PDA

View Full Version : Noonan calls on Obama to ban mags


JimWest
01-23-2011, 9:20 AM
Peggy Noonan writes in WSJ 1/22:

" What civilian needs a pistol with a magazine that loads 33 bullets and allows you to kill that many people without even stopping to reload? No one but people with bad intent."

She then calls on Obama in State of Union to call on banning.

I will be anxiously waiting to see a rebuttal from the NRA (or some other group) in the Journal subsequent to this article. And worst of all she says Republicans will not fight any ban.

Skidmark
01-23-2011, 9:35 AM
Don't do it, Barry! It's a trap!!!

The GOP would love nothing more than to embroil Obama in a fight over magazine capacity, as it would weaken him going into the next election. The far better (and politically smart) course will be to strengthen pre-purchase screening, toward getting all mental defectives and drug addicts on the Federal list.

SanPedroShooter
01-23-2011, 9:38 AM
Every cop in the country with a semi auto handgun carries at least the factory mag (15-17 rounds) plus three or four back up mags.... oh but i forgot police are part of the military now?
As far as a thirty rounder for a handgun... Well maybe I dont need one (yet), but i cant speak for everyone else. Plus this law doesnt differentiate between an "unnecessary" 30 rounder for a handgun and an absolutely necessary 30 rounder for a rifle.
We should be able to use guns the way the manufacturer intended, FA included, not follow some arbritrary limit imposed by someone with the same grasp of firearms technology as i have of higher mathematics. Ten rounds good, eleven not good?
And if she thinks Obama is gonna get down into the weeds with the gun grabbers and start talking about the number of bullets I can put in metal box, she's smoking crack...
His underlings will do the dirty work.

pointedstick
01-23-2011, 9:39 AM
There's that word "need" again. Does Peggy Noonan need to write columns for the WSJ? Does she need her car? How about such a large, luxurious house?

I don't think so. Better ban all that, too!

vantec08
01-23-2011, 9:58 AM
Does noonan "need" a huge terrabyte hard drive? does noonan "need" multiple word and graphics processors? does noonan "need" more than one IP server or access to? Its the same logic being used on the 1st as the 2nd. Makes liberals nuts.

USMC VET
01-23-2011, 10:11 AM
Do horrendously fat people NEED to supersize their meal? NO Do criminals NEED guns banned, NO theyll still get them. Bassakwards man.

Jonl
01-23-2011, 10:22 AM
She should call for the banning of murder, then it will stop? .......lib logic.

RRangel
01-23-2011, 11:16 AM
Peggy Noonan exposes the fact that she lives in a world far removed from reality. These laws make no difference to criminals. Knee jerk reactions for their own sake, help remove our liberties, while only temporarily satiating statists until they come up with their next excuse. Perhaps she should get a grip.

ScottB
01-23-2011, 11:18 AM
Another pundit addicted to being popular with her liberal peers (and not coincidentally continuing to be invited on their crap psuedo news shows)

ConfucianScholar
01-23-2011, 11:33 AM
I am a WSJ reader, but I always skip Peggy Noonan's column. She is a conservative and her claim to fame is having been a speech writer for president Reagan, but her column is nothing but bologna. She thinks of her self a a grand strategists, and now she came up with this magazine comment. See why I skip reading her column?

battleship
01-23-2011, 11:53 AM
1 wacko shoots people with a 30 + mag and suddenly we all are labelled as people with bad intent, im so sick at how these people blatantly label the rest of us law abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong and never will.

Vtec44
01-23-2011, 11:59 AM
You don't need 30 round mags, you don't need 200hp cars, you don't need 30" + TV screens, you don't need 1500+ sqft home...

Phgun
01-23-2011, 12:01 PM
People like me who do competitive shooting need mags that big.

JimWest
01-23-2011, 12:11 PM
Damn, I love these dialogues. Better than caffeine for getting me pumped up. And let's not forget, was it not Obama himself that called for a civilian army, equally as powerful and as well equipped as the military? Well, certainly they would need thirty plus round magazines. Oh, I forgot we have a civilian army, you know, they one that's supposed to protect the citizens from a tyrannical government, that would be me and you and every Joe up and down the street. Some call it a "well-armed militia". As Skidmark, said, a good trap for Barry. :cool2:

chris
01-23-2011, 12:16 PM
the reason this is proposed or even thought of is more control of YOU! nothing more nothing less. we all know that laws like this are nothing but feel good legislation and will do nothing from stopping some wacko from commiting a crime. but logic alone won't stop these slimeball politicians.

Skidmark
01-23-2011, 12:30 PM
And let's not forget, was it not Obama himself that called for a civilian army, equally as powerful and as well equipped as the military?

You're taking his words out of context... the idea that he was proposing an armed force is one of those specious rumors spread by FOX and other tools of the war on all things Obama. The quote came from a 2008 speech on strengthening the volunteer and non-weaponized Peace Corps and AmeriCorps.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_obama_planning_a_gestapo-like_civilian_national.html

alex00
01-23-2011, 12:41 PM
Is there any way that People v. Hale could be used to stop all this nonsense about hi-capacity magazines? They ruled in one case that the magazine is an integral part of the firearm, that if concealed renders the entire firearm concealed. Why can't the same case be made that if the magazine is an integral part of the firearm it is protected by the second?

What's next? You can have all the guns you want, they just can't have triggers?

jamesob
01-23-2011, 1:21 PM
You're taking his words out of context... the idea that he was proposing an armed force is one of those specious rumors spread by FOX and other tools of the war on all things Obama. The quote came from a 2008 speech on strengthening the volunteer and non-weaponized Peace Corps and AmeriCorps.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_obama_planning_a_gestapo-like_civilian_national.html

fox news didn't take it out of context.

Laser Sailor
01-23-2011, 1:26 PM
Since when can the President ban anything? He's not a legislator...

B Strong
01-23-2011, 1:26 PM
No matter her credentials, she's just another talking head/blogger that isn't anymore significant in the grand scheme than a barking dog.

She wrote a good speech back when she had a job.

That doesn't make her any better informed or intelligent than anyone of us.

No different than "Hi, I'm Meryl Streep, and although I don't know anything about agriculture, I've played a farm wife in a movie..."

timdps
01-23-2011, 1:49 PM
You're taking his words out of context... the idea that he was proposing an armed force is one of those specious rumors spread by FOX and other tools of the war on all things Obama. The quote came from a 2008 speech on strengthening the volunteer and non-weaponized Peace Corps and AmeriCorps.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_obama_planning_a_gestapo-like_civilian_national.html

So here is the quote:
"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set.

We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

At the end of the article, FactCheck.org asks:
"Does that sound like a force that could kick down your door in the middle of the night and haul you off to a Gulag or concentration camp? You decide.

-Brooks Jackson"


What exactly would this "national security force" do? What role could they have that is not already covered by local police, state police, FBI, CIA and the National Guard?

As quoted the statement scares me. Granted, the statement is probably badly written and badly thought out, but it is a concern nevertheless.

spddrcr
01-23-2011, 3:18 PM
So here is the quote:
"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set.

We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

At the end of the article, FactCheck.org asks:
"Does that sound like a force that could kick down your door in the middle of the night and haul you off to a Gulag or concentration camp? You decide.

-Brooks Jackson"


What exactly would this "national security force" do? What role could they have that is not already covered by local police, state police, FBI, CIA and the National Guard?

As quoted the statement scares me. Granted, the statement is probably badly written and badly thought out, but it is a concern nevertheless.

well then why don't you enlighten people to the truth and put the full quote instead of what was picked through to "sound scary"?

"Obama, July 2, Colorado Springs, CO: [As] president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose.

People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem – they are the answer. So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an energy corps, to conduct renewable energy and environmental clean-up projects in their neighborhoods all across the country.

We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we're going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set.

We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. We need to use technology to connect people to service. We'll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer. You'll be able to search by category, time commitment and skill sets. You'll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities.

This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change from the bottom up.

JohanD
01-23-2011, 3:26 PM
I don't see why we have to be the ones to do the prooving all the time. Proove I *don't* need it.

/rant :)

press1280
01-23-2011, 3:39 PM
Some people never get it. As a law abiding citizen, I should not have 30 round mags made illegal to me because one nutcase decided to kill people. That's like taking away cars because someone decided to get drunk and slam into someone.

timdps
01-23-2011, 5:01 PM
I pulled out the two two sentences that concern me in their correct sequence and did not alter them in any way.

I see no connection between the mention of an expanded USA Freedom Corps or Foreign Service and a "civilian national security force". I suppose that the Foreign Service could be considered "civilian national security force", but that would be a very bad description of the Foreign Service.

Whoever wrote the speech was not thinking clearly when they used that phrase. Those four words used together in any context should raise red flags. The use of "force" in a phrase used to describe the Foreign Service is a disservice to the men and women who serve their country in this capacity.

The Gestapo was quite specifically a "civilian national security force" and there are plenty of other good examples from totalitarian governments around the world.

Perhaps its just very bad speech writing, but until this is shown to be the case, vigilance is required. That said, I have not seen anything in the news about such an entity...


well then why don't you enlighten people to the truth and put the full quote instead of what was picked through to "sound scary"?

"Obama, July 2, Colorado Springs, CO: [As] president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose.

People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem – they are the answer. So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an energy corps, to conduct renewable energy and environmental clean-up projects in their neighborhoods all across the country.

We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we're going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set.

We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. We need to use technology to connect people to service. We'll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer. You'll be able to search by category, time commitment and skill sets. You'll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities.

This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change from the bottom up.

Dreaded Claymore
01-23-2011, 5:15 PM
I've heard of Peggy Noonan before. She's a liar and an idiot.

JDoe
01-23-2011, 5:39 PM
Peggy Noonan writes in WSJ 1/22:

" What civilian needs a pistol with a magazine that loads 33 bullets and allows you to kill that many people without even stopping to reload? No one but people with bad intent."

Obviously Noonan has never done any real research into the matter. Here is an example of why I want more than 10 round mags.

The Defensive Systems Unit Ballistic Research Facility FBI Academy put out this report after an officer involved shooting. Two officers fired at least 107 rounds and hit the bad guy 17 times in 3.5 minutes with .40 and .223.

That works out to 1.6 hits per 10 round mag and that number falls into the normal and expected range of hits per rounds expended. I would like the opportunity, if necessary to hit a bad guy with at least two rounds per magazine spent in self defense.

The mortally wounded bad guy still had to be wrestled into handcuffs by the officers. The bad guy died in the hospital but for 3.5 minutes he was shooting at the cops with his .45 auto.

Warning Pictures of a Dead Bad Guy Mild Gore - Not Safe for Children but really informative!

Defensive Systems Unit Ballistic Research Facility FBI Academy: Officer Involved Shooting (http://publicintelligence.net/fbi-ballistics-brief-officer-involved-shooting-photos/)

JimWest
01-23-2011, 6:02 PM
I'll have to remain with timdps's analysis for the benefit of accuracy in words and others can advise the President to choose context more carefully.

We will see if this topic will have life in the next 3-4 days. Thank you cal gunners for your valuable input. Adios!

DannyInSoCal
01-23-2011, 6:31 PM
Noonan is an empty headed delusional idiot. She's a big part of why I cancelled my WSJ subscription...

Mendo223
01-23-2011, 9:23 PM
man i love my 30 rounders. its soo much funner target shooting with 30 in the magazine instead of having to reload after every ten.

of course 30 round magazines help stack up credit card charges for ammo purchases...so maybe a 30 round magazine belt would help my wallet lol.

but still....NO MORE RESTRICTIONS....only thing that needs to be done in the wake of tuscon is to make sure mentally defective people dont get their hands on guns...

Lrchops
01-23-2011, 9:49 PM
I dont get it!!! I need 30 round magazines because I have more than 30 gophers on my property. If I had to reload, I could only kill 10 at a time!

Dave A
01-23-2011, 10:06 PM
Peggy Noonan is a relic of the past. She was highly regarded as a conservative speech writer for President Reagan, but has pretty much fallen off the radar as a spokesperson for the right side of politics. She thinks she is one of the true intellectuals of the right, but has lost touch with what is going on in the country. In short, she is a legend in her own mind.

Still, she acts as a useful idiot in this case, because the gun control zealots will seize on her column to bolster their agenda, which is any sort of gun control. It is unfortunate that the Tucson tragedy occurred, but there are those on the left who are only too happy to use any event to further their ends.

Hopefully the newly elected House members will resist the manufactured storm of opinion, which will be bolstered by carefully planned "polls" where the outcome is assured by selection of the poll group. It is going to be an interesting few months.

Apocalypsenerd
01-24-2011, 12:12 AM
He was saying the military is not enough so we need a civilian force. How is that taken out of context?

If the military is not enough, and a civilian force that is just as powerful and funded as the military is the answer, wouldn't that imply an armed, militarized, civilian force?

Foreman
01-24-2011, 12:28 AM
If the military is not enough, and a civilian force that is just as powerful and funded as the military is the answer, wouldn't that imply an armed, militarized, civilian force?

No, it would not.

National security does not pertain solely to military power, despite that being the context that it has been shorthanded into. Rather, national security's purview extends beyond the realm of military power and into diplomacy, trade, health and the environment, as well as several other categories. There's a reason the National Security Council contains the Joint Chiefs AND the Secretary of the Treasury, as well as the Secretary of State.

To take the President's quote and assume he desires a civilian force to possibly usurp military power is not only laughable, but short-sighted. Sadly, it WAS a poor choice of words, and it is the exact reason FOX News decided to make such a big deal out of it.

tuolumnejim
01-24-2011, 12:31 AM
You're taking his words out of context... the idea that he was proposing an armed force is one of those specious rumors spread by FOX and other tools of the war on all things Obama. The quote came from a 2008 speech on strengthening the volunteer and non-weaponized Peace Corps and AmeriCorps.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_obama_planning_a_gestapo-like_civilian_national.html

lol nope just exactly what he said, you just need to keep your hate for anything not left of center under a low simmer.
As to "fact check", I get a good laugh when read their mission statement.
If you believe anything thats quoted below, your lying to yourself.

Browse > Home / About Us
About UsOur Mission

We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit "consumer advocate" for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics.

johnthomas
01-24-2011, 12:34 AM
We don't need to eat, drive safe, secure our homes or vote either, but if we don't, we will either starve, crash, get killed by thugs or end up with more liberal politicians that want to take all of our rights and standard of living away.

PBRStreetgang
01-24-2011, 12:40 AM
I've heard of Peggy Noonan before. She's a liar and an idiot.

Ding!! you win a cookie :)

ErikTheRed
01-24-2011, 12:45 AM
I'm still amazed at the number of people who think its possible to sincerely support the US Constitution / 2nd Amendment and Barack Obama / democrats at the same time. Folks, its not possible. Since one is the antithesis of the other, you can only truely defend one or the other. If one succeeds, the other fails. Pick one and either enjoy or suffer the results.

Shrubmaster
01-24-2011, 2:25 AM
I'm still amazed at the number of people who think its possible to sincerely support the US Constitution / 2nd Amendment and Barack Obama / democrats at the same time. Folks, its not possible. Since one is the antithesis of the other, you can only truely defend one or the other. If one succeeds, the other fails. Pick one and either enjoy or suffer the results.

This.

Scratch705
01-24-2011, 4:00 AM
i don't need 30 round magazines, but i sure as heck want them. and isn't that the main driving force of our capitalistic economy? the wants of the many. and i want many magazines. haha

glbtrottr
01-24-2011, 5:59 AM
Peggy Noonan needs to be banned from the airwaves - she's toxic and needs a muzzle on it. Back in the kitchen!

Snaps
01-24-2011, 6:23 AM
I, as a person with a handicap in my right arm, appreciate (the thought of) larger capacity magazines as reloading my firearm isn't the easiest for me.

I wonder if I should go on an anti-handicap campaign against these people. Clearly handicap need 30 round magazines to make up for the lack of ability of efficiently reload.

wildhawker
01-24-2011, 6:46 AM
I, as a person with a handicap in my right arm, appreciate (the thought of) larger capacity magazines as reloading my firearm isn't the easiest for me.

I wonder if I should go on an anti-handicap campaign against these people. Clearly handicap need 30 round magazines to make up for the lack of ability of efficiently reload.

...where their counter argument will be that 'disabled' people that can't control a firearm using both hands shouldn't be toting dangerous weapons around, let alone weapons that 'go bang' on their own, and having greater than 10 rounds in a 'military-style, high capacity clip'.

Snaps
01-24-2011, 7:00 AM
...where their counter argument will be that 'disabled' people that can't control a firearm using both hands shouldn't be toting dangerous weapons around, let alone weapons that 'go bang' on their own, and having greater than 10 rounds in a 'military-style, high capacity clip'.

Oh I can use both arms, just not as efficiently as others, but I catch your drift.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erb's_palsy

But are they really going to attack babies injured at birth? ;)

Skidmark
01-24-2011, 7:31 AM
He was saying the military is not enough so we need a civilian force. How is that taken out of context?

If the military is not enough, and a civilian force that is just as powerful and funded as the military is the answer, wouldn't that imply an armed, militarized, civilian force?

What was the context for the word, "enough?" :ear

J.D.Allen
01-24-2011, 8:53 AM
And let's not forget, was it not Obama himself that called for a civilian army, equally as powerful and as well equipped as the military? Well, certainly they would need thirty plus round magazines.

Yeah. When I heard that the words "brownshirts" and "SS" immediately came to mind...

J.D.Allen
01-24-2011, 8:56 AM
...where their counter argument will be that 'disabled' people that can't control a firearm using both hands shouldn't be toting dangerous weapons around, let alone weapons that 'go bang' on their own, and having greater than 10 rounds in a 'military-style, high capacity clip'.

Right. Once I was talking to an anti and I asked him if he wanted his eighty year old grandmother to be defenseless against attacks. His response was "they won't even give her a driver license, and you want her to have a gun?"

Nevermind the fact that a car is far more complex and difficult to control, and is also far more dangerous than any gun...:rolleyes:

not-fishing
01-24-2011, 9:38 AM
Previously posted - so just to get the information out to a few more people

You probably already know but just in case there is an actual recent mass murder where standard sized magazines were used and many more people killed.

As a Counter to Large Capacity Mags we have Cho (Virginia Tech)

March 22 Cho purchases two 10-round magazines for the Walther P22 on eBay.

March 23 Cho purchases three additional 10-round magazines from another eBay seller.

March 31 Cho purchases additional ammunition magazines, ammunition, and a hunting
knife from Wal-Mart and Dick’s Sporting Goods. He buys chains from Home
Depot.

April 16, 9:15-9:30 am He fired 174 rounds, and killed 30 people in Norris Hall plus himself, and wounded 17.

All Cho's attack was accomplished with standard sized magazines including 10 round magazines.

the 210 page report http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/prevail/docs/April16ReportRev20100106.pdf

mblat
01-24-2011, 10:47 AM
Republicans can only hope Obama would be that stupid......... But can you imagine prices for hi-caps if he will do that?

badmonkey
01-24-2011, 11:19 AM
I'm still amazed at the number of people who think its possible to sincerely support the US Constitution / 2nd Amendment and Barack Obama / democrats at the same time. Folks, its not possible. Since one is the antithesis of the other, you can only truely defend one or the other. If one succeeds, the other fails. Pick one and either enjoy or suffer the results.

i guess i'm a walking contradiction and need to end myself forthwith.

good thing my liberal *** already owns the guns and ammo to make this task simple?

i don't know how often i need to repeat myself on this, but the more you turn guns into a right v. left battle, the longer you're going to have to fight the battle. frame the debate as a civil rights issue, like you would the 1st amendment, and plenty of liberals will "see the light" almost instantly. the rest won't put so much effort into vehemently opposing you since it's no longer a black/white, good/evil, republican/democrat, red/blue juvenile power struggle issue. are you aware how different my conversations are (as a gun owning "liberal") with other liberals? do you know how much further i can go before things shut down into some defensive weiner measuring contest? of course, if 2A issues are secondary to your need for political conflict and left-baiting, then you don't care...but if you really want all Americans to bear and keep their arms, you shouldn't ignore the growing number of gun-owning liberals and moderates.

regarding ms. noonan--i'm not surprised that a authoritarian relic like herself is calling for the further disenfranchisement of the common American.

MolonLabe2008
01-24-2011, 2:37 PM
Don't do it, Barry! It's a trap!!!

The GOP would love nothing more than to embroil Obama in a fight over magazine capacity, as it would weaken him going into the next election. The far better (and politically smart) course will be to strengthen pre-purchase screening, toward getting all mental defectives and drug addicts on the Federal list.

First of all, Noonan is a RINO.

Secondly, who is going to decide who is sane and who is not? The government? I hope not!

You are willing to give the government that much more power?

MolonLabe2008
01-24-2011, 2:42 PM
Republicans can only hope Obama would be that stupid......... But can you imagine prices for hi-caps if he will do that?

It has nothing to do with being stupid and all about being driven by his leftist ideology.

stix213
01-24-2011, 2:43 PM
I call on Obama to ban Noonan personally....

MolonLabe2008
01-24-2011, 2:50 PM
I call on Obama to ban Noonan personally....

I call on the American citizens to ban Obama and Noonan.

Wherryj
01-24-2011, 3:21 PM
Don't do it, Barry! It's a trap!!!

The GOP would love nothing more than to embroil Obama in a fight over magazine capacity, as it would weaken him going into the next election. The far better (and politically smart) course will be to strengthen pre-purchase screening, toward getting all mental defectives and drug addicts on the Federal list.

I hope that President Obama will fall for it. If the magazine ban is going to pass or not probably has little to do with whether it is mentioned in the SOTUA. What is related is President Obama's chance at a second term and more stacking of the SCOTUS.

krucam
01-24-2011, 3:32 PM
Obama will definitely bring up the shooting in Tuscon tomorrow...face it and theres no getting around it. It ought to be brought up in my opinion, if for nothing else than the "rhetoric" issue....sorry, I'm a Liberal at heart albeit a gun owning one.

The issue of him bringing up this new found trend of hating high-cap mags, nah (at least I hope so). Unconstitutional at the core, and my M&P .40 (15 rd mags, all 6 of them) are fine as they sit.

They killed nobody today btw for the bazillionth day in a row if anyone is interested.

MolonLabe2008
01-24-2011, 3:55 PM
Obama will definitely bring up the shooting in Tuscon tomorrow...face it and theres no getting around it. It ought to be brought up in my opinion, if for nothing else than the "rhetoric" issue....sorry, I'm a Liberal at heart albeit a gun owning one.


Do you mean this kind of violent "rhetoric?"

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”
--- Barack Obama

“If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard”
--- Barack Obama

“Argue with [people], get in their faces”
--- Barack Obama

“I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry. I’m angry”
--- Barack Obama

“I know they [the special interests and lobbyists] are gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this: so am I.”
--- Barack Obama

A History Of Obama’s Violent Rhetoric
http://www.therightperspective.org/2010/06/12/a-history-of-obamas-violent-rhetoric/

Pred@tor
01-24-2011, 3:56 PM
Is it the bill of "needs" Why dictate what I "need?" I love the line "No one needs such and such a rifle/item" I sure would like to meet this No one character sounds like he or she has cool stuff that authoritarians do not like the individual to have.

Skidmark
01-24-2011, 4:07 PM
First of all, Noonan is a RINO.

Secondly, who is going to decide who is sane and who is not? The government? I hope not!

You are willing to give the government that much more power?

Decisions on sanity are made by medical professionals, last I checked.

And Government already has the power to deny a citizen purchase of a firearm if the person has been judged mentally defective.
You would dismantle that? :eek:

SupportGeek
01-24-2011, 4:41 PM
i guess i'm a walking contradiction and need to end myself forthwith.

good thing my liberal *** already owns the guns and ammo to make this task simple?

i don't know how often i need to repeat myself on this, but the more you turn guns into a right v. left battle, the longer you're going to have to fight the battle. frame the debate as a civil rights issue, like you would the 1st amendment, and plenty of liberals will "see the light" almost instantly. the rest won't put so much effort into vehemently opposing you since it's no longer a black/white, good/evil, republican/democrat, red/blue juvenile power struggle issue. are you aware how different my conversations are (as a gun owning "liberal") with other liberals? do you know how much further i can go before things shut down into some defensive weiner measuring contest? of course, if 2A issues are secondary to your need for political conflict and left-baiting, then you don't care...but if you really want all Americans to bear and keep their arms, you shouldn't ignore the growing number of gun-owning liberals and moderates.

regarding ms. noonan--i'm not surprised that a authoritarian relic like herself is calling for the further disenfranchisement of the common American.

I agree with this.
Right vs. Left needs to be dissolved as far as 2a is concerned, advocates on both sides need to come together in a united front to silence the anti's once and for all.

JimWest
01-24-2011, 6:19 PM
I agree with this.
Right vs. Left needs to be dissolved as far as 2a is concerned, advocates on both sides need to come together in a united front to silence the anti's once and for all.

"In general" the "left" is anti-gun so it is difficult to keep the issue in proper perspective. But you are right, it's time to be careful of labels. The common theme should be freedom and the constitution but this is for another thread.

Back to Noonan-I always wondered why she twisted her topics in so many different directions. I'll not waste my time reading her crap anymore.

Skidmark
01-24-2011, 6:52 PM
I agree with this.
Right vs. Left needs to be dissolved as far as 2a is concerned, advocates on both sides need to come together in a united front to silence the anti's once and for all.

Which is CGN, right? Go team!

I'm liking the term "hostiles" more and more, over the awkward and confusing "antis." Those who are hostile to gun rights, and gun ownership, and ammoe ownership, are found on all sides of the political spectrum. And so, it behooves us to show that gun rights supporters, also come from across the political spectrum. 2A and RKBA advocacy is not the sole domain of pinheaded conservatives.

N6ATF
01-24-2011, 7:01 PM
'Hostiles' is kind of a loaded military term. As much as most victim disarmers/accomplices to countless violent crimes deserve to suffer the ultimate penalty after an Article III, Section 3 trial, we shouldn't talk like they're subject to being killed at any moment in this cold civil war over the right to self-defense.

jamesob
01-24-2011, 10:57 PM
No, it would not.

National security does not pertain solely to military power, despite that being the context that it has been shorthanded into. Rather, national security's purview extends beyond the realm of military power and into diplomacy, trade, health and the environment, as well as several other categories. There's a reason the National Security Council contains the Joint Chiefs AND the Secretary of the Treasury, as well as the Secretary of State.

To take the President's quote and assume he desires a civilian force to possibly usurp military power is not only laughable, but short-sighted. Sadly, it WAS a poor choice of words, and it is the exact reason FOX News decided to make such a big deal out of it.

we all could hang out waiting for invaders with binoculars and walky talkies, than relay to someone who then could relay the message to someone who knows how to get to the right source.

JimWest
01-25-2011, 8:55 AM
'Hostiles' is kind of a loaded military term. As much as most victim disarmers/accomplices to countless violent crimes deserve to suffer the ultimate penalty after a Section III, Article 3 trial, we shouldn't talk like they're subject to being killed at any moment in this cold civil war over the right to self-defense.

"Oppressors" gets my vote for the proper term. Wait! Sounds to much like suppressor-illegal in California. Back to the drawing board. :(

kazman
01-25-2011, 6:31 PM
I've read Noonan's column a few times over the years and generally thought well of them. But this is ridiculous and will cause me to question everything she writes.

IEShooter
01-25-2011, 8:41 PM
To be honest, I'm embarrassed by some of the uninformed blather I've seen posted in this thread.

"Peggy Noonan is just another left wing nut".

"Peggy should be banned back to the kitchen".

I've read Peggy for nearly 10 years and she is a brilliant writer and conservative columnist. Yes, I said brilliant.

This latest column is the first time I've ever disagreed with her. Personally, I think she's way off base, but that doesn't change her well deserved reputation for clarity of thought and writing.

She earned her position at the Wall Street Journal and while I think she's utterly wrong on this one subject, it doesn't diminish her past achievments.

Skidmark
01-25-2011, 9:15 PM
It was hard to keep up tonight... how many times did he mention banning hi-caps and imposing stronger gun control?

JimWest
01-25-2011, 9:26 PM
It was hard to keep up tonight... how many times did he mention banning hi-caps and imposing stronger gun control?

Huh? Did he go there? I can't stomach BO so didn't watch the State of the Onion.

toyotaguy
01-25-2011, 9:40 PM
Huh? Did he go there? I can't stomach BO so didn't watch the State of the Onion.

he didnt touch either issue what so ever.

Wherryj
01-26-2011, 8:44 AM
Oh I can use both arms, just not as efficiently as others, but I catch your drift.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erb's_palsy

But are they really going to attack babies injured at birth? ;)

"Think of the children!" :)

hammerhands32
01-26-2011, 8:59 AM
Maybe we could get a ban on bans.

Gunsmithing
01-26-2011, 9:02 AM
At this rate in 20 or 30 years we will be talking about on this site on make powder and copper bullets for owner flintlock's. Because of one or two nuts and hand full of criminals. Twenty years ago no one would put up with pat down at the airport now we are thinking will they do body cavity searches. Now is any willing to put our rights on the ballet or just let the politicians take ever one’s rights away one piece at time.

FortCourageArmory
01-26-2011, 11:29 AM
I've read Peggy Noonan for quite a few years and this recent article was so totally against what I read from her in the past that it prompted me to send her an e-mail. I asked if she was speaking emotionally or if she had applied the logic and conservative values I have so often read from her in the past. I anxiously await her answer (if I ever get one).

jgaffney
01-26-2011, 12:35 PM
Since when can the President ban anything? He's not a legislator...
Ah, there's the danger. When the President can't get Congress to do something, he can always fall back on executive branch regulations (think EPA lead ban) or executive orders. We can never turn our backs.

Personally, I don't see a need for hi-cap pistol mags. I wouldn't want to have a mag that protrudes that far below the end of the grip. But I do have a big problem with ever-growing regulation of firearms by the federal government in response to one nut-case shooting.

tube_ee
01-26-2011, 5:45 PM
She's a conservative authoritarian.

There's some big differences there.

--Shannon

kperry
01-26-2011, 6:50 PM
Thank you, badmonkey, for your eloquent post on this matter. I'm in complete agreement, and find it hard to refer a lot of other left-leaning friends and moderates who grew up with firearms like I did to this website, or to some of the NRA's radio programs, for example.

southernsnowshoe
01-26-2011, 9:06 PM
Where was this jackass Noonan after a wingnut blew up 160 innocent people with fuel oil and fertilizer in Oklahoma City, think of all of the lives that could be saved by banning fertilizer and trucks.

IEShooter
01-26-2011, 9:11 PM
I've read Peggy Noonan for quite a few years and this recent article was so totally against what I read from her in the past that it prompted me to send her an e-mail. I asked if she was speaking emotionally or if she had applied the logic and conservative values I have so often read from her in the past. I anxiously await her answer (if I ever get one).

Nicely done. I actually thought of doing the same thing and even went to the WSJ website to send her and e-mail, then got distracted and never got back to it.

Big fan of hers, despite this one misstep on her part, so I'm interested if you ever get a response.

cmichini
03-07-2011, 9:21 PM
Peggy Noonan writes in WSJ 1/22:

" What civilian needs a pistol with a magazine that loads 33 bullets and allows you to kill that many people without even stopping to reload? No one but people with bad intent."

She then calls on Obama in State of Union to call on banning.

I will be anxiously waiting to see a rebuttal from the NRA (or some other group) in the Journal subsequent to this article. And worst of all she says Republicans will not fight any ban.

How about that dumb sow take a look at the guy attacked at the Caltrain station last weekend by 15 people. Clinging to life in a hospital right now.

My guess is that if he was 'granted' his constitutional right that supposedly 'shall not be infringed' it's quite possible that there'd be up to 15 dirtbags taking much-deserved dirtnaps with a pair of holes in them (with 3 rounds to spare).

'No one with but people with bad intent' my *****. Wanting to get home to your family alive is bad intent?

I'd say something horrible about hoping she's on the receiving end of 15 miscreants but that would be bad form.

Just my $0.02.

southernsnowshoe
03-07-2011, 10:11 PM
At this rate in 20 or 30 years we will be talking about on this site on make powder and copper bullets for owner flintlock's. Because of one or two nuts and hand full of criminals. Twenty years ago no one would put up with pat down at the airport now we are thinking will they do body cavity searches. Now is any willing to put our rights on the ballet or just let the politicians take ever one’s rights away one piece at time.


High caps mags are designed for one thing, to kill people.

Why do we feel the need to try to justify the need for them?

We compare the attempt to ban them, with other things like banning cars or alcohol to stop drunk driving. why?

If the 2nd amendment eludes to a militia, and supposedly the militia is all americans males over 17 years old, then how are we to protect our homes and our nation against forces, foreign or domestic, if we don't have the same equipment as those we would have to fight?
High cap mags are for killing, and we should not shy away from some liberal pointing that out, we should stand tall on this, and point to the constitution. When the time comes to spill blood for our freedom and our way of life, the last thing we need to be worrying about, is reloading.

scarville
03-07-2011, 10:29 PM
1 wacko shoots people with a 30 + mag and suddenly we all are labelled as people with bad intent, im so sick at how these people blatantly label the rest of us law abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong and never will.
For fear of the one she would penalizes thousands.

I want my kilozine (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=5929640&postcount=18).

IrishPirate
03-07-2011, 10:32 PM
Peggy Noonan writes in WSJ 1/22:

" What civilian needs a pistol with a magazine that loads 33 bullets and allows you to kill that many people without even stopping to reload? No one but people with bad intent."

She then calls on Obama in State of Union to call on banning.

I will be anxiously waiting to see a rebuttal from the NRA (or some other group) in the Journal subsequent to this article. And worst of all she says Republicans will not fight any ban.

i'm sure they'll go with the "it's a Bill of RIGHTS, not a Bill of NEEDS."......straight out of the Gura handbook!!!

Term
03-07-2011, 10:42 PM
i guess i'm a walking contradiction and need to end myself forthwith.

good thing my liberal *** already owns the guns and ammo to make this task simple?

i don't know how often i need to repeat myself on this, but the more you turn guns into a right v. left battle, the longer you're going to have to fight the battle. frame the debate as a civil rights issue, like you would the 1st amendment, and plenty of liberals will "see the light" almost instantly. the rest won't put so much effort into vehemently opposing you since it's no longer a black/white, good/evil, republican/democrat, red/blue juvenile power struggle issue. are you aware how different my conversations are (as a gun owning "liberal") with other liberals? do you know how much further i can go before things shut down into some defensive weiner measuring contest? of course, if 2A issues are secondary to your need for political conflict and left-baiting, then you don't care...but if you really want all Americans to bear and keep their arms, you shouldn't ignore the growing number of gun-owning liberals and moderates.

regarding ms. noonan--i'm not surprised that a authoritarian relic like herself is calling for the further disenfranchisement of the common American.

^^^ A voice of reason. Good post.

Glock22Fan
03-07-2011, 10:50 PM
AFAIK, there has never been a case where someone in civilian life (including police) has killed ten, let alone thirty, people with one high capacity magazine without reloading.

Gun control is hitting your target. That maniac in Arizona could have killed more people with just a ten rounder.

ubet
03-08-2011, 8:42 AM
Anyone who think ol barry hussein obama will touch this, with a ten foot pole, front and center stage, is smoking crack. The stars politicaly arent aligned for it. Boehner wont allow a bill to come to the house floor, dingy harry gets HUGE donations from the NRA, hes not gonna vote on gun control. What hussein will do though is use back door tactics like project gunwalker, the epa to control lead, executive orders, and a thousand other things to limit are rights. Hes gonna fight us, but it will be all behind the scenes and down and dirty.

dantodd
03-08-2011, 9:40 AM
Anyone who think ol barry hussein obama will touch this, with a ten foot pole, front and center stage, is smoking crack. The stars politicaly arent aligned for it. Boehner wont allow a bill to come to the house floor, dingy harry gets HUGE donations from the NRA, hes not gonna vote on gun control. What hussein will do though is use back door tactics like project gunwalker, the epa to control lead, executive orders, and a thousand other things to limit are rights. Hes gonna fight us, but it will be all behind the scenes and down and dirty.

Please read BadMonkey's post here. (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=5680696&postcount=50) It does no good to try and push away people who are not republicans away. There are plenty of democrats and independents who are pro 2A rights. Calling them and/or the president of our nation does nothing to strengthen your argument and makes you look like the stereotypical troglodyte the anti-gunners try to paint all of us as being.