News-Record.com

We can't be trusted, but thankfully we can look to our political leaders for guidance. Who knew when he was running for president that Obama could run GM? And yet he's stepped up to the plate and done so. We need to trust the wisdom of our Leaders and leave the self-reliance to conservatives and other backward folk.

“Who knew when he was running for president that Obama could run GM?” Who knew that when Rick Wagoner was CEO at GM, that he couldn’t run GM?

“… Wagoner, whose G.M. lost $82 billion in the last four years, took $13.4 billion in bailout money and asked for $16.6 billion more, even as the carmaker’s market share melted from 33 percent to 18 percent and its stock slid from more than $70 a share to less than $4 — about the price of a couple gallons of gas.”

I digress. Mr. Hurst is playing semantics. The average gun owner does not use his or her gun to put food on the table; nor will the average gun owner ever use his or her gun for protection. It’s not a tool. It is a weapon. And it was created to inflict damage, nothing more, nothing less. Mr. Hurst’s logic reminds me of the young man in Pittsburgh who was afraid that Pres. Obama’s election would signal the end of his rights as a gun owner. So, what did he do? He barricaded himself in his home, and he used his “tool” to kill three Pittsburgh policemen. I guess that he used his "tool" for hunting policemen and protecting his gun rights from Obama. Tool? Not hardly!

. . . keep in mind who else is gonna rob someone on Boulevard St. . . .

GREENSBORO — Two men dressed as law enforcement officers robbed residents during a home invasion Monday night, police said.

About 9:54 p.m., the men entered a home at 1825 Boulevard St. brandishing handguns and began searching four victims for money and other items, Greensboro police said in a statement.

They then fled with an undisclosed amount of cash.

Police described them as dressed as law enforcement officers but did not elaborate. Police also said they were wearing black toboggans with the word ICE written on them.

It would be well worth it to outlaw guns from black people, esp. black men . . . 3/4 of the violent crime in Greensboro is attributed to a black man with a gun . . . and a attitude.

I hate when people begin letters with "I'm appalled". It's such a hackneyed statement.

"Where is the American dignity, self-reliance and strength of character that defines who we are?"

Uhh, that's who we used to be. Now we have half of the population paying virtually no taxes and many depending upon those who do to pay for their entitlements. Govt. has responded accordingly and introduced more entitlements and laws to "protect" us.

jprt; That statistic, for which you will doubtless get no end of grief, is the end (so far) result of 45 years of the "War on Poverty", the grand leftist scheme to substitute the federal government for fathers. It has had the predictable results, especially in the black community; a sharp rise in illegitimacy, and resulting poverty and crime. The law of unintended consequences rises yet again to bite leftists square in the ass.

God save U.S. from the Obamanable Snowjob!

The 2nd amendment is not about duck hunting or deer hunting.
The woman in this youtube video knows the REAL meaning of the 2nd amendment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

Here is why GM CEO was fired.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2220474/posts

...it was based on politics. The community organizer needed a scapegoat, and Mr. Wagoner was handy.

In all the stories about this massive expropriation of private sector duties, responsibilities and rights by Barack Obama, nowhere do we find the name of Ron Gettelfinger. And who is Mr. Gettelfinger? He's the president of the United Auto Workers, and has been since 2002. As such, he is at least as responsible for GM's slide as Mr. Wagoner, and probably moreso. Was he fired? Well, no.

Why? Well, for starters, the UAW has more then 430,000 members, and they vote (and their dues are used by the UAW to elect Democrat candidates and pursue left wing causes). It's no secret that last fall they voted in huge numbers for Barack Obama, and UAW spent millions to make sure others did as well.

Back in December, Gettelfinger criticized Mitt Romney's suggestion that the best way for GM to survive was to take Chapter 11 bankruptcy rather than have the government provide a $17 billion loan to keep the company afloat.

Gettelfinger's response: the UAW supported a "bridge loan" bailout from the government, and said, "It's a bridge loan that's going to be paid back by (GM)."

Guns are tools for keeping a tyrannical government at bay. They are the 'teeth' of the constitution. This is why liberal weenies are so anxious to redefine or completely delete the second amendment.

The answers to most of your questions are:

Everybody who wants to own a gun is stupid!

In a police state no one else needs guns, except your guvmint, who will take take of you.

You need to assume no responsibilty, it's always some one elses fault.

You really don't need guns to shoot carrots and pinto beans.

If you would just give up you evil gun we could just all get along fine.

And lastly, without these guns, the guvmint homeland security wouldn't be so overloaded
watching all these right wing extremist.

I have been a GM buyer for years but, if Barry gives GM to the unions like he did Chrysler I will never buy another one. Lets face it "he had to do something" right? This is simply payback for the money and the votes. No company should have been given any bailout money, they should have all been allowed to either find a way to survive or fail. I don't remember anyone crying and sending cash to the furniture manufacturers when NAFTA was signed. The displaced workers were told to retrain and move on. No one cried for the textile industry, the workers told to retrain and move on. Hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost but they were in the non union south so it didn't matter.

As neo said, guns are our shield against tyranny. The Constitutional reason for the right to bear arms is the same that our Revolutionary founders had: the last, best check against a government run amok.
I think the Constitution requires that the states maintain militias independent of the Federal government and not answerable to the President or anyone outside of the state in which they are formed. The purpose being the same as the right to bear arms.

The right is also the responsibility of defense of the country and specifically of the Constitution and the Citizenry. Do a little research as to why the Japanese did not try to invade the U.S. mainland in WW2: the answer really boils down to the 2nd Amendment.

As for defense from home invasions, I keep a Mossberg 930 all-purpose field model handy.

It's not just a right to bear arms, it is a duty.

Good Youtube link, Beachwalker. I love Penn and Teller.

Owning a gun is an undeniable right in this country. It always has been. When ANYONE tries to take away that right, is when that right needs to be enforced.

If anyone attempts to take my guns or enter my home, I can guarantee you they won't make it past the front door. Most people change their mind when they have a 12-gauge pointed at their chest.

When my boyfriend and I moved here, we were informed that it is ILLEGAL to own a gun inside city limits. Don't know if that is true but, we paid it no mind. We currently have the 12-gauge and a combination .22/410. Hopefully, a new glock .45 will be in the future. With a concealed carry. Unfortunately, I had to give mine up when I moved to New York a few years ago.

And guns don't kill people, people kill people.

I doubt any gun that fires bullets is capable of keeping a tyrannical government at bay in this day and age. Where's my nuke? (I'll settle for a few Stealth Fighters.)

Barbati said: I doubt any gun that fires bullets is capable of keeping a tyrannical government at bay...

You make a good argument for guvmit not to ban "assault rifles" or any other type of gun for that matter. And being one who believes more each day that this guvmit could very well become a tyrannical government, I want as much protection as I can have against them, if and when that happens. I also do not believe I should have to register my guns. Why should a government who could one day become a tyrannical government, know what type of defense I have against them? Would any of our enemies agree to register their weapons with the U.S.?

Here is my proposal...

Well, looks like not ALL HTML tags are allowed...

http://blog.news-record.com/opinion/letters/archives/2009/05/for_lifes_sake_revive_assaultw.shtml#comment-815295

"Guns are tools for keeping a tyrannical government at bay."

Statistically speaking, they are also an alternative to divorce.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime/gun-violence/affected.htm