View Full Version : Official Obama/Federal Gun Control/Federal AWB Discussion Thread
Springfield Girl
02-26-09, 10:58
I found this on a forum, read this and pass it on!!!!
Hope we can stop this!!!!!!!! VERY BAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-----------------------------
Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced into the House. This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009. We just learned yesterday about this on the Peter Boyles radio program. Even gun shop owners didn't know about this because it is flying under the radar. To find out about this - go to any government website and type in HR 45 or Google HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009. You will get all the information. Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm - any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless: •It is registered •You are fingerprinted •You supply a current Driver's License •You supply your Social Security # •You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing •Each update - change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25 - Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail. •There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18. They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison. If you think this is a joke - go to the website and take your pick of many options to read this. It is long and lengthy. But, more and more people are becoming aware of this. Pass the word along. Any hunters in your family - pass this along. Peter Boyles is on this and having guests. Listen to him on KHOW 630 a.m. in the morning. He suggests the best way to fight this is to tell all your friends about it and "spring into action". Also he suggests we all join a pro-gun group like the Colorado Rifle Association, hunting associations, gun clubs and especially the NRA. This is just a "termite" approach to complete confiscation of guns and disarming of our society to the point we have no defense - chip away a little here and there until the goal is accomplished before anyone realizes it. This is one to act on whether you own a gun or not. If you take my gun, only the criminal will have one to use against me. HR 45 only makes me/us less safe. After working with convicts for 26 years I know this bill, if passed, would make them happy and in less danger from their victims.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/show
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45
Please.. copy and send this out to EVERYONE in the USA More On Gun Grab HR 45 Here...
http://news.google.com/news?oe=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=in&ned=&q=HR+45&btnG=Search+News
I am composing letters to my representatives right now. It strikes me that it would be useful to provide sample letters that people can copy and PERSONALIZE by editing a bit so that it doesn't look like they are simply copying them. This would be a useful thing to tack up as a separate sticky. I realize that politics is not the emphasis of M4carbine.net, and that it can become a slippery slope with Black Helecopter stuff, but I think it would be useful to have a series of sample letters that people can build from so it doesn't look like a copy and paste job.
Gutshot John
02-26-09, 11:11
Here's the text I used, please feel free to borrow liberally...
Just be sure to update references to congressmen and senators since they're specific to my district.
Dear Sir,
It has come to my attention that Attorney General has announced plans to call for a reinstatement of the socalled "Assault Weapons Ban" initially made law under the Clinton Administration and subject to a sunset provision.
I strongly urge you to oppose any such efforts to reinstate this fatallyflawed legislation. As you know an "Assault Weapon" is designated as a military arm with the ability of selectivefire. As it stands such weapons are already generally restricted under the National Firearms Act and not generally available to the public even today.
The weapons addressed in the Clinton Ban were actually semiautomatic firearms which are an entirely different class of weapons. Not only are such firearms NOT "assault weapons" but they are by far the most widely circulated and popular firearms on the market. Millions of lawabiding use semiautomatic firearms for selfdefense, hunting and other sporting purposes. Attorney General Holder's statement is an unequivocal repudiation of President Obama's campaign promise to support an individual right to keep and bear arms.
I have voted for both Senators Arlen Specter and Robert Casey Jr. for their ongoing support of the rights of firearms owners and will continue to do so, as long as they oppose any such efforts to demonize lawabiding gunowners as a result of the failures of the Federal government to enforce extant gun laws.
Similarly I would point to the fast rise of firearms purchases as millions of average Americans are voting with their pocket book. This is especially relevant in a severe economic downturn as people are using scarce resources to assure the security of their families in a time of uncertainty. Doubtlessly many of these people voted for President Obama and will be paying attention to his actions in the future. Clearly they believe they have an individual right to legally purchase and own firearms.
The overwhelming majority of millions of firearms in this country are owned by lawabiding and responsible adults. Gun crime will not be deterred by preventing those citizens from acquiring the means to protect themselves. A look at the rise in violent crime in England as a result of a firearms ban should clearly highlight the disingenuous argument that a ban will prevent criminals from acquiring firearms. The only thing that will be achieved is to create victims out of the lawabiding, and embolden criminals not constrained by gun laws.
The Obama Administration would be better served by fixing the problems with the economy rather than distracting attention by engaging in divisive ideological attacks. I will be watching closely in 2010 and 2012.
I thank you for your time in reading this letter.
Sincerely,
browningboy84
02-26-09, 11:17
Looks like it is time to see if the pen is mightier than the sword. I am writing letters to my Senators and Congressman today about this. On a different note, looks like the prices of ammo aint goin down anytime soon. If people are not panic buying already before this announcement, they sure will be now.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-tosses-cold-...-ban-2009-02-26.html
Pelosi tosses cold water on assault-weapon ban
By Mike Soraghan
Posted: 02/26/09 11:59 AM [ET]
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tossed cold water on the prospect of reinstating the assault weapons ban, highlighting Democrats’ reluctance to take on gun issues.
Attorney General Eric Holder raised the prospect Wednesday that the administration would push to bring back the ban. But Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated on Thursday that he never talked to her. The Speaker gave a flat “no” when asked if she had talked to administration officials about the ban.
“On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it's clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.”
Outside of the dig at the recent Republican president, that phrase is the stock line of those who don’t want to pass new gun control laws, such as the National Rifle Association.
The White House declined to comment on Holder's remarks, referring reporters to the Department of Justice. The DoJ did not respond to The Hill's request for comment.
:confused:
Really?
It passed last time and the democrats completely run Washington now, it'll pass again and be permanent. If not could the POTUS just write an Executive Order? He's been writing them as fast as he can since he's been in office.
Sounds pretty grim.
Got any hard facts to back that up? Numbers , voting records , stuff from last Congress?
How about co-sponsor numbers for last years top ban bill? How about the barrel import ban ?
:rolleyes:
ETA: OK , I'll give you a hint:
www.theakforum.net
Open book.
;)
:confused:
Really?
Sounds pretty grim.
Got any hard facts to back that up? Numbers , voting records , stuff from last Congress?
How about co-sponsor numbers for last years top ban bill? How about the barrel import ban ?
:rolleyes:
I'm assuming the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban would be proof and considered a "hard fact". Educate yourself on the voting record of Obama, Holder, etc. and then ask that question again. I'm not going to waste my time trying to educate you if you're too lazy to do it yourself. My little sister rolls her eyes too when she doesn't comprehend things... not to worry.
I have researched projectile effects for the USG for over 2 decades and do not understand exactly what these supposed "cop-killer" bullets are that Attorney General Holder is referring to.
Likewise, while I am absolutely clear on the specifications for an "assault rifle", I have never found a logical definition of an "assault weapon".
I really don't care if the USG bans "clips" that hold more than 10 rounds; I will have significant issues if they again try to ban standard capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
I respectfully suggest that Attorney General Holder and President Obama spend more time considering countering the ill effects and substantial negative impact on America that the millions of illegal immigrants and innumerable quantities of illegal drugs that Mexico sends into the U.S. have had rather than illogically worrying about the effects that a relatively few illicitly exported semi-automatic firearms of U.S. origin might have on Mexico.
It bodes ill for our country when the chief law enforcement officer of the United States government does not seem to have even a rudimentary understanding of the technical details he is attempting to speak about...
browningboy84
02-26-09, 12:05
It passed last time and the democrats completely run Washington now, it'll pass again and be permanent. If not could the POTUS just write an Executive Order? He's been writing them as fast as he can since he's been in office.
Keep in mind Irish Luck The history of 92-96. 92, Slick Willy is elected POTUS and the Dumbocrats won a majority in Congress. 94, The AWB is passed, and the Dems think they have won a major victory without a shot fired. After the dust cleared from the elections, the Republicans won control of the House and almost had complete control of the Senate. Bill Clinton later said at a press conference in the Rose Garden in 99 that the AWB is what cost the Dems the elections of 94, and the congressional elections in 96. They know that if they do reinstate the AWB, or even talk about it, that there will be political repurcussions. Keep writing your senators and congressman, and that threat will be weighing heavily on their minds. Bottome line, be vigilant, and be as vocal or better yet, more vocal than the anti-2nd ammendment communists and fascists that want our Constitution shredded. Remember, the 2nd Ammendment is the teeth that guarantees the the rest of the ammendments are not trampled on.
:D
Nice try.
You 're ducking the questions:
I'm assuming the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban would be proof and considered a "hard fact". Educate yourself on the voting record of Obama, Holder, etc. and then ask that question again. I'm not going to waste my time trying to educate you if you're too lazy to do it yourself. My little sister rolls her eyes too when she doesn't comprehend things... not to worry.
Hard facts.
Got any?
:cool:
:confused:
Really?
Sounds pretty grim.
Got any hard facts to back that up? Numbers , voting records , stuff from last Congress?
How about co-sponsor numbers for last years top ban bill? How about the barrel import ban ?
:rolleyes:
ETA: OK , I'll give you a hint:
www.theakforum.net
Open book.
;)
Here are the questions.
Here's what that guy claims to know about the new AWB:
It passed last time and the democrats completely run Washington now, it'll pass again and be permanent. If not could the POTUS just write an Executive Order? He's been writing them as fast as he can since he's been in office.
It bodes ill for our country when the chief law enforcement officer of the United States government does not seem to have even a rudimentary understanding of the technical details he is attempting to speak about...
I agree...
Here's what that guy claims to know about the new AWB:
I don't have all day to have an internet discussion with you and I won't waste my time arguing with you. Good luck in your fishing expedition.
30 cal slut
02-26-09, 12:49
WOW!
Pelosi throws cold water on AWB renewal. For now.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-tosses-cold-water-on-reviving-assault-weapon-ban-2009-02-26.html
Pelosi tosses cold water on assault-weapon ban
By Mike Soraghan
Posted: 02/26/09 11:59 AM [ET]
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tossed cold water on the prospect of reinstating the assault weapons ban, highlighting Democrats’ reluctance to take on gun issues.
Attorney General Eric Holder raised the prospect Wednesday that the administration would push to bring back the ban. But Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated on Thursday that he never talked to her. The Speaker gave a flat “no” when asked if she had talked to administration officials about the ban.
“On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it's clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.”
Outside of the dig at the recent Republican president, that phrase is the stock line of those who don’t want to pass new gun control laws, such as the National Rifle Association.
The White House declined to comment on Holder's remarks, referring reporters to the Department of Justice. The DoJ did not respond to The Hill's request for comment.
If you thought the market was crazy, it is getting ready to go nucking futs! I am sick and tired our stupid officials and elected politicians speaking about crap that they know nothing about. Shit like "cop killer" bullets, and "assault rifles" when they have no clue what they are talking about.
I knew it was coming, but I honestly didn't think it would be so soon.
30 cal slut
02-26-09, 13:37
uh, guys, are you reading the latest pelosi comments?
uh, guys, are you reading the latest pelosi comments?
It may not get out of the "inner circle" of Obama and his appointees. The Democratic party may not be ready to face it again.
Nathan_Bell
02-26-09, 13:53
uh, guys, are you reading the latest pelosi comments?
Yes, but the is HRH's approach to getting what she wants before you allows anything to proceed.
Yeah, I trust Nancy Pelosi about as far as I can piss.
uh, guys, are you reading the latest pelosi comments?
I would not trust her if she told me my house was on fire.....:mad:
F-n' dump-O-craps hate guns. They will try it; just not today.
.
EzGoingKev
02-26-09, 15:50
“On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference.
WOW, I never thought I would agree with Nancy Pelosi.
Yeah, I trust Nancy Pelosi about as far as I can piss.
Thank you.
Jesus....Nancy Pelosi throws down a temporary smoke screen on this issue and everyones ready for a ****ing balloon drop and confetti cannons to fire.
PAY ATTENTION FOLKS:
Do not drop the ball. The more we call....the more we write...the more relentless we are in reminding these people who can make or break their careers in DC, the less appealing an AWB will be.
This is not the time to be jerking each other off over what some claim was a false alarm. If the alarms have stopped ringing, you've stopped paying attention. These people are serious....they're extremely capable and they will come back to this. We have the black Che Guavarra in the White House. Do not under estimate them...they've accomplished a ****ing coup in this country and we better stay wide awake for every day of this administration.
Please call and write and let these people know that even inuendo about an AWB will be greeted en mass by people like us putting our collective feet down.
..._
:)
I don't care who you are , that's some real funny stuff happening today.
http://fingolfen.blogspot.com/2009/02/awb-faces-opposition-from-unexpected.html
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_popularity_bush/2009/02/26/186061.html?s=al&promo_code=7B19-1
EzGoingKev
02-26-09, 18:04
Jesus....Nancy Pelosi throws down a temporary smoke screen on this issue and everyones ready for a ****ing balloon drop and confetti cannons to fire.
The only balloon I am waiting to drop is for her to support it once she shakes Obama down. Everything Obama has wanted she gives the same answer, "What? He didn't ask me about it. I can't support it." Then once her shakedown is complete she then supports it.
It just amazed me that someone in the government knows that we already do have gun laws in place and that they are not being enforced.
PRGGodfather
02-26-09, 19:12
PAY ATTENTION FOLKS:
Do not drop the ball. The more we call....the more we write...the more relentless we are in reminding these people who can make or break their careers in DC, the less appealing an AWB will be.
This is not the time to be jerking each other off over what some claim was a false alarm. If the alarms have stopped ringing, you've stopped paying attention. These people are serious....they're extremely capable and they will come back to this. We have the black Che Guavarra in the White House. Do not under estimate them...they've accomplished a ****ing coup in this country and we better stay wide awake for every day of this administration.
Please call and write and let these people know that even inuendo about an AWB will be greeted en mass by people like us putting our collective feet down.
AMEN! Truer words...
Maybe a bit out-dated, but interesting nonetheless....from the FBI's website:
"Of those incidents in which the murder weapon was specified, 70.3 percent of the homicides that occurred in 2004 were committed with firearms. Of those, 77.9 percent involved handguns, 5.4 percent involved shotguns, and 4.2 percent involved rifles. Approximately 12.4 of the murders were committed with other types or unspecified types of firearms. Knives or cutting instruments were used in 14.1 percent of the murders; personal weapons, such as hands, fists, and feet, were used in 7.0 percent of murders, and blunt objects (i.e., clubs, hammers, etc.) were used in 5.0 percent of the homicides. Other weapons, such as poison, explosives, narcotics, etc., were used in 3.6 percent of the murders."
So according to statistics from the feds, it seems those concerned with "weapons" being used to cause harm to another human being should be far more interested in banning knives (have to rip your steaks apart by hand after that passed). And I'm not sure how they would carry out a ban on "hands, fists and feet".
Rifles, of the assault variety or not, seem to not be as popular as knives, hands, fists, feet or hammers when it comes to murder, so if another AWB is passed maybe we should rally behind an agenda to have knives, and various human body parts banned as well, since they pose a greater threat to the citizens of this country than do rifles.
If those in Washington think that helping Mexico with their drug war problems is more important than maintaining our Constitutional Rights, then maybe we should all pitch in and buy 'em all a one-way ticket south of the border...
It's just such a brilliant move to announce to the American public at this point in time (see latest unemployment news (http://www.nasdaq.com/newscontent/20090226/Unemployment-continues-to-swell-nationwide.aspx)) what will amount to GUARANTEED JOB LOSSES for one of the only bright spots in today's economy, the gun industry.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will join Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in opposing any effort to revive the 1994 assault weapons ban, putting them on the opposite side of the Obama administration.
Reid spokesman Jim Manley said the Nevada Democrat will preserve his traditional pro-gun rights voting record.
“Senator Reid would oppose an effort (to) reinstate the ban if the Senate were to vote on it in the future,” Manley told The Hill in an e-mail late Thursday night.
It was not immediately clear whether Reid would block the bill from the Senate, but his opposition casts serious doubt on its chances. Also, Manley noted that Reid voted against the ban in 1994 and again when it expired in 2004.
Reid’s stance joins him with Pelosi, who told reporters Thursday that the administration had not checked with her before Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters the administration would attempt to reinstate the ban. Pelosi gave a flat “no” when asked if she had spoken to Holder or any other administration officials about the issue.
“On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it’s clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.”
Outside of the dig at the recent Republican president, that phrase is the stock line of those who don’t want to pass new gun control laws, such as the National Rifle Association.
CarlosDJackal
02-27-09, 11:19
The first thing that came to my mind after reading about Pelosi's opposition is:
WHAT'S HER ANGLE?
The first thing that came to my mind after reading about Pelosi's opposition is:
WHAT'S HER ANGLE?
They are trying to slap down Obama and let him know who the bosses really are. Who is really in control. That he needs to get OKs on things from them before he (his admin) announces things.
However, NOW is the time to really apply pressure on Congress. Let all your pro gun members know that they cannot drop the ball on this and especially Republicans that if they ever want to get out of the minority this cannot pass -- if they let it pass they will be done with. And all the antis need to feel REAL HEAT right now that this would be a bad move. Could be career ending. So call and write letters to your Congressman and Senators as well as those from anywhere that sit on influential committees or in leadership positions. Let them know you are writing to them due to their position on the committee so they do not automatically discount it from being out of their district (they will anyway but it is worth a try).
Heavy Metal
02-27-09, 11:32
The first thing that came to my mind after reading about Pelosi's opposition is:
WHAT'S HER ANGLE?
I think her angle is keeping her speaker position ala remember Tom Foley. 2010 is shaping up to be a toxic year for Dems in general, no need to temp fate over something that even she can see is symbolic.
30 cal slut
02-27-09, 13:22
sen harry reid chimes in on AWB. yay.
:D
http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2009/02/27/democratic-leaders-oppose-return-of-assault-weapons-ban/
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will join Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in opposing any effort to revive the 1994 assault weapons ban, putting them on the opposite side of the Obama administration.
Reid spokesman Jim Manley said the Nevada Democrat will preserve his traditional pro-gun rights voting record.
“Senator Reid would oppose an effort (to) reinstate the ban if the Senate were to vote on it in the future,” Manley told The Hill in an e-mail late Thursday night.
It was not immediately clear whether Reid would block the bill from the Senate, but his opposition casts serious doubt on its chances. Also, Manley noted that Reid voted against the ban in 1994 and again when it expired in 2004.
Reid’s stance joins him with Pelosi, who told reporters Thursday that the administration had not checked with her before Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters the administration would attempt to reinstate the ban. Pelosi gave a flat “no” when asked if she had spoken to Holder or any other administration officials about the issue.
“On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it’s clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.”
Outside of the dig at the recent Republican president, that phrase is the stock line of those who don’t want to pass new gun control laws, such as the National Rifle Association.
sen harry reid chimes in on AWB. yay.:D
No, the voting pattern of Reid and Pelosi in relationship to firearm control/ban, is too well established. it's a matter of control, image, and timing. Something as significant as making the original ban permenant, is too political for Pelosi to not take credit for; she will want to be known as the person that initiated and pushed it through. She's mad because they jumped the gun before all their ducks were in a row, and because she didn't get the publicity bite. But she definitely openned the door and exposed a serious weakness in their plans........................in that we are not currently fully applying the laws that are already on the books. She made that a public statement and it will haunt any future actions regarding controls/bans. Now we just have to keep the momentum going and build off what they just gave us.
edit yep and now i hve to eat my words for not reading closer. Reid's history is much better then Pelosi, and it was wrong of me to indicate he's anti-gun. I get the dunce hat for a round
30 cal slut
02-27-09, 13:41
Sen Reid has been, IIRC, consistently PRO-GUN.
He voted against AWB I in 1994.
More background here ...
http://www.nodc.us/REID01.htm
This is the background of a consistently pro-gun kind of a guy.
30 cal slut
02-27-09, 13:49
am i missing something?
am i missing something?
lol it was my mistake, you are on track; it was my goof. read my earlier post and edit. :o
30 cal slut
02-27-09, 13:57
lol.
of course, we all know that pelosi is the spawn of satan.
Now harry Reid's turn!
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/reid-joins-pelosi-in-opposing-weapons-ban-revival-2009-02-26.html
Reid joins Pelosi in opposing weapons ban revival
By J. Taylor Rushing
Posted: 02/26/09 10:17 PM [ET]
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will join House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in opposing any effort to revive the 1994 assault-weapons ban, putting them on the opposite side of the Obama administration.
Reid spokesman Jim Manley said the Nevada Democrat will preserve his traditional pro-gun rights voting record.
"Sen. Reid would oppose an effort [to] reinstate the ban if the Senate were to vote on it in the future," Manley told The Hill in an e-mail late Thursday night.
It was not immediately clear whether Reid would block the bill from the Senate, but his opposition casts serious doubt on its chances. Also, Manley noted that Reid voted against the ban in 1994 and again when it expired in 2004.
Reid's stance joins him with Pelosi, who told reporters Thursday that the administration had not checked with her before Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters the administration would attempt to reinstate the ban. Pelosi gave a flat “no” when asked if she had spoken to Holder or any other administration officials about the issue.
“On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it's clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.”
Outside of the dig at the recent Republican president, that phrase is the stock line of those who don’t want to pass new gun control laws, such as the National Rifle Association (NRA).
Holder said during a press conference Wednesday in Phoenix that Obama had made reinstating the ban one of his campaign promises.
"There are obviously a number of things that are — that have been taking up a substantial amount of his time, and so I’m not sure exactly what the sequencing will be," Holder said. "It is something, however, that we still think would be an appropriate thing to do."
The news caught Capitol Hill by surprise, immediately pitting Democrats and Republicans against each other and even exposing deep divides among Democrats. A number of House Democrats lost their seats after being targeted by the NRA for voting for the 1994 ban.
Holder opening his mouth was a great thing for us.
Pelosi and Reid both coming out publicly against any AWB is a big deal. Regardless of how you feel about their philosophies, idiots they are not. To recant would be a messy proposition, especially with the phrasing Pelosi used.
Also, I never understood the worry / hate with Reid, or why he has a F from GOA. He voted against the AWB , which is more than can be said for 40 Republicans.....
Plus most people either don't know of forgot but the AWB only passed by one vote in 1994!
I cant stand Pelosi's smirking know-it-all style. But, at least at this point she appears to know better then to go there FOR NOW. You would think that the Democrats would be smart enough to not stomp out bascially the only american industry still doing well. Or maybe they are smart enough to stimulate that very industry by stoking the fear factor (doubt it, but you never know) to sell more highly taxed guns and ammo. Reid is not so bad on gun laws. Cant give him hell on that and being in charge of the Senate, he has a good handle on what gets passed. Don't give in Reid, we need ya.
HiggsBoson
03-02-09, 20:37
I will put this here, because it is likely to get the "Ammunition is getting scarce (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?p=321779)" thread hit with The Katar's thump-stick.
From: http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=4430
Rumors and the Economic Stimulus Bill
Friday, February 13, 2009
We have been hearing many rumors, and receiving many inquiries, about "supposed" provisions in the federal economic stimulus bill that would negatively affect our Second Amendment rights. People have claimed the bill would designate interstate highways as national parks, or impose ammunition encoding and new ammunition taxes. Fortunately, and contrary to what you may have heard, there are no provisions in this bill prohibiting firearms or ammunition anywhere, or for anyone.
The only reference in the bill to firearms is a provision authorizing funds for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' (BATFE) "Project Gunrunner," which is a program that enforces existing laws to reduce smuggling of firearms from the United States to Mexico. This program imposes no new restrictions on gun owners, and if it did, we can assure you we would take swift action.
Needless to say, NRA, as a single-issue organization, takes no position on the economic stimulus legislation as a whole.
For more information and to read the legislation yourself, you can visit the following sites:
http://www.house.gov/billtext/hr1_legtext_cr.pdf, and http://www.house.gov/billtext/hr1_legtext_crb.pdf
(Please note that, due to the length of the text, the final bill must be viewed in two parts.)
SingleStacker45
03-04-09, 20:49
A friend of mine found this interesting article in the Raleigh NC paper.
http://www.newsobserver.com/1573/story/1427000.html
I wonder if they are just being coy. Waiting for a better climate.
Mule
HiggsBoson
03-06-09, 11:30
According to this article (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/05/gun-planks-stymie-dc-vote/) in the Washington Times, Republicans in Congress attached an amendment to the "DC Voting Rights" bill. The amendment would have basically restored full 2A rights to DC. Apparently, though, the Constitution is only applicable to DC residents when it suits Eleanor Holmes Norton and Mayor Fenti's purposes.
FTA:
"The pro-gun amendments offered by Rep. Dean Heller, Nevada Republican, and Rep. Steve King, Iowa Republican, caused the bill to be pulled abruptly from consideration on Tuesday by House Democrats."
More evidence that most Democrats in Congress do not want to be on the record as voting against 2A rights, because the NRA would count it on their scorecard. Not that they won't try to do it by a "voice vote", but it does show that they want to tread VERY lightly on 2A issues.
K.L. Davis
03-06-09, 13:45
The Photoshop opportunities abound... Here (http://gamu-toys.info/sonota/sw/obama/obama.html)
As a police officer, I am scared of this administration. If guns were outlawed, then only criminals would have guns. I wont ever give up my guns, nor would I demand that a law abiding citizen give up his lawfully owned guns. If they try to make me collect the guns, they will just have to hold me in comtempt. I would be shot by all these small town "bitter gun clingers". Thing is, I am one of them as well.
Razorhunter
03-09-09, 21:44
As a police officer, I am scared of this administration. If guns were outlawed, then only criminals would have guns. I wont ever give up my guns, nor would I demand that a law abiding citizen give up his lawfully owned guns. If they try to make me collect the guns, they will just have to hold me in comtempt. I would be shot by all these small town "bitter gun clingers". Thing is, I am one of them as well.
I have not had the time to follow this literally endless thread, but I do occasionally read the replies in my inbox, without even logging into this thread.
I must say that I had to take a minute to log back in to say:
THANK THE GOOD LORD ABOVE for good Police Officers like yourself. I only wish all Officers were just like you.
Thanks for having the courage to step up and give us all some hope. I know there are some good Officers in this country, and you are obviously one of them.
Thank you sir, and please, by all means, don't hesitate to help your other fellow officers be of the same attitude as yourself.
As a police officer, I am scared of this administration. If guns were outlawed, then only criminals would have guns. I wont ever give up my guns, nor would I demand that a law abiding citizen give up his lawfully owned guns. If they try to make me collect the guns, they will just have to hold me in comtempt. I would be shot by all these small town "bitter gun clingers". Thing is, I am one of them as well.
May peace be with the families of your L.E. colleagues who fail to adopt the same attitude if or when it ever does come to that lowest point in American history. NOTE - Please do not see this as a threat from me or anyone I know, but merely an educated guess about what appears to be an inevitable response to such an order based on a casual reading of many different categories of online forums. There is plenty of "chatter" out there to support such an educated guess.
I can see that you do not have your head in the sand and hope that you have time to remind and/or convince others of their obligations required by the oath they took to support the Constitution.
I can see that you do not have your head in the sand and hope that you have time to remind and/or convince others of their obligations required by the oath they took to support the Constitution.
Exactly. Not to the POTUS or AG.
Gutshot John
03-10-09, 11:58
Funny. I thought a LAW enforcement officer, was meant to enforce the LAW. The law is different than the Constitution.
While you may disagree with the law, or the law's interpretation, LEOs don't get a choice about which to enforce. They don't get to nullify a law simply because they don't agree with it. Moreover there is no precedent/requirement that an LEO interpret the constitution.
That said, I know lots of LEO on this forum, in my personal life and elsewhere and I've yet to hear any of them espouse anti-2a sentiment. In fact without exception they all voted against Obama.
Are there bad/idiot cops...yes sure are, but let's keep in mind that most cops are decent people that day-in and day-out stand between us and those that would vicitmize society.
Funny. I thought a LAW enforcement officer, was meant to enforce the LAW. The law is different than the Constitution.
With all due respect, the Constitution (including L.E. officers' oaths thereon) is BIGGER than their jobs (and their loyalty to chief L.E. officers such as Eric Holder). Otherwise, WHAT IS THE POINT of swearing in on the Constitution? Is it just a formality no one bothers to THINK about?
The first thing that came to my mind after reading about Pelosi's opposition is:
WHAT'S HER ANGLE?
The dems will wait until after the 2010 election cycle instate a new AWB. They remember what happened in 1996 and will not want a repeat of that.
Funny. I thought a LAW enforcement officer, was meant to enforce the LAW. The law is different than the Constitution.
The Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land. Its bigger than any LEO or the President for that matter. And why would you want to back the POTUS, AG or any member of Congress when they have violated their oaths to uphold, defend and protect the Constitution? If a LEO goes along with something unconstitutional such as outright gun confiscation, like during Katrina, then they too are in violation of the oath they swore.
LittleRedToyota
03-10-09, 12:46
Funny. I thought a LAW enforcement officer, was meant to enforce the LAW. The law is different than the Constitution.
any law which contradicts the constitution is invalid...given that all lawmaking authority in the USA is derived from the constitution (and even we the people cannot get around that unless we amend the constitution).
and, of course, anyone who has sworn an oath to uphold and defend the constitution could not enforce a law that contradicts the constitution without violating that oath.
They don't get to nullify a law simply because they don't agree with it. Moreover there is no precedent/requirement that an LEO interpret the constitution.
they also do not get a free pass (from a moral/ethical/right v. wrong standpoint) to violate constitutional rights just because SCOTUS says OK and they are ordered to do so.
i would also say that swearing to defend and uphold the constitution would carry a requirement to not enforce unconstitutional laws.
While you may disagree with the law, or the law's interpretation, LEOs don't get a choice about which to enforce. They don't get to nullify a law simply because they don't agree with it. Moreover there is no precedent/requirement that an LEO interpret the constitution.
So take the responsible course of action and refuse to comply with the order. Refuse to become a "just following orders" type like we saw in the Katrina aftermath, or even worse, WWII Germany. Try standing up for principle and sound reasoning instead of focusing so much on your own financial interests in potentially losing your job. Who knows, you might even hit the jackpot when you get a book deal for being a hero. If not, you are bound to still be employable by some police chief out there who is on the side of the American people.
That said, I know lots of LEO on this forum, in my personal life and elsewhere and I've yet to hear any of them espouse anti-2a sentiment. In fact without exception they all voted against Obama.
There is at least one LEO on this very forum who was rather outspoken in the fact that he was choosing to vote for Barack Obama.
That said, I know lots of LEO on this forum, in my personal life and elsewhere and I've yet to hear any of them espouse anti-2a sentiment. In fact without exception they all voted against Obama.
I bet the same thing could have been said about a number of those who violated their oaths during the Katrina aftermath. Selfishly, they worried only about their own employment.
That said, I'd love to see a L.E.O. union out there in which membership is predicated solely upon upholding the 2nd Amendment and refusing orders to "cross the line." Violators would be sanctioned in front of the union's other members.
Gutshot John
03-10-09, 13:16
Separation of powers.
The Constitution is interpreted by the judiciary.
The Executive (police and other LEO) enforce the laws that exist within the framework of the Constitution.
In the case of Katrina there was no law that allowed them to confiscate guns like that. Police officers were not enforcing any extant law, so they were in fact violating the law and the Constitution.
I'm sure you can find the odd LEO who voted for Obama, I don't know a single one.
any law which contradicts the constitution is invalid...given that all lawmaking authority in the USA is derived from the constitution (and even we the people cannot get around that unless we amend the constitution).
I'm sorry but that's a simplistic understanding of the Constitution. Yes a law can be unconstitutional, but that's not for the individual or the average LEO to make that determination. He simply cannot act in a fashion that's been interpreted as unconstitutional.
Challenging the constitutionality of a law is different from having to obey it. Nullification has been struck down by numerous courts since the time of Andrew Jackson and even by Old Hickory himself.
No one gets to pick and chose which laws they obey and your individual interpretation of the Constitution is not the determinant. The lone possible exception, and it can only be used as a defense is that you violated the law in order to prevent a much greater "harm" from occurring. In other words, you can argue that you ran the stop sign because you were trying to get a dying person to the hospital.
No one gets to pick and chose which laws they obey and your individual interpretation of [British Law] is not the determinant.
These are the very words uttered by just-following-orders-type police officers prior to the American Revolution. Remember that the British were trying to disarm the American citizenry.
Gutshot John
03-10-09, 13:51
These are the same words uttered by just-following-orders-type police officers prior to the American Revolution.
A specious and historically flawed analogy, but thanks for trying.
The Revolution, was a societal decision taken by the whole, and codified into law by the Continental Congress after a long series of petitions and greivances and was only justified not by having to obey laws, but rather having to obey laws made by a parliament in which they had no representation.
It was not about individuals picking and choosing which laws they obeyed when they do have adequate representation.
If you think nullification bears any resemblence to 1775 than you are deeply mistaken.
LittleRedToyota
03-10-09, 14:09
I'm sorry but that's a simplistic understanding of the Constitution.
actually, the constitution is amazingly simple. people just pretend it is not.
just sayin'... ;)
Yes a law can be unconstitutional, but that's not for the individual or the average LEO to make that determination.
we will likely just have to agree to disagree on pretty much this entire issue, but i disagree with that view (even though i know it is the predominant view in our current legal system).
there is a reason oaths are sworn to the constitution and not to SCOTUS or POTUS.
imho, LEOs should refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws. and people should refuse to obey them.
taken to the extreme, your view (which is the prevailing view in our current system) means SCOTUS could allow congress to essentially wipe out the constitution. congress could make a law, for example, saying that all republicans or all democrats are to be put in jail. SCOTUS could say OK. and there you have it.
while i agree that this is extremely unlikely, it would be no more of a direct and obvious violation of the constitution than is banning guns given that the 2nd says "shall not be infringed".
further, the constitution says what it says--not what SCOTUS says it says. this is evidenced by the fact that SCOTUS sometimes reverses itself while the words of the constitution do not change. the oath is to the constitution itself (what it actually says), not to SCOTUS.
Nullification has been struck down by numerous courts since the time of Andrew Jackson and even by Old Hickory himself.
jury nullification is actually an extraordinarily important part of our system...and the founding fathers believed that.
in fact, one of the reaons we have strayed so far from what the constitution actually says is because of the myth that jury nullification is no longer valid or relevant.
Gutshot John, the Revolution was not a decision taken by the whole society...probably not even half were active supporters. And although nullification isn't exact, to say it doesn't bear any resemblance? Perhaps saying how it differs would be more productive, since resemblance is in the eye of the beholder.
Gutshot John
03-10-09, 15:28
Gutshot John, the Revolution was not a decision taken by the whole society...probably not even half were active supporters. And although nullification isn't exact, to say it doesn't bear any resemblance? Perhaps saying how it differs would be more productive, since resemblance is in the eye of the beholder.
I'm not sure where you got your information but...
The Revolution WAS taken by the society. Yes tories dissented, but ALL colonial legislatures voted for independence and sent representatives to the Continental Congress.
As for the numbers, there is a wonderful book by two men named Resch & Sargent who pretty much show that 75% of men of arms-bearing age served for at least some time in the revolution, whether as part of the continental army or state militias. That's a remarkable figure even by today's standards. This of course does not include civilian support for the Revolution which was likewise strong.
The decision was made by the people's elected representatives but well over half the population participated.
I doubt very much you want to make the argument that the revolution was against the popular will.
Gutshot John
03-10-09, 15:37
actually, the constitution is amazingly simple. people just pretend it is not.
just sayin'... ;)
There is a difference between "simple" and "simplistic". I'm sure Webster can clarify that for you.
there is a reason oaths are sworn to the constitution and not to SCOTUS or POTUS.
Actually those reasons have ZERO to do with nullification, moreover you're only partially correct. The Armed Forces swear an oath to obey the orders of the President and Officers appointed above them even as they swear to protect/defend the Constitution.
The Constitution is the embodiment of the government and the seat of sovereignty. You support and defend the Constitution because it is what constitutes legal authority.
Legislatures create law and the judiciary decides, when these laws are Constitutional. The Constitution clearly gives state and federal legislatures the power to create law so in the end you're causing a conflict within the Constitution if you give the power of interpretation to those that enforce the law. Moreover you'd be putting tremendous power into the Executive branch and upset the separation of powers.
I'm sorry but it can't work both ways.
imho, LEOs should refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws. and people should refuse to obey them.
So who decides what's unconstitutional? You? Sorry we don't get to decide, that's precisely why we have a Constitution. So there is no caprice in the law.
taken to the extreme, your view (which is the prevailing view in our current system) means SCOTUS could allow congress to essentially wipe out the constitution. congress could make a law, for example, saying that all republicans or all democrats are to be put in jail. SCOTUS could say OK. and there you have it.
No one is taking anything to the extreme. My interpretation and the prevailing view in our current system has been so since well before the Civil War. Even the Confederacy never made the argument that the individual could disobey the law, only the state could by secession and the Civil War/Reconstruction settled that debate for all time.
while i agree that this is extremely unlikely, it would be no more of a direct and obvious violation of the constitution than is banning guns given that the 2nd says "shall not be infringed".
further, the constitution says what it says--not what SCOTUS says it says. this is evidenced by the fact that SCOTUS sometimes reverses itself while the words of the constitution do not change. the oath is to the constitution itself (what it actually says), not to SCOTUS.
Please refer to Article III of the Constitution.
jury nullification is actually an extraordinarily important part of our system...and the founding fathers believed that.
Jury nullification is something entirely different.
Please refer to the Nullification Crisis during the Jackson Administration.
in fact, one of the reaons we have strayed so far from what the constitution actually says is because of the myth that jury nullification is no longer valid or relevant.
Again jury nullification isn't what I'm talking about.
It all comes down to definitions. "society as a whole" doesn't suggest a simple majority to me, but so be it. A significant majority of recently polled Americans believe the 2nd A indicates the individual's right. Also, plenty has been done in recent decades which flies in the face of the popular will, typically by judges. Hopefully we won't need to put our money where our mouth is, since I imagine you and I would agree a majority of Americans will not do so.
Gutshot John
03-10-09, 15:44
It all comes down to definitions. "society as a whole" doesn't suggest a simple majority to me, but so be it.
Splitting hairs. You said "whole society" which to me implies either a solid majority or 100% civil support. Since the latter is impossible for all practical purposes, well over a simple majority should suffice for our purposes.
The people's representatives, of which the tories were represented, voted for Revolution.
That most Americans actively supported the war effort in some way shape or form is only further proof of that.
I don't know what most people would do, but if I was in NOLA for Katrina, and I had committed no crime, the answer would be a firm "No". If I had committed a crime, than the point becomes moot.
My sense however is that NOLA cops are A LOT different than the LEOs I know.
A specious and historically flawed analogy, but thanks for trying.
The Revolution, was a societal decision taken by the whole, and codified into law by the Continental Congress after a long series of petitions and greivances and was only justified not by having to obey laws, but rather having to obey laws made by a parliament in which they had no representation.
It was not about individuals picking and choosing which laws they obeyed when they do have adequate representation.
If you think nullification bears any resemblence to 1775 than you are deeply mistaken.
I hear what you're saying, and where you're coming from.
I don't know about you, but my list of grievances is growing.
Following the logic of the founders. It was not just because they did not have adequate representation in the British empire of the day, though that was one of the many complaints. Neither was the existence of their formalized political system the key ingredient, but that certainly helps in acting as a unit.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
It was, ultimately, to secure their unalienable rights. It is the right of the people to abolish any Form of Government that is destructive to this goal, be it properly representative or not. If we have a functioning political entity that resists or not. Those points are immaterial to the basic premise, is the present government destructive to our unalienable rights?
Nullification, the whiskey rebellion, even the civil war, were essentially taxation/economic issues at their core from a body that ultimately had representation but still didn't like the results, rather than liberty/unalienable rights issues - which I don't think any of them were patient enough to find the real answer to that question. This is why, IMHO, it was right to squish those, and I agree with you that they were very different than 1775.
Going back to the individuality and general constitutional system. It is the sworn duty of every individual to uphold the constitution. It is the binding contract the people have used to organize the government. That means each individual must interpret and understand what it means, including every employee of the people or plain jane citizen. Yes, the judiciary has the final say in an official query, and lay the groundwork, and bring some order to it all. But those decisions can be void if they clearly violate our unalienable rights. Following the logic of the founders, we can, if necessary, pull from a higher authority than even the Constitution to this end, above any court in the land.
We would do well to remember that we should not take hard stands for "light and transient causes", as outlined in the declaration of independence. Which shows a good deal of wisdom, even then, the sword should not be used until all else has failed - our founding fathers epitomized this with their long and patient ordeal to attempt to right the ship - rather than try to cut loose at the first sign of trouble.
Yes, we have representatives. But this isn't isolated to economic issues or taxation. It's basic human liberty that's under fire. And no government or organization, however created or claiming whatever authority they may, has the right to take that away.
I would prefer to solve all our problems and differences peacefully, with equity and justice, within the confines of our system. But there are lines that should not be crossed, I don't care if it's from a court, president, or congress. They have real limits, and our personal integrity should not be compromised by executing such orders that trespass these lines. I believe this is ultimately an individual matter. Do the right thing, live by your conscience.
Gutshot John
03-10-09, 16:16
It was not just because they did not have adequate representation in the British empire of the day, though that was one of the many complaints.
I think that's a fair point, but move a bit deeper...
There may have been other complaints, but the only one that justified revolution/rebellion was no (not just inadequate) representation. They tacked on a bunch of other things that were relevant to varying degrees, but if they had representation they have the opportunity to work within the system to change things.
Ultimately they had grievances and NO means of redressing them through the extant system of the time. After repeated attempts at trying to work within the system to fix the unjust laws they were little choice but to rebel, but that doesn't mean they were trying to nullify the law.
Even the most benevolent societies have unjust laws since they are man-made, that's why laws can be made and unmade as quickly by the legislatures as by the courts. Can this government become so tyrannical (though more likely dysfunctional) that rebellion is justified? Yes absolutely, but that's an entirely different argument than saying that your average LEO has the duty to interpret the Constitution or the ability to refuse to enforce a law passed by the legislature.
LittleRedToyota
03-10-09, 16:42
There is a difference between "simple" and "simplistic". I'm sure Webster can clarify that for you.
but a view might be considered "simplistic" for one of two reasons:
1. the object being viewed is actually as complex as everyone else makes it out to be, and, so, a "simplistic" view is actually wrong; or
2. the object being viewed is actually very simple even though most people view it as complex, and, so, a "simplistic" view is actually the correct view.
you accuse me of having a "simplistic" view...i retort that my view is not "simplistic"--rather, it is actually a realistic view of a simple object.
The Armed Forces swear an oath to obey the orders of the President and Officers appointed above them even as they swear to protect/defend the Constitution.
the oath for officers contains no such language.
Moreover you'd be putting tremendous power into the Executive branch and upset the separation of powers.
no, you would not be.
the executive branch would not be able do anything on its own. they would not be able to make up their own laws.
they would just exercise their proper check on the legislative branch by refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws passed by the legislative branch.
the way it works now, most of the executive branch might as well actually be part of the legislative branch.
Moreover you'd be putting tremendous power into the Executive branch and upset the separation of powers.
the idea that the executive branch should blindly follow all legislation SCOTUS deems constitutional severely undermines our system of checks and balances.
yes, you can (properly) point to the veto as an executive check, but there is also a reason that government agents do not work directly for the president.
I'm sorry but it can't work both ways.
it isn't a question of "having it both ways". the whole idea is to err on the side of the government not doing too much...better that it is unable to do something it actually has the authority to do than it it able to do something it does not have the authority to do. there are many places in the system where a law can be stopped, but not initiated. it is not a symmetrical system
(it is worth noting that the first government the founding fathers tried was so weak it didn't even work. that kind of gives you some insight into what they were trying to accomplish.)
So who decides what's unconstitutional? You? Sorry we don't get to decide, that's precisely why we have a Constitution. So there is no caprice in the law.
we have a constitution to limit the authority of the government. we especially have a bill of rights to limit the authority of the government. it is written in no uncertain language and plainly says what it says.
No one is taking anything to the extreme.
i didn't say you were. i was pointing out where your (and our legal system's prevailing) logic...which is essentially that the words of the constitution are meaningless...goes when it is taken to the extreme.
i'll ask you the same question i ask everyone i get into this debate with...
at time A, SCOTUS says a law is constitutional.
later, at time B, SCOTUS reverses itself and says the law is unconstitutional.
did the words on the paper change? did the words stay the same, but their definitions change? what changed?
of course, in reality neither the law nor the constitution changed (neither the words nor the actual meaning). this necessarily means that the law has either always been constitutional or it has always been unconstitutional.
that, in turn, means SCOTUS was wrong either at time A or at time B.
that, in turn, means that anyone who is defending the constitution must stand against SCOTUS either at time A or time B.
Please refer to Article III of the Constitution.
article III does not give SCOTUS the authority to invalidate the bill of rights. does not give SCOTUS the authority to redefine words or ignore them. when they do that, they step outside of their constitutionally defined authority and the other branches have a duty to oppose them.
words have meaning. the words of the constitution are generally quite plain and clear. our legal system pretends they aren't. our law schools teach that they are not. but, really, the generally are. for example, you cannot really get much plainer or simpler or clearer than "shall not be infringed".
Please refer to the Nullification Crisis during the Jackson Administration.
ah...ok. not sure how that is relevant here. the commerce clause clearly does give the federal government the authority to levy tariffs.
states can't legitimately rewrite the constitution any more than Congress and SCOTUS can.
Gutshot John
03-10-09, 17:06
I'm not going to address every point since they are a subset of your two main points.
ah...ok. not sure how that is relevant here. the commerce clause clearly does give the federal government the authority to levy tariffs.
states can't legitimately rewrite the constitution any more than Congress and SCOTUS can.
Because South Carolina claimed it had the right to nullify Federal Laws that it didn't find Constitutional. At the time the Commerce clause wasn't nearly as strong as it is now.
I'm not sure how you missed that. If the states, which are recognized by the Constitution as having legislative powers cannot negate a federal law, where do you get that the individual or LEO has that power?
article III does not give SCOTUS the authority to invalidate the bill of rights.
Never said it did, only that the Judiciary interprets laws relative to the Constitution, not the Executive which is constitutionally charged with enforcing them. That's what separation of powers means.
LittleRedToyota
03-10-09, 17:26
Because South Carolina claimed it had the right to nullify Federal Laws that it didn't find Constitutional. At the time the Commerce clause wasn't nearly as strong as it is now.
I'm not sure how you missed that. If the states, which are recognized by the Constitution as having legislative powers cannot negate a federal law, where do you get that the individual or LEO has that power?
i didn't miss anything. it doesn't matter what anyone says the constitution says. all that matters is what it actually says. the constitution clearly says that the federal government shall have the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations.
south carolina was clearly wrong.
anyone who says a law banning guns is unconstitutional, on the other hand, is clearly right...as the constitution clearly prohibits the federal government from banning guns (or even regulating them, frankly, if you use the actual definition of the word "infringe").
thus, apples and oranges.
you can say "well, that is just your opinion", and yeah, it is. however, anyone who reads what the constitution actually says and looks up the actual definitions of the words and does it all with even a modicum of intellectual honesty will come to the same conclusion...because, frankly, that's just plain and simply what the constitution actually says.
at any rate, it has been a fun debate, but i don't think we are going to change each other's outlook, so...
Gutshot John
03-10-09, 18:50
i didn't miss anything. it doesn't matter what anyone says the constitution says. all that matters is what it actually says. the constitution clearly says that the federal government shall have the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations.
south carolina was clearly wrong.
anyone who says a law banning guns is unconstitutional, on the other hand, is clearly right...as the constitution clearly prohibits the federal government from banning guns (or even regulating them, frankly, if you use the actual definition of the word "infringe").
thus, apples and oranges.
you can say "well, that is just your opinion", and yeah, it is. however, anyone who reads what the constitution actually says and looks up the actual definitions of the words and does it all with even a modicum of intellectual honesty will come to the same conclusion...because, frankly, that's just plain and simply what the constitution actually says.
at any rate, it has been a fun debate, but i don't think we are going to change each other's outlook, so...
You have been an honest and earnest debater, even if I disagree with some things, I think we probably agree more than we disagree.
LittleRedToyota
03-10-09, 23:23
You have been an honest and earnest debater,
as have you...my fellow yinzer.
(just noticed the pittsburgh part...i wonder if we know each other. do you belong to PMSC by any chance?)
There is at least one LEO on this very forum who was rather outspoken in the fact that he was choosing to vote for Barack Obama.
The largest organization of law enforcement officers in the country endorsed Obama for president. NAPO is a coalition of over 2000 police organizations.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/22/politics/fromtheroad/entry4467606.shtml
Law enforcement is a highly unionized work force and as we know unions obviously favor left leaning administrations. Also, leftist administrations typically broaden the both the funding and authority of law enforcement agencies and are seen as desirable for that reason. Conservative administrations on the other hand often seek to constrain budgets and limit regulatory powers so they lose on all three counts.
The cliche that all law enforcement officers are right wing conservatives doesn't line up with current reality. Especially with the latest generation of people entering the work force. And keep in mind pro-2A alone does not equal conservative. I observe -- with considerable alarm -- the emergence of a left leaning, pro-2A movement in this country. (In other words, 2A is one of the few issues that causes them to cling to the conservative side of the ticket.) I think you can find plenty of evidence of that trend right here on this forum.
:confused:
Confiscation , widespread Federal confiscation ?
Give me a break.
Given firearms policy trends in most states and in Congress for the last few years , that's not even on the radar. It would tough to impossible even in the 5 or 6 worst states: Ca , Mass , etc.
Sounds like sovereign citizen tin foil wizard stuff to me.
:D
The largest organization of law enforcement officers in the country endorsed Obama for president. NAPO is a coalition of over 2000 police organizations.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/22/politics/fromtheroad/entry4467606.shtml
Law enforcement is a highly unionized work force and as we know unions obviously favor left leaning administrations. Also, leftist administrations typically broaden the both the funding and authority of law enforcement agencies and are seen as desirable for that reason. Conservative administrations on the other hand often seek to constrain budgets and limit regulatory powers so they lose on all three counts.
The cliche that all law enforcement officers are right wing conservatives doesn't line up with current reality. Especially with the latest generation of people entering the work force. And keep in mind pro-2A alone does not equal conservative. I observe -- with considerable alarm -- the emergence of a left leaning, pro-2A movement in this country. (In other words, 2A is one of the few issues that causes them to cling to the conservative side of the ticket.) I think you can find plenty of evidence of that trend right here on this forum.
Do not let one officer set your opinion in stone. There are officers who are liberal, and there are those who are conservative. I do not go to church, and I am not a Bible thumper. I am a LEO, and I beleive in the 2nd ammendment just as strongly as you do. I think that President Obama has good intention on a lot of things. He comes from Chicago, where his only exposure to guns has mainly been in the hands of criminals. He never had a father to show him how to safely use a gun. He now wants to ban guns, yet his secret service agents have guns to protect him. He is misguided on his thoughts, and a lot of LEO's like me also think that. THe LEO union that endorsed him, that does not mean that all LEO's voted for him. It was an election that deeply divided this country, and it will keep us devided for a long time. He has said some things that I find arrogant, and his plans will increase crime and destroy our economy. With that said, I will always respect the 2nd Ammendment, and will never take a law abiding citizens gun, whether they tell me to or not!!!!!!
I will always respect the 2nd Ammendment, and will never take a law abiding citizens gun, whether they tell me to or not!!!!!!
I think the reason this question comes up in these discussions -- Where is LEO or .mil politically? -- is because people want some assurance they can count on them to refuse if directed to cross the line. Many see our final line of 2A defense is an ideologically aligned LEO / military community. A comforting thought. But false comfort can be a hazardous thing. In New Orleans it turned out not to be the case. I see people take it almost as a given that those entities are fully on "our side". Palmguy was surprised to find an LEO who voted for Obama. I was just pointing out that LEO runs across the political spectrum and there were LOTS of LEOs who supported Obama in the last election -- hundreds of thousands. The truth is we don't exactly know how much support there would be and won't until / unless it gets put to the test. But I appreciate the fact that you are willing to take the stance you are! At the bottom line it will come down to who has the greater will.
Palmguy was surprised to find an LEO who voted for Obama.
I wasn't surprised at all...John said that he didn't know of any, I merely said that there was at least one LEO who is an outspoken Obama supporter on this forum.
I wasn't surprised at all...John said that he didn't know of any, I merely said that there was at least one LEO who is an outspoken Obama supporter on this forum.
Right, sorry. Wasn't trying to take you out of context...
Even the most benevolent societies have unjust laws since they are man-made, that's why laws can be made and unmade as quickly by the legislatures as by the courts. Can this government become so tyrannical (though more likely dysfunctional) that rebellion is justified? Yes absolutely, but that's an entirely different argument than saying that your average LEO has the duty to interpret the Constitution or the ability to refuse to enforce a law passed by the legislature.
I think we're more or less on the same page. I believe you are correct about most standard laws and issues, however, there are laws, mandates, or orders that should be utterly refused. Weapon confiscations are one of those, and I believe you stated this yourself earlier. So I don't think we disagree in substance, just semantics of how to express it.
http://www.edition.cnn.com/
Do the recent shooting rampages highlight the need for more gun control?
Yes 58% 7481
No 42% 5453
Total Votes: 12934
Looks like they pulled the poll when it went against what they had hoped to get.
Typical.
;)
There's even more to this story and it's very bad news for the gun-grabbers.
It's not over yet.
According to this article (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/05/gun-planks-stymie-dc-vote/) in the Washington Times, Republicans in Congress attached an amendment to the "DC Voting Rights" bill. The amendment would have basically restored full 2A rights to DC. Apparently, though, the Constitution is only applicable to DC residents when it suits Eleanor Holmes Norton and Mayor Fenti's purposes.
FTA:
More evidence that most Democrats in Congress do not want to be on the record as voting against 2A rights, because the NRA would count it on their scorecard. Not that they won't try to do it by a "voice vote", but it does show that they want to tread VERY lightly on 2A issues.
On September 17 , 2008 the US House passed ( 266 to 152 ) the "Second Amendment Enforcement Act" to restore full 2nd Amendment rights to DC citizens. There was no vote on a Senate counterpart last year. This year the Senate went 61 to 36 to restore rights in DC.
Some of the faces in the House have changed , but support for the 2nd Amendment remains strong. The vote of 266 to 152 was a crushing defeat for the gun-grabbing senior leadership in the House. Eighty-five ( 85) democrats defied their party bosses to vote for the measure.
The gun-grabbers are desperate to avoid a House vote this year.
It's not over yet.
Senate (2009): 61 to 36.
House (2008): 266 to 152.
The Brady Bunch is hysterical:
www.bradycampaign.com
:D
We are still winning.
:cool:
Edit to add:
The source for the House vote info is the NRA magazine ; "America's 1st Freedom" , Nov 2008 page 20. There's a NRA e-mail alert on the topic , too.
www.saf.org
www.nra.com
.
http://www.edition.cnn.com/
Do the recent shooting rampages highlight the need for more gun control?
Yes 58% 7481
No 42% 5453
Total Votes: 12934
Poll: Do these recent shooting rampages highlight the need for an armed citizenry?
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
EzGoingKev
03-12-09, 11:15
From the article Obama: Troop Move To Mexican Border (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/63800.html)
"We expect to have a comprehensive approach to dealing with these issues of border security that will involve supporting Calderon and his efforts in a partnership, also making sure we are dealing with the flow of drug money and guns south, because it's really a two-way situation there," said Obama."
"The drugs are coming north, we're sending funds and guns south," he said. "As a consequence, these cartels have gained extraordinary power. Our expectation is to have a comprehensive policy in place in the next few months."
This seems to echo USAG Holder statement about reinstating the ban. This mantra of America needs tougher gun laws to make Mexico safer is going to one large piece of the new administration's quest to tighten up gun laws. They are going to use this as one piece of the puzzle they need to set the anti-gun tone.
They have already started to take away the money so now they just need to get the guns.
This shows that it pays to read the whole linked article.
There are multi-page threads running about the issues on the border.
It's a serious problem.
From the article Obama: Troop Move To Mexican Border (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/63800.html)
"We expect to have a comprehensive approach to dealing with these issues of border security that will involve supporting Calderon and his efforts in a partnership, also making sure we are dealing with the flow of drug money and guns south, because it's really a two-way situation there," said Obama."
"The drugs are coming north, we're sending funds and guns south," he said. "As a consequence, these cartels have gained extraordinary power. Our expectation is to have a comprehensive policy in place in the next few months."
This seems to echo USAG Holder statement about reinstating the ban. This mantra of America needs tougher gun laws to make Mexico safer is going to one large piece of the new administration's quest to tighten up gun laws. They are going to use this as one piece of the puzzle they need to set the anti-gun tone.
They have already started to take away the money so now they just need to get the guns.
That is a huge stretch. I am glad I read the whole article.
Particularly since only Congress can enact an AWB. The votes are not there.
This is the most anti-gun administration ever to take office , but in the area of gun control they have done nothing.
Nothing.
Why?
Because they can't. They are just smart enough to realize that it would be political suicide to even attempt to push gun control.
Sorry , no Red Dawn.
This is the most anti-gun administration ever to take office , but in the area of gun control they have done nothing.
Nothing.
Why?
Because they can't.
Well... now it's only been about 50 days so far while the economy has been melting like a piece of hot wax. I wouldn't count them out of the fight yet.
I do hope you are right that the Pavlovian training Congress received a few years back sticks in their memory and they can't pull the votes together for a win.
The gun-grabbers are still out there. Some of them no doubt have their own brand of door-to-door-Katrina-gun-confiscation Red Dawn fantasies.
It's not likely to happen. Not even close . Because lots of hard , smart work will prevent it.
And the radical whackos of both types are really only a few and much weaker than they seem.
www.saf.org
www.nra.com
We are winning.
:cool:
... but in the area of gun control they have done nothing.
Nothing.
Why?
Because they can't.
That statement is just:
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f268/LWMcVay/wptg_logo_01.jpg
fatebringer
03-13-09, 20:20
Something changed, georgia arms has apparently been told no more military excess rifle brass,
Didnt find a thread here, but there are several at TOS including one where the NRA believes it to be a misunderstanding and hopes to clear the situation soon, but for now from the page you get when you go to their site:
Attention!!
Due to new government regulations concerning the purchasing of surplus brass, we are removing sales of all 223 and all 308 until further notice. Below is a copy of the email we recieved from Goverment Liqudiations.
"Effective immediately DOD Surplus, LLC, will be implementing new requirements for mutilation of fired shell casings. The new DRMS requirement calls for DOD Surplus personnel to witness the mutilation of the property and sign the Certificate of Destruction. Mutilation of the property can be done at the DRMO, if permitted by the Government, or it may be mutilated at a site chosen by the buyer. Mutilation means that the property will be destroyed to the extent prevents its reuse or reconstruction. DOD Surplus personnel will determine when property has been sufficiently mutilated to meet the requirements of the Government. "
This is a huge waste of taxpayer's money. The value of these products is reduced by 80% by going from a recycled product to a scrap product
Got any numbers to back that up?
That statement is just:
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f268/LWMcVay/wptg_logo_01.jpg
Congress , this year and last year.
Numbers and facts .
Got any?
Whoops.
Double malfunction.
And not the Sovereign Citizen 'Oafsson' kind , either.
;)
The New York Times seems to think gun control is basically a dead issue for the Democrats:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/us/politics/14web-hulse.html?_r=1&hp
Given how left the NY Times leans, I'd say this is good news.
Machinehead
03-14-09, 18:39
The New York Times seems to think gun control is basically a dead issue for the Democrats:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/us/politics/14web-hulse.html?_r=1&hp
Given how left the NY Times leans, I'd say this is good news.
At least until the next mass school shooting, mall shooting, etc. etc. Watch CSPAN, they try to pass a law to save the masses everytime a new event happens.
At least until the next mass school shooting, mall shooting, etc. etc. Watch CSPAN, they try to pass a law to save the masses everytime a new event happens.
The NYT article specifically mentions how Congress has taken a "pass" on gun control comments following the mass shootings in Alabama and Germany.
The NYT article specifically mentions how Congress has taken a "pass" on gun control comments following the mass shootings in Alabama and Germany.
That doesn't mean that we should rest on our laurels or that they won't use a similar event to try to do this kind of thing. Major violent events like this have been used as the impetus for gun control in many countries, including our own.
The gun-grabbers in the US got no real traction in Congress from Virginia Tech or any of the other mass public shootings in the last few years. It's not 1994 anymore.
It's not about " resting on our laurels " , it's about getting real and getting rid of the panic and defeatism. We should be talking about finishing off the national gun control groups as a viable political & social movement , making them a relic --like the Prohibition Party and NOW.
We don't need tinfoil hat defeatism and whacko "Red Dawn" fantasies to do that.
And we don't need Sovereign Citizens , Klu Klux Klowns & other extremist bozos & jerk-offs, either.
They are are a small but very painful and ugly pimple on Lady Liberty's fine little butt.
Stick around and I'll tell you how I really feel.
:D
We are winning.
www.saf.org
www.nra.com
YMMV.
;)
K.L. Davis
03-17-09, 16:11
Obama Received Bonus from AIG (http://www.examiner.com/x-268-Right-Side-Politics-Examiner~y2009m3d17-Obama-Received-a-101332-Bonus-from-AIG) :eek:
losbronces
03-17-09, 16:39
Obama Received Bonus from AIG (http://www.examiner.com/x-268-Right-Side-Politics-Examiner~y2009m3d17-Obama-Received-a-101332-Bonus-from-AIG) :eek:
That was a just a campaign contribution, not a bonus. They (AIG) probably contributed something to just about everyone in Congress or running for Congress.
I was involved with a PAC a long time ago and they made contributions to just about everyone in the state based on the theory that it would get them into the door. When they contributed money to a far-left candidate who would never listen, I got uninvolved.
You can never be sure about trusting anything a politician says, but:
Check this out!
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4633
http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/AWBLettertoHolder309.pdf
You can never be sure about trusting anything a politician says, but:
Check this out!
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4633
http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/AWBLettertoHolder309.pdf
A coworker tells me that 16 of the original 65 petition signers have somehow reneged? This guy is one of those tinfoil hat, NRA is a bunch or compromisers working hand in hand with Sarah Brady for their mutual benefit, all or nothing guys who never heard any good 2A news in his life.
Since I don't know everything, though, anyone heard any backpeddling on the 65 signers of that petition to Holder?
This may be a rare opportunity to sign a petition that not only sends a message, but also might actually have a direct, stinging effect on Obama himself. Up to 86,000 signatures now...
If he is asked not to speak there because of this controversy, that will be extremely embarrassing for a sitting President.
:)
http://notredamescandal.com/
parishioner
03-24-09, 16:16
signed
This is bullshit on a level I haven't seen for some time. Eventually people are going to realize the guy won the fricking election and drive the **** on.
Detective_D
03-24-09, 16:22
signed
This is bullshit on a level I haven't seen for some time. Eventually people are going to realize the guy won the fricking election and drive the **** on.
That's the way to stand up for what you believe in. Why am I not more like you?
Bullshit is right. :rolleyes:
parishioner
03-24-09, 16:27
This is bullshit on a level I haven't seen for some time. Eventually people are going to realize the guy won the fricking election and drive the **** on.
We are driving on. We are just giving him a middle finger as we pass.
Signed and email link to friends.
We are driving on. We are just giving him a middle finger as we pass.
lmao. funny.
This is bullshit on a level I haven't seen for some time. Eventually people are going to realize the guy won the fricking election and drive the **** on.
I'm curious...did you read the petition?
Littlelebowski
03-24-09, 16:53
I can't stand the pope, the catholic church's rulings/ bureaucracy, or Obama. For those that are not religious, best not to waste your time signing this and following Step #4 " Pray for Our Lady's intercession that Notre Dame, who is named after our Lady, will stay true to their Catholic heritage and identity."
I can't stand the pope, the catholic church's rulings/ bureaucracy, or Obama. For those that are not religious, best not to waste your time signing this and following Step #4 " Pray for Our Lady's intercession that Notre Dame, who is named after our Lady, will stay true to their Catholic heritage and identity."
does "an enemy of my enemy......." apply here?
does "an enemy of my enemy......." apply here?
Absolutely no reason why not.
I am not a devout Catholic, but I do believe and I do care about these issues.
Littlelebowski
03-24-09, 17:10
does "an enemy of my enemy......." apply here?
It's religious in its entirety and not related to non catholics. Also, 10-1 says it won't go anywhere.
It's religious in its entirety and not related to non catholics. Also, 10-1 says it won't go anywhere.
Do you have to be Catholic to want the definition of marriage left alone? Or to question the belief that it is OK to eliminate a baby just because you put the location of your dick as the the highest priority in your life, even over the life of your potential child that you know you won't want?
I was with a woman that had an abortion we both decided was right at the time. Now, ten years later, as the parent of a wonderful 5 year old little boy with the same woman, I am disgusted with my own selfishness and stupidity back then.
There are many reasons why someone could sign this without directly supporting Catholicism. Why are you so down on it?
Littlelebowski
03-24-09, 18:40
It's very simple SafetyHit. I don't agree with a bunch of self neutered priests telling me or any man or woman how to think, what to think, or what to do. Furthermore, I disagree with enough of the catholic church's moronic, narrow minded, hypocritical policies that I have a very hard time siding with your "emissary of christ on earth" on anything. If you don't want to be broken down shotgun style by the facts and also have this turn into an abortion debate, suggest you take your arguments elsewhere. I know the history of your church and know the current events therefore I loathe and do not respect the catholic church.
"He (the pope) condemned sexual violence against women, but also chided the 45 African countries including Angola that have approved abortion in cases of rape or incest or when a mother's life is in danger."
It's very simple SafetyHit. I don't agree with a bunch of self neutered priests telling me or any man or woman how to think, what to think, or what to do. Furthermore, I disagree with enough of the catholic church's moronic, narrow minded, hypocritical policies that I have a very hard time siding with your "emissary of christ on earth" on anything. If you don't want to be broken down shotgun style by the facts and also have this turn into an abortion debate, suggest you take your arguments elsewhere. I know the history of your church and know the current events therefore I loathe and do not respect the catholic church.
"He (the pope) condemned sexual violence against women, but also chided the 45 African countries including Angola that have approved abortion in cases of rape or incest or when a mother's life is in danger."
I agree with you on every point and could go a bit further in some areas (re: religion as a whole) but I still think "enemy of my enemy" stands here in some respects. It would be highly embarrassing/humbling for obama if something like this did come about. I wouldn't mind seeing it.
I give it 30-1 personally.
Gutshot John
03-24-09, 19:13
Safetyhit and the "Dude". I find myself reading both of your statements and I find myself agreeing with both of you.
I've always been deeply skeptical of the Catholic church (especially the notion of infallibility), but I also recognize its role in shaping our culture, whether catholic or not.
I'm also grateful for any chance to stick to the Obamarama and piss on his carpet.
:p
Safetyhit and the "Dude". I find myself reading both of your statements and I find myself agreeing with both of you.
I've always been deeply skeptical of the Catholic church (especially the notion of infallibility), but I also recognize its role in shaping our culture, whether catholic or not.
I'm also grateful for any chance to stick to the Obamarama and piss on his carpet.
:p
ding.
If you don't want to be broken down shotgun style by the facts and also have this turn into an abortion debate, suggest you take your arguments elsewhere. I know the history of your church and know the current events therefore I loathe and do not respect the catholic church.
You will be breaking no one down with any self-described "shotgun style" tactics tonight, my friend. Why are the feathers so ruffled regarding this humble discussion? Have a bad day or something?
As I have stated repeatedly, and what you have ignored repeatedly, is that I am not a die-hard Catholic. Therefore, your relentless venting is hollow and useless on me. While I do believe in God, I am not in church on Sunday singing the gospel.
Plus that has nothing to do with the overall issues that Obama represents. As well, you are ignoring all the positive aspects, of your apparently very meaningful life, that the Catholic religion has enabled for many centuries.
Imperfect, certainly. Better than some crap others we won't name believe in...absolutely.
By the way, this thread is to encourage people to sign a nobel petition. It is not for you to vent your anger with the church.
Therefore, before it is locked due to this crap, and as 1SFG stated earlier, how about you "drive the fu*k on".
EatSleepJeep
03-24-09, 20:13
Notre Dame doesn't give a rat's ass what a bunch of people on the internet(aka people that weren't smart enough to get accepted or couldn't afford their tuition in the first place) think. They never have and they never will. They have stated the invitation will not be rescinded and Obama won their student body mock election.
The funny thing is, most people signing hate Notre Dame for one reason or another, and now they expect ND to listen to their lame petition? That's funny.
Gutshot John
03-24-09, 20:34
Notre Dame doesn't give a rat's ass what a bunch of people on the internet(aka people that weren't smart enough to get accepted or couldn't afford their tuition in the first place) think. They never have and they never will. They have stated the invitation will not be rescinded and Obama won their student body mock election.
The funny thing is, most people signing hate Notre Dame for one reason or another, and now they expect ND to listen to their lame petition? That's funny.
I bet their board of directors and donors care a lot more than the student body and the latter is not known for having a bunch of disposable cash...not that any of them bothered to sign to petition. :rolleyes:
I'm sure they also don't appreciate their alma mater being used to make a political statement and engaging in such controversy. The won't rescind the invitation, but I doubt they ever extend it again.
Notre Dame isn't that good of a school, nor all that hard to get into, so your statement about the intelligence of those that signed the petition is more than a little ill-informed not to mention pissing into the wind.
EatSleepJeep
03-24-09, 20:47
I bet their board of directors and donors care a lot more than the student body...not that any of them bothered to sign to petition. :rolleyes:
I'm sure they also don't appreciate their alma mater being used to make a political statement and engaging in such controversy.
Notre Dame isn't that good of a school, nor all that hard to get into, so your statement about the intelligence of those that signed the petition is more than a little ill-informed not to mention pissing into the wind.
If you think the invitation was extended without the board's approval, you're pretty naive. But the rest of your statement supports that premise. Their 24% acceptance rate and fastest growing endowment(+34%) illustrate who is really misinformed and shouting at the wind.
Gutshot John
03-24-09, 20:50
If you think the invitation was extended without the board's approval, you're pretty naive.
If you think the board was either unanimous or anticipated the controversy, you're the one that's naive.
But the rest of your statement supports that premise. Their 24% acceptance rate and fastest growing endowment(+34%) illustrate who is really misinformed and shouting at the wind.
24% acceptance? You think that's somehow rigorous? Entirely in line with any other university.
34% growth in their endowment? Every university in the US is slashing budgets and cutting positions. When I told my wife about your claim, she works in university development for CMU (A MUCH better school with far richer alum) laughed out loud at your claim. You're either making stuff up or you don't understand what you're being given. At 34% they would be doubling their endowment every 3 years...please, not even Harvard does that. At best, especially in this economic environment, you're talking 10% and that would even be dubious.
You're either blowin smoke or you don't know what you're talking about.
Littlelebowski
03-24-09, 20:52
You will be breaking no one down with any self-described "shotgun style" tactics tonight, my friend. Why are the feathers so ruffled regarding this humble discussion? Have a bad day or something?
As I have stated repeatedly, and what you have ignored repeatedly, is that I am not a die-hard Catholic. Therefore, your relentless venting is hollow and useless on me. While I do believe in God, I am not in church on Sunday singing the gospel.
Plus that has nothing to do with the overall issues that Obama represents. As well, you are ignoring all the positive aspects, of your apparently very meaningful life, that the Catholic religion has enabled for many centuries.
Imperfect, certainly. Better than some crap others we won't name believe in...absolutely.
You are certainly in here mixing up abortion, politics, and religion. So drive the **** on unless you want me to point some of the more embarrassing, bigoted, stupid, narrow minded, and short sighted moves the catholic church has made over the centuries. You could have kept it at "spite Obama" but you had to mix up some of the really moronic stances the catholic church has made. Remember your pope is against abortion in the case of rape and incest. Riiiiiight. Very, very bright.
EatSleepJeep
03-24-09, 20:56
If you think the board was either unanimous or anticipated the controversy, you're the one that's naive.
24% acceptance? You think that's somehow rigorous?
34% growth in their endowment? Every university in the US is slashing budgets and cutting positions.
You're blowin smoke.
Go look up the acceptance rates and let me know where that falls. ND is a top tier university, whether you like it or not(I've got my money on 'not'). The 34% growth came from alumni fund raising, not budget cuts. You can give up your failed position at any time, or you can continue to prattle on regarding things you do not know.
Gutshot John
03-24-09, 21:02
Go look up the acceptance rates and let me know where that falls. ND is a top tier university, whether you like it or not(I've got my money on 'not').
You go look them up, a "top tier" university usually rejects 80-90% of applicants. So 24% acceptance is hardly remarkable.
The 34% growth came from alumni fund raising, not budget cuts. You can give up your failed position at any time, or you can continue to prattle on regarding things you do not know.
Pure horsepuckey.
You obviously didn't understand what I wrote. Similarly do you have a source from the university about their 34% growth? No university enjoys a 34% growth in their endowment, especially in this economic environment.
You're either hopelessly confused or horribly misinformed, so it would seem that you're the only only "prattling" on.
Gutshot John
03-24-09, 21:07
In FY2008 Notre Dame returned 5.7% on their endowment according to their own statements. Not bad all things considered, but nowhere near 34%.
http://controller.nd.edu/files/reports/2008/07_investments.pdf
Nowhere in the above PDF is 34% mentioned, so can I assume you just made it up?
EatSleepJeep
03-24-09, 21:10
You go look them up, a "top tier" university usually rejects 80-90% of applicants. So 24% acceptance is hardly remarkable.
Pure horsepuckey.
You obviously didn't understand what I wrote. Similarly do you have a source from the university about their 34% growth? No university enjoys a 34% growth in their endowment, especially in this economic environment.
You're either hopelessly confused or horribly misinformed, so it would seem that you're the only only "prattling" on.
I do have a source, and I gave you enough clues to find it. However, you're clearly not bright enough to make the connection. You're also calling the 18th ranked undergraduate program in the United States "hardly remarkable". Do you always fail this remarkably?
Gutshot John
03-24-09, 21:15
I do have a source, and I gave you enough clues to find it. However, you're clearly not bright enough to make the connection. You're also calling the 18th ranked undergraduate program in the United States "hardly remarkable". Do you always fail this remarkably?
Take it up with Notre Dame, their own sources discredit you. That said I'm not here to do YOUR research to back up your idiotic claims. I'd have thought that ND would have taught you that.
18th ranked according to who? You keep making claims that you don't back up, then whine when the facts discredit those claims.
If you're the result of ND, than yes it's hardly remarkable.
Keep digging if you like, I'm happy to watch.
EatSleepJeep
03-24-09, 21:23
Take it up with Notre Dame, their own sources discredit you. That said I'm not here to do YOUR research to back up your idiotic claims. I'd have thought that ND would have taught you that.
18th ranked according to who? You keep making claims that you don't back up, then whine when the facts discredit those claims.
If you're the result of ND, than yes it's hardly remarkable.
Not only aren't you smart enough to find it on your own during your furious searching, you're not smart enough to quit when you're beat.
1) 34.7% increase, according to Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aSHJL.Wl6X7g&refer=us)
2) 18th ranked Undergrad program according to US News & World Report (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/national-search)
3) I was accepted to ND early action, but chose a smaller, more specialized program for my undergrad studies. Plus, I didn't want to go to college with my older sister.
EDIT: Keep digging if you like, see if stupid has a bottom.
You are certainly in here mixing up abortion, politics, and religion. So drive the **** on unless you want me to point some of the more embarrassing, bigoted, stupid, narrow minded, and short sighted moves the catholic church has made over the centuries. You could have kept it at "spite Obama" but you had to mix up some of the really moronic stances the catholic church has made. Remember your pope is against abortion in the case of rape and incest. Riiiiiight. Very, very bright.
The more you try to tell me how "bigoted, stupid, narrow minded and short-sighted" the Catholic church is, the more you prove you are ignoring the heart of the thread and using it to vent your personal hate.
Your nasty, degrading comments about an overall good, yet imperfect, religion are insulting and disgraceful. Lot's of better places to put all that negative energy, genius.
I don't need to prove shit to you. You hate and that's that. As an example, I don't agree with preventing abortion in the event of incest, but you choose to implicate such to make your meaningless, emotional point.
Notre Dame doesn't give a rat's ass what a bunch of people on the internet(aka people that weren't smart enough to get accepted or couldn't afford their tuition in the first place) think. They never have and they never will. They have stated the invitation will not be rescinded and Obama won their student body mock election.
The funny thing is, most people signing hate Notre Dame for one reason or another, and now they expect ND to listen to their lame petition? That's funny.
An ABC report that I read this afternoon stated that numerous "influential" alumni were involved with organizing this petition as a way to bring attention to the upcoming appearance. I tried to find it again, but it is not there anymore.
Regardless, your negative assumption is totally and utterly baseless.
Gutshot John
03-24-09, 21:40
Not only aren't you smart enough to find it on your own during your furious searching, you're not smart enough to quit when you're beat.
1) 34.7% increase, according to Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aSHJL.Wl6X7g&refer=us)
Funny that ND's own stats don't reflect that number. I guess Bloomberg/NACUBO should let them know. I wonder if that article was written pre- or post- Bernie Madoff. :rolleyes: They had 6.5 billion last year, they have 7.1 this year. That doesn't equal 34.7%. It's not even in the double digits. You're missing something.
Harvard/Yale/Princeton were recently informed by the government that their endowments were so large that they had to start giving it away lest they lose their "non-profit" status.
2) 18th ranked Undergrad program according to US News & World Report (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/national-search)
Oh...U.S. News and World report well then that settles it. :rolleyes:
3) I was accepted to ND early action, but chose a smaller, more specialized program for my undergrad studies. Plus, I didn't want to go to college with my older sister.
EDIT: Keep digging if you like, see if stupid has a bottom.
Here's a clue...don't believe everything you read on the internet.
EatSleepJeep
03-24-09, 21:43
An ABC report that I read this afternoon stated that numerous "influential" alumni were involved with organizing this petition as a way to bring attention to the upcoming appearance. I tried to find it again, but it is not there anymore.
Regardless, your negative assumption is totally and utterly baseless.
And at the end of the day, Obama will speak, those "influential alumni" that didn't give their names will still donate at or above their current levels, you still won't be able to buy a football ticket and the board and priests of Notre Dame will probably not even read the petition. So exactly what did you accomplish again?
Gutshot John
03-24-09, 21:50
And at the end of the day, Obama will speak, those "influential alumni" that didn't give their names will still donate at or above their current levels, you still won't be able to buy a football ticket and the board and priests of Notre Dame will probably not even read the petition. So exactly what did you accomplish again?
I doubt very much that anyone will be donating at or above last years levels this coming year...even if they like Obama.
I know it's hard to fathom, but there's a real world out there and in times of economic hardships, donations to public institutions are drying up everywhere... especially with Obama threatening to eliminate tax deductions for charitable contributions.
Let us know when you get out of college and start paying taxes, the reality will catch up with you soon enough. I'm sure it will come as a shock, but you're not that special, and you're definitely not that clever.
And at the end of the day, Obama will speak, those "influential alumni" that didn't give their names will still donate at or above their current levels, you still won't be able to buy a football ticket and the board and priests of Notre Dame will probably not even read the petition. So exactly what did you accomplish again?
Didn't give their names? Say's who, you? Really think the place will ignore hundreds of thousands (likely by May) of protesting voices? I have already seen this story on 3 networks, and it still has 2 months to unfold. At the very least, it will make a unique statement.
Again, you speak about something with authority that you know nothing about because you are looking to sound smart. Way to get started here.
By the way, this thread is to encourage people to sign a nobel petition. It is not for you to vent your anger with the church.
Therefore, before it is locked due to this crap, and as 1SFG stated earlier, how about you "drive the fu*k on".
Amen brother. I'm not a Catholic either, but I signed the petition because I'm anti b. hussein o.
FIDO
EatSleepJeep
03-24-09, 22:23
I doubt very much that anyone will be donating at or above last years levels this coming year...even if they like Obama.
I know it's hard to fathom, but there's a real world out there and in times of economic hardships, donations to public institutions are drying up everywhere... especially with Obama threatening to eliminate tax deductions for charitable contributions.
Let us know when you get out of college and start paying taxes, the reality will catch up with you soon enough. I'm sure it will come as a shock, but you're not that special, and you're definitely not that clever.
Notre Dame is private, you dimwit. Your assumptions and attempts to talk down to others are laughable. Again, you think you know facts, so you make a statement(false again) and think you're smart. For you to assume that I'm still in college is beyond dumb on your part. How many times do i have to prove you wrong before you stop acting like a fool?
And for our next contestant:
Didn't give their names? Say's who, you? Really think the place will ignore hundreds of thousands (likely by May) of protesting voices? I have already seen this story on 3 networks, and it still has 2 months to unfold. At the very least, it will make a unique statement.
Again, you speak about something with authority that you know nothing about because you are looking to sound smart. Way to get started here.
Where's that link again that vanished? The only statement that matters is the University's; "We will not rescind the invitation." The only statement you're making is that you enjoy taking part in futile demonstrations of internet stupidity.
This is bullshit on a level I haven't seen for some time. Eventually people are going to realize the guy won the fricking election and drive the **** on.
no free passes for this president. not after the last president was lambasted by his critics for any reason whatsoever.
And for our next contestant:
Where's that link again that vanished? The only statement that matters is the University's; "We will not rescind the invitation." The only statement you're making is that you enjoy taking part in futile demonstrations of internet stupidity.
The story that vanished vanished. It happens. That was the story that I obtained the link to the petition from. If you doubt what I say, you know what you can go do.
Also, we all know there is no possible way the University could ever change it's mind if the appearance might be deemed to have a negative impact on the school and it's heritage. Absolutely no way, because eatsleepjeep said so...with utter authority. :rolleyes:
Gutshot is right, you do sound like a kid.
Posting this just for you, ESJ. Seems like the issue may be picking up steam afterall...after just one day of reporting no less. Yes, they say they will allow him to speak, but I'd say that several hundred thousand dissenting voices will be heard to a powerful extent this time around. Already up to 102,000 from 86,000 after just a few hours...
Bishop to skip Notre Dame graduation over Obama's views Story Highlights
Bishop John D'Arcy cites Obama's views about stem-cell research, abortion
(CNN) -- The Catholic bishop of South Bend, Indiana, will not attend graduation ceremonies at the University of Notre Dame because he disagrees with the stem-cell research and abortion views of the commencement speaker -- President Obama.
The University of Notre Dame says its invitation doesn't mean the university agrees with all of Obama's positions.
Bishop John D'Arcy, whose diocese includes Fort Wayne, Indiana, as well as the university town, said Tuesday in a written statement that "after much prayer" he has decided not to attend the ceremony.
"President Obama has recently reaffirmed, and has now placed in public policy, his long-stated unwillingness to hold human life as sacred," D'Arcy said. "While claiming to separate politics from science, he has in fact separated science from ethics and has brought the American government, for the first time in history, into supporting direct destruction of innocent human life."
Earlier this month, Obama reversed a federal ban on embryonic stem-cell research. Many scientists say the research could lead to advances in treating conditions like Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease, while some abortion opponents believe destroying embryos in the research amounts to ending a human life.
In January, Obama lifted a Bush administration restriction on funding for organizations that provide or promote abortion overseas.
D'Arcy's announcement comes as anti-abortion groups have launched campaigns attempting to persuade the Catholic university to rescind Obama's invitation. In a letter to Notre Dame, Anthony J. Lauinger, National Right to Life Committee vice president, called Obama "the abortion president" and said his invitation "is a betrayal of the university's mission and an affront to all who believe in the sanctity and dignity of human life."
The conservative Cardinal Newman Society has launched a Web site -- notredamescandal.com -- that, according to the site, has drawn 50,000 signatures to a petition opposing Obama's appearance at the May 17 ceremony, at which Obama also is to receive an honorary degree.
"While he is honored to have the support of millions of people of all faiths, including Catholics with their rich tradition of recognizing the dignity of people, he does not govern with the expectation that everyone sees eye to eye with him on every position," the White House said. "[T]he spirit of debate and healthy disagreement on important issues is part of what he loves about this country."
Obama will become the ninth sitting president to give the commencement speech at Notre Dame. Most recently, presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush have spoken there.
In a written statement on Tuesday, Notre Dame President John I. Jenkins noted that the university has been host to Democratic and Republican presidents and said the invitation does not mean the university agrees with all of Obama's positions.
"We will honor Mr. Obama as an inspiring leader who faces many challenges -- the economy, two wars, and health care, immigration and education reform -- and is addressing them with intelligence, courage and honesty," he said. "It is of special significance that we will hear from our first African-American president, a person who has spoken eloquently and movingly about race in this nation.
"Racial prejudice has been a deep wound in America, and Mr. Obama has been a healer."
On abortion and stem-cell research, Jenkins said he views the invitation as "a basis for further positive engagement."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/obama.bishop/index.html
Funny that ND's own stats don't reflect that number. I guess Bloomberg/NACUBO should let them know. I wonder if that article was written pre- or post- Bernie Madoff. :rolleyes: They had 6.5 billion last year, they have 7.1 this year. That doesn't equal 34.7%. It's not even in the double digits. You're missing something.
Date of the article was Jan 2008, FWIW
Gutshot John
03-25-09, 03:00
Notre Dame is private, you dimwit. Your assumptions and attempts to talk down to others are laughable. Again, you think you know facts, so you make a statement(false again) and think you're smart. For you to assume that I'm still in college is beyond dumb on your part. How many times do i have to prove you wrong before you stop acting like a fool?
You've yet to prove me wrong. Apparently TWO years ago (something you either deliberately chose to obfuscate or ignorantly misunderstood) ND had ONE good year, which is probably more indicative of their pathetic efforts in previous years. You do know that "growing" is different than "grew"? Words count and since you obviously have problems with grammar, the present indicative "growing" means a current state of being, whereas the past tense "grew" means a condition that no longer exists. If you go back you'll find that you didn't use the past tense.
This year is an entirely different (and much lower) number so again your own claims (like ND is the "fastest growing endowment" or that current donors will give at that or higher levels) discredit you.
Clearly alumni ARE NOT giving at the same or higher levels even before this bruhaha. Your implication was either deliberately dishonest or ignorantly flawed. Neither speaks to your credibility.
My original point remains. Rescinding the invitation would be a snub, but I doubt very much it ever gets extended again, and I'm quite sure that much of the alum and board are more than a little unhappy with this.
You're either making stuff up or you don't understand what you're being given. At 34% they would be doubling their endowment every 3 years...please, not even Harvard does that. At best, especially in this economic environment, you're talking 10% and that would even be dubious.
You're either blowin smoke or you don't know what you're talking about.
Grow up kid, you're really not that special and you're clearly not that smart and you can't pick and choose a single year as representative of sustained growth, but I guess you didn't take statistics at ND. Similarly I'm confused why you'd apply "early action" just so you could NOT go to school with your sister. :rolleyes: Kind of defeats the whole purpose but hey I guess since it was your parent's money you didn't care. I know lance coolies in the USMC with more impressive credentials, brains and integrity in their social finger than you apparently got at whatever no-name institution you went to.
PS. Do you actually own a gun or shoot? or do you just like to troll forums that criticize your "One"? Similarly do your parents know you're here?
at least the bishop is snubbing bho. whether or not the college itself does anything else the bishop skipping the ceremony will have a deep impact on practicing catholics, especially the ones who voted for obama but are now starting to regret it. his approval rating is down to a mere +4% now, and tanking everytime he speaks.
thopkins22
03-25-09, 15:43
I suppose I'm a hateful person.
I loath Obama.
I loath Notre Dame.
I really hate US News' ranking system.
Considering the fact that Notre Dame doesn't rely on success in order to be successful, I think Obama might be the perfect fit. I mean they don't belong to a conference, and yet they have an automatic BCS bid and they have every single game televised no matter how horrible they are. They have a superiority complex when confronted with the quality of the education, as demonstrated by ESJ. Rudy was the ONLY thing that has kept me from burning a uniform in effigy.
The way US News ranks schools is horribly flawed, and does not reflect on the quality of education that will be received. Rejecting more students is good for your ranking, but schools like ND and Harvard send out hundreds of thousands of info packets designed to garner false hopes and inflate their applicant pool. The number of published professors brings a better ranking(understandably,) but in reality it often means professors are never there because they are off doing research or giving talks, and allow the TA's to do the teaching.
The ONLY thing that one can reliably tell from the rankings is what kind of name recognition their school will create in a resume(and I suppose what kind of high school student you were)...and even the importance of that generally fades away as experience is gained and real world results can be displayed in a resume.
I still signed, because even God needs a break from the cesspool that our politicians come from.;)
I still signed, because even God needs a break from the cesspool that our politicians come from.;)
Good man. :cool:
Apparently it was not that big a conflict of ideals for you, nor should it have been. It really about making a statement to an increasingly unpopular President and his policies. A form of public outcry being noticed, if you will.
Up to 137,000 from 86,000 24 hrs ago. At that rate, by the time he is due to speak in May...
Again, if nothing else, it makes a powerful statement. Especially with numbers like these now in the press. Remember, there was no internet for hundreds of thousands of folks to organize and collectively tell Jimmy Carter to stay away from the school in the 70's. It might work, it might not. If not, I'm still glad I signed.
I went to the other top ranked national Catholic University, Boston College. (32 as a national university, which ain't all that far behind CMU at 22, and if I'm not mistaken has a considerably larger endowment). I was raised Irish Catholic. I own guns. Have carried and trained formally and professionally. Mostly I call myself a Libertarian these days because I couldn't care less if gays want to marry, and I don't actually care if other people have abortions (they might rot in hell for it. More space for the rest of us--yes that's a joke), but I'm very conservative on other issues (Econ, Military, government intrusion, states rights, takings a la Kelo, etc).
I for one would be interested in seeing Obama as a BC commencement speaker. Ironically, my commencement speaker was Janet Reno (what a mega-douche). Reno was a terrible speaker. Obama IS a great communicator. He used it to get elected. I may disagree with him on most policy issues, but I'd like to see it. I'd like to learn about it. I may not like him, but even as a political foe, he is worthy of our respect. We need someone on our side with his intellectual and oratory abilities. As the President, his office also commands some of our respect. We WAILED against liberals who disrespected Bush, and now we do the same.
Church and Papal doctrine should, in my opinion, still respect a diversity of ideas. It's one of the reasons I chose BC over ND (Jesuits are often a little black sheep within the Caths for those of you who aren't Catholic).
p.s. Yes Boston College is actually a university
I also don't like the Church's intrusiveness of late into American politics. It is quickly driving me and others like me away. And not every Catholic thinks that politicians who vote out of step with the Church's policy should be denied Mass/Confession/other.
Noops
I also don't like the Church's intrusiveness of late into American politics. It is quickly driving me and others like me away.
Interesting. Can you provide an example of what specifically is driving you away in this day and age? Just curious.
I just don't think the Church should butt into our politics. I believe there SHOULD be a strong separation of church and state. What if the Catholic Church gained enough power to legislate behavior across the board?
Well, how is that different than saying, "You're excommunicated because you voted for Obama, who is pro-choice."
OK, admittedly that's an ad absurdum argument, and I usually hate those. But people without regards to government should choose their own way according to their beliefs (within reason). I don't expect a non-catholic to confess or do anything else we do. They still have to live within our broader laws, but they can add their own religion to their flavor. You don't like abortion? Well don't friggin have one. Gay marriage is terrible? Well then they'll rot in hell and you won't. I may be Catholic, and may live my life by some of those tenets, but I don't expect everyone else, even in the Church, to live them the same as I do.
I believe that real republicans stay out of peoples' lives as much as possible (that small government thing).
For a specific example, this one is particularly egregious: http://vivirlatino.com/2009/03/10/catholic-church-stands-behind-brazilian-abortion-excommunication.php
Gay marriage is terrible? Well then they'll rot in hell and you won't.
My friend, this is a simplistic attitude. This statement is fine as long as you ignore the extremely relevant fact that as a result of accepting this as the norm little children like mine and maybe yours will be reading books about gay relationships in elementary school with even greater frequency than some are already doing here in NJ in the 4th grade.
My son starts kindergarten next year. He brings one book like that home, at any elementary school grade, and it is right off to private school. I live in a respectable town with an outstanding school system, but I will have none of this bizarre leftist shit screwing with his childhood.
My friend, this is a simplistic attitude. This statement is fine as long as you ignore the extremely relevant fact that as a result of accepting this as the norm little children like mine and maybe yours will be reading books about gay relationships in elementary school with even greater frequency than some are already doing here in NJ in the 4th grade.
My son starts kindergarten next year. He brings one book like that home, at any elementary school grade, and it is right off to private school. I live in a respectable town with an outstanding school system, but I will have none of this bizarre leftist shit screwing with his childhood.
To be fair. Homosexuality has been around as long as we have written history. It has went through its fads as excepted and punishable by death. Frankly, the argument of recognizing gays as a family unit is more a financial thing than anything.
Littlelebowski
03-25-09, 19:54
Perhaps reading about gay relationships will make children gay, ZDL :rolleyes:
Perhaps reading about gay relationships will make children gay, ZDL :rolleyes:
lol. Again to be fair, if you never know, you'll never know. So, the fear isn't completely unfounded but it's not the best argument I've heard. One could argue, I think it was Abraham that said, I didn't know what sin was until someone told me. Something to that effect.
I understand what you are getting at and agree to a large degree. Just wanted to play devils advocate for a second. :cool:
LonghunterCO
03-25-09, 20:19
I signed it.
Perhaps reading about gay relationships will make children gay, ZDL :rolleyes:
While there may be some merit to this statement, my angry and biased friend, it negates the fact that once something is accepted as normal, it becomes much more mainstream.
To be clear for the ultra dense (whoever that may be): I don't want my son, or any little child, exposed to homosexuality at a premature age because some political dipshit like Nancy Pelosi or her local equivalent here in the local school board deems it appropriate.
F*ck them and their ideals invading on my son's or any child's pure and decent childhood. Got it?
A place like Notre Dame rightfully should make a stalwart statement against this president.
Don't like it, leave the thread. Please.
EatSleepJeep
03-25-09, 20:25
You've yet to prove me wrong. Apparently TWO years ago (something you either deliberately chose to obfuscate or ignorantly misunderstood) ND had ONE good year, which is probably more indicative of their pathetic efforts in previous years. You do know that "growing" is different than "grew"? Words count and since you obviously have problems with grammar, the present indicative "growing" means a current state of being, whereas the past tense "grew" means a condition that no longer exists. If you go back you'll find that you didn't use the past tense.
This year is an entirely different (and much lower) number so again your own claims (like ND is the "fastest growing endowment" or that current donors will give at that or higher levels) discredit you.
Clearly alumni ARE NOT giving at the same or higher levels even before this bruhaha. Your implication was either deliberately dishonest or ignorantly flawed. Neither speaks to your credibility.
My original point remains. Rescinding the invitation would be a snub, but I doubt very much it ever gets extended again, and I'm quite sure that much of the alum and board are more than a little unhappy with this.
Grow up kid, you're really not that special and you're clearly not that smart and you can't pick and choose a single year as representative of sustained growth, but I guess you didn't take statistics at ND. Similarly I'm confused why you'd apply "early action" just so you could NOT go to school with your sister. :rolleyes: Kind of defeats the whole purpose but hey I guess since it was your parent's money you didn't care. I know lance coolies in the USMC with more impressive credentials, brains and integrity in their social finger than you apparently got at whatever no-name institution you went to.
PS. Do you actually own a gun or shoot? or do you just like to troll forums that criticize your "One"? Similarly do your parents know you're here?
You are one angry little man. You utterly fail at all your assumptions. No wonder arfcom treats this place like it's populated by retarded children since it is populated by you.
Keep up with your petition, you're still going to fail at that just as much as you've failed here.
Gutshot John
03-25-09, 20:28
You are one angry little man. You utterly fail at all your assumptions. No wonder arfcom treats this place like it's populated by retarded children since it is populated by you.
Keep up with your petition, you're still going to fail at that just as much as you've failed here.
Considering the source I'll take that as a compliment.
Why not go back to barfcom, I'm sure you'll find that a much more suitable place for children like you. It also explains a lot about your mentality and your behavior.
No wonder arfcom treats this place like it's populated by retarded children since it is populated by you.
This statement assures that you will have lost all credibility here from anyone who reads this. But you won't even be here long enough for us to really remember anyway.
Please go back to the zoo. You belong there.
Almost 148,000 signatures already! :)
No real dog in this fight, but I can't help but wonder what ESJ is doing here at all.
I may be wrong, but it seems as though he was interested in the general topic, googled it, and came up with a hit leading back to this forum. I mean, c'mon?!?! What, 9 posts total and THIS is the thread ESJ selects to serve as his intro the M4c..?
Troll? Maybe.
EatSleepJeep
03-25-09, 20:55
No real dog in this fight, but I can't help but wonder what ESJ is doing here at all.
I may be wrong, but it seems as though he was interested in the general topic, googled it, and came up with a hit leading back to this forum. I mean, c'mon?!?! What, 9 posts total and THIS is the thread ESJ selects to serve as his intro the M4c..?
Troll? Maybe.
Please don't act as stupid as the other two. What's my join date? March 8th. Unless you want to accuse me of being able to see the future(which would be a nice skill to have). I just like pointing and laughing at stupid, futile gestures and the people that make them. Nothing more.
Up until this miscarriage of a thread I was content to lurk, but there's nothing quite like telling stupid people exactly how stupid they are. Carry on with your petition. It. will. do. no. good.
Right now retard john and his little Catholic-hating sidekick are furiously scouring arfcom for my posts. Oh no! He completely lost with this one:
PS. Do you actually own a gun or shoot?
Strike 1
or do you just like to troll forums that criticize your "One"?
Strike 2
Similarly do your parents know you're here?
Strike 3, you're out.
Is this the level of stupidity I can expect from everyone here? I sure hope not, as there's some decent info in the technical forums. I just joined so I could search and subscribe to topics of interest to me in regards to my rifles. However, if this is the high water mark of the forum's collective intelligence, there's really no point in sticking around.
Gutshot John
03-25-09, 21:00
Please don't act as stupid as the other two. What's my join date? March 8th. Unless you want to accuse me of being able to see the future(which would be a nice skill to have). I just like pointing and laughing and stupid, futile gestures and the people that make them. Nothing more.
Up until this miscarriage of a thread I was content to lurk, but there's nothing quite like telling stupid people exactly how stupid they are. Carry on with your petition. It. will. do. no. good.
Right now retard john and his little Catholic-hating sidekick are furiously scouring arfcom for my posts. Oh no! He completely lost with this one:
Strike 1
Strike 2
Strike 3, you're out.
Is this the level of stupidity I can expect from everyone here? I sure hope not, as there's some decent info in the technical forums. I just joined so I could search and subscribe to topics of interest to me in regards to my rifles. However, if this is the high water mark of the forum's collective intelligence, there's really no point in sticking around.
Seriously, you're flailing and sinking fast. I love watching people self-immolate in such spectacular fashion.
You don't like us, we don't like you and you're probably about to set a record for shortest time here.
Why don't you do everyone a favor and go back TOS and don't let the door kick you on the way out.
I quote the immortal Johnny Cash "Son, I don't know you well enough to miss you when you're gone"
:D
Please don't act as stupid as the other two.
Get bent.
Gutshot John
03-25-09, 21:10
Get bent.
He's just a dumb troll. No point in getting offended anymore, he's already discredited himself far more than we could hope to.
After all...what does one expect from a pig (troll), but a grunt?
Up until this miscarriage of a thread I was content to lurk, but...
Well, at least we weeded your obnoxious ass out quickly as a result.
My sincerest thanks to the mods for their patience with this. I know some/we are pushing it, and I don't want to do that as it will only jeopardize the humble cause.
Thanks again.
Well, at least we weeded your obnoxious ass out quickly as a result.
My sincerest thanks to the mods for their patience with this. I know some/we are pushing it, and I don't want to do that as it will only jeopardize the humble cause.
Thanks again.
I don't think it's patience. lol. I think they just haven't seen it yet. Was wondering that a few pages ago.
I don't think it's patience. lol. I think they just haven't seen it yet. Was wondering that a few pages ago.
I highly doubt it.
What if the Catholic Church gained enough power to legislate behavior across the board?
What does this even mean?
Gay marriage is terrible? Well then they'll rot in hell and you won't. I may be Catholic, and may live my life by some of those tenets, but I don't expect everyone else, even in the Church, to live them the same as I do.
"Gay marriage" is asking for society's approbation for their union, AND the expected activity that will take place within it. That activity is, in my faith, a sin. Accomodating, encouraging, or accepting sinfullness by others is also a sin. I am a member of society, and as long as I have a vote, I will vote against giving that activity the imprimatur of society's assent. If the opposing side outvotes me, so be it, my conscience remains clean.
The homosexual movement began by asking for privacy, for "keeping government out of bedrooms." That I support, and will continue to support. But, of course, the homosexual political movement was never going to be content with just being "left alone."
I believe that real republicans stay out of peoples' lives as much as possible (that small government thing).
For a specific example, this one is particularly egregious: http://vivirlatino.com/2009/03/10/catholic-church-stands-behind-brazilian-abortion-excommunication.php
Just curious, what does that story have to do with government?
khc3:
I'm not a troll. Read the thread. The guy asked me a specific question, and I responded to it.
The gay thing is the small government thing. You seem to be A-OK with legislating peoples' morality. I say that ain't republican. I say the Republicans I grew up with stay the hell out of peoples' lives. You probably think so too, right up until it violates your moral code about abrogation. And you proved my point...It's your faith. So who gives a shit if two guys get married. It doesn't hurt your faith. You go to heaven, they go to hell. Seriously, it's your faith. do you think your faith should be involved in legislation? Why not mine then, even though it might be different than yours?
In an apt bit of writing, Kilping said, "Holy State, we have come to learn, Endeth in Holy War."
The government thing was applied to the former statement about gays not the latter about the Brazilian girl. that was a specific response to SafetyHit's question about specifics WRT the Catholic Church's recent actions that might cause me and others like me from the Church. I don't happen to think that a raped, 80 pound, 9 year old should be forced to carry her rapists children to birth, especially since it apparently risked the health of the girl. My church apparently felt otherwise. Strongly.
Noops
khc3:I'm not a troll.
When did anyone call you that? Just one guy here fits that bill, and it isn't you. No problem there.
I don't happen to think that a raped, 80 pound, 9 year old should be forced to carry her rapists children to birth, especially since it apparently risked the health of the girl.
Why does it always come to this extreme example? It is hardly the epicenter of the overall problem, which is the blatant disrespect for others and life in general we see every day now. While I personally am against routine abortions simply done to erase the result of self indulged gratification, I have nothing against them if common sense dictates that it is in everyones best interest.
That number is still rising quickly...
khc3:
I'm not a troll. Read the thread. The guy asked me a specific question, and I responded to it.
Whoa, when did I call you a troll, or even imply as much? Please acknowledge that I did no such thing.
The gay thing is the small government thing. You seem to be A-OK with legislating peoples' morality. I say that ain't republican. I say the Republicans I grew up with stay the hell out of peoples' lives. You probably think so too, right up until it violates your moral code about abrogation. And you proved my point...It's your faith. So who gives a shit if two guys get married. It doesn't hurt your faith. You go to heaven, they go to hell. Seriously, it's your faith. do you think your faith should be involved in legislation? Why not mine then, even though it might be different than yours?
What you are describing is denial of conscience, about the most abhorrent restriction of freedom that can be imagined.
I don't care if two guys get "married." I don't care, beyond the normal rejection of sinfulness, if two guys, a goat, and a midget hermaphrodite get "married."
Just don't ask me to deny my conscience and say that I approve of it morally.
In addition, I hope you understand that I am not against homosexuals having private or quasi-religious marriages or whatever they want to call it.
Heck, I am not totally convinced that civil government should even be in the business of regulating hetero marriage, but at least I can see a practical interest in it regulating the most basic unit of organization of human civilization.
Funny, though, I never considered when government gets involved in areas it hasn't in the past to be "small government."
In an apt bit of writing, Kilping said, "Holy State, we have come to learn, Endeth in Holy War."
The government thing was applied to the former statement about gays not the latter about the Brazilian girl. that was a specific response to SafetyHit's question about specifics WRT the Catholic Church's recent actions that might cause me and others like me from the Church. I don't happen to think that a raped, 80 pound, 9 year old should be forced to carry her rapists children to birth, especially since it apparently risked the health of the girl. My church apparently felt otherwise. Strongly.
Noops
Still not sure what that has to do with government.
As for the Church, you are free to take issue with any of its teachings. You can reject them utterly if you wish.
SafetyHit:
You asked my for a specific example, and I gave you one. And you tell me it's extreme. OK. It's extreme. But a lot of other Catholics are bothered by it.
I'm not disagreeing with you. But it is exactly this kind of extremism in the church that is driving Brazilian Catholics away from the church (theirs has been dropping rapidly). And it's bothering Caths in the U.S. too.
I'm not disagreeing with you. But you asked for an example, got one that IS in fact making people mad at the church (from within), and then you argue with me.
It's like asking me if I like blue, and when I say no you argue with me about how blue is the greatest color. I don't know what to say. The guy pushing on the 9 year old was a Bishop. Effectively a senior representative of the church. When Hillary Clinton says something, you don't believe that it's representative of the Obama Administration's Doctrine?
The condom flap was stupid too. Almost no Catholic I know that that one was smart, and that came right from the Pope himself. There are more examples.
You can argue that these are extreme. But people are leaving the church because of things like interference in our political system, the rapist/child-bearing thing, the condom thing, and others.
Noops
What you are describing is denial of conscience, about the most abhorrent restriction of freedom that can be imagined.
I'm not asking you to deny your conscience. I don't think you should "approve" of gay marriage. But I don't think government should limit others' freedoms based on sinfulness. fundamentally I agree with you. Government shouldn't be in marriage at all. I don't think you, I, or anyone else, should do is legislate our conscience, especially when it's founded on religious belief and DOES restrict someone else's freedom, and there's no actual social science (as opposed to religious dogma) showing harm to broader society.
I don't approve of people doing all sorts of things. If it isn't damaging our social context (like murder, or child rape), then I don't believe we should legislate it. There is social science that shows bigamy is destructive. But there's none around gay marriage. It's not breaking down the very social fabric of our society. That's a canard. Our country has a 50% divorce rate already. We're doing just fine on our own.
I'm not asking you to deny your conscience. I don't think you should "approve" of gay marriage. But I don't think government should limit others' freedoms based on sinfulness. fundamentally I agree with you. Government shouldn't be in marriage at all. I don't think you, I, or anyone else, should do is legislate our conscience, especially when it's founded on religious belief and DOES restrict someone else's freedom, and there's no actual social science (as opposed to religious dogma) showing harm to broader society.
When homosexuals go to state legislatures to ask for codified and state-recognized approval for their union, they damn well ARE asking for the approval of that state's citizens; that's what "self-government" means.
Why else do you think they are doing it?
That said, they have the same rights everyone else has, to marry someone of age, of the opposite sex, and of sufficient relational distance.
Not sanctioning their homo-marriage does not restrict their freedom in any way beyond that of any citizen.
I don't approve of people doing all sorts of things. If it isn't damaging our social context (like murder, or child rape), then I don't believe we should legislate it. There is social science that shows bigamy is destructive. But there's none around gay marriage. It's not breaking down the very social fabric of our society. That's a canard. Our country has a 50% divorce rate already. We're doing just fine on our own.
Having removed "marriage" from it's traditional underpinnings, what moral or philosophical argument will you use to deny bigamists?
(And "social science" justifications don't count.)
As for divorce, that stat is misleading. A smaller number of multiple divorcees skews that rate. First-time married couples have a divorce rate far lower than 50%.
30 cal slut
03-26-09, 14:14
does anyone remember what happened when Columbia U invited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak? :p
does anyone remember what happened when Columbia U invited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak? :p
Was there a thread?
Was there a thread?
Your funny. :rolleyes:
I see no comparison between the two, personally. One is a liberal shithole, the other a conservative institution. One is the president of Iran (IE; Who gives a fu*k), the other the president of the country that houses the prestigious institution in question.
Both the overall statement and circumstances are totally different.
I have to agree with several posts. I am tired of speaking with friends and associates regarding Barack Hussein Obamas views on gun control and in response being told that it will never happen....Please wake up! We had a similar ban on weapons in 94 and we had more republicans in office then. What do you think will happen now. And people, this one may be permanent. If we lose a supreme court justice under Obama's administration we can kiss it goodbye along with several other ways we may see it go. So please, for the love of this great nation and the admiration and honor of our Forefathers, please get out and donate, speak out and vote. NRA and several other gun clubs have the tools to help us be advocates. They just need our support. Donate, donate, donate.
Look at the money that was donated to the Presidents campaign. It bought him the White House. So Donate!!!
LittleRedToyota
03-27-09, 12:54
Please wake up!
would you please wake up...and pay attention to what is actually going on in the real world?
it is just not as simple as republican v. democrat. there are a bunch of pro-gun democracts in the house and even in the senate (and there are a bunch more who aren't really pro- or anti-, but realize voting for gun control will cost them their jobs). the country as a whole is quite pro-gun these days.
there is no AWB on the horizon...and there will not be unless the political climate regarding guns changes drastically.
meanwhile, though, all this "an AWB is coming! an AWB is coming!" and "a huge ammo tax is coming! a huge ammo tax is coming!" crap is irrationally driving prices through the frickin' roof.
please, please, please, stop all the unfounded fear-mongering so that people stop panic buying and we can start to actually see ammo on store shelves again...and for reasonable prices.
please. for the love of god. please.
we are shooting ourselves in the foot...over and over.
we'll prolly keep doing it, though...until people start to run out of money...which hopefully will happen relatively soon.
i can't stand obama either, but political reality is political reality. there ain't no AWB coming...the congressional votes aren't there--not even close.
argh.
[/rant]
I have to agree with several posts. I am tired of speaking with friends and associates regarding Barack Hussein Obamas views on gun control and in response being told that it will never happen....Please wake up! We had a similar ban on weapons in 94 and we had more republicans in office then. What do you think will happen now. And people, this one may be permanent. If we lose a supreme court justice under Obama's administration we can kiss it goodbye along with several other ways we may see it go. So please, for the love of this great nation and the admiration and honor of our Forefathers, please get out and donate, speak out and vote. NRA and several other gun clubs have the tools to help us be advocates. They just need our support. Donate, donate, donate.
Look at the money that was donated to the Presidents campaign. It bought him the White House. So Donate!!!
Its good to see someone that has their head out of the sand and is paying attention!!!
Gutshot John
03-27-09, 15:56
I have to agree with several posts. I am tired of speaking with friends and associates regarding Barack Hussein Obamas views on gun control and in response being told that it will never happen....Please wake up! We had a similar ban on weapons in 94 and we had more republicans in office then.
We also didn't have groups like SAF, CCKBA and others and so the 94 ban went through with nary a peep from gun owners.
That will NOT be the case this time.
Both Toyota and Ta Ta are right.
There is NOT an imminent AWB on the horizon. There is not the political will to do so right now. The hysteria needs to die down and the market calm down.
HOWEVER, seeing as this Congress and President are ruled by populism (see AIG for example) and seeing as the AWB is a media pet project, this could change in the heart beat if the "right" incidents were to come along and get popular (misguided) anger boiling.
SO, we need to constantly remind our Representatives and Senators to not even think about gun control and a new AWB. They need to know that we are not asleep and this would be politically a death wish for them.
We should all be NRA and GOA members at the least, donate what we can to both (and JPFO, CCRKBA/SAF, etc), and write an occasional (monthly? quarterly?) letter to our federal and state officials as well as to write good well thought out letters to your local newspapers etc. They will get published (some of them) and it will help to get the right presence of mind in the populace.
Chad
And just because we are winning is no reason to miss a chance to kick the gun-grabbers when they're down.
It's for the children.
:D
And it feels so good.
;)
Beat that dead house till the meat falls off the bones.
We also didn't have groups like SAF, CCKBA and others and so the 94 ban went through with nary a peep from gun owners.
That will NOT be the case this time.
????
SAF and CCRKBA are not new. There was LOTS of PEEPs from gun owners at the time. I was intimately involved.
It was VERY politically charged and LOTs of pressure was sent to WDC from gun owners.
????
SAF and CCRKBA are not new. There was LOTS of PEEPs from gun owners at the time. I was intimately involved.
It was VERY politically charged and LOTs of pressure was sent to WDC from gun owners.
Chad is 100% correct. There was tons of pressure. NRA, GOA, JPFO and more were ALL there fighting it out in the trenches and we still lost.
Don't take this chump Obama and the other turds he runs with for granted. Look at all the recent spending crap they shoved up our ass. AWB is coming. Just a matter of time.
Gutshot John
03-27-09, 16:55
????
SAF and CCRKBA are not new.
My bad, they "were" not new, but they did not have anywhere near the membership or power that they do now until after the 94 Ban.
That said, I think you can go back to the post-94 era to see a bunch of groups pop up, become more active. I don't think there was anywhere near the participation/interest prior to 94 that exists now.
My bad, they "were" not new, but they did not have anywhere near the membership or power that they do now until after the 94 Ban.
That said, I think you can go back to the post-94 era to see a bunch of groups pop up, become more active. I don't think there was anywhere near the participation/interest prior to 94 that exists now.
perhaps not before the notion of the AWB or maybe the Senate passing their version (that is what got me involved) but after the Senate passed theirs leading up to the House version in April 94 there was tremendous pressure and participation. A lot more than we see now (but I believe you are right to a degree, there are more active shooters now probably and the EBR has had a renaissance since the passing of the AWB in 2004 and so if things get serious about an AWB I think we will be better off organizationally now than then but let's not discount then. This is the group that got Tom Foley out of Congress and gave the Republicans the Congress. 25% of post election surveys showed guns the #1 reason to vote. That sort of thing does not pop up overnight.)
EatSleepJeep
03-28-09, 12:18
ND just canceled Obama's appearance. Your petition worked.
Trouble in Mexico? Anti-Gunners Say, "Blame America."
Friday, March 13, 2009
Over the past few weeks, the number of stories in the press regarding the escalating violence in Mexico has dramatically increased. Now, hardly a day goes by when another story describing the atrocities committed by violent drug cartels cannot be found in an American newspaper or on a cable news channel.
Gun owners need to pay attention to these stories, because the opponents of our Second Amendment rights are starting to use this situation as a pretext to push their gun ban agenda here in the United States.
New Attorney General Eric Holder is the first Administration official to cite Mexican drug cartel killings as an excuse to reinstate the semi-auto ban. And now some in Congress have jumped on the bandwagon.
Just this week, two House subcommittees held hearings on the issue. The Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism Subcommittee of the House Homeland Security Committee had a hearing entitled "Border Violence: An Examination of DHS Strategies and Resources," while the National Security and Foreign Affairs Subcommittee of the House Government Reform Committee held a hearing entitled "Money, Guns, and Drugs: Are U.S. Inputs Fueling Violence on the U.S.-Mexico Border." At the latter hearing, leading anti-gun absolutist Tom Diaz (senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center) testified, calling for a litany of new gun laws including the reinstatement of the 1994 "assault weapons" and magazine ban. Andrew Selee, Director of the Woodrow Wilson Center's Mexico Institute echoed the call for more gun laws.
Fortunately, Arizona State Senator Jonathon Paton (R-AZ) also testified but noted that new gun laws were not the answer. Paton correctly stated that securing our borders, increased local federal cooperation and enforcing our existing gun laws is the right approach. NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox also provided written testimony to the subcommittee that you can read here.
But don't count on the gun ban crowd to get that message. They see an opportunity to use fear created by the violence in Mexico to advance their domestic anti-gun agenda.
The Senate Judiciary Committee's Crime and Drugs subcommittee and the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control have already set a hearing for next Tuesday, March 17. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is expected to use that forum to blame American gun owners and American gun laws for the violence in Mexico. Her solution, once again, will almost certainly be to restrict the rights of law-abiding Americans. We can once again expect Senator "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them in" to call for a new gun ban. And on March 25, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will hold a hearing on U.S.—Mexico Border Violence.
Gun owners know that restricting our rights will not stop Mexican drug lords from arming themselves. More U.S. gun laws will not stop these mass murderers who are already armed with military hardware such as grenades, anti-tank missiles, and mortars--weapons that are certainly not generally available to American gun buyers.
Just as they have so many times before, the gun ban crowd is blaming criminal violence—this time in a foreign country—on American gun owners. If we are to prevail and stop them from dismantling our rights, we have to be vigilant. NRA will continue to monitor these hearings and report to you on their content.
PROUDLY SIGNED AND FORWARDED
ND just canceled Obama's appearance. Your petition worked.
Anybody got a link? Not seeing anything right now. Curious to see if this is true. If so, it reminds one that the old adage is true- don't shit where you eat. (IOW- don't piss off the alumni)
Boston College cancelled Wiliam Ayers, but I haven't heard anything about ND and Obama.
I don't think there's any chance they would cancel him.
HiggsBoson
03-28-09, 22:36
ND just canceled Obama's appearance. Your petition worked. [CITATION NEEDED]
Got a source for that? Or are you just trolling some more?
An AP article (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gyl9KAUtviW6HAJsyN6fiuaGghaQD97761D80) published just 9 hours ago makes no mention of a cancellation. Neither Google News (http://news.google.com/news?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=Notre+Dame+Obama) nor Catholic News Agency (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/results.php?q=notre+dame&buscar=Search&sitesearch=www.catholicnewsagency.com&client=pub-2131883704152643&domains=www.catholicnewsagency.com&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&safe=active&cof=GALT%3A%230066CC%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23FFFFFF%3BVLC%3A0066CC%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BALC%3A003366%3BLC%3A003366%3BT%3A333333%3BGFNT%3A3D81EE%3BGIMP%3A3D81EE%3BLH%3A0%3BLW%3A0%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.aciprensa.com%2Fimages_general%2Flogogoogle2.gif%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2F%3BFORID%3A11&hl=en) searches for the terms turn up anything either. Actually, neither does Notre Dame's own news page (http://search.nd.edu/search?as_sitesearch=newsinfo.nd.edu&client=default_frontend&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&site=default_collection&q=obama&x=0&y=0) make any mention of a cancellation, which one would think would make at least a few national headlines.
The Google News search did turn up a Los Angeles Times article (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten28-2009mar28,1,3149353.column) which states:
According to Notre Dame's campus newspaper, student reaction to the invitation has been overwhelmingly positive, though the paper reports an interesting split: 70% of the letters it has received from alumni oppose the president's appearance, while 73% of current students and 97% of the graduating seniors approve of the invitation.
An interesting split, to say the least.
HiggsBoson
03-28-09, 22:52
Deleted cross-post.
EatSleepJeep
03-29-09, 08:45
Anybody got a link? Not seeing anything right now. Curious to see if this is true. If so, it reminds one that the old adage is true- don't shit where you eat. (IOW- don't piss off the alumni)
Except for a vocal minority the alumi don't care very much. It's the internet fools that have no affiliation that are trying to stir the pot the most. My most recent post is mocking the presumptive nature of the thread title.
Petition Keeping Obama Out Of Notre Dame.
No, no it's not and it never will. Notre Dame does not care how many people sign onto this petition.
Gutshot John
03-29-09, 09:03
Except for a vocal minority the alumi don't care very much. It's the internet fools that have no affiliation that are trying to stir the pot the most. My most recent post is mocking the presumptive nature of the thread title.
No, no it's not and it never will. Notre Dame does not care how many people sign onto this petition.
So in short you're a troll who will say just about anything no matter how dishonest.
If ND's own campus newsletter says that most alumni oppose the visit, what information do you have to say it's only a "vocal minority"?
Do you have anything to offer this forum other than behaving like a child? Perhaps you'd do well to actually read the forum rules before you run your suck any more.
You're embarrassing yourself and you're not even clever enough to figure that out. :rolleyes:
EatSleepJeep
03-29-09, 09:17
70% of the letters it has received from alumni oppose the President's appearance...
70% of the letters they've received?
Let's look at that. People that are outraged over inconsequential actions tend to act out in equally inconsequential ways. They write letters. They set up petition websites. They sign said petitions.
People that don't care or approve of the situation tend not to act, since there's nothing for them to change. The current course of action is beneficial to them.
What the opposition doesn't point out is how many total letters they've received from alumni. Why? Because it's minuscule. To say that 70% of 600 letters are negative illustrates that the rest of the alumni base does not care or approves. This utterly destroys their premise. If they had received thousands or tens of thousands of letters on the topic, they would be citing that as an achievement. The fact they're not indicating the volume demonstrates how tenuous their position is.
The only trolling going on here is the petition itself and the thread title. It is rather presumptuous and completely misleading.
Gutshot John
03-29-09, 09:26
The only trolling going on here is the petition itself and the thread title. It is rather presumptuous and completely misleading.
Uhm...you do know what a troll is right? A thread/petition can't be a troll. :rolleyes:
Your credibility is getting thinner by the minute and your spin is worthy of the O-man himself.
You do know what a sample size is? a 7:3 split is pretty telling by any objective standard. Here's a clue...black is NOT white, no matter how you might wish it were otherwise.
When undergrads/seniors start giving money in significant amounts to the University, then their opinions might be worth something.
EatSleepJeep
03-29-09, 09:38
Uhm...you do know what a troll is right? A thread/petition can't be a troll. :rolleyes:
Your credibility is getting thinner by the minute and your spin is worthy of the O-man himself.
You do know what a sample size is? a 7:3 split is pretty telling by any objective standard. Here's a clue...black is NOT white, no matter how you might wish it were otherwise.
When undergrads/seniors start giving money in significant amounts to the University, then their opinions might be worth something.
They do give money to the University in significant amounts. It's called tuition, room & board and books. It's right around $50k per year right now.
And to say that the a thread or the OP can't be trolling is beyond retarded, even for you.
Gutshot John
03-29-09, 10:01
They do give money to the University in significant amounts. It's called tuition, room & board and books. It's right around $50k per year right now.
Uhm...no their PARENTS usually give that money. Even still alumni donations well exceed tuition which covers the cost of education. Those alumni donations build campus infrastructure and fund research, scholarships etc...undergrads usually aren't a prolific source of research or funding. Why don't you go ask ND's development office, I'm sure they'll corroborate my statements.
You're embarrassing yourself with your persistent disingenuous nature. Since you obviously don't know what a troll is...go look in the mirror.
Despite what you've been told all your life, you're not that special and you're certainly not that clever. What you don't know about the subject is telling, that you persist in digging yourself a hole in the face of facts and basic common sense makes you a troll.
The original question remains, do you have anything of value to offer to this forum for which you have stated so much disdain?
I hear that the last acceptable prejudice is anti-Catholicism. Sounds like it's alive and well. Add that to being a shooter and owner of EBRs and its' the perfect storm.
Maybe I know "enough to get by" now (after using ARs off and on since 1965). Nice "collegial" atmosphere you have here...
I think if the discussion ever comes up we need to bombard our senators and representatives offices with envelopes with pink pieces of paper in them and a few letters.
:eek: WATCH ! ! !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA66glWvZhs
bigshooter
03-29-09, 21:38
http://www.al.com/birminghamnews/stories/index.ssf?/base/news/1237709752152800.xml&coll=2
Volunteers fanned out across the Birmingham area and Alabama Saturday to pump up enthusiasm for President Barack Obama's budget proposal in much the same way they did to win over voters during the presidential campaign.
About 30 volunteers in Birmingham canvassed shopping areas and other high-traffic locations to talk about the need for health care reform, an education overhaul and environmentally friendly energy development.
"If we don't change these three things in the next 10 to 15 years, America is over as we know it," Chris DeHaven, told the group of volunteers before they went their separate ways.
Obama's plan faces criticism from Republicans and others who say it's too expensive. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report Friday saying Obama's agenda would cause huge budget deficits, forcing the country to borrow $9.3 trillion in the next decade.
Those who gathered at Kelly Ingram Park in downtown Birmingham were urged to enlist others who share Obama's vision and to stay away from trying to convert naysayers.
"We're looking for supporters," said DeHaven of Hoover, one of the event's organizers. "We're not looking for a fight. That will come later, when we have an army."
The volunteers are part of Organizing for America, the same grassroots, national network credited in large part with Obama's quick rise from obscurity to president. Birmingham and 11 other sites statewide were part of a national push this weekend by Organizing for America to trumpet Obama's spending proposal.
Across the metro area, volunteers gave their opinions about why Obama's plan is good for the country's future. Then they asked those willing to sign a pledge of support for the budget. Supporters' e-mail addresses and other contact information were collected, to keep people engaged and to recruit more volunteers.
Leanne Townsend of Hoover also helped organize Saturday's event. She has been a member of the Obama grassroots network since March 2007.
"Our group in Birmingham has been very involved," Townsend said. "We're still very energetic. We all worked so hard during the campaign. We can't just stop."
"We're not looking for a fight. That will come later, when we have an army."
you come looking for a fight........I assure you, a fight is what you'll get.
"We're not looking for a fight. That will come later, when we have an army."
I'm still trying to understand what EXACTLY that means.
HOW...will they "fight"?
powderkeg45
03-29-09, 22:05
HOW...will they "fight"?
With cell phones and 911 set on speed dial.
bigshooter
03-29-09, 22:21
Maybe you guys have forgotten about barry's national security force?
"just as strong."
"just as well funded."
ring a bell?.
bigshooter
03-29-09, 22:23
who will they fight
"naysayers"
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
molon labe.
I'm still trying to understand what EXACTLY that means.
HOW...will they "fight"?
They know not what they are speakng of. One man's fight is calling someone names and putting them on a list, Another is calling them out and putting them in the ground,
Maybe you guys have forgotten about barry's national security force?
"just as strong."
"just as well funded."
ring a bell?.
What the "Brownshirts" (to borrow a term). I undedrstand that the uniforms are being designed in Kenya and made in Indonesia.
Sen. John Kerry is now pushing for the same BS that Atty Gen. Holder was a short while back. See this:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6350856.html
Centerfire
03-31-09, 14:26
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7886780711843120756
If you have a few hours, watch it. Conspiracy theory. A good watch. Take what you will from it.
Seth Harness
03-31-09, 14:42
I was forgetting about this, thanks. The other day I saw a guy walking down the sidewalk with a 3' x 5' American flag on a stick over his left shoulder and a sign on a stick in his right hand that read... "Watch the Obama deception". Thats all I got before I drove past. I didnt get the website or address. So, cool thanks for the link.
Centerfire
03-31-09, 14:49
No problem. Like I stated take what you will. Interesting to say the least. Good info about the federal reserve. I like the expression "the federal reserve is about as federal as federal express. Its true. A private sector business pretty much controls everything. Hope everyone is doing alright during these troubled times. They are certainly trying.
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
molon labe. hahaha! NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY ahh, this crap with commisar hussein doesnt suprise me but it worries me........ the crap there pullin is what starts civil wars.
My desire is that someone would do some investigative reporting such as this and NOT present it in such a "tin-foil" hat manner with the music and camera tricks etc. Seems to me they are more interested in selling entertainment than providing information. Pity really.
edit:
Something else. Bush at least looked like a man. Like someone who would deck you if you got frisky with his wife. Someone who carried himself with confidence. Someone who knew a thing or two about a thing or two.
Obama looks like a college student lost in the hallways. Carries himself like someone who was born on third base and convinced himself hes hit a triple. Like someone who doesn't comprehend the magnitude of their actions..... like my 2 year old.
Centerfire
03-31-09, 16:38
Bush was...a lot of things. Obama is certainly much worse. I dislike politicians. Liars and thieves. You have to be to get anywhere near the upper echelons in the political realm. A bunch of crooks if you ask me. Then again, what do I know? I think the citizens of this great republic are quite capable of governing themselves, if we are given the chance (AKA well fair, government programs cease to existence. Drop them on their ass) The average american is pretty god darned lazy. I'm sick of the welfare mentality. They are capable of living off welfare and have more kids, then claim disability and SS. I hear horror stories for public service people. I have a few friends in the rehab field. I'm not talking down to anyone in my post, and I'm not well off money wise. I work hard for what I have, and thats not much.
not to get off topic ,but it is Obamanation related. This guy is absofreakinlutely
nuts!
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/motorsports/obama_orders_chevrolet_and_dodge_out_of_nascar_car_news
He's ordering Chevrolet and Dodge out of Nascar!
Absolutely incredible!:confused:
BUCK OFAMA
04-01-09, 00:53
I know I've posted stuff about that ridiculous Obama Forum before, but seriously...has anyone actually been keeping up with the crap they post there? I mean, it MUST be a joke, but there are certain elements and posters there who I'm convinced are actually serious about this crap.
Look what the moonbats are posting now:
"Top 10 things to defeat whitey"
http://www.theobamaforum.com/showthread.php?t=8872
Or, they've outed AR15 as a "Racist Site."
http://www.theobamaforum.com/showthread.php?t=3406
And that same idiot is even encouraging blacks to dig through white peoples' trash cans and search for evidence of capitalism to send to Attorney General Holder...LMFAO.
http://www.theobamaforum.com/showthread.php?t=9297
I know a lot of the posters on TOF are just trolls, but try reading some of the responses. There are definitely a few whackos in there who take it seriously, and then even more pathetic are the moderates in there who actually waste their time trying to lecture the troll network.
Some people need to get jobs.
I thought it was obviously "a joke" from the start.Seems some of the forum descriptions made that clear(dont recall exactly what they were atm).
My desire is that someone would do some investigative reporting such as this and NOT present it in such a "tin-foil" hat manner with the music and camera tricks etc. Seems to me they are more interested in selling entertainment than providing information. Pity really.
edit:
Something else. Bush at least looked like a man. Like someone who would deck you if you got frisky with his wife. Someone who carried himself with confidence. Someone who knew a thing or two about a thing or two.
Obama looks like a college student lost in the hallways. Carries himself like someone who was born on third base and convinced himself hes hit a triple. Like someone who doesn't comprehend the magnitude of their actions..... like my 2 year old.
I agree 100%, I personally liked Bush, for that and many other characteristics, and the Liberal media had and has and still does make him out to be such a terrible president that now almost everybody you hear of says he was way freakin bad. And then you got the ones who said we should impeach Bush, but when asked why, the only reasons they give are wacked out conspiracy theries. But its oky dokey for the obamanator to elect multiple officials that had to step down they were so corrupt and vile, and the ones there to stay are as vile and filth ridden as they come. "vigilant2" dont be supprised, hes basically fired GM's CEO, and looks to replace head positions with his people, so in the future he can control the automotive industry, Corn burners for everyone! And today I heard, keep in mind i just "HEARD" that he plans to do the same with all the major banks. So when it all plays out hell own all the banks, car companys and anyone else thats accepted the GOV. money. The dem. party's plan is unfolding before us........ The thing to do if any companys have accepted this money is to give it back, my home state on IN's "Old National Bank" gave the money they got back because 1 they dont need it (they are quite conservative and have done well through this mess) and 2 they saw what happened to GM and to other banks. Scary scary stuff. facism is on the horizon guys
not to get off topic ,but it is Obamanation related. This guy is absofreakinlutely
nuts!
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/motorsports/obama_orders_chevrolet_and_dodge_out_of_nascar_car_news
He's ordering Chevrolet and Dodge out of Nascar!
Absolutely incredible!:confused:
I already commented on your post once in my previous message but im back:D just reviewed that link and thats freakin wrong, and i dont even watch NASCAR! Thats still wrong either way, just a road map to the demacratic partys plan of the utmost control. This'ell get alot of people pissed off, theres more people out there serious enough about NASCAR that even if they are dem. they wont vote for obama next year. I live up in eastern KY for a while and if you told em obama didnt like chevy theyd be outraged! Maybe this will help the election turn our way in 2012.................................
montanadave
04-01-09, 07:32
Sarchasm (Def): The gap which exists between the individual stating something in jest or irony and the recipient who doesn't get it.
Chill. There are plenty of comments and threads on this forum which, if pulled out of context and taken at face value, would read like the demented rants of gun-toting homicidal lunatics or extremists advocating sedition, treason and/or open rebellion. Rule 62--Don't take yourself [or others, for that matter] so damn seriously.
not to get off topic ,but it is Obamanation related. This guy is absofreakinlutely
nuts!
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/motorsports/obama_orders_chevrolet_and_dodge_out_of_nascar_car_news
He's ordering Chevrolet and Dodge out of Nascar!
Absolutely incredible!:confused:
I don't even know what to frigging say. This has to be an April Fool's joke!
Certainly not a funny one if it is, I don't see anything humerous about the destruction of our nation. But you never know. It wouldn't suprise me if it was true:eek:
HiggsBoson
04-01-09, 09:15
Some people need to get jobs.
I was just thinking this very thing...
Who cares what they write there, dude? Do you sit around all day looking for websites that talk about stuff you don't like, just so you can be shocked by it? There are websites where people spend a fair amount of time detailing how to best attack the USA through terrorism; I'm fairly sure they are not just being sarcastic, too... Is complaining about this non-affiliated "obama forum" really how you want to spend your time and energy?
I was just thinking this very thing...
Who cares what they write there, dude? Do you sit around all day looking for websites that talk about stuff you don't like, just so you can be shocked by it? There are websites where people spend a fair amount of time detailing how to best attack the USA through terrorism; I'm fairly sure they are not just being sarcastic, too... Is complaining about this non-affiliated "obama forum" really how you want to spend your time and energy?
+1 total agreement
BUCK OFAMA
04-01-09, 12:57
I was just thinking this very thing...
Who cares what they write there, dude? Do you sit around all day looking for websites that talk about stuff you don't like, just so you can be shocked by it? There are websites where people spend a fair amount of time detailing how to best attack the USA through terrorism; I'm fairly sure they are not just being sarcastic, too... Is complaining about this non-affiliated "obama forum" really how you want to spend your time and energy?
OH, I wasn't complaining...
Rather, I find that site quite amusing and thought some other folks might enjoy the comedy relief. And believe me when I saw I don't go there for the shock value.
Come on, now...over half of America supported Barack HUSSEIN Obama--a confirmed Socialist who hates the Constitution and spent his life looking up to anti-Americans, terrorists, racists and outright Communists, and who wasn't even qualified to be a McDonald's shift manager, let alone President of the United States of America.
NOTHING shocks me anymore.
fruitjacket
04-01-09, 13:07
I don't even know what to frigging say. This has to be an April Fool's joke!
It is.
Ridge_Runner_5
04-01-09, 15:40
African Awakening was more fun....
Smart guy giving the info on going through trash. He should come do that in Arizona and go through someones trash in their backyard and see what happens.
I read that site now and again, I have it saved in favorites. I know exactly what it is... roll reversal. It is white guys pretending to be black and talking smack. It's pure comedy, not intended to be taken serious, and by anyone with any intelligence can see that pretty clearly and just chuckle over it. It is fun.... spare time ranting and blowing off steam.
I don't find it entertaining enough for long term attention.... it's something to hit when your bored and ran out of new posts to read repeating the same questions for the 1,000,000th time about some EBR!
What am I to do, even this site bores the day-lights out of me! I need a forum that can entertain me, educate me, keep me up on current events, love me, hug me, and make me a better man.
Never mind.....I'll get another beer. It does all of that for me plus some!
My two cents is that it is not a joke and they are serious.
If that's a joke its freaking hilarious.
If he is serious, holy shit we are in deep trouble.
If that's a joke its freaking hilarious.
If he is serious, holy shit we are in deep trouble.
+1
Agreed
Although I am leaning towards the "not a joke" side
BUCK OFAMA
04-02-09, 00:25
OK, make no mistake...a LOT of the posters there are guys like US, gun nuts and other folks on the RIGHT side, posing as militant or illiterate or gangbanging blacks, to have a good time and stir up some shit and generall shed a very, very disturbing and damaging light on Obama supporters. I'd bet quite a bit that the owner, admin and top mods there are all very, very much anti-Obama, and I think whoever came up with that site and the forums and the subtle (or not so subtle) hints at mocking the Left was brilliant.
I know several conservative boards (and even one radio station) have intentionally organized group trolling there.
But don't be completely fooled...because there are definitely some posters there who are dead serious, and a lot of them actually go along with the more extreme of the joke posts made by the fake lib posters. Read some of those posts, and you can sense the anger, frustration and typically liberal sense of entitlement.
It's fun, and it's good for a laugh, but don't forget that some of those posts are actually serious. That should scare anyone.
I'd bet quite a bit that the owner, admin and top mods there are all very, very much anti-Obama
Thats what i was speaking to.
I dont doubt that some of the posters may be real nut jobs(of various leanings).
Not to sound too much like a dick, but the topic of that website comes up about once a week around here.
Honestly, enough is enough.
It looks like Ebony Utopia is probably some white kid stirring up stuff over there to me. But who knows, I did see the New Black Panther Party guy saying "kill all cracker babies and crackers." It could be that guy although I don't know if he could operate a computer.
I created an African American extremist profile. I'll be going rightous black on some guys over there.
I got an infraction for not being against the whitey. It's a joke. The infraction read something like " You are not showing enough true black/white hatred and racism, you must represent properly or you will be banned.."
So the posters over there are being ushered along by the moderators..... helping to maintain a certain "quality" of post..... interesting.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.