Liberalization of Gun Laws in Virginia

[Tweaker]

Mr. PartisanWhoClaims2b4guns,

Do you suppose you would be able to offer even a limp wristed reply to any of the myriad spectacles just from off teh top of my head demostrating the "Greatest misses in Democrat gun freedom support?"

I await your efforts. Is this some attempt at a listening tour amoungst the knuckle draggers on behalf of one of your dear leaders?

MEOW MHEA DIS!!
MEOW MHEA DIS!!

We will not support nor vote for any politician who's entire basis of 2nd Amend support amounts to campaign time promises, backsliding and doublespeak. I'm probably going to leave THE ONE out of this, as that is simply too obvious and you claim to desire to discuss state level politics.

I will check your progress tomorrow.

[Tweaker]

How do you suppose the next challenge will go, after DEMigod Obunghole replaces one of the 5 (who you claim to agree with on gun rights) with another frumpy twunt who will make nice or refuse to answer direct questions in confirmation hearings only to come out of the gun banning closet when she gets her permanent black robe?

Mr. Tweaker,
President Obama is our President and deserves the minimal level of respect as President, not to mention the most basic human respect.

No sir, in my opinion he is deserving of something else entirely. He has openly stated he aims to "fundamentally change America." Not interested. He does not follow the rule or law and his adminstration is the least "transparent" in history. Both of these were campaign promises of his. Respect is earned and a liar deserves none.

The far looney left is seething with rage over his many other broken promises. Perhaps there is hope for you yet, young padawan. I suspect your loyalty is more partisan, and you are primarily concerned with the big D and the little d is but a mere nuisance.

He is the first black President and deserves respect for achieving that status. Your offensive remarks don't help the cause of the 2nd Amendment. Remarks like yours just reinforce the view of the left and the middle that right wing gun nuts are too extremist, and too rude and therefore unable to work in a civil manner with the other side of the aisle to compromise and agree on changes.

He is not black. He is not black enough according Hillary and many other hyper partisans like yourself. He is 1/2 black and all communist, which is by far more important. His race is nearly irrelevant but for the robot-like voting block that affords him in the booth by the Democrat oppressed negro population.

Congrats for being the 1st to introduce race into a discussion when it had no bearing whatsoever. When there becomes a race based version of Godwins Hitler rule, you will be postumously found guilty of violating it. What else you got?

You want to achieve compromise. BS flag!!! Compromise means submission by your opposition. How do you compromise with my ability to defend life and that of my family? I must give an assailant the first shot? Simply leftist pap.

Learn to calm your language, show some civility, and you can make progress in liberalizing gun regulations and gun laws. But insulting the other side is not going to help the cause.

1) I don't take lessons from you on my discourse. It is unsurprising you dislike the manner in which I exercise my 1st amendment rights, as you also disapprove of the manner in which I exercise my 2A rights. Tough titties, son.

2) I don't show civility when life and death is on the line. When discussing firearms rights, it most certainly is. Your precious party has and will continue to deny me the ability to preserve my life both at home and in public. You can say pish posh and hit me in the face with your white glove, or even challenge me to a duel, but the Queensbury rules do not apply. Sawry!

3) If I play nice "we" can advance firearms freedoms together? lol Simply ridiculous. Will we also join hands and sing kumbayaa? I am under no illusion that you are here to have your horizons expanded nor your mind changed.

Where are the good Virginian manners and neighborliness your momma taught you?

Bad news for you. I am not a Virginia gentleman. That is not my birthright. I grew up near the crime infested cesspool that is the only state in the union that prohibits to this day any personal exercise of firearms carry. ILL ANNOY.

You must be familiar with THE ONE's comment, they bring a knife, we bring a gun? He learned that in Chitcago! You must respect dear leader's comment or risk ostracism! I left that perverted corrupt state as soon as I could. It is a fool's paradise of Democrat politics run amok. 6 of the last 9 governors have served jail time or are in the process.

I don't seek to "hug it out" with you. I am also not desperate enough for friendship that I would choose one who places partisan party politics, of the type George Washington most feared above the constitution or my ability to defend my family's life.

I have and I will continue to meet you on the field of ideas and call out what I feel to be BS. Get used to it and get over yourself, Mortimer.

How about actually agreeing or disagreeing with the proposals I made?

I will get on that tomorrow, perhaps after you have the interval to defend your party's efforts to deny civil liberties, as I have gotten SPECIFIC about.

That would be a good start to show you are interesting in getting along.

Dems4Guns

[Tweaker]

"neighborliness your momma taught you?"

It is worth adding that my "momma" was forced to sneak out of her birth country with her old grandmother as a young girl after an invasion by communist hoards who persecuted the people there. She could teach you a thing or two I expect, but I think it would stick to your cerebellum like a pig would to a greased slip and slide.

If you are going to continue to introduce racial politics and talk about my "momma" I can assure you the discourse will degrade vastly, Sydney!

[dems4guns]

Honestly I don't think so.. An intruder should be considered a threat by the mere fact they are in the house uninvited, The responsibility is on them IMHO simply for making the choice to enter the dwelling. Your what if's really do stretch the limit of what it could be, An assumption in the other direction is what if he doesn't have Alzheimers, or is drunk or whatever,,That time you take to diagnose the situation could cost you your life.IMHO by the mere fact of the outsiders presence it is a self defense situation and should be handled as such

The first time someone shoots an unarmed and nonthreatening person under your proposal, the entire nation will come down on you like a sledgehammer. Virginia law right now says you have to fear for your life (or potentially the life of another). That implies there is a weapon in his/her hand and he/she is acting threatening. But the mere presence of a stranger in your home is not nearly enough justification to kill him/her. It could also be an unarmed burglar just looking for something to steal. As soon as they are detected, they are gonna run. You get to shoot them in the back because they were in your home? That is repulsive and murder IMHO.

Dems4Guns

[dems4guns]

How do you suppose the next challenge will go, after DEMigod Obunghole replaces one of the 5 (who you claim to agree with on gun rights) with another frumpy twunt who will make nice or refuse to answer direct questions in confirmation hearings only to come out of the gun banning closet when she gets her permanent black robe?

Mr. Tweaker,
President Obama is our President and deserves the minimal level of respect as President, not to mention the most basic human respect.

No sir, in my opinion he is deserving of something else entirely. He has openly stated he aims to "fundamentally change America." Not interested. He does not follow the rule or law and his adminstration is the least "transparent" in history. Both of these were campaign promises of his. Respect is earned and a liar deserves none.

The far looney left is seething with rage over his many other broken promises. Perhaps there is hope for you yet, young padawan. I suspect your loyalty is more partisan, and you are primarily concerned with the big D and the little d is but a mere nuisance.

He is the first black President and deserves respect for achieving that status. Your offensive remarks don't help the cause of the 2nd Amendment. Remarks like yours just reinforce the view of the left and the middle that right wing gun nuts are too extremist, and too rude and therefore unable to work in a civil manner with the other side of the aisle to compromise and agree on changes.

He is not black. He is not black enough according Hillary and many other hyper partisans like yourself. He is 1/2 black and all communist, which is by far more important. His race is nearly irrelevant but for the robot-like voting block that affords him in the booth by the Democrat oppressed negro population.

Congrats for being the 1st to introduce race into a discussion when it had no bearing whatsoever. When there becomes a race based version of Godwins Hitler rule, you will be postumously found guilty of violating it. What else you got?

You want to achieve compromise. BS flag!!! Compromise means submission by your opposition. How do you compromise with my ability to defend life and that of my family? I must give an assailant the first shot? Simply leftist pap.

Learn to calm your language, show some civility, and you can make progress in liberalizing gun regulations and gun laws. But insulting the other side is not going to help the cause.

1) I don't take lessons from you on my discourse. It is unsurprising you dislike the manner in which I exercise my 1st amendment rights, as you also disapprove of the manner in which I exercise my 2A rights. Tough titties, son.

2) I don't show civility when life and death is on the line. When discussing firearms rights, it most certainly is. Your precious party has and will continue to deny me the ability to preserve my life both at home and in public. You can say pish posh and hit me in the face with your white glove, or even challenge me to a duel, but the Queensbury rules do not apply. Sawry!

3) If I play nice "we" can advance firearms freedoms together? lol Simply ridiculous. Will we also join hands and sing kumbayaa? I am under no illusion that you are here to have your horizons expanded nor your mind changed.

Where are the good Virginian manners and neighborliness your momma taught you?

Bad news for you. I am not a Virginia gentleman. That is not my birthright. I grew up near the crime infested cesspool that is the only state in the union that prohibits to this day any personal exercise of firearms carry. ILL ANNOY.

You must be familiar with THE ONE's comment, they bring a knife, we bring a gun? He learned that in Chitcago! You must respect dear leader's comment or risk ostracism! I left that perverted corrupt state as soon as I could. It is a fool's paradise of Democrat politics run amok. 6 of the last 9 governors have served jail time or are in the process.

I don't seek to "hug it out" with you. I am also not desperate enough for friendship that I would choose one who places partisan party politics, of the type George Washington most feared above the constitution or my ability to defend my family's life.

I have and I will continue to meet you on the field of ideas and call out what I feel to be BS. Get used to it and get over yourself, Mortimer.

How about actually agreeing or disagreeing with the proposals I made?

I will get on that tomorrow, perhaps after you have the interval to defend your party's efforts to deny civil liberties, as I have gotten SPECIFIC about.

That would be a good start to show you are interesting in getting along.

Dems4Guns

You have no decency sir, and I find your remarks unpatriotic and unAmerican and an insult to the American system of civil discourse. The whole purpose of civil discourse is to work together to make progress especially when we difer on issues. In this case there are a number of proposals that I have made as a Democrat which will advance our gun freedoms, and you have failed to address any one of them. Instead you leveled an ugly partisan attack for no apparent reason other than your own anger. If You DO live in Virginia SIR, then I suggest you learn some manners and some decency. This is where American democracy started, sir. Show some respect.
Dems4Guns

[Tweaker]

Wow, are you ever a sensitive dandy? Have you evah? Harumph!

No, nevah! Harumph harumph!

Did you get your panties in wad when Bush was burned in effigy?

When all manner and sundry wacky leftists chanted horrible things about the president and our country in an 8 year tantrum?

When a movie was released in which the entire plot line was the assassination of GWB?

Should I mind my p's and q's or you will be forced to become evar more indignant? You deserve not a shred of respect from me and neither do the SPECIFIC PEOPLE I mentioned THAT YOU WILL NOT ADDRESS.

I will get to your olive branches forthwidth, Lord Fauntleroy.

[Tweaker]

"Here is what I would like to see passed: I propose the Virginia legislature pass legislation that would require any commercially zoned property to allow the storage of firearms in a private vehicle while parked on the property, but may allow property owners to enforce policies against open carry and concealed carry on their property. No requirement that it be unloaded while in the vehicle. We could also ask for State, County and Local government parking lots be required to do the same. (We can't do US gov't for obvious reasons)

This way I can lock my firearm in my vehicle while I shop or go to work without risk of violating the owner's rules that may ban firearms.

This is the kind of incremental change that Democrats can support."

That sounds great. Tell me the names of the pro-civil rights Dems who will co-sponsor / vote for this?

"Or how about making it a state law that self defense and protecting the life of another or protecting someone from serious injury and protecting your home from an invader would be justifiable use of a firearm?"

That sounds great. I believe it already is the law, at least by settled case law, which actually makes up a vast number of legal settled issues.

That is also why VA does not have/need Castle Doctrine. The case law is already more favorable than Castle Doctrine's passed in other states, with the possible exception of the protections from civil lawsuits.

"You just might have to listen to us advocate marijuana and prostitution legalization as well.
Dems4Guns"

This may blow your mind, but I already am in favor or these and have contacted my legislators about one of these issues previously.

[Tweaker]

Ok, your turn. Let's review the conflicts presented in support or compromise offered by Democrats versus firearms freedoms:

1) Rectumfy for us how you can support Timmah Kaine and also place a high priority of firearms freedoms, after his veto of any pro gun bill that hit his desk.

2) Explain how you can extoll the virtues of the second amendment, yet also wave your Democrat card given the status of gun rights in such democrat bastions as the District of Calamity and Chitcago, ILL ANNOY.

3) Tell me how you can defend the support both Warner and Webb gave to the nominations of both Kagan and Sotomayor. It was clear to all honest observers how they would decide 2A cases, and history has born that out. How did the Dems advance or even accept the now decided and always clear meaning of the right of individual firearm ownership and carry with these nominations?

4) Tell me how we are should believe that you or any other committed Democrat truly believes in the 2nd A while promoting the current president, given B.O.'s long history of anti firearms votes, statements and recently "we will go after guns under the radar."

Your answers to this will go far in convincing me where you are coming from.

[VBshooter]

Dems4uns wrote;The first time someone shoots an unarmed and nonthreatening person under your proposal, the entire nation will come down on you like a sledgehammer. Virginia law right now says you have to fear for your life (or potentially the life of another). That implies there is a weapon in his/her hand and he/she is acting threatening. But the mere presence of a stranger in your home is not nearly enough justification to kill him/her. It could also be an unarmed burglar just looking for something to steal. As soon as they are detected, they are gonna run. You get to shoot them in the back because they were in your home? That is repulsive and murder IMHO.
Dems4Guns

I never advocated shooting them ala carte blanche. However their very presence should put any person on guard to a possible threat and be prepared to use deadly force if necessary. It's still on the intruder to be fully aware of their actions and realize that it MIGHT lead to getting shot or killed. Irregardless of heir intentions, It shouldn't be up to the one being robbed or whatever to shoulder the risk as they are not committing a crime nor are they where they shoudn't be. They are the one being acted against by outside sources and have the option to use deadly force if the situation warrants it.

[dems4guns]

I never advocated shooting them ala carte blanche. However their very presence should put any person on guard to a possible threat and be prepared to use deadly force if necessary. It's still on the intruder to be fully aware of their actions and realize that it MIGHT lead to getting shot or killed. Irregardless of heir intentions, It shouldn't be up to the one being robbed or whatever to shoulder the risk as they are not committing a crime nor are they where they shoudn't be. They are the one being acted against by outside sources and have the option to use deadly force if the situation warrants it.

...the option to use deadly force if the situation warrants it.

This is the critical part of your post and one with which I agree. This is the part that has to be put into language for a State Statute to operate and so the citizens and State Attorneys are clear about the intent of the Statute. I think the language needs to spell out that the intruder must be armed OR be acting in a violent or threatening manner in order to JUSTIFY the use of deadly force.

What Timberwolf wrote was,

3. If someone has illegally entered your home that is a justifiable reason to use deadly force, regardless of that persons intentions. (The best form of Castle doctrine.)

This proposal has no justification language whatsoever. There has to be some justification to use deadly force on someone and not just that they are on your property or in your home.

I generally agree with your post, however when a person has Alzheimers or is mentally disabled or disoriented in some manner, they are NOT aware their actions could lead to the use of deadly force on them. Does that justify killing them?
Dems4Guns

[dems4guns]

"Here is what I would like to see passed: I propose the Virginia legislature pass legislation that would require any commercially zoned property to allow the storage of firearms in a private vehicle while parked on the property, but may allow property owners to enforce policies against open carry and concealed carry on their property. No requirement that it be unloaded while in the vehicle. We could also ask for State, County and Local government parking lots be required to do the same. (We can't do US gov't for obvious reasons)
This way I can lock my firearm in my vehicle while I shop or go to work without risk of violating the owner's rules that may ban firearms.
This is the kind of incremental change that Democrats can support."

That sounds great. Tell me the names of the pro-civil rights Dems who will co-sponsor / vote for this?

It's important to remember that Virginia is a very pro-gun State and Democrats and those in the middle are not generally opposed to gun liberalization, as the 2010 legislature passed laws liberalizing transportation of firearms. Bringing in Democratic votes on sensitive issues like this is a subtle process and most Democrats won't endorse legislation until they see it and test it out with key constituents. Even then, often you won't know their vote until the day they call for the vote. The same works for Republicans who vote on sensitive issues. I am glad we can agree on the proposal even though we have very different political views.

[quote="Dems4Guns]"Or how about making it a state law that self defense and protecting the life of another or protecting someone from serious injury and protecting your home from an invader would be justifiable use of a firearm?"

That sounds great. I believe it already is the law, at least by settled case law, which actually makes up a vast number of legal settled issues.

That is also why VA does not have/need Castle Doctrine. The case law is already more favorable than Castle Doctrine's passed in other states, with the possible exception of the protections from civil lawsuits.

Brandishing a firearm can be just as serious a charge as using it in Virginia. I think that brandishing a firearm should be justified when a stranger is on your property or in your home and the use of deadly force should be better defined in the Statutes rather than relying on legal precedence.

[quote="Dems4Guns]"You just might have to listen to us advocate marijuana and prostitution legalization as well.
Dems4Guns"

This may blow your mind, but I already am in favor or these and have contacted my legislators about one of these issues previously.

[/quote]

Great! Sounds like we have more we can agree on!

THANK YOU for speaking directly to the issues. By focusing on what we can do together then we can work together with others to make it happen. I appreciate your civility in this posting.

Maybe there is some Virginia Gentleman in you after all!
Dems4Guns

[dems4guns]

Ok, your turn. Let's review the conflicts presented in support or compromise offered by Democrats versus firearms freedoms:

1) Rectumfy for us how you can support Timmah Kaine and also place a high priority of firearms freedoms, after his veto of any pro gun bill that hit his desk.

2) Explain how you can extoll the virtues of the second amendment, yet also wave your Democrat card given the status of gun rights in such democrat bastions as the District of Calamity and Chitcago, ILL ANNOY.

3) Tell me how you can defend the support both Warner and Webb gave to the nominations of both Kagan and Sotomayor. It was clear to all honest observers how they would decide 2A cases, and history has born that out. How did the Dems advance or even accept the now decided and always clear meaning of the right of individual firearm ownership and carry with these nominations?

4) Tell me how we are should believe that you or any other committed Democrat truly believes in the 2nd A while promoting the current president, given B.O.'s long history of anti firearms votes, statements and recently "we will go after guns under the radar."

Your answers to this will go far in convincing me where you are coming from.

Politicians come as a package deal unfortunately. Until we get to National and State Referendum's or allowing each of us to vote on legislation rather than going through politicians, we are going to continue to have this problem. And, Republican politicians have the same problem....they come as a package deal. I don't agree with every position President Obama's administration takes. I don't agree with every position Warner and Webb take. And, Republicans are in the same situation...constitutents don't always agree with the votes of their Republican politicians.

But, when I look at each politician, I have to consider all their positions, not just the ones on guns or gay rights, for instance. But here is the thing: There is a better chance of changing a Virginia Democrat to support gun liberalization than there is in asking a Republican to support gay rights, for instance. It's all a matter of working with their staff and key constitutents. But, publicly calling them socialists and communists and insulting them and clobbering them with hate will alienate them and you can forget about it.

In short, I care about the specific issues and I don't care whether there is a Democrat or Republican label on their nametag. As for Illinoi, well, I don't live there. I live in Virginia. If that State wants to more tightly regulate firearms, that is up to them. States Rights....you can't have it both ways.
Dems4Guns

[frankD]

Wish list:

3. If someone has illegally entered your home that is a justifiable reason to use deadly force, regardless of that persons intentions. (The best form of Castle doctrine.)

This goes too far IMHO. How about: "Brandishing a firearm or deadly weapon, or discharge of a warning shot is legal If someone has entered your home without permission, and after two verbal warnings, if the person has refused to leave the premises, use of deadly force is justified. Use of a deadly weapon on any person who is related by family or through personal relationship is justified only under self-defense."

It's called compromise.
Dems4Guns

Let's look at it this way: Do you think someone that is hopped up on drugs is going to go, "Okay, you sound reasonable. Let me depart your property at this time."?

Why would I want to fire a warning shot? To potentially harm another person or do damage to my own property because someone entered my property without authorization? Where do you suggest firing the warning shot? Down? Up? I'm not trying to beat you up, but honestly I don't believe in warning shots (you can't be sure of how far your round is going to travel and what it will potentially come in contact with. There's too much margin for error. In my house, my kids (4 of them) live on all three levels of my house. Warning shot is out of the question. Not to mention hitting water lines, electrical lines, etc.

Like I said, not attacking you. Just curious for what you would do?

[dems4guns]

Let's look at it this way: Do you think someone that is hopped up on drugs is going to go, "Okay, you sound reasonable. Let me depart your property at this time."?

Why would I want to fire a warning shot? To potentially harm another person or do damage to my own property because someone entered my property without authorization? Where do you suggest firing the warning shot? Down? Up? I'm not trying to beat you up, but honestly I don't believe in warning shots (you can't be sure of how far your round is going to travel and what it will potentially come in contact with. There's too much margin for error. In my house, my kids (4 of them) live on all three levels of my house. Warning shot is out of the question. Not to mention hitting water lines, electrical lines, etc.

Like I said, not attacking you. Just curious for what you would do?

Good question. First, thanks for making a serious question about the proposal...definitely not an attack.

To me brandishing and a warning shot should be an option that should be legal and today it is legal limbo or illegal entirely. I think most people are going to skeedaddle when they see a firearm pointed at them, especially a shotgun. I would rather have an option that didn't involve killing them, which comes with a potential criminal charge and a very messy house, never mind the mess the gun makes. The warning shot would need to be in a safe direction, of course. I live in a townhome, so shooting towards the front or the back would be safer than shooting towards a neighbor's wall. I might break some windows, but neighbors will not be seriously injured. If its a handgun, well, I use hollow point, so I could fire into the wood floor...nobody lives downstairs. My point is that IF you chose to do so, it shoud be legal, along with brandishing the firearm.
Dems4Guns

[Yarddawg]

The warning shot would need to be in a safe direction, of course. I live in a townhome, so shooting towards the front or the back would be safer than shooting towards a neighbor's wall. I might break some windows, but neighbors will not be seriously injured. If its a handgun, well, I use hollow point, so I could fire into the wood floor...nobody lives downstairs. My point is that IF you chose to do so, it shoud be legal, along with brandishing the firearm.
Dems4Guns

Ummm...I wouldn't be so sure that it would not injure/kill/maim a neighbor. Are you aware of just how far a bullet can travel? Just a lowly .22 can travel well over a mile!

[dems4guns]

Ummm...I wouldn't be so sure that it would not injure/kill/maim a neighbor. Are you aware of just how far a bullet can travel? Just a lowly .22 can travel well over a mile!

Yes, I am aware. I agree it is debatable whether you SHOULD fire a warning shot, but if you did, you shouldn't be arrested for improper discharge of a firearm.

Nobody seems to be commenting on the brandishing part....this can be just as serious a charge. You could hold a firearm on an unarmed burglar and he could complain to the police you were brandishing and you could be arrested for brandishing.

Dems4Guns

[zephyp]

How do you suppose the next challenge will go, after DEMigod Obunghole replaces one of the 5 (who you claim to agree with on gun rights) with another frumpy twunt who will make nice or refuse to answer direct questions in confirmation hearings only to come out of the gun banning closet when she gets her permanent black robe?

Mr. Tweaker,
President Obama is our President and deserves the minimal level of respect as President, not to mention the most basic human respect. He is the first black President and deserves respect for achieving that status. Your offensive remarks don't help the cause of the 2nd Amendment. Remarks like yours just reinforce the view of the left and the middle that right wing gun nuts are too extremist, and too rude and therefore unable to work in a civil manner with the other side of the aisle to compromise and agree on changes.

Learn to calm your language, show some civility, and you can make progress in liberalizing gun regulations and gun laws. But insulting the other side is not going to help the cause.

Where are the good Virginian manners and neighborliness your momma taught you?

How about actually agreeing or disagreeing with the proposals I made? That would be a good start to show you are interesting in getting along.

Dems4Guns

The office of president always deserves respect not the person who occupies it until they actually earn it...obama has not earned mine. Evidenced by his policies which have not and will not work...note the economy suffering and stated unemployment still over 9% and not to mention his tax the rich scheme and spend spend spend...no respect for someone like him...none at all....

[Palladin]

Ummm...I wouldn't be so sure that it would not injure/kill/maim a neighbor. Are you aware of just how far a bullet can travel? Just a lowly .22 can travel well over a mile!

Yes, I am aware. I agree it is debatable whether you SHOULD fire a warning shot, but if you did, you shouldn't be arrested for improper discharge of a firearm.

Nobody seems to be commenting on the brandishing part....this can be just as serious a charge. You could hold a firearm on an unarmed burglar and he could complain to the police you were brandishing and you could be arrested for brandishing.

Dems4Guns

Brandishing is Hollywood BS. The fool that brandishes in a life or death situation is just waiting to die.

Just my humble opinion...

Warning shots... Seriously?!!

[Yarddawg]

Nobody seems to be commenting on the brandishing part....this can be just as serious a charge. You could hold a firearm on an unarmed burglar and he could complain to the police you were brandishing and you could be arrested for brandishing.

Dems4Guns

If you unholster your weapon, you had better be prepared to use it! No, I do not believe in trying to intimidate someone by merely showing a weapon. If I am showing my weapon in the presence of a threat (yes, someone in my house uninvited IS a threat!), it will be aimed at center mass and the threat had better submit very quickly!

[dems4guns]

The office of president always deserves respect not the person who occupies it...

The Officeholder IS President Obama. By insulting HIM you ARE insulting the office. You show disrespect for the electoral process and for the American system of government and good old fashioned American civility. Not to mention good manners.

You are just playing with words, but the disrespect and insult makes your comments unpatriotic, unAmerican, and inappropriate. It is perfectly fine to disagree, it is quite another to label him a communist and someone who wants to hurt America. He is trying his best to help America.....you just disagree with HOW he is doing that.

I disagreed with HOW George W Bush was running the government, especially when it came to torture. But I never called him names and never insulted him the way you have insulted our current President...who is the officeholder of the Office of President of the United States....not just the Blue States, but the Red States as well.
Dems4Guns