View Full Version : Official Obama/Federal Gun Control/Federal AWB Discussion Thread
Gutshot John
04-02-09, 07:45
I think the guy that started the thread is a "closet cracker" who is just pulling their chains and having fun at their expense.
That so many others took the bait is laughable but telling.
Believe me if they're all that dumb, we've got little to worry about as the revolution will get postponed on account of rain. :p
variablebinary
04-02-09, 14:11
That site is a joke and I can almost guarantee you a significant portion of the posters are white, pretending to black, and being amused to no end.
However, there are a lot of closet stormfront members and types on the internet, especially gun forums.
It is. Sorry i shoulda thought before... i guess with all thats goin on with him essentially firing CEO's of GM and banks i wasnt a bit supprised at that post. Not that i got all out a shape cause it was NASCAR but just that toppled with all the other B.S that i and prob. alot of you have on their minds every day. I back off, good april fools though you got me preachin!:p
Spurholder
04-05-09, 08:36
The "Hunting White People" thread was especially informative...
Gutshot John
04-05-09, 08:59
However, there are a lot of closet stormfront members and types on the internet, especially gun forums.
The prescience of your statement is especially poignant one day after the Pittsburgh shootout.
The "actor's" (murdering terrorist, scumbag, dickhead, future resident of Gehenna) posts from Stormfront are being reported from the media.
TenaciousD1984
04-05-09, 23:28
crazyness
On ABC's "Good Morning America," Nancy Pelosi said that Congress will work to find some middle ground on a new "assault weapon" ban.
The ball is in Congress's court to craft a compromise in reinstating regulations on assault weapons, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) acknowledged Tuesday.
During an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America," Pelosi said that the Congress will work to find some middle ground between the previous ban, which expired in 2004, and the precedent laid by the Supreme Court in a ruling enumerating more concrete gunowners' rights last term.
"We have to find some level of compromise," Pelosi said, citing 53 victims of gun violence nationwide in less than a month. "And we have to rid the debate of the misconceptions people have about what gun safety means."
"Yes, it is," the Speaker said when asked if the ball is in Congress's court now that Democrats control the White House. "And we are just going to have to work together to come to some resolution."
Pelosi indicated that new regulations might entail registration and prohibitions on transporting some firearms across state lines.
The Speaker also expressed displeasure at the attachment of a gun rights provision to legislation that would grant Washington, D.C. a voting member of Congress.
"Right now, we have the debate in Congress over the District of Columbia wanting a vote on the floor of the House, something we all want. That's a civil rights issue," she said, pledging to find "middle ground" on the issue. "And, yet, they want to put a gun…bill, attach that to that. I don't — I don't think that that should be the price to pay to have a vote on the floor of the House."
http://tinyurl.com/b3py3u
Yep Pelosi just put another M4 in my safe today.
On ABC's "Good Morning America," Nancy Pelosi said that Congress will work to find some middle ground on a new "assault weapon" ban.
The ball is in Congress's court to craft a compromise in reinstating regulations on assault weapons, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) acknowledged Tuesday.
During an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America," Pelosi said that the Congress will work to find some middle ground between the previous ban, which expired in 2004, and the precedent laid by the Supreme Court in a ruling enumerating more concrete gunowners' rights last term.
"We have to find some level of compromise," Pelosi said, citing 53 victims of gun violence nationwide in less than a month. "And we have to rid the debate of the misconceptions people have about what gun safety means."
"Yes, it is," the Speaker said when asked if the ball is in Congress's court now that Democrats control the White House. "And we are just going to have to work together to come to some resolution."
Pelosi indicated that new regulations might entail registration and prohibitions on transporting some firearms across state lines.
The Speaker also expressed displeasure at the attachment of a gun rights provision to legislation that would grant Washington, D.C. a voting member of Congress.
"Right now, we have the debate in Congress over the District of Columbia wanting a vote on the floor of the House, something we all want. That's a civil rights issue," she said, pledging to find "middle ground" on the issue. "And, yet, they want to put a gun…bill, attach that to that. I don't — I don't think that that should be the price to pay to have a vote on the floor of the House."
http://tinyurl.com/b3py3u
Well well, she is only now smarmily reporting from behind her capped teeth and sagging boob job, what we (well most of us) already knew was coming down the pike.
anyone watch the 20/20 special on friday night, "if i only had a gun"? after watching it, this whole ban or anything else they want to do really set in on me. Now that the media (pretty much liberal) is starting to air shows on how "bad" guns are it made me realize that the end may truly be near. We have to start to do all we can to help stop whatever we can.
anyone watch the 20/20 special on friday night, "if i only had a gun"? after watching it, this whole ban or anything else they want to do really set in on me. Now that the media (pretty much liberal) is starting to air shows on how "bad" guns are it made me realize that the end may truly be near. We have to start to do all we can to help stop whatever we can.
Agreed. What do you expect though? The media has nothing good to report ever, they are a waste of time to even watch. And whats sad is people won't even question the horrible investigative tactics the media employs. A ban only hurts LAW ABIDING CITIZENS because the bad guys will always have guns!!!!!! So thank you current administration for being so adamant about disarming the responsible citizens who use these tools to train to react to the insane people who might decide to shoot up a mall we're walking with our family in. Or for competitions. I have every right to defend myself my family and my rights. I despise people who would push their crappy beliefs on me to the extent that I can't do what I please. Aren't we a Free country?
Heavy Metal
04-12-09, 17:01
OMG!!! The word is ending!
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=858923&page=1
OMG!!! The word is ending!
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=858923&page=1
It ends almost every week, no?
Business_Casual
04-16-09, 15:41
Why does Ed always have a look on his face like he just nailed someone else's wife?
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=2999&PageID=431162&mode=2&contentid=http://pubcontent.state.pa.us/publishedcontent/publish/global/news_releases/governor_s_office/news_releases/governor_rendell__police_officers_ask_federal__state_lawmakers_to_stand_against_deadly_assault_weapons__illegal_handguns.html
M_P
I really despise that guy! One big waste product! Thank god he only has next year in office! Lame duck gov! :mad:
Anyone catch Obama's comments today to the Mexican president on the possibility of a new AWB? He was basically asked if a new AWB was planned to stem the flow of assault weapons into Mexico :rolleyes: and responded that rather than attempt to pass a new AWB "which would be very difficult" that America was going to focus on enforcing current gun control laws.
A novel idea. If only it were true.
browningboy84
04-16-09, 22:28
Is the new treaty that Obama wants us to ratify about the trafficking of guns going to have any impact on law-abiding gun owners? Somehow I just dont trust him when his lips are moving.
Is the new treaty that Obama wants us to ratify about the trafficking of guns going to have any impact on law-abiding gun owners? Somehow I just dont trust him when his lips are moving.
I don't trust him either.
A treaty means nothing unless and until 2/3's of the Senate ratify it.
Recent history:
Around 60 Senators signed the Amicus brief supporting Heller.
A few weeks ago , the Senate voted 61 to 36 to take away the DC city government's power to " regulate " firearms.
If the gun-grabbers want to push for some BS gun-ban-by-treaty , they have an uphill fight on their hands.
Sucks to be them.
:p
We are winning.
Cannot find the details of the treaty...yet...just the NRA-ILA announcement and the fact they were not involved.
Lets see - not sure what a treaty could actually accomplish here???
I just read an article that Obama, after speaking to Mexico so far isn't going for a renewed AWB, but we should enforce the current laws. While I applaud his attempt at putting those of us who believe in the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment at ease, it is still just words. We all know the man can speak, but he has yet to impress me with actions.
I find it also funny that all of the sudden these weapons come from the U.S. Of course they couldn't come from Latin America where these weapons are easier to bring in due to corruption and lack of enforcement. Lets not forget about South America where organizations such as FARC and Governments like Venezuala would and probably do trade with the Cartels. At the end of the day though lets blame the U.S. because Obama says its our fault.
I still believe that the Dems and Obama are afraid of us and the pro gun movement. I also believe now is not the time to get comfortable. We should al keep writing and contacting our local, State, and Fed Reps to reinforce our belief in the Constitution and 2nd Amendmet we should also support local and national organizations that promote firearms and firearm saftey.
Here is the article. Take it for what it is worth.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=46810
I heard somewhere that this isn't a new "treaty." It's something that was put in place a long time ago that's getting renewed attention.
.
It's deader than 10 year old roadkill.
We need to get a Gun Owners Protection Act of 2010 introduced and HEAVILY pushed.
Put stuff in there like the repeal of the 89 bush ban, the 86 MG manufacturing ban, recognition of the 2A being an individual right for the security of home and community, etc.
Make guns a 2010 election issue. They are afraid of the AWB and they don't want a gun fight before the election in 2010.
I say we should force a gun fight and make them shoot down GOOD stuff we want to pass -- on the record. Instead of always being on the defensive, we need to take the fight to them, IN AN ELECTION YEAR, and make it an issue.
Sounds like a great Idea. Have you ever thought of bringing the idea of the Gun Owners Protection Act to any of you State Reps??. I think I may try to plant the idea for my state reps.
I agree whole heartedly about going on the offensive and making these anti-gun pukes take a stand to show people where they really stand.
Funny you should mention that:
www.theakforum.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=58266&highlight=reform+atf
H.R. 4900---
This got 225 co-sponsors in the House last year.
What E-guns said! Plus not just us but all the gun manufactures and anyone that deals in the gun industry. That would be a very strong force. Now the job is trying to get everyone on board to do this.
What E-guns said! Plus not just us but all the gun manufactures and anyone that deals in the gun industry. That would be a very strong force. Now the job is trying to get everyone on board to do this.
Exactly. It needs to have EVERYONE behind it so that it cannot get buried in committee. It needs to gain traction.
I agree whole heartedly, however shooting for a repeal on the 86 machine gun ban without more stringent and strict gun crime punishments wont work IMHO. I personally think even right now we'd all benefit from stronger punishments for gun crimes. But ill be signing it and endorsing it when it gets into the making. Id like to follow this. I want to support this and will raise as much support as possible but as far as i know, nobodys started it yet. WE ALL need to organize in this and support it or its going to be destined for failure. Just think, you tell one person, they tell three they all tell 2-3 they tell 2-3 etc. theres alot of people out there that will support this. Somthing to do right now is pray for this country and the state its in and the state its heading.:(
I personally think even right now we'd all benefit from stronger punishments for gun crimes.
I think that depends alot on which "crimes" you're talking about.
Another problem is that they need to make mandatory sentences for felons possessing firearms and for anyone commiting a crime with firearms. Get rid of the NFA laws as they only apply to law abiding citizens. Also make judges accountable for letting multiple offenders go out on parole or probation. Start charging the judges as accessories when the ones they let out on probation or parole.
I know that will never happen, but there has to be something to hold these judges accountable.
An example this week on Police One there is an article of a 9!!!! 9 time felon with a history of weapons violations that a fed judge let out on probation shot a wisconsin police officer 3 times. This guy should never have been out on parole. Oh yeah the charge he was on parole for------ carrying a concealed weapon as a felon in a drug house. He was attempting to draw the weapon when the officers took him down.
Kudos to the Officer he shot the POS 8 times out of 13 shots. In a violent encounter that is great shooting.
Something needs to be done to put teeth in the current laws.
Murder is a crime. Stealing/robbing is a crime. Rape is a crime.
A "gun crime" is focusing on the object in their hand and not what's really going on. How about "knife crimes", "car crimes", etc. The law has been established against criminal actions already and making something a "gun crime" only muddies the water and gives anti-2nd Amendment people ammunition to fight their cause.
There is also a huge difference between a felon and a violent felon.
I agree whole heartedly, however shooting for a repeal on the 86 machine gun ban without more stringent and strict gun crime punishments wont work IMHO.
??????
And why not? The MG ban is not a criminal matter and only has to do with people making new MGs for lawful NFA acquisition. Your sentence does not make any sense. The 86 MG ban has zero real life meaning in terms of crime control or anything.
I personally think even right now we'd all benefit from stronger punishments for gun crimes.
What is a gun crime? Except for technical violations of actual firearms laws, most of which should not be there, what is an actual gun crime? Is murder worse because someone is shot versus stabbed 20 times? Punish the actual crime. So called upgrades for using a firearm to commit the crime are bogus and I believe usually used as pressure points to get plea deals anyway.
And then the guys who get caught for having a firearm on them when they commit some other sort of crime where the firearm was not even an issue. That is also bogus.
But ill be signing it and endorsing it when it gets into the making. Id like to follow this. I want to support this and will raise as much support as possible but as far as i know, nobodys started it yet. WE ALL need to organize in this and support it or its going to be destined for failure. Just think, you tell one person, they tell three they all tell 2-3 they tell 2-3 etc. theres alot of people out there that will support this. Somthing to do right now is pray for this country and the state its in and the state its heading.:(
Yes, we all need to be on this. In fact, there are probably members here who have an "in" with people at the NRA, GOA, SAF etc who can start pushing the idea at high levels.
There is also a huge difference between a felon and a violent felon.
Not in the eyes of the current laws. You get the same penalty if you are a felon for embezaling(sic) as for committing a violent crime. the only difference there is sometimes the violent felon gets enhancements to their sentancing. Possession of a firearm as a felon is usually a 10 year sentence (federal) for both types of felons.
Not in the eyes of the current laws. You get the same penalty if you are a felon for embezaling(sic) as for committing a violent crime. the only difference there is sometimes the violent felon gets enhancements to their sentancing. Possession of a firearm as a felon is usually a 10 year sentence (federal) for both types of felons.
I agree in terms of how felons are viewed by "the law". I'm simply saying that typically there is a HUGE difference in between the person who gets caught growing and smoking plants, busted for embezzlement, etc. than a person convicted of murder, rape, etc.
Considering the fact that you can have a felony conviction on your record and still be employed by Uncle Sam to go shoot guns for a living, the law seems kind of hypocritical to me.
??????
And why not? The MG ban is not a criminal matter and only has to do with people making new MGs for lawful NFA acquisition. Your sentence does not make any sense. The 86 MG ban has zero real life meaning in terms of crime control or anything.
What is a gun crime? Except for technical violations of actual firearms laws, most of which should not be there, what is an actual gun crime? Is murder worse because someone is shot versus stabbed 20 times? Punish the actual crime. So called upgrades for using a firearm to commit the crime are bogus and I believe usually used as pressure points to get plea deals anyway.
And then the guys who get caught for having a firearm on them when they commit some other sort of crime where the firearm was not even an issue. That is also bogus.
Yes, we all need to be on this. In fact, there are probably members here who have an "in" with people at the NRA, GOA, SAF etc who can start pushing the idea at high levels.
I want the 86 ban repealed but all i was saying is trying to get repealed without adding in "well tighten up on the criminals" ( and instead of using the catch all phrase of any "gun crime" i should have said the stone cold killers) it would get shot down IMO and i meant by gun crime the murderers or rampant killers who use guns, and maybe I dont understand all this but it was more of an issue of takng the ammo out of the anti's argument against guns. And it does have to do with real life crime control in the sense that thats what everybody (anti-gunners and the ones they infect) think, it was more of a sentence on how to get this ban repealed among all the anti gun politicians today. While a gun is a gun is a gun, the libs make it out all different IMHO. I didnt mean to single out the guns in crimes but i know if you used a gun to out right murder somebody and new for a fact youd get life or death sentence thered be alot less killings with guns, giving anti-gunners less umpth so to speak. I know that will never happen but this is just my .02 cents And my logic may be flawed in some areas so correct me if needed but dont take a tone with me like im one of the anti's myself EGUNS, i was merely trying to support this and not stir up anything. Im open to criticism, we are both people looking at a future of socialism and quite frankly im a little on edge any way so if my post reflected that by quick judgmental ideas being posted or what have you, correct me in a fashion that at least accepts my little understanding of the subject, instead of a tone like i shoulda know better. But i do infact see you point how singling out gun crimes would be for the worst and doesnt really make sense ( what i said didnt ) I was in a rush when i wrote it so sorry bout that. But i think one thing i did make sense on:D was that if the NRA gets somthin worked up that if we dont all chip in as much as possible it doesnt have a good chance at working:( And this Repeal act if inacted, is somthing that will improve everybodys future as it would further limit the corrupt goverment control on its citizens. Who knows, God willing i might see a MG repeal before im even old enough to buy one:D
:confused:Homeland Security on guard for 'right-wing extremists'
Returning U.S. military veterans singled out as particular threats
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 12, 2009
9:40 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON – A newly unclassified Department of Homeland Security report warns against the possibility of violence by unnamed "right-wing extremists" concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty and singles out returning war veterans as particular threats.
The report, titled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," dated April 7, states that "threats from white supremacist and violent anti-government groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts."
However, the document, first reported by talk-radio host and WND columnist Roger Hedgecock, goes on to suggest worsening economic woes, potential new legislative restrictions on firearms and "the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."
Are you ready for a second Declaration of Independence? Sign the petition promoting true freedom once again!
The report from DHS' Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines right-wing extremism in the U.S. as "divided into those groups, movements and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups) and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."
"[T]he consequences of a prolonged economic downturn – including real estate foreclosures, unemployment and an inability to obtain credit – could create a fertile recruiting environment for right-wing extremists and even result in confrontations between such It adds that "growth in these groups subsided in reaction to increased government scrutiny as a result of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and disrupted plots, improvements in the economy and the continued U.S. standing as the pre-eminent world power."
"Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of right-wing extremist groups as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government," the report continues. "The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by right-wing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement."
Most notable is the report's focus on the impact of returning war veterans.
"Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists," it says. "DHS/I&A is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities."
The report cites the April 4 shooting deaths of three police officers in Pittsburgh as an example of what may be coming, claiming the alleged gunman holds a racist ideology and believes in anti-government conspiracy theories about gun confiscations, citizen detention camps and "a Jewish-controlled 'one-world government.'"
It also suggests the election of an African-American president and the prospect of his policy changes "are proving to be a driving force for right-wing extremist recruitment and radicalization."
The report also mentions "'end times' prophecies could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition and weapons. These teachings also have been linked with the radicalization of domestic extremist individuals and groups in the past, such as the violent Christian Identity organizations and extremist members of the militia movement."
"DHS/I&A assesses that right-wing extremist groups' frustration over a perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration has the potential to incite individuals or small groups toward violence," the report continues.
The report states the DHS will be working with state and local partners over the next several months to determine the levels of right-wing extremist activity in the U.S.
Last month, the chief of the Missouri highway patrol blasted a report issued by the Missouri Information Analysis Center that linked conservative groups to domestic terrorism, assuring that such reports no longer will be issued. The report had been compiled with the assistance of DHS.
The report warned law enforcement agencies to watch for suspicious individuals who may have bumper stickers for third-party political candidates such as Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin.
It further warned law enforcement to watch out for individuals with "radical" ideologies based on Christian views, such as opposing illegal immigration, abortion and federal taxes.
Chief James Keathley of the Missouri State Patrol issued a statement that the release of the report, which outraged conservatives nationwide, prompted him to "take a hard look" at the procedures through which the report was released by the MIAC.
"My review of the procedures used by the MIAC in the three years since its inception indicates that the mechanism in place for oversight of reports needs improvement," he wrote. "Until two weeks ago, the process for release of reports from the MIAC to law enforcement officers around the state required no review by leaders of the Missouri State Highway Patrol or the Department of Public Safety."
"For that reason, I have ordered the MIAC to permanently cease distribution of the militia report," he said. "Further, I am creating a new process for oversight of reports drafted by the MIAC that will require leaders of the Missouri State Highway Patrol and the Department of Public Safety to review the content of these reports before they are shared with law enforcement. My office will also undertake a review of the origin of the report by MIAC."
groups and government authorities similar to those in the past," the report says.
I know what you were saying and its one of those where everyone is lumped together reguardless of your felony. Someday maybe they will differentiate, but I doubt it. You know if you have a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction, you lose your firearms rights.
I'm curious what job you are talking about. I wasn't aware of any fed job or fed contracted job that allows a felon to carry any weapons.
Now you can petition the state the felony was charged in to reinstate your voting and or hunting, ie gun possession rights back. You can even petition federally to try to reinstate you fed rights if it was a fed crime.
That option is only open to non-violent/non-drug crimes. Drug crimes and violent crimes have the same restrictions from every having voting or firearms rights.:D
I know what you were saying and its one of those where everyone is lumped together reguardless of your felony. Someday maybe they will differentiate, but I doubt it. You know if you have a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction, you lose your firearms rights.
I'm curious what job you are talking about. I wasn't aware of any fed job or fed contracted job that allows a felon to carry any weapons.
Now you can petition the state the felony was charged in to reinstate your voting and or hunting, ie gun possession rights back. You can even petition federally to try to reinstate you fed rights if it was a fed crime.
That option is only open to non-violent/non-drug crimes. Drug crimes and violent crimes have the same restrictions from every having voting or firearms rights.:D
I hope they deferentiate different felonies as well. Example of BS reason to lose gun rights... girl & guy get in an argument, girl punches herself, girl calls cops, guy goes to jail, no more guns due to domestic violence... BS!!! And yes it does happen.
I was referring to the military when I said that... 1 example here http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,125220,00.html.
And I don't think all drug "crimes" should be felonious either.
I hope they deferentiate different felonies as well. Example of BS reason to lose gun rights... girl & guy get in an argument, girl punches herself, girl calls cops, guy goes to jail, no more guns due to domestic violence... BS!!! And yes it does happen.
I was referring to the military when I said that... 1 example here http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,125220,00.html.
Thanks for the article.. I spent 12 years in and this is very disturbing.
As for the domestic, yes it happens. Hopefully when it does happen you have a good attorney and plead it to a non domestic.
I'm still not crazy about losing your firearms right for a misdemeanor.
I don't know how it is in your state, but here in Iowa not all drug charges are felonies. You have to have a certain amount, or be selling or manufacturing. Paraphernalia is a misdemeanor here as well.
Again thanks for the article.
I hope they deferentiate different felonies as well. Example of BS reason to lose gun rights... girl & guy get in an argument, girl punches herself, girl calls cops, guy goes to jail, no more guns due to domestic violence... BS!!! And yes it does happen.
I was referring to the military when I said that... 1 example here http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,125220,00.html.
And I don't think all drug "crimes" should be felonious either.
Even in this situation, the man isn't completely innocent in most cases. He has severely flawed judgment imo, to be A: getting into such a fight B: Hanging out with a woman that is capable of such lunacy.
You choose your company most times and choosing the wrong ones can cost you.
Concerning drug "crimes". I know our jails are full of non violent marijuana offenders taking the space and money needed to house more serious criminals. However, I fully believe it is a gateway drug. Legalizing it would not solve every issue or even most of them imo. I don't have an answer for the situation. I just know the current way we are handling it, isn't efficient. I'll leave that argument to people smarter than me.
Thanks for the article.. I spent 12 years in and this is very disturbing.
As for the domestic, yes it happens. Hopefully when it does happen you have a good attorney and plead it to a non domestic.
I'm still not crazy about losing your firearms right for a misdemeanor.
Again thanks for the article.
You're welcome ;) I did 4 years myself and saw quite a few shady characters. If you want more info just Google "felony conviction waiver military" or something along those lines and you'll find LOTS of info about it.
Take care.
I remeber seeing one or two in 12 years that I thought WTF are they doing here. Glad to see I wasn't alone.
Good talking to you.
Protect your rights at all costs.:)
Have a good one
Concerning drug "crimes". I know our jails are full of non violent marijuana offenders taking the space and money needed to house more serious criminals. However, I fully believe it is a gateway drug. Legalizing it would not solve every issue or even most of them imo. I don't have an answer for the situation. I just know the current way we are handling it, isn't efficient. I'll leave that argument to people smarter than me.
ZDL - I respect your opinion and enjoy reading your posts. However, I don't agree with you on the matter of how one chooses to get intoxicated, inebriated, whatever. I do not use and am not advocating or encouraging anyone's use of drugs as they are very harmful, so is too much TV, sex with random partners, fast food, etc.
1. I do have a problem wasting billions of dollars on a 30 year old Drug War that is a failure and locks up non-violent people for wanting to get their "high" from something that isn't considered as socially acceptable as alcohol or cigarettes.
2. In the same way marijuana is considered a "gateway drug" does alcohol & cigarettes fall in to that same category for you?
3. Prohibition already failed 80 years ago and it's nothing but a supply & demand problem from how I see it. The Drug War is a complete and utter failure.
I know how to fix the problems of society!! How you ask??? Lets let the Messiah--you know, "The One" I'm sure him and his Socialist friends heave all the answers.... Hopefuly you all noticed the sarcasm there. LOL
On a more serious note. I wish we all had the answers. I find this kind of dialog refreshing.
I work with all walks of life. from the small user to the larger dealers and manufacturers.
Alcohol, while I enjoy the occasional drink it does cause its fair share of societies issues. Some times not as bad as drugs, but sometimes worse.
I don't like haveing to see any of it.
Maybe if the Country got a few common sense people like we have in this forum we could at least fix some of the problems and maybe make more people accountable for their actions.
ZDL - I respect your opinion and enjoy reading your posts. However, I don't agree with you on the matter of how one chooses to get intoxicated, inebriated, whatever. I do not use and am not advocating or encouraging anyone's use of drugs as they are very harmful, so is too much TV, sex with random partners, fast food, etc.
1. I do have a problem wasting billions of dollars on a 30 year old Drug War that is a failure and locks up non-violent people for wanting to get their "high" from something that isn't considered as socially acceptable as alcohol or cigarettes.
2. In the same way marijuana is considered a "gateway drug" does alcohol & cigarettes fall in to that same category for you?
3. Prohibition already failed 80 years ago and it's nothing but a supply & demand problem from how I see it. The Drug War is a complete and utter failure.
I don't think the current laws on drugs are an attempt to legislate morality as much as they can be proven to be an issue of public safety. (Insert BUT ALCOHOL IS WORSE arguments here). I'll say this, I've never had to fight someone high on grass. Tell there are cookies and chips in the back seat of my car and they climb on in. Drunks........... Fight almost every single time. At first I thought it was an issue with my tactics but after observing that EVERYONE seems to have similar issues, I'm convinced it's the sauce. Again, I don't have an answer for it. Alcohol for some reason seems to get a pass even with a seemingly worse track record. I'm not familiar enough with the statistics on either keep it relative so I'll pass on providing an opinion. I know how I feel but my "feelings" might be born out of ignorance at this point.
I think alcohol, cigarettes, caffeine etc are all gateways for an addiction. I make it a point to ask someone I've arrested for drugs when they got started and on what. It's always "started smoking weed at 12" "did grass at 15" "marijuana in college". I've never had someone say to me, "just started doing meth and crack one day".
I don't know if it's the actual drug itself or if its the fact that its illegal that pushes people to harder habits. Is the mere drive to push the limits of illegality what causes people to move forward or does the drug posses some chemical combination that helps in the mental development towards a need for a better high? etc. etc. All of these questions I don't have answers too. Beyond my knowledge.
"The drug war" is a highly complex issue. You and I both don't understand it in it's entirety. I'll say this, marijuana nets me some seriously bad dudes regularly. Smell dope on a stop, ask for permission to search, get it most times, if not I have PC based on my nose or a K9 (CYA), get inside, find their REAL id, find out they have dope, warrants, loaded firearm, etc. etc. So my little "drug war" is a success imo.
ZDL & Pinkejon - Somethings we'll agree on and others we won't... Nice chatting, dialog, debate or whatever you want to call it with the both of you... stay safe!
And the cookies & chips in the back of the car was great :)
It is scary to think that the left really believes Obama is the epitime of the term Messiah...This portrait disgusts me. This is being posted on Yahoo's news page.
https://www.m4carbine.net/picture.php?albumid=53&pictureid=370
'The Truth' by Painter Michael D'Antuono which will be unveiled on President Obama's 100th Day in Office at NYC's Union Square.
(PRNewsFoto/NOAH G POP FAM)
It just goes to show you that, Not only should some people not be allowed to breed, they shouldn't be allowed to vote.
I don't care who you are voting for, if you think your candidate is a messiah, or the one, or can walk on water or whatever you shouldn't be able to vote. It shows your lack of intelligence.
I think the painting is a disgrace. I think Osama....Oops I'm mean Obama is a traiter to the people and the Constitution. He has already sold us down the river to Europe by apologizing to them for our supposed arrogance. I don't call it arrogance I call it pride in the fact that the U.S. soldiers, saiolor, marines and airmen saved all of Euope's collective asses to many times. I think they should apologize to us for turning their backs on us and turning their noses up thinking we are inferior. We have a right to be proud.
A quote from Magpul's website sums it up about Europe.
"After Romania has enjoyed several decades of prosperity like France, then we can begin to take the United States for granted"
Maybe Obam should run for President of the EU and leave this country.
If that painting is real it's a sad situation. Maybe someone should swith it with a painting where he's fixed up to look like mohammed and see how that goes over.
Even in this situation, the man isn't completely innocent in most cases. He has severely flawed judgment imo, to be A: getting into such a fight B: Hanging out with a woman that is capable of such lunacy.
You choose your company most times and choosing the wrong ones can cost you.
In a perfect world, this would be true.
That said, I have had not one but two absolutely bogus restraining orders placed on me for no legitimate reason whatsoever by the same person in one difficult year. That person being my ex-fiancée and the mother of my son. Each time my home was searched and my weapons confiscated by the police, some of whom are now my friends. All for spiteful, utterly baseless lies. Think I am exaggerating?
She and I split because she was having an affair and would not end it. She starting using strong drugs that her new friend was supplying and absolutely became a bad parent. I did everything I could legally to get my son out of that environment, even part time, until she got herself together. When I was successful, she went right to the police and said I threatened to kill her. Twice in one year, each time for the same reason. My word to God I never stated nor implied such a thing, as I always new I needed to be there for my son. This resulted in temporary forced separation from my son and the searches. I finally reported her to DYFS as a last resort and that was the end of her reign of terror. I now have primary custody of my son and am fully legal to own and purchase firearms. I have no issue with the local police because they know me and figured I likely did not do what she claimed. The just did their jobs, and they were very kind while doing so.
I could never have imagined it would have gotten so bad, even though I knew her for 5 years prior. And I will never, ever understand the extent of the evil things she did to me for protecting our son from the very real threat she became.
I will say that I am extra cautious of my selection of women today as a result, as this is something that I can never allow to happen to me again. It is almost like being raped when they come and take your child and guns in front of your neighbors. All for a baseless lie.
Rant off. :mad:
If that painting is real it's a sad situation. Maybe someone should swith it with a painting where he's fixed up to look like mohammed and see how that goes over.
It was due to be unveiled on Obama's 100th Day in Office at NYC's Union Square according to Yahoo's News page.
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Most-Emailed-Photos/ss/1756/im:/090424/480/d945ae02a71641db91b150590a2be036
It is scary to think that the left really believes Obama is the epitime of the term Messiah...This portrait disgusts me. This is being posted on Yahoo's news page.
https://www.m4carbine.net/picture.php?albumid=53&pictureid=370
'The Truth' by Painter Michael D'Antuono which will be unveiled on President Obama's 100th Day in Office at NYC's Union Square.
(PRNewsFoto/NOAH G POP FAM)
I can't believe there are people so disturbed so as to come up with this blasphemy. This painting is crazy disturbing. and to be UNVEILED PUBLICLY? WTF They call others radical!?
I can't believe there are people so disturbed so as to come up with this blasphemy. This painting is crazy disturbing. and to be UNVEILED PUBLICLY? WTF They call others radical!?
It is so bad in so many ways. A disgrace.
Let's see a guy paint somthing like this for bush and see how many liberals would have a caniption fit. One way or the other, like said above, anybody that thinks this highly of a candidate on either side is just plain ignorant. Were all human and when the true Messiah comes, he won't need nutjubs doing stuff like this to get his message across.:D
Jimmy Carter's article in the NY Times on a AWB http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/opinion/27Carter.html?ref=opinion
Apparently all of us who own "assault" weapons want to "kill police... and shoot up schools" This shit is unbelievable. He also says Reagan and the senior Bush supported a AWB.
It is scary to think that the left really believes Obama is the epitime of the term Messiah...This portrait disgusts me. This is being posted on Yahoo's news page.
https://www.m4carbine.net/picture.php?albumid=53&pictureid=370
'The Truth' by Painter Michael D'Antuono which will be unveiled on President Obama's 100th Day in Office at NYC's Union Square.
(PRNewsFoto/NOAH G POP FAM)
Just to fair & complete:
It is tough to believe that a painting like that was commissioned /approved/blessed --whatever , by the POTUS.
Just to fair & complete:
It is tough to believe that a painting like that was commissioned /approved/blessed --whatever , by the POTUS.
I agree. I am interested in hearing what he has to say about it.
Notre Dame doesn't think he's the Messiah.
Jimmy Carter's article in the NY Times on a AWB http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/opinion/27Carter.html?ref=opinion
Apparently all of us who own "assault" weapons want to "kill police... and shoot up schools" This shit is unbelievable. He also says Reagan and the senior Bush supported a AWB.
What the F*CK?!!! I dont know how much more ignorant people can get, just because i own a semiautoloading rifle doesnt mean im gonna gun cops and innocents down:mad: And for the record, i dont own any "Assault Weapons" mine arent selective fire. And the majority of America cant afford real assault rifles. This shits getting old quick, the way they go about getting support for bans like this is appauling, and quite frankly theyre facts are all F'd up, oh wait they dont use any statistics because theyre all against a gun ban. If people would wake the hell up theyd realize what the gov wants to do, take all our firearms priviledges away. The AWB doesnt just apply to UZI's and AK's and AR's, it applies to all semi auto Firearms not just rifles, that eliminates everything except revolvers and bolt guns without clips. Yeah, they want to do away with all clip fed rifles!:mad: Somthins gotta give soon, we all need to get are shit together and start legally trying to do somthing on this cause i wont be backed into a corner by my own goverment, thats not what this country is about, and im not about to let it become that. Im all game for a rally or rallys to oppose this BS, but these type of statements and ideas (jimmy carter's) arent an isolated event as im sure 90% of you all know on here, and if we dont do somthing soon we are screwed. The public will be lead like lemmings right off the cliff if we ( the gun community ) dont start speaking out. Keep in mind the quote many of you on here have as yours, "all it takes for evil people to flourish is for good men to do nothing" word for word im probably wrong on the quote but you get the jist of it. some how lets organize somthing guys, start out rallying or somthing, we can all try to spread the news and gathe supporters, but i cant sit and wait for my demise.
Jimmie Carter has always been a waste of air. He's the worst president we ever had, in my lifetime.
The bad news is: A lot of people beleive that the info in the letter is as accurate as the retired gentleman from rural Georgia can make it. In context , I'm convinced that Mr. Carter believes every word of it.
The good news:
The letter gives anybody who cares a chance to develop a series of concepts that could flip way over half of the EBR-hating Fudds in North America. And a large number of soccer moms , too.
IMO , that would be a good thing.
YMMV.
I agree Jimmy Carter is a waste of air. As for the worst, I think I will hold my vote until Obama leaves office. Imo he is already tied with Jimmy Carter and I have no doubt Obama will surpass Carter before Obama's first year is out.
I agree Jimmy Carter is a waste of air. As for the worst, I think I will hold my vote until Obama leaves office. Imo he is already tied with Jimmy Carter and I have no doubt Obama will surpass Carter before Obama's first year is out.
+1 on that!
browningboy84
04-28-09, 14:58
Scary times these are. I am sad to say that I grew up within an hour of where Carter is from! I hope to GOD that an AWB does not kick back in!!! The anti-gun lobby is trying the divide and conquer approach again. Dig in boys, this is gonna be a long hitch.
I agree Jimmy Carter is a waste of air. As for the worst, I think I will hold my vote until Obama leaves office. Imo he is already tied with Jimmy Carter and I have no doubt Obama will surpass Carter before Obama's first year is out.
I read somewhere, might have been here, a reflection on Presidents. They made the argument that JFK was the last real "think for myself" president. Made connections as to "look what it cost him" type thing. Just something to think about. Follow the money.
DangerMouse
04-30-09, 13:10
The one thing that Liberals (read: How Progressives Rewrote the Constitution (http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=2655)) or progressives as they now like to be known... again... have been working tirelessly for more than a century to dispose of most of the Bill of Rights either by papering the country with as many laws and ordinances as possible whether or not they are Constitutional or by claiming (very successfully as of late) that the Constitution is a living document that can be interpreted to fit modern requirements. Their motives of course are to weaken any real bite the Constitution once had and to replace the common understanding of our rights with the belief that all rights are given to us by the government rather than them being pre-existing rights "protected" by our Constitution which was to be watched over (stewarded if you will) by our elected representatives.
Our rights have been slowly eroded over time and now, we're barely hanging on to them by the merest of threads. Think about all Federal gun laws.... they're totally unconstitutional as the Second Amendment clearly states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." These instructions were aimed right at the Federal Government essentially barring it from making any law, or ordinance that would in any way infringe on the right of the "people" to keep and bear arms. Yet, the Federal Government runs an organization called the ATF that continually harasses law abiding citizens on the issue of gun ownership. The Federal Government has many laws, statutes and ordinances restricting gun ownership to which they ascribe the term "common sense" and claim that the second amendment never said they could not make "common sense" gun laws, and the majority backs them up. Here is the problem. The majority has no say in the matter. That is because we are a Republic and not a Democracy. But I challenge you to find a place where the majority of people know we are a Republic. Ask most people and they'll tell you we're a Democracy. And in a Democracy, the majority gets what the majority wants.
Suffice it to say, the only way we will ever be able to once again have our rights fully protected is to return this country to a fully working Republic and drop the moniker "Democracy" from any and all conversations and documents on what kind of government we have.
We're not a Democracy, we are a Republic, but if the progressives get their way, we will lose our Republic and Democracy will take its place, and then demagoguery and not rule of law will rule our daily lives.
Begin to repeat to yourself every day "We are a Republic and we must restore our Republic to its rightful place as the supreme guardian of the rights of the people protected by the Constitution!" Teach it to others and be patient as most of them have been educated in the public school system and probably think we’re a Democracy.
This is an intended failure on the part of the public (liberal indoctrination centers) school system, and it's been a long time in the making. The socialist movement started taking over the education system in the forties, with each successive generation of teacher being more Marxist in their political philosophy. Do children still recite the pledge of allegiance in grade school anymore? I know that our children aren't being taught the difference between a republic and a democracy any more. I imagine the left's desire to do away with parochial and home schooling, and impose state run child care at ever younger ages, is to limit parent's ability to oppose their socialist world view.
DangerMouse
05-02-09, 10:48
This is an intended failure on the part of the public (liberal indoctrination centers) school system, and it's been a long time in the making. The socialist movement started taking over the education system in the forties, with each successive generation of teacher being more Marxist in their political philosophy. Do children still recite the pledge of allegiance in grade school anymore? I know that our children aren't being taught the difference between a republic and a democracy any more. I imagine the left's desire to do away with parochial and home schooling, and impose state run child care at ever younger ages, is to limit parent's ability to oppose their socialist world view.
The purpose of teaching children we are a Democracy is so that they'll grow up to be Democrats by default. Democracy is much easier for Demagogues to maintain control over than a Republic. In a republic, no matter the demagoguery, you still cannot change the laws without a great deal of trouble in the Constitutional Amendment process. The last proper Amendment was the 18th. You'd think to make marijuana or cocaine illegal, they'd need another Amendment, but no, they just make Federal Laws.... nowhere in the Constitution does our Federal Government have the right to make laws against the use of alcohol, marijuana, cocaine or any other drug. They also have no right to make any gun law.... at all, yet they've lied to the American people and told them they can. There is no Constitutional justification for around 90% of what the government does, yet they do it and no one stops them, and those of us who complain that its unconstitutional are called nuts and 'right wing extremists'.
"Blue Dog" Democrat Walt Minnick sees no chance for gun control measures
magicvalley ^ | May 3, 2009
Posted on May 3, 2009 6:49:06 PM
LEWISTON, Idaho - Idaho Rep. Walt Minnick says gun owners don't need to worry about their gun rights being eroded in the current U.S. Congress.
"There is no possibility there is going to be any gun control in this Congress," Minnick told the Lewiston Tribune.
Minnick said he's one of 52 conservative "blue dog" Democrats in the House who oppose further gun control.
"Nothing can pass in the House without some blue dog support," he said. "The support (for Second Amendment rights) goes far beyond the blue dogs. It's not just fiscally conservative Democrats. I would warrant it's a solid majority of the caucus."
Shooting enthusiasts say fears that the Obama administration might push gun control legislation has boosted gun sales and is driving gun owners to stockpile ammunition.
But Minnick said there are more pressing issues facing Congress than gun control.
"I think it would divert the Congress away from real problems," he said. "We have so many of them and of such severity, I think it would be shortchanging the nation to spend a week or two on a topic that divisive. It's like fiddling when Rome is burning. We have real problems _ energy, health care, immigration. We still have problems of national security, a war-and-a-half we are fighting. We don't have the luxury to spend time on issues like this. I think it's just a non-issue."
Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, said not only is support for gun rights strong in both parties, but he sees a good chance of laws expanding gun rights.
He and Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., are working on a bill to allow people to carry loaded concealed weapons in national parks.......
Interesting reading that both Montana & Texas are challenging federal gun laws using state's rights. Might be time to move...
Article on Montana http://www.examiner.com/x-2944-Denver-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m4d30-Montana-seeks-to-test-states-rights?cid=exrss-Denver-Gun-Rights-Examiner
Article on Texas http://www.star-telegram.com/legislature/story/1355073.html
Interesting, quick read. http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/may/acorn-criminally-charged-nevada
ACORN Criminally Charged In Nevada
Criminal charges have been filed against the corrupt taxpayer-funded “community group” best known for its fraudulent voter registration drives and its close ties to President Barack Obama.
Nevada’s attorney general has charged the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), which strives to register low-income citizens, with more than two dozen felonies for operating a fraud-infested voter registration drive in the state during the 2008 presidential campaign.
ACORN illegally compensated workers to register voters based on a corporate mandated quote system, according to Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto. Because canvassers were illegally required to meet quotas to keep their jobs, thousands of registrations with fake names and addresses were submitted throughout the state.
In fact, during its 2008 drive authorities raided ACORN’s Nevada offices after the group submitted multiple forms with bogus names, including pro football players from another state. It turns out that ACORN hired convicted felons to register voters in Las Vegas and in fact got many from a transitional housing facility operated by the Nevada Department of Corrections. In a search warrant affidavit one ACORN employee said many of the canvassers were “lazy crack heads” who were not interested in working and just wanted the money.
The Nevada raid marked the third time in weeks that the Chicago-based group got busted for falsifying voter registration forms during the 2008 presidential campaign. Weeks earlier ACORN submitted fraudulent voter registration cards in the key battleground state of Florida and in New Mexico’s most populous county (Bernalillo).
In its complaint made public this week Nevada authorities reveal that ACORN illegally offered canvassers a bonus program known as “blackjack” or “21 plus” if they brought in more than the required 20 voter registrations a day to keep their jobs. The bonuses offered extra money per shift, according to the complaint.
ACORN has been in trouble for falsifying information to register new voters in numerous other states, including Milwaukee, Missouri, Ohio, North Carolina and Colorado to name a few. In 2007 the group settled the largest case of voter fraud in the history of Washington State after seven workers were caught submitting about 2,000 fake registration forms.
Incredibly, the radical leftist group continues to receive massive amounts of U.S. taxpayer dollars for its various community programs. Earlier this year ACORN got a multi billion-dollar infusion—for “neighborhood stabilization activities”—from the monstrous economic recovery bill that was supposed to create new jobs and offer an immediate tax relief to stimulate the ailing economy.
The grassroots group in VA, VCDL is pushing for contacting your senators this week about this treaty OBH is pushing for:
* An international treaty that could override our laws, and possibly even the constitutional protections, for the right to keep and bear arms. Reloading could become illegal, registration would be implemented, even attaching a sling to a rifle without a government license to do so would be a criminal act! The President is pushing this treaty because of Mexico's inability to control its own criminals.
--
ACTION ITEM
Because the international treaty needs to be ratified by the Senate, we need to contact our Senators and tell them that we don't want any such treaty ratified.
Suggested message for Senators:
I strongly urge you to OPPOSE the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.
The Treaty would allow our precious gun rights to be destroyed by allowing bureaucrats to do an end-run on Congress and create of web of restrictions on firearms that America has never seen before.
Americans should never be penalized for another country's inability to control its borders and its criminals.
Please let me know what you are going to do.
30 cal slut
05-11-09, 15:52
so much for being pro-gun.
from TOS:
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
May 11, 2009
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat and member of the so-called Blue Dog Coalition, plans to introduce an assault weapons ban this week. Gillibrand, the junior senator from New York, was at one time highly rated by the NRA for her advocacy of the Second Amendment.
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand poses with fellow gun-grabber Hillary Clinton.
Newsday claims Gillibrand has “undergone a transformation” over the last three months and has moved away from “her House record that won the NRA’s top rating while remaining a supporter of Second Amendment rights to gun ownership.” Since her Senate appointment, she has “passed just about every test on guns set by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy,” who reintroduced a bill closing the so-called gun-show loophole at a news conference last week.
It appears likely Ms. Gillibrand was a gun-grabber all along and used the Second Amendment as an election ploy. Polls indicate a large percentage of voters strongly support the Second Amendment.
McCarthy’s bill, H.R. 6676, would utilize the National Instant Criminal Background Check System for background checks on all gun store employees and dealers. In addition to H.R. 6676, three other bills have been offered including laws that would make it illegal for known or suspected terrorists to buy guns.
As reported by Infowars last week, the House is currently working on H.R. 2159, The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, sponsored by Rep. Peter King of New York. The bill would “increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.”
Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, told WorldNetDaily the bill will likely be used in junction with the DHS “Rightwing Extremism” report that characterizes advocates of the Second Amendment and others as terrorists. “By those standards, I’m one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano’s terrorists,” Pratt said. “This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they’re all potential terrorists.”
Senator Gillibrand is working closely with gun-grabbing organizations, including New Yorkers Against Gun Violence and the Brady Campaign, according to Matt Canter, Gillibrand’s spokesman. New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly and others are working with Gillibrand on “anti-trafficking legislation to stop the flow of illegal guns,” Canter told Newsday.
The Obama administration recently attempted to link the right to own firearms to drug cartel violence in Mexico. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other administration officials have said 90 percent of the weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the United States. In fact, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S. Statistics reveal that most of the guns flowing into Mexico come from the black market, Russian crime organizations, South America, Asia, Guatemala, and the Mexican Army.
...of course that would shut down private sales without a NICS check.
Another way to describe this: And the obama administrations should be well versed in it. DESCRIMINATION!!!!!!!!!
DangerMouse
05-11-09, 16:55
so much for being pro-gun.
from TOS:
He was never pro-gun. That is a lie pushed during the campaign and most morons who own guns and still voted for the guy bought it hook, line and sinker. His voting record has always been very anti-gun.
so much for being pro-gun.
from TOS:
If you were stupid enough to believe anything that snake said during his campaign, you don't deserve to have your guns. I do believe that we(you, not me i didn't vote for the prick) may have elected the most untrustworthy president of all time. I'll give him this the man can talk, but come on he's a politician why the f$*K would you believe any of the shit coming out.
That no good mike castle from my state of delaware is in with those crazy bradys (also from delaware now) in that "gun law loophole" law. I'm writing him in a few minutes. I hope we can get ride of him next election. He'll answer me with a spin letter like he always does.
I received this as an e-mail yesterday...
H.R. 1388 was passed yesterday, behind our backs. You may want to read about it. It wasn't mentioned on the news... just went by on the ticker tape at the bottom of the CNN screen.
Obama funds $20M in tax payer dollars to immigrate Hamas Refugees to the USA. This is the news that didn't make the headlines...
By executive order, President Barack Obama has ordered the expenditure of $20.3 million in "migration assistance" to the Palestinian refugees and "conflict victims" in Gaza.
The "presidential determination", which allows hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with ties to Hamas to resettle in the United States, was signed on January 27 and appeared in the Federal Register on February 4.
Few on Capitol Hill, or in the media, took note that the order provides a free ticket replete with housing and food allowances to individuals who have displayed their overwhelming support to the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) in the parliamentary election of January 2006.
Let's review...itemized list of some of Barack Obama's most recent actions since his inauguration:
His first call to any head of state, as president, was to Mahmoud Abbas, leader of Fatah party in the Palestinian territory.
His first one-on-one television interview with any news organization was with Al Arabia television.
His first executive order was to fund/facilitate abortion(s) not just here within the U. S., but within the world, using U. S. tax payer funds.
He ordered Guantanamo Bay closed and all military trials of detainees halted.
He ordered overseas CIA interrogation centers closed.
He withdrew all charges against the masterminds behind the USS Cole and the "terror attack" on 9/11.
Now we learn that he is allowing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refuges to move to, and live in, the US at American taxpayer expense.
These important, and insightful, issues are being "lost" in the blinding bail-outs and "stimulation" packages.
http://www.thefederalregister.com/d.p/2009-02-04-E9-2488
The man's a muslim sleeper.
diving dave
05-13-09, 15:06
We have the clowns running the circus. I hope people wake up by the next election.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child:The Impact on Private Gun-Ownership in America
by Michael P. Farris, J.D.
May 11, 2009
“The spread of small arms creates a serious global problem and requires an equally urgent response because the lives and futures of children are at stake. These weapons have extinguished more young lives than they have protected.” – Carol Bellamy, Executive Director, UNICEF
The vast majority of Americans, regardless of their opinions on the increasing scope of international law, agree with the proposition that children should not be used as soldiers. Accordingly, much of the UN literature that addresses children and guns deals with this military-related issue.
However, a second theme is quickly found in virtually all UN pronouncements about child soldiers and weapons. UN child’s rights advocates believe, teach, and promote the idea that all private gun-ownership is dangerous for children, and that children have the right to grow up in a community that is free from all guns.
As the campaign to seek ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child intensifies, it is important for all Americans to understand the application of this children’s rights treaty to the issue of private gun ownership by American citizens.
Limiting the rights of gun-ownership is not some secret agenda of the UN, but is open for all to see. UNICEF, the official UN agency charged with the worldwide advancement of children’s rights, has published a four-color brochure entitled: “No Guns Please, We Are Children.” The quotation given at the opening of this paper is taken from the front cover of this UNICEF brochure.
Inside this brochure we find the following assertions about guns and children:
* Small arms and light weapons kill and disable more children and adults than any other instrument of violence, in conflict and post-conflict situations and on the streets of cities worldwide. Deaths linked to small arms and light weapons every year run into the hundreds of thousands, with those injured exceeding 1 million.
* Small arms and light weapons cause profound physical and emotional damage, particularly to children, and affect their welfare.
* In societies destabilized by the use of small arms and light weapons, children are denied many of their human rights, including their rights to freedom from violence and exploitation, survival and development, health care, education and care within a family environment. As a result, hard-won developmental gains are often lost and may even be reversed.
* In communities enjoying relative peace, children witness and are traumatized by the use of small arms and light weapons in domestic violence and in disputes. Children also become accidental victims because adults fail to keep the weapons out of their reach.
Two crucial conclusions can be drawn from these assertions:
First, the UN intends to address far more than children in war; the object is to eliminate the “threat” posed by guns from the lives of all children whether their community is characterized as “in conflict,” “post-conflict,” “destabilized,” or “enjoying relative peace.” Guns are a threat “on the streets of cities worldwide.”
Second, the UN contends that the threat posed by guns violates the “human rights” of children.
There can be no doubt that the UN believes that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is applicable to this issue. In this same pamphlet it declares: “The Convention on the Rights of the Child sets out comprehensive principles and standards to guide all actions and attitudes towards children.”
Thus, a nation that willingly accepts this treaty has made a legally binding agreement of international law to regulate its public policy towards all issues in a manner that is consistent with the UN vision on children’s human rights. If this statement were made in some other context, there might be some room for argument that the UN doesn’t really mean to include gun ownership within the sweep of comprehensive “standards to guide all actions and attitudes towards children.” But this statement was made in an official brochure entitled “No Guns Please, We are Children.”
This official UN brochure then clarifies the kind of public policy required towards firearms based upon these human rights of children:
* Efforts must be ongoing to overcome the destructive messages that small arms and light weapons are essential instruments for survival and protection in daily life.
* Governments must support communities in eliminating the insecurity, fear and instability that often lead people to acquire and keep guns.
* Regulations are needed to ensure that small arms and light weapons are not easy to acquire and are never accessible to children.
The UN believes that the idea that small arms are “essential instruments for survival and protection” is destructive. Remember that the UN CRC purports to govern all actions and attitudes. The very belief that guns are necessary for protection is a destructive attitude that violates the “respect for human rights” required by the UN CRC.
There can be no doubt of the meaning of the statement: “Regulations are needed to ensure that small arms and light weapons are not easy to acquire and are never accessible to children.”
The UN official pamphlet makes it plain that nations need to “[i]mplement laws to protect children . . .from having access to small arms.” Moreover, the UN says that states should “[c]ollect and destroy small arms … through community programmes in which civil society plays a key role.”
The UN actively promotes the idea that small arms conflict with the human rights of children protected by the CRC. Yet another UN publication states:
UNICEF, together with the United Nations Department for Disarmament Affairs, has designed an exhibit, shown around the world, called "Taking Aim at Small Arms: Defending Child Rights". The exhibit documents the scourge of small arms and light weapons, emphasizing their prevalence worldwide and the toll they take on human lives—especially children.
Thus, it is clear that UNICEF believes that in order to comply with the principles of children’s rights contained in the UN CRC, America would need to adopt regulations to make it difficult for adults to acquire small arms and light weapons. Moreover, we would need to adopt regulations that prohibit weapons from ever being accessible to children.
In another UN official publication, “Guide to the Implementation of the World Programme of Action for Youth,” the following laws are advocated as necessary for the protection of children’s rights:
Explore enacting bans on all handguns to civilians or certain cheap models that are attractive to youth.
Call for restrictions on the number of guns that can be purchased in a one-month or one-year period.
It is essential to understand the interplay between treaties and state laws. Article VI of the United States Constitution provides:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
In Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920), the state of Missouri challenged the constitutionality of federal interference with the state hunting laws concerning migratory birds. Federal game officials had intervened in Missouri based upon a treaty with Canada. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the treaty, and not Missouri’s state laws on hunting, was supreme. State law—including state hunting laws—must give way to treaties.
Thus, even if current state laws permit children to obtain hunting licenses and possess and discharge firearms for these purposes, such laws would have to give way to a treaty that contends that firearms should “never be accessible to children.”
The UN agenda for children does not stop with the direct disarming of individuals. Article 29 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child imposes educational standards on nations that become parties to the treaty. This includes “peace education,” which in other UN contexts means disarmament education. The UN World Congress on Disarmament Education adopted the following statements:
Definition of disarmament
2. For the purposes of disarmament education, disarmament may be understood as any form of action aimed at limiting, controlling or reducing arms, including unilateral disarmament initiatives, and, ultimately, general and complete disarmament under effective international control. It may also be understood as a process aimed at transforming the current system of armed nation States into a new world order of planned unarmed peace in which war is no longer an instrument of national policy and peoples determine their own future and live in security based on justice and solidarity.
Links with human rights and development
7. As an integral part of peace education, disarmament education has essential links with human rights education and development education, in so far as each of the three terms peace, human rights and development must be defined in relation to the other two. Moreover, disarmament education offers an occasion to elucidate emerging concepts such as the individual and collective rights to peace and to development, based on the satisfaction of material and non-material human needs.
If the United States Senate ratifies the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child we will have become willing parties in a regime that obligates us to disarm our citizens, keep guns from children, and indoctrinate American children to believe in the utopia of world disarmament. This will cause our nation to surrender our own defenses and rest in the “security” of a world based on “individual and collective rights.”
Sources:
UNICEF, No Guns, Please, We Are Children, 2001, available at http://www.un.org/disarmament/education/index.html.
United Nations, Guide to the Implementation of the World Programme of Action for Youth, 2006, ST/ESA/309, available at http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unyin/documents/wpay_guide.pdf.
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, World Congress on Disarmament Education, Report and Final Document, 9-13 June 1980, part A 1 & 2, available at http://www.un.org/disarmament/education/docs/uneco.pdf.
I couldn't even bring myself to finish reading that heap of rubbish. I did notice that nowhere in what I did read did they site the number of children enslaved, starved, and murdered in the brutal dictatorial regimes that keep their power by denying their subjects the means of protecting themselves from tyranny...
Can anyone tell me why the UN still has any shred of relevance? Considering it's become a means for every third world potentate and dictator to put a halt on America spreading freedom around the world, while simultaneously squeezing us for billions of dollars in "aid" for their subjects. (Money which always seems to go toward feeding and arming the regime instead of supplying actual relief to starving children.)
And another thing. I'm not going to listen to a sermon about the welfare of the worlds children from an organization responsible for raping and prostituting said waifs!
And don't even get me started on the whole "Oil for arms" scandal...
Last week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the nomination of Harold Koh, a former Dean of the Yale Law School, to be Legal Advisor to the State Department. One of the many concerns with Koh is his belief that international organizations should be empowered to regulate the Second Amendment right to own a firearm.
On April 2, 2002, Koh gave a speech to the Fordham University School of Law titled “A World Drowning in Guns” where he mapped out his vision of global gun control. Koh advocated an international “marking and tracing regime.” He complained that “the United States is now the major supplier of small arms in the world, yet the United States and its allies do not trace their newly manufactured weapons in any consistent way.” Koh advocated a U.N.-governed regime to force the U.S. “to submit information about their small arms production.”
Koh supports the idea that the U.N. should be granted the power “to standardize national laws and procedures with member states of regional organizations.” Koh feels that U.S. should “establish a national firearms control system and a register of manufacturers, traders, importers and exporters” of guns to comply with international obligations. This regulatory regime would allow U.N. members such as Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea and Iran to have a say in what type of gun regulations are imposed on American citizens.
Taken to their logical conclusion, Koh’s ideas could lead to a national database of all firearm owners, as well as the use of international law to force the U.S. to pass laws to find out who owns guns. All who care about freedom should read his speech (pdf). Senators need to think long and hard about whether Koh’s extreme views on international gun control are appropriate for America.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31711
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer admits that Democrats are conceding the gun issue to Republicans for now.
Republicans have been increasingly using pro-gun amendments to throw a wrench into Democratic legislation, attaching amendments to seemingly unrelated bills allowing for expanded gun carrying privileges in national parks.
The tactic seems to be working, with Democrats acknowledging that pro-gun members rule in both chambers.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22703.html#ixzz0G3aLuVTq&B
I love it!
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22703.html
I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE! :mad: Obama says "America is one of the largest Muslim nations". WTF is this guy saying? I knew he was a "islamo-manchurian candidate" all along, but this is a slap in the face! Just who is he the President of? Everyone but American, Muslims? Since when did the majority of christians and some jews in the US convert to islam?
Obama said "Now, the flip side is I think that the United States and the West generally, we have to educate ourselves more effectively on Islam. ---BS!
"And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. And so there's got to be a better dialogue and a better understanding between the two peoples." --- All I want to understand about islam is what they fear most!
Obama said in Turkey that Americans "do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation". John McCain was criticised in 2007 for saying the US was "a Christian nation", later amending this to "a Judeo-Christian valued nation". ----America is a Christian nation you moron!
Tired of the Obama "America Loathing Tour 09"
http://washingtontimes.com/weblogs/potus-notes/2009/jun/02/obama-us-one-of-largest-muslim-countries/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2009/06/03/barack_hussein_obama_us_one_of_the_largest_muslim_countries_in_the_world
Ok typo Lose it instead of loose it. Sorry
His grasp of the facts falls far short of his rhetoric. I feel yer pain. My brain will burst into flames of spontaneous human combustion if I don't soak it down with Bass Pale Ale during the FoxNews roundup.
I am also in a very bad mood as a result of this disastrous president. He will make Carter look like a genius before he is done.
I move to impeach...
1. Muslims make up a fairly large percentage of the American population, just as Christians make up a large percentage of say the British population. I don't think the man is calling America a Muslim state.
2. If all you understand about Islam is what they fear the most, then you are also condemning the thousands of good people who follow Islam, quite a few of whom I've had the privilege of serving beside in combat.
3. His point is that this country isn't defined by any one religion, but true to the spirit of our ideals, however founded, we are a nation that allows all citizens within our borders to practice whatever faith they believe, without attempting to thrust a state sponsored religion on the citizenry.
Not defending the President, but so far I'm not seeing anything objectionable in what you have quoted.
Thomas M-4
06-03-09, 17:46
I am also in a very bad mood as a result of this disastrous president. He will make Carter look like a genius before he is done.
I move to impeach...
+1
I hope the senate 2010 elections go down hill for the dems
1. Muslims make up a fairly large percentage of the American population, just as Christians make up a large percentage of say the British population. I don't think the man is calling America a Muslim state.
2. If all you understand about Islam is what they fear the most, then you are also condemning the thousands of good people who follow Islam, quite a few of whom I've had the privilege of serving beside in combat.
3. His point is that this country isn't defined by any one religion, but true to the spirit of our ideals, however founded, we are a nation that allows all citizens within our borders to practice whatever faith they believe, without attempting to thrust a state sponsored religion on the citizenry.
Not defending the President, but so far I'm not seeing anything objectionable in what you have quoted.
Muslims make up a little more than 1% of the US population.
How that makes the US anything even approaching a "Muslim country" is beyond me.
As for our founding ideals, they spring directly from Western, Judeo-Christian philosophy, not to mention the fact that the people who actually did it were overwhelmingly Christian.
1. Muslims make up a fairly large percentage of the American population, just as Christians make up a large percentage of say the British population. I don't think the man is calling America a Muslim state.
2. If all you understand about Islam is what they fear the most, then you are also condemning the thousands of good people who follow Islam, quite a few of whom I've had the privilege of serving beside in combat.
3. His point is that this country isn't defined by any one religion, but true to the spirit of our ideals, however founded, we are a nation that allows all citizens within our borders to practice whatever faith they believe, without attempting to thrust a state sponsored religion on the citizenry.
Not defending the President, but so far I'm not seeing anything objectionable in what you have quoted.
Many of the "good" muslims have taken to the streets worldwide to protest Danish cartoons as well as written publications, have they not? Many muslim women and children were televised cheering on in the streets on 9/11, were they not? Come time to head to Mecca, better get out of the way...
Where is the public outcry against terrorism? Where is the the stance for what is right? Where is the mobilization? The animals even kill their own women and children while they shop and pray to make their deranged voices heard, yet everyone sits around?
WHERE IS THE OUTCRY FROM THESE SPINELESS, SOULLESS COWARDS?
I tell you something in this room is starting to stink real, real bad. Our president is a scary man. And most of the media is sub-human.
1. Muslims make up a fairly large percentage of the American population, just as Christians make up a large percentage of say the British population. I don't think the man is calling America a Muslim state.
Sorry, about 1.5%. FAIL
2. If all you understand about Islam is what they fear the most, then you are also condemning the thousands of good people who follow Islam, quite a few of whom I've had the privilege of serving beside in combat.
Yes there are lots of good plain old Muslims.
Unfortunately lots of even good muslims believe the extremist rhetoric and are dancing in the streets on 9/11 etc.
3. His point is that this country isn't defined by any one religion, but true to the spirit of our ideals, however founded, we are a nation that allows all citizens within our borders to practice whatever faith they believe, without attempting to thrust a state sponsored religion on the citizenry.
That is not what he is saying. He is pandering to the Muslims trying to make them like him.
Not defending the President, but so far I'm not seeing anything objectionable in what you have quoted.
There are over 100 million Muslims in India and Indonesia each. Fairly small minority here. That's just a fact.
No beef with our Muslim allies in combat against the jihadis of course. But BO's whole message is twisted by his horsehair shirt. The greatest oppressor and murderer of Muslims are other Muslims. BO bows in shame over US "imposing our values". Oh soooo sorry, we impose our value against jihadis burning little girls in their schoolrooms for getting an education. How insensitive of US.
I'm 100% in support of the millions of "fighting Iraqians" who've done such a great job on the jihadis.
Heavy Metal
06-03-09, 19:09
Obama makes you feel loose?
That loser does not make me want to become loose.
Many of the "good" muslims have taken to the streets worldwide to protest Danish cartoons as well as written publications, have they not? Many muslim women and children were televised cheering on in the streets on 9/11, were they not? Come time to head to Mecca, better get out of the way...
Where is the public outcry against terrorism? Where is the the stance for what is right? Where is the mobilization? The animals even kill their own women and children while they shop and pray to make their deranged voices heard, yet everyone sits around?
WHERE IS THE OUTCRY FROM THESE SPINELESS, SOULLESS COWARDS?
I tell you something in this room is starting to stink real, real bad. Our president is a scary man. And most of the media is sub-human.
Well after all I've read about Islam is at the end of the day Islam wants to dominate the world and have a worldwide Caliphate. There was a poll conducted in the Arab world and 83% + - agreed with what the terrorist are doing. Islam is a cancer that needs chemo! Hiroshima style!
Obama makes you feel loose?
That loser does not make me want to become loose.
Once again for the slow group. He makes me want to lose it (e.g. go insane, wacko, bonkers etc) DO YOU GET IT NOW? :confused:
Once again for the slow group. He makes me want to lose it (e.g. go insane, wacko, bonkers etc) DO YOU GET IT NOW? :confused:
Dang man. Relax. Breathe. :) A lot of us are frustrated with the current situation. We understand where you are coming from.
I wouldn't necessarily call Heavy Metal part of the "slow group". Especially since his grammar is correct. Your's is still wrong in subject however.
killswitch1982
06-03-09, 20:00
I honestly never thought I'd see the day that I would miss Bill Clinton.
Once again for the slow group. He makes me want to lose it (e.g. go insane, wacko, bonkers etc) DO YOU GET IT NOW? :confused:
He was mocking your mis-spelling in the thread title.
Going on the subject of despising this man for his view and lack of morals, he makes me feel very unsettled about the future of the country I call home. And quite frankly, not to be a conspiracy theory nut, with WWIII and or a big war of sorts sprouting its roots in NK and Iran I cant say im feeling to good about our safety in the future. Just think to kinda put it in retrospect of my thought process, if the barrack hussein obamanator was in during 9/11, what would be the outcome of the following months or year? Not bright. I just plain out dont like him
I honestly never thought I'd see the day that I would miss Bill Clinton.
FWIW, I still turn off the radio or TV as soon as Pres. Barry O. starts to speak. I bet I've heard less than 2 dozen syllables out of his mouth. If I ever hear a complete word, I might go into cardiac arrest.
Thank you for making me laugh! :cool:
The_War_Wagon
06-03-09, 22:02
You can have Mohammedism, or you can have a Democratic Republic - you don't get BOTH. :mad:
Exhibit 'A' - the Middle East. :rolleyes:
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-03-09, 23:52
Yes there are lots of good plain old Muslims.
Unfortunately lots of even good muslims believe the extremist rhetoric and are dancing in the streets on 9/11 etc.
That is not what he is saying. He is pandering to the Muslims trying to make them like him.
To turn that phrase, he is trying to make himself like them.
Have at Barry, you've got a bunker to hide in.
The amazing thing to me is that more Americans think that gitmo should stay open than close, global warming (er, climate change) is natural variation than human driven, and even California voted against gay marriage - but by the MSM you'd think you were David Koresh's untrustworthy uncle for thinking that. I'm not a big general concensus kind of guy, but when is the majority going to stop being treated like some fringe, deviant, backward bunch of hicks?
Going4Broke
06-04-09, 01:06
He is the biggest POS in my book.
Obama makes you feel loose?
That loser does not make me want to become loose.
Well, if you are "loose" in the bowels...
i really think we should just pull out of all muslim nations... just quit. abandon. get our boys out. stop the violence, stop the bloodshed. enough is enough. give up.
about a week before we drop the bomb.
islam wont stop until we're dead or damned to eternal hellfire for worshipping their false god. we have the ability to easily eradicate this disease of the mind and soul- but instead, we've got open borders to the ****ers. c'mon in- multiply or kill off some of us, your choice!
we're christians. 70-something percent. and i bet if you put the other 30% in a fox hole during good long mortar attack, you'd up that to in excess of 95%.
The more I hear the sicker I become. He may not have meant what he said or maybe it was "taken out of context" like 95% of everything that seems to hit the airwaves nowadays, but if people perceive it a certain way that's all that matters in the end. Personally I had the feeling that he was pandering to the Muslim community again.
I only hope that some sense of normalcy returns to our country soon because I fear we are heading down the wrong path.
I only hope that some sense of normalcy returns to our country soon because I fear we are heading down the wrong path.
The man is a f__king communist and his agenda is globalism. I want to know who's pulling the strings.
The man is a f__king communist and his agenda is globalism. I want to know who's pulling the strings.
Soros. He doesn't even try to hide it.
1. Muslims make up a fairly large percentage of the American population, just as Christians make up a large percentage of say the British population. I don't think the man is calling America a Muslim state.
2. If all you understand about Islam is what they fear the most, then you are also condemning the thousands of good people who follow Islam, quite a few of whom I've had the privilege of serving beside in combat.
3. His point is that this country isn't defined by any one religion, but true to the spirit of our ideals, however founded, we are a nation that allows all citizens within our borders to practice whatever faith they believe, without attempting to thrust a state sponsored religion on the citizenry.
Not defending the President, but so far I'm not seeing anything objectionable in what you have quoted.
What he said is: "And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. And so there's got to be a better dialogue and a better understanding between the two peoples"
It's just all in all a dumb thing to say, and doesn't have any basis in reality:
The average claim for the US Muslim population is about six million. The precise figure is difficult to get because it's not included in US census data and many put the figure at much, much less.
But even if we assume there are six million Muslims in the US, that makes it only the 34th biggest Muslim country in the world - behind Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Turkey, Egypt, Iran, Nigeria, China, Ethiopia, Algeria, Morocco, Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Tanzania, Syria, Malaysia, Niger, Senegal, Ghana, Tunisia, Somalia, Guinea, Kenya, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Burkina Faso and Tajikistan.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-04-09, 10:12
It would be interesting to compare the actual words of what he says (outside of the Iranian nuke comment) to what GW said. I really don't think that there would be much difference. "We are not at war with Islam", a Palestinian state, we respect you are all from W also. I think it is the tone and the feeling that this is just the tip of the iceberg for Barry though.
It's like Al Gore on Global warming, I've just stopped listening for now.
When my wife saw he was travelling in the Middle east my wife said "Maybe one of his own will get him."
John_Wayne777
06-04-09, 12:21
The more I hear the sicker I become. He may not have meant what he said or maybe it was "taken out of context" like 95% of everything that seems to hit the airwaves nowadays, but if people perceive it a certain way that's all that matters in the end. Personally I had the feeling that he was pandering to the Muslim community again.
It's absolutely clear he was.
Unfortunately he doesn't seem to realize that the jackass segment of the muslim population doesn't really see any problem with killing fellow muslims. Thus trying to falsely paint America as a muslim nation isn't going to accomplish anything.
Besides, America has been to convenient of a scapegoat for years for the people causing problems in the ME to suddenly decide were a-ok.
The true believers here in the states may see this as a good move...the people who are causing the problems in the world will see statements like this as a sign of weakness.
the people who are causing the problems in the world will see statements like this as a sign of weakness.
This is vitally important for everyone to realize. Unfortunately the left everywhere in the world and BO himself do not realize this.
It was best said in one of Gary Bauer's daily updates that I somehow got on a mailing list for.
To paraphrase, he said that militant Islam is not a rational State, but rather a Cause. You can negotiate with States as they see it in their best interest to compromise in order to advance or protect themselves.
You cannot negotiate with a Cause. And the more you try to do so, the more weak you appear to them (which may be party cultural in the ME)
The man is a f__king communist and his agenda is globalism. I want to know who's pulling the strings.
You got that right
Other than FOX, the news depictions of this mid-east trip are unbelievably disturbing. I can't watch any other networks anymore. At all.
I guess those that called Rush a windbag months ago, including me to a small extent, were wrong. We are surly fu*ked with this creep as president.
At this point, I am ready to see Limbaugh run for office. Wouldn't have said that a few months ago, but I will now. He may be the only one with the vision and guts to deal with this increasingly freakish world.
decodeddiesel
06-04-09, 19:44
we're christians. 70-something percent. and i bet if you put the other 30% in a fox hole during good long mortar attack, you'd up that to in excess of 95%.
No offence, but I was raised a Lutheran in a pretty strict religious family. I had a "crisis of faith" at about age 20 and became an atheist. That said I got the crap mortared and rocketed out of me more times than I can count while in Iraq. Not once did I pray to God to save me. It was more like "Oh s***, oh sh***, OH F***, OH F***!!!!!!!" :p
By: Mike Krumboltz
http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/92640?fp=1
Just as notable was the President's omission of a very controversial word: terrorism. Politico explains that this was likely a very conscious decision on Obama's part. Instead of the "t-word" in his speech, Obama used the word "extremism" to get his point across. "Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism," Obama said. "It is an important part of promoting peace.":mad:
No offence, but I was raised a Lutheran in a pretty strict religious family. I had a "crisis of faith" at about age 20 and became an atheist. That said I got the crap mortared and rocketed out of me more times than I can count while in Iraq. Not once did I pray to God to save me. It was more like "Oh s***, oh sh***, OH F***, OH F***!!!!!!!" :p
that's why i upped it to in excess of 95% instead of 100... we'll have to convert you stubborn 5-percenters sometime after deployment. :)
Sometimes I honestly think Obama wakes up every day and thinks "What kind of asshole shit can I pull today to really piss off normal Americans?" and then he just goes and does it. I'm at the point where I see the next thing he does, and it doesn't even surprise me any more. Go on a tour to "apologize" to the Muslim world? Whatever. Pick some 31 year old douchebag college dropout to dismantle GM and end capitalism as we know it? Big deal. Name a racist member of La Raza and supporter of Aztlan to the Supreme Court? Come on, did you expect anything less?
If I wake up tomorrow and he proclaims himself the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, THAT might surprise me.
Nah, probably not.
FlyAndFight
06-05-09, 09:40
...You cannot negotiate with a Cause. And the more you try to do so, the more weak you appear to them...
...The true believers here in the states may see this as a good move...the people who are causing the problems in the world will see statements like this as a sign of weakness.
And that, my friends, is it, in a nut-shell.
-North Korea is launching test ICBM fireworks in celebration...
-Iran continues their nuclear program unabated...
-The Taliban is taking over nuclear armed Pakistan...
-Chavez says he's more democratic than his "comrade" Obeyme...
I don't know about the rest of you, but Biden's "Gird your loins" comments have been sounding pertinent for quite some time, to me.
Despite everything else going haywire, somehow our right to bear arms seems safe for now. Even in the wake of several mass shootings recently and the Mexico scapegoat garbage, common sense (and the NRA) prevail.
How ironic in this leftist regime, yet wonderful. Priceless really.
I am renewing for another 3 years with the NRA a bit early, despite their overbearing and over-sized (we pay for that nonsense) mass mailings.
Yes just how the left wants you to feel, safe and then bam! AWB
Found this link on another site. I don't care for TIME magazine myself.
You simply have to read this to believe it. So, so, so disturbing.
Barack Obama, Stop Ruining My Marriage
By Sean Gregory Monday, Jun. 08, 2009
First dance
The list of reasons to admire Barack Obama is longer than Pennsylvania Avenue. But please, and I'm begging here, let's not hold him up as an exemplary husband simply because he takes his wife out on a date.
The Obamas Waltz Through the Inaugural Balls
Photos
On Sunday, the New York Times did just that, with a story headlined "If They Can Find Time for a Date Night ..." The gist: If the Obamas — with Mom committed to her various causes and Dad trying to save the free world — can still find time for each other, hey, lame husband sitting on the couch watching sports, time to step it up. The writer suggests that the President has placed an "elbow in the ribs of husbands," while Jon Stewart has joked, "Take it down a notch, dude." (See pictures of the Obamas dancing on Inauguration Night.)
Yes, daily down time and date nights are cathartic and healthy. My wife and I, working parents with two young children, have strived, with varying amounts of success, to find the right moments to put out an APB for a sitter. But in the relationship department, no husband or couple should ever wonder why they're not meeting a standard set by the Obamas.
Did you catch that NBC special on the White House? The Obamas happen to have some of the world's smartest people working tirelessly on the dirty details of governance. Think those staffers working till midnight and grinding away the weekends spend a ton of blissful time with their spouses? Chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is killing himself while his wife and kids are stuck back in Chicago. Now there's a guy I can relate to. (See pictures of Obama in France.)
Barack Obama also has a few other advantages over me. Forget the 8,000 cooks, maids and other White House personnel who prepare the food, do the dishes and fold the clothes. It's easier to cuddle on the couch and grab dinner and a show like the Obamas recently did in New York City when all that stuff is taken care of. At least I'm guessing. No, the advantages I'm thinking of are his 15-second commute to the office. And the fact that if the Obamas want to head out for the night, Michelle's mother Marian can watch the kids. (Before people start swooning over Obama's welcome embrace of his mother-in-law, remember: the dude lives in a 132-room house.) The advantage that matters most, of course, is the plane. Air Force One makes romantic evenings in Paris a lot more possible.
The thing is, Obama is the first to acknowledge his enormous leg up when it comes to family life. He's obviously working hard, and you can't blame him for taking advantage of an opportunity to eat dinner with Michelle and the kids. I would do the same thing if I were President. But I'm not. And I'd thank the world to stop reminding me of that little fact, especially on date night.
See pictures of Michelle Obama behind the scenes.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1903306,00.html?cnn=yes
I am not really a fan of his, but I admire his courage in this situation. Let's pray he is the first of many to come along. Great to see some sanity in Hollywood, or anywhere for that matter.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/category/jon-voight/
Welcome to June 2008..........
Welcome to June 2008..........
the video is a recent post, added June 9 2009. The article it was attached to was from Sept 2008.
the video is a recent post, added June 9 2009.
That is correct, brand new stuff. Think the video clarifies that rather well based upon it's content.
exkc135driver
06-10-09, 02:25
There is a vaguely pro-gun article in the current (June 8) Newsweek, which is saying something for a mainstream media magazine:
Guns, Liquor and the Age of Obama by Jon Meacham
Pro-gun sentiment in America is rising, not falling. Firearms sales are up, and there are reports of ammunition shortages.
Published May 30, 2009 | Updated: 1:21 p.m. ET May 30, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Jun 8, 2009
He remembers the gift fondly. When Phil Bredesen turned 16, he was given a .22 rifle by his father, who had bought the gun from James Natoli, one of Bredesen's teachers at Red Jacket Central High School in Manchester, N.Y.; the teacher operated a hunting-rifle and shotgun store out of the front room of his house in nearby Shortsville. In school the next year, Bredesen and his classmates took an NRA-sanctioned and -designed course in firearms handling and hunter safety taught by Mr. Natoli. "The thing I remember most," recalls Bredesen, now the Democratic governor of Tennessee, "was his constant harping on the 'guns and alcohol don't mix' message—and it was a good message for a bunch of 17-year-olds in a state with a then-18 drinking age."
Those lessons came back to Bredesen when he found himself confronted last week with a bill allowing people who are licensed to carry concealed weapons to bring them into bars and restaurants that serve liquor and beer. Standing before rows of law-enforcement officers that formed what he called, with the satisfied tone of a good politician, "a sea of blue," Bredesen vetoed the measure, though that veto is almost certainly going to be overridden in Nashville. Guns are among the most emotional issues in American politics; their appeal is deep and not easily dismissed. Firearms, especially handguns, invest their bearers with ultimate authority—and ultimate responsibility.
"There's been a whole raft of gun bills this year," Bredesen told me. He signed one that stripped his office of the power to confiscate guns in the event of martial law. ("The possibility of that coming to pass seemed awfully remote," he says.) Coming up soon: a bill to allow those with concealed-weapons permits to carry guns in state and city parks. Bredesen is undecided on this one: law-enforcement officials are against it, but not nearly in the same numbers or with the same passion as they opposed mixing guns and bars.
Bredesen's handling of the Tennessee gunfights—signing one bill, vetoing another, keeping his options open on still others—offers a window onto the surprisingly scattershot nature of gun policy in the age of Obama. NRA ads from 2008 predicting the end of all things in the event of a Democratic victory have the antique feel of a Mike Huckabee placard—the president, like the governor, is fully cognizant of the fact that pro-gun sentiment in America is rising, not falling. In April, the FBI reported its sixth straight month of increasing background checks for gun buyers (1,225,980; a 30 percent increase over April 2008), a trend that began in November. There are reports of ammunition shortages, and polling suggests softening public support for stricter gun laws. The president is attuned to these realities, signing a bill that contained an amendment allowing guns to be carried in national parks. The administration, meanwhile, has thus far declined to press for a renewal of the ban on assault weapons that lapsed in 2004. Democrats remember 1994 and 2000 the way the French remember the Maginot Line: as something to be avoided at any cost. Top Obama people have told my colleague Dan Klaidman that the administration's position on assault weapons is designed to protect Democrats in pro-gun states and districts—Democrats the White House needs on health care, energy and education.
For many Americans, guns are tangible symbols of independence and power; for many others, the attraction of firearms is mystifying. I grew up hunting birds in Tennessee (not well; a poor shot, I was an inadvertent one-boy PETA) and now live in New York, where most people I know react to talk of guns with widening eyes and puzzlement. Bredesen is trying to find a middle ground between those extremes, as is Obama. The reflexive liberal reaction is to deplore any compromise on guns, but Bredesen's musings on the issue bear consideration. "There seems to often be a presumption that the rational norm is a European-like careful regulation of guns, and that people who feel differently are a cultural phenomenon that needs explaining," the governor wrote me in an e-mail. "I would suggest that it is cultural on both sides: that strong anti-gun advocates can be just as culturally biased and irrational as the most avid gun-toters. I enjoy pointing out to my more liberal friends that when they want to (e.g. choice v. right to life issues) they can happily find justification for their (and my) position in rights emanating from implied privacy rights lurking in the penumbra of our Constitution, but where they disagree (e.g. on guns) they are perfectly happy to wave off or reinterpret the clear language in the Bill of Rights." He wrote these words near a gun cabinet that still holds his .22 from that distant birthday—a reminder, in a way, that if you are going to have a gun, you need a Mr. Natoli.
http://drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm
ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE
Tue Jun 16 2009 08:45:10 ET
On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!
Highlights on the agenda:
ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.
The network plans a primetime special -- 'Prescription for America' -- originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.
MORE
Late Monday night, Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay fired off a complaint to the head of ABCNEWS:
Dear Mr. Westin:
As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.
Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party's views to those of the President's to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party's opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.
In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.
Respectfully,
Ken McKay
Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff
MORE
ABCNEWS Senior Vice President Kerry Smith on Tuesday responded to the RNC complaint, saying it contained 'false premises':
"ABCNEWS prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers -- of all political persuasions -- even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABCNEWS is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue.
"ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience."
Developing...
citizensoldier16
06-16-09, 14:04
I just read the same article.
"ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience."
Doesn't that strike anyone as being much like State controlled media in N. Korea or Venezuela?
Going4Broke
06-16-09, 15:04
Well that is BS, but what does everyone expect. The mainstream media is nothing but a liberal agenda promoting tool. How do you think Obama got elect. If not for the media I don't believe he would have.
What gets me is that the majority of Americans simply don't know, understand, or care to understand, that the majority of the media is liberal and slants the news. I have had more than one person say there is no way the media is biased.
NBC is getting way too much of the Admin's love via GE.
ABC wants their piece of the pie too.
As if the New Socialist Order doesn't have enough control over the media as it is now. I hate to say it but as a staunch Republican Voter....I am starting to miss the days of the Clinton Administration. At least they were good for a laugh.
State Run Media.
Sounds like Limbaugh had it right...
HR45 ... Still alive and kicking..... http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp
:mad:
Looks like the crap is airborne and on it's way to the fan!
HR45 ... Still alive and kicking..... http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp
:mad:
Looks like the crap is airborne and on it's way to the fan!
Still dead in subcommittee with no co-sponsors:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45
HR45 has come up on this site a hundred times, its a dead issue.
i wish they would take it to a vote- end this perpetual silliness.
:confused:
HR45 ... Still alive and kicking..... http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp
:mad:
Looks like the crap is airborne and on it's way to the fan!
Needs remedial training in how Congress stuff works....
:rolleyes:
Around 535 members in the House. No co-sponsors.
Is there a Senate counterpart?
Uh... no.
Looks dead to me.
just political grand-standing so that he can stand before he constituents, thump his chest and say he went to bat for them. too bad his constituents don't expect some actual results from their elected officials.
Is this the proper thread? You know....the one where I can "officially" say obama.....one big ass mistake america........
I'm taking American Government right now. All those poor kids getting their indoctrination instead of their education. It's sick how slanted everything is to the left in colleges today. Pathetic.
RancidSumo
09-11-09, 00:36
No, I don't think this is the right thread for those posts.:p
However true they may be...
Anyone know who the NSGR is? The email said sent them money. I told my friend that all the pro-gun groups know of this bill, it has no sponors, etc.
I love the Snopes article where it says even gun shop owners don't know about this bill because it's flying under the radar.
http://www.nagr.org/hr45survey1.aspx?pid=w2
Here we go again:
High Court Will Decide Whether Strict Gun Laws Violate Second Amendment Rights
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,557840,00.html?test=latestnews
Here we go again:
High Court Will Decide Whether Strict Gun Laws Violate Second Amendment Rights
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,557840,00.html?test=latestnews
Will the high court later decide if the state and locality have a right to pass laws restricting the other rights listed in th Bill of Rights?
browningboy84
09-30-09, 14:45
The liberals will do anything to destroy the 2nd Ammendment. Incorporation is a iffy subject at the SCOTUS. I dont know what will happen, but I shudder to think at what this country is going to. Sotomayor's confirmation may come back to bite every American in the ass, whether they realize it or not.
The liberals will do anything to destroy the 2nd Ammendment. Incorporation is a iffy subject at the SCOTUS. I dont know what will happen, but I shudder to think at what this country is going to. Sotomayor's confirmation may come back to bite every American in the ass, whether they realize it or not.
Sotomayor will of course come back to bite every American in the ass. However, since she replaced another liberal, at this juncture, really nothing has changed. The problem comes when a conservative justice leaves and is replaced.
Sotomayor will of course come back to bite every American in the ass. However, since she replaced another liberal, at this juncture, really nothing has changed. The problem comes when a conservative justice leaves and is replaced.
Scares me! All the more reason to stop this pres. after one term.
browningboy84
09-30-09, 16:23
Sotomayor will of course come back to bite every American in the ass. However, since she replaced another liberal, at this juncture, really nothing has changed. The problem comes when a conservative justice leaves and is replaced.
E-guns, I have to disagree with you. That is a small defeat for conservatives, because we lost a chance to add another conservative to the SCOTUS. This is why our nation is where it is today. Edmund Burke summed it up when he said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." He also said,"The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients, and by parts". Our liberties were nibbled away when Sotomayor was confirmed, and Senators who we thought were good men, did nothing to stop it. This ought to be a wake up call, but the "Me too Republicans did not grow a set of balls and do what they should have done".
Unless the economy tanks further, BHO will be a 2 term president. Why? Because the dumbass RINO's will not be able to band together and put a good candidate against him. Government takeover of healthcare will probably be rammed down our throats, but not for my lack of protesting. Both my Senators and My congressman know where I stand, and I have even gotten calls from staffers who wanted to know why I felt like I did. One was rude and told me she was gonna report me for being a wacko, since I was so firmly against the public option. I told her go ahead, that I was exercising my 1st Ammendment rights, and that since she worked for a Republican, I would break this to the news media. She quickly became very nice. This country is at a critical junction. Question is, will good men do nothing?
E-guns, I have to disagree with you. That is a small defeat for conservatives, because we lost a chance to add another conservative to the SCOTUS. This is why our nation is where it is today. Edmund Burke summed it up when he said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." He also said,"The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients, and by parts". Our liberties were nibbled away when Sotomayor was confirmed, and Senators who we thought were good men, did nothing to stop it. This ought to be a wake up call, but the "Me too Republicans did not grow a set of balls and do what they should have done".
Unless the economy tanks further, BHO will be a 2 term president. Why? Because the dumbass RINO's will not be able to band together and put a good candidate against him. Government takeover of healthcare will probably be rammed down our throats, but not for my lack of protesting. Both my Senators and My congressman know where I stand, and I have even gotten calls from staffers who wanted to know why I felt like I did. One was rude and told me she was gonna report me for being a wacko, since I was so firmly against the public option. I told her go ahead, that I was exercising my 1st Ammendment rights, and that since she worked for a Republican, I would break this to the news media. She quickly became very nice. This country is at a critical junction. Question is, will good men do nothing?
I am not sure we disagree. My post was in the context of the makeup of the court and this new case they are taking on. Nothing really changed.
I agree we lost a chance to improve the court and it also pushes out the time when that seat will be available again. I opposed Sotyomayor and think the NRA should dock the rating of any R (and D of course) who supported her. I did not and do not see her as being a positive for the country. But in terms of this case and the current make up of the court, nothing changed.
However, since she replaced another liberal, at this juncture, really nothing has changed. The problem comes when a conservative justice leaves and is replaced.
It will depend on how Justice Anthony Kennedy sees the issue. He is the swing vote in the Supreme Court.
It will depend on how Justice Anthony Kennedy sees the issue. He is the swing vote in the Supreme Court.
Yep. Souter/Sotomayor -- does not matter in this particular case or at this point in time.
The Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois Sate Rifle Association filed the Chicago case:
www.saf.org
SAF is a winner. Check out their history.
"The contest for the ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power." - Daniel Webster
"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men." – John Quincy Adams
....and a more familiar one for good measure:
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" – Patrick Henry
If we all just keep spreading the word about the Glen Beck's of this country we have a chance to make BO a 1 and done president! Fox news is doing their part, we must do ours and not stop applying pressure to our representatives until they are either 'in line' or in an unemployment line!
A friend just forwarded me this post..
Obama administration backs U.N.'s pursuit of international gun control treaty
printable page
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/printable/node/6943
Submitted by cbaus on Tue, 10/20/2009 - 00:05.
* National Politics
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/taxonomy/term/9
* Guns in the News
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/taxonomy/term/3
* Gun Grabbers
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/taxonomy/term/5
"I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." - Barack Obama, Feb 11, 2008
By Chad D. Baus
Reuters is reporting that the Obama administration has reversed U.S. policy and said it would back launching talks on a United Nations treaty to regulate arms sales, a move that is pro-gun activists warn is one giant leap toward side-stepping Congress and overturning the Second Amendment.
From the story:
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015
The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."
"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement.
Although President Obama is clearly doing their bidding, gun control extremists are still not happy, saying they are opposed to the proposed concensus rules because decisions on the treaty be made by consensus "could fatally weaken a final deal."
"The shift in position by the world's biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers," Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.
However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus "could fatally weaken a final deal."
"Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause," said Oxfam International's policy adviser Debbie Hillier.
The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.
Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.
Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance.
The main opponent of the treaty in the past was the U.S. Bush administration, which said national controls were better.
The change in policy is opposed by the National Rifle Association, as well as by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which is quoted as saying the treaty will not restrict the access of "dictators and terrorists" to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people.
According to the story, a resolution before the U.N. General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations including Britain. It calls for preparatory meetings in 2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in 2012.
Despite Mr. Obama's claims of support for the Second Amendment during the 2008 Presidential campaign, and assurances he made to pro-gun Democrats like Governor Ted Strickland (who on October 10, 2008 told Ohioans that "as a result of direct conversations that I've had with Barack Obama, if you are a sportsman, if you are a gun owner, if you are someone that honors and respects the Second Amendment - you have nothing to fear from Barack Obama..."), his "support" fell away immediately upon his election.
During his transition to power, the White House's transition website was updated to voice support for a new gun ban, and potential employees were screened for whether or not they were exercising their Constitutional right to bear arms in their homes.
Since Obama took office, the Department of Homeland Security issued a report that labels millions upon millions of Americans as 'rightwing extremists.' His administration refused to challenge a court order that halted a late-Bush administration policy of allowing CCW license holders to carry in National Parks. In addition, radical anti-gun and anti-hunting extremists have been tapped to fill his cabinet, as well as many other key positions. And the person he selected to serve as the newest Supreme Court justice is on record saying the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.
Chad D. Baus is the Buckeye Firearms Association vice chairman.
Thought this was pretty interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40
Seth Harness
11-13-09, 22:32
I received this email today, sorry, but it has to be shared... I just cant believe this is really happening.
If a fighting chance is taken away, how do you fight? This is why the 2nd Amendment was established.
Good luck everyone...
On Wednesday the Obama administration took its first major step in a plan to ban all firearms in the United States . The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms.
The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened. Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment.
This is not a joke nor a false warning. As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control.
Read the Article
U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.
The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.
The Full Article
http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...59E0Q920091015
Please forward this message to others who may be concerned about the direction in which our country is headed.
Silence will lead us to Socialism.
This is not alarmist, this is pure intent of the administration. Effectively cutting the legs from underneath. Much has been said about what denotes a treaty, passage and approval, but this is it.
Remember all those USA guns used in the drug wars of Mexico, how it was our fault, and the phony statistics of hillary and the mexico pres were using?
This is a serious, let your SENATORS know that this will be a move to alter the Constitution. Sure, just keep the manuf down, it will eventually tricke to us all.
Robb Jensen
11-27-09, 14:49
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v408/gotm4/BowerinChief.jpg
Saw this on Larry Pratts Facebook page today. Struck me as pretty funny.
I do find this turn of events appalling and disheartening but I do have faith is "us".
Realize, Bo is not "IT". He is only the charismatic and articulate face to the monster which is the far left socialist machine. bin-Biden is just as far to the left as Bo.
You can write to Bo if you want but these people are not like Clinton who stuck his finger up to see which way the wind was blowing; they are hard core. $5 million per day raised? That kind of money did not come from lower and middle class people.
We need to concentrate on our local pols all the way up to the Senate. We need to be active and tell everyone we meet our story. We were hosed in this election which means our values are not held (at this moment) by the majority of the people in this country.
We need to open their eyes. The monster wants to remove all guns from all law abiding citizens so our safety is at their mercy. Hence, all law abiding gun owners today will become criminals tomorrow if they enact all these bans and restrictions, and only criminals will have self defense weapons.
We need to work through our Reps, friends and neighbors while assuming the worst and working for the best and making plans accordingly.
Aim small, miss small.
I agree with you, and our younger generation is being brain-washed right before our eyes. And right in the public school systems that we pay our taxes to support. This is the next big block of voters that we must save from mis-information, or get used to no guns in the Peoples Republic of America, comrades.
montanadave
01-11-10, 09:58
In my mailbox this AM:
Verified true on Snopes http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp
Subject: Gun owners... look what's on the 2010 tax return....
As if we didn't have enough to get upset about! If you have a gun, I hope it isn't registered!
It begins... more Freedom gone.... the right to protect yourself and your family gone! Now ALL GUNS must be listed on your next (2010) tax return!
Senate Bill SB-2099 will require us to put on our 2009 1040 federal tax form all guns that you have or own. It will require fingerprints and a tax of $50 per gun.
This bill was introduced on February 24, 2009, by the Obama staff. BUT, this bill will only become public knowledge 30 days after the new law becomes effective! This is an amendment to the Internal Revenue Act of 1986. This means that the Finance Committee has passed this without the Senate voting on it at all. Trust Obama? You must be kidding!
The full text of the IRS amendment is on the U.S. Senate homepage: www.senate.gov. You can find the bill by doing a search by the bill number, SB-2099. You know who to call; I strongly suggest you do. Please send a copy of this e-mail to every gun owner you know.
Text of H.R.45 as Introduced in House: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009: www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/text
Obama's Congress is now starting on the firearms confiscation bill. If it passes, gun owners will become criminals if you don't fully comply.
It has begun... Whatever Obama's "Secret Master Plan" is... this is just the 'tip of the iceberg!'
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.
Even gun shop owners didn't know about this because the government is trying to fly it under the radar as a 'minor' IRS revision, and, as usual, the 'political' lawmakers did not read this bill before signing and approving it!
To find out about this - go to any government website and type in HR 45 or Goggle 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: 1) It is registered 2) You are fingerprinted 3) You supply a current Driver's License 4) You supply your Social Security number 5) 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 years 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.
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..
<Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45> :
<H.R.45: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress <http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/show>
<H.R. 45: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us) <http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45>
Please..... copy and send this out to EVERYONE in the USA , whether you support the Right to Bear Arms or are for gun control. We all should have the right to choose.
well tell whoever sent it to you to stop.. 'cause HR 45 is still just as dead today as it was yesterday. unless it somehow skipped 4 or 5 steps in the legislative process.
How does this crap continue to go on? Amazing.
Razorhunter
01-11-10, 20:59
How does this crap continue to go on? Amazing.
I'll tell you how it continues to go on...
We continue to have WAY too many gun owners/enthusiasts, who are STILL NOT NRA members guys! Additionally, those who ARE NRA members, many times are NOT doing their part by staying educated in regards to news, politics, and current events, relating to their OWN firearms!
Case in point: JUST TODAY, (coincidentally enough), I just happened to receive my most recent email newsletter update from the NRA, which CLEARLY stated that this myth of having to register firearms on income tax forms IS TOTAL BS! It was right there on the very first page, somewhat near the top of the webpage actually.
The email also quickly and efficiently cleared up a few other very similar, related myths as well.
Something so simple as an NRA membership, or even their mere monthly email newsletter COULD AND SHOULD serve to clear up such myths BEFORE they get way out of control, such as is the case here.
Obviously, MORE people should sign up to join the NRA, and NEVER, EVER, EVER! let your NRA Membership lapse guys!
It's a mere $35 A YEAR, which is easily affordable, even for a guy like me, who has been out of work for almost all of 2009.
There is NO EXCUSE for not being an NRA member. Even those who are out of work completely, or disabled/etc can find a way to come up with $35/yr.
(which happens to be just under $.10 per day guys. :cool:)
I think the guy (always forget his name) who hosts "Shooting USA, and "Sighting In With Shooting USA" is still running that "$10 off special", which allows you to join the NRA for only $25.
Old news and dead! Join Gun Organizations!
These are some of the biggest and can put out the most money! Every GUN OWNER needs to join them!
www.nra.org
www.gunownersofamerica.com
www.saf.org
www.jpfo.org
montanadave
01-12-10, 06:27
Just to clarify, I gave no credence to the e-mail which was forwarded to me. I merely posted it to illustrate the continuing (and insidious) spread of misinformation intended solely to confuse and foment anxiety. And the list of e-mail addresses this particular e-mail was forwarded to was voluminous.
I received this email today, sorry, but it has to be shared... I just cant believe this is really happening.
If a fighting chance is taken away, how do you fight? This is why the 2nd Amendment was established.
Good luck everyone...
On Wednesday the Obama administration took its first major step in a plan to ban all firearms in the United States . The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms.
they are going to need to confiscate my guns out of my cold dead hands.
How do we know when its coming? I know how to fight it, its the when part thats the crux of the dang thing.
I wish people would research these things before they post them.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/international-gun-ban-treaty/
Here is a description of the treaty which as a whole doesn't yet exist. Also The President can sign as many treaties as he wants, but the U.S. won't participate nor legally can they until it is ratified by a 2/3's approval from Congress. Also if this treaty were ratified it would not affect the rights to own firearms in the U.S. because of United Nation provisions that guarentee each States (countries) rights to do business with out U.N. oversight.
Read the article and make your own assessment.
That being said I still don't trust Obama nor the current Admin as well as the House leadership and the Senate leadership.
Jon
I do not trust them either and was under the impression I had all the facts I needed to ask such a question of those more in the know than I, if I over stepped I appologize. That being said everything Obama has said has been a complete fabrication and worth us keeping our eyes on him just as his are certainly on us. My question stems from an ignorance of how such things happen, for history is doomed to repeat itself and I intend to be 100% ready to defend my freedom, family and those of all my neighbors. I was simply asking for help to see it coming when it does if it does. I will do alot less talking and more listening in the future. Somebody said and I probly am ging to butcher this but here goes, there are three boxes to check when dealing with tyranny the soap box the ballot box and the ammo box in that order just wanna know when to transition.
obama has had very, very little to say, and less to do, with another AWB. call me what you want, but i really think it's just not on the plate for a first term. if he was going to do anything, he would have done it in his first term, in the hopes of people forgetting before next election. as it is, i just dont think they'll try anything till 2012.
I hope your right i just dont think we have that long, he is going to have to energize some kinda base to get reelected. I do hope he swings to the center but what happens when he accellerates his left wing agenda while spewing lies? You can bet he will be flying down the road in the left lane-- wait thats the wrong side of the road 'round here isnt it? My thing is our millitary, the most powerful force the world has ever known. Im not lucky enough to be millitary myself physical issues kept me out but my brother served in Iraq as an infantry Marine my grandad was a marine in WW2. I thank all members of our millitary for their service when I am fortunate enough to meet one of our true heros in my travels. I remember the few phone calls I got from my brother while in country that were cut short by rifle and motor fire and the horrible wait for weeks to hear from him again. Would our service members uphold an order to fire upon their fellow Americans? I fully believe they would scoff at the notion but then you have the Katrina gun a confiscation completely illegal and unconstitutional order given by Ray Nagan and the National Gaurd and others carried out those orders and left law abiding citizens at the mercy of the mangy dogs roamy the ravaged streets. Yes I know a bill was passed preventing that from happening again but even so it makes me wonder. Again Im not trying to be inflamatory in any way just worried.
Ryan, I must apologize. I was not trying to belittle your question, and I was trying not to sound like an a**. I obviously failed on both parts.. My main point was this, there is so much misinformation out there that when pro-weapon people like ourselves try to make statements about what the admin is doing or trying to do, it hurts the pro-weapon cause because it makes us look paranoid and ignorant. I am by no means calling anyone who has questions ignorant. I always told my troops to check and double check the facts before forming an opinion. I agree whole heartedly that this Admin needs to be watched like a hawk all the time. Actually while your watching them watch your six as well, because the other progressives will try something else. Again I'm sorry if I came off like an A**. I have a habit of that.:)
No fowl no harm Jon and thank you for your service in the armed forces of this great republic.
I also agree wit you that we cannot be devided in this matter. As you already know about the treaty I hope you and everyone else on this site will sign the petition regarding this "treaty". Do not ever forget what happened to our Native American ancestors under such a "treaty". Will any of you let your pro 2a brothers and sisters walk that trail of tears? Will you walk it yourself? Now is the time to stand together and not back down. I am watching my 6 but if I look away for a moment holler out man, I would do the same for you.
goodoleboy
02-13-10, 07:13
obama has had very, very little to say, and less to do, with another AWB. call me what you want, but i really think it's just not on the plate for a first term. if he was going to do anything, he would have done it in his first term, in the hopes of people forgetting before next election. as it is, i just dont think they'll try anything till 2012.
I agree. I hate to admit it, but I think Obama has more presence of mind than to attempt this in the present term. Radical changes like that are more probable in a potential 2nd term. During 2nd terms, presidents have less to lose: they don't have to worry about re-election, etc.
I think we are in more trouble if he gets re-elected.
NinjaMedic
03-01-10, 18:38
Disregard
Obama Pushing Another Radical Anti-gunner to the Federal Bench
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org
"Liu believes that judges have the authority to impose their views... using clever verbal camouflage to disguise what they're doing." -- Ed Whelan, a one-time clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia and now president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (3/4/10)
Monday, March 29, 2010
Imagine a judicial candidate that is so far to the left that even Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel, is hesitant to push him forward.
Imagine a liberal law professor that not only fails to meet the ABA's basic requirements for a federal judge, but is so green behind the ears that it appears the only reason he is being nominated to the federal courts is because he served as part of President Obama's transition team.
If you can imagine such a leftist candidate, then you would be thinking of Goodwin Liu, the President's recent nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Liu is the Associate Dean and Professor of Law at the ultra-left UC Berkeley School of Law. Only 39 years old, he comes nowhere near fulfilling the ABA's standards for a judge.
But what he lacks in experience, he makes up for in radical liberalism. In a recent book that he co-authored, Liu says that, "Applications of constitutional text and principles must be open to adaptation and change... as the conditions and norms of our society become ever more distant from those of the Founding generation."
Got it? Like many radical progressives, Liu believes that our rights are constantly evolving. The Second Amendment might have been necessary in the 1700s, he believes, but now those rights are no longer necessary.
In Liu's world, there would be no gun rights
Noted author David Kopel cites a law journal article of Liu's where he criticizes the Supreme Court for declaring two gun control laws as unconstitutional -- the Brady Law's unfunded mandate and the Gun-Free School Zones Act.
Liu said that Supreme Court cases like these did "damage" to civil rights and "upset settled understandings of congressional power." What?! Striking down gun control laws does damage to civil rights? Well, let's be clear: the Court did upset someone's "settled" understanding of things, but it was the LIBERAL'S misunderstanding of the Constitution.
By the way, Liu co-authored the 2002 law journal article with then-Senator Hillary Clinton... which should tell us all we need to know about Liu's liberal, anti-gun views!
Rights evolve over time?
The bottom line is that Liu would not be a stickler for the Constitution if he were to sit on the appellate court.
"It becomes pretty clear why 'originalism' and 'strict construction' don't make a lot of sense," Liu said in an interview promoting his book. "The Framers deliberately chose... broad words so they would be adaptable to new challenges over time."
No wonder that the ranking Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Jeff Sessions (R-AL), spoke out so forcefully against the nomination of Goodwin Liu:
I am very disappointed by President Obama's nomination of Professor Goodwin Liu to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit....
Instead of nominating an individual who has demonstrated an impartial commitment to following the Constitution and the rule of law, President Obama has selected someone far outside the mainstream of American jurisprudence. Professor Liu believes that judges should look to "evolving norms and social understandings" in interpreting the Constitution, he has a history of advocating for racial preferences, and he served on the Board of the directors of the ACLU.
ACTION: Please urge your two Senators to oppose Obama's appointment of Goodwin Liu, the latest anti-gun liberal to be picked for the federal courts. You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your legislators the pre-written e-mail message below.
----- Pre-written letter -----
Dear Senator:
I oppose the nomination of Goodwin Liu, the President's recent nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Liu is an anti-gun, radical leftist who doesn't even meet the ABA's basic requirements for a federal judge, as he has neither practiced law for 12 years, nor has he any experience as a trial lawyer.
Liu believes that our rights are constantly evolving... which is why I'm very concerned about his Second Amendment views. He co-authored a law journal article in 2002 with then-Senator Hillary Clinton, wherein he criticizes the Supreme Court for declaring two gun control laws as unconstitutional -- the Brady Law's unfunded mandate and the Gun-Free School Zones Act.
Leftists like Liu think our gun rights might have been necessary in the 1700s, but are no longer necessary today. I agree with Senator Jeff Sessions' critique of Liu, as the latter mistakenly thinks that judges should look to "evolving norms and social understandings" in interpreting the Constitution.
I vehemently oppose this view and hope you will vote against any nominee who doesn't stand strong on the Bill of Rights.
Please oppose Goodwin Liu.
Sincerely,
Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply will bounce back as undeliverable.
To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to: http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm. Change of e-mail address may also be made at that location.
To unsubscribe send a message to gunowners_list@capwiz.mailmanager.net with the word unsubscribe in the subject line or click on the link at bottom.
Problems, questions or comments? Please visit http://gunowners.net/cgi-bin/ttx.cgi?cmd=newticket or call 703-321-8585 during normal east coast business hours.
If you no longer wish to receive e-mail from us, please click here.
The Coming Battle to Save the 2nd Amendment
...Metaphorically speaking, "The British are coming (again)!...
by Chad D. Baus
(USCCA Editor's Note: It's already April. Election Season is right around the corner. The whole world knows that the United States is going to make a loud statement in the coming elections. Here is a reminder of what is going on at our federal level. Do a little research about your local and state politicians. Know for certain whether or not you want to vote them back in or out. Then DO NOT FAIL TO VOTE!)
Listen, my children, and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,
On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-Five;
Hardly a man is now alive
Who remembers that famous day and year.
... A hurry of hoofs in a village street,
A shape in the moonlight, a bulk in the dark,
And beneath, from the pebbles, in passing, a spark
Struck out by a steed flying fearless and fleet:
That was all! And yet, through the gloom and the light,
The fate of a nation was riding that night;
And the spark struck out by that steed, in his flight,
Kindled the land into flame with its heat.
... You know the rest. In the books you have read,
How the British regulars fired and fled, --
How the farmers gave them ball for ball,
From behind each fence and farm-yard wall,
Chasing the red-coats down the lane,
Then crossing the fields to emerge again
Under the trees at the turn of the road,
And only pausing to fire and load.
So through the night rode Paul Revere;
And so through the night went his cry of alarm
To every Middlesex village and farm, --
A cry of defiance and not of fear,
A voice in the darkness, a knock at the door,
And a word that shall echo forevermore!
For, borne on the night-wind of the Past,
Through all our history, to the last,
In the hour of darkness and peril and need,
The people will waken and listen to hear
The hurrying hoof-beat of that steed,
And the midnight-message of Paul Revere.
- Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, 1860
I'm not sure students are still taught about American patriot Paul Revere's famous "Midnight Ride" in our public school system, but I am sure about this -
Metaphorically speaking, "The British are coming (again)!"
And just like the British army occupying Boston began confiscating the inhabitants' firearms in 1774, the new occupiers have similar goals in mind.
At an Ohio campaign rally in October, 2008, candidate Barack Obama promised Americans, "I will not take your rifle away."[1] But less than 48 hours after he was elected, and before all the votes were counted, President-elect Obama immediately announced plans to do just that.
On Obama's Transition website, Change.gov, the President-elect announced his Urban Policy Agenda. In describing his plans to "address gun violence in cities", the website announced that "Obama and Biden... support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets."[2]
Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans own the types of semi-automatic rifles demonized by the anti-gun media as "assault weapons." And Obama is now saying, in effect, the exact opposite of what he said in the Buckeye state just a few weeks earlier. Now it's "I WILL take your rifle away."
While pro-gun voters were unable to overcome the perfect storm that formed over the economy in October, they are now voting on their beliefs about Obama's plans with their pocketbooks - purchasing firearms at unprecedented rates.[3]
Another sign that the "change" this administration has planned for gun owners is going to be something other than the tale Obama spun on the campaign trail is the first document created by President-elect Obama - the "White House Personnel Data Questionnaire" -- which is a model that can used by all agencies of the Federal government. Question 59 demands to know " Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage."[4]
In a poignant op-ed on World Net Daily, Brad O'Leary points out that all sorts of questions have been deemed to be discriminatory and, therefore, out of bounds for employers to ask.
"For example, you can't be asked if you are black, white or Asian. You can't be asked what your age is, what your sex is, whether or not you're married, whether you have pre-existing medical conditions, or if you are a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew. You can't be asked if you have been arrested, or if you're a member of the Knights of Columbus, the National Organization for Women or National Council of La Raza."
Therefore, O'Leary argues the Obama administration has "made it clear that discriminatory practices are to be a hallmark of his administration and that he particularly intends to discriminate against hunters and gun owners."[5]
As these early signs continue to sound increasingly foreboding, it appears that many Americans believe, as I do, that war is about to be waged on the Second Amendment. But what should Americans be watching for? Where, beyond the moves telegraphed by Obama on Change.gov and in his employment application, will his anti-gun forces strike first?
Here's what to watch for:
Reinstatement of a more aggressive version of the Clinton Gun Ban
Vice President-elect bragged on the campaign trail about writing the first Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and Democrats in Congress have been waiting for just the right opportunity to push for a much more aggressive version. And with this listed on the Obama administration's Change.gov agenda, they know their time has come.
Repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment
Another Change.gov agenda item, lawsuits against gun dealers and manufacturers will threaten the industry when Obama releases gun trace data collected by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE).
Mandatory National Instant Criminal Background Check (NICS) for all firearms transfers
According to Obama's Change.gov website, the new administration will press to mandate background checks on private transactions at gun shows. It will then only be a short step to arguing the necessity of such background checks on ALL transactions. (Which will, no doubt, be completed only when individuals who ask for the check cough up an as-yet to be determined fee).
Mandatory high-tech "child-safe" and identification features on newly-manufactured firearms
The Change.gov website calls for "making guns in this country childproof", [6] which is anti-gun code-speak for mandating design requirements (biometric shooter-identification systems, for example) on firearms manufacturers that would render their products as too expensive for most Americans.
Obama has also expressed support for mandating the implementation of micro-stamping technology[7], which would also drastically increase manufacturing costs.
Establishment of a permanent database of gun purchase records storage on Federal computers
The Outdoor Wire, an outdoor sports industry resource, reported in late October that Barack Obama's prematurely-established 'transition team' is already considering changes to the National Instant Criminal Background Check (NICS) for firearms purchases that would allow gun purchase records to be stored on government servers.[8]
Once the government has the information, the arguments will begin on the necessity of allowing law-enforcement to access the information.
Nomination of anti-gun Supreme Court justices
During the campaign, Obama expressed support for the District of Columbia gun ban before saying he agreed with the majority in a 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which overturned the ban. But the proof of which side he is on will come when Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and David H. Souter, step down, and President Obama is called upon to nominate replacements.
Obama voted against the confirmation of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito (two of the five who affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms in Heller, and told the audience at the Saddleback Forum last August he would not have appointed Justices Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia.
He has mentioned Justices Ginsburg, Souter and Breyer as models for the type of person he would nominate to replace retirees.[9] All three of Obama's "models" voted against the right of Americans to keep and bear arms in the Heller case.
Enactment of a stringent ammunition ban
In 2005, Obama voted for an amendment, offered by Sen. Ted Kennedy, which would have banned almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting. There is no doubt that such legislation will have a much greater chance of passage in the next Congress.
And given his comments about military-style rifles "belong[ing] on foreign battle fields and not on the street"[10], don't be surprised to see a ban on importation of ammunition manufactured overseas. Such a move could be accomplished by executive order.
Radical increases of the federal excise tax on guns and ammunition
In 1999, Barack Obama endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.[11] He has never recanted.
Adoption of United Nations treaty banning small arms
The United Nations (U.N.), the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), and other countries have been trying to ban the private ownership of almost all firearms in the United States for many years.[12] Thanks to the Bush administration's support for our Second Amendment, their efforts have been thwarted.
The most recent effort by the UN came on Friday, October 31, when the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly endorsed the idea of an unprecedented treaty regulating the global arms trade, again with opposition from the United States.[13] But there is absolutely no reason to think such opposition will continue in an Obama administration.
More?
I also will not be surprised to see restrictions on hunting on public lands. The Humane Society of the United States, which believes "Sport hunting...is fundamentally at odds with the values of a humane, just and caring society, endorsed him for a reason, as did many radical environmentalist groups. "Protecting" Federal lands and the wildlife therein with new restrictions on hunting is a likely first step.
Think these predictions are too radical? Think the Red Coats aren't really coming? Obama's anti-gun supporters disagree. Immediately after the election, the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence, which has expressed support for every single item listed above nearly word for word, began declaring victory[14] - ironic, considering their victorious candidate was someone the media and faux gun groups like American Hunters and Shooters Association had constantly been telling Americans was pro-gun.
As the NRA stated in its post-election press release, "The threats to our gun rights under Barack Obama are real. If we are going to protect those rights, we have to start work now, preparing for legislative, executive and regulatory assaults at every level of government. Some will be open attacks, such as reintroduction of the Clinton gun ban. Others will be stealthier, such as unleashing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to harass even more gun dealers and force them out of business. Regardless of how they attack our rights, we will have to respond."
And how should we be prepared to respond to the approaching Red Coats? The late Charleton Heston, civil rights activist and former NRA President, offered these words of wisdom nearly a decade ago about the culture war, and I certainly think they apply here:
"You simply disobey. Peaceably, yes. Respectfully, of course. Nonviolently, absolutely. But when told how to think or what to say or how to behave, we don't. We disobey the social protocol that stifles and stigmatizes personal freedom.
I learned the awesome power of disobedience from Dr. King who learned it from Gandhi, and Thoreau, and Jesus, and every other great man who led those in the right against those with the might.
"Disobedience is in our DNA. We feel innate kinship with that disobedient spirit that tossed tea into Boston Harbor, that sent Thoreau to jail, that refused to sit in the back of the bus, that protested a war in Viet Nam.
"In that same spirit, I'm asking you to disavow cultural correctness with massive disobedience of rogue authority, social directives, and onerous laws that weaken personal freedom.
"But be careful. It hurts. Disobedience demands that you put yourself at risk. Dr. King stood on lots of balconies. You must be willing to be humiliated, to endure the modern-day equivalent of the police dogs at Montgomery and the water Cannons at Selma. You must be willing to experience discomfort.
..."So that this nation may long endure, I urge you to follow in the hallowed footsteps of the great disobedience of history that freed exiles, founded religions, defeated tyrants, and yes, in the hands of an aroused rabble in arms and a few great men, by God's grace, built this country."
Folks, the British are coming! And I believe our civil rights are about to be challenged in a way that Mr. Heston and Dr. King understood all too well. I pray we are up to the challenge.
Chad D. Baus is the Buckeye Firearms Association Vice Chairman.
At least AZ is going the right direction: we are a Republican gov's swipe away from "constitutional carry," like Vermont and Alaska: no concealed license required.
Haven't seen a good AWB post in a while...this just in, linked from the Patriot Post:
http://biggovernment.com/jlott/2010/06/03/the-un-and-obama-versus-gun-owners/
The UN and Obama Versus Gun Owners
by John Lott
Gun owners might not feel besieged right now, but they should be very concerned. Last week the Obama administration announced its support for the UN Small Arms Treaty. This treaty poses real risks for freedom and safety in the United States as well as the rest of the world.
...One also just needs to look no further than how Mexican President Felipe Calderon has blamed his country’s crime problems on the sun setting of the US “assault weapons” ban. Somehow semi-automatic guns, essentially deer hunting rifles that have a cosmetic outside that look like AK-47s or other similar weapons, are being painted as military weapons. The same claims now being made for Mexico will be made even more forcefully under the UN treaty.
...
"The Small Arms Treaty is just a back door way for the Obama administration trying to force through gun control regulations. With the huge standing ovation that House and Senate Democrats recently gave Mexican President Calderon for his advocacy of a new so-called “Assault Weapons Ban,” Americans who care about self-defense have been put on notice. The threats to gun ownership are as real as ever."
ETA: someone pm'd me to suggest adding this:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/international-gun-ban-treaty/
Hearing next week on firearm commerce.
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=4771
slip of the tongue :confused:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLDHDfPNBME
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zsQ-v7kD5Q&feature=related
I think the second video is edited to give you what you want.:D
Moose-Knuckle
09-15-10, 20:18
Yeah, same slip of the tounge when he admitted his Muslim faith.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQqIpdBOg6I
Moose-Knuckle
09-15-10, 20:19
Double tap
The ROK Garand & M1 Carbine situation is a great opportunity to drive another nail into the coffin of the international gun prohibition movement. The current administration is attempting to block the imports. Not smart during a mid-term election year and stupid diplomacy as well.
www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=38377
www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=379
Yeah, same slip of the tounge when he admitted his Muslim faith.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQqIpdBOg6I
Yeah he's a secret Muslim. You broke the code. Excellent work. :rolleyes:
Moose-Knuckle
09-18-10, 18:56
Yeah he's a secret Muslim. You broke the code. Excellent work. :rolleyes:
:sarcastic:
Nah not me, as this is common knowledge. There is a lot about old Barack Hussein Obama (http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/16/will-barry-soetoro-be-a-problem-for-barack/) (a.k.a Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barry Dunham) the American sheeple is still discovering.
http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk/article/zeituni-onyango-obamas-aunt-says-us-obligated-to-grant-her-citizenship/19642935?icid=main%7Cmain%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk1%7C172037
"If I come as an immigrant, you have the obligation to make me a citizen," Onyango, 58, told Boston's WBZ news.
STFU.
John_Wayne777
09-22-10, 06:32
That's an interesting theory.
If I come in your car as a passenger, then I suppose you are similarly obligated to put me on the title of the vehicle.
If I come as a guest to your house, then I suppose you are similarly obligated to add me to the title of the property.
"I didn't take advantage of the system," Onyango said. "The system took advantage of me."
This was the other quote that amazed me. Where the **** do these people get off saying shit like this? If anything, I'm surprised she isn't pissed that Obama didn't help her ten years ago when she first came here.
variablebinary
09-22-10, 07:05
I don't suppose anyone bothered to listen to Obama's recent speech to a Mexican group where he made the point that Mexican's where here before us.
Us meaning Americans.
I don't suppose anyone bothered to listen to Obama's recent speech to a Mexican group where he made the point that Mexican's where here before us.
Us meaning Americans.
Some where down the line we're all from Africa, maybe even Kenya if he want's to go that far back :D
"If I come as an immigrant, you have the obligation to make me a citizen," Onyango, 58, told Boston's WBZ news.
I was amazed by this quote as well. This quote does not help Obama, IMO, as it will only serve to fan the fires of the immigration debate. Perhaps it is a good thing that she said it.
$5 she becomes a citizen within the year...
:mad:
thopkins22
09-22-10, 08:57
$5 she becomes a citizen within the year...
:mad:
I'll take that bet. He's the kind of guy that will turn his back on his own family for a few cheap political points.
The old bat will fit right in to the entitlement culture that President Ubama caters to.
ChicagoTex
09-22-10, 10:37
In fairness, everyone has at least one batshit crazy family member.
Give that bitch an inner tube and an oar... Along with the rest of her family.
OK, let's list them:
Auntie: batshit crazy about entitlements
George (bro): lives in a tin shack in Kenya, arrested in drug sting
another bro: rape charge in Britain
Michelle: very disagreeable (not using the "b" word), resigned her bar license due to insurance fraud investigation
Mrs. Robinson: (Michelle's mom) practices some lame African voodoo stuff
etc.
In fairness, everyone has at least one batshit crazy family member.
Just too bad that hers happens to be the President.
In fairness, everyone has at least one batshit crazy family member.
so are you that one :) heheheheh sorry man :) that was to easy :)
no dont have anyone that crazy ? thinking of all my friends I know closely ? nope none that crazy
and as pointed out its more than one in that family its pretty much all of them :)
In fairness, everyone has at least one batshit crazy family member.
problem is, Barry Obama is the one in his family :D
"I didn't take advantage of the system," Onyango said. "The system took advantage of me."
Sure lady. The system took advantage of you when you began receiving disability.:nono:
I don't suppose anyone bothered to listen to Obama's recent speech to a Mexican group where he made the point that Mexican's where here before us.
Us meaning Americans.
and not pointed at you variablebinary just at obama or those that want to play the give it back game !
obama has to remember some land was purchased from mexico ? but he does not care about the truth or history just his agenda ? wow I wonder if Mexico stole it from the Native American Indians ??? HMMMM those terrible Mexicans they should give back all of the land they have now to the Native American Indians ! or maybe the Mayans ! and move back where lots of the now Mexican Spaniards came from ! cause what is a Mexican ? are they Mayan ? or Spaniard or ? they are a melting pot like the U.S. :)
and does he say the same thing to the Native Americans ?
and who are the Native Americans really ? Eskimos and Russians (kinda one in the same some evidence shows) ? or Native American Indians ?
Mexicans ? and Native Americans ? to the south ?
Kennewick Man ? 10,000 years ago who was really here first ?
you ever live in Central America ? when I did a lot of native Mayan ancestor types think the Spaniard types killed off all the Mayan blood and interbred it out ? so who was in Mexico first ?
the carib islanders hated the spaniards the Mayan types hated them to ? the Spaniard blooded Mexicans hated the Mayan types and fingers pointed all over ?
again not everyone was like this just those that were is what I comment on :) some did not care ? but its funny how racist it really was when I lived their with locals !!!!!
people can play that game all they want :) but its a game of who really knows and how far back do you go ?
if you want to move to a country ? do it by the laws where you are moving and then support that country and try to make it a better place !!!
I don't suppose anyone bothered to listen to Obama's recent speech to a Mexican group where he made the point that Mexican's where here before us.
Us meaning Americans.
So were the Indians......... and they didn't fair too well did they?
Let me see, she is in the country illegally, has never worked one day here, is receiving disability, and the system is taking advantage of her. :confused:
Just too bad that hers happens to be the President.
Zing!
Got this as a e-mail.
Obama's list of FAILURES & LIES - all in 20 months
OBAMA LIES:
*Remove all combat troops from Iraq in 16 months - FAIL
*Closing of GITMO in 1st Year of presidency - FAIL
*Create 5 million Green Jobs - NONE created - FAIL
*Said no former Lobbyist will work on contracts in the Obama Administration - FAIL
*Restrict Warrantless Wiretaps - he promised but has done nothing - FAIL
*Transparency - promised 72 hour posting of laws before HE SIGNED them - FAIL
*TRILLION Stimulus JOB Plan - FAIL
*Said unemployment rate would go no higher than 8% - FAIL
*Tripled National debt after saying he would not add one dime - FAIL
*Bi-Partisanship - said he would cross party lines, instead calls them names - FAIL
*Demands Pay/Go only to sign the Unemployment Bill unfunded - FAIL
*Said Obamacare would cover every child but it doesn't - FAIL
*GULF Coast Support - tells everyone to go there for vacation while he goes to Maine for his - FAIL
*Housing Market - 40 Billion Mortgage Plan to save homeowners - FAIL
.
OBAMA ACTS of STUPIDITY:
.
*Russian Spy Swap - gives Russia 6 spies and the US gets 2 - FAIL
*Prosecution of 9-11 Terrorists - wants their trials at ground zero - FAIL
*Olympics for USA - goes to Copenhagen and gets the US out of the 1st round - FAIL
*Race Relations - calls a white cop stupid then has a beer - FAIL
*Tennessee Flood Disaster Response - no response - FAIL
*Delayed GULF OIL Leak Response - did nothing but golf & blame BP - FAIL
*Border Security - sues a state trying to protect its border – Fail
*Response to Michigan OIL Spill - no response - FAIL
.
OBAMA WORLD STAGE FAILURES:
.
*G20 Summit - tells them to keep spending money - they laugh at him - FAIL
*Afghanistan -Top US General Resigns over Obama's plan for US defeat - FAIL
*European Missile Defense - scraps program for the Russians, gets nothing - FAIL
*Bowing to 3rd World Leaders & making excuses for America’s existence - Fail
*Haiti Response - gave 1 week of effort never to be heard of again - Fail
*Mexico Border - drug war along the border & he has made no trips - FAIL
*North Korea – He was laughed at & taunted - FAIL
*Global Climate Change Consensus - He lead but nobody followed - FAIL
EXPOSING THE LEFTIST PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT MEDIA !!!!
.
Obama, in his book, said he was mentored as a youth by Frank Marshall Davis an avowed Communist… THE LAP DOG MEDIA SAID IT DIDN’T MATTER……
.
When it was discovered that his grandparents were socialists who sent Obama's mother to a socialist school where she was introduced to Frank Marshall Davis & he was later introduced to young Barrack Hussein Obama… THE LAP DOG MEDIA SAID IT DID NOT MATTER…..
.
When people found out that Barrack Hussein Obama was enrolled as a Muslim child in school & his father & stepfather were both Muslims… THE LAP DOG MEDIA SAID IT DID NOT MATTER…..
.
When he wrote in another book he authored "I will stand with them (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction… THE LAP DOG MEDIA SAID IT DID NOT MATTER…..
.
When he admittedly, in his book, said he chose Marxist friends & professors in college.
THE LAP DOG MEDIA SAID IT DIDN’T MATTER…..
.
When he traveled to Pakistan, after college on an unknown national passport..
THE LAP DOG MEDIA SAID IT DID NOT MATTER…..
.
When he sought the endorsement of the Marxist Party in 1996 as he ran for the Illinois Senate… THE LAP DOG MEDIA SAID IT DID NOT MATTER…..
.
When he sat in a Chicago Church for twenty years & listened to a preacher spew hatred for America & preach black liberation theology... THE LAP DOG MEDIA SAID IT DID NOT MATTER…..
.
When an independent Washington organization that tracks Senate voting records gave him the distinctive title as the "most liberal senator…” THE LAP DOG MEDIA SAID IT DIDN’T MATTER…
Too bad he did not fail on the stimulus ($1 trillion), the health care bill ($2.3 trillion if calculate responsibly), the expanded budget deficit ($1.5 trillion?). Those 3 things are enough to ruin us all.
Too bad he did not fail on the stimulus ($1 trillion), the health care bill ($2.3 trillion if calculate responsibly), the expanded budget deficit ($1.5 trillion?). Those 3 things are enough to ruin us all.
It seems that when the Democrats took over Congress in 2007 the deficit was about $161B, down from $4xxB at a high. The CBO was forecasting a $379B surplus over the next decade. The CBO is now forecasting, since the Pelosi-Reid Congress took over, the 2007-2016 projected deficit is $7.16 trillion. A change in about $7.5T under the Democrats.
Steve Moore: The Pelosi-Reid Deficits - WSJ.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703882404575519784046288058.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
If you cannot get this to come up, go to http://news.google.com/ then copy this URL into the URL bar and hit return. That should get it to work.
He also lied when he said he would go through the budget line by line and quit spending on programs that don't work.
Cincinnatus
12-03-10, 13:16
http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/03/does-obamas-nominee-for-head-of-bureau-of-alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and-explosives-oppose-the-second-amendment/
When Mr. Obama moves on this treaty, he will still control the U.S. Senate which is the only body that votes on ratification. If ratified, the UN Small Arms Treaty could do the following:
1. It could require U. S. citizens to deliver any banned firearms they own to the local government "collection and destruction center"---or face imprisonment.
2. It could prohibit any transfer of firearm ownership.
3. It could require the destruction of "excess" firearms.
4. It could prohibit firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public.
5. It could require micro-stamping on all guns.
quoted from another forum.
Is there any truth to the above regarding the S.T.A.R.T. treaty? or hot air ? I figured it would be a blip on somebodies radar if there was but....
After skimming through this, these guys are the ones making inaccurate statments...
--
Conservatives Make Inaccurate Arguments Against Gun Control - Newsweek
http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2011/01/18/assault-weapons-ban-would-not-violate-second-amendment.html
--
After skimming through this, these guys are the ones making inaccurate statments...
--
Conservatives Make Inaccurate Arguments Against Gun Control - Newsweek
http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2011/01/18/assault-weapons-ban-would-not-violate-second-amendment.html
--
so chock full of bullshit you could sit here for hours picking it apart. instead, i'll just keep chomping on my delicious steak and be thankful the media is not the government. and that my wife is a good cook.
montanadave
01-20-11, 09:34
Another gun control article posted on Politico's website today: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47872.html
Nothing particularly new in this piece but perhaps the most revealing statement can be found at the end of this article:
“I think the president should get involved in this. But I understand the fact that he doesn’t want to expend political capital on something that’s going to fail,” says Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) who backs the McCarthy bill.
“I had a friend ask me, ‘Do you think a [gun control] bill would pass if someone went out and shot another House member last weekend?’ And I had to say no. Support for guns is just that powerful around here.”
http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/03/does-obamas-nominee-for-head-of-bureau-of-alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and-explosives-oppose-the-second-amendment/
Everything I can find on this Traver guy is dated back in Nov and Dec. Did his appointment get approved by the Senate?
Cincinnatus
01-21-11, 00:10
Everything I can find on this Traver guy is dated back in Nov and Dec. Did his appointment get approved by the Senate?
From what I understand, he was to be a recess appointment or some such thing.
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/27/white-house-to-push-gun-control.html
White House to Push Gun Control
Obama intentionally did not mention gun control in his State of the Union, but aides say that in the next two weeks the administration will unveil a campaign to get Congress to toughen existing laws.
Cagemonkey
03-13-11, 18:05
Obama is testing the waters. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/13/obama-pens-op-ed-calling-better-gun-sale-background-checks/ . If he wants a better back check, shouldn't he talk to the FBI. Their the ones who do the "Insta Checks". I have a feeling he wants it so the FBI can check into medical/mental health records.
Cincinnatus
03-22-11, 09:48
Detailed update on the state of Guncontrol in current Democratic polical strategy.
All the Brady quotes in here will piss you off!
http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/22/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-most-recent-gun-control-debate-but-didnt-have-anyone-to-ask-part-ii/
I was particularly incensed about the Brady Campaign dipshit saying (paraphrasing)"the NRA has trouble justifying why anyone needs to fire 30 rounds in 15 seconds."
To him I say: hey, numbnuts, its not about need, it's about the fact that neither you nor anyone else has the right to define what I do and don't need.
For anyone to presume to dictate to any freeborn citizen what they do or do not need is the end of liberty and the beginning of a dictatorship under the guise of paternalism.
It is also fundamentally unAmerican; one of the very founding principles of this country was that any individual or group of individuals with common sense can govern themselves.
These posers operate under the premise begun in the Progressive Movement of the 1910s, that people must be managed by others, so-called experts, meaning a bunch of busybodies get to tell everyone else how to run their lives.
I shall quote Hank Williams, Sr.
"Mind your own business, 'cus if you mind your own business you won't be minding mine."
Hoorah!
platoonDaddy
07-08-11, 04:28
friggin prices will certainly rise!
Months after Tucson shooting, WH may trigger 2nd Amendment debate with entry into gun control dialogue.
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/07/07/six-months-after-tucson-shooting-white-house-readies-gun-control-stance
GermanSynergy
07-08-11, 04:46
If you're a gun owner, and you are not a member of the NRA (or other pro gun rights org), shame on you.
Moose-Knuckle
07-08-11, 05:14
Cough. . .2012 election approacheth. . .cough.
Don't wait for the run on ammo, hi-caps, lowers, etc. . .
VooDoo6Actual
07-08-11, 07:42
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/07/obama-unveil-gun-control-reforms_n_892633.html
Gutshot John
07-08-11, 07:54
Pleaseohpleaseohopleaseohplease...let them be this stupid. :suicide:
GermanSynergy
07-08-11, 07:59
Pleaseohpleaseohopleaseohplease...let them be this stupid. :suicide:
Politically speaking, gun control is a loser. It appeals to the fringe elements of the Democrat Party, and it doesn't have the same panache it had in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
I'm donating some more $ to the NRA just because this article pissed me off. :mad::cool:
I do not think any form of legislation will pass through congress. I also think most moderate democrats remember what happened the last time they passed gun control legislation.
I am for common sense gun legislation and a common sense budget, none which our government can handle.
They do not have to all out ban high cap. rifles and handguns to "control" guns. This is a strong re-elect topic to assist with the Mexico disaster / Arizona fubar; I dont see why they wouldnt consider this.
The way I look at it, Mexico being the second largest exporting market for the US carries significant weight for them to maintain a strong working relationship.
Its enough for me to ammo / BCG / magazine up. ;)
Gutshot John
07-08-11, 08:45
Let's see...half of the DOJ political appointees/administrators are about to go eyeballs deep into the shitstorm that is operation gunrunner.
Obama just pissed off his base by proposing cuts to Medicare and Social Security.
How can Obama distract attention from gunrunner while simultaneously rallying a pissed-off base?
A cynic would argue that it's an attempt to demonize gun owners with another soporific, backdoor attempt at gun control that fails to address the real problem, while at the same time saying to liberals 'pretty please don't stay home next November'.
How to appear both desperate and weak...Brilliant. :rolleyes:
Very poor cologne....I see a one-term President.
Heavy Metal
07-08-11, 09:08
Anything the WH attmepts gun control wise right now will only draw attention to Gunwalker.
Real smart Barack!
Need to save $$ for my SR15 ASAP! lol
Never say never guys. Stupider things have happened.
As for giving money for the NRA, when they start caring about people in NJ, I'll join.
Gutshot John
07-08-11, 11:36
And in related news...
Could Controversy Kill the ATF? (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58532.html)
More gun laws are around the corner... I know the Huff Post is rather iffy on some stuff but I highly suggest reading this. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/07/obama-unveil-gun-control-reforms_n_892633.html
Another article from Fox detailing new gun laws from the Obama administration are coming down the pipe. http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/07/07/six-months-after-tucson-shooting-white-house-readies-gun-control-stance Wake up!!!
"Most gun-control advocates know that most gun owners are responsible citizens. Most gun owners know that the word 'commonsense' isn't a code word for 'confiscation,'" the president wrote.
BULLSHIT!!!
Thanx for link :)
I don't trust the gov and especially who is in power these days ! When it comes to the 2nd
Thanx for link :)
I don't trust the gov and especially who is in power these days ! When it comes to the 2nd
You're welcome. Honestly I think this new info is deserving of a new thread but I'm trying to work within the guidelines of M4C. I sincerely hope people read the links I provided and put some real thought into what's around the corner for us. Fun times are not ahead!
LowSpeed_HighDrag
07-08-11, 15:06
And in related news...
Could Controversy Kill the ATF? ("")
sheeple believe too strongly in the atf. No way they are going away.
Though I agree that anything can happen, President Obama and the Demoncrats would be committing suicide Jim Jones style by trying to enact any gun control. It will never survive for a variety of reasons. Especially due to the lastest ATF/ Gun Runner shenanigans.
It has been pointed out time and again that with record numbers of gun sales and ownership we are still enjoying low crime rates.
I think that the President is grasping at straws.
You're welcome. Honestly I think this new info is deserving of a new thread but I'm trying to work within the guidelines of M4C. I sincerely hope people read the links I provided and put some real thought into what's around the corner for us. Fun times are not ahead!
Though I agree that anything can happen, President Obama and the Demoncrats would be committing suicide Jim Jones style by trying to enact any gun control. It will never survive for a variety of reasons. Especially due to the lastest ATF/ Gun Runner shenanigans.
I think they're releasing small amounts of information on their new gun control agenda to intentionally steer the media and people's attention away from Gunrunner. Most of the general public have no idea about what's going on, don't care and would rather stick their heads in the sand.
Or watch American Idol.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.