Quantcast

Is it extreme to talk of impeaching the president over gun control?

L.A. Times 2013/01/16 16:27:28
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Even before President Obama announced his proposed gun control measures, right-wing conservatives and Republican members of Congress were raving about impeachment, incipient monarchy and civil war.

impeaching obama

Read More: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticke...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Tyler 2013/07/21 01:18:02
    No
    Tyler
    ITs to broad a question.
  • No-to-neocons 2013/04/14 04:27:13
    Yes
    No-to-neocons
    There are a lot of ignorant people on this subject. You people need to read the 2nd amendment it says...A WELL REGULATED militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
    ....that means the federal government has the right to regulate the weapons we have in this country. Thats why you cant own a machine gun, because congress banned them years ago and the Supreme Court ruled such bans on weapons is constitutional dumbasses.
  • DizziNY 2013/01/21 13:36:13 (edited)
    No
    DizziNY
    +1
    http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/d...
    Hitler started with the Jews, then he went after anyone who didn't agree with him.
    Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons
    11 November 1938
    With a basis in §31 of the Weapons Law of 18 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p.265), Article III of the Law on the Reunification of Austria with Germany of 13 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 237), and §9 of the Führer and Chancellor's decree on the administration of the Sudeten-German districts of 1 October 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p 1331) are the following ordered:

    §1
    Jews (§5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 1333) are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.

    §2
    Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.

    §3
    The Minister of the Interior may make exceptions to the Prohibition in §1 for Jews who are foreign nationals. He can entrust other authorities with this power.

    §4
    Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of §1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine. In especi...









    http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/d...
    Hitler started with the Jews, then he went after anyone who didn't agree with him.
    Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons
    11 November 1938
    With a basis in §31 of the Weapons Law of 18 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p.265), Article III of the Law on the Reunification of Austria with Germany of 13 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 237), and §9 of the Führer and Chancellor's decree on the administration of the Sudeten-German districts of 1 October 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p 1331) are the following ordered:

    §1
    Jews (§5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 1333) are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.

    §2
    Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.

    §3
    The Minister of the Interior may make exceptions to the Prohibition in §1 for Jews who are foreign nationals. He can entrust other authorities with this power.

    §4
    Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of §1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine. In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years.

    §5
    For the implementation of this regulation, the Minister of the Interior waives the necessary legal and administrative provisions.

    §6
    This regulation is valid in the state of Austria and in the Sudeten-German districts.

    Berlin, 11 November 1938
    Minister of the Interior
    Frick
    (more)
  • DizziNY DizziNY 2013/01/21 13:52:48 (edited)
  • ProudMom 2013/01/20 06:34:36
    Yes
    ProudMom
    +1
    We want people on welfare drug tested, but we don't care if the laws are better regulated on guns. What is wrong with people??? It's really disgusting to know that people are putting their rights to carry assault weapons around before the safety of children. We just want what we want. Nobody's taking all the guns away. I don't have a problem with people who have a gun if they checked out to be safe enough to have a gun. Personally, I think people who own guns should have drug testing periodically. I mean, everyone else who works pretty much has to. Of course there's so many ways to get around drug testing it's useless anyway. It just makes me think that these people are so wrapped up in what they want they don't care about what might work to save our kids who are our future.
  • DizziNY ProudMom 2013/01/21 13:50:23
    DizziNY
    Welfare is NOT a right.
  • bob h. DizziNY 2013/01/21 23:58:45
    bob h.
    +1
    How about shooting 31,000 people?
  • ProudMom DizziNY 2013/01/22 03:39:10
    ProudMom
    As a parent, I'd rather people with guns had more restrictions and were watched over more closely than people on welfare. Just saying. It's my right as an American. Have a wonderful day! :)
  • silvia.... ProudMom 2013/01/31 22:26:03
    silvia.dupont.7
    It is not about one over the other.It is are right to have guns and to use them to defend are selves and family for the safety of us and are family and the children.There will always be bad people that want to do bad things.
  • Kaye 2013/01/20 04:35:53
    No
    Kaye
    +1
    It's not just gun control,we all know that.It's f&f;,Benghazi,Birth certificate,Obamacare,constit... lie after another,spending,taxes,Bill of Rights
  • Wolf 2013/01/19 19:46:28
    No
    Wolf
    +3
    There are already numerous acts of tyranny by Obama that warrant impeachment this latest attempt to circumvent the Constitution again is just another --- the Benghazi Cover Up by Obama, Clinton, Biden, Panetta and Patreaus was worse then Watergate---
  • hasher 2013/01/19 13:10:34
    No
    hasher
    +2
    he is violating the constitution by his stupid executive orders.
  • hasher hasher 2013/01/19 13:13:27
    hasher
    +2
    and its not just the gun control issue its everything else hes done as well obamacare is unconstitutional
  • No-to-n... hasher 2013/04/14 04:32:32
    No-to-neocons
    thats funny 5 supreme court JUDGES disagree with you. I wonder whos right, 5 Constitutional JUDGES or your ignorant, dont know you ass from your elbow, clownish butt? HMMMM hard choice to make. NOT!
  • Greg Saunders 2013/01/19 12:45:21
    No
    Greg Saunders
    +1
    Not if he goes against the will of the people. It's his job to convince them and if not, he has do his job he was paid for in representing them.

    This despite the fact that personally I believe a society without guns is better but for long enough politicians have done more harm than good to the average person.

    So maybe they should be banned instead...
  • Tina 2013/01/19 01:52:36
    Yes
    Tina
    +3
    Obama gets so much crap. Idk how he takes it. It's not like he suddenly said he was going to decide and take away guns just for fun. Damn.
  • DizziNY Tina 2013/01/21 13:50:50
    DizziNY
    True, he's been planning it for a while now.
  • Mel the Witch POTL PWCM~JLA 2013/01/18 21:50:10
    No
    Mel the Witch POTL PWCM~JLA
    +2
    Bama needs to be GONE. He is advocating the destruction of the Bill of Rights. He is acting like a petty dictator
  • bob h. Mel the... 2013/01/20 02:32:21
    bob h.
    You know what he said: "Don't wave that thing in front of me, it's just a piece of paper". No, but wait, that was Karl Rove; you know Cheney's tool.
  • Mel the... bob h. 2013/01/23 11:36:30
    Mel the Witch POTL PWCM~JLA
    Bobber Close your eyes and watch the birds...
  • bob h. Mel the... 2013/01/23 19:54:54
    bob h.
    That's it for you.
  • lynn 2013/01/18 21:48:40
    No
    lynn
    +1
    The right of the people to keep and bear arms in this nation... "uninfringed"... is not subject to licensing or, actually, to any form of restriction so long as one is not a criminal or mentally handicapped. This right is granted by the Constitution. The president (and all government officials, politicians, and authorities) took an oath to preserve and defend the Constitution. Any attack on the rights granted by that Constitution, be it the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, etc., constitutes a form of treason. And should the president take steps to undermine our Constitutional rights, he is most certainly a candidate for impeachment, as is proper.
  • bob h. lynn 2013/01/22 00:01:47
    bob h.
    But not the right to make up your own version and think it's the 2nd Amendment.
  • lynn bob h. 2013/01/22 17:52:56
    lynn
    +1
    When one takes the time to read the writings of the Founding Fathers, it becomes quite clear that their intentions were that the people maintain the right to keep and bear arms of equal application as those of the police and military.
  • bob h. lynn 2013/01/22 20:44:25
    bob h.
    There WAS no police or military. Where do you get this stuff?
  • lynn bob h. 2013/01/23 17:14:17
    lynn
    There were local constabularies (most townships and villages had them since the first pilgrims landed and formed communities) and Washington led the Colonial Army, remember them? So, your answer would be something called history books.
  • No-to-n... lynn 2013/04/14 04:39:06
    No-to-neocons
    funny how you left out A WELL REGULATED, part of that amendment. Oh and by the way, why is it you, nor anyone else, can't own a automatic machine gun, or tommy gun in this country? Oh yeah thats right, because THEY'RE BANNED! Wouldn't that be an infringment on your 2nd amendment rights?
  • lynn No-to-n... 2013/04/15 17:37:32
    lynn
    Yes, it is indeed an infringement. (I'm glad you see that.)

    As for "well regulated", if you look at the definitions of "militia" and "well regulated" as they were used in the time of our Founding Fathers, you will see this applies strictly to the civilian population, who were expected to help defend their own homes and communities if necessary. Such an expectation could still apply today, and should. A well-armed society is absolutely essential to (a) maintining their own freedom through a balance of power between the government and the governed and (b) protecting and defending our nation from foreign invasion.
  • No-to-n... lynn 2013/04/16 16:45:03 (edited)
    No-to-neocons
    Oh please. How are you going to go to war with our government with a gun when they have nuclear weapons, tanks and drones? There well never come a time in our country, when you will have to defend yourself against our government. WE THE PEOPLE, make up our government. This isn't the 17th century. WE go to the battle field every 2 years and put the most powerfull weapon of them all to use. its called the ballot box and WE THE PEOPLE win every time. And by the way, ALL RIGHTS in the constitution have limits ALL OF THEM. Just like the first amendment has limits, so to does the second.
  • lynn No-to-n... 2013/04/16 17:38:09
    lynn
    "There well never come a time in our country, when you will have to defend yourself against our government."

    Tell that to all the countries throughout history who have been overrun by a tyrannical leader. Germany in the 1930's comes to mind, a parliamentary democracy transformed into a totalitarian dictatorship within a few short years. And what was the first act of Hitler once he had risen to sufficient power? Disarmament of the people.

    "How are you going to go to war with our government with a gun when they have nuclear weapons, tanks and drones?"

    Have you ever heard of guerilla warfare? Have you ever heard of the Oathkeepers? Do you really think our fellow Americans in the ranks of the armed forces would blindly follow orders to kill their own friends and families? Some would, yes, but most likely not all. Then there's the old adage, "If I have a gun, I can get a tank." Consider as well the percentages... our enlisted military (and, as already pointed out, probably not all of them) against every American citizen who is able to fight (having something to fight with).

    "This isn't the 17th century. WE go to the battle field every 2 years and put the most powerfull weapon of them all to use. its called the ballot box and WE THE PEOPLE win every time."

    And I hope and p...





    "There well never come a time in our country, when you will have to defend yourself against our government."

    Tell that to all the countries throughout history who have been overrun by a tyrannical leader. Germany in the 1930's comes to mind, a parliamentary democracy transformed into a totalitarian dictatorship within a few short years. And what was the first act of Hitler once he had risen to sufficient power? Disarmament of the people.

    "How are you going to go to war with our government with a gun when they have nuclear weapons, tanks and drones?"

    Have you ever heard of guerilla warfare? Have you ever heard of the Oathkeepers? Do you really think our fellow Americans in the ranks of the armed forces would blindly follow orders to kill their own friends and families? Some would, yes, but most likely not all. Then there's the old adage, "If I have a gun, I can get a tank." Consider as well the percentages... our enlisted military (and, as already pointed out, probably not all of them) against every American citizen who is able to fight (having something to fight with).

    "This isn't the 17th century. WE go to the battle field every 2 years and put the most powerfull weapon of them all to use. its called the ballot box and WE THE PEOPLE win every time."

    And I hope and pray that's the only "battle field" "we the people" ever have to face. Yet, history illustrates that isn't always the case. As great as our system is (the best on Earth as far as I'm concerned), no system of government is free of corruption, nor is it insulated from collapse. When politicians pass laws that make lawful men and women criminals (as the Obama Democrats are now attempting to do, and as politicians on both sides of the aisle have been doing for some time), the outcome is never good. As for "we the people" winning every time, you have to have someone worth voting for to win, and that's something else we haven't had for awhile.

    "ALL RIGHTS in the constitution have limits ALL OF THEM. Just like the first amendment has limits, so to does the second."

    As it stands, the private citizen cannot own a true "assault weapon" (fully automatic), or an operable tank, or an armed fighter plane. We cannot keep explosives such as grenades or missiles in our possession. We are only allowed to have semi-automatic weapons with large-capacity magazines at the most. The police and military have all of the above, in addition to (as you point out) nuclear weapons and drones. So how much further do you want to limit the Second Amendment? It sounds to me like it's pretty hevily limited at present.

    Seriously, I hope and pray events never escalate to the point where the American people are forced to make a stand against a tyrannical government in order to preserve our nation and our liberties. At least I like to think we never will. And I know from the lessons provided by history the best way to assure we never do is to preserve that critically essential balance of power between "we the people" and the government which is supposed to serve us, but more often than not demands we serve it.
    (more)
  • No-to-n... lynn 2013/04/17 03:57:49
    No-to-neocons
    You are nothing but a paranoid nut. There is nothing, NOTHING, in the bills being debated, that is calling for the disarmament of the American people. The only thing that is being debated on is a universal background check of all weapons sales, and the size of magazine clips. I am a gun owner, have been since I was 18 and like 84% of all other gun owners in this country I have no problem with any of the proposals being debated. The only ones that are crying foul, and second amendment rights, are paranoid nuts like yourself and the NRA, aka the Gun manufacturers of America, whom by the way, had no problem with those same proposals back in the 90's, but now find then unacceptable today.
  • lynn No-to-n... 2013/04/17 05:26:05
    lynn
    I'd rather be a paranoid nut capable of defending my family, my home, and my nation than a blind fool who would enable disarmament and trust his fate (and possibly that of his family) to whomever is in power and remains armed.

    The things which are being debated are all major steps toward enabling disarmament. Feinstein wants an all-out ban on certain semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines. How is a ban not, in essence, disarmament? Universal background checks would hand the government a checklist of every firearms owner, where they are, and what they have in their possession. Historically, such steps inevitably lead to confiscation, as we have recently witnessed taking place in the British Isles and Australia.

    I do not believe for a moment that 84% of all gun owners have no problem with these proposals. The government and the media may make that claim, but this is the same government and media telling us there is nothing they can do about illegal immigration except grant amnesty.

    You may be a gun owner, but you obviously do not understand the critical importance of maintaining a workable balance of power between the governed and the government. While I generally support the NRA, I am not a member, and regardless of what the NRA's stance was on certain pro...





    I'd rather be a paranoid nut capable of defending my family, my home, and my nation than a blind fool who would enable disarmament and trust his fate (and possibly that of his family) to whomever is in power and remains armed.

    The things which are being debated are all major steps toward enabling disarmament. Feinstein wants an all-out ban on certain semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines. How is a ban not, in essence, disarmament? Universal background checks would hand the government a checklist of every firearms owner, where they are, and what they have in their possession. Historically, such steps inevitably lead to confiscation, as we have recently witnessed taking place in the British Isles and Australia.

    I do not believe for a moment that 84% of all gun owners have no problem with these proposals. The government and the media may make that claim, but this is the same government and media telling us there is nothing they can do about illegal immigration except grant amnesty.

    You may be a gun owner, but you obviously do not understand the critical importance of maintaining a workable balance of power between the governed and the government. While I generally support the NRA, I am not a member, and regardless of what the NRA's stance was on certain proposals in the '90's, I can assure you I did have a problem with any step which would undermine a well-armed private population.

    Despite the lies of the media and the government and political extremists, the NRA is not controlled nor solely supported by gun manufacturers, it is supported by private American citizens who understand that no society is free unless it is sufficiently armed.

    The citizen militia, should it ever have to take a stand against looters in the case of a natural disaster, or a foreign invasion, or, yes, a corrupt faction of the government which has abandoned Constitutional law, cannot possibly win with shotguns and hunting rifles alone. That is why the proposals being currently debated are entirely unacceptable.

    Finally, ask yourself why certain politicians, including the fellow currently occupying our White House, are only targeting guns when they know those who have committed such horrible mass atrocities (shootings, bombings, driving cars into crowds) have been effected by the dangerous psychotropic drugs conventional medicine and the legal drug cartels are incessantly pushing in our society. May I remind you of the fact that, prior to the 1968 US Gun Control Act, we had virtually no restrictions whatever on guns, no background checks, no records of sales, nothing-- and there were none of the mass acts of violence we see today. Why is that? Obviously, there is an entirely different catalyst at work within our society than the presence of firearms.
    (more)
  • B_M_Anderson 2013/01/18 21:36:03
    No
    B_M_Anderson
    +3
    Michael Lerman Serves California Elected Officials & Electors Obama Treason Notice 12-04-2012

    #1.
    http://youtu.be/tzX2vAJMJzI ,



    Others backing the same topics from view points or like view points.

    See links

    Press Conference with Walter Jones & Retired Military on HCR107,

    #1.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...





    Here is Some others Working on such topics I am not really apart of Yet Agree with


    Google OBAMA’S TREASON: BREAKING! A new lawsuit, which is bordering on the unbelievable, implicates the Obama administration and some of the world’s largest banks in the largest international money laundering case in history! Sunday, 9 September 2012

    http://thejaghunter.wordpress...
  • bob h. 2013/01/18 21:24:30
    Yes
    bob h.
    +1
    As a rational person who would like to think that the 13,000 shooting death rate merits some concern, I would say, impeachment is a little extreme. Of course, a cave dweller would think otherwise.
  • becky obryan 2013/01/18 21:01:10
    No
    becky obryan
    +4
    Are you kidding me?!! He wants our guns by any means possible and people think there's nothing wrong with that? It's a violation of our 2nd amendment rights. Impeach the dude.
  • Elegy 2013/01/18 20:30:38
    Yes
    Elegy
    +2
    This walking piece of feces needs to be sitting in GITMO, not the WH.
  • Renee Doupe 2013/01/18 20:21:27
    No
    Renee Doupe
    +1
    The entire government needs to be arrested, sent to trial, and new ethical people need to replace them.
  • claona 2013/01/18 20:09:15
    Yes
    claona
    +1
    More power to his elbow.. maybe he might create a situation whereby the wider world no longer regards the USA with horror and disgust!
  • bob h. claona 2013/01/18 21:26:34
    bob h.
    +1
    I think it'll take more than gun laws.
  • Will of Truth 2013/01/18 19:53:43
    No
    Will of Truth
    +3
    Its over his extremely blatant disregard for how Our Republic works. Which he has proven his contempt for many times over.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 32 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/12/19 10:08:55

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals