Reality check, what will the Obama admin GET out of us?
- Thread starter |0O0y
- Start date
- Status
ZombieKiller
Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 243
Obama's circle is becoming very Clintonian. Take it as you will:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl156
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl156
BADUNAME37
Member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 4,434
The NEW Change!
Anyway, I also hope all the power they have is to close the gun show loopholes.
When you think about it, just anyone should not be able to walk into a gun show and buy a gun.
What about outlaws and convicted felons? I'd say most don't care about laws.
Anyway, I also hope all the power they have is to close the gun show loopholes.
When you think about it, just anyone should not be able to walk into a gun show and buy a gun.
What about outlaws and convicted felons? I'd say most don't care about laws.
larry starling
Member
Nothing,
BADUNAME37
Member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 4,434
Then the stores will be out of stock for a little while, then the new goods will come in, twice as many as before, and most everyone already shot their wad on guns, ammo, you name it and then the prices will FALL!
Let's hope that's the way it goes!
Let's hope that's the way it goes!
tnieto2004
Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,389
I agree with inspector.
mgregg85
Member
I believe that all of the above is pretty possible. Especially if the obama reign of terror goes for eight years.
Treo
member
Do you guys really think that the left is so stupid that they actually think gun control lowers crime? Hello, they live in D.C. they know it doesn't but they will hide behind that reasoning to take your guns away.
Every inch you give them is an inch they will never ever give back They don't care about crime statistics, they don't care how many crimes are stopped every year because somebody had a firearm. They want your guns and when (note I didn't say if) they get them they will set out to prove to the world that the only reason Socialism hasn't worked ever, anywhere it's ever been tried is because it hasn't been tried by Americans.
In his first term, not much. I think he will enjoy the power so much he won't screw up his chances for reelection. However, in his second term, he'll push for whatever he can get. Remember, the president cannot rule by edict. He can sign or veto legislation that is sent to him by congress. Dem controlled congress is what we should be worried about. Chuck and Dianne never met a gun grabbing bill they didn't like.
Lone_Gunman
Member
A new and improved assault weapon ban is likely, but probably not as a law unto itself, but as a rider on some other piece of legislation.
The Democrats will use an AWB as a bargaining chip. The scenario I see is that the Dems will want to raise taxes. The Republicans will oppose this. The Dems will then agree to less of a tax increase in exchange for a new AWB. The Republicans will gladly cave in to keep from paying as much tax.
The Democrats will use an AWB as a bargaining chip. The scenario I see is that the Dems will want to raise taxes. The Republicans will oppose this. The Dems will then agree to less of a tax increase in exchange for a new AWB. The Republicans will gladly cave in to keep from paying as much tax.
He does not think that anyone should own a firearm at all, except the military and police. He wants to disarm the entire country if he can and make us vulnerable to every criminal that's out there. Here's where we are headed. It's a bit of a read, but worth it.
This may be closer to reality than you think
You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.
One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.
In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few That are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.
"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.
"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."
The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.
Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.
A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.
The judge sentences you to life in prison.
This case really happened.
On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.
How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?
It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.
Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.
Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed Man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.
The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)
Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.
For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later,
Sealed the fate of the few sidearm still owned by private citizens.
During the years in which the British government incrementally took Away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.
Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."
All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.
When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.
How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.
Sound familiar?
WAKE UP AMERICA , THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams
If you think this is important, please forward to everyone you know.
This may be closer to reality than you think
You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.
One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.
In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few That are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.
"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.
"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."
The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.
Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.
A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.
The judge sentences you to life in prison.
This case really happened.
On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.
How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?
It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.
Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.
Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed Man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.
The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)
Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.
For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later,
Sealed the fate of the few sidearm still owned by private citizens.
During the years in which the British government incrementally took Away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.
Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."
All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.
When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.
How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.
Sound familiar?
WAKE UP AMERICA , THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams
If you think this is important, please forward to everyone you know.
SigfanUSAF
Member
2008, we've lost too many jobs already.
The social Democrats want our assault rifles off the streets, HOWEVER, they probably realize that shutting down the civilian sector of assault rifle sales in this country would probably kill 10 to 20,000 jobs between sales, manufacturing, distributing, shipping, etc.
The social Democrats want our assault rifles off the streets, HOWEVER, they probably realize that shutting down the civilian sector of assault rifle sales in this country would probably kill 10 to 20,000 jobs between sales, manufacturing, distributing, shipping, etc.
GHF
Member
BHO
He as to make a choice on our issues, as well as others.
Remember that even though he is from Daleyville, there is no indication that he is the rabid banner in the mold of Chuckie, Sara, or McCarthy. Kennedy may not live to see the new year, and Laudenberg is no spring chicken either.
Part of his problem in the issue is that he is essentially clueless. Anybody that lived where he has lived - Hawaii, NYC, and Chicago - has no idea what is involved with having guns in your life. On the other hand, he has no known experience that has tramatized him (Kennedy, DiFi, McCarthy) into political action.
He has other issues that he wants to pursuit. He needs both the Blue Dog Dems to support him, and can not afford to fire up the GOP. Several of his key team - Rabin Emanual for example - were around in 1994, and know what happened; Emanual recruited some of the congresscritters from the south who are loudly pro-gun. Even Chucky - in his drive to increase the number of Dem senators - went out and enlisted people like Casey, Webb, and McCaskle who are not Laudenberg alcolites.
We are better organized than we were in 1994. The emotionalism of the time has spent. People are much involved in their personal protection. Heller has come down. There are 6 million CCW people are out there.
We must remain vigilent and disciplined, but we will prevail.
He as to make a choice on our issues, as well as others.
Remember that even though he is from Daleyville, there is no indication that he is the rabid banner in the mold of Chuckie, Sara, or McCarthy. Kennedy may not live to see the new year, and Laudenberg is no spring chicken either.
Part of his problem in the issue is that he is essentially clueless. Anybody that lived where he has lived - Hawaii, NYC, and Chicago - has no idea what is involved with having guns in your life. On the other hand, he has no known experience that has tramatized him (Kennedy, DiFi, McCarthy) into political action.
He has other issues that he wants to pursuit. He needs both the Blue Dog Dems to support him, and can not afford to fire up the GOP. Several of his key team - Rabin Emanual for example - were around in 1994, and know what happened; Emanual recruited some of the congresscritters from the south who are loudly pro-gun. Even Chucky - in his drive to increase the number of Dem senators - went out and enlisted people like Casey, Webb, and McCaskle who are not Laudenberg alcolites.
We are better organized than we were in 1994. The emotionalism of the time has spent. People are much involved in their personal protection. Heller has come down. There are 6 million CCW people are out there.
We must remain vigilent and disciplined, but we will prevail.
God forbid something tragic happens, but if or when it does that will be the push the dems and BHO will use to promote whatever form of increased gun control will fly with the public. If some lunatic kills a boat load of people with a bolt action .22 then that is what will be the focus of the new laws to protect us from ourselves.
First term
High profile but essentially meaningless "War on illegal guns" announcement.
Tiahrt Amendment repealed or "Under review" and words about closing the "gun show loophole" which won't affect intrastate FTF private sales.
Discussions and some pushes for states to up the ownership age for handguns to 21, most states tell him to bugger off.
Son of AWB will be raised and die in committee
Term the Second
"Time for me to burnish my legacy".....be aware and look at ALL bills
High profile but essentially meaningless "War on illegal guns" announcement.
Tiahrt Amendment repealed or "Under review" and words about closing the "gun show loophole" which won't affect intrastate FTF private sales.
Discussions and some pushes for states to up the ownership age for handguns to 21, most states tell him to bugger off.
Son of AWB will be raised and die in committee
Term the Second
"Time for me to burnish my legacy".....be aware and look at ALL bills
mljdeckard
Member
I agree with everallm word for word, BUT I'm also made more uneasy by BHO's cabinet choices. NONE of these people would like to wait.
JOIN THE NRA
Demos have learned that "gun control" is a divisive issue, and that it loses elections.
Obama seems genuinely interested in "working across the aisle." Let us endeavor to remind him and his cabinet what stands "across the aisle" and how it will turn out politicians who support asinine and ineffectual restrictions on RKBA.
Demos have learned that "gun control" is a divisive issue, and that it loses elections.
Obama seems genuinely interested in "working across the aisle." Let us endeavor to remind him and his cabinet what stands "across the aisle" and how it will turn out politicians who support asinine and ineffectual restrictions on RKBA.
RX-178
Member
There's one thing that most of you are neglecting in your reasoning on 1st and 2nd terms.
What if Obama realizes that he can't win a second term?
He's not stupid, he knows the demographic that voted for him. Interviews at the polls had people saying 'I voted for Obama so I could be a part of history.' or 'I wanted to see the first black President.'
Well, now he's set to be the first black President. He's automatically going to lose those voters in the next election.
His other supporters were parading in the streets in celebration, saying how their saviour hath cometh, and how they were sure that Obama was going to fix everything that Bush did, and make everything right.
Come on, Obama is an educated man, and an INTELLIGENT politician. He knows darn well that there is nothing he can do to fix the problems we have right now. At least, nothing he can do within the attention span of his supporters.
I've said before that the current US political and economic situation mirrors that of Taiwan exactly.
Taiwan had their 'Bush' (IE, a bad president, in the public eye. In Taiwan's case, he really WAS a bad president, and is under house arrest pending charges of corruption, insider trading, embezzlement and money laundering) for the past 8 years. Recently, the other party won in a landslide, with the election of Ma Ying Jiu.
It's been 6 months since that election, and President Ma's supporters have now taken to protest marching the Presidential estate, because of how the economy got worse, instead of better.
It's not his FAULT. There was nothing he or anyone else could've done to stop the recession from progressing further within just 6 months of taking office. But his supporters don't care about that. They elected him so that he would fix things, and in their minds, he's already failed.
I would bet you that the exact same thing happens to Obama.
Obama has been elected to serve in the worst possible situation he could ever imagine. A situation where he cannot do anything to please the public. If I didn't know any better I might even be convinced that this is the 'legacy' that Bush was talking about leaving for his Democrat successor.
This can go one of two ways.
Obama can do everything he can to keep from being controversial. No sweeping gun bans, no attack on the coal industry. Bring the troops home because that should make people happy, try to do his best to make sure that nothing he does ticks anybody off.
Or
Obama will give up on re-election, and start doing everything he really WANTS to do.
What if Obama realizes that he can't win a second term?
He's not stupid, he knows the demographic that voted for him. Interviews at the polls had people saying 'I voted for Obama so I could be a part of history.' or 'I wanted to see the first black President.'
Well, now he's set to be the first black President. He's automatically going to lose those voters in the next election.
His other supporters were parading in the streets in celebration, saying how their saviour hath cometh, and how they were sure that Obama was going to fix everything that Bush did, and make everything right.
Come on, Obama is an educated man, and an INTELLIGENT politician. He knows darn well that there is nothing he can do to fix the problems we have right now. At least, nothing he can do within the attention span of his supporters.
I've said before that the current US political and economic situation mirrors that of Taiwan exactly.
Taiwan had their 'Bush' (IE, a bad president, in the public eye. In Taiwan's case, he really WAS a bad president, and is under house arrest pending charges of corruption, insider trading, embezzlement and money laundering) for the past 8 years. Recently, the other party won in a landslide, with the election of Ma Ying Jiu.
It's been 6 months since that election, and President Ma's supporters have now taken to protest marching the Presidential estate, because of how the economy got worse, instead of better.
It's not his FAULT. There was nothing he or anyone else could've done to stop the recession from progressing further within just 6 months of taking office. But his supporters don't care about that. They elected him so that he would fix things, and in their minds, he's already failed.
I would bet you that the exact same thing happens to Obama.
Obama has been elected to serve in the worst possible situation he could ever imagine. A situation where he cannot do anything to please the public. If I didn't know any better I might even be convinced that this is the 'legacy' that Bush was talking about leaving for his Democrat successor.
This can go one of two ways.
Obama can do everything he can to keep from being controversial. No sweeping gun bans, no attack on the coal industry. Bring the troops home because that should make people happy, try to do his best to make sure that nothing he does ticks anybody off.
Or
Obama will give up on re-election, and start doing everything he really WANTS to do.
mljdeckard
Member
If he's in a position where he KNOWS he can't win a second term, it is highly unlikely he'll have enough political capital left to push something as controversial as gun legislation. Even if he doesn't think he can win, he'll still be running.
MD_Willington
Member
Start writing the blue dog dems, in a civil manner tell them they will not keep their .gov jobs if they side with more asinine weapons laws, as you will see fit to legally remove them from said .gov job.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
