The Cat's Out of the Bag
- Thread starter Deanimator
- Start date
- Status
I remember all the people who kept trying to tell us Obama wasn't any worse on guns than Romney was. We don't hear from them anymore. I remember all the people who kept telling us after Obama was elected the first time he wasn't going to go after guns. This was despite his horrid history of voting for every outlandish anti gun bill that came along when he was a Senator. I remember.
But yea, if the cat isn't out of the bag by now, people are in such serious denial they likely can't be educated.
But yea, if the cat isn't out of the bag by now, people are in such serious denial they likely can't be educated.
R.W.Dale
Member
I'm confident Romney would have issued far more sweeping EO's than this farcical non change
Make no mistake Romney and Obama were cut from the same anti gun cloth
helitack32f1
Member
I have been watching Obama's seeming lack of interest in gun issues with, uh, interest. There are a couple of things to keep in mind that show he had never lost interest in his ultimate goals of comprehensive gun control.
First, was Fast and Furious. The ultimate goal of Fast and Furious was to flood the drug cartels with American sourced weapons. When the inevitable bloodshed occurred, the American people were to become incensed that such death was occurring with the use of weapons coming from America and would demand action on guns.
Second, and most important is Obamacare. I firmly believe that the reason that he has sat back on the gun issue is that, A. He knows he can't legally or at least easily get gun control passed and, B. He knows that his ultimate goal could be achieved through Obamacare, which has passed and is continually being re-funded by cowardly Republicans.
It is simple. You are required to have health care coverage. Assuming you do not get it for free somehow, you must pay for that coverage. If you own a firearm, you will be placed in a high-risk category for which a confiscatory penalty will be charged, or, you will be told that you cannot be covered at all if you own firearms. This way, they are not taking your guns, they are not saying you cannot have them, you can, it will just cost more than you can possibly afford to keep them. Perfectly legal and not an infringement of our 2nd Amendment rights.
IMO, Obamacare was actually designed to fail and fail miserably. It is currently headed down that road now, as the co-ops keep failing. The reason for this is that as it gets worse and worse, and the costs skyrocket, the American people will demand the government take over healthcare.
MagnunJoe
Member
Some of U R wasting your time. The liberals in this forum, the ones who voted 4 Obummer & will vote 4 HRC, will never admit that those 2, and 50 other Democrats, are our enemies.
Last edited:
<Snip post>
Obamacare *is* the government takeover of healthcare. It is one of the largest, if not the largest, individual mandate by the Federal government. Basically, under Obamacare, you get the privilege of paying other peoples' bills with a bunch of strings/ restrictions attached. It will get worse too when whoever is in power decides to aggressively use Obamacare to promote whatever social engineering is popular at the time. Most people won't have enough money to survive without being subservient to all the rules in Obamacare and rising costs of the program will eventually annihilate the middle class. An unarmed serfdom anyone?
helitack32f1 said:
Obamacare *is* the government takeover of healthcare. It is one of the largest, if not the largest, individual mandate by the Federal government. Basically, under Obamacare, you get the privilege of paying other peoples' bills with a bunch of strings/ restrictions attached. It will get worse too when whoever is in power decides to aggressively use Obamacare to promote whatever social engineering is popular at the time. Most people won't have enough money to survive without being subservient to all the rules in Obamacare and rising costs of the program will eventually annihilate the middle class. An unarmed serfdom anyone?
OP
OP
Deanimator
Member
Obama has a LONG and well documented history of past statements and votes on gun control.
Anybody who ignored that, just didn't CARE about the truth.
Now, he's just confirmed what those of us who knew better have been saying all along.
No doubt that he supports gun control.
Exactly what happened so far: Nada. Some directives to the branches of government. He did not issue any orders at all.
Obama - regardless of the demonizing politics - was a Senior Lecturer at his college, same as Judge Posner, on the subject of Constitutional law. And, we DO see the results of his staff, the ATF, State, DOD, and his legal advisors. What could he do, he did.
NO EXECUTIVE ORDERS. No confiscation, no buybacks, just some directives. He's got less than one year left in office. Even the 200 agents added to the ATF won't come on line during his Administration to show any major effect. They have to be budgeted, hired, trained, and then assigned a case load to work. And the existing staff will instruct them on the legalities of what they do, with a major emphasis on Fast and Furious, the legal fallout, and the culpability of letting guns get into the hands of the Cartel so they can shoot other Federal agents.
Internally they see it's a major scandal and that the high tier decision makers are in coverup mode. They had an obligation to refuse to conduct illegal operations and the rank and file know certain decision makers failed.
Further, Obama's considered decision to NOT enact any EO's is going to have an effect on the next President. He had no legal grounds to do what all the fearmongering posters insist could happen. It didn't - and now, the campaign rhetoric that "Australian buybacks should be considered" is left even more groundless.
We are talking about a President who's legacy is stained by the ATF's operations refusing to give them even more carte blanche to perform extra-constitutional work. Seems he's actually jerking on the choke collar here while crying crocodile tears for the camera.
NO executive orders is the legacy he's leaving on the subject, and that does align with the subject matter he lectured on - the POTUS just can't do that. There are those who may not like the way he's been President, when it comes down to what he actually ordered done here, he gets an A+. We got exactly what we needed. He could not legally change anything, and he gets it.
What part of that don't some see? Well, if you are in the camp who blindly thinks he's a potentate with no restrictions on his authority, think again. I doubt some will, but that goes to the capability of having reason in the first place. Haters are going to hate, and his skin color is their primary objection. As far as I'm concerned, his actual decision on anti gun measures reflects his Constitutional understanding, and it's not too far off on the 2 Amendment after all. He can't touch it, and he didn't.
Some will say it's because he's a lame duck right now, but I see it as being knowledgeable enough to know not to shoot himself in the foot. And on another level, it undercuts the Clintons, too. Checks and balances.
Exactly what happened so far: Nada. Some directives to the branches of government. He did not issue any orders at all.
Obama - regardless of the demonizing politics - was a Senior Lecturer at his college, same as Judge Posner, on the subject of Constitutional law. And, we DO see the results of his staff, the ATF, State, DOD, and his legal advisors. What could he do, he did.
NO EXECUTIVE ORDERS. No confiscation, no buybacks, just some directives. He's got less than one year left in office. Even the 200 agents added to the ATF won't come on line during his Administration to show any major effect. They have to be budgeted, hired, trained, and then assigned a case load to work. And the existing staff will instruct them on the legalities of what they do, with a major emphasis on Fast and Furious, the legal fallout, and the culpability of letting guns get into the hands of the Cartel so they can shoot other Federal agents.
Internally they see it's a major scandal and that the high tier decision makers are in coverup mode. They had an obligation to refuse to conduct illegal operations and the rank and file know certain decision makers failed.
Further, Obama's considered decision to NOT enact any EO's is going to have an effect on the next President. He had no legal grounds to do what all the fearmongering posters insist could happen. It didn't - and now, the campaign rhetoric that "Australian buybacks should be considered" is left even more groundless.
We are talking about a President who's legacy is stained by the ATF's operations refusing to give them even more carte blanche to perform extra-constitutional work. Seems he's actually jerking on the choke collar here while crying crocodile tears for the camera.
NO executive orders is the legacy he's leaving on the subject, and that does align with the subject matter he lectured on - the POTUS just can't do that. There are those who may not like the way he's been President, when it comes down to what he actually ordered done here, he gets an A+. We got exactly what we needed. He could not legally change anything, and he gets it.
What part of that don't some see? Well, if you are in the camp who blindly thinks he's a potentate with no restrictions on his authority, think again. I doubt some will, but that goes to the capability of having reason in the first place. Haters are going to hate, and his skin color is their primary objection. As far as I'm concerned, his actual decision on anti gun measures reflects his Constitutional understanding, and it's not too far off on the 2 Amendment after all. He can't touch it, and he didn't.
Some will say it's because he's a lame duck right now, but I see it as being knowledgeable enough to know not to shoot himself in the foot. And on another level, it undercuts the Clintons, too. Checks and balances.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I agree with Tirod's statements entirely. I'll reiterate that IF he or any of the current "D" presidential candidates could, they absolutely would. And they would do and will do anything they can find the votes or the authority under the Constitutional limits of their power to do, against RKBA in the US.
But they know two things very well:
1) There's far more that they CANNOT do than things they CAN do.
2) It is far more important to make noise, call attention, put on a show, stir up the base, cry, and lament that the other side is obstructing progress, than to actually do anything -- and even if they COULD do what they want to do, that would still be true.
But they know two things very well:
1) There's far more that they CANNOT do than things they CAN do.
2) It is far more important to make noise, call attention, put on a show, stir up the base, cry, and lament that the other side is obstructing progress, than to actually do anything -- and even if they COULD do what they want to do, that would still be true.
Do you seriously think he would have actively worked as hard to take guns away as Obama has, as Hillary or Bernie would?
The fact that they has been unsuccessful is irrelevant to the discussion. The cat is definitely out of the bag, the antis want them all, and the sooner the better.
Only because they didn't have the numbers have sweeping gun laws not been enacted.
OP
OP
Deanimator
Member
I didn't buy that line with Nixon and I don't buy it with him.
The funny thing about "plausible deniability" is that it's usually not plausible.
Oh and yeah, as a Black man, I hate Obama because he's a Black man...
nobody mentioned race or ethnicity in this thread except for you. just because you happen to be black, it doesn't mean you are automatically more qualified to pass judgement on someone on the basis of race. hating someone because of their race, is by definition, racism....even in jest.
your comment is out of line, regardless if you are black, white, yellow, or purple.
OP
OP
Deanimator
Member
nope...but thanks for illustrating his(Tirod) point perfectly.
if you actually read his post...you will see that his comment is about people who lack critical thinking skills and are more concerned with Obama's skin color than his actual policies. again, nobody mentioned race and even if they did, your comments are still out of line...but judging from your response, I guess you feel its okay to be racist as long as someone brings it up first? lol
if you actually read his post...you will see that his comment is about people who lack critical thinking skills and are more concerned with Obama's skin color than his actual policies. again, nobody mentioned race and even if they did, your comments are still out of line...but judging from your response, I guess you feel its okay to be racist as long as someone brings it up first? lol
OP
OP
Deanimator
Member
Now you're just lying.
R.W.Dale
Member
I see no evidence that Obama has worked hard to take guns away. He did nothing until Newtown and then halfheartedly supported the Senate bill that he and everyone knew would fail. He has put out some executive actions that do next to nothing.
It looks to me like he is going through the motions because he knows part of his part expects something to be done. He does this even though he (and every person that knows how our government works) knows nothing is going to happen at the national level.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Sort of like saying you're first, and last, in a race where nobody else showed up.
He did everything he could do -- tired as hard as he could -- advocated strongly and pushed gun control to the very limit of his capacity.
He couldn't do anything -- hard to imagine that his advisers and party didn't know from the start they'd get nothing passed -- so it was all just political theater, but he "tried."
He did nothing? He did all he could. He did nothing.
He did everything he could do -- tired as hard as he could -- advocated strongly and pushed gun control to the very limit of his capacity.
He couldn't do anything -- hard to imagine that his advisers and party didn't know from the start they'd get nothing passed -- so it was all just political theater, but he "tried."
He did nothing? He did all he could. He did nothing.
OP
OP
Deanimator
Member
He's been working to disarm the public since before he hit the U.S. Senate.
He's ALWAYS been HARDCORE anti-gun, NOTHING like his current POSE.
How could you think people don't know that or would forget?
I meet and greet the public all day long in an auto parts store. I get a lot of guys - older, overweight conservative types - who give me a look and automatically assume I agree with their racist views - so they spout off in public about our President.
I don't agree with his views or politics - I have objections about how he got into office - but regardless of all that, he got elected to office despite my vote. So far, his personal morality and the way he demonstrates that goes a lot further than his democratic predecessor. If the press, expert at digging up dirt, can't blemish his fidelity and the worse thing they report is cigarette smoking or posting an pic of him taken out of context at a public gathering, then maybe there's nothing to see.
Compared to Bill Clinton, the man qualifies as a saint during his time in office. BUT - haters are going to hate. And I hear it a couple of times a week where his race is made the subject of someone's objections instead of his politics.
Pretty shallow thinking on their part. Shallow thinking to play the race card whatsoever. It goes to not having the desire or ability to THINK about politics. Like the concerns about Ferguson, MO - what really happened is that the citizens simply gave up talking to their city council and suffered whatever they did. More liquor stores and less grocery stores? OK, good work helping us out. Aggressive policing with little regard for the makeup of the community? Keep it up, we aren't even going to get a place on the agenda at the next council meeting. Whatever the council and mayor want the cops to do is ok by us.
Compare that to what Obama has done here - actually respected the law. He IS a constitutional law lecturer, his actions reflect that knowledge. He's done a much better job of it at the national level than the council members of Ferguson did protecting their citizens from themselves. The President hasn't sent police into the streets to get his way about things, the Ferguson council threw their constituency under the bus. They not only allowed the conditions to fester they accelerated them with overreaction. Obama hasn't.
It's said you have to study your enemy to deal with them, and people who stop at skin color to go no further with analysis are just shooting themselves in the foot. They are a major source of difficulty inside the conservative organizations at the local level, and entirely the reason why they can't get traction with the public at large. Is the community at large tired of hearing about gun control? Likely, yes, it's been proven and continually being proven a stupid dead end with worse results. Same for racism, regardless of source.
If you are looking for a gun barrel pointing at you every waking minute of the day, you have a problem, if you are looking for a racist comment in every paragraph, same issue. Better get over it - and the gender issue, too - because in the next 50 years we will see a female president, a Hispanic president, and maybe even a Mormon president. We might get all that wrapped up in one candidate - and frankly, we could do a lot worse. We have before.
When the liberals stop pointing fingers and start admitting they have been equally divisive, we will start making more progress on issues. So far, tho, despite all the fears of catastrophic failure of our system of politics, it's not all that bad. And for those who say, yeah, but look what they did in the past - IT TOOK THE CONSERVATIVES COOPERATING TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. There were a lot of voters and elected representatives who went along with it. Just like Ferguson.
Look to yourself as a cause first.
I don't agree with his views or politics - I have objections about how he got into office - but regardless of all that, he got elected to office despite my vote. So far, his personal morality and the way he demonstrates that goes a lot further than his democratic predecessor. If the press, expert at digging up dirt, can't blemish his fidelity and the worse thing they report is cigarette smoking or posting an pic of him taken out of context at a public gathering, then maybe there's nothing to see.
Compared to Bill Clinton, the man qualifies as a saint during his time in office. BUT - haters are going to hate. And I hear it a couple of times a week where his race is made the subject of someone's objections instead of his politics.
Pretty shallow thinking on their part. Shallow thinking to play the race card whatsoever. It goes to not having the desire or ability to THINK about politics. Like the concerns about Ferguson, MO - what really happened is that the citizens simply gave up talking to their city council and suffered whatever they did. More liquor stores and less grocery stores? OK, good work helping us out. Aggressive policing with little regard for the makeup of the community? Keep it up, we aren't even going to get a place on the agenda at the next council meeting. Whatever the council and mayor want the cops to do is ok by us.
Compare that to what Obama has done here - actually respected the law. He IS a constitutional law lecturer, his actions reflect that knowledge. He's done a much better job of it at the national level than the council members of Ferguson did protecting their citizens from themselves. The President hasn't sent police into the streets to get his way about things, the Ferguson council threw their constituency under the bus. They not only allowed the conditions to fester they accelerated them with overreaction. Obama hasn't.
It's said you have to study your enemy to deal with them, and people who stop at skin color to go no further with analysis are just shooting themselves in the foot. They are a major source of difficulty inside the conservative organizations at the local level, and entirely the reason why they can't get traction with the public at large. Is the community at large tired of hearing about gun control? Likely, yes, it's been proven and continually being proven a stupid dead end with worse results. Same for racism, regardless of source.
If you are looking for a gun barrel pointing at you every waking minute of the day, you have a problem, if you are looking for a racist comment in every paragraph, same issue. Better get over it - and the gender issue, too - because in the next 50 years we will see a female president, a Hispanic president, and maybe even a Mormon president. We might get all that wrapped up in one candidate - and frankly, we could do a lot worse. We have before.
When the liberals stop pointing fingers and start admitting they have been equally divisive, we will start making more progress on issues. So far, tho, despite all the fears of catastrophic failure of our system of politics, it's not all that bad. And for those who say, yeah, but look what they did in the past - IT TOOK THE CONSERVATIVES COOPERATING TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. There were a lot of voters and elected representatives who went along with it. Just like Ferguson.
Look to yourself as a cause first.
OP
OP
Deanimator
Member
What a coincidence!
I'm a light skinned Black man who fails to live down to the intellectual and cultural stereotypes frequently held by Whites of ALL political persuasions.
I can't tell you HOW many times face to face, in FidoNet, in usenet, or on message boards like this one where some White, self-identified Democrat anti-gunner has mistaken me for White and appealed to our assumed "shared" racism to argue for gun controls.
One of my favorites was in usenet, where one of them likened opposition to gun control to "over-educated New York Jewish lawyers opposing prayer in schools".
I enjoy too, their contention (shared with Rudy Giuliani) that the 2nd Amendment means something different in Harlem than it means in Hattiesburg. They clam up when I ask if the 13th means something different in Cleveland, TN than it means in Cleveland, OH.
I'll never forget the elderly cleaner in a Lakewood, OH McDonald's who seeing my NRA ballcap, harangued me on the evils of the NRA, opining that it should be BANNED. When I noted that when organizations started getting banned, we misplaced 6,000,000 Jews somewhere, he replied that he "wasn't so sure that was such a BAD thing."
Of course when they DO find out that you're Black, they then "authorize" themselves to use whatever racial slurs come to "mind" since your failure to meekly OBEY the ORDERS of a White anti-gunner to support invidiously racist gun controls means that NOTHING they say can make them racist. I guarantee you I've had the most popular racial slur for a Black person used against me by White, Democrat anti-gunners EVERY bit as often as by neo-Nazis and neo-Confederates. Why? Because I won't OBEY.
For every racist pro-gun person I've seen, I've seen at least one racist anti-gun person.
Scratch an anti-gunner, find a Klansman.
This is generating far more heat than light and starting to get into areas that are off topic for THR.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
