6A threshold last time UIL drew districts so BH is definitely going up to 6A when those maps get redrawn, probably right into the empty spot in 23-6A GCM is leaving when they drop down.
    • Like I said, even if it’s only 10% of the 100 kids BHISD takes from GCCISD each year, that’s 10 athletes per year and that’s being generous.  You’re right about the jobs with BHISD, BTW.  There’s more than 1 athlete from Baytown originally who got transferred to BHISD after a job opened up for Mama.
    • Here’s a link to another story about it This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up
    • It’s behind a paywall but here’s Baytown Sun’s story on it.  It was reported on in other papers statewide so if you search by the date I think you’ll find other stories on it. UIL strengthens student transfer rules By Ron McDowell [email protected] Oct 18, 2024   In order to maintain a level playing field for all member schools, the University Interscholastic League strengthened rules regarding transfer student eligibility at its most recent meeting in Austin. Every year thousands of students transfer schools in the state of Texas. A student’s ability to participate in UIL sanctioned activities may be limited base on the reasons for the transfer. A change in family status, work transfers, enrollment in an academic magnet program, or a move across town, receive scrutiny, but only rarely does one of these reasons result in the loss of eligibility. The only reason to automatically cause the loss of participation eligibility is a transfer for athletic purposes. The current rule, which has been in place since 1981, does not require a Previous Athletic Participation Form (PAPFs) to be submitted if the student-athlete does not participate in a varsity level sport during the first year of enrollment. There has been growing concern among some member schools, that other members are breaking the current rule and creating “super teams” with new transfer enrollees, and that the UIL is not doing enough to police, what appear to be, the inordinate number of transfers among high school athletes. To mitigate these concerns, the UIL approved a proposal to expand the power of the State Executive Committee (SEC) and allow it to investigate schools based upon the number of PAPFs submitted. Schools that submit an inordinate number of PAPFs would face heightened scrutiny and possible public reprimand and future sanctions. The UIL has also changed the requirements for PAPF submission, mandating that the form be submitted before a grade 9-12 transfer student may participate at any level of school athletics. This is a marked departure from the current policy which encourages schools not to complete PAPFs for students who transfer in, if the school believes that the student will not play a varsity sport in the first year the student is enrolled at the new school. Some critics of the current system think that the change doesn’t go far enough. Speaking on background, one local school district source suggested that there should be an automatic year wait for transfer students due to the number of loopholes in the waiver process. “If a student transfers, it should be a year out of competition automatically,” the source said. In addition, the UIL also approved a proposal that gives the SEC the power to appoint an independent administrator to oversee the conduct of the local District Executive Committee (DEC) if it is determined that the DEC is not consistently enforcing the rules of the governing body. The change is significant since all appeals that a school brings, starts and usually ends with the DEC. That includes the determination of transfer student eligibility. It is believed that with the implementation of this change, schools in a UIL district will be less likely to face retribution from the DEC chair and other members. The policy changes will go into effect, Aug. 1, 2025 This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up  
    • I was hoping WOS was going to win. To get another chance to redeem ourself. Silsbee did not look good in that game and has not played consistent during the season. Hopefully against La Vega they will play 4quarters of football
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...