arma virumque cano (et alia)
#NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre has a challenge for the president. https://t.co/xzM1NnsZpF #2A @POTUS
— NRA (@NRA) 14 Gennaio 2016
So when Obama declines the challenge, will you tag a post about it as "the despicable Obama"?
What did he lie about?
Naturally you didn't notice any, right?
I noticed as many as you've specifically named here. I guess that would be none, so, to your question, "Yep."
I'll betcha can't point out one lie in Wayne's video, whereas, there are 7 years of lies following Hussein Obama around.orlin sellers
I'm surprised that your usually deep cynicism is suddenly checked when it comes to guns. Are you really saying Obama's a liar but La Pierre is not?
Mike B, the challenge was for YOU to point out Wayne's lies in the video. I repeat, I betcha can't.orlin sellers
You know I hate that kind of challenge. For one thing it's based on a lie of your own - yours and Kurts - pretending not to get what I meant. But here goes:1:05 "... one who sells, trades or gifts even just one firearm might be vulnerable to arrest and charged with a felony."The bumbling clowns who put the video together followed that La Pierre bullshit with the President saying "repeatedly sells" and "makes a profit." Now, does that sound like selling or trading ONE gun might get you in hot water?There are more lies, but I've wasted enough time on you lying clowns.
http://freebeacon.com/issues/obama-executive-order-may-require-those-selling-even-a-single-firearm-become-licensed-dealers/Boom! What's the next supposed "lie", Mike?Of course you hate these kinds of challenges. It's easier to just call people liars and not back it up.
1:05 "... one who sells, trades or gifts even just one firearm might be vulnerable to arrest and charged with a felony."If that's a "lie," what would you call this statement from the White House itself (bold emphasis added)?Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators. There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement. But it is important to note that even a few transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is “engaged in the business.” For example, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold or when only one or two transactions took place, when other factors also were present.Guess it's back to the old drawing board for your hilarious endeavor to pin a "lie" on Mr. LaPierre. Best of luck! ;-)
"Now, does that sound like selling or trading ONE gun might get you in hot water?" Perhaps he did something like read the fact sheet that was published by the White House at least presumably with the consent of the person who lives there,"Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators. There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement. But it is important to note that even a few transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is “engaged in the business.” For example, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold or when only one or two transactions took place, when other factors also were present."https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our
MikeB: "Now, does that sound like selling or trading ONE gun might get you in hot water?"Obama has made no secret that he'd like each private transaction to be a felony as that was what Manchin-Toomey did. This is of course outside of his executive powers so he had to settle on this vague "in the business" language, but made it clear that it could be just one transaction. Going beyond M-T we also know that he fully endorsed Schumer's bill which even harshly punished common temporary transfers regardless of whether it's your first time doing it and no money changes hands.
"Boom! What's the next supposed "lie", Mike?"Yeah, because the Free Beacon says so, right. How about we stick to what the President said?
Kurt, what the White House said was what courts have done not what the President said in his speech. Nice try.
Kurt, what the White House said was what courts have done not what the President said in his speech.Oh, Lord--that's the best you can do? "The White House said, it, not the President, so Mr. LaPierre was 'lying' when he said that selling a gun or two without a license could land you in prison"?Even by your standards of "logic," that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The press release makes very clear that the Obama regime's Department of "Justice" is asserting that it has the legitimate power to imprison people for such sales.Nice try.I fear I can't reciprocate that compliment. Your try was an abysmal failure. Well, unless you're trying for the position of someone's court jester, in which case you're doing great!
The link I provided had direct quotes from Lynch. Are you suggesting they brazenly libeled the Attorney General of the United States? Because you can't admit you were wrong?
"How about we stick to what the President said?" In this case, the fact sheet released by the White House also says a person could be charged for a single sale.
I think it said, "one or two transactions took place, when other factors also were present" which is a little different. La Pierre conveniently left out the most part of that quote. But, as for my original observation, he was talking about what the President said. He lied.
At 2:50: "Obama's gun force is FOUR TIMES bigger than the Special Forces fighting ISIS."I seriously doubt that.At 3:25: "Criminals prey upon the innocent with NO FEAR of reprocutions whatsoever."Flat out lie.At 3:40: "deliberate lack of prosecution Obama has made America a sanctuary nation for drug dealers, etc. etc."Bullshit. How could we have such a high percentage of prisoners then?That's enough. You guys are so full of it defending this phoney baloney. He started with "might" and "could", which you all defend as truth and honesty. It's not.
I think it said, "one or two transactions took place, when other factors also were present" which is a little different.It may be "a little different," but of course it obviously does not in any way contradict Mr. LaPierre's statement that " . . . one who sells, trades or gifts even just one firearm might be vulnerable to arrest and charged with a felony."But, as for my original observation, he was talking about what the President said. He lied.Where the hell are you getting the notion that Mr. LaPierre claimes to have been restricting himself to only what Emperor Barack the First said in any one speech, anyway?
“I’ll tell you what. I’ll meet you for a one on one, one-hour debate with a mutually agreed upon moderator on any network that will take it. No prescreened questions and no gas bag answers. Americans will judge for themselves who they trust and believe on this issue. You or the NRA?” Mr. LaPierre advises in the new video."http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/14/nra-chief-wayne-lapierre-invites-president-obama-o/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS So the message to the President is fish or cut bait. The President took the NRA to task for not taking part in the political theatre he called a town hall meeting. A meeting that he pretty much completely controlled and with no surprises allowed. Wonder how he would fare in a real debate, if he accepts the challenge.
If that ever were to happen, I suppose the La Pierre supporters would be unswayed and the gun control folks would be too. The fence sitters would probably be up for grabs - it would be interesting. I'd like to see it.
IF he completely controlled the conversation maybe that's because an opposition (NRA) didn't show up to give their positions.
Let's see......Obama holding court with vetted questions from a select few, or an open debate where POTUSs historical record on gun control, as well as the intentional obfuscation and deceit of the gun control industry can be exposed and questioned.......yep, I know which one would be of value. And we know Obama doesn't have the stones to accept. If his endeavours had merit, if he was honest in his intentions........he has no reason to not accept.
I wish he would.
Since Wayne has been the head of the NRA, mass shootings have become common in America.
Possibly Anon, and at the same time homicides and violent crime have fallen. I'm assuming that you're referring to the old definition of mass shootings since there isn't any historical data on the new Reddit definition.
So just by changing a mass shooting definition, you claim mass shootings have been happening since? the beginning of the nation? Forever?
Never said that Anon, though we did discuss a very early mass shooting a good number of years ago,"In the early morning hours of August 1, 1966, Whitman murdered his wife and mother in their homes. Later that day, he brought a number of guns, including rifles, a shotgun, and handguns, to the campus of the University of Texas at Austin where, over an approximate 90 to 95 minute period, he killed 14 people and wounded 32 others in a mass shooting in and around the Tower. Whitman shot and killed three people inside the university's tower and eleven others after firing at random from the 28th-floor observation deck of the Main Building. Whitman was shot and killed by Austin police officer Houston McCoy."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman Cant seem to find the link. Can anyone else lend a hand on that? What made this event interesting was the level of cooperation between law enforcement and civilians in stopping the killer."Approximately 20 minutes after first shooting from the observation deck, Whitman began to encounter return fire from both the police and armed civilians.""Three officers who responded to reports of the sniper were Ramiro Martinez (accompanied by civilian Allen Crum), Houston McCoy, and Jerry Day. Prior to advancing upon the tower, McCoy had seen his colleague Billy Speed killed. Both Martinez and Day had driven to the University of Texas after listening to radio reports"
Mass killings have happened since mankind cast his shadow upon the earth. Shootings? Since gunpowder.