View Full Version : Official Obama/Federal Gun Control/Federal AWB Discussion Thread
the two bolded things scare me a bit !!!!!!
http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/
scroll down and read this !
Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.
platinumdude posted it first in another thread :) got to give credit for him seeing it so quick !
variablebinary
11-07-08, 00:56
Nooo! But But, I thought dems were too scared to ban guns...
Guess im buying that Mustang ive wanted.
And you guys thought Hussein was gone. :rolleyes:
Robb Jensen
11-07-08, 05:20
Although it's probably useless you can contact him concerning his views/agenda:
http://www.change.gov/page/s/contact
I just did and reminded him of what happened to Clinton after signing into law more gun control.
Robb,
I too just used the contact info and urged P.E Obama to focus on the economy, education and national defense and forget about more gun control laws which criminalize law abiding gun owners.
Gutshot John
11-07-08, 07:52
Although it's probably useless you can contact him concerning his views/agenda:
http://www.change.gov/page/s/contact
I just did and reminded him of what happened to Clinton after signing into law more gun control.
I think that's an excellent idea. No pol, not even Obama can ignore a tidal wave of spontaneous, RESPECTFUL but firm emails from pro-2a types reminding him that we are watching and that we do vote. Send this out to all your friends. Get them to write, it may just guarantee your gun rights for the foreseeable future.
I followed your example.
the two bolded things scare me a bit !!!!!!
http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/
scroll down and read this !
Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.
platinumdude posted it first in another thread :) got to give credit for him seeing it so quick !
So it is.
Now the question is whether:
1. It will get more that just "lip service".
2. Can the ONE get it thru congress (highly questionable)
3. The ONE and his minions is willing to expend a BUNCH of political capital on such an effort. (with all the real problems we have this could become a major political liablility)
4. Can it survive a challenge at SCOTUS (highly questionable).
We however, must dig in and send mail, email, faxes......... to our congress critters. We also must dig deep in our pockets and support the organizations that help protect our interests, IE, GOA, SAF, RKBA............and yes, even the NRA. I don't know about you folks, but NRA tends to P#ss me off, but they are the biggest of the lobbies and can get the most done when properly motivated.
Just my 2 cents
woofe
well I wrote in also ? have a feeling it will get deleted though by some lefty loone who is answering the emails !
but look on the bright side he will let the crack heads get a free ride !!!
this was on another area of his site !!!
Obama and Biden believe the disparity between sentencing crack and powder-based cocaine is wrong and should be completely eliminated.
so lets take away good citizens rights but give crackheads a free ride
well I wrote in also ? have a feeling it will get deleted though by some lefty loone who is answering the emails !
but look on the bright side he will let the crack heads get a free ride !!!
this was on another area of his site !!!
Obama and Biden believe the disparity between sentencing crack and powder-based cocaine is wrong and should be completely eliminated.
so lets take away good citizens rights but give crackheads a free ride
No, he's our President, too. He said so, right on TV.
KintlaLake
11-07-08, 14:56
Although it's probably useless you can contact him concerning his views/agenda...
With respect, Robb, "useless" isn't the first thing that occurs to me.
This kind of correspondence will be segregated by for, against and refer.
I have a relatively low profile these days and wish to keep it that way. I'll find other ways to advocate for my RKBA.
I have a relatively low profile these days and wish to keep it that way. I'll find other ways to advocate for my RKBA.
I find that view ironic coming from you. You considered the treatment of Joe the Plumber perfectly ok, and felt that what happened to him would not have a 'chilling effect on democracy'.
Now I see you are afraid to contact your president to give an opinion, as it would raise your 'profile'.
Interesting.
KintlaLake
11-07-08, 15:10
Interesting.
Thank you. :D
theJanitor
11-07-08, 15:32
i wrote in as well. it may not be the most effective measure at the moment, but it is an action, nonetheless. any and all actions will prove to be helpful and useful in the end.
my wife thought I was nuts to write in and give my name !
she said now he knows you have guns when it comes time to collect them !!!!
theJanitor
11-07-08, 15:53
guns in the state of hawaii have to be registered. they already know where to look
guns in the state of hawaii have to be registered. they already know where to look
yeah yeah I gave up after a while most my money went into spear guns anyway :) I guess the only good thing about moving to the mainland lots more places here to get stuff :) and you can have some cool stuff here :)
I was like a kid in a candy store :) or a gun lover in a great gun store here
I so not used to seen SBR, silencers and stuff :)
but I miss Aloha Shoyu ! redondos sausage getting Poke at star market and fresh musubi and all the small kine stuff :)
but when I live on Lanai (I from Maui but lived Lanai also) I used to have some stuff that might not have been OK to own ? large cap mags etc...
whats funny I never registerd any of my guns ???
stupid ? lucky I never get caught !
I miss those days for sure :)
my65swede@yahoo.com
11-07-08, 17:10
The firearms industry is not big corporate interest. Yes you are right about them going after social issues...bla bla bla. The dems are going for the soft underbelly… first-we enthusiasts and the NRA are it...next will be conservative talk radio...then as increased welfare and federalized healthcare...did you know they want to add CHIPS benefits to the middle class?
They probably won't get their liberal social Shangri La right away but they will work on what they believe they can do first with as little resistance as possible.
Think they can't do it...they took away our first amendment rights by monopolizing the media-they will take away our 2nd amendment rights next...you should be very afraid and concerned-and start thinking about what we are all going to do about it NOW!!!!!!!!! Don’t wait until 2010. The Dem's worked on getting BHO in the White House for years. It will take us until 2010 to come up with a strong opposition/solution-because right now we are all very weak!And as for race…we should all drop the race issue…only self loathing liberal masochists (the same ones that took the flag out of our schools because they didn’t want to offend the Muslim’s) voted for that reason-I’d like to think that they are not 53% of America. The Muslim Americans didn't ask to have the flags removed so don’t blame black Americans for this one either.
Look to the left and to the right of you and find Waldo!
Don’t know what to look for? Watch MSNBC for a few hours!
I for one am very tired and very worried when I read so many posts saying they won’t be able to get the new bill through. Please for all our sake-WTFU!
This has been on Obamamarx's website for a long time; it isn't "news."
How many people here had any illusions about Obama being "progun????"
Yes, he claims he "supports" 2A rights, he claims he supports Heller.
That's lip service to the 2A: he was buying votes.
Look at the laws he's supported, the agenda he's supported.
He has always been in favor of strict gun control laws.
my65swede@yahoo.com
11-07-08, 17:21
You know I am an American too. I too don't have a problem with having a Black president either. I too am pissed about the economy. I too don't believe we can go down the same path. I too am obliged as an American to give BHO a chance.
I have a problem with anyone that tries to rewrite the Constitution. I will not budge on our basic rights issues and our Constitution provides for us to take drastic measures as citizens if required.
We have an obligation no matter who is President to speak up when something stinks and not be SHEEP! {my quote from A change in America post}
BTW: I too contacted BHO and kindly asked that he please not take my rights away. .....now I'm gonna go puke :(
RogerinTPA
11-07-08, 17:44
Excellent Idea. I wrote in as well, asking him not to turn law biding gun owners into criminals over night with another, more stricter AWB. I hope we all don't get visits by the Secret Service...:eek:
Although it's probably useless you can contact him concerning his views/agenda:
http://www.change.gov/page/s/contact
I just did and reminded him of what happened to Clinton after signing into law more gun control.
Seth Harness
11-07-08, 17:58
I wrote in also. After sending the message, it said "thank you for signing up".
WTF does that mean? That makes me nervous.:confused:
I wrote in also. After sending the message, it said "thank you for signing up".
WTF does that mean? That makes me nervous.:confused:
This may or may not have any bearing, but....
I sent an e-mail to his campaign asking a question about his stance on the 2A and ended up receiving numerous e-mails from then on from various "Senders", including Michelle, Biden, campaign operatives, and even Obama himself!!! I was asked to pledge money, make phone calls, and pester people door-to-door.
You may just get spam, wonderful spam.
bootfoot
my65swede@yahoo.com
11-07-08, 18:17
http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh289/romayfield/Animated%20Gifs/kittenpuke.gif
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.
a new AWB in the works and fear /hatred to armed innocent people ,its like elites and UN declared war on the USA and what is left of the Constitution ,i have heard this ''they will not do this to us its ''our own government '' RIGHT go to www.barefootsworld.net please read ! think about this the ''government '' stole the gold in 1933 ! the government is not controlled by law but mob of puppets and dont obey the Constitution any more just give it lip service! one thing we can do is send two tea bags no more 1040 forms !! p/s my family came from germany after ww2 ,i am the first born here and learned from my grandparents -they saw how the commies and nazis fought each other to the end with hitler on the rise .to hear how almost the same ways and means bring used on the USA again !
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27574092#27574092
the two bolded things scare me a bit !!!!!!
http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/
scroll down and read this !
Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.
platinumdude posted it first in another thread :) got to give credit for him seeing it so quick !
here we go again but time its the death of a nation i hope i am wrong! after read the whole site it read like the Constitution is no longer law of the land like the commies and nazis have taken over without a fight - united socialistic states is the new name now! my grandfather would round over in his grave with what is growing in Amerika -he hated the commies for what they did to germany in the 1920's and what the nazis did later ! read the works of Lenin and heard the engish version of his speeches guess what obama is plagiarizing ! the riser of taxes and maker of wars is here like the book of Revelations .............next...
Well, don't know how much good it will do but I posted my defense of the second amendment and politely asked BO to leave my bill of rights alone. Hope a few million more people do the same, before its too late.
Well, I added my .02 on his site. Like the old man said,"we'll see".:rolleyes:
G. Gordon Liddy made a great point today about Obama and gun control. Obama has just been elected. Half the country loves him. Half the country despises him. That is his starting position, and he only has a certain amount of political capital to spend going into the game. And he is going to start out spending it RAPIDLY. He will not have a choice. The country is enroute to very dark economic times. Terrorism will revisit our soil. In the meantime, his executive strategy involves kicking a great many people in the groin about as hard as he can. Untold tax increases. Widely expanding socialism and government spending. Foreign policy plans that will expose Americans to greater and greater risk. Attacks on essential liberties like we have never known before.
And then you have guns. A non-issue. Crime has fallen off dramatically, as gun freedoms have expanded equally dramatically. A subject that NEVER came up in any of the four debates. Not once. But an issue of fundamental importance to MANY Americans, none-the-less, including a portion of his own base. So if, while burning his limited political capital like dry tender, he decides to take on gun control as another big thrust just for the fun of it, then he is just going to tank his administration and his party all the more. Republicans aren't even a speedbump on the political horizon right now, so there's NO ONE but democrats to blame for the enormous public discontent that lies ahead. What will that look like when the next election rolls around? He'd better wise up and move to the middle and hope he has at least a couple friends left in the world six months from now.
G. Gordon Liddy made a great point today about Obama and gun control. Obama has just been elected. Half the country loves him. Half the country despises him. That is his starting position, and he only has a certain amount of political capital to spend going into the game. And he is going to start out spending it RAPIDLY. He will not have a choice. The country is enroute to very dark economic times. Terrorism will revisit our soil. In the meantime, his executive strategy involves kicking a great many people in the groin about as hard as he can. Untold tax increases. Widely expanding socialism and government spending. Foreign policy plans that will expose Americans to greater and greater risk. Attacks on essential liberties like we have never known before.
And then you have guns. A non-issue. Crime has fallen off dramatically, as gun freedoms have expanded equally dramatically. A subject that NEVER came up in any of the four debates. Not once. But an issue of fundamental importance to MANY Americans, none-the-less, including a portion of his own base. So if, while burning his limited political capital like dry tender, he decides to take on gun control as another big thrust just for the fun of it, then he is just going to tank his administration and his party all the more. Republicans aren't even a speedbump on the political horizon right now, so there's NO ONE but democrats to blame for the enormous public discontent that lies ahead. What will that look like when the next election rolls around? He'd better wise up and move to the middle and hope he has at least a couple friends left in the world six months from now.
By the way, quoting myself... These would be great points to capture in a letter to preemptively send off to your representative and both senators as just a friendly little "welcome back to Washington" note. Arrange for it to greet them in their office by the last week of January, 2009. And be sure and let them know in your letter that you, your friends, your family, and your coworkers will all work DILIGENTLY to hold them accountable for every misstep at their next bid for office. You could even look up the date for that and put it there in the letter. Imagine if the first thing they all had to deal with after the inauguration was a pile of mail like this.
my wife thought I was nuts to write in and give my name !
she said now he knows you have guns when it comes time to collect them !!!!
I would never register any weapon I own with anyone, what type of weapons I own, and the number I have is none of anyones business.
And if anyone ever does make a choice to come "colllect them" All I can say is I hope their heart is right with God.
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a332/hgary2003/ar_ma_white.jpg
No, he's our President, too. He said so, right on TV.
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a332/hgary2003/obama1.png
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a332/hgary2003/obama1.png
and send two tea bags too!
the two bolded things scare me a bit !!!!!!
http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/
platinumdude posted it first in another thread :) got to give credit for him seeing it so quick !
They removed this socialist agenga page from the web site
Aim small, miss small
Robb Jensen
11-09-08, 13:18
What they removed is this:
CRIME AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
Support Local Law Enforcement: Barack Obama and Joe Biden are committed to fully funding the COPS program to put 50,000 police officers on the street and help address police brutality and accountability issues in local communities. Obama and Biden also support efforts to encourage young people to enter the law enforcement profession, so that our local police departments are not understaffed because of a dearth of qualified applicants.
Reduce Crime Recidivism by Providing Ex-Offender Supports: America is facing an incarceration and post-incarceration crisis in urban communities. Obama and Biden will create a prison-to-work incentive program, modeled on the successful Welfare-to-Work Partnership and work to reform correctional systems to break down barriers for ex-offenders to find employment.
End the Dangerous Cycle of Youth Violence: As president, Barack Obama will support innovative local programs, such as the CeaseFire program in Chicago, that have been proven to work. Such programs implement a comprehensive public health approach that implements a community-based strategy to prevent youth violence. He will also double funding for federal afterschool programs and invest in 20 Promise Neighborhoods across the country to ensure that urban youth have meaningful opportunities to succeed.
Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.
End Racial Profiling: Barack Obama cosponsored federal legislation to ban racial profiling and require federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to take steps to eliminate the practice. He introduced and passed a law in the Illinois State Senate requiring the Illinois Department of Transportation to record the race, age, and gender of all drivers stopped for traffic violations so that bias could be detected and addressed.
http://www.thehighroad.us/showthread.php?p=5027811#post5027811
Thanks for the page!
Aim small, miss small
well there is his CHANGE again
I can hear his sickening voice !!!
now wait a second I never wrote that someone else did !!!!
and well I uh well I uh well I uh since I guess you all decided that was not good I am not going to put up what I am going to do to you !!!!!!!!
I guess its true for sure more confirming than ever that he plans on doing things to us honest citizens
KintlaLake
11-09-08, 15:01
They removed this socialist agenga page from the web site
Um...did anyone else notice that all of the previous "Agenda" pages and links are gone? It appears to have had nothing specifically to do with the paragraphs we're fuming about.
You can gawk at a cached version of the "Urban Policy" page here (http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:lZ5nLB1m2TMJ:www.change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/+assault+weapons+ban+site:change.gov&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us).
I would never register any weapon I own with anyone, what type of weapons I own, and the number I have is none of anyones business.
And if anyone ever does make a choice to come "colllect them" All I can say is I hope their heart is right with God.
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a332/hgary2003/ar_ma_white.jpg
I like your style.
[QUOTE=KintlaLake;246432]Um...did anyone else notice that all of the previous "Agenda" pages and links are gone? It appears to have had nothing specifically to do with the paragraphs we're fuming about.
You can gawk at a cached version of the "Urban Policy" page here (http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:lZ5nLB1m2TMJ:www.change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/+assault+weapons+ban+site:change.gov&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us).[/QUOTE
bin
(Hit the wrong key.)
bin-Biden, didn't you make sure our agenda didn't get on the public page?
No Bo, I thought you did.
Hell, there goes our hidden agenda. Oh well, thank goodness for executive order.
Aim small, miss small
It isn't just this page. He has been editing MANY pages on this website in near real time. As soon as the blogs get a hold of something astonishing he posted and start to write about it, the wording changes or the page goes away.
Change you can believe in.
I find that view ironic coming from you. You considered the treatment of Joe the Plumber perfectly ok, and felt that what happened to him would not have a 'chilling effect on democracy'.
Now I see you are afraid to contact your president to give an opinion, as it would raise your 'profile'.
Interesting.
first we are not a demoncrazy ! next move is to make a condition where the use of ''shock/goon troops'' are needed to quell the peace ,next get anti-gun laws passed ,the great turn in happens ....clean up with goon troops for a false peace now you have a police state ! this is the nazi/commie/socialist way of action.
Some good words for Mr. Obama from Mr. Norris:
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80577
While I am deeply troubled by the possibilities Obama brings into office with him like all of you, keep in mind that the popular vote was won by BHO 52% to 48%. While those who voted in favor of BHO will continuously cite the election as a landslide for BHO, always remember that they only have 4% more of the popular vote.
As it was stated earlier in this thread, BHO can push ahead with a liberal agenda but it will only confirm our thoughts and ignite the fears in those who voted for him with the understanding that "he was not a extreme liberal". You can write letters to him and explain your concerns, or you can write to his political base (your local congressmen and senators).
It is my belief that the best course of action to take in this time is to organize locally within your voting districts and inform your elected officials that you will be watching them very closely. The key to this working is ORGANIZING EFFECTIVELY. Get to your Home Owners Associations meetings, neighborhood block meetings, local gun range and shooting competitions, buy out space in your local newspapers, etc. etc.
The goal is get the word out and get people together for some preliminary meetings to establish contact networks and regular dates for meetings (it does not have to be every week, the contact lists will suffice to inform others of any updates in legislation matters/emergency meetings). Once these groups are created and continue to grow, you can then start writing to your local elected officials and informing them of your concerns. Group solidarity in voting is important.
BHO is nothing without his political support structure. Once they (those in office supporting BHO) know they can expect to be out the door if they vote against the Second Amendment, then they will not do so.
In short, Organize Locally and Keep Your Groups Focused on Preserving the Second Amendment.
52% to 48%
Anyone in favor of this say "Aye"
Submariner
11-10-08, 16:21
52% to 48%
Roughly 39% of registered voters didn't vote. So Father Obraham got 52% of 71%. So only 37 of 100 registered voters voted FOR him.
Hardly a mandate.
And, yes, not voting means something.
It is my belief that the best course of action to take in this time is to organize locally within your voting districts and inform your elected officials that you will be watching them very closely. The key to this working is ORGANIZING EFFECTIVELY. Get to your Home Owners Associations meetings, neighborhood block meetings, local gun range and shooting competitions, buy out space in your local newspapers, etc. etc.
I believe this absolutely. And I say that because that is how they beat us. All joking about "community organizers" aside, it is that activity that put them over the top. Where was the conservative equivalent of ACORN, etc.? Nothing even comes close. Conservatives count on talk radio to ignite the base, but I think it is mostly the preacher talking to the choir. You have to show people at the grass roots level how your approach is going to make their lives better. Only one side was really doing that.
fox news just had another quick segment on gun sales
rep Elanor Holmes Norton said that there is no worries about gun that they (dems and obama) will be to busy !!!! to even talk about guns
and of course mentioned that change.org had it but now its gone !
a obama spokesman said that the charge is old and they are retooling the change.org
was old and needed retooling ? what the ???? so I guess as I think his change is scary and will change daily !!!!!
that above fact is still what scares me !!!! how can a new site be to old !!!! it was up for a few hours !!!
now call me paranoid but I think they dont want people buying anymore !!!! and wont say squat till we are whacked over the head with a new ban !!!!
Change you can't believe in... because it's impossible to even figure out what it is.
Seriously, who exactly is in charge of this new regime?
We were all sold the bill of goods that the "The One" was the Ultra Competent, Change the World, Candidate of All Time. Now their policy web site is rolling like an odometer, and apparently anyone in the Obama HQ can post text up there like it's a Wikipedia.
What is this Wikigovia?
Um...did anyone else notice that all of the previous "Agenda" pages and links are gone? It appears to have had nothing specifically to do with the paragraphs we're fuming about.
You can gawk at a cached version of the "Urban Policy" page here (http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:lZ5nLB1m2TMJ:www.change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/+assault+weapons+ban+site:change.gov&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us).
Yup...
You know, if he can't manage a small web site effectively, how is he actually going to govern a country? Like ANY country, let alone THIS country!
Razorhunter
11-11-08, 18:23
All these gun sales are actually HELPING the economy. How ironic that Obamas dumb ass has only stimulated the economy accidentally, but his PURPOSEFUL intentions actually sank the stock market as soon as he was elected (as will his tax plan).... What a loser....
I got one more thing to say about Obama too. WHY the hell are all the African Americans so full of pride and joy that the first African American got elected? Isn't Obama half white and half African American???? I've been scratching my head on that one for months now...???? WTF??
What kills me...was at the local gun shop, packed as expected. As I walked through the parking lot I noticed two cars with Obama bumper stickers. This shows you once more how stupid his supporters can be.
Cruncher Block
11-11-08, 19:23
Part of the change.gov web site was also (heh) changed to soften the language for Obama's plans for service.
We have a President-Elect who so far seems quite comfortable with evidence destruction and history revision.
Yikes
Submariner
11-11-08, 19:30
Part of the change.gov web site was also (heh) changed to soften the language for Obama's plans for service.
We have a President-Elect who so far seems quite comfortable with evidence destruction and history revision.
Yikes
Orwell called them "memory holes."
Orwell called them "memory holes."
Too late to hide the evidence.
There are copies all over the 2nd Amendment web sites. Lots of chatter,
even some bringing up the possibilty that (maybe) this might be an early sign that Mr. Obama is distancing himself from a very touchy issue.
President Obama needs traction --so he throws the Brady Bunch under the bus.
Sounds like a wise and ethical choice to me.
Maybe the young guy is actually listening to Colin Powell?
Lots of chatter, even some bringing up the possibilty that (maybe) this might be an early sign that Mr. Obama is distancing himself from a very touchy issue.
I can't tell if his retractions, like on the mandatory community service program or the AWB, are concessions -- or they are just circling back to regroup and come back with an overwhelming ambush down the road.
I would plan for the latter. We have seen their plans. I wouldn't relax in the least. I would go on the offensive for all we are worth. And that means threatening the jobs of everyone in congress if they screw up. Forget him, his mind is made up. However, many of his congressional partners may still want to have a career.
I don't claim to know either.
So , prep for the worst and hope for the best.
Still , this isn't 1992 and Mr. Obama is no Bill Clinton. He's smarter than Clinton and he has some character.
It's tough to believe that he can't read the tea leafs:
NRA , SAF etc membership is spiking.
Letters and e-mails swamping elected officials.
Gun and ammo sales thru the roof.
DC v Heller was a game changer: The magic words were "in common use".
AR's and EBR's in general are in common use now-- that's a big change from 1992.
Look at what happened to Zumbo when he shot off his mouth a few years ago.
Zumbo would have got away clean thru most of the 1980's and 1990's
A smart politician would at least put gun control in the way-too-tough-for-now file.
Which is enough , time is on our side. Meanwhile , I hope people keep on the offensive-- it seems to be working.
Check out the co-sponsor numbers on 2008 gun-grabber bills.
Pathetic.
Over half of the Senate signed the Amicus brief supporting Heller.
Besides , even with the changes from the last election , a ban won't get enough votes to pass.
A smart politician would at least put gun control in the way-too-tough-for-now file.
That is the message to push. We need to crank the volume up on it till it breaks their eardrums. If they see us flinch even for a second, they will think they've got us.
Hit them hard and they will break.
We can win this thing.
We already are winning .
While I am deeply troubled by the possibilities Obama brings into office with him like all of you, keep in mind that the popular vote was won by BHO 52% to 48%. While those who voted in favor of BHO will continuously cite the election as a landslide for BHO, always remember that they only have 4% more of the popular vote.
As it was stated earlier in this thread, BHO can push ahead with a liberal agenda but it will only confirm our thoughts and ignite the fears in those who voted for him with the understanding that "he was not a extreme liberal". You can write letters to him and explain your concerns, or you can write to his political base (your local congressmen and senators).
It is my belief that the best course of action to take in this time is to organize locally within your voting districts and inform your elected officials that you will be watching them very closely. The key to this working is ORGANIZING EFFECTIVELY. Get to your Home Owners Associations meetings, neighborhood block meetings, local gun range and shooting competitions, buy out space in your local newspapers, etc. etc.
The goal is get the word out and get people together for some preliminary meetings to establish contact networks and regular dates for meetings (it does not have to be every week, the contact lists will suffice to inform others of any updates in legislation matters/emergency meetings). Once these groups are created and continue to grow, you can then start writing to your local elected officials and informing them of your concerns. Group solidarity in voting is important.
BHO is nothing without his political support structure. Once they (those in office supporting BHO) know they can expect to be out the door if they vote against the Second Amendment, then they will not do so.
In short, Organize Locally and Keep Your Groups Focused on Preserving the Second Amendment.
52% to 48%
Anyone in favor of this say "Aye"
Aye
Aim small, miss small
I don't claim to know either.
So , prep for the worst and hope for the best.
Still , this isn't 1992 and Mr. Obama is no Bill Clinton. He's smarter than Clinton and he has some character.
It's tough to believe that he can't read the tea leafs:
NRA , SAF etc membership is spiking.
Letters and e-mails swamping elected officials.
Gun and ammo sales thru the roof.
DC v Heller was a game changer: The magic words were "in common use".
AR's and EBR's in general are in common use now-- that's a big change from 1992.
Look at what happened to Zumbo when he shot off his mouth a few years ago.
Zumbo would have got away clean thru most of the 1980's and 1990's
A smart politician would at least put gun control in the way-too-tough-for-now file.
Which is enough , time is on our side. Meanwhile , I hope people keep on the offensive-- it seems to be working.
Check out the co-sponsor numbers on 2008 gun-grabber bills.
Pathetic.
Over half of the Senate signed the Amicus brief supporting Heller.
Besides , even with the changes from the last election , a ban won't get enough votes to pass.
they dont care nor respect the Constitution next if something real and big happens which opens the gate for marshal law so go freedoms!
...Yawn...
They want to keep their jobs . And , believe it or not , some of them are teachable, just like regular human beings.
Marshal law? ;) Give me a break.
Goes to sleep.
BHO might be the president elect, by I sure as hell did not vote for him, nor do I have to accept any of his socialistic ideologies, much less give him my support in any shape or manner. They will try to push their liberal agenda and see what they can get away with. Folks, the reality of it all is that he was groomed for this moment in time when " change " will be brought forth in our country by the useful idiots that swallow all the BS fed to them. God have mercy on us...the only way is to stay united to guarantee our freedoms and act, if we must, is the responsibility of all Americans to preserve our way of life as free men...Semper Fi
Making gun control the first issue of his presidency, with Iraq, Afghanistan, $700 billion bailout, the impending commercial real estate crash, the inevitable US automaker crash, GITMO, and immigration policy all still up in the air will be tantamount to political suicide.
He is not dumb enough to take this on right now. It was a fight for Clinton, and that was 10 years ago... We have gone 4 years post ban with crime declining... So there will be a huge fight.
Submariner
11-13-08, 08:47
they dont care nor respect the Constitution next if something real and big happens which opens the gate for marshal law so go freedoms!
The Constitution is just a "god-damned piece of paper" to these folks.
Oh, wait. That was Bush!
The Constitution is just one of a number of obstacles he has to work around in order to achieve his objectives. They will adopt strategies to deal with each obstacle. These strategies will be well thought out and once we see them coming, they will be hard to deflect. It is going to be a difficult time ahead.
If you want to understand how Obama thinks, read Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. This book is out of print, but is a sort of bible for these people. Here are a few of the rules he has learned to employ. These are scum of the earth tactics, developed by people with no regard for life or liberty. At the same time, fire can sometimes be used to fight fire.
RULE 1: "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived from 2 main sources - money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood.
RULE 2: "Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
RULE 7: "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news.
RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
RULE 10: "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
RULE 11: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you're caught without a solution to the problem.
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
a new AWB in the works and fear /hatred to armed innocent people ,its like elites and UN declared war on the USA and what is left of the Constitution ,i have heard this ''they will not do this to us its ''our own government '' RIGHT go to www.barefootsworld.net please read ! think about this the ''government '' stole the gold in 1933 ! the government is not controlled by law but mob of puppets and dont obey the Constitution any more just give it lip service! one thing we can do is send two tea bags no more 1040 forms !! p/s my family came from germany after ww2 ,i am the first born here and learned from my grandparents -they saw how the commies and nazis fought each other to the end with hitler on the rise .to hear how almost the same ways and means bring used on the USA again !
The Federal Reserve Bank was behind gold being taken, true it was govt. enacted, but not govt. initiated. The Federal reserve bank is about as federal as federal express.
You got that right WS6, the federal reserve has been behind many a wrong doing, especially making up funny money that has no gold backing...remember way back when all the citizens had to turn in their gold coins??:mad:
You got that right WS6, the federal reserve has been behind many a wrong doing, especially making up funny money that has no gold backing...remember way back when all the citizens had to turn in their gold coins??:mad:
I'm only 22 :D
However, I do understand that:
roughly 4 months out of the year we work go to paying Federal Income "tax" (an unconstitutional and unapportioned tax which does not even have enough support for it's passage and which has no law forcing one to pay it). Tax is a short word for "interest" in this case. Interest on the money that the Federal Reserve is loaning out. Roughly 35% of every dollar is just tax (read: Interest). But... going to WHOM?
Going to the Federal Reserve Bank and it's bankers of course! Which is what? A privately owned institution!
Guess what? The more they loan, the more interest there is to pay them, and the more interest we have to pay, the more we are loaned out to pay it back with, and in turn that creates more interest/dept. That is why they did away with gold backing our money. With gold (which had a finite amount), there could only be so much money loaned out. Now that our money is just paper, the sky is the limit! And the debt (read: Profit for the privately owned and almost completely unregulated institution known as the Federal Reserve Bank and it's bankers.) just keeps piling up!
To put it simply, the Federal Reserve Bank and it's bankers convinced the US government that if they confiscated all the gold and allowed the Federal Reserve Bank to put money into circulation, that depressions could be avoided by modifying the amount of money in circulation. The only thing that determines the worth of a dollar is the amount of dollars in circulation now that it has no backing. Supply and demand at it's simplest. The flip side of this is that the Federal Reserve Bank has the power to cause inflation, economic collapse, prosperity, and above all, an ever increasing and un-ending cash-flow for themselves. In the end, the Federal Reserve Bank is the most powerful entity in this nation. Obama and all his petty dreams of monarchy are like a child on a bicycle pedalling furiously before the steamroller that is the Federal Reserve Bank.
Submariner
11-14-08, 01:10
BZ to BlueForce!
Great summary of the book. More here. (http://www.semcosh.org/AlinskyTactics.pdf)
In the first chapter, opening paragraph Alinsky writes, "What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away".
Look at the list of his economic advisers. There are certainly a lot of Haves there. Hmm...
...Yawn...
They want to keep their jobs . And , believe it or not , some of them are teachable, just like regular human beings.
Marshal law? ;) Give me a break.
Goes to sleep.
What is marhal law? Is that sorta like martial law? :p
That sums it up WS6...it is a " free for all " man ,except only for them:mad:
SGT D USMC
11-14-08, 12:59
We are currently invisible, Lets all concact the NRA to organize a march on all state capitals on the same day, plus the federal capital if you live close enough. demos understand marches
he went into younder village and never returned.
http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/
Crime and Law Enforcement
Support Local Law Enforcement: Barack Obama and Joe Biden are committed to fully funding the COPS program to put 50,000 police officers on the street and help address police brutality and accountability issues in local communities. Obama and Biden also support efforts to encourage young people to enter the law enforcement profession, so that our local police departments are not understaffed because of a dearth of qualified applicants.
Reduce Crime Recidivism by Providing Ex-Offender Supports: America is facing an incarceration and post-incarceration crisis in urban communities. Obama and Biden will create a prison-to-work incentive program, modeled on the successful Welfare-to-Work Partnership, and work to reform correctional systems to break down barriers for ex-offenders to find employment.
End the Dangerous Cycle of Youth Violence: Obama and Biden support innovative local programs, like the CeaseFire program in Chicago, which implement a community-based strategy to prevent youth violence and have been proven effective.
Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
What is marhal law? Is that sorta like martial law? :p
MARTIAL LAW Chuck Norris style !!!!
And every jag-off who owns guns and voted for Obama (or Ron Paul or Bob Barr) should be FIRST IN line to have the steam roller crush their guns.
DHC45 :) yeah saw that his stuff is back up and its very official for sure he is going to go for it !!!
otherwise he would not have put it in print !!!!
also I noticed he put back up his kids are going to do 50 hours service per year for him !!!!
sorry obama my kids are not going to ! they will do what they want with our church etc... or focus on training to fight you and your youth brigades
my father in law was saying sounds like America is headed for another civil war and it wont be north vs south this time !!! (he is not from the US)
Gutshot John
11-16-08, 18:25
The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power.
Yes and no, despite the somewhat ironic tone, Machivelli's point was far more subtle, and simple.
The Prince was to show that morality was something a prince uses or does not use to serve his ends, however the end of the prince is to protect the state and its interests, without the state, morality and all the rest is irrelevant.
Sovereignty must always be the ultimate purpose of the state. I don't know or claim to understand Obama's philosophy, but consolidating your strengths and playing off your political enemies' weakness has a long and sordid tradition.
Here's marshal law:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ-FMz0W2yg&feature=related
Sovereignty must always be the ultimate purpose of the state. I don't know or claim to understand Obama's philosophy...
He's seems to have a philosophy where this is not necessarily his priority. His economic plans for example seem almost designed to do harm. Many leftists -- and I can't prove or disprove he is one of them at this point -- feel that powerful state sovereignties like ours need to be broken in order to allow international governing bodies to establish their authority over us. Any actions he takes contrary to preserving U.S. sovereignty could reveal such motives.
DHC45 :) yeah saw that his stuff is back up and its very official for sure he is going to go for it !!!
otherwise he would not have put it in print !!!!
also I noticed he put back up his kids are going to do 50 hours service per year for him !!!!
sorry obama my kids are not going to ! they will do what they want with our church etc... or focus on training to fight you and your youth brigades
my father in law was saying sounds like America is headed for another civil war and it wont be north vs south this time !!! (he is not from the US)
""..stuff is back up.."
What site? I can't find it on change.gov . It never came down on his campaign site. Smart move , would have looked like a cover up.
" Got a link?
ETA: Found it. See post below.
:(
Gutshot John
11-16-08, 19:33
He's seems to have a philosophy where this is not necessarily his priority. His economic plans for example seem almost designed to do harm. Many leftists -- and I can't prove or disprove he is one of them at this point -- feel that powerful state sovereignties like ours need to be broken in order to allow international governing bodies to establish their authority over us. Any actions he takes contrary to preserving U.S. sovereignty could reveal such motives.
While I don't disagree about the potential economic harm, this is also true for every insurgent political campaign or revolution. The political problem for Obama is that he is no longer an insurgent, he's achieved power. In contrast conservative insurgency could very well apply the same principles against him.
In a broader sovereignty context, the Machiavellian dilemma is that ultimately his power relies on that very same US sovereignty. To destroy US sovereignty would destroy any claim to power. Similarly to weaken US sovereignty would be to weaken his authority. Leftists, generally, aren't that altruistic.
The founding fathers, especially Madison, read Machiavelli, and our Constitution reflects much of his thoughts on the nature of republics. I would put far more faith in this Italian republican, than any second-rate political theorist regurgitating what is pretty obvious. I could probably take some time and apply each of those rules and give examples from the American Revolution or any number of political campaigns.
""..stuff is back up.."
What site? I can't find it on change.gov . It never came down on his campaign site. Smart move , would have looked like a cover up.
" Got a link?
I found it. The ban is buried under :Agenda , Urban Policy , Address gun violence in cities. Hard to find using normal search techniques and buzzwords.
Strange.
When was it first seen to be back up?
In a broader sovereignty context, the Machiavellian dilemma is that ultimately his power relies on that very same US sovereignty. To destroy US sovereignty would destroy any claim to power. Similarly to weaken US sovereignty would be to weaken his authority. Leftists, generally, aren't that altruistic.
Right, he would have to be a genuine globalist Marxist zealot to cut himself off in order to promote the greater cause. Unless of course he had reason to expect he would be rewarded for his sacrifice with a bigger piece of a bigger pie. I am very curious to see -- since he hasn't really blown the globalist horn as much as I would have expected -- if he just wants to play "socialism in America" or something beyond that.
I found it. The ban is buried under :Agenda , Urban Policy , Address gun violence in cities. Hard to find using normal search techniques and buzzwords.
Strange.
When was it first seen to be back up?
just recently like today
but it was taken down and one of the news like Fox ? or someone said that a obama spokesman said the site had old info and needed to be updated that is why it was taken down !
my thought BS
he does not make mistakes he just needed to change some things and make it less what he really is planning !!!!
The whole idea of breaking down the country is called "leveling". Help along an economic crisis that leaves almost everyone just as poor as the next, then after the damage is done start implementing a new morally among the destitute populace that they will have to accept in order to remove themselves from their current situation. The thought among radical human rights activists is that if they can change the strongest country/economy in the world to reflect their views then they can use that force to change every other country. This view represents ideas like a living wage, no state sovereignty, world government headed by a UN like organization that controls all the individual militaries, no borders/ people can live wherever they would like, etc.
A lot of this was learned from a course I took on Human Rights (The most radical form of Human Rights is an expansive form of socialism). Surprising enough, the people surrounding the Obama Campaign reflect this sort of mind set.
The whole idea of breaking down the country is called "leveling". Help along an economic crisis that leaves almost everyone just as poor as the next, then after the damage is done start implementing a new morally among the destitute populace that they will have to accept in order to remove themselves from their current situation. The thought among radical human rights activists is that if they can change the strongest country/economy in the world to reflect their views then they can use that force to change every other country. This view represents ideas like a living wage, no state sovereignty, world government headed by a UN like organization that controls all the individual militaries, no borders/ people can live wherever they would like, etc.
A lot of this was learned from a course I took on Human Rights (The most radical form of Human Rights is an expansive form of socialism). Surprising enough, the people surrounding the Obama Campaign reflect this sort of mind set.
Did any of these people ever read Aesop's fables when they were young? I think the Goose that Laid the Golden Egg is applicable to all of this.
30 cal slut
11-21-08, 13:43
;)
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f15/30calslut/picoday_deathstar_obama-thumb-400x3.jpg
Robb Jensen
11-21-08, 15:40
It's back up.
change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/
It's back up.
change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/
I love the "repeal the Tiahrt Amendment to help law enforcement solve crimes" line. That reads to me "we don't give 2 dog shits about personal privacy, or freedom. Nor do we care about the reality of the complexities, cost, and obvious failures of such measures. We feel current law enforcement is too dumb to solve crimes under the current system. We must help".
Tool.
"Reduce Crime Recidivism by Providing Ex-Offender Supports"
Now there's a brilliant plan for reducing crime -- throw huge amounts of tax money to convicts -- excuse me, ex-offenders -- in order to get them to stop committing crimes!
These liberals think of everything... It's great having educated people who really understand society in charge now.
I love the "repeal the Tiahrt Amendment to help law enforcement solve crimes" line. That reads to me "we don't give 2 dog shits about personal privacy, or freedom. Nor do we care about the reality of the complexities, cost, and obvious failures of such measures. We feel current law enforcement is too dumb to solve crimes under the current system. We must help".
Tool.
If they don't repeal the Tiahart Amendment, think of how much gasoline they will waste running around trying to find all the weapons you bought, as opposed to just driving straight to your house. We've got to become more energy independent you know.
"Reduce Crime Recidivism by Providing Ex-Offender Supports"
Now there's a brilliant plan for reducing crime -- throw huge amounts of tax money to convicts -- excuse me, ex-offenders -- in order to get them to stop committing crimes!
These liberals think of everything... It's great having educated people who really understand society in charge now.
This is a good thing, actually.
Think about it. The overwhelming majority of people who commit street crime and poor and undereducated. Now, within this group you have two types:
1. Habitual / career criminals / gang members. These people are for the most part unreformable, and really nothing can be done about them, except locking them back up again.
2. Those who are not yet group 1 and stand a chance of being reformed. Now they are out of jail, still poor and uneducated on on top of that have a prison record. Not exactly a resume for livelong success. You can either try and educate them and steer them towards a life as a good citizen, or you can ignore them and wait for them to turn into group #1 because they have no other realistic choice.
Razorhunter
11-25-08, 07:46
This is a good thing, actually.
Think about it. The overwhelming majority of people who commit street crime and poor and undereducated. Now, within this group you have two types:
1. Habitual / career criminals / gang members. These people are for the most part unreformable, and really nothing can be done about them, except locking them back up again.
2. Those who are not yet group 1 and stand a chance of being reformed. Now they are out of jail, still poor and uneducated on on top of that have a prison record. Not exactly a resume for livelong success. You can either try and educate them and steer them towards a life as a good citizen, or you can ignore them and wait for them to turn into group #1 because they have no other realistic choice.
You are correct sir. I know many guys, who, in their teen years made mistakes that unfortunately are haunting them for the rest of their lives. They are some of the most standup people you will ever meet, and unfortunately they cannot have a chance at a future because of a stupid arrest record from 10-20 years ago (or more).
Courts want to keep paroling lifelong criminals, putting them back on the streets to commit MORE crimes, but yet they don't have ways of letting the truly decent ex cons live a normal life, and hold a normal job... It's simply a matter of sealing a few records. Mere paperwork is all that keeps them from holding a real job.
I'm not normally one to agree with ANY liberal view, but this COULD be a good thing, IF done properly. (Of course, it IS difficult for any liberal to execute something properly)....
You can either try and educate them and steer them towards a life as a good citizen, or you can ignore them and wait for them to turn into group #1 because they have no other realistic choice.
If you want to try out these kinds of social engineering experiments with your own money, go for it. There are many charities who would work with you on that. Just don't speak for where the rest of our money goes. That is the single thing leftists love to do most -- think of cool ways to spend other peoples' money.
Many of us don't believe you can pay a scumbag to not be a scumbag. There are many people in these same poor neighborhoods who never once considered murder, robbery, rape, burglary, and/or drugs as a way of life. They went to school -- already paid for by all of us at a cost of $7.5K per student per year for twelve years -- got jobs, worked hard, and chose to live decent lives. And when they started out they were just as poor and just as uneducated as the scumbag who decided to shoot somebody. I'd much rather help them go even farther than give a dime to some gang trash.
Poverty does not equal immorality and it is an insult to all the decent poor people in the world to suggest it is. An immoral lifestyle is a choice -- and one that many rich people indulge in also.
Now if a scumbag actually wants to turn himself around, then great. We would know that because they decided to do it without someone begging them. Many have. But if they aren't willing to take the first step, anyone who thinks they can bribe them into changing their mind is a chump. If you wonder what these people are like -- actually go visit a jail or prison and see for yourself. Could be a much more eye opening experience than classroom discussion. Then if you still want to see if you can convince them, as I said, your money is yours to do with as you please. Leave mine out of it.
Submariner
11-25-08, 16:12
Think of it: The envirofascists and Sallie Soccermom are satisfied. No political battle over guns and high capacity magazines. Congress passes the lead ban just as it banned R-12 and imposes criminal sanctions on sale, use, possession, and transfer.
What would we shoot?
Alinsky would be proud.
Razorhunter
11-25-08, 18:12
We just all need to STOP being lazy, and START protesting and raising all kind of hell, (in the proper manner of course), when our rights are at stake. The gays and other minorities do it, and usually get results.
Submariner
11-26-08, 15:46
Well, do you, President-elect Obama?
Guns and Ammo Deter Tyranny
by Jacob G. Hornberger
You may have noticed the many articles detailing the big run-up in the sale of guns and ammunition since the November elections. Apparently gun owners are concerned that President-elect Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress will enact bans on semi-automatic weapons and ammo.
Of course, that begs the question: What do they need all these weapons and ammunition for?
Well, one reason for the increase in demand might be simply the forbidden-fruit concept. Once government makes something illegal, it becomes more attractive to some people to have it.
Another possible reason is the fear of civil unrest. If such were to happen, people with guns would have the ability to deter marauding criminal gangs or to defend themselves from them.
Of course, some gun owners might want more guns for hunting, although it would seem that that would be the least likely reason for the big run-up in gun and ammunition sales.
Regardless of the particular motives of the gun and ammo buyers, we should never lose sight of the core reason that our American ancestors enshrined the right to keep and bear arms within the Second Amendment. That core reason is this: so that the American people could protect themselves through violent action from the tyranny of their very own federal government.
Now, that notion is shocking to some modern-day Americans. In their view, the federal government is their provider, their friend, and their benefactor. It’s the entity that bails them out of financial crises. It gives them their food stamps. It protects them from the terrorists, the drug dealers, the Muslims, and the illegal aliens. It helps their children get an education. It provides their retirement and healthcare.
Why in the world would Americans need to have weapons to protect themselves from their chief provider, protector, and benefactor?
The answer is simple: The federal government is the biggest threat to the freedom and well-being of the American people. That’s correct — it’s not the terrorists, the communists, the Muslims, the drug dealers, the illegal aliens, or any foreign dictator that constitutes the biggest threat to the American people. The biggest threat to the freedom and well-being of the American people is the federal government itself.
In fact, the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights is an explicit acknowledgement of that fact. That’s why those documents place express constraints on the powers of federal officials.
Could things ever get so bad that Americans would have to take up arms against their own government? Of course they could. That’s the whole idea behind the Second Amendment — to provide people with the means of violent resistance should such ever become necessary. Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals referred to this concept as a “doomsday” provision — one that is unlikely ever to have be used but which is critically important to have. Here’s what he wrote in the case of Silveira v. Lockyer:
The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
Ironically, the current increase in gun and ammunition sales makes the prospect of tyranny less likely. The reason is obvious: When would-be tyrants know that people have the means to resist tyranny with violence, the would-be tyrants are more cautious about implementing their tyrannical plans.
What is the first thing U.S. officials do when they invade some Third World country? They ensure that the citizenry remain disarmed. Why do they do that? To ensure that people readily obey whatever orders are issued to them. U.S. officials know what foreign dictators know: that a disarmed citizenry is an obedient citizenry.
Now, let’s assume an enormous crisis in which federal officials are threatening tyrannical measures against the American populace. At their staff meetings, at least one of the would-be tyrannical bureaucrats is certain to say, “Hey, this isn’t some Third-World country where everyone is disarmed and therefore obedient. This is the United States of America, where people have stockpiled enormous amounts of weaponry and ammunition in their homes. If we adopt these harsh tyrannical measures, things could get pretty nasty. I say we back off.”
Thus, the right to keep and bear arms not only serves as a sort of doomsday insurance policy in the event the worst were to happen, it also, at the same time, serves as an enormous deterrent to tyranny. The Second Amendment keeps Americans safe not only from burglars, thieves, and robbers but also from would-be tyrants.
http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2008-11-26.asp
As a Brit now living in the US this sends a shiver down my spine. I moved here to escape crap like this! What's next Obama, a ban on long kitchen knives a la UK?
"Guns, what guns? Oh I used to own some guns. But that was a long time ago. I sold all of those guns. I don't know who bought them. It was at different gun shows." That's my story when Obama's Citizen Security Force comes to my house with the ATF logs.
Here is the thing that many forget to mention. Since Reid is in charge of the U.S Senate he can stall bills etc.
This year he voted AGAINST renewing the AWB and even voted AGAINST the original AWB. The loon we have to be wary of between the Reid-Pelosi is Pelosi herself.
I am worried but at least the D in charge of the Senate is pretty Pro-2A, not the best but it could have been worse, Kennedy or Feinstein or some other.
Gutshot John
11-30-08, 13:27
The key will be how the Senate breaks down between pro and anti 2a.
If there are more than 40 solid, pro-2a (nevermind the number of pro-2a in the Congress) Senators, than we're in good shape.
If not than it's going to be a long few years. In my state the Democrat Senator is the more reliably pro-gun. He'd have a hard sell if he supported a new AWB.
Getting another ban passed, even if successful, will be a politically bruising fight. While a ban is far more likely than it was before November, I'd say we've got at least until the next Congress in 2011.
They all know they took the worst beating over this in modern times not too long ago. They can't be allowed to believe things are any different after such a short time has passed, big win for Obama notwithstanding. NO one voted for him based in him re-implementing the AWB. It never came up. He / they can't believe they have been given any mandate to do this as they were clearly elected based on other (not particularly intellectually grounded) reasoning. Most of which had to do with him "saving the economy". :rolleyes:
They have to be convinced that conditions are still set for the exact same kind of house clearing if they move in an anti-2A direction. And of course we can help convince them of that. PROACTIVELY is best. As opposed to allowing them to become overconfident and do something stupid that has to be undone -- with a lot of ruined Democrat political careers in the aftermath.
The message to them has to be -- no matter where their history or personal opinions stand -- that pro 2A is the only chance to hold office more than once.
Submariner
11-30-08, 15:56
He / they can't believe they have been given any mandate to do this as they were clearly elected based on other (not particularly intellectually grounded) reasoning. Most of which had to do with him "saving the economy". :rolleyes:
Think for a moment: Only 37 of 100 registered voters supported him.
It's tough to spin this into a mandate.
zippygaloo
11-30-08, 16:08
delete
Submariner
11-30-08, 17:57
Interesting data. Where did you get it?
Number of votes received by Obama divided by total number of registered voters and convert to percentage (googled.)
I'm sure you have been just as outspoken about our rights the last 8 years correct?
The firearms industry is not big corporate interest. Yes you are right about them going after social issues...bla bla bla. The dems are going for the soft underbelly… first-we enthusiasts and the NRA are it...next will be conservative talk radio...then as increased welfare and federalized healthcare...did you know they want to add CHIPS benefits to the middle class?
They probably won't get their liberal social Shangri La right away but they will work on what they believe they can do first with as little resistance as possible.
Think they can't do it...they took away our first amendment rights by monopolizing the media-they will take away our 2nd amendment rights next...you should be very afraid and concerned-and start thinking about what we are all going to do about it NOW!!!!!!!!! Don’t wait until 2010. The Dem's worked on getting BHO in the White House for years. It will take us until 2010 to come up with a strong opposition/solution-because right now we are all very weak!And as for race…we should all drop the race issue…only self loathing liberal masochists (the same ones that took the flag out of our schools because they didn’t want to offend the Muslim’s) voted for that reason-I’d like to think that they are not 53% of America. The Muslim Americans didn't ask to have the flags removed so don’t blame black Americans for this one either.
Look to the left and to the right of you and find Waldo!
Don’t know what to look for? Watch MSNBC for a few hours!
I for one am very tired and very worried when I read so many posts saying they won’t be able to get the new bill through. Please for all our sake-WTFU!
Bzzt. Registered voters do not equal actual voters. One of these things is not like the other. The guy won. Get over it.
Bush did far worse than this.
Number of votes received by Obama divided by total number of registered voters and convert to percentage (googled.)
Submariner
12-01-08, 12:54
Bzzt. Registered voters do not equal actual voters. One of these things is not like the other. The guy won. Get over it.
Bush did far worse than this.
You missed the point. No matter how anyone spins the totals, 63 of 100 who could have voted for Obama didn't. It is no mandate. Many are fed up with both sides.
I wonder if some of these stupid shootings in the last week at the mall and at the toy store etc.. are going to light a fire under the leftie nuts ??
Nooo! But But, I thought dems were too scared to ban guns... ok, you all remember the dems are out for blind revenge !the driving forces and parties went to finish the new world order -so what about the Constitution and Law be damned and by-passed ,in other words so what !yes the people asked for this mess -brain washed -ask for the free ride to hell!
docholliday
12-03-08, 14:48
They will try and get their claws in one way or another, target the guns or just starve out the ammo
To everyone that thinks that Obama won't make a ban a priority in the first 120 days I believe are just trying to think logically. The economy will take a lot longer and the war in the sandbox will go on. The easiest thing for the Administration to show that they are about 'Change' is to pass and sign another AWB.
The only thing that might slow down the bill would be if there are enough gun friendly legislatures that remember what happened in '94. The first AWB (along with the other ridiculous legislation) stirred up enough gun owners to vote out the people that voted to pass the AWB bill.
If the sympathy of the country is one that 'we don't care about your stupid guns, we want the economy fixed...so pass another AWB if it helps to fix the economy and end the war', then we won't have a chance. Just don't look for any sunset clause and much more restrictive wording. One other thing, remember it is next to impossible to repeal a law once one is passed. Try to remember the last time a law was repealed!!!!
Could a new AWB be struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional?
With the Heller decision, I think that the SCOTUS will let stand another AWB!!!
One other thing, remember it is next to impossible to repeal a law once one is passed. Try to remember the last time a law was repealed!!!!
Prohibition is the only one that comes to mind.
When the flag is unfurled, all reason is in the trumpet. -Ukrainian proverb
Prohibition is the only one that comes to mind.
That's an Amendment, which is quite different. Federal laws are repealed and changed all the time; they just aren't publicized. Take a look at any large piece of legislation and it's almost a guarantee that if it's more than a few years old certain provisions will start disappearing or changing.
What would have been correct to say is that it is virtually impossible to repeal something for which a bureaucracy was set up. That the Prohibition Act was repealed at all is a minor miracle... but only minor because most of the regulations remain in place at the local and federal levels. Feel cheated yet? ;)
-B
I for one am very tired and very worried when I read so many posts saying they won’t be able to get the new bill through. Please for all our sake-WTFU!
One is not nessacerily sleeping for merely disagreeing on a time issue. I personally don't think the AWB or whatever is anywhere near a priority for even PE Obama. Of course I realize that he would love to snap his fingers and have all private ownership of firearms eliminated instantly. Fortunately he cannot do that and resources are limited and need great for so many legitimate issues.
I write I vote I give I petition I preach and I pray, however I won't encourage anyone to bust the bank or leverage their folio for the purchase of mags ammo guns or paper gold. For the vast majority the better bet is long lasting consumables and a high quality large amount first aid reserves.
10MM You're missing the point entirely. It does not take "time" or "effort" to restate an AWB -- House and senate have already written two almost identical bills -- they both failed this past year because of not enough Democrats and the knowledge that Bush would veto anyway. It is no effort to slap new numbers on these bills, have them ready to go into voting when the new year starts (when dems have larger majorities in NBOTH Houses) and present them to POTUS Obama the day after inauguration -- they said he wants to "hit the round running.' a new AWNB would actually be the SIMPLEST thing for him to do!
Don't get caught standing there holding your dick in February!
You have alot of your facts wrong gunrider but the most obvious is that Bush would veto an AWB. Bush Always said he would sign a new AWB if one came before him. Do some research so your not caught holding your dick.
10MM You're missing the point entirely. It does not take "time" or "effort" to restate an AWB -- House and senate have already written two almost identical bills -- they both failed this past year because of not enough Democrats and the knowledge that Bush would veto anyway. It is no effort to slap new numbers on these bills, have them ready to go into voting when the new year starts (when dems have larger majorities in NBOTH Houses) and present them to POTUS Obama the day after inauguration -- they said he wants to "hit the round running.' a new AWNB would actually be the SIMPLEST thing for him to do!
Don't get caught standing there holding your dick in February!
10MM You're missing the point entirely. It does not take "time" or "effort" to restate an AWB -- House and senate have already written two almost identical bills -- they both failed this past year because of not enough Democrats and the knowledge that Bush would veto anyway. It is no effort to slap new numbers on these bills, have them ready to go into voting when the new year starts (when dems have larger majorities in NBOTH Houses) and present them to POTUS Obama the day after inauguration -- they said he wants to "hit the round running.' a new AWNB would actually be the SIMPLEST thing for him to do!
Don't get caught standing there holding your dick in February!
I'm not the type to be caught standing doing nothing. However from here on out lets agree to let me worry about my dick and I'll let you worry about yours:D. BTW President Bush clearly stated he would sign it(weapons ban) if they put it in front of him.
Littlelebowski
12-20-08, 16:25
You have alot of your facts wrong gunrider but the most obvious is that Bush would veto an AWB. Bush Always said he would sign a new AWB if one came before him. Do some research so your not caught holding your dick.
So you're saying you think Obama would not sign an AWB, HK45?
In 2004, the Dems attached an AWB renewal to the firearms manufacturers protection legislation. The White House publicly called for the provision to be stricken and a clean bill be presented to Bush. Bush had his chance at an AWB and publicly gave it up.
That's one of the facts that tends to be ignored.
platinumdude
12-26-08, 00:15
What normally happens when someone has a firearm on order, but the ban occurs before the gun is finished building or before shipping. The dealer is stuck with the firearm?
platinumdude
12-26-08, 16:36
I need about 20 weeks for my FAL order, we will see if I make it or not. Keeping fingers crossed. I could of paid a lot more and got one now from a local store ($500+ more), but I already have other caliber rifles. So not a real big deal if I don't get it.
platinumdude
12-26-08, 20:02
Edit: I found this:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_promise_last_year_to_ban.html
I can't find anything official, just others reposting this. Is there an official record of this?:
"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban as soon as I take office. Within 90 days, we will go back after kitchen table dealers, and work to end the gun show and internet sales loopholes. In the first year, I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."
—Barack Obama, VPC Fund Raiser, 2007
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/2nd-amendment-politics/4849-assault-weapons-ban-reauthorization-act-2008-a-5.html
its the national no carry law that scares me !
chances are it wont happen but still scary he is so stupid and ignorant !!!!
if he passes this then his bodyguards and any protection he wants should not be allowed to carry guns !!!!!!
like Rosie who said but I am important and I need it buy you dont !!!!
I bet he would be the same way !!!
my life is important so I am allowed protection but you are not important and you can not protect yourself !!!!
Please explain rationally how there could be a national "no carry law". There is the issue of the 10th Amendment that would probably hinder that from happening.
its the national no carry law that scares me !
chances are it wont happen but still scary he is so stupid and ignorant !!!!
if he passes this then his bodyguards and any protection he wants should not be allowed to carry guns !!!!!!
like Rosie who said but I am important and I need it buy you dont !!!!
I bet he would be the same way !!!
my life is important so I am allowed protection but you are not important and you can not protect yourself !!!!
I cant explain it and doubt it will ever happen but then again I never thought he would win :)
I guess I just think its scary he wants that and I dont trust a lot of people and I am more thinking out loud in a shaking my head kind of way :)
but I guess maybe at the ripe old age of 46 I have seen enough to make me shake my head and I know enough older guys who have seen things they never thought would happen ?
reality would be I would think it would end up as it is now a state by state thing
and as I say just cause he wants it does not mean it will come to pass !
but the way he looks at the constitution as a thing we need to change ! that alone is scary that our leaders now want to scrap what got us here and change things
Platinuimdude's edit is a good read: the link de-bunks the " VPC Fundraiser " quote as a fabricated urban legend.
Pure BS.
Edit: I found this:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_promise_last_year_to_ban.html
I can't find anything official, just others reposting this. Is there an official record of this?:
"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban as soon as I take office. Within 90 days, we will go back after kitchen table dealers, and work to end the gun show and internet sales loopholes. In the first year, I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."
—Barack Obama, VPC Fund Raiser, 2007
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/2nd-amendment-politics/4849-assault-weapons-ban-reauthorization-act-2008-a-5.html
In past years Mr. Obama may have drank too much Chicago kool-aid , but ( IMO )
he is smart enough to stay away from political suicide.
He is also smart enough to know that Congress will not pass a re-newed AWB.
The votes are not there. It's as simple as that.
Edit to add:
Check out the thread at the usa carry link: 6 pages of fantasy and dithering over a bill with 4 co-sponsors( out of over 400 people in the house). :rolleyes:
The bill was dead right there.
Another House AWB bill got around 64 co-sponsors , still a pathetically weak amount of support.
The House ATF reform bill had over 220 co-sponsors. The reform bill was very good for our side.
We are still winning.
:cool:
I do wonder if he gets in a 2nd term what he will try then ?
the emergency law thing after Katrina gives the power to pass laws ?
I dont know enough about this yet ! but I do wonder if he will use this loophole to try to get something through declaring a state of emergency ?
again I dont know about this and what it really says just thinking out loud
In past years Mr. Obama may have drank too much Chicago kool-aid , but ( IMO )
he is smart enough to stay away from political suicide.
He is also smart enough to know that Congress will not pass a re-newed AWB.
The votes are not there. It's as simple as that.
I guess then he has put the gun to his head !!!!!
go here
http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/
scroll down to crime and law enforcement and read this part !
They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
so while you say its as simple as that !!! well he put it in writing how much more evidence do you need to light a fire !!
this is the guy that became president with no experience !!!!!
the fact he became president is proof that he can do things if he puts his mind to it
will it happen ?
I hope not
could it happen ! YUP !!!!
You forgot part of the quote.
Platinuimdude's edit is a good read: the link de-bunks the " VPC Fundraiser " quote as a fabricated urban legend.
Pure BS.
In past years Mr. Obama may have drank too much Chicago kool-aid , but ( IMO )
he is smart enough to stay away from political suicide.
He is also smart enough to know that Congress will not pass a re-newed AWB.
The votes are not there. It's as simple as that.
Edit to add:
Check out the thread at the usa carry link: 6 pages of fantasy and dithering over a bill with 4 co-sponsors( out of over 400 people in the house). :rolleyes:
The bill was dead right there.
Another House AWB bill got around 64 co-sponsors , still a pathetically weak amount of support.
The House ATF reform bill had over 220 co-sponsors. The reform bill was very good for our side.
We are still winning.
:cool:
I will be back.
platinumdude
12-28-08, 23:44
In regards to H.R. 6257
Here are the list of the idiots who sponsored this bill (ALL REPUBLICANS)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR06257:@@@P
Sponsor
Rep Kirk, Mark Steven [IL-10] (re-elected in 08)
Co-Sponsors
Rep Castle, Michael N. [DE] (re-elected in 08)
Rep Ferguson, Mike [NJ-7] (Ferguson announced on November 19, 2007, that he will not run for re-election in 2008, stating that he wants to spend more time with his family) (GOOD RIDDANCE)
Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [FL-18] (re-elected in 2008)
Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4] (Lost in 2008, GOOD RIDDANCE)
With the exception of FL, just look at the states they represent though, DE,NJ,CT. Nothing surprising there. Maybe they need to be mugged again to fully make that transition from Democrat to Republican though.
All of these are RINO's. And the legislation is currently dead at least until it gets re-introduced next year.
In regards to H.R. 6257
Here are the list of the idiots who sponsored this bill (ALL REPUBLICANS)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR06257:@@@P
Sponsor
Rep Kirk, Mark Steven [IL-10] (re-elected in 08)
Co-Sponsors
Rep Castle, Michael N. [DE] (re-elected in 08)
Rep Ferguson, Mike [NJ-7] (Ferguson announced on November 19, 2007, that he will not run for re-election in 2008, stating that he wants to spend more time with his family) (GOOD RIDDANCE)
Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [FL-18] (re-elected in 2008)
Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4] (Lost in 2008, GOOD RIDDANCE)
platinumdude
12-29-08, 21:54
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:SkR3TFKfBbIJ:abclocal.go.com/kabc/story%3Fsection%3Dnews/politics%26id%3D6520694+congress+plans+2009&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Congress plans for quick start
Saturday, November 22, 2008
AP
WASHINGTON -- Eager for a quick start, Democratic congressional leaders intend to begin work in early January on priority legislation so it can be ready for President-elect Barack Obama's signature shortly after he takes office, according to officials familiar with the plans.
These officials said an economic aid measure, legislation to expand health care for lower-income children and a loosening of Bush administration rules covering federally funded embryonic stem cell research are among the bills at the center of discussions with Obama aides.
All three issues have been the focus of battles between the Democrats in Congress and President George W. Bush, and early enactment of any would underscore the change ushered in by this month's election.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to disclose the plans.
Story continues below
Advertisement
Meanwhile, John Podesta, a leader of Obama's transition team, told senior Democratic aides on Friday the incoming administration is making its Cabinet and sub-Cabinet selections faster than customary and hopes the nominees can be confirmed quickly.
Democrats gained at least 20 House seats and at least seven Senate seats in the November elections, expanded majorities in place when the new Congress is sworn in on Jan 6. Under the Constitution, Obama takes the oath of office as the 44th president on Jan. 20.
Customarily, the preinaugural period is slow in Congress as lawmakers await the swearing-in of a new president. They then spend weeks doing little more than confirming Cabinet secretaries and other officials.
But Democrats now will have control of the White House and Congress for the first time since 1994, and officials in both branches of government are eager to begin work.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said at a news conference Friday the focus for the first week of Congress "will be to introduce a strong recovery package to create jobs, good paying jobs, in our country and to bring more confidence to the financial crisis - to turn around the financial crisis."
A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., declined comment on plans for early legislation.
But Obama said in the Democrat radio address Saturday he has asked his economic advisers to develop a plan that will create 2.5 million jobs by 2011 - "a plan big enough to meet the challenges we face that I intend to sign soon after taking office."
To a large degree, Democratic plans to prepare legislation before Obama takes his oath depend on the cooperation of Senate Republicans. While the GOP lost seats, Republicans have enough strength to slow the routine housekeeping matters that must be settled out before committees can begin to work, as well as to impede the progress of legislation.
Obama said he recognized that passing an economic aid plan will not be easy. "I will need and seek support from Republicans and Democrats, and Ill be welcome to ideas and suggestions from both sides of the aisle," he said on the radio. "But what is not negotiable is the need for immediate action."
One stimulus bill was signed into law last winter, but Democratic efforts to pass a second have run into opposition from the Bush administration as well as congressional Republicans, who oppose provisions for federal spending on public works projects and other elements.
The expansion of federally funded health care for lower income children was the subject of a bruising veto battle between Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress in 2007.
The president twice vetoed bills on the subject and was upheld each time. The administration said any such measures should put poor children fist, and contended the legislation did not.
The embryonic stem cell issue has been an emotional one since the early days of the Bush administration, when the president established rules saying federal money could be used for research only on pre-existing lines of cells. Congress twice tried to overturn his policy; Bush's vetoes were upheld both times.
Supporters say the legislation would allow federal dollars to be used on research that shows promise in treatment and even cures of numerous diseases.
Critics say the research involves the destruction of human embryos, and oppose it on those grounds. They also say alternative forms of stem cell research show promise. "Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical," Bush said as he vetoed the second measure.
Not all conservatives, or even all abortion opponents, agree with his position.
As president, Obama could use his own authority to overturn Bush's executive order limiting the use of federal money for embryonic stem cell research. Enactment of legislation would be a stronger step, because no future president could undo it without a subsequent act of Congress.
I hope one of their fast passes is not an AWB. If it's not then they will then spends weeks confirming the cabinet positions and so forth. Hopefully it slows them down enough for my order to get shipped out.
I'm not worried about a new AWB at all.
To quote Mr. Obama: "We can't get there-- not enough votes".
There's a thread on the 'new' Congress , including NRA grades. That info , plus co-sponsor trends , Heller Amicus brief signers and support for CCW in National Parks shows we are winning. Harry Reid is on our side.
Take another look at the Urban Policy stuff. The first thing on the list and the item on the bottom.
http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/
....(Snip for brevity)...
Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment....
...( blah , blah, yada, yada--list of pie in the sky goals)...
. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.[/B][/LIST]
The key words are "would repeal" and "also support".
The AWB is dead last and the "also support" is politician for:
" Somebody else can beat their heads against that brick wall. We got other fish to fry."
We are still winning.
:cool:
Littlelebowski
12-30-08, 06:38
No, we're not. Rahm Emanuel was described as "Clinton's point man on gun control" and he's Obama's chief of staff. We have a Democrat controlled Congress. Obama's Cabinet is chock full of Chicago gun grabbers. If you think we're "winning," see you in a few months.
No, we're not. Rahm Emanuel was described as "Clinton's point man on gun control" and he's Obama's chief of staff. We have a Democrat controlled Congress. Obama's Cabinet is chock full of Chicago gun grabbers. If you think we're "winning," see you in a few months.
Fair enough.
;)
I can't argue with any of those facts about Rahm , the Dem controlled Congress or gungrabbers in the Cabinet.
And , not but:
What they want to do and what they can do are two very different things.
There are too many Blue Dog pro 2nd Amendment Democrats in Congress.
We have plenty of challenges , but an imminent AWB (IMO) is not one of them.
We'll see.
Hope you are healing up OK.
My Outlook indicates the link to this thread is a potential phishing danger--clicking on the link NOT recommended--unlike any of the other threads I subscribe to...:eek:
Moo-hah-hah!
platinumdude
01-07-09, 12:45
Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=85507
A perfect storm is developing for Second Amendment opponents that could allow President-elect Barack Obama's choice for attorney general – Eric Holder – to "ban guns at will" despite the 2008 affirmation from the U.S. Supreme Court that U.S. citizens have a right to bear arms.
The situation was described with alarm by Alan Korwin, author of Gun Laws of America, in a recent commentary.
He cited Holder's known support for gun bans – the former Clinton administration official endorsed the District of Columbia's complete ban on functional guns in residents' homes before it was overturned by the Supreme Court.
And Korwin pointed to overwhelming Democratic majorities in Congress as well as Obama's known support for gun restrictions and his presence in the Oval Office.
(More in article link)
I worked under Holder for a couple of years when he was U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. He's certainly not a pro-2A guy.
However, I still don't see any major new anti-gun legislation coming down the pike in the next couple of years. No one is talking about it up on Capitol Hill. Neither is Obama's transition team ... someone I know very well met with them a couple weeks back and absolutely no one is even thinking about guns right now. The economy and BHO's idea of how to "improve" it are issues 1, 2, and 3. Foreign affairs come in a distant #4 (so much for all that talk about Iraq during the campaign). The environment and similar issues are in there, too.
Gun control is too touchy a subject for BHO to press right now. His party is awash in trouble figuring out who is and isn't a Senator while trying to have an economic recovery package ready to go within 30 days of the inauguration. The last thing they need is to spend (and lose) political capital on an acrimonious issue like gun control.
Will a new AWB come up eventually? I think so. But not this year, and not next.
Not to worry. Remember Joe Biden said, "Obama ain't taking my shotguns... If he tries to fool with my Beretta, he's got a problem."
He's guaranteed to be fighting hard for our 2A rights! I sure wouldn't want to be Obama. :rolleyes:
I worked under Holder for a couple of years when he was U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. He's certainly not a pro-2A guy.
However, I still don't see any major new anti-gun legislation coming down the pike in the next couple of years. No one is talking about it up on Capitol Hill. Neither is Obama's transition team ... someone I know very well met with them a couple weeks back and absolutely no one is even thinking about guns right now. The economy and BHO's idea of how to "improve" it are issues 1, 2, and 3. Foreign affairs come in a distant #4 (so much for all that talk about Iraq during the campaign). The environment and similar issues are in there, too.
Gun control is too touchy a subject for BHO to press right now. His party is awash in trouble figuring out who is and isn't a Senator while trying to have an economic recovery package ready to go within 30 days of the inauguration. The last thing they need is to spend (and lose) political capital on an acrimonious issue like gun control.
Will a new AWB come up eventually? I think so. But not this year, and not next.
Thanks for your insight Todd.
I wish some of this panic buying would calm down......mainly so I could do some...panic buying :o
...is it possible they might just tax the piss out of ammo and components to generate a lil' more income and bypass the need to ban anything?
I still remember the brief period when you had to sign for pistol ammo...
...phew...http://emoticons4u.com/crazy/140.gif
I would urge anyone who is "keeping a low profile" to please reconsider and contact your reps regarding gun control. Please do this now and regularly from now on. Keep it short, polite, and to the point.
This is not the time to hide. It's still a free country. Speak up, buy guns and ammo, go shoot, teach someone else how to shoot, get them involved. If they plan to try it (ban) again, let's make it as expensive as we can.
By "expensive," I mean politically. Should've been more clear on the internet!
No, we're not. Rahm Emanuel was described as "Clinton's point man on gun control" and he's Obama's chief of staff. We have a Democrat controlled Congress. Obama's Cabinet is chock full of Chicago gun grabbers. If you think we're "winning," see you in a few months.
You got it...anything else is just:
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f268/LWMcVay/wptg_logo_01.jpg
We also have four Republican Sen ators who are retiring this year. Great!
I think that's an excellent idea. No pol, not even Obama can ignore a tidal wave of spontaneous, RESPECTFUL but firm emails from pro-2a types reminding him that we are watching and that we do vote. Send this out to all your friends. Get them to write, it may just guarantee your gun rights for the foreseeable future.
I followed your example.
I dont think he cares if we vote or not, our vote didnt matter in November.
Not to worry. Remember Joe Biden said, "Obama ain't taking my shotguns... If he tries to fool with my Beretta, he's got a problem."
He's guaranteed to be fighting hard for our 2A rights! I sure wouldn't want to be Obama. :rolleyes:
If he had said FNC or AUG instead of beretta shotgun I would be a lot happier. :)
Votes mattered in November.
There were some pretty tight races.
Votes will matter in 2010 , and in 2012.
Obama's smart enough ( IMO ) to stay away from any active gun banning , at least for a while.
:)
If he had said FNC or AUG instead of beretta shotgun I would be a lot happier. :)
But notice he said "ain't" for the benifit of us gunn ownrs...
“I guarantee you, Barack Obama ain’t taking my shotguns. So don’t buy that malarkey,” Mr. Biden said. “They’re going to start peddling that to you.”
Jake Tapper, at ABC News’s “Political Punch” blog fleshes out the Bidenisms, with this elaboration about the senator’s own penchant for “clinging” to his guns: “I got two,” Mr. Biden told the crowd, referring to his arms and then to Mr. Obama. “If he tries to fool with my Beretta, he’s got a problem. I like that little over and under, you know? I’m not bad with it.”
But we have a problem with Joe Biden’s record on protecting the rights of gun ownership in this country. I believe he was one of the worst ratings when it comes to protecting the rights of gun owners. He also has a past history of anti gun legislation and statements. Here is Joe Biden on legislation that would ban the sale of military style weapons:
But Senate supporters of the measure said they would apply whatever pressures they can muster on the House and called on constituents to write and call their representatives. “The House better understand the power of an idea whose time has come,” said Senator Joseph R. Biden, the Delaware Democrat who heads the Judiciary Committee. “It still will be an uphill fight in the House, but I think the wave is moving.”
Nothing buy pure political cheese-dickery at its lowest form.
http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/8227/testsl2.jpg
From the White House Agenda-Urban Policy:
Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/urban_policy/
But notice he said "ain't" for the benifit of us gunn ownrs...
His comment was directed towards Fudd gun owners who fire their firearms approx. 1-2 months out of the year at birds and critters. He has no intention of letting us run rampant with our evil baby killing rifles at all, complete disdain for our kind.
Medicine Calf
01-22-09, 18:04
"Obama ain't taking my shotguns... If he tries to fool with my Beretta, he's got a problem."
Divide and conquer.
I still feel that allowing the Government to dictate or gun rights, is like giving the keys to the jail to the criminals.
Well, that's the heart of it, no? "Allowing the government..." So, how to disallow?
Votes mattered in November.
There were some pretty tight races.
Votes will matter in 2010 , and in 2012.
Obama's smart enough ( IMO ) to stay away from any active gun banning , at least for a while.
:)
Not buying this.
Dear Leader will sign any gun control bill that comes accross his desk, passed by a liberal democrat congress. Right now the Dems are drunk with power, and they can run roughshod over the few republicans that will hold out since many repubs will not want to rock the boat.
I am certain we will see something gun related very soon. How bad or exactly what it is remains to be seen. Having be a gun owner through the Hughes Amendment (MG Ban) in 1986, the import ban in 1989, and the 1994-2004 AWB, I don't subscribe to the "they won't do it because they will lose votes" point of view. They have proven time and time again their propensity to sneak things through and make a turd look like a gold nugget. FOPA is a prime example. It looked good until they tacked on the "poison pill" that was supposed to kill it, the heinous Hughes Amendment, at the last minute, when half of congress was out of pocket, and Reagan signed it into law.
Now we have the ridiculous result of $15,000 M16s. I remember when they cost about $1000.
I don't take anything for granted anymore and I don't trust the Democrats to not pass anything. I believe hey would pass a bill banning bottled water if it profited them in some way or met their agenda.
I think Obama believes that a real man uses swords instead of guns:
http://i480.photobucket.com/albums/rr169/sgalbra76/obama5.jpg
:D:D
LegalAlien
01-26-09, 14:00
The open letter below (IMHO) very eloquently voices the concerns many current serving and retired military folks have regarding Obama's eligibility:-
From: LtCol. David A. Earl-Graef
To: Chief Justice John G. Roberts
Date: 26 Jan 2006
Sir,
I can not express in words the disappointment I feel regarding the recent actions of the Court to deny those of us in the military important answers to questions regarding our Constitutional duty as clearly stated in our Oath of Office. While these actions are not an injury such as one might sustain on the field of battle, they constitute an egregious injury to the faith I have placed in the court. While I can not say that of its nature the injury is mortal, it is not without morbidity! While I can not say that I shall succumb to it, the actions of the Court have deeply wounded the spirit of this American Soldier. I am left brokenhearted and conflicted in this moment to the point of tears.
I had earlier written to you and asked that you consider the Oath of Office that I took and every American Soldier takes and asked that you honor and respect its sacred vows in your actions. I ask you now in your heart; have you done this? Have you placed aside the political concerns of this decision? Have you given honor to the fighting men and women who, in the face of death, carry the standard of freedom? Have you given honor to the fallen Soldiers who have no voice; those who are now across the river of eternity and whose bodies lay entombed across the river from where you sit, in the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery? Have you given honor to the Soldiers whose names are not inscribed on any piece of stone or mortar or recorded on any parchment or paper; the names American Soldiers that are known only to God?
Make no mistake, I am keenly aware of the burden placed upon you and do not in any way envy your responsibility or the responsibility of the court in this situation. The dire consequences facing our Nation in either circumstance around your decision are no less and perhaps more than has ever fallen before us as a Nation in our entire history.
Although in my darkest moments, when shadows of doubt encircle me, I remain steadfast to my Oath. Although I can not suppress a feeling of betrayal, I can not knowingly betray my country. I again plea to the Court to release me from this yoke of uncertainty that is weighing me down. Renew my faith in Justice and give me the direction I need to continue to serve. Above all I pray that you not let those Soldiers who have paid and are yet to pay the ultimate sacrifice defending the Constitution to have done so in vain.
Sincerely,
LtCol David Earl-Graef USAFR MC
linked to on this site:- http://drorly.blogspot.com/
Sttrongbow
01-26-09, 15:06
LtCol Earl-Garf is in error.
He has been denied nothing. There is a process of law in place to address these matters. The fact that he wishes that the process had a different outcome does not mean that he was denied process or justice, or even "answers."
It's time for the LtCol, and indeed, all of us, to acknowledge the new President and move on with the task of defending our 2nd Amendment rights by the legal means at our disposal. This is the court of the Heller decision. We are in a stronger postion than ever to defend our rights.
Self-pity does not become men of action. The opposition must remain the LOYAL opposition. Man up, salute the President, and fight any anti-gun policies he may try to enact!
OK,
[QUOTE=_DR;295699]Not buying this.
Dear Leader will sign any gun control bill that comes accross his desk, passed by a liberal democrat congress. Right now the Dems are drunk with power, and they can run roughshod over the few republicans that will hold out since many repubs will not want to rock the boat.
I am certain we will see something gun related very soon. How bad or exactly what it is remains to be seen. Having be a gun owner through the Hughes Amendment (MG Ban) in 1986, the import ban in 1989, and the 1994-2004 AWB,
...(Snip for brevity)....
Wow.
OK, but that's not even close to the point.
Of course , Mr. Obama would sign a new AWB if it hits his desk. Thing is , last time I checked --no AWB had even been introduced in either the House or the Senate this year. It takes a bill in both places. That's called step 1.
It's worth while to look at the number of co-sponsors on the bills from time to time : It's a quick way to sort out the false alarm BS from the serious stuff.
False alarm BS is still a good excuse to write elected officials but not enough reason to pay $769 for a WASR or $1,300 for a DPMS.
Let's look at some examples from the 435 member House last year:
HR 1022: Renew AWB , bad , 64 co-sponsors . Really weak.
HR 6757: New " improved " AWB , really bad , 4 (four) co-sponsors . Truly pathetic.
HR 4900: ATF Reform & Modernization Act , really good , around 225 co-sponsors.
Pretty good , over half.
I don't know of any AWB bills in the Senate last year. Could be there were one or more. I dunno , if anybody does know , please post a source link.
Last time I checked, there was one (1) anti gun bill in the House this year:
HR 45: a half-baked national gun license scheme. Arfcom had 10 or 12 pages of panic induced "Red Dawn" , Martyr for the Revolution " fantasies over that POS. Zero co-sponsors , dead right there. Back in 2007 , the same , single idiot intro'ed the same bill . He got around 16 co-sponsors , over a period of months.
My point was ( and is) that we have some time. At least a few months , likely longer before any AWB might ( maybe) come out of Congress , if one does at all.
So far , the gun-grabbers are off to a slow start. That's good news for us.
We are still winning.
:)
I'd like to post about the 2nd Amendment Enforcement act , but I'm out of time.
There's another thread on it . It's not doom & gloom. ;)
Thing is , last time I checked --no AWB had even been introduced in either the House or the Senate this year. It takes a bill in both places. That's called step 1.
Its still January. The year is still young.
And there is such a thing as an Executive Order wherein he can impose virtually any type of gun ban, mag ban, import ban, ammo ban, etc. as the man sees fit. It can and WILL happen. The only question is when?
So far the gun-grabbers are off to a slow start. That's good news for us.
:)
More time to get ready , get organized , donate to & recruit for SAF & the NRA -- and learn to tell the difference between background noise and the important stuff.
You bet that Executive Orders exist. That's a very big , very fast hammer-- if he chooses to use it.
There's no free lunch. The political and diplomatic backlash from import bans is likely to be huge.
Which Allies does he want screw: Czechs , Poles , Romanians etc ?
How many Fudd plinkers does he want to piss off?
I dunno , it's up to him.
We can still win this thing . We are already winning.
:)
Its still January. The year is still young.
And there is such a thing as an Executive Order wherein he can impose virtually any type of gun ban,
NO he can't ! Ban imports, yes. Ban legal interstate commerce, no he can not. IF an EO could ban guns President Clinton would have done so during his time in office and all guns would have been banned. Only the Legislative branch can enact/pass laws that affect interstate commerce.
I received a reply for my Senator about an email I sent him about Eric Holder. He said he had received a lot of letters where people did not want Holder confirmed. Of course Holder isn't just one of the most anti-gun people around he is also under fire for his involvement in the Marc Rich and FALN pardons. I still think he will be confirmed and will be Obama's lead in gun control.
:D
Sweet:
I received a reply for my Senator about an email I sent him about Eric Holder. He said he had received a lot of letters where people did not want Holder confirmed. Of course Holder isn't just one of the most anti-gun people around he is also under fire for his involvement in the Marc Rich and FALN pardons. I still think he will be confirmed and will be Obama's lead in gun control.
Can you do me a favor and post the e-mails? I want to send something , if it's not too late.
This guy is a juicey target. Win , lose or draw , this is a great chance to rough up the gun-grabbers and show some support
for the good guys.
The letter below I received from Senator Carper. I must have deleted the one I sent to him. I told him Holder was not the right man for the job. He was into too many questionable things with President Clinton and Holder was anti-2nd amendment. If you want some more ideas for your letter just google "stop the Eric Holder comformatiom."
Thank you for contacting me to express your concern with President Barack Obama's choice of Eric Holder for Attorney General. I appreciate hearing from you on this important matter.
As the leader of our nation's federal law enforcement, the United States Attorney General must be a person of impeccable honor and integrity, who represents the interests of our entire nation rather than just those of any President. In my view, the U.S. Attorney General should have the authority to implement policies consistent with the Constitution and other international accords free from political pressure from the White House. We need someone who will put justice above partisanship, is not doctrinaire in interpreting and defending the rule of law, and who is a principled professional.
As you know, on December 1, 2008, President Obama announced that Eric Holder will be his nominee for U.S. Attorney General in the incoming administration. As a former governor, I certainly respect the right of the incoming President to surround himself with cabinet members he believes will best serve his administration. When I was Delaware's chief executive, I nominated numerous individuals to cabinet positions and state judgeships. As governor, however, I did not have the opportunity to nominate the state attorney general, who is independently elected by Delaware's voters to enforce the laws in our state. In keeping with this tradition in Delaware, I believe that the United States Attorney General should represent the interests of the entire nation rather than just those of the president.
Having said that, I take seriously my obligation as a United States Senator to provide advice and consent on the president's judicial and cabinet-level nominees. I have heard from a number of people who, like yourself, have concerns about Eric Holder's past decisions, particularly concerning the pardons during President Clinton's final term. Opponents of Holder's nomination contend that his advice to the President on the Marc Rich pardon, and the pardon of sixteen members of the Armed Forces of National Liberation in Puerto Rico, call into question his qualifications to serve as the Attorney General.
I agree with you that any nominee to such an important position should be fully and completely vetted. In the past, I have made it a priority to meet with as many of the Administration's nominees as possible, particularly those whose nominations are controversial. As we look forward to the 111th Congress, which convened on January 6, 2009, Eric Holder's nomination will be a top priority. The Judiciary Committee will be conducting confirmation proceedings on the nomination, under the leadership of Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT).
Chairman Leahy has postponed the confirmation hearing for one week in response to a request, from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, for additional time to prepare. The confirmation hearing will now begin at 9:30 a.m. on January 15th, in the Senate Caucus Room. The hearing will be broadcast online, and additional information may be found at the Senate Judiciary Committee website at: http://judiciary.senate.gov/
I am not a member of the Judiciary Committee, however, I look forward to the opportunity for the full Senate to have an up or down vote on Eric Holder. While I strongly believe that our nation needs its top law enforcement office filled quickly, and national security team working and running as soon as possible, it is imperative to ensure that the Attorney General of the United States has impeccable honor and integrity, and will implement policies consistent with our Constitution. I appreciate your thoughts on this nomination, and I will keep them in mind during the confirmation process.
Thank you again for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or other matters of importance to you.
With best personal regards, I am
Sincerely,
Tom Carper
United States Senator
Thanks.
Senator Carper has a good staff who know how to put together an all purpose letter when they get lots of mail on an issue.
Thanks.
Senator Carper has a good staff who know how to put together an all purpose letter when they get lots of mail on an issue.
I think "all purpose" are the key words. I don't put a lot into what is said. Actually all he really ever says is that he is listening and will keep everyone in mind.
BTW, Holder was approved in committee by 17-2.
I'm going to email my new Senator. BInlaDEN's replacement.
Back in the early 1990's a lot of politicians would not even bother to answer letters from 2nd Amendment people.
Times have changed.
It looks the vote by the full Senate could be as late as Monday. Some of the gun-grabber media are spinning it as sooner. We'll see.
Win , loose or draw , it sounds like there is stiil time to e-mail Senators.
Hi all,
H.R. 45 has been introduced to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee. H.R. 45 is really bad. See the whole thing here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45:
Here is the letter I wrote to all the US House Judiciary Committee members. Getting this bill stopped while in committee is vastly better than it going to the House floor for debate and a vote. We need to get this stopped early.
Begin Letter:
January 27, 2009
Re: Vote NO on HR45
Dear House Judiciary Member,
I urge you to vote NO on HR45, the "Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009."
Constitutionally protected rights are not subject to licensing, taxes, applications, fees, requirements, or any other subversion at the hands of federal, state, or local government. HR45 is just as immoral and unconstitutional as any poll tax or literacy test requirement for voting.
In addition, HR45 will not be effective for its stated purpose, and will put an undue burden on those of our citizens who have fewer financial resources. Instead, I ask you to focus on the enforcement of existing laws against violent crime, which will be vastly more effective than curbing the Civil Rights of all private citizens in the United States.
This is not a gun issue; this is a Civil Rights issue.
If you vote for HR45, you will not receive my vote or financial support at any time in the future.
Sincerely,
End Letter
Anyone who wishes to sign their own name to my letter and send it is welcome to do so.
In sending this to the various House Judiciary Committee members yesterday, I discovered that many of them do not accept emails from outside their district. I found it much more convenient to fax all of them. Below are the fax numbers to the Washington D.C. offices of most of the House Judiciary Committee members (not all of them.) I didn't attach the Representatives' names to the fax numbers.
Here they are:
202-225-1512
202-225-3303
202-225-3317
202-226-1170
202-225-7854
202-225-3193
202-225-5658
202-225-6328
202-225-5974
202-226-1230
202-225-5663
202-226-0577
202-226-0691
202-225-5547
202-225-2154
202-225-5629
202-225-7810
202-225-3132
202-225-5879
202-226-5799
202-225-6942
202-225-1915
202-225-5828
202-226-1012
202-226-2052
202-225-4042
202-225-0072
202-225-8628
202-225-3196
202-225-0442
202-225-8611
202-225-1100
202-225-8354
202-225-9681
Happy faxing!!!
Do you know who wrote this bill? Co-founder of the Black Panthers Bobby Rush. I heard he was like the defense minister for them. He's now in the US house of representatives from Illinois. Rush is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, as well as a former member and founder of the Illinois chapter of the Black Panther Party.
Did you see Eric Holder in his confirmation hearing say the Obama administration did not have gun control on it's agenda?
The House Committee on the Judiciary lists the contact phone number as 202-225-3951 for Democrats. 202-225-6504 for Republicans. Committee FAX: 202-225-7682
The members and their fax #s, etc. are located at:
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/cgi-bin/newcommittee.cgi?site=ctc&lang=&commcode=hjudiciary
Razorhunter
01-29-09, 12:08
I'm glad to see SOMEONE actually taking the time to send communication to our Congress, in regards to all the anti gun agenda.
As some of you probably know, but many probably do not, FAXING is usually the BEST way to contact your Congressmen about these issues.
I have known quite a few Senators/Congressmen, and they have all told me that faxing is the best method for letting your voice be heard.
I hope more of us will finally begin to stand up for ourselves, and our rights.
I don't care what Eric Holders stupid ass says, nor Obama.
We need to ALWAYS be on the OFFENSIVE, and STAY on the offensive in regards to these issues.
NEVER get comfortable thinking that the Dums, I mean Dems have let up on our Rights....
The gun-grabber politicials want to keep their jobs and their power.. They fear being voted out and having their allies voted out.
That fear is the key to short term victory.
We are winning.
Every time a gun-grabber lies , it is another small indication that they fear our voices and our votes.
Hello fellow Americans,
This is my first post here. Unfortunately it's not good news. It appears the Dems may have their Judas, giving them a filibuster proof senate:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/31/administration-official-judd-leading-candidate-commerce-secretary/
ETA: Gregg has NOT accepted as of yet and is reportedly in negotiations concerning his replacement in the senate.
Contact info:
Manchester, NH Office:
41 Hooksett Road
Manchester, NH 03104
Main: (603) 622-7979
Concord, NH Office:
125 North Main Street
Concord, NH 03301
Main: (603) 225-7115
Portsmouth, NH Office:
16 Pease Boulevard
Portsmouth, NH 03801
Main: (603) 431-2171
Berlin, NH Office:
60 Pleasant Street
Berlin, NH 03570
Main: (603) 752-2604
However that turns out , it's far from the end of the game for the 2nd Amendment
supporters in the Senate. There are a number of Blue Dog Dem's who are very likely to put up a serious fight.
AFAIK , there were no (n-o) significant gun-grabber bills introduced in the Senate last year. None so far this year either.
If any were intro'ed in the Senate , I'd like to see a source link.
We are still winning.
The Senate Majority Leader is Harry Reid , check out his gun rights voting record:
www.wikipedia.com
ETA: Harry Reid is from Nevada. Reid replaced gun-grabbin' Tom Daschle when the voters back home fired his sorry ass.
:)
NO he can't ! Ban imports, yes. Ban legal interstate commerce, no he can not. IF an EO could ban guns President Clinton would have done so during his time in office and all guns would have been banned. Only the Legislative branch can enact/pass laws that affect interstate commerce.
Yes, uh, he can. He can selectively have written an EO that would effectively do the same thing that Bush 41's import restrictions/ban and Clinton's AWB did... Notice, I didn't say that he can or would a 100% ban on all guns forever more. But he can end up making our lives very miserable indeed.
Don't underestimate this guy.
.... ( Snip for brevity)...
Don't underestimate this guy.
You won't get any argument from me about that part.
all we've been doing since 1934 is trying to stay alive. we're not winning- the only reason the line is holding right now is because we're not currently under fire.
all we've been doing since 1934 is trying to stay alive. we're not winning- the only reason the line is holding right now is because we're not currently under fire.
I guess it depends are who " we " are .
The Second Amendment Foundation and the NRA are doing pretty well , and have been winning for years.
www.saf.org
www.nra.org
Some other organizations are a little on the rigid side and have less clout .
Leadership makes the difference.
Edit to add:
www.wikipedia.com --- Type in: Concealed carry in the United States (Case sensitive).
Check out the map that shows the spread of CCW laws. Some people say "Vermont carry or nothing".
That's exactly what they get.
:rolleyes:
From a post on another AR site:
We all need to email Sen Judd Gregg (R) because Obama is offering Judd the Secretary of Commerce position. Obama is making it look like a bipartisan effort, but Obama is sly like a fox. Gregg is one of New Hampshires senators. New Hampshire has a democrat govenor who will surely appoint a Democrat to this senate seat. This will give the Dems the fillibuster proof senate that they need to cram their liberal agenda down our throats.
Please contact Gregg:
http://gregg.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=contact.contactform
From a post on another AR site:
We all need to email Sen Judd Gregg (R) because Obama is offering Judd the Secretary of Commerce position. Obama is making it look like a bipartisan effort, but Obama is sly like a fox. Gregg is one of New Hampshires senators. New Hampshire has a democrat govenor who will surely appoint a Democrat to this senate seat. This will give the Dems the fillibuster proof senate that they need to cram their liberal agenda down our throats.
Please contact Gregg:
http://gregg.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=contact.contactform
Judd has said he would not accept unless it were guaranteed his replacement was a repub, but of course there are no guarantees and some repubs are as bad as Dems.
Well it is true there never are any true guarantees especially when dealing with people.
http://www.tactical-life.com/online/exclusives/gun-law-update-gun-ban-list-proposed/?email=exclusives
Good deep background from a year ago-- check the date , Jan 5 , 2008.
http://www.tactical-life.com/online/exclusives/gun-law-update-gun-ban-list-proposed/?email=exclusives
Deader than road-kill.
Last year , this POS attracted a total of about 64 co-sponsors-- out of about 435 members in the House. Pathetic.
AFAIK , no (n-o) counterpart bill was introduced in the Senate. Maybe somebody can post a good source link if they find anything.
It will be interesting to see what gets introduced this year. HR 45 ( 01/06/09) already looks DRT.
We are still winning.
:)
K.L. Davis
02-04-09, 09:13
I really thought that I would not post in this thread... but sometimes something comes along that must be shared, and this is the prescribed forum.
Obama Snubs Nation's Heroes (http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/8627)
I really thought that I would not post in this thread... but sometimes something comes along that must be shared, and this is the prescribed forum.
Obama Snubs Nation's Heroes (http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/8627)
Maybe he will say: "I screwed up."
I really thought that I would not post in this thread... but sometimes something comes along that must be shared, and this is the prescribed forum.
Obama Snubs Nation's Heroes (http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/8627)
Disgusting.
That was a very bad move on his part.
I really thought that I would not post in this thread... but sometimes something comes along that must be shared, and this is the prescribed forum.
Obama Snubs Nation's Heroes (http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/8627)
What an ass!!
I just received an email from the GOA. It's a list of all the Senators and how they voted on the Holder confirmation. I have to write my senators tomorrow and tell them they are asses! I and many others asked them not to vote for him. Very poor judgement on their part. I suggest you all do the same. Congratulate your senators on a job well done if you are lucky enough to have one of the 21 senators who voted no.
HiggsBoson
02-09-09, 10:50
"The house vote on the ban was a voice vote and not recorded. The Senate vote on the ban was 95 in favor, 4 against, and 1 abstention. 50/53 (94.3%) Democrats voted for the legislation. 45/47 (95.7%) Republicans voted for the ban."
I just wanted to remind everyone that the original AWB was voted for in the Senate by 95.7% of Republican Senators; a higher percentage, though smaller number, than that of the Democrats. The House passed it on a voice vote, which seems to imply a few things: 1) it wasn't seen (by party leadership on both sides) as controversial enough to merit serious debate in the House 2) those voting "aye" didn't want the vote on the official record 3) the leadership on both sides basically agreed that it was going to pass the House 4) both sides wanted to be seen as being tough on crime, and didn't feel safe opposing it publicly
It's fashionable to bash one side or the other, depending on your upbringing and political leanings, but the fact is that on this issue, we can't trust either party. Don't let the (D) or (R) in front of their names fool you: laws passed by either side in Congress can serve to decrease our freedom and infringe on our rights. If it again becomes popular to blame lawful firearms owners for the actions of thugs and criminals, it will be Congress who tries to make it into law. Hopefully by then our President (whoever he or she is) will have the good sense to veto it.
BTW, I just updated the AWB wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban) to include the references on whitehouse.gov regarding Obama's policy stance on this issue. It's not really worth checking it out, since it's a copy/paste of the original site's wording, but I wanted to make sure it's there for the record.
Although I think this deserves it's own thread so it will be seen by more members, I don't want to get my junk stepped on for violating the "no new Obama/Federal gun control threads" rule.
From Foxnews.com:
The Obama administration is going to bat for former President Bush by defending his last-minute rule allowing loaded guns in national parks.
The Washington Post reported Tuesday that while the Interior Department is internally reviewing whether the measure passes environmental muster, the Justice Department sought to block a preliminary injunction of the controversial rule in response to a lawsuit filed Friday by gun-control and environmental groups.
The regulation took effect Jan. 9 and allows visitors to bring concealed, loaded guns into national parks and wildlife refuges. For more than 20 years, they were allowed in such areas only if they were unloaded or stored and dismantled...
more (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/17/obama-defends-bush-rule-permitting-guns-national-parks/)
this was posted in another thread but it should be here. On this one i'm sending out emails today with phone calls over the next couple days.
edit= updated map showing voting record in senate for this bill. This bill has passed the senate. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-3
"Anti-Gun Land Bill on the Move"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=11093
House Vote Expected This Week
Lost in all the news of the massive bailout bill that just passed the Senate is another enormous bill, one that increases federal control of public and private land.
Of particular concern to gun owners is that the bill, S. 22, will greatly expand the amount of land controlled by the National Park Service. NPS land is currently subject to a gun ban.
While President Bush took steps in the waning days of his presidency to reverse the ban, the new regulations apply to persons who carry a concealed firearm with a permit. Non-permit holders and open carry are not explicitly addressed.
Another eyebrow-raising aspect of this bill is that it is actually a compilation of over 150 separate pieces of legislation that never passed out of Congress on their own merits.
Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) successfully held up over 100 of these bills, until anti-gun Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rolled all of the bills into one so-called Coburn Omnibus and forced it through the Senate in January on a vote of 73-21.
As the House prepares to take up the bill, the Democrat leadership has taken procedural steps to ensure that the measure cannot be amended or altered in any way. That means that if it passes the House, it goes right to President Obama's desk, where it will be signed into law.
Here are a few of the more troubling aspects of the bill:
· It authorizes the federal government to buy private land adjacent to national parks and trails. Such land would be controlled by the NPS, and thus be subject to the gun ban.
· The bill federalizes the Washington-Rochambeau Route, a 650 mile trail that stretches from Rhode Island to Virginia and includes sections of major thoroughfares such as Interstate 95 and U.S. Route 1, and passes through cities like Boston and Philadelphia. The entire trail would fall under the NPS and the gun ban.
· The National Landscape Conservation System groups together millions of acres of federal land and places it under one new umbrella agency. The NLCS was created during the Clinton administration and run administratively since then. S. 22 will codify the system, which raises concerns for hunters and sportsmen. Much of this land is consolidated from the BLM and the Forest Service, which have always allowed hunting and recreational shooting. It is unclear what rules will be promulgated by the new agency and if gun owners' rights will be protected.
· S. 22 strips out small concessions won by pro-gunners in the House last year that would allow state and local law to govern firearms possession and hunting on certain land.
· S.22 allows for NO amendments. Pro-gun members who want to offer an amendment to fully repeal the NPS gun ban are prevented from doing so by the anti-gun leadership.
The full House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on the bill this Wednesday or Thursday.
First I want to say I screwed up and started a new thread on this ban. I thought this thread was for Obama instituted bans. My bad! There is a new movement to get the AWB going again. I'm sorry to say Mike Castle, from my state, Delaware, is a big AWB and anti-gun show guy and cosponsor of this bill. You can see it at Rep. Engel's sight.
http://engel.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=1590&ParentID=7&SectionID=216&SectionTree=7,216&lnk=b&ItemID=1580.
:)
This is very good news:
Although I think this deserves it's own thread so it will be seen by more members, I don't want to get my junk stepped on for violating the "no new Obama/Federal gun control threads" rule.
From Foxnews.com:
more (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/17/obama-defends-bush-rule-permitting-guns-national-parks/)
I ran a quick check-- this has been picked up by multiple news organizations.
If it's a hoax , it's a very good and generally accepted hoax.
Some background:
The current Secretary of the Interior supported the CCW in National Parks reform when he was a Senator.
The good guys seem to have an excellent chance to win this one.
Mr. Obama has some very tough choices.
If he doesn't call off some of the gun-grabbers ( like Holder ) in his Cabinet , he will stir up a storm of opposition from the public and Congress.
Over half of the Senate requested the new CCW rules.
:D
i've been researching this on the net and many of the conservation groups/recreation groups are in support of this primarily because of the land additions. Those land additions could be done in seperate bills and they would be just as happy. Like the old saying: if it looks like *&#!, smells like *&^@, tastes like %$@!, it must be ^%$#. this has all the markers.
They got 53 bozo's to sign this POS.
The House has about 435 members , the Senate has another 100 or so.
First I want to say I screwed up and started a new thread on this ban. I thought this thread was for Obama instituted bans. My bad! There is a new movement to get the AWB going again. I'm sorry to say Mike Castle, from my state, Delaware, is a big AWB and anti-gun show guy and cosponsor of this bill. You can see it at Rep. Engel's sight.
http://engel.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=1590&ParentID=7&SectionID=216&SectionTree=7,216&lnk=b&ItemID=1580.
A small fraction of the people in Congress signed the letter.
That's the best that they can do?
We have nothing to worry about.
Edit to add:
It's a great reason to write to elected officials. Just to remind them that we are watching.
:cool:
They got 53 bozo's to sign this POS.
The House has about 435 members , the Senate has another 100 or so.
A small fraction of the people in Congress signed the letter.
That's the best that they can do?
We have nothing to worry about.
just so folks know, we have several conversations running here, on multiple bills. S22 has passed the senate and is heading to congress. Congress has a similiar bill already under consideration, but with the number of senators that passed the S22, we might see it quickly passed by congress. Nor do i think Obama will risk not signing it, if it makes it to his desk.
A good point:
just so folks know, we have several conversations running here, on multiple bills. S22 has passed the senate and is heading to congress. Congress has a similiar bill already under consideration, but with the number of senators that passed the S22, we might see it quickly passed by congress. Nor do i think Obama will risk not signing it, if it makes it to his desk.
The CCW in National Parks situation looks like good news. The import ban letter shows how weak the gun-grabbers really are.
The issue that lalakai has discussed is completely separate.
A good point:
The CCW in National Parks situation looks like good news. The import ban letter shows how weak the gun-grabbers really are.
The issue that lalakai has discussed is completely separate.
from what i'm reading in S22, the two may be linked. it appears that S22 is trying to recode how the parks are classified and change who manages them. Obama may support the CCW, but if the omnibus bill passes and he signs it AS IS, then it would override what he had just signed. Could be alot of confusion here.
Why are Democrats so concerned with disarming concerned responsible law abiding citizens who pay their rediculously large salaries?
Why are Democrats so concerned with disarming concerned responsible law abiding citizens who pay their rediculously large salaries?
sorry but you are missing the big picture. It's not about guns, or finances, or the environment, or countless other factors. At it's most basic foundation, politicians get elected to office, then they decide (with the help of special interest groups) what would improve our lives, regardless of whether we agree or not. It's like the Taliban implimenting Sharia; regardless of how many schools they destroy or lives they kill, in their minds they are doing what is best for the people. Our politicians are the same; no matter how they bend or break the constitution or states rights, they think our lives will be better after they f*#k with us.
Lynn Freshly
02-17-09, 22:34
Possible back door gun control?
http://virginiashootingsportsassociation.blogspot.com/2009/02/state-department-floating-ammo-import.html
Lynn
Possible back door gun control?
http://virginiashootingsportsassociation.blogspot.com/2009/02/state-department-floating-ammo-import.html
Lynn
This story has been around for a couple of weeks. The Virginia piece is basically a Cliff's Notes cut & paste job of an article published by a Canadian gun rights organization. The original expresses concerns about the Obama Administration cutting off ammo imports to Canada.
The original has nothing in the way of specific info: No smoking gun , no policy documents . No sources identified. No info on what company had a license denied.
No follow-up report.
2 weeks ago , it was an expression of legit Canadian concern about ammo shortages.
Today?
Recycled rumour seems to fit.
lalakai, you are exactly correct. Some of them have been brazen enough to admit that they will do what's best for us even if it isn't what we want. It's a parent/child type of relationship. It also has been cause for unrest among many populations. It's taxation without representation of the real desires of the population. It's part of what we endure to have a republic. The people we vote in do not have to vote as the people who elect them want them to. It happens a lot because we are stupid enough to keep putting these people back in office.
Jetchlnger
02-19-09, 15:42
In today's Kentucky Enquirer I saw a small sidebar blurb (didn't say AP or any other news organization) that said 50 senators have submitted a letter to Obama urging him to reinstate the assault weapons ban as weapons being brought into the US from Europe and other countries make their way to Mexico and are being used in the drug wars. Does anyone have any other info on this?
In today's Kentucky Enquirer I saw a small sidebar blurb (didn't say AP or any other news organization) that said 50 senators have submitted a letter to Obama urging him to reinstate the assault weapons ban as weapons being brought into the US from Europe and other countries make their way to Mexico and are being used in the drug wars. Does anyone have any other info on this?
It's the one I linked to in entry #212.
http://engel.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=1590&ParentID=7&SectionID=216&SectionTree=7,216&lnk=b&ItemID=1580
Jetchlnger
02-19-09, 19:39
Thanks, Sudden.
Worth watching and worth a letter to Congress.
The gun-grabbers got about 53 signatures from the House and none ( 0 )
from the Senate. There are about 435 members in the House and another 100 in the Senate.
Looks like a very weak effort to me. If it's so important , why not push it through Congress?
Of course , that takes lots of votes. Some politicians want to keep their jobs.
;)
Worth watching and worth a letter to Congress.
The gun-grabbers got about 53 signatures from the House and none ( 0 )
from the Senate. There are about 435 members in the House and another 100 in the Senate.
Looks like a very weak effort to me. If it's so important , why not push it through Congress?
Of course , that takes lots of votes. Some politicians want to keep their jobs.;)
That's why they have been taking votes that aren't recorded and pushing bills through without debate. They will try to find a way. Maybe not this bill but they will try to sneak one through. It may not happen until the next crisis. As Rahm Emanuel said: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”
..... (Snip for brevity). ...
They will try to find a way. Maybe not this bill but they will try to sneak one through. It may not happen until the next crisis. As Rahm Emanuel said: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”
You won't get any argument from me on that part.
AirTrafficControl
02-25-09, 19:08
Did you guys hear the Attorney General today? Looks like they are going to use a AWB to stop the so called "flow of weapons into Mexico" standby I'll try and find a link, I saw the clip on Lou Dobbs Tonight.
Littlelebowski
02-25-09, 19:27
Did you guys hear the Attorney General today? Looks like they are going to use a AWB to stop the so called "flow of weapons into Mexico" standby I'll try and find a link, I saw the clip on Lou Dobbs Tonight.
Yeah because you can pick up RPGs and full auto weapons anywhere in the US. NO, we haven't considered the Mexican Army selling weapons and YES we do blame American gun owners!
AirTrafficControl
02-25-09, 20:13
The cartels are believed to use profits from U.S. drug sales to buy weapons in the United States and smuggle them to Mexico, where they increase the drug wars' lethality.
Holder said the Obama administration would push for renewing a U.S. ban on assault rifles, but the timing was uncertain. “I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum,” he said. Today
There you go. Another crisis that won't go to waste.
AirTrafficControl
02-25-09, 20:30
from the messiah's hometown print:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-ap-border-violence-crackdown,0,1092790.story
At a press conference announcing the arrests, Holder also suggested that re-instituting a U.S. ban on the sale of assault weapons would help reduce the bloodshed in Mexico, where last year 6,000 people were killed in drug-related violence.
U.S. officials have a responsibility to make sure Mexican police "are not fighting substantial numbers of weapons, or fighting against AK-47's or other similar kinds of weapons that have been flowing to Mexico," Holder said.
Robb Jensen
02-25-09, 21:23
The Eric Holder link is here http://cspan.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-15821
He mentions wanting to reinstate the ban at min 20:16........
Razorhunter
02-25-09, 21:26
20:16?????:confused:
Robb Jensen
02-25-09, 21:28
20:16?????:confused:
I posted a link to a video which is 27 min long. 20 min into it Holder mentions wanting to reinstate the ban.
Razorhunter
02-25-09, 21:40
Ahh, thanks, I read that too fast as "at a minimum 20:16".
Patrick Henry
02-26-09, 01:30
Most people on gun forums lately will tell you it will be years, if ever, before a new AWB will be introduced and passed.
You should believe these people and sell me all your rifles, mags and ammo while prices are high. You can replace them cheaper next year.
PM me with a list of what you have for sale along with prices and pics. ;):p:D
Obama admin explicitly promises to seek an AWB. We knew it was coming anyway, but I suspect now they'll be trying it sooner rather than later:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=6960824&page=1
AirTrafficControl
02-26-09, 05:02
The Eric Holder link is here http://cspan.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-15821
He mentions wanting to reinstate the ban at min 20:16........
Thats the one...I truely believe that the messiahs Chicago cronies have been just waiting for the right time to push their agenda...ATC
The time is now to get active, if you're not already. No online petition crap. Pick up the phone and write to your reps in DC. Complacency will be the end of our rights. Silence is for subjects, not citizens. Don't just make noise. Make the right noise and do it now.
http://www.nraila.org/ActionCenter/
Since hundreds of thousands of illegal, illiterate Mexicans have taken to our streets, all across America to protest in force for rights they have no claim to what so ever, what will actual Americans do to defend our Constitutional rights?
WE ARE BEING DISARMED. STAND UP AND BE COUNTED. STAND UP AND BE HEARD
:confused:
How many votes do you think they can get in Congress?
Hey , let's break it down: Senate? House?
When will the bills be introduced?
ETA--- Meanwhile:
www.saf.org
www.nra.com
Holder will give no time frame, saying Hussian has other important matters on his plate. You can be sure they would like to sneak it it somewhere. Realize the last socialist stimilus bill was read by no one, so they sure would like to give that a try.
"Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades," the warning said.
They need to be told that automatic weapons and grenades are not freely available for sale in the US.
:confused:
How many votes do you think they can get in Congress?
Hey , let's break it down: Senate? House?
When will the bills be introduced?
ETA--- Meanwhile:
www.saf.org
www.nra.com
It passed last time and the democrats completely run Washington now, it'll pass again and be permanent. If not could the POTUS just write an Executive Order? He's been writing them as fast as he can since he's been in office.
Gutshot John
02-26-09, 10:35
Damn I thought they were smarter than that. Well at least this is going to be a short-lived Democratic majority.
Right now there's a bunch of pro-gun Dems who are wetting themselves.
I wrote to my Congressmen, Two Senators and Barry O. I'd encourage you to do the same.
And for the last time, NO the President can't issue an executive order that achieves the same thing. An Executive Order only applies to the actions of members of the Executive Branch.
diving dave
02-26-09, 10:42
Two words...MOLON LABE.
Ok people, here is the start:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1
AirTrafficControl
02-26-09, 10:51
Ok people, here is the start:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1
Holy repost batman!!!!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.