Well, that’s that. We’ve got to have a vote. Michelle wants a vote. The queen has spoken.
“These reforms deserve a vote in Congress,” she said, drawing loud applause from hundreds of Chicago’s business executives and civic leaders who were gathered at a luncheon to raise money for a new anti-violence initiative.
Obama spoke emotionally about attending the funeral in February of Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old majorette who was shot in a city park not far from the Obamas’ Chicago house and just days after visiting Washington for President Obama’s inauguration ceremonies.
“As I visited with the Pendleton family at Hadiya’s funeral, I couldn’t get over how familiar they felt to me, because what I realized was Hadiya’s family was just like my family,” the first lady said. “Hadiya Pendleton was me, and I was her. But I got to grow up and go to Princeton and Harvard Law School and have a career and a family, and the most blessed life I could ever imagine. And Hadiya — well, we know that story.”
Hadiya Pendleton was “allegedly” killed by a guy on probation for a weapons charge and who could not legally possess a weapon. In Chicago. Home of the formerly strictest gun laws in the country. But at least these remarks came after the big taxpayer funded soul party at the White House.
Obama is politicking on the graves of dead children not really having any idea of what he speaks:
During several speeches, Obama has said 40 percent of all gun purchases were made without a background check.
But that number is nearly two decades old and comes from a poll with a relatively tiny sample size. Gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association, as well as The Washington Post’s “Fact Checker,” are calling out the president’s stat, saying his numbers on background checks need a background check of their own.
During a speech last week, Obama asked, “Why wouldn’t we want to make it more difficult for a dangerous person to get his or her hand on a gun? Why wouldn’t we want to close the loophole that allows as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases to take place without a background check? Why wouldn’t we do that?”
The oft-cited figure, it turns out, was pulled from a 1997 study done by the National Institute of Justice. In the study, researchers estimated about 40 percent of all firearm sales took place through people other than licensed gun dealers. The conclusion was based on data from a 1994 survey of 2,568 households. Of those, only 251 people answered the question about where they got their guns.
PolitiFact tracked down the co-author of the study, Duke University professor Philip Cook, and asked him if he thought the 40 percent estimate is accurate.
“The answer is I have no idea,” Cook reportedly told PolitiFact. “This survey was done almost 20 years ago.”
And here’s a little known nugget:
I just came from Denver, where the issue of gun violence is something that has haunted families for way too long, and it is possible for us to create common-sense gun safety measures that respect the traditions of gun ownership in this country and hunters and sportsmen, but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon — by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly.
Episodes like this have cause Jake Tapper to reflect:
“The gun debate is worth having,” Tapper noted, “but it might help the advocates of gun control if, in their advocacy for stricter measures, they seemed more familiar with what exactly they’re trying to ban.”
They don’t know what they’re talking about. What they’re proposing won’t help. It would not prevent another Newtown.
Their new laws won’t do squat but they do foment mistrust:
He conflates a failed background check with stopping a criminal from obtaining a gun. “Over the past 20 years,” Obama says, “background checks have kept more than 2 million dangerous people from buying a gun.” That claim is based on two faulty assumptions: 1) that everyone who fails a background check is dangerous, which plainly is not true, given the ridiculously broad categories of people who are legally barred from buying firearms, and 2) that a criminal intent on obtaining a weapon will give up if he cannot get it over the counter at a gun store, rather than enlisting a straw buyer or turning to the gray or black market.
He falsely equates “assault weapons” with military guns. Obama inaccurately calls one of the guns used in the 2012 Aurora, Colorado, massacre an “assault rifle,” which is a military weapon capable of firing automatically. He calls the guns he wants to ban “weapons of war,” again implying that they fire continuously, when in fact they fire once per trigger pull, like any other semi-automatic firearm.
He says there is no logical connection between “universal background checks” and gun registration. “We’re not proposing a gun registration system,” Obama insists. “We’re proposing background checks for criminals.” But there is no way to enforce a background-check requirement for every gun transfer unless the government knows where the guns are. Federally licensed gun dealers are readily identified and can be required to keep sale records. Individual gun owners who might dare to sell their property without clearance from the government cannot be identified unless the government compiles a list of them. Hence Obama’s assurances amount to saying, “Don’t worry. We will make a big show of passing this new background-check mandate, but we won’t really enforce it.”
He pooh-poohs the idea that there could ever be anything adversarial about the relationship between Americans and their government:
You hear some of these quotes: “I need a gun to protect myself from the government.” “We can’t do background checks because the government is going to come take my guns away.”
Well, the government is us. These officials are elected by you. (Applause.) They are elected by you. I am elected by you. I am constrained, as they are constrained, by a system that our Founders put in place. It’s a government of and by and for the people.
One of the constraints on the federal government is the doctrine of enmuerated powers, which says every act of Congress must be justified by a specific constitutional grant of authority. Where is the clause that empowers Congress to say how many rounds you can put in a magazine or whether your rifle can have a barrel shroud? Furthermore, as Obama surely has heard by now, there is this thing called the Second Amendment, and it is hardly frivolous to argue than an arbitrary and capricious piece of legislation like the “assault weapon” ban Obama supports would violate the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Yet to Obama’s mind, anyone who makes such an argument is one of those “people who take absolute positions” and therefore can be safely ignored. After all, the government is us.
Sen. Mike Lee observes that background checks could lead to a national gun registry in the hands of the loathsome Eric Holder:
“Some of the proposals, like for example- universal background checks- would allow the federal government to surveil law-abiding citizens who exercise their Constitutional rights. One of the provisions we expect to see in the bill based on what we saw in the Judiciary Committee- on which I sit- would allow the Attorney General of the United States (Eric Holder) to promulgate regulations that could lead to a national registry system for guns. Something my constituents in Utah are very concerned about, and understandably so,”
So give them the damn vote. Put democrats on the line. Let them out their necks on the line. 2014 is coming
Voting for the assault weapons ban poses the bigger immediate threat to vulnerable Democrats such as Sens. Mark Begich (Alaska), Tim Johnson (S.D.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.). The NRA would rip any centrist Democrats — or Republicans — who support the assault weapons ban.
“There will be ramifications for elected officials who support gun bans. Our position is unequivocal. We do not support gun bans as a matter of policy or effective way of controlling guns,” said Chris Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action.
Universal background checks won’t do a damn thing. They didn’t stop Jared Loughner, James Holmes or Seung Hui-Cho. They wouldn’t have stopped Adam Lanza.
Clarence Dupnik could have stopped Jared Loughner but he was friends with Loughner’s mom. The State of Virginia could have stopped Hui-Cho but it was too much of a hassle. James Holems’ shrink warned the cops to no avail.
Gang bangers are not going to register their weapons. They are not going to procure their ammunition certificates.
Crazies like Nancy Lanza won’t stop handing lethal weapons to their insane progeny.
So bring on the vote.
And every time there is another gun death, shove it up their asses. And come November 2014, remind voters how surrendering your Constitutional Rights accomplished nothing.
Fifteen people were stabbed at a Texas college the other day. No one demanded that knives be banned.
In 2010 more than 10,000 people lost their lives in alcohol-related driving accidents but no one demands that cars be banned.
It seems that guns are the only inanimate objects which are capable of being dangerous on their own.
Give them their damn vote. How sweet would it be to see Obama having to deal with an entire GOP Congress for the remainder of his regime?
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
Drjohn, your comment:
brought back the memory of the infamous SUV crime reporting of a few years back.
An SUV ran over this, an SUV destroyed that, and SUV did it.
Not the driver…..the SUV.
Remember?
Now, its the gun.
Now that we’re in Utah we can carry a weapon without a permit.
We can also take a Concealed Firearm class here for $39. and carry concealed and loaded in other 33 states.
http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/FAQother.html
Utah has its crime….mostly property crimes…..but with one in 20 carrying a weapon it has very few crimes of violence.
Now, if they could just learn to drive! (LOL!/SCARY!)
(I’m going to create bumper stickers for our cars that warn: CAUTION! This car STOPS for RED LIGHTS! )
Are we surprised? Everything that has spewed from the brat’s mouth over the last five years has been a lie, so why should he begin to tell the truth now? The guy is an habitual liar and phony to boot.
I can’t begin to find the words to describe the pure disgust I felt when I read the headline of “Michelle speaks from the heart” to paraphrase. I didn’t know how long I’d be puking! And yes, one will see for want of better words, RAGE in my comments. Sorry about that.
Seriously, (and up front here, I am a Chicago native) let me ask this! Where in the hell have the community organizer and his leach of a wife been as to the crime issues in Chicago? How about it Michelle? What about the rampant black on black crime in Chicago, crimes committed by people who got their weapons illegally in the first place! What about some outcry as to the entrenched gangs, who you, your husband and people like Jackson do nothing but make excuses for them! when the hell is the city and in turn this country going to fight back?
Hell, when have we heard anything from our so called leader and his wanna be royal wife as to drug wars or the race gangs (and I include white gangs in this!)? The city of Chicago has become a cesspool. Whether one likes it or not, the majority of crimes committed against blacks are committed by blacks. Gangs of black youths commit various crimes and all we here are how disadvantaged they are! Where are the leaders who would just once say “Let’s go after the real problem here. Let’s go after the gangs! Let’s go after the real criminals which are in fact the people like the Obamas, the Jacksons and Sharptons and others of the world. The ones who point the finger at the doers and responsible folks in deference to those who have been brought up to believe everything is there’s at no cost or work from them.
The problem in Chicago is no different than L.A or any other city. It is a criminal element operating openly with with obscene impunity, be it gangs, drug dealers or whatever. In turn it is aided and abetted by an even more obscene criminal element. People like the Obamas, and any other apologist for the so called “underpriveleged”.
Don’t try to get me all watery eyed Michelle. You and everyone like you is in fact a major part of this problem. You sure as hell are not part of the answer!
joetote
hi,
do you remember when OBAMA said he could have been my son,
so all the young killing each other, could be his son,
well he did not raise them as a good father as we notice, in CHICAGO,
he was right there COMMUNITY worker, what was he doing there,
surely not helping the COMMUNITY,
where did those BLACKS learned to kill their brothers,
bye
@ilovebeeswarzone: Bees
Yes, I so remember that. Bottom line, we have heard not one word from the President or his minions about the situation in Chicago until he decided to use a tragedy to push another one of his leftist agendas. This isn’t some last minute conversion by the Obamas. They have been AWOL as to the violence in their home city from day one. .
BTW: I know you wonder where I disappear to sometimes (you always check in on me now and again) but I’ve just been swamped workwise.
joetote
just keep 2 minutes for us here,
you’re point is so well express,
I am improving my ENGLISH also from you,
and how to turn my words,
that is apart from your smart opinion.
by the way, do you mean you swamp with the ALLIGATOR?
bye
Dr. J……….Let them vote. Anything the Senate does is going to die a horrible death in the House. I doubt there is a Red State senator facing reelection in 2014 that wants this vote. But let them. And then we’ll see what happens in 2014. You do remember 1994, right? So, let ’em vote.
@joetote: Joe The “bad” news. Recent Pew poll has her at 66-23 approval rating. Watch for her to challenge Ill. Repub. Senator Kirk in 2016.
@Richard Wheeler: Rich,
I rally hate to admit it, but I can’t give the folks in Illinois much credit for common sense anymore. I sometimes think it’s a lost cause there and the disease is spreading.
@Richard Wheeler: Democrats would vote for Wilma Flintstone if she ran as a democrat
@drjohn: And Repubs.would vote for her if she ran on Repub. ticket. Your point?
BTW Wilma kinda reminds me of Sharon Angle.
@Richard Wheeler: OK let me rephrase. Democrats would vote for Kim Kardashian if she ran for the Senate.
@drjohn: Don’t believe K.K. could get Dem. nom.
But then who ever figured Christine O’Donnell could get Repub. nod in R.I.?
@Richard Wheeler:
Illinois is a special breed of State in our Union, Rich. Chicagoland holds 66% of the state’s population, but only 10-15% of it’s landmass. The entire rest of the state, outside of Chicagoland, votes 60/40 in favor of conservative or Republican candidates, in statewide elections, while Chicagoland votes upwards of 80/20 in favor of progressive/Democrat candidates.
Do the math, Rich. It is nearly impossible for a Republican to win a statewide political race unless they run to the left of center. That is how Kirk got elected, and unless he continues to act the part of a RINO, he won’t even come close to 50% of the vote in that state.
Illinois is considered a farmland state first and foremost, but it’s Chicago, an urban center of power, not just in the state but the country as well, that holds sway over the direction that Illinois goes.
I don’t have any doubt that if M.Obama decided to run in 2016 against Kirk that she would win in Illinois. I just don’t think that it will mean as much as what you Democratic party apologists and rubes think that it will mean, as far as national politics goes.
@johngalt: John Tell me something I don’t know.
Now I’m a rube? Check definition. Good stuff
Did you know N.Y. is the #2 dairy state in the U.S.? With NYC like Chicago overall political picture very similar to ILL.
Did you have Louisville? Pitino is to B-Ball what Saban is to football.
Joetote I am so happy to see that there is someone that says it like it is. I had to stop watching the tape because she is so phony. These people could care less about what is going on they just use it as a photo opt and then forget about it. If it truly meant anything to them they would do something about it. I say send in the National Guard and do a clean sweep and get rid of the drugs and criminals. Why is America so afraid of doing this? I blame alot on the media for not telling the people the truth of what is really going on they rather just keep covering for them ………..
@annie:
Annie,
Thank you for those kind words and support. Folks on this site know I let loose with all bores when I’m mad. Please note here on this issue I am one mad you know what as to this and I do mean to be harsh.
This is something that has really rankled me for some time now and as much as I would like to blame just the Obamas, it goes so much deeper. The horrible drug problems, the gang problems and the mindset that is now ingrained into the last few generations in Chicago and other big cities was predictable. One only has to take a look at the out of wedlock birthrate and the lack of personal responsibility for anything to understand this.
The crime in Chicago has been like this for years. Jesse can go to Sandyhook to cry for gun control. Where in the hell was Jesse been on these issues otherwise. Oh, that’s right. He’d rather just use the race card and demagogue the right rather than call out the real criminals, his own people! The Obamas, Sharptons and the rest of the radical left as well as a community that for whatever reason refuses to look at itself as to where the problems are coming from are all to blame. and yes, I do consider it criminal and our elected leaders are just as guilty for their ignorance of the facts as are the criminals themselves.
In turn, that in my mind makes the electorate of these cities just as responsible for they elect the same kind of criminal scum year in and year out! Illinois is dying! It has been for years and the diagnosis at this point is scary. Bottom line I ask again.
Where in the hell have you been Mr. and Mrs. Obama! For years you have had the platform and supposedly were organizing for the good of the city! Yet only now when it is politically expedient do we here something from you sad sacks! Jesse, Raum and the rest of you. how dare you cry for more controls when you have not even remotely tried to stop the madness but in fact helped foment it!
@Richard Wheeler: People from outside of Illinois have no idea how politics work in this state, especially Chicago. In order to get ahead in Chicago politics you have be a member of the Democratic Machine. In order to be part of that machine you have be connected with the Outfit, a gang, or both. Many of the the gangs in Chicago have political branches that are the “legal” part of their operation. The Obamas are a product of that machine. Without it, Obama never would have been elected to a state political office.
Hah, as if Queen Michelle would stoop to being a Senator. She’d actually have to do some work.
@another vet: Which again goes directly to my tirade. My father voted 200 times for Kennedy. I know that as a fact. So yes, I know the Illinois machine well! And again it comes down to the woeful electorate there. The difference now from when I was a child to now? Pure hatred for anything that promotes responsibility or core values that would even remotely take from the power of the elected scum! Hell at least when I was a kid even the mob crooks had some scruples and sense of honor and being. Nothing like that in our leaders or electorate now!
Our major problems are not in the ghettos or along the border, our major problems are in Washington DC and until we figure out how to get the criminal class in Congress and the Executive branch under control, we will never solve our other problems.
So they had a law that prohibited this guy from having a gun, and he had a gun. Either they don’t enforce the laws there or the criminals ignore the laws. In either case, it didn’t work. The criminal killed someone with a weapon he couldn’t have, according to law..
and the Queen also said:
And not once during all those years that she was living the most blessed life she could ever imagine was she ever proud of her country. Not even one little, itty, bitty time.
Facts are facts; states with stricter gun laws have fewer murders, the NRA lobbied to allow those on the terror watch list to have guns, Reagan supported a ban on assault weapons, the assault weapons banned which the GOP allowed to expire, did prevent murders. 80-90% of NRA members support a new gun control laws. 90% of American support it. The SOCTUS has ruled background checks do not infringe on the second amendment. How many more kids do you want to see killed before you finally get it’s not about your juvenile hatred of Michelle.
@John: I don’t believe you can back that statement up with actual facts and figures. Chicago and Ill has some of the strictest gun laws in the USA. Washington DC, NY City, all high crime areas. Give us an example of a city that absolutely forbids anyone from owning or possessing a gun and has a very low murder rate. I must have missed those polls where all the people want new gun control laws. And the NRA is certainly not supporting new gun control laws. Your imagination must be working overtime. We all love the Queen, at least now that she is proud of her country since they send her on so many multi million dollar vacations each year.
@joetote: A college professor of mine knew one of the guys who flew those ballots down to Springfield when they were “needed” to determine who took Illinois. The majority of the people in this state are a lost cause and I’m including some relatives in that statement.
@Nan G: #!
####Now that we’re in Utah we can carry a weapon without a permit.
We can also take a Concealed Firearm class here for $39. and carry concealed and loaded in other 33 states.####
Idaho lets you open carry without a permit. Each county sheriff decides whether to require a course to carry a concealed weapon.
The problem with the reciprocity agreements is getting to the states that allow it, when one or more of the states you have to go through doesn’t. When I moves from Pennsylvania to Idaho, I went through many states to visit relatives, since I might never see them again. I didn’t have a concealed carry permit, but it wouldn’t have matted. Illinois is one state I have a relative living in, and my son was based in Canada at the time. Neither one even allows you to have a gun in the car, whether it is in a secure container or not, so I left it with a relative in Texas, and had them send it to me when I settled in Idaho.
@another vet: Sad but true Vet. I grew up in it. I was 1o when that election was held and to this day still remember how proud my father was for doing his “civic duty”. it also didn’t hurt for sure that he received $200 in groceries and other perks. That was a huge haul back then. Looking back, it is amazing how the Democrats built that machine and especially Mayor Daley’s use of it. One thing though that I believe is much different now. Political shenanigans aside, it seems to me that at least the people in Chicago bcak then had a love for country and a belief (at least much more than now) in our basic principles and tenets. I really believe if Mayor Daley were alive today he would take the Axelrods, Emanuels, Obamas, Jacksons and so forth of the so called Illinois elite and whapped them up side the head with a two by four!
@Richard Wheeler:
Yes, Rich, a rube.
You, at times, are the most naive person here, even with your advanced years and “experience”. The Democratic party is populated heavily with progressives, especially at the top, and their political nature tends to destroy rather than progress society. You, however, still believe that the majority of that party actually cares about society. This ain’t your pop’s Democratic party, Rich, and hasn’t been for quite a good long while now. So yes, you are a rube. A naive person. At least when it comes to the Democratic party.
@John:
Interesting that you start your post with that statement and then populate the rest of your posting with conjecture and outright fantasy. Care to back up your “facts” with proof?
@joetote: Richard J. was definitely different than the current crop. He may have been a “king” and a corrupt one at that, but he wasn’t a left wing nutcase and he was patriotic. Even Richard M. called out DICK Durbin when he compared us GWOT Vets to the biggest mass murderers in history. No one else in “The Party” had the balls to do so which says something for the Dems. I used to split my ticket between the two parties but haven’t done so since their anti war crap started in 2004 which for some reason has ceased since Obama was elected despite the huge increase in casualties in Afghanistan. Imagine that. Now my ticket gets split between Republicans, who aren’t much better, and third party candidates.
@johngalt: You suggest I’m naive re The Democratic Party—-I’ve voted Democratic since HHH in 1968–44 years 12 elections Knocked on doors,made calls,raised money served as precinct captain many times. Had meetings and meals with Mario Cuomo, Jim Webb,Chuck Robb and other leaders Why would you be so presumptuous as to suggest you understand the party better than I do? I understand it and assure you my preference for Kennedy over Nixon, Clinton over Bush, Obama over Romney. One thing is certain. The Repub.Party is in disarray.
I will look at Rubio in 2016 and have predicted he’ll be the next Conservative POTUS.
Semper Fi
Back when Obama was elected president the first time I tried to look at how he could benefit the country even though I had voted for someone else.
I saw that Obama could (and it seemed at first he would) help lift black Americans out of their counter cultural dead ends.
He could have encouraged education, proper English, work ethic. He could have discouraged gangster and drug music and dress culture.
He did none of this.
If anything, he used examples of black disasters as ploys to push his own Leftist agenda to the detriment of blacks who love him.
What a shame.
What a waste.
@Richard Wheeler: Right on!
@Richard Wheeler:you said: “” I will look at Rubio in 2016 and have predicted he’ll be the next Conservative POTUS.””
Being a Dimocrat, of course, it doesn’t matter to you that he’s not eligible for the office. Not being a natural born citizen.
@Redteam: Sorry Redteam but being a Birther makes you less than credible.Rubio is good to go.
@Nan G: #32
He doesn’t want to FIX anything. The more unrest he can create, the sooner he will get to play with his new toys he has bought: Guns, 2,000,000,000 rounds of hollow point bullets, hundreds of heavily armored assault vehicles, and who knows how many unknown toys. You probably know how a man gets when he gets new toys and can’t play with them.
@Redteam:
Google it, goober.
@Richard Wheeler: #35
You liberals keep confusing the fact that a person being born in the USA is an automatic citizen of the USA if their parents want them to be, with the “natural born citizen” part of the U.S. Constitution, which hasn’t been changed since it was written.
Any American who’s parents were not born here can run for any federal office except the presidency and the vice-presidency. The Constitution says they must be “natural born” citizens. Even liberals agree that at the time the Constitution was written, this means that both of their parents HAD TO BE U.S. CITIZENS at the time of their child’s birth. Even though other laws have changed concerning citizenship, this part has never been changed.
It’s like you buying a house, and you sign a contract. The lending laws might change after you sign the contract, but you can’t go to the bank and demand they go by the new rules, unless they want to. The “natural born” citizen part of the law hasn’t changed, so you are stuck with it until you get congress to change it.
What would be ironic is if Rubio is the republican choice, and the democrats don’t want him, so they say he can’t run because he is not a “natural born” citizen like the U.S. Constitution demands.
@Richard Wheeler: #35
None of you liberals has answered my question of whether you think obama’s birth certificate was done on a typewriter or a word processor. Please look at the document closely and any of you can answer the question. Please don’t use the usual paragraph after paragraph of non-answer like politicians do. Just say which one you think was used.
@Richard Wheeler:
Call me a ‘constitutionalist’
@John:
I’m familiar with the constitution, Google has no definition. Goober.
@Smorgasbord:
And of course, that is exactly what will happen. I will not support a non-natural born citizen.
The first court ruling about this will come down ‘after’ obama leaves office, when they finally figure out he is not a US citizen, much less a ‘natural born’ one.
@Smorgasbord: Smorg, I’m not a progressive (lib) but I sure don’t have a problem answering the question. Word processor. Anyone looking at that document for more than 3 minutes has to be sure it is a fraud or they are blind if they are not convinced it is a fake.
@Redteam: #40
If he doesn’t, I will. You’re a constitutionalist!
@Redteam: #42
I’m guessing that obama will try to declare martial law before the next election.
@Redteam: #43
I am getting more worried about my country when not ONE republican has questioned the document. I have hounded one of my politicians enough about it that he sent me a packet of 50 pages covering the qualifications to be president. I didn’t write him back telling him he could have saved the state some money and just gave me the link, and that he didn’t answer my question of whether he thought the document was written on a typewriter or a word processor.
That is a simple question conservatives can ask their federal reps. “Was obama’s birth certificated written with a typewriter or a word processor?” I’d like to see Flopping Aces ask their readers to ask their politicians that question. It’s easy to say a document is fake or real, but if they would have to answer what they believe wrote it, that would be a completely different question.
I guess only those who have used a typewriter and seen how they write would know the difference.
@johngalt:
Study: States with more gun laws have less gun violence http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/07/gun-violence-study-chicago/1969227/
@Redteam: Redteam and Smog Nice late night tag team birthers.
Smorg Martial law you say? Scary stuff.
@John: So the Boston Children’s hospital made a study did they? It’s kind’ve of a ha ha one. for example they said:
Louisiana doesn’t need gun laws. All those deaths occurred in the city of New Orleans, not in the State of Louisiana. And they were not committed by law abiding people, so another gun law in the state would not prevent a shooting in the city. I don’t see where they brought out the fact that Illinois and Chicago have some of, or the toughest, gun laws in the US and have one of the highest murder rates. Again, it is not the people that follow the laws that are doing the killing, it’s criminals that will not obey the laws, no matter how many are passed. I mean, it’s illegal in all cities and states in the US to murder someone, but people still get murdered. Does anyone think that if they made the death penalty mandatory for killing someone that it would keep people from being murdered? LOL. So their little stunt of pointing out anomalies, such as New Orleans, and not pointing out Chicago kinda casts the spot light on the objective, which is ‘not’ to prevent murders, but to control guns (which will not prevent murders) Let’s at least throw out links to legitimate sites, not those with gun control agenda’s. Note that they even said: “”Policy makers can really draw no conclusion from this study,” Wintemute said, explaining that the study doesn’t provide critical answers to which laws work and why” Clearly they don’t even believe the study themselves…
@Richard Wheeler: Birther is a term invented by Libs, it doesn’t apply to Conservatives. And I’ll excuse you for not knowing that. The term is Constitutionalist. Don’t you believe that the president of the US should be a natural born citizen? It is a constitutional requirement.