So they government gets to decide who lives or dies, and what quality of life you have left.

That's what happens when you go to a single payer system. Perhaps not right away, but eventually it will.

Somalia is a hotbed for Islamic radicalism (al-Shabaab and ISIS are the big ones) and doesn't exactly have a strong government capable of dealing with it. That's something we can help with. However, if Somalia wants to ban Christmas, let them. It's their country. Freedom of religion may be a natural right, but the people have to fight for it. Besides, Somalia isn't exactly on most people's top vacation spots.

John Lott was on Mark Levin's show last week, I believe. Lott was a visiting professor and fellow at the University of Chicago. Guess who else was there in an adjunct role?

Lott said that Obama told him point blank that he didn't believe that people should be able to own guns.

And this was in the late 1990s. The tiger didn't change his stripes.

Of course not. He would've never gotten elected had he run on a gun confiscation campaign. Instead they word it as "common sense gun safety measures" to make those who disagree look like they're against gun safety.

I find it ironic that every time the President uses mass shootings as a method to push his gun control platform, he actually causes gun sales to skyrocket.

Since Obama and Clinton/Kerry have basically repeated the utterly ineffective approach that both Clinton and Bush took with the Nork's, in their dealings with Iran, the real question is what do we do when the Mullah's announce they have detonated an H-Bomb?

Of course, they probably won't test it underground, and we won't need to wait for an 'announcement' - we'll know when they blow up Jerusalem, or NYC.

'Gimp

I think it's unlikely to see Iran use a weapon on foreign soil. They aren't stupid, they know what would happen. I'd be more concerned about them or North Korea selling the technology to a group (such as ISIS or another group) that would then make a dirty bomb and use that.

I'm not convinced that confiscation will ever be a realistic option, much less happen. That would require law enforcement and potentially military (if we're at that point Posse Comitatus is likely suspended anyway) to physically remove them which is going to risk a lot of gun fights. I also wonder how many would actually be willing to do that since many law enforcement and military are strong supporters of the 2nd amendment.

I think that the government would try to re-instate the assault weapons ban, restrict ammo, place further limitations on who is eligible to purchase weapons, etc. all before it got to confiscation. They would just find a way to render the weapons you have useless.

I don't doubt that if President Obama got his way that there would be a lot more restrictions on guns, making them nearly impossible to get. Thankfully with the mass proliferation of guns in America, that's next to impossible at this point. Even after Sandy Hook and his push to pass that legislation, it failed. Taking away guns is something the American people don't want.

I'd like to hear others take on the standoff in Oregon .
Spoiled Ranchers mooching off the rest of us or Government overreach?
Will this get its own TFR?
Would you violate this TFR to drop supplies?

There's two separate issues at play here. The first is the Hammonds, which were sentenced by a federal judge, served their sentence and then were re-sentenced after federal prosecutors appealed the sentence to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The original sentence didn't meet the federal mandatory minimums so the 9th Circuit re-sentenced them to the full minimums, less time already served. The Hammonds reported back to federal prison on Monday to serve the remainder of their sentences.

The second issue are the militia men. Bundy and his group showed up and occupied an empty building, which basically amounts to a park headquarters. They're protesting what they claim to be the government overreach (owning and mis-managing so much land, especially out west). There's a lot of backstory to the whole situation.

I'm indifferent to the whole thing. I think the Hammonds' whole situation is messed up and I think the militia men are choosing the wrong battle. Either way, neither the militia men nor the government want another Ruby Ridge or Waco.

I thought it was intellectually dishonest to couch his actions under the guise of "doing something" about recent tragedies...

It was also dishonest to say that a convicted felon can go online and purchase a gun without a background check:

"A violent felon can buy the exact same weapon over the Internet with no background check, no questions asked."

That's not true. Firearms must be transferred to an FFL. Failure to do so will result in the seller losing their FFL and possible criminal consequences.

...without mentioning that the actions he took today would have had zero deterrent effect on those tragedies.

Correct. The weapons in the San Bernardino attack and Newtown were purchased legally. In fact, more times than not, weapons used in tragedies like this are purchased legally.

GA waives background checks for concealed permit holders, since the check occurs when you apply for that permit. I wonder if today's Executive Order will affect that.

Same with Arizona.