search
top

Inquirer Not Pleased With Obama “Talk Therapy”

They think the President needs to do more on guns. I should note that they call for banning private sales. I also note that private sales of handguns, which represent the vast majority of criminal gun uses, is already illegal in Pennsylvania. This has not prevented the Inquirer and those sympathetic to their deranged point of view from calling for more gun control.

And these people wonder why we won’t sit down and talk to them? Screw Obama and screw the Philadelphia Inquirer. Hopefully in a few years both of these outfits will be flushed down the sewer of history where they belong.

17 Responses to “Inquirer Not Pleased With Obama “Talk Therapy””

  1. Weer'd Beard says:

    +1, John Rosenthal was doing a media tour earlier this year talking about the “Gunshow Loophole”, but he failed to find it relevant that he came close to doing jail time for a publicity stunt straw-buy in New Hampshire, and that all private sales need to be registered with the state in his home state of Massachusetts, and people are still being shot by the gangs damn near every day.

    The elephant in the room is that all of these bogus laws have been tried in various states, and in all cases they have failed. They chose to ignore this shows all the credibility they have!

  2. mikeb302000 says:

    I’m not sure what the Inquirer is upset about. Didn’t the president say we need background checks on all sales of guns. That’s what I heard anyway.

    My concern is that with his history of making promises which go unfulfilled, this might be nothing more than talk. About that I agree with the Philadelphia Inquirer. We need more than talk.

    Naturally you and your friends aren’t interested in any of that. La Pierre gave you your cue once again.

  3. Bob S. says:

    MikeB302000,

    Since you think we need to do more concerning firearms; why don’t you lead the way, eh?

    Why don’t you tell us who received the firearms you owned and who you recieved the firearms from?

    We could then conduct a background check on all 3 people and find out if any illegal actions took place.

    You fully support putting people who sell firearms to criminals in jail, don’t you?
    You fully support putting people who illegally purchase firearms in jail, don’t you?

  4. Weer'd Beard says:

    Bob, anti-rights advocates don’t propose laws or ideas that effect THEM!

    This is why you can’t compare guns and cars…because Anti-Rights Advocates USE cars.

    You’ll also note they only talk about 1st and 4th Amendment violations to gun owners and political opponents. Because those other instances might include them!

  5. Chas says:

    “…we need background checks on all sales of guns.”

    Oh? Like on the illegal gun sales that criminals make between themselves on the street? Or is Obama only talking about abusing law-abiding gun owners? Yeah, I thought so.

    Obama is a fraud. He wants to go after the law-abiding, gun owners of the NRA, but he doesn’t even want to talk about the murderous criminals of the Bloods and the Crips. How about an effective death penalty for gangbangers who kill? That’s not even on Obama’s table. Why does he want to attack the freedom of law-abiding gun owners, yet the murderous criminal behavior that supposedly motivates his action merits no discussion? Is Obama an anti-freedom, anti-American Marxist who supports the criminals who are bringing America down? He sure thinks like one, doesn’t he? Or maybe those 2,500 AK’s just slipped across the border to Mexican criminals without Obama’s ATF turning a blind eye. That anti-American commie in the White House knows exactly which side he’s on. Our nation’s chief law enforcement officer is on the side of the criminals.

  6. Alpheus says:

    “Naturally you and your friends aren’t interested in any of that. La Pierre gave you your cue once again.”

    I, for one, am not a member of the NRA, and I certainly don’t receive anything from La Pierre telling me how to think! Yet I agree with the sentiments presented by Sebastian. If I devoted my blog to guns, I would probably have said something similar!

    Even so, I would agree with you, that we need to do more than talk. There are a lot of laws that need to be repealed. Let’s start doing so!

  7. mikeb302000 says:

    Chas, Are you pretending not to get it? That old argument about gun laws affecting only lawful gun owners doesn’t hold water, for obvious reasons. Why do you keep repeating it? — I know the answer to that. Old Wayne said it, so you mindlessly keep repeating it long after it’s been used up.

    Here’s how it really works. We know criminals don’t obey laws, I suspect even Obama knows this. We also know that all guns start out the lawfully owned property of lawful gun owners. Through straw purchases, theft and in direct sales where no background check is required, many of these lawfully owned guns pass into criminal hands.

    Proper laws, properly enforced, which will constrain lawful gun owners to be more responsible with their property, and will greatly decrease the availability of guns to criminals.

  8. Bob S. says:

    We know criminals don’t obey laws,

    We know you know it. What we want to know is how you were able to avoid the gun control laws in place at the time.

    We also know that all guns start out the lawfully owned property of lawful gun owners.

    So which lawful gun owner did you get your firearms from?
    And since you lawfully owned firearms, who did you dispose of your weapons with?

    I have all the firearms I’ve ever came to possess. I know none of the guns I own have ever been used in a crime.

    Can you say the same thing Sparky?

    Through straw purchases, theft and in direct sales where no background check is required, many of these lawfully owned guns pass into criminal hands.

    Were those same laws in place when you illegally owned firearms?
    Did they stop you from illegally owning firearms? Or did they just stop someone who obeyed the law?

    many of these lawfully owned guns pass into criminal hands.

    Since you have admitted to being a criminal and since you believe in severe penalties for breaking gun control laws; what consequences do you think you should suffer?

    , and will greatly decrease the availability of guns to criminals.

    You know what else will decrease the availability of firearms to criminals?

    Putting Criminals in JAIL and keeping them there.

    And that doesn’t interfere or inconvenience the law abiding — which you have stated — repeatedly — is your goal.

    So tell us Sparky — open up as you’ve asked so many others — how did you get your firearms?
    What happened to those firearms?

    What laws in place — if enforced, could have stopped you from illegally obtaining firearms?

    You are the resident expert on breaking gun control laws, tell us about it.

  9. Weer'd Beard says:

    MikeB isn’t so much anti-gun as he is pro-criminal.

  10. Sebastian says:

    Just the other day, I saw a picture of MikeB with Quadaffi.

  11. mikeb302000 says:

    Thanks for the laugh, Sebastian. I’m sure you’re well aware that Bob and Weer’d will take that seriously.

    All right Bob, you win. I’ll tell you everything. But first I need your word that you’ll restore my commenting rights on your blog.

  12. Bob S. says:

    MikeB302000,

    Forgive me if I don’t hold my breathe (or restore your commenting privileges) waiting on you to come clean

    Submitted on 2010/09/30 at 11:26 AM

    All right Bob. I’ll come clean. What do you want to know?

    Almost 6 months and you haven’t done it yet. Nothing is stopping you but yourself.

    As for as me re-instating your commenting rights at my blog — I’ll quote your words back at you

    I would simply remind you that this is my blog. Here, I can do what I want, you cannot.

    Your privilege to comment has and will depend on you.

  13. Sebastian says:

    Well, in all fairness, if I was the one who killed Jimma Hoffa, and knew where the body was buried, I wouldn’t talk either.

  14. Bob S. says:

    Man,

    Here I was thinking “D.B. Cooper”

  15. mikeb302000 says:

    Bob,

    That last offer was contingent on the same reasonable request, that you accept my comments and stop manually removing the link back to my site.

    I’ll take your word on it and then I’ll deliver you a comment, probably anti-climactic at this point, but one which answers your questions.

    But, hurry and decide, Bob. I sense that Sebastian is growing tired of this nonsense.

  16. Bob S. says:

    MikeB302000,

    You aren’t getting it.

    You don’t get to dictate what I do on my blog.

    You are showing your hypocrisy — if you cared about the issue as much as you say you do, then you would comment regardless.

    What you are proving is you are concerned about pimping your blog – not the issue.

    Thanks.

    Come clean man, confession is good for the soul.

  17. Weer'd Beard says:

    I thought it was Mikeb302000 killed the radio star….

top