View Full Version : Obama says US must end gun violence
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20080215/D8UQSIDG1.html
Feb 15, 12:14 PM (ET)
By NEDRA PICKLER
MILWAUKEE (AP) - Barack Obama says the country must do "whatever it takes" to eradicate gun violence but believes in the right to bear arms.
Obama says he's offered his Senate office to help Northern Illinois University with the investigation into a campus shooting rampage. The shooting happened in his home state. Obama was campaigning in neighboring Wisconsin.
The senator, a former constitutional law instructor, says he believes the Second Amendment to the Constitution grants individual gun rights.
But he says it's subject to commonsense regulations like background checks.
___________________________
He believes the Second Amendment to the Constitution grants individual rights. What does that mean? Seems a little disingenuous to me.
They all say that. Just background check, then registration and finally confiscation.
Do not believe they will stop at that. Once the antis get the wedge in they will want more and more.
Look at what happened in England. In 1997 they banned all legally owned handguns. 11 years later people still get shot, the city of Manchester has so much gun crime that its called Gunchester in the media. Gun crime went through the roof
Rant off.
losbronces
02-15-08, 12:25
Very interesting in light of some of his previous comments.
Very interesting in light of some of his previous comments.
Bingo!!!
Better get ready, because he will be the next president. :(
Paladin4415
02-15-08, 14:51
Very interesting in light of some of his previous comments.
Man is that the truth. Could it be that he is just saying whatever he thinks will help him get elected?:rolleyes:
If saying that will get him 1000 votes, he is ALL for it. No matter if it's a lie, nor not.
Here's a brief synopsis of Obama's view and his plans for our right to arms:
Quote:
Positions on Gun Control:
Ban semi-automatics, and impose more restrictions on other types of firearms possession; Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons;
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms;
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
On the issue of prohibiting citizens from carrying concealed weapons, Obama said he believes national legislation should be passed to “prevent other states’ laws [allowing citizens to conceal their guns] from threatening the safety of Illinois residents.”
“I believe we need to renew–not roll back — this common sense gun law,” [The Clinton “Assault Weapons” Ban]
Proposes several gun-control laws, including restricting purchases of weapons and ammunition at gun shows, establishing a national database that would capture and record imprints left by bullets, and making gun locks mandatory.
Obama said concealed weapons should be allowed for retired police officers and some military personnel.
“Ordinary citizens should not be allowed to own military assault weapons, such as AK-47s and Uzis.”
Does ANY of that sound "reasonable" to you? It sure as hell doesn't to me.
The bottom line: Obama in the White House is just as bad as Clinton in the White House. When it comes to our right to arms, there is no difference between the two. NONE.
We already have the only gun law we need - it's called the Second Amendment.
Hmm... if his proposed ban is true but doesn't applied to current or former LE/Military members then I guess I personally won't be affected.
Better get ready, because he will be the next president. :(
Let's hope not.
I still hope that Republicans will mobilize in the general election and keep the very liberal dems out.
variablebinary
02-15-08, 17:36
most gun free states are very white (race) states, Utah for example.
I just dont see the good old boys giving up their arms to a black president. The backlash would be massive. There are a lot of James Earl Rays and Tim Mcveighs looking for a reason to cause havoc, and a Black President trying to ban guns just might be the straw that breaks the camels back
most gun free states are very white (race) states, Utah for example.
I just dont see the good old boys giving up their arms to a black president. The backlash would be massive. There are a lot of James Earl Rays and Tim Mcveighs looking for a reason to cause havoc, and a Black President trying to ban guns just might be the straw that breaks the camels back
I'm sure if that happened the LA riots following the Rodney King thing would look like sibling rivalry. I don't think America could handle that right now on top of all the other problems.
CarlosDJackal
02-15-08, 19:07
They all say that. Just background check, then registration and finally confiscation...
Yup!! Been there, done that. This is exactly how Marcos did it right before he declared Martial Law and installed himself as dictator for life (or so he thought).
Hmm... if his proposed ban is true but doesn't applied to current or former LE/Military members then I guess I personally won't be affected.
It's hard to tell if you are being sarcastic based on your comments in other threads.
Rest assured these shootings will be happening with much more frequency,It happens every election cycle.. call me a tin foil hat wearer if you want but I've been noticeing this trend for 20 years..
Dear Suckers,
Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and families touched by yesterday's gun violence at Northern Illinois University. (Well, not really, but we want to seem like we have heartfelt contrition in order to further our blood agenda.)
At a time when the country confronts one mass shooting after another — six separate multiple murders across the country in just the last two weeks — we need to strengthen America's gun laws now more than ever. (We need to exploit these tragedies in order to ban more guns from law abiding citizens.)
Over the years, the Brady Campaign has proposed numerous common-sense (unworkable draconian) measures to reduce and prevent (do nothing but feel good) gun violence. It may be difficult to stop 'suicide shooters' like the Northern Illinois University killer (without arming the potential victims), but there are steps we can take as a nation to make us all safer (like banning all guns from the law-abiding, our ultimate goal).
Congress' passing and the President's signing of the NICS improvement Amendments Act to strengthen the Brady background checks system was a (do nothing) positive first step (that no one enforces when criminals break the law trying to buy guns). Now, we need to close the gun show loophole (by banning gun shows).
As we grieve (salivatate over) with the victims and families of this latest mass shooting (this exploitable tragedy), we also need to take action (while emotions are high and the blood is still warm) — to call on (frighten) public officials, opinion leaders (paid mouthpieces), advocates, and others — indeed, everyone — to do their part to address, and end, the gun violence (gun ownership) in our country.
Much more needs to be done (like banning all guns) to help make our schools and communities safer. We are so grateful that you are with us (have been suckered)in this fight (scheme).
Sincerely,
Paul Helmke, President
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Hmm... if his proposed ban is true but doesn't applied to current or former LE/Military members then I guess I personally won't be affected.
Now that's self centered brilliance at it's best, but maybe that's what you were hoping someone would say with your blatantly inflammatory post. A juvenile statement/tactic.
Hmm... if his proposed ban is true but doesn't applied to current or former LE/Military members then I guess I personally won't be affected.
Wake up! This effects EVERYONE! What a selfish statement...
whitetiger7654
02-15-08, 22:06
It didn't take long for them to start using this tragedy as their political agenda. What a worthless POS. Furthering their personal gain on the deaths of others. :mad: :mad: Sounds familiar, Hitler?
It's hard to tell if you are being sarcastic based on your comments in other threads.
No I'm not being sarcastic. I'm in the military, I'm a war veteran, the ban wouldn't affect me personally. To those who said it's a selfish statement - that may be very true but I merely stated that it doesn't affect my gun ownership.
No I'm not being sarcastic. I'm in the military, I'm a war veteran, the ban wouldn't affect me personally. To those who said it's a selfish statement - that may be very true but I merely stated that it doesn't affect my gun ownership.
:(
Sad. I would be angry, but it's apparent that you are so lost I can only shake my head and pity you.
:(
Sad. I would be angry, but it's apparent that you are so lost I can only shake my head and pity you.
I guess everyone handles things differently. Right now it's getting late and I'm tired with a lot of stuff other than gun control (or lack thereof on my mind.) My prayers go out to the families of the victims, those who witnessed it, and the gunman's family. It's a sad tragedy and I find it disrespectful for anyone to politicize it to make an argument for or against.
There's no need to pity me. I will still work as hard as I do for this country no matter who is in the White House to keep America safe from enemies foreign and domestic. I swore an oath to the Constitution and whoever sleeps in the White House... twice.
...not a very good one I guess...
The senator, a former constitutional law instructor, says he believes the Second Amendment to the Constitution grants individual gun rights.
The second doesn't grant anything...it does affirm ones' God-given rights though...http://emoticons4u.com/smoking/rauch06.gif
You and I must be wearing the same tin foil hat because it seems to me that you are correct. Whether it be upcoming local elections or pending legislation stuff like this seems to happen around those times.
Rest assured these shootings will be happening with much more frequency,It happens every election cycle.. call me a tin foil hat wearer if you want but I've been noticeing this trend for 20 years..
The only thing it wouldn't affect would be your duty i.e Gov't owned weapons. And if you get out of the military, well guess what? You are now a civilian. Unfortunately, there are those with that elitist mentality who think "well it doesn't effect me, so why should I care"? You should care because it is a constitutional right, just like free speech, the right to be sure in your home, the right to a fair trial. That pesky document called the Constitution.
Unfortunately, too many people close their eyes until the devil is at their door looking to take away their rights, then it's too late.
No I'm not being sarcastic. I'm in the military, I'm a war veteran, the ban wouldn't affect me personally. To those who said it's a selfish statement - that may be very true but I merely stated that it doesn't affect my gun ownership.
No I'm not being sarcastic. I'm in the military, I'm a war veteran, the ban wouldn't affect me personally. To those who said it's a selfish statement - that may be very true but I merely stated that it doesn't affect my gun ownership.
Yeah, so is my brother - a war veteran - but he thinks AR's should be only for military personnel. He's a nutcase. I served in Korea and believe that an armed society is a polite society. Look at Switzerland sometime and their law requiring a fully-automatic weapon in every private home. How many times has that country been overcome by outside invaders (i.e. Germany) or their own government?
As far as affecting you personally...wait until they take your 1911's and then your Remington 1100 and your Remington semi-auto 30-06 deer rifle and your everything else...one step at a time. Then tell your grandkids how you were foolish and didn't think it would affect your life, and theirs.
Sonny
Hmm... if his proposed ban is true but doesn't applied to current or former LE/Military members then I guess I personally won't be affected.
That's all fun and games until they say, "Hey , this guy's seen combat, that means he's got post tramatic stress syndrome, and we can't allow someone with a mental condition to own a firearm."
That's all fun and games until they say, "Hey , this guy's seen combat, that means he's got post tramatic stress syndrome, and we can't allow someone with a mental condition to own a firearm."
Or being in the military, it's his job to use his guns to come round up ours...
I swore an oath to the Constitution and whoever sleeps in the White House... twice.
So what happens when the two are in direct conflict with one another?
I'm not going to chime in a lot more on this because I'm biting my tongue already.
whitetiger7654
02-16-08, 10:48
Or being in the military, it's his job to use his guns to come round up ours...
He can TRY to come and take them. But in the end he will see the light when they take his guns as well and supply him with a billy club to do his job like in England or Australia.
wild_wild_wes
02-17-08, 12:41
Gosh, I never thought I'd encounter someone like MerQ on a public gun board, but there you have it. Scary.
He can TRY to come and take them. But in the end he will see the light when they take his guns as well and supply him with a billy club to do his job like in England or Australia.
Either that or he will be seeing the light that leads to the gates of heaven :eek:
the1911fan
02-17-08, 13:37
Gosh, I never thought I'd encounter someone like MerQ on a public gun board, but there you have it. Scary.
Exactly what I was thinking
WOW!!! People advocating attacking the military we claim to love so often... Sorry to burst your bubbles but I highly doubt I would be the one personally confiscating weapons (assuming it would happen which it wouldn't.) Besides if it were me things would have already gotten bad, they would call in the heavier units, and that's all I will say on that matter. It wouldn't be me though personally.
WOW!!! People advocating attacking the military we claim to love so often... Sorry to burst your bubbles but I highly doubt I would be the one personally confiscating weapons (assuming it would happen which it wouldn't.) Besides if it were me things would have already gotten bad, they would call in the heavier units, and that's all I will say on that matter. It wouldn't be me though personally.
One military member is not the military. Because someone doesn't agree with you, you are trying to accuse them of attacking the military as a whole? That's a ridiculous statement. :rolleyes:
A62Rambler
02-17-08, 19:18
First they came to get our guns for the war effort. I didn't care because I was too young to own a gun and I supported the country. Then they came to get the religious leaders because they were espounding things apposed to the government view. I didn't care because me and my parents weren't religious. Then they came to get the men of military age to help the country. I supported the country so I didn't care. Then they came to get me and my mother and there was no one to fight and no way to resist. - A jewish friend who survived a concentration camp.
When I met him he was a life NRA member and never owned a single firearm. He didn't believe in firearms but he did believe in my and everyone elses right to possess them.
Before espousing how it doesn't apply to me remember the words I have paraphrased above. It doesn't apply to you YET!
Rogueplayer
02-17-08, 20:49
Dear Suckers,
Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and families touched by yesterday's gun violence at Northern Illinois University. (Well, not really, but we want to seem like we have heartfelt contrition in order to further our blood agenda.)
At a time when the country confronts one mass shooting after another — six separate multiple murders across the country in just the last two weeks — we need to strengthen America's gun laws now more than ever. (We need to exploit these tragedies in order to ban more guns from law abiding citizens.)
Over the years, the Brady Campaign has proposed numerous common-sense (unworkable draconian) measures to reduce and prevent (do nothing but feel good) gun violence. It may be difficult to stop 'suicide shooters' like the Northern Illinois University killer (without arming the potential victims), but there are steps we can take as a nation to make us all safer (like banning all guns from the law-abiding, our ultimate goal).
Congress' passing and the President's signing of the NICS improvement Amendments Act to strengthen the Brady background checks system was a (do nothing) positive first step (that no one enforces when criminals break the law trying to buy guns). Now, we need to close the gun show loophole (by banning gun shows).
As we grieve (salivatate over) with the victims and families of this latest mass shooting (this exploitable tragedy), we also need to take action (while emotions are high and the blood is still warm) — to call on (frighten) public officials, opinion leaders (paid mouthpieces), advocates, and others — indeed, everyone — to do their part to address, and end, the gun violence (gun ownership) in our country.
Much more needs to be done (like banning all guns) to help make our schools and communities safer. We are so grateful that you are with us (have been suckered)in this fight (scheme).
Sincerely,
Paul Helmke, President
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
It is unfortunate, but every paraphrase stated is true.
Rogueplayer
02-17-08, 20:53
No I'm not being sarcastic. I'm in the military, I'm a war veteran, the ban wouldn't affect me personally. To those who said it's a selfish statement - that may be very true but I merely stated that it doesn't affect my gun ownership. Perhaps, at the beginning.
You actually believe that?
One military member is not the military. Because someone doesn't agree with you, you are trying to accuse them of attacking the military as a whole? That's a ridiculous statement. :rolleyes:
If you read the whole thread you would know that someone stated that the military would send me (along with other service members I would presume to confiscate weapons.) That last part is implied because the military wouldn't send one person to gather weapons if it ever happened (which I believe is undue paranoia at best.) Someone else made an implication that I would die trying.
So no I could care less if someone disagrees with me. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but openly saying you would fight with the military over a presumed hypothetical lawful order is what I was responding to.
*I give your position as a site moderator respect but I ask that you please read the entire thread before you falsely accuse me of changing the implication of prior statements.
I guess everyone handles things differently. Right now it's getting late and I'm tired with a lot of stuff other than gun control (or lack thereof on my mind.) My prayers go out to the families of the victims, those who witnessed it, and the gunman's family. It's a sad tragedy and I find it disrespectful for anyone to politicize it to make an argument for or against.
There's no need to pity me. I will still work as hard as I do for this country no matter who is in the White House to keep America safe from enemies foreign and domestic. I swore an oath to the Constitution and whoever sleeps in the White House... twice.
I also believe that Oath applys to who ever takes it for life.
That being said I feel most who serve in public office violate that oath damn near everyday.And those who occupy the oval office can very easy be considered domestic enemys of the Constitution.Every law they pass is another freedom we don't have.
You need to read the constitution the federalist papers and writeings of all the founding fathers just so you can come to grips with what your accually suppost to be protecting.
You'll be astounded as to what and why they wrote that document,I once questioned a political figure about his oath and the constitution he basically said that swearing that oath was just a formality and that if he had to fallow the constitution they could'nt pass half the laws that they do.I told him "Now your understanding the problem!"
These same morons will be directing your military leaders.Most are not fit to swim in a puddle of your or my piss.I'd never fallow the orders of Obama,Hillery
or Juan McCain. I left the military shortly after Clinton started his Don't ask don't tell bullshit.
I thought about re upping after 9-11 then I started hearing story's of guys
Getting charged with murder for popping fatally injured screaming in their own gut pile insurgents.
I heard it took 17 steps to bust a cap in some insurgents ass
Permission to fire and all that simple horse shit thats got troopers killed anytime they inflict that PC garbage on our troops.
Political consideration should never be a concern of our military if the military has been called up its because diplomacy has failed.Let them do their jobs
OK Im rambling on and on
I'll STFU and keep surfing for gun parts
No I'm not being sarcastic. I'm in the military, I'm a war veteran, the ban wouldn't affect me personally. To those who said it's a selfish statement - that may be very true but I merely stated that it doesn't affect my gun ownership.
Dude, read it again. All it said is concealed carry for retired police and 'some military'. If you think somehow you'll get to buy an AR or AK just because you're a vet, you're going to be very disappointed. It certainly didn't work that way under the Clinton ban.
I also believe that Oath applys to who ever takes it for life.
That being said I feel most who serve in public office violate that oath damn near everyday.And those who occupy the oval office can very easy be considered domestic enemys of the Constitution.Every law they pass is another freedom we don't have.
You need to read the constitution the federalist papers and writeings of all the founding fathers just so you can come to grips with what your accually suppost to be protecting.
You'll be astounded as to what and why they wrote that document,I once questioned a political figure about his oath and the constitution he basically said that swearing that oath was just a formality and that if he had to fallow the constitution they could'nt pass half the laws that they do.I told him "Now your understanding the problem!"
These same morons will be directing your military leaders.Most are not fit to swim in a puddle of your or my piss.I'd never fallow the orders of Obama,Hillery
or Juan McCain. I left the military shortly after Clinton started his Don't ask don't tell bullshit.
I thought about re upping after 9-11 then I started hearing story's of guys
Getting charged with murder for popping fatally injured screaming in their own gut pile insurgents.
I heard it took 17 steps to bust a cap in some insurgents ass
Permission to fire and all that simple horse shit thats got troopers killed anytime they inflict that PC garbage on our troops.
Political consideration should never be a concern of our military if the military has been called up its because diplomacy has failed.Let them do their jobs
OK Im rambling on and on
I'll STFU and keep surfing for gun parts
I've read the Constitution several times and if the "founding fathers" got everything right then we wouldn't have Amendments now would we? It's was designed and written in a way to be changed (or amended if you will) to always make it relevant.
There are international laws that WE signed and agreed to adhere to. If you don't like it then that's a matter of changing (or backing out of) the Geneva Convention agreements and not the Constitution. You should also note that you agree to give up certain rights when you sign your military contract as it applies to the UCMJ (even if they don't disclose all of this to people in plain English it's there on the contract.)
I agree with you that there are some legal related bureaucracies that makes it harder to do your job being in the military (that I deal with on a daily basis) first hand but that's the way is is. If you don't like it then write your congressman and vote accordingly. There are two known reports where we literally had shooters looking on Bin Laden's travel brigade but were unable to engaged because the JAG didn't give the "OK" (for the lack of a confirmation to engage from their superiors) and also a matter of the location that the incidents were taking place.
Now the oath is to the Constitution and to the President whomever he, or she possibly, may be but if YOU chose to leave based on YOUR personal convictions then that is your right to do as well as long as you fulfill your end of the bargain. I choose to stay in no matter what because it's what I love to do and I will do my job and duty accordingly.
*This is probably my last post in this particular thread. I really don't feel the need to defend everything I said to everyone. We have some differing opinions on somethings and I will leave it at that.
Dude, read it again. All it said is concealed carry for retired police and 'some military'. If you think somehow you'll get to buy an AR or AK just because you're a vet, you're going to be very disappointed. It certainly didn't work that way under the Clinton ban.
No but you can keep the one's you have. They aren't confiscating weapons either.
Aspen Times Weekly Opinion
E-editionE-edition 25/50/100 | Opinion |
In election 2008, don’t forget Angry White Man
Gary Hubbell
February 9, 2008
There is a great amount of interest in this year’s presidential elections, as everybody seems to recognize that our next president has to be a lot better than George Bush. The Democrats are riding high with two groundbreaking candidates — a woman and an African-American — while the conservative Republicans are in a quandary about their party’s nod to a quasi-liberal maverick, John McCain.
Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender people to children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to evangelical Christians.
There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the group that will decide the election: the Angry White Man. The Angry White Man comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America, from urban sophisticate to rural redneck, deep South to mountain West, left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.
His common traits are that he isn’t looking for anything from anyone — just the promise to be able to make his own way on a level playing field. In many cases, he is an independent businessman and employs several people. He pays more than his share of taxes and works hard.
The victimhood syndrome buzzwords — “disenfranchised,” “marginalized” and “voiceless” — don’t resonate with him. “Press ‘one’ for English” is a curse-word to him. He’s used to picking up the tab, whether it’s the company Christmas party, three sets of braces, three college educations or a beautiful wedding.
He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally, not as a “living document” open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives.
The Angry White Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick up a gun to defend his home and his country. He is willing to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others, and the thought of killing someone who needs killing really doesn’t bother him.
The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a victim. Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina — he got his people together and got the hell out, then went back in to rescue those too helpless and stupid to help themselves, often as a police officer, a National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter.
His last name and religion don’t matter. His background might be Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or Russian, and he might have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto Rican mixed in, but he considers himself a white American.
He’s a man’s man, the kind of guy who likes to play poker, watch football, hunt white-tailed deer, call turkeys, play golf, spend a few bucks at a strip club once in a blue moon, change his own oil and build things. He coaches baseball, soccer and football teams and doesn’t ask for a penny. He’s the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well, weld a new bumper for his truck, design a factory and publish books. He can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power plant on time so that you keep the lights on and never know what it took to flip that light switch.
Women either love him or hate him, but they know he’s a man, not a dishrag. If they’re looking for someone to walk all over, they’ve got the wrong guy. He stands up straight, opens doors for women and says “Yes, sir” and “No, ma’am.”
He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he might be a Libertarian or a Green. He knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner.
He’s not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race. He’s willing to give everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules and learn English.
Most important, the Angry White Man is pissed off. When his job site becomes flooded with illegal workers who don’t pay taxes and his wages drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his job gets shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot in India for tech support, he simmers. When Al Sharpton comes on TV, leading some rally for reparations for slavery or some such nonsense, he bites his tongue and he remembers. When a child gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the local idiots are in education and law enforcement.
He also votes, and the Angry White Man loathes Hillary Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would want her as their leader. It’s not that she is a woman. It’s that she is who she is. It’s the liberal victim groups she panders to, the “poor me” attitude that she represents, her inability to give a straight answer to an honest question, his tax dollars that she wants to give to people who refuse to do anything for themselves.
There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them voted for George Bush.
He hopes that she will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets beaten like a drum.
Ridgerunner665
02-18-08, 04:48
I read that on another forum...and you can bet your last dollar that I'm an Angry White Man.
I think all of us Angry White Men need to speak up...all at once...so it will be heard, for Freedom and the American Way of Life.
The 2nd ammendmant is about intrusive Govermant. So no king George could pull that crap on this countries citizens. I saw that same elitist attitude during the Clinton ban . All the guys with wood stocked guns didn't care about the black guns. Globalization will require firearms confiscation for those pukes( the egotistical elitists who think they know whats best for us pesants) to reach thier end goals. Once the threat of resistance ( guns ) is gone the real horror begins.
If you read the whole thread you would know that someone stated that the military would send me (along with other service members I would presume to confiscate weapons.) That last part is implied because the military wouldn't send one person to gather weapons if it ever happened (which I believe is undue paranoia at best.) Someone else made an implication that I would die trying.
So no I could care less if someone disagrees with me. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but openly saying you would fight with the military over a presumed hypothetical lawful order is what I was responding to.
*I give your position as a site moderator respect but I ask that you please read the entire thread before you falsely accuse me of changing the implication of prior statements.
I did read the entire thread. The next time you accuse me of NOT READING, make sure YOU are correct.
No but you can keep the one's you have. They aren't confiscating weapons either.
Not yet. Ask a Brit or Aussie how that turned out for them.
No but you can keep the one's you have. They aren't confiscating weapons either.
Well, as long as we can keep the ones we already have, then...
:rolleyes: :confused: :mad: :rolleyes: :confused: :mad: :rolleyes: :confused: :mad:
Absolutely clueless.
Hmm... if his proposed ban is true but doesn't applied to current or former LE/Military members then I guess I personally won't be affected.
The implication seems to be that you don't care about non LEO/military having their rights trampled on. You must come here for the sterile transfer of information and not the camaraderie.
You accuse the elitists of disarming the peasants (I agree) and simultaneously take comfort in your "protected" status. Wassup with that?
I don't think confiscation would ever occur, mainly for logistical reasons.
wild_wild_wes
02-18-08, 16:27
Finally, the Media is treating the Messiah like he was a targetable Candidate: I've seen a couple of critical articles today concerning his "borrowing" of other people's speeches.
You know, Hillary actually had a point about this. Obama at this point is an empty suit; all he does is make supposedly moving speaches. He has actually not laid out any concrete policies, and empty rhetoric is all fine for the campaign trail, but won't mean jack if he ever gets into office. I'm glad Hillary called him on his lack of substance.
KintlaLake
02-18-08, 17:27
Sen. Obama violated a cardinal rule of rhetoric. Dumb.
Whether or not this wounds his campaign (and to what degree) depends on whether or not it's part of a pattern. If it is, Sen. Obama will lose a bit of luster. Otherwise, it will (and should) evaporate.
The media report what's interesting, not what's important. Controversy and screwups are interesting, so they get coverage. Important stuff seldom is very interesting. If anyone finds that troubling, don't blame the media -- they're doing the people's bidding.
I don't think confiscation would ever occur, mainly for logistical reasons.
And we know what does happen if confiscation occurs from many past examples (see attachment):
Rest assured these shootings will be happening with much more frequency,It happens every election cycle.. call me a tin foil hat wearer if you want but I've been noticing this trend for 20 years..
The shootings are not more frequent as much as they are more frequently reported. RARELY do we hear from mainstream media how guns saved someones life, yet that happens far more often than these wack job shooters.
WOW!!! People advocating attacking the military we claim to love so often... Sorry to burst your bubbles but I highly doubt I would be the one personally confiscating weapons (assuming it would happen which it wouldn't.) Besides if it were me things would have already gotten bad, they would call in the heavier units, and that's all I will say on that matter. It wouldn't be me though personally.
I am military, and I think you are in the wrong. I am not attacking the military and I agree with others on this. FYI it probably would be my unit and others like mine going door to door, and while I might go through the motions I will NEVER disarm American citizens.
a presumed hypothetical lawful order .
With an oath to support and defend the constitution how could this possibly ever be a lawful order?
With an oath to support and defend the constitution how could this possibly ever be a lawful order?
I would like to know this answer as well. We have levels of law with the constitution at the highest level. I don't see confiscation as a lawful order unless we have a ratified ammendment to the constitution or a removal of the 2nd ammendment all together ratified by the states.
By the way, many of us appreciate your understanding of lawful and unlawful orders.
I would like to know this answer as well...
I am fairly certain you are waiting for something that will never transpire.
Well since the topic of confiscation was brought up, let's take a look at that shall we? After Katrina hit and the military and beefed up LE presence moved in, the gov't did in fact disarm people. Was this a test? Who knows. But, it did show that there are some who will go along with it.
The Gov't failed to protect those people after a natural disaster and then tried to ensure that they could not defend themselves or protect their property. So much for "our best interest" always being at heart.
If someone does not want to have a firearm that their prerogative. But, do not force those of us who choose to take our liberty seriously to eat shit.
And for those elitist who don't care because they are in some protected/ special class that's great. Until you are no longer part of that category and someone starts knocking on your door.
...somebody certainly tackled the old lady in New Orleans...Call it what you want, sure looked like confiscation to me...http://emoticons4u.com/smoking/rauch06.gif
Dylan_Porter
02-19-08, 03:07
The senator, a former constitutional law instructor, says he believes the Second Amendment to the Constitution grants individual gun rights.
Yep, and his voting record sure backs up that statement.
KintlaLake
02-19-08, 05:45
And for those elitist who don't care because they are in some protected/special class that's great. Until you are no longer part of that category and someone starts knocking on your door.
Right. That's the difference between a principle and a position of comfortable convenience.
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.
-- Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)
One of my favorites on Obama (sarcasm):
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions
Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998
from: http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
All candidates listed here: http://www.ontheissues.org/Gun_Control.htm
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.