Is it normal in US for a President to push agendas in office? It seems somehow... dirty though maybe the issue behind is the real stink. I mean, shouldn't he be fixing the NK problem or stop screwing up the economy?

Or he made a mis speak?

Oh yeah, I forgot about that other phrase that means lie, a mis speak.

Actually Larry, I'm pretty sure you have admittedly mis spoke here once or twice.....is that a lie then?

I just searched for comments about this and everything I found on it appeared to be right wing sources.

No it means a mistake.

Sort of an odd statement. I have a magazine that was built in 1914 and it works as good today as it did then. It is just a stamped piece of steel with a folded up spring inside it, so there is not like there is a lot to wear out.

I have another on a rifle from 1890. Still works as good as new.

No, they have never done that. Until Obama got himself declared King For Life of America no U.S. president ever had an agenda.

Hardly.............he's busy smoking cigarettes and playing basketball most days of each week, while his wife is pushing an anti-sugar agenda publicly, while in private packing away all the ice cream she can eat round the clock.

That's what's going on here.

It is okay, at least he is smoking. Ulysses S Grant was better but, when world leaders have no smoking or drinking, and eat no bad things, it becomes Godwin factor :D

Was I in the midst of using my presidential power to push for legislation to deny the US public their Constitutional rights?..... Wait a minute, I'm not the President:eek:

Wow! You mean that there were no liberals providing information to discredit their own sly agenda?:eek:

Glad to see you admit having mis-spoke here before.....so by your own standards that makes you ......I won't say it, but It begins with L.

Everybody makes mistakes, but since I have seen nothing about this one anywhere but on the right I tend to wonder if the president actually said it.

Please see my earlier post in this thread, Tom.

Oh, yes, I see that appears to be the official white house website. So he must have said it.

Now the question is if there is new evidence of the bushmaster having been converted to full automatic operation or not. I did some searching earlier today and found a video of a fellow demonstrating a similar gun equipped with a sliding stock device which is legal but gives all evidence of full automatic operation. So you can get into discussions similar to the definition of a "technical virgin" and the like.

Even if one thinks the president is evil incarnate it seems pretty unlikely that he would deliberately misrepresent anything so easily disproved. So I am going with the idea that it either has a fully automatic operation device added or that he simply does not know the difference technically.

Personally I don't care if the gun is semi automatic, fully automatic or is equipped with a device which creates a fully automatic equivelant. Just because people think its fun to shoot a lot of rounds really quickly does not mean they should be able to own such devices legally.

And I don't care how the problem is attacked. ...guns in the hands of properly trained, psychologically screened people? OK. More effective screening of gun buyers? Ok by me. More interaction between the medical profession and law enforcement? OK by me.

I am in favor of making our society more safe using whatever methods work.

Oh, so you finally admit that you don't support the COTUS. Thanks for your honesty Tom.

Tom,

You and I have gotten our wires crossed on a few posts and responses in this thread. There have been responses from each of us on two different issues that the other person believes pertain to the wrong issue.

There is the issue of the 2 A and there is the issue of whether or not the shooter used an automatic weapon or not.

I am using my IPad at home these days and its a pain to bold text in a quote. At least part of the confusion has been caused by that. It has gotten so convoluted that i have no idea how to start over.