Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Routes Available | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Do you admire President Obama more or less now that he's latched onto the gun violence issue?

  1. More
  2. Less
 
 
 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(45)

muleskinner

Jan-17-13 8:03 AM

The Minot Daily forget c. not at all.

I hope tomorrow's poll question is:

Are Congress and the President worth what they earn?

a) yes

b) no

To achieve numerical results and not percentages, click 'agree' for 'yes' and 'disagree' for 'no'.

Just to see results for the overall, general sentiment for our political leaders.

8 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

keyzgirl62

Jan-17-13 8:24 AM

Where was the choice of jury's still out?????

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

animal

Jan-17-13 9:43 AM

This has nothing to do with the school shooting! Emperor Obama has intended to take all guns from the American people from the beginning!The Newtown shooting came at a great time for this regimes agenda, makes me wonder,only idiots can't understand that gun laws will not prevent crime.People kill people, not guns, guns are just a tool, just like knives, hammers,bats,poisons,drugs,cars,etc.,etc.,etc., So all you idiots, what shall we do ban everthing and continue to set free the crimminals with a slap on the wrist so they can kill again! Wake up for Gods sake wake up!!I could go on forever, and site numerous times that prove my point, but there is NO HOPE for you sheep!!!

8 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Jan-17-13 11:48 AM

So do we change the inauguation to a coronation? Has tiffany's finished the crown yet? Will Rep. Rand Paul do the crowning? So many changes to make at the last minute RIGHT! Will Rush WingBag make a speech?

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

trueamerican

Jan-17-13 12:23 PM

Do I admire President Obama more or less.... does not really matter what the rest of the sentence says. I have never had any admiration for Obama. The fact that he is violating our, not his, constitution just makes thing worse. What part of "Shall not infringe" do people not understand. Pretty simple wording so as not to confuse people and they still get it wrong. Yes our current Government is worried about peoples small cache of arms. That is also one of the reasons no other country has dared invade the US of A. We the people out number the guns of our military. When I served I was assigned 3 weapons. Now I have more than that for each member of my family. And they all have experience using them all. We the armed people are the only reason someone like Obama has not tried to become King. Am I a nut job, no, just and American exersizing his constitutional rights to keep and bear arms, and that shall not be infringed.

7 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

OldCat

Jan-17-13 12:26 PM

I wonder what our forefathers would be thinking if the muskets they had were the killing machines like the AR-15 and the population to support the deranged few that cause mass killings.Changing times animal-he would have had one heck of a time killing all those kids with a musket.I'm all for the restrictions suggested--anything to help prevent what has been happening.

6 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

trueamerican

Jan-17-13 12:27 PM

Look at all the states and major cities with the toughest gun laws now. They are the ones where those who obey the laws are at risk and have the highest gun violence rates. Why, because the criminals know they are safe to do what they want. DC, Philly, Chicago, NYC, toughest gun laws, highest crime rates. Ya it goes hand in hand. Now it is just making it easier for Obama to give our country away. Clinton was impeached for less, its time to impeach and remove Obama.

6 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Jan-17-13 1:02 PM

trueamerican a President trying to reduce gun violence in this country is not an impeachable offense!

6 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Captain

Jan-17-13 1:42 PM

What Obama is doing is another classic democratic party move. Democrats want more government, less military and you dependant on them. Look at histroy. Starting with Bill Clinton and his down sizing of the military. Now Obama is doing the same thing. The guns arn't killing people it the people who have them. More laws and less guns arn't going to fix the issue. Do you think criminals get their guns from a store and going thru the proper channels? NO

No for impeaching George Bush that is rediculous. The job of being president is the toughest job in the world. Not eveyone is going to agree with you, but if you can not get impeached after what Bill Clinton did no one should. The man got on national TV and lied to america about his relations with ML. Now his picture hangs in every classroom in America for our children to look up to!

6 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Jan-17-13 2:45 PM

Captain it is not political it is practical A. cannot sustain and maintain a large military force when the country is drowning in debt. B. A large military force isn't needed in combating today's terrorist's factions. The size and scope of the military is dictated by the technology of our weapons systems and the enemies we are engaged with.

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

disgusted

Jan-17-13 3:48 PM

According to the survey, 56% support a ban on semi-automatic guns, but that’s down from 62% in a CNN poll taken in the days after the shooting at Sandy Hook. The same is true for a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips – 62% in December, down to 58% now – as well as a requirement for all gun owners to register their firearms with the local government – 78% last month, down to 69% now.

“never let a good crisis go to waste”

5 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jan-17-13 4:34 PM

"Guns for profit cannot hide behind the 2nd Amendment anymore."

So if gun shops give away their guns to citizens, the 2nd Amendment gets to stay?

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jan-17-13 4:38 PM

"...do you think your puny cache of arms is actually giving the US government pause as to disarm you/us? They are 10 steps ahead anyway."

Sure, that all-benevolent government, made up of virtuous human beings who care so much for everyone.

I don't have that much faith.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

disgusted

Jan-17-13 4:44 PM

Boy, Hope4Change and Locomotive, you two are in top form today! Hope, of course, of ALL things where government money is spent, military is legal as set forth in the Constitution. Funny how WA never mentions, cellphones, food stamps, bail outs, CZARS,etc. And Loco, spot on! I love it! Believing in freedom moving forward.

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jan-17-13 5:04 PM

"Let's say the country you live in has 1 million people in it. If 800,000 people say you're a nut job...well, you're probably a nut job. If 800,000 of those people want different gun laws...you'll probably end up with different gun laws. If 800,000 of those people do not take issue with those new gun laws infringing on the 2nd Amendment, it defines the 2nd amendment."

So when did you buy the island, Veritas? Did you name it Utopia?

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jan-17-13 5:11 PM

"Lastly and most importantly...If a President gets elected by 4 million more people than the other guy... He's the President...Not the other guy......"

(Which other guy? Where?)

Because he won the election for President, that makes him...uh, let's see now...oh, yeah, that's right...President.

Not the other titles. Not emperor. Not king. Not royal highness. Not Speaker of the House. Not Senate Majority Leader. Not Big Guy Large And In Charge.

The President, whose duties are prescribed by the Constitution, along with checks and balances to that authority.

Well, until further notice...

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JKniffin

Jan-17-13 5:14 PM

Everyone get ready for the Civil War II because it's on the brinks

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

73Hockey

Jan-17-13 5:29 PM

OC "I wonder what our forefathers would be thinking if the muskets they had were the killing machines like the AR-15 and the population to support the deranged few that cause mass killings."

In 1775, the musket WAS the AR-15, the military had muskets and so did the civilian population.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jan-17-13 5:53 PM

JKniffin, liked your "on the brinks" comment.

While reading a transcript of the Jan. 14th press conference, I found the word "brinkmanship" used by the President to describe certain representatives' opposition to raising of the debt ceiling.

Brinkmanship (noun)

"The practice, especially in international politics, of seeking advantage by creating the impression that one is willing and able to push a highly dangerous situation to the limit rather than concede."

Fascinating. I've always said that one should pay attention to what an opponent accuses you of doing, because that's usually what he/she is doing to you.

Not only "not letting a crisis go to waste" but "going to the brink" in the fight for gun control...I mean, the fight against gun violence, right?

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jan-17-13 5:56 PM

"...to be geared toward a certain small segment of the population and like any disengenuous organizm allowed itself to become infected by zealots waiving a flag with 13 stars and stripes on it."

No lefty zealots, Veritas? Tell the truth now...

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jan-17-13 6:05 PM

From Merriam-Webster online...

Snarky (adjective)

1: crotchety, snappish 2: sarcastic, impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner <snarky lyrics> "Snarky" synonyms:

choleric, crabby, cranky, cross, crotchety, fiery, grouchy, grumpy, irascible, peevish, perverse, pettish, petulant, prickly, quick-tempered, raspy, ratty, short-tempered, snappish, snappy, irritable, snippety, snippy, stuffy, testy, waspish

OK, Veritas, I do own "snarky" much of my time here on MDN. But I absolutely draw the line at "snippety."

Me? Snippety?

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jan-17-13 6:32 PM

Veritas, the three branches of government have their duties, checks and balances all spelled out in the Constitution. As head of the executive branch, a "President" has duties and authority unique to his position, also spelled out in the Constitution.

Those other designations are not so much like a US President, right?

Not so much zealotry as exposition, I think, but we might not agree.

OK. Snarky exposition.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jan-17-13 6:45 PM

So NOW I see why Pres. Obama blames Pres. Bush for everything!

(Isn't that what I'm supposed to say?)

Veritas, shouldn't the Constitution be respected? By all Presidents, Congressmen, Supreme Court Justices, and citizens?

Or should we dispense with the formalities and throw it in the dustbin?

What do you think, Veritas?

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jan-17-13 6:49 PM

VERITAS Jan-17-13 6:41 PM Stopped by factcheck to see about this wonderful story Veritas posted...

"The report that Bush "screamed" those words at Republican congressional leaders in November 2005 is unsubstantiated, to put it charitably.

"We judge that the odds that the report is accurate hover near zero. It comes from Capitol Hill Blue, a Web site that has a history of relying on phony sources, retracting stories and apologizing to its readers."

Ya think that's enough zealotry for one day, Veritas?

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jan-17-13 7:02 PM

And that t-shirt thingy, Veritas?

You could go with half your idea and still sell loads of them at the next big DNC.

Bill Clinton. Make Love.

No, I won't be needing any royalties. My gift to you...

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 45 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web