Response from Obama

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why do you guys bash McCain?

From my reads he voted against the AWB and NO on the closure of the gun show loophole (Which I really don't want to discuss today). And Pro gun in general.
 
?????

I think McCain was brain washed in vietnam.regardless get ready to take a hit no matter who gets in.Mitt might have been the better of all as he would be more into finances to get the country on a fiancial stability.:uhoh:--:confused:--:fire:---:banghead:
 
All I can say is that it is time for me to get my AR, and maybe an AK this summer...

Of course he, and every other liberal out there understands! But if they keep repeating "sportsman's rights" and "no sporting purpose" enough times, people will begin to believe what they are told over and over again.
 
Obama went to Harvard Law School. He understands what the 2nd Amendment means, he just doesn't respect it. The problematic part is that he knows most people don't know or care about the Constitution, so he can take a reasonable (on its face at least) position on gun ownership that respects hunters' rights and most people won't raise a stink about it due to their ignorance and apathy.
 
No, that's a muh sheen gun, not an "assault" weapon

Hmm I guess I disagree with that. I suppose I'm using the technical definition of an assault rifle instead of assault weapon, but I think there's an important distinction between either term and a machine gun.

I know we're talking semantics, but I think this wording shows that we've already lost a battle in the court of public opinion with the term "assault weapons ban" applied so universally to the law.

In truth the assault weapons only affects semi-automatic weapons instead of true assault rifles.

I know, semantics, but those words carry weight and influence people, and I think the assault weapon ban's name misleads a ton of uninformed people.

I suppose this discussion is super old though, so I spose I'll digress.

Oh and thanks for the answer Phil Degraves, and I think Zundfolge makes a very interesting point about the idea not really being controlling crime but rather increasing government power at an "enemy's" expense.
 
The only thing in our favor with Obama or Clinton is that gun control isn't a passion with either of them--if it is kept red-hot and not politically expedient to their ends they'll leave it alone. Money just isn't tied to it except from a few singular sources.

Heller is the wild card that may, I hope, offer something by way of a vaccination against eight years of pain that may be in store.

RKBA voters form the greatest single issue voting block. The real pain may come in a second term. We'll see.
 
Want to really make him feel the heat? Just write that you are not going to vote for him because of his position on 2A. If enough people do that, maybe the interns handling emails will put it in the report and maybe The Man will hear about it.

I already responded as you stated above!
 
If you know anything about guns in Illinois youwill know Obama by the fact he has been endorsed by Mayor Daley. While in Illinois he voted against gun owners allmost every time. The times he did vote with gun owners were times when the bill was going to win by a landslide. In other words a throw away vote so he can talk about being reasonable. Jim.
 
We need to figure out a way to hammer it home to these retards.

Maybe...a million armed to the teeth folks on the white house lawn?:evil:

Maybe...breaking from the union to form a RKBA friendly state.

I know I know, boy are we screwed.:uhoh:
 
JERKFACE - "I wonder if you'd get the exact same response from Mccain."

Count on it!

L.W.
 
Commrades! (I'm affraid we will have to get used to that greeting)

IT IS NOT ABOUT CRIME, OR HUNTERS, OR SELF DEFENSE. SOCIALISM REQUIRES YOU TO DEPEND ON THE GOV'T FOR EVERYTHING.

YOU HAVING GUNS, DEPRIVES THE VAPID, POWER CRAZED POLITICANS FROM TURNING YOU SOCIALIST AND DEPRIVES THEM OF POWER OVER YOU.

DO NOT BELIEVE THEIR LIES!

YOUR HANDS ARE THE 'WRONG HANDS' THEY REFER TO.

Obama supports the 2nd Amendment in a not at all kind of way.

He has stated he wants to stop any kind of carry of guns on the street, including GUN PERMITS!
 
I cannot believe that in an election that is supposed to be about change we're looking at McCain and Hillary as the top two candidates. There's nothing more "Business as Usual" than those two. Obama is the only electable "candidate for change" out there, and his style of change is NOT what we want or need.
Indeed. It's pretty obvious that the majority of America is wanting "business as usual." I have to say that if these 2 are the ones to go to the end, I will definitely be holding my nose on election night. The 3rd of those mentioned is too terrible to imagine, IMO.
 
Food for Thought

THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICA'S WOES

BY CHARLEY REESE

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton- picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

A CONFIDENCE CONSPIRACY: Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party. What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a SPEAKER, who stood up and criticized G.W. Bush ALONE for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto.

REPLACE THE SCOUNDRELS: It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist. If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ.

There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation" or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees. We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
I'm reconsidering selling that second SKS i have...

Seriously though. We talk all the time how RKBA is there so we can USE our guns to protect against oppressive government. But how many here would truly stand up armed in the face of some sort of extreme gun control (i.e. Federal CCW ban, Handgun ban, etc) and fight for it? Would we use the power the founding fathers gave us?
I doubt it. We would show up in droves to hand in our arsenals, complaining the whole time, but never firing a shot. We would accuse those that DID shoot of further endangering our few remaining rights and deem their behavior irresponsible and crazy, just like the media. But there's good news! We'd all still be law abiding gun owners...for a while.
 
Quote:
What is real bad is that he is a reflection of todays young society as a whole.
Wait a minute!!!!

I'm 18 and I don't agree with his views on gun control, energy independence, how 'bad' the republican party is, or his health care policy at all.

The problem is some parents today aren't parenting their kids, and everyone thinks they have a god given right to have the world their way. They don't realize that the constitution was made to protect the citizens from the government, not the other way around.

damn, kid. i wish i was as smart as you are when i was 18. keep up the good work!
 
Two things amaze/scare me. If there are actually 80M gun owners in the USA how is it that we have allowed any anti to get in office??? And the scary part is not 4 years of clinton or obama, it is the judges they would appoint..

So when it comes to the voting, do you vote for personal gain or for the country?


In the words of a pretty good Dem.
"Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country" JFK

C
 
Two things amaze/scare me. If there are actually 80M gun owners in the USA how is it that we have allowed any anti to get in office???

I used to wonder about that too. Just keep reading messages and sooner or later you'll figure it out.

Here's a quick insight.

There are only two Democratic candidates right now: Obama and Clinton. Most gun owners feel that either Obama or Clinton will be disastrous for Second Amendment rights. Not much disagreement here.

There are only three major Republican candidates right now: McCain, Romney, and Huckabee. So a great many gun owners actively support Ron Paul.

Of the three major Republican candidates who stand a chance of getting the nomination, McCain leads, Romney follows with about 1/3 the number of McCain's delegates so far, and Huckabee is a distant third with about 1/4 the number of McCain's delegates so far. So many gun owners actively support Mike Huckabee.

Many of the gun owners who support Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee have said that if their man doesn't get the nomination they won't vote at all. They ridicule and attack McCain and Romney.

More than a few gun owners have declared that they want Obama or Clinton to win. Some want to send the Republican Party "a message." Other gun owners want to "teach the country a lesson" by letting them experience four years of "Socialist Democratic rule." Still other gun owners say that "there are more important issues" (such as global warming, the economy, the Iraq war, health care, Social Security, immigration, traffic congestion, scandals, and all sorts of other things) so they will vote for a Democrat who will make everything all better instead of a Republican who won't.

I sit in the corner, observe the extensive political expertise demonstrated by most gun owners, quietly weep, and practice saying "President Clinton" or "President Obama."

After the election these forums will see a rush of angry messages about the new stream of gun control laws, bans, and possibly outright confiscations. In those threads there will be frequent complaints about why "somebody doesn't do something" to stop "them." The trouble, of course, is that we are them.
 
I personally like him (as a man, not a politician), but that doesn't change the fact that he's a fool.

More than a few gun owners have declared that they want Obama or Clinton to win. Some want to send the Republican Party "a message." Other gun owners want to "teach the country a lesson" by letting them experience four years of "Socialist Democratic rule." Still other gun owners say that "there are more important issues" (such as global warming, the economy, the Iraq war, health care, Social Security, immigration, traffic congestion, scandals, and all sorts of other things) so they will vote for a Democrat who will make everything all better instead of a Republican who won't.

I am one of the guys you are talking about. First, I would rather someone in office who wants to reinstate the AWB then someone who (affectively) wants to bring back the witch hunts like McCain. We also at least have some grounds of trust in what the Democrats will do where you really don't know what to expect from the republicans, and as we have seen with Bush on some occasions, the republicans are more then capable of doing just as bad, sometimes worse then the Democrats in some areas. If you REALLY want to get an idea WHY the Ron Paul supporters don't care if it's a Democrat or republican, then do some research on the Patriot Act II, and find out who is likely to sign it and who is likely to reject it. Basically, the 2A is a very small issue in comparison as the Patriot Act II AFFECTIVELY brings the USA to an end and you won't have any 2A rights to talk about or at least, you will until they say you don't which affectively means you don't at all. In any case, whether under a Democrat or Republican president, you will most likely kiss what little freedom you have left good by within the next 4 years.
Regarding punishment, I myself am not out to punish anyone but I definitely hold firm that it's well deserved. As you guys say, the 2A is not about hunting or plinking. It's about a responsibility that no one around here seams to be up to fulfilling and without it, 2A rights have no meaning. I am constantly driven nuts by this silly theme of gun owners complaining that the government is taking their rights away. The whole reason you have guns is to stop them from doing that. If you don't stop the government, no one will. If you are going to sit back and watch the government strip you of your rights, then you have no (constitutional) reason to own a gun in the first place.
That is not what has actually torn this country down though, although the real problem is a crime that gun owners are no less guilty of then those who wish to take them. That is respecting ALL of the laws of the constitution. That includes the ever so simple but apparently trying concept of: "as long as you are not bothering anyone, whatever you do is your business." By constitutional law, people have as much right to use crack and LSD, practice homosexuality and whatever other weird voluntary sexual practices they please, use profanity, pray in schools, preach atheism, etc. as you do to own a gun. Infringe upon any of them for whatever reason, and you open the door for others to infringe upon your gun rights. If you want freedom for yourself, you have to let others have theirs. It's a natural law and the loss of freedom is the natural punishment hence the famous line: "Those who live by the sword shal parish by the sword." If only a year ago those who preach to support the constitution actually followed and respected it, and got this "vote for a winner" mentality out of their heads, this country would already be a much nicer place to live, and we probably would have Ron Paul in the lead.
Since even most of us gun owners can't get this past us, we'll pay the price, and frankly, it is one we brought upon ourselves. Human beings just never learn.
 
Yes indeed, Brigadier, the political expertise of a great many gun owners is staggering. It's at least partly a tribute to the success of the American educational system. Everyone who has come through it is an incisive thinker whose expertise often runs the gamut from A through B.

I am constantly driven nuts by this silly theme of gun owners complaining that the government is taking their rights away. The whole reason you have guns is to stop them from doing that. If you don't stop the government, no one will. If you are going to sit back and watch the government strip you of your rights, then you have no (constitutional) reason to own a gun in the first place.

Please give advance notice of the date, time, and meeting place for the armed insurrection. Must we supply our own lunch or will box lunches be provided? I want a couple of chocolate chip cookies with mine or I'm just not going. I have principles.

Basically, the 2A is a very small issue in comparison as the Patriot Act II AFFECTIVELY brings the USA to an end and you won't have any 2A rights to talk about or at least, you will until they say you don't which affectively means you don't at all. In any case, whether under a Democrat or Republican president, you will most likely kiss what little freedom you have left good by within the next 4 years.

I think you mean "effectively."

What effectively brings the U.S.A. to an end is ZIP codes. ZIP codes are part of an insidious plot intended by the federal government to dominate the country and destroy individualism.

Until 1943 there was no coding of any kind in U.S. addresses. You could address a letter to John Jones at "123 His Street" and simply add the city and state: "New York, New York." You could even write it all out, because there were no state abbreviations either!

Then, in 1943--in the middle of World War II--the Franklin D. Roosevelt government insinuated the first step in the long range plot to subordinate Americans. That first step was the "Postal Zone" and seemed harmless enough at the time. It was a number that had to be added between the city and state. So a letter to John Jones at his home address now had to have this: "New York 16, New York." Notice the slyness? It's tucked in between, where nobody would notice it. The postal zone wasn't required though, but it was much appreciated by your government as a way to aid the war effort. See the connection between war and postal codes. The rascals! They were softening us up for the kill.

It began in earnest (or in Ernest, depending upon your school I think) in 1963 when a government agency introduced the ZIP code to supplant the postal zone code. It was still voluntary but, again, much appreciated. Now the ZIP code had to be placed at the end of the last line. So a letter to John Jones would be addressed to him at his home in "New York, New York 10016." See the superiority of the ZIP code to cities and states?

Sure enough, just six years later we were embroiled in the Vietnam War. Just two years before then the voluntary ZIP code became mandatory and the states were reduced in significance to just two letters: in 1967 ZIP codes were required for second and third class mailings.

Not content with this tyranny, in 1983 the government expanded it further with "ZIP + 4." From then on you didn't even need John Jones' city or state! You could address a letter to him with his street address at "10016-1492." And what happened just 20 years later? Right: the Iraq War.

Spread the word. This tyranny must stop. Vote for Ross Perot. Better still, vote for William Wirt--the first third party presidential candidate--whose showing in the election of 1832 made his name as famous as Ron Paul will be a few years from now.

It's said that there are 80 million gun owners in this country. Only about 4 million belong to the NRA. Simple arithmetic, if it hasn't gone the way of spelling and logic in the American educational system, shows that there are 74 million American gun owners who don't think enough of their Second Amendment rights to join the organization that stands between them and those who will destroy those rights.

So why would anyone think that they would vote to preserve those rights? But oh how they do complain and argue and point fingers at everyone else.

They gonna rebel, they gonna vote out the anti-gun people, they gonna do this, they gonna do that. But they ain't gonna vote for their right to keep and bear arms, and they ain't gonna join no NRA. They just gonna. For sure.

Paper tigers are great fun to watch if not taken seriously. Barack Obama knows who he is dealing with and what he is doing. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top