Obama just said... [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Obama just said...


Pages : [1] 2

Rabbi
10-16-2012, 20:20
Wants to have an assault weapons ban.

Rabbi
10-16-2012, 20:20
Romney said "not interested in any new gun laws"

dac1204
10-16-2012, 20:21
yeah just saw that

dac1204
10-16-2012, 20:22
but Rommey should have said fully automatic weapons and not just autos

tsmo1066
10-16-2012, 20:22
Well, at least the mask is off.

So how is the debate going overall? I'm not able to tune in right now.

dac1204
10-16-2012, 20:22
and hes hammering about fast and furious

Scott3670
10-16-2012, 20:22
Wants to have an assault weapons ban.

But unless I'm mistaken he hasn't even come close to pushing this issue, and outside of the direct question probablywouldn't even consider it.

Magnus2131
10-16-2012, 20:23
Yes sir. There it is for all of you that said otherwise.

Rabbi
10-16-2012, 20:24
But unless I'm mistaken he hasn't even come close to pushing this issue, and outside of the direct question probablywouldn't even consider it.

That is true....but we have this on the table.

Obama...wants ban.

Romney, not interested in new gun laws.

That means something.

Calico Jack
10-16-2012, 20:25
Fox is going to lose their **** after this debate... and Matthews is sporting a rager at the moment.

Rabbi
10-16-2012, 20:26
Well, at least the mask is off.

So how is the debate going overall? I'm not able to tune in right now.

I would say Obama got his mojo back. He has performed very well...but so has Romney.

It has been a lot more heated and Romney had made some pretty good digs but again, Obama has his baffle them with charm and BS going in spades.

I bet tonight is seen as a draw (so far)

kiole
10-16-2012, 20:27
That is true....but we have this on the table.

Obama...wants ban.

Romney, not interested in new gun laws.

That means something.

I wish Romney would have answered the question the moderator asked. If a compromise between progun and antigun was reached that included an AWB would you sign it..

CBennett
10-16-2012, 20:27
nothing new there. Ive been watching off and on and even though Obama did do better than the first debate Romney won round 2 also. That surprised me a bit.

Magnus2131
10-16-2012, 20:27
Obama decided to change the subject.

michael_b
10-16-2012, 20:29
but Rommey should have said fully automatic weapons and not just autos

He did say that automatic weapons are already illegal.

I wish Romney would have answered the question the moderator asked if a compromise between progun and antigun was reached that included an AWB would you sign it..

Excellent point!

Rabbi
10-16-2012, 20:29
Fox is going to lose their **** after this debate... and Matthews is sporting a rager at the moment.

I dont see it that way. No doubt Obama "is back" but Romney is doing well.

I am pretty sure that the guy you like in this is who you think "won." So you will here how brilliant Obama was from Obama folks and how great Romney was from Romney folks.

Romney really did win the "energy round." Obama won the Libya round....he really turned it on. Much of the rest has been back and forth.

tsmo1066
10-16-2012, 20:30
I would say Obama got his mojo back. He has performed very well...but so has Romney.

It has been a lot more heated and Romney had made some pretty good digs but again, Obama has his baffle them with charm and BS going in spades.

I bet tonight is seen as a draw (so far)

Thanks. Methinks the assault weapon ban answer is going to motivate the hell out of a lot of voters, especially those conservatives leaning towards an independant.

Rabbi
10-16-2012, 20:31
Obama decided to change the subject.

Obama has hid behind the time and run from a few questions. That is true.

He flat out shut down and ran from Romneys questions about his (Obamas) own personal investments.

Travclem
10-16-2012, 20:31
What say all ye neolibs that said Barry O didn't care about gun laws. I just heard it straight from the jackass' mouth. Get ready boys.

P.S. who but BHO could change the subject from guns to education in one sentence? He definitely didn't want to talk about it.

dac1204
10-16-2012, 20:32
He did say that automatic weapons are already illegal.



Excellent point!

yes but I have several "automatic weapons" in my safe, I however have no "fully automatic weapons"

Calico Jack
10-16-2012, 20:33
I dont see it that way. No doubt Obama "is back" but Romney is doing well.

I am pretty sure that the guy you like in this is who you think "won." So you will here how brilliant Obama was from Obama folks and how great Romney was from Romney folks.

Romney really did win the "energy round." Obama won the Libya round....he really turned it on. Much of the rest has been back and forth.

Well I am a Romney supporter, but I felt he did very poorly during the Libya "round".

stk10767
10-16-2012, 20:33
The way I saw it:

Romney brought facts, Obama brought rhetoric.

racer11
10-16-2012, 20:33
He did say that automatic weapons are already illegal.



Excellent point!

I caught that comment as well,,,, I assume he was talking about Full Auto,,,,but they are legal to own,,just pay a 200 dollar tax fee and pass the background. Obviously R dont know all he should be knowing.

Rabbi
10-16-2012, 20:34
Well I am a Romney supporter, but I felt he did very poorly during the Libya "round".

I agree. As I said, Romney did indeed drop the ball on that one.

Hef
10-16-2012, 20:36
Fox is going to lose their **** after this debate... and Matthews is sporting a rager at the moment.

Matthews will probably try to hump Obama's leg at the end of this debate.

douggmc
10-16-2012, 20:36
I wish Romney would have answered the question the moderator asked. If a compromise between progun and antigun was reached that included an AWB would you sign it..

... and by his own admission of why he signed it in Mass ... YES, HE WOULD.

The man has proven to have no core. He is hollow.

Calico Jack
10-16-2012, 20:36
The way I saw it:

Romney brought facts, Obama brought rhetoric.

True.

dac1204
10-16-2012, 20:37
"Government does not create jobs"

Magnus2131
10-16-2012, 20:39
Smart of Obama to save the 47% thing for the close.

G36's Rule
10-16-2012, 20:40
Well I am a Romney supporter, but I felt he did very poorly during the Libya "round".

Are you kidding? Romney put it flat on Obama, the bucks stops with Obama. Would not let him off the hook on waiting two weeks to state it was an act of terror.

It was a more two sided debate, but Obama was again on the defense most of the debate.

dac1204
10-16-2012, 20:40
Smart of Obama to save the 47% thing for the close.

yeah noticed that too that way rommey could not respond to it

frank4570
10-16-2012, 20:42
What say all ye neolibs that said Barry O didn't care about gun laws. I just heard it straight from the jackass' mouth. Get ready boys.

P.S. who but BHO could change the subject from guns to education in one sentence? He definitely didn't want to talk about it.

Bush and Romney agree to sign a new assault weapons ban.

TK-421
10-16-2012, 20:47
Wants to have an assault weapons ban.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a391/m24shooter/oh_hell_no_cat.jpg

1-2man
10-16-2012, 20:49
Its coming folks...

Flying-Dutchman
10-16-2012, 20:54
Obama did better than last time but he still lost.

He cannot defend his record and he ran out of steam at the end.

Obama dodged the Fast and Furious topic.

Still its doubtful this debate changed anyone’s mind.

coastal4974
10-16-2012, 20:54
Well, at least the mask is off.

So how is the debate going overall? I'm not able to tune in right now.

It seems the Obama can lie just as well at sea level as he can at higher altitudes

hamster
10-16-2012, 20:55
Wants to have an assault weapons ban.

Well, now no matter how distasteful a candidate Romney is, I need to vote for him. Obama basically spilled the beans on his plan for another AWB:/ Had Obama kept his big mouth shut re: AWB I would have certainly voted for Gary Johnson.

That being said, I hope Romney doesn't sign a second AWB.

Calico Jack
10-16-2012, 20:56
Are you kidding? Romney put it flat on Obama, the bucks stops with Obama. Would not let him off the hook on waiting two weeks to state it was an act of terror.

It was a more two sided debate, but Obama was again on the defense most of the debate.

Did you not see Romney being chastised by Obama and the Moo-derator taking up for Obama the whole time.

Look, I agree that the Romney won when you look at the substantive arguments, but we are talking about the opinions of the sheepish American people, as a whole.

sombunya
10-16-2012, 21:01
He (Romney) did say that automatic weapons are already illegal.



Excellent point!

Not true. Heavily regulated? Yes.

WarCry
10-16-2012, 21:02
If the President loses re-election, I think a very heavy weight of that will fall square on the gun issue because of the new AWB comment.

That said, however, look at EXACTLY what he said:
Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced

Notice he didn't say passed, or in place, or in effect. I stand by what I've said for YEARS: The Democrats remember 1994, and they are NOT politically suicidal enough to pass it again. And even that is presuming they regain control of BOTH houses (an unlikely event).

Everyone can (and has, and will continue to) shout "Look! See! Here it comes!!" but that's still no more realistic today than it was yesterday. What I think you saw was the President preaching to his base. If it hits the Senate floor and gets shot down, they can still tell their people 'See, we tried, damn those Right-Wingers, but we couldn't do it!'


But, as I said, if the re-election bid is lost, that comment is going to be a major factor.

domin8ss
10-16-2012, 21:02
Obama won the Libya round....he really turned it on.

I fail to see how when Romney pointed out the Obama took 14 days to declare Libya a terrorist attack, and Obama wanted the transcripts of a press conference in three rose garden 2 days after the Libya attack. The moderator declared Romney was right.

Calico Jack
10-16-2012, 21:03
These town hall debates are just sloppy and unprofessional.

douggmc
10-16-2012, 21:05
I fail to see how when Romney pointed out the Obama took 14 days to declare Libya a terrorist attack, and Obama wanted the transcripts of a press conference in three rose garden 2 days after the Libya attack. The moderator declared Romney was right.

It was the exact opposite.

Rabbi
10-16-2012, 21:05
I fail to see how when Romney pointed out the Obama took 14 days to declare Libya a terrorist attack, and Obama wanted the transcripts of a press conference in three rose garden 2 days after the Libya attack. The moderator declared Romney was right.

You didnt watch the same show I did...and everyone else did. The Mod jumped to prove the President was right...and everyone, including Fox are scoring that one for Obama.

Out of the entire night, the Libya round was Obamas biggest win. Romney fouled that one up.

Altaris
10-16-2012, 21:07
Obama - "Mine's not as big as yours, I don't look at it that often." :rofl: :shocked:





On a serious note though....this was the first time I have heard him just come out and say, Yes I will go for another AWB. Him flat out admitting that 'should' get a lot of gun owners against him.

Calico Jack
10-16-2012, 21:07
I fail to see how when Romney pointed out the Obama took 14 days to declare Libya a terrorist attack, and Obama wanted the transcripts of a press conference in three rose garden 2 days after the Libya attack. The moderator declared Romney was right.

What were you watching? The moderator took Obamas side and tried to shut Romney up.

FLIPPER 348
10-16-2012, 21:07
I wish Romney would have answered the question the moderator asked. If a compromise between progun and antigun was reached that included an AWB would you sign it..

He avoided the question twice.

domin8ss
10-16-2012, 21:08
These town hall debates are just sloppy and unprofessional.

Agreed

RenoF250
10-16-2012, 21:09
In both debates Romney has failed to explain his budget math. Obama laid out ~$8T in debt and Romney did nothing to defend it other than say he would get rid of loopholes. 8T is a lot of loopholes.

glockdoc21
10-16-2012, 21:10
Palmetto state's going to be out of lowers again tomorrow :cool:

I can't believe that Obama actually just came right out and said it. I wish that Romney could have sunk his teeth in w/ fast and furious a little more though...

G36's Rule
10-16-2012, 21:10
You didnt watch the same show I did...and everyone else did. The Mod jumped to prove the President was right...and everyone, including Fox are scoring that one for Obama.

Out of the entire night, the Libya round was Obamas biggest win. Romney fouled that one up.

No, in fact Krauthamer just said it was wrong and unfair. Chris Wallace fact checked it as going to Romney. Romney could have knocked it out of the park, but he at least got a double out of it.

RenoF250
10-16-2012, 21:11
Romney was pushing pretty hard on Libya and if Obama believed half of what he said he must have been working very hard not to pop Romney in the jaw.

G36's Rule
10-16-2012, 21:12
Yep, now Luntz showing big change in voters in his focus group to Romney. Clear win for Romney.

TK-421
10-16-2012, 21:14
Romney's got a leg up on Obama though, seeing as how Romney actually banned assault weapons, all Obama has done is talk about it.

Rabbi
10-16-2012, 21:14
No, in fact Krauthamer just said it was wrong and unfair. Chris Wallace fact checked it as going to Romney. Romney could have knocked it out of the park, but he at least got a double out of it.

I like and agree with Krauthamer a lot...but he is wrong on how that one went over.

..and that is the issue, how it went over.

domin8ss
10-16-2012, 21:15
It was the exact opposite.
You didnt watch the same show I did...and everyone else did. The Mod jumped to prove the President was right...and everyone, including Fox are scoring that one for Obama.

Out of the entire night, the Libya round was Obamas biggest win. Romney fouled that one up.
What were you watching? The moderator took Obamas side and tried to shut Romney up.
Ok, by consensus I could be wrong. Fortunately, I did record the debate. I will go back and watch that part again.
In both debates Romney has failed to explain his budget math. Obama laid out ~$8T in debt and Romney did nothing to defend it other than say he would get rid of loopholes. 8T is a lot of loopholes.
politifact.com has shown how this is actually speculation due to lack of details of Romney's plan. Again, it is only speculation from one source and in no way supported by fact.

G36's Rule
10-16-2012, 21:16
I like and agree with Krauthamer a lot...but he is wrong on how that one went over.

..and that is the issue, how it went over.

The focus group says you are wrong.

Rabbi
10-16-2012, 21:17
The focus group says you are wrong.

A focus group... (on Fox, which I am not watching any more)

sigman69
10-16-2012, 21:19
It should suprise none of us that the Obamanation all for an assault weapons ban.....no the question is how we go about stopping him from letting it happen.

hamster
10-16-2012, 21:20
Romney's got a leg up on Obama though, seeing as how Romney actually banned assault weapons, all Obama has done is talk about it.

Hahah 100% true. Luckily Obama does very little of what he promises.

Fox184
10-16-2012, 21:21
A focus group... (on Fox, which I am not watching any more)

You more of an MSNBC guy?:tongueout:

Alpine
10-16-2012, 21:22
The best thing romney did was focus on obama's record over the last 4 years.

The best thing obama did was distort and deflect focus from his record over the last 4 years.

Flying-Dutchman
10-16-2012, 21:24
No, in fact Krauthamer just said it was wrong and unfair. Chris Wallace fact checked it as going to Romney. Romney could have knocked it out of the park, but he at least got a double out of it.
Romney didn’t because he thought he misheard Obama and did not want to make a false accusation and call Obama a liar.

All I remember were weird apologies about a youtube video from Obama and Hillary so I was as stunned as Romney when Obama said he called it terrorism the next day.

Crowley helped save Obama too but we knew that would happen.

TK-421
10-16-2012, 21:25
Hahah 100% true. Luckily Obama does very little of what he promises.

I'm just worried that Romney is one of those "I've done it before, I can do it again guys."

RenoF250
10-16-2012, 21:28
\

politifact.com has shown how this is actually speculation due to lack of details of Romney's plan. Again, it is only speculation from one source and in no way supported by fact.

It could be total trash but Obama has brought it up in both debates and Romney has not responded to it properly either time.

Travclem
10-16-2012, 21:29
I'm just worried that Romney is one of those "I've done it before, I can do it again guys."
I don't know. The more I listen to Romney, the more I think he believes these issues should be left to the states. But I've been wrong before.

ChuteTheMall
10-16-2012, 21:30
Obama - "Mine's not as big as yours, I don't look at it that often." :rofl: :shocked:

.

:animlol: That's sig-worthy right there.

I like and agree with Krauthamer a lot...but he is wrong on how that one went over.

..and that is the issue, how it went over.

No, the issue is how it will be spun to any of the elusive undecided likely voters. Even on this thread, many of us disagree on how it went over.

People are tuning in now to find out who was declared the winner.

Rabbi
10-16-2012, 21:30
You more of an MSNBC guy?:tongueout:

Yes, I am watching MSNBC.

I dont want to hear what people I agree with say. That does me no good.

wingryder
10-16-2012, 21:31
Referring to the "rose garden comment", Obama didn't specifically refer to the Bengazzi attack as an act of terrorism, he was speaking to "acts of terror" in a general sense. He never said Bengazzi was a terrorist attack.

wct097
10-16-2012, 21:32
Ordered three PSA blem AR lowers before Obama even sat down....

TK-421
10-16-2012, 21:35
I don't know. The more I listen to Romney, the more I think he believes these issues should be left to the states. But I've been wrong before.

Politicians lie. I spend less time listening to what they say, and more time trying to figure out what they'll actually do.

Obama says he will ban assault weapons. I believe it. It might not happen, but I think he'll at least try.

Romney says he won't ban assault weapons, but he already banned them in Massachusetts, what's stopping him from doing it again? I'd be a bit more inclined to believe him if he was pulling strings and talking to people, trying to undo the damage he did in Massachusetts.

douggmc
10-16-2012, 21:37
Politicians lie. I spend less time listening to what they say, and more time trying to figure out what they'll actually do.

Obama says he will ban assault weapons. I believe it. It might not happen, but I think he'll at least try.

Romney says he won't ban assault weapons, but he already banned them in Massachusetts, what's stopping him from doing it again? I'd be a bit more inclined to believe him if he was pulling strings and talking to people, trying to undo the damage he did in Massachusetts.

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

Hurricanes
10-16-2012, 21:39
I did find enjoy the older gentleman in the Fox focus group that said Obama has been bull______ us.
-Joel

JFrame
10-16-2012, 21:42
I did find enjoy the older gentleman in the Fox focus group that said Obama has been bull______ us.
-Joel


Yeah -- that was great... :supergrin:


.

Flying-Dutchman
10-16-2012, 21:44
Youtube video. Libya comes in at 1:13-1:14 where Crowley says Romney is correct and the audience claps. Crowley protected Obama on this and quickly moves on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw1K9b7qh24 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw1K9b7qh24)

LASTRESORT20
10-16-2012, 21:46
I did find enjoy the older gentleman in the Fox focus group that said Obama has been bull______ us.
-Joel


That was Fantastic!....Not all folks are stupid (like obie thinks)....and accept his fib`s ....Obie looked small tonight...

Armchair Commando
10-16-2012, 21:48
Romney is not going to ban any weapons, You guys must of forgot who his running mate is. Paul Ryan won't allow any AWB to happen.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

TK-421
10-16-2012, 21:49
The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

My thoughts exactly.

However, I'd rather have Romney be in office, and have it be an uncertainty, rather than Obama, and have it be a guarantee.

JFrame
10-16-2012, 21:51
Youtube video. Libya comes in at 1:13-1:14 where Crowley says Romney is correct and the audience claps. Crowley protected Obama on this and quickly moves on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw1K9b7qh24 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw1K9b7qh24)


What the hell was that fat beeyotch doing, trying to act as a fact-checker in real-time at that moment? :headscratch:


.

Hurricanes
10-16-2012, 21:51
Actually in the video she says "he did call it an act of terror", so she was not saying Romney was correct. She said Romney was correct in saying it took 14 days for it to come out that the riot was about the tape. Though Romney was not talking about the tape, but about the fact that it took Obama longer to point out that the attack was an act of terror.
-Joel

douggmc
10-16-2012, 21:51
My thoughts exactly.

However, I'd rather have Romney be in office, and have it be an uncertainty, rather than Obama, and have it be a guarantee.

That is an interesting spin, because unless I'm mistaken, Romney has been the only executive who chose to put pen to paper and sign into law an AWB (instead of exercising his veto power).

hamster
10-16-2012, 21:52
Romney is not going to ban any weapons, You guys must of forgot who his running mate is. Paul Ryan won't allow any AWB to happen.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

We can only hope. Can't we just reverse the ticket? I'd rather vote for Ryan

JFrame
10-16-2012, 21:52
My thoughts exactly.

However, I'd rather have Romney be in office, and have it be an uncertainty, rather than Obama, and have it be a guarantee.

Yeah -- Obama's past behavior is decidedly atrocious...


.

JFrame
10-16-2012, 21:53
We can only hope. Can't we just reverse the ticket? I'd rather vote for Ryan


So put him in position to vote for him in 2016 or 2020... :cool:


.

Fox184
10-16-2012, 21:55
Yes, I am watching MSNBC.

I dont want to hear what people I agree with say. That does me no good.

You must have more patience than me, those people make my blood boil.

Concerning the Panel on Fox. The majority of the people voted for Obama in 08, the majority are now going to vote for Romney. The one thing Obama can't defend no matter how much he lies about it is his record the past 4 years. People are worse off now than they were 4 years ago.

countrygun
10-16-2012, 21:56
That is an interesting spin, because unless I'm mistaken, Romney has been the only executive who chose to put pen to paper and sign into law an AWB (instead of exercising his veto power).


UHm, excuse me. Do you remember the last AWB? How did it become law?

Romney was faced with a State legislature that was prepaired to override his veto, and he made substantial changes in gun owners favor, in the negotiations.

JFrame
10-16-2012, 21:58
UHm, excuse me. Do you remember the last AWB? How did it become law?

You mean the 1994 AWB that was signed into law by Bill Clinton? http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/just_cuz/JC_thinking.gif


.

douggmc
10-16-2012, 22:02
UHm, excuse me. Do you remember the last AWB? How did it become law?

Romney was faced with a State legislature that was prepaired to override his veto, and he made substantial changes in gun owners favor, in the negotiations.

What is your point? Romney signed a law implementing an AWB. Is it "OK" if it is "bipartisan"?

Whereas Obama has done nothing of the sort. In fact, no gun legislation at all unless I'm mistaken.

G36's Rule
10-16-2012, 22:05
Candy Crowley admitted post debate that Romney was in fact correct.

douggmc
10-16-2012, 22:06
You mean the 1994 AWB that was signed into law by Bill Clinton? http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/just_cuz/JC_thinking.gif


.

Is Bill running for President? Last I checked we were comparing the behaviors of Obama vs Romney as executive of their governments.

GAFinch
10-16-2012, 22:07
What is your point? Romney signed a law implementing an AWB. Is it "OK" if it is "bipartisan"?

Whereas Obama has done nothing of the sort. In fact, no gun legislation at all unless I'm mistaken.

If he "stuck to his principles" and vetoed the bill, it would've been overridden by the 85% Democrat state congress. By "compromising his principles" and signing an extension of a pre-existing bill, he got it watered down. I don't understand the problem here.

JFrame
10-16-2012, 22:08
Is Bill running for President? Last I checked we were comparing the behaviors of Obama vs Romney as executive of their governments.

You were, in fact, mistaken when you said that Romney was the only executive to sign an AWB. Read your own post again.

Sheesh...


.

THEPOPE
10-16-2012, 22:10
Obama dodged the Fast and Furious topic.

Still its doubtful this debate changed anyone’s mind.

O'Blah-blah-bahma did indeed dodge the F-N-F comment, but honestly, they both sounded off balance by any mention of the 2nd Amendment, neither wanting to open that can-o-worms very wide...Romknees' awkward segue into F-N-F came off as a strained but pertinent question of who or whom exactly Okie-Dokied such a flawed plan...

Uh, didn't both keep referring to 'A.K -47's' ?

I am as out as you know who...or whom...:cool:

douggmc
10-16-2012, 22:11
You were, in fact, mistaken when you said that Romney was the only executive to sign an AWB. Read your own post again.

Sheesh...


.

You got me. Pedantic man to the rescue !!! :upeyes:

JFrame
10-16-2012, 22:12
You got me. Pedantic man to the rescue !!! :upeyes:

More than happy to fact-check you -- and unlike Candy Crowley, Country and I are accurate the first time around. :tongueout:


.

countrygun
10-16-2012, 22:14
More than happy to fact-check you -- and unlike Candy Crowley, Country and I are accurate the first time around. :tongueout:


.

Indeed. Those pesky facts get in some peoples way when they want to try and make a spurious point:cool:

douggmc
10-16-2012, 22:15
O'Blah-blah-bahma did indeed dodge the F-N-F comment, but honestly, they both sounded off balance by any mention of the 2nd Amendment, neither wanting to open that can-o-worms very wide...Romknees' awkward segue into F-N-F came off as a strained but pertinent question of who or whom exactly Okie-Dokied such a flawed plan...

Uh, didn't both keep referring to 'A.K -47's' ?

I am as out as you know who...or whom...:cool:

I find it quite humorous that one of our primary mantras in defense of gun rights and against the gun grabbers is:: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" and "it isn't a gun problem, it is a criminal problem".

Yet, in the case of the FnF we effectively we want it the other way around. Isn't it the person who shot Brian Terry the responsible one?

douggmc
10-16-2012, 22:17
More than happy to fact-check you -- and unlike Candy Crowley, Country and I are accurate the first time around. :tongueout:


.

But you aren't now ... now that we've cleared up the obvious: That when I said "executives", I meant the two executives of which THE ENTIRE SUBJECT OF THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT.

tsmo1066
10-16-2012, 22:18
I find it quite humorous that one of our primary mantras in defense of gun rights and against the gun grabbers is:: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" and "it isn't a gun problem, it is a criminal problem".

Yet, in the case of the FnF we effectively we want it the other way around. Isn't it the person who shot Brian Terry the responsible one?

Are you honestly trying to argue that deliberately and knowingly providing weapons to known cartel members in direct violation of both US and Mexican law is OK and that the people who put together this intentional operation shouldn't be held accountable?

Boot Stomper
10-16-2012, 22:19
I started my, If Obama is reelected AR-15 fund. Anyone else have one or thinking of starting one???

Fox
10-16-2012, 22:19
What is your point? Romney signed a law implementing an AWB. Is it "OK" if it is "bipartisan"?

Whereas Obama has done nothing of the sort. In fact, no gun legislation at all unless I'm mistaken.

It was damage control and you are being obtuse.

JFrame
10-16-2012, 22:19
But you aren't now ... now that we've cleared up the obvious: That when I said "executives", I meant the two executives of which THE ENTIRE SUBJECT OF THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT.

I see -- it was a failure of yours to make the correct point the first time around. Previous experience tells me that is a systemic problem for you.


.

nmk
10-16-2012, 22:21
Yes, I am watching MSNBC.

I dont want to hear what people I agree with say. That does me no good.

The world would be a better place if everyone thought this way.

douggmc
10-16-2012, 22:22
Are you honestly trying to argue that deliberately and knowingly providing weapons to known cartel members in direct violation of both US and Mexican law is OK and that the people who put together this intentional operation shouldn't be held accountable?

Are you honestly saying that the criminal wouldn't have had a gun anyway?

For the record, I think it was an atrocious and misguided idea and operation. I also think it is and has been ridiculously overplayed as a political tool and that accountability has taken place.

But, if we want to be credible, we can't have it both ways. We can't use as a primary defense that "guns are tools" and the real problem is the criminal, yet in this case, rail entirely on something other than the criminal who pulled the trigger (who would have had a gun regardless).

douggmc
10-16-2012, 22:24
I see -- it was a failure of yours to make the correct point the first time around. Previous experience tells me that is a systemic problem for you.


.

You know what is the most telling about this little debate I and several of you are having is? The fact that you all want to argue semantics, instead of the actual topic.

JFrame
10-16-2012, 22:26
You know what is the most telling about this little debate I and several of you are having is? The fact that you all want to argue semantics, instead of the actual topic.

Yet you seem strangely mesmerized by this exchange... http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/big_standart/biggrin.gif


.

countrygun
10-16-2012, 22:28
You know what is the most telling about this little debate I and several of you are having is? The fact that you all want to argue semantics, instead of the actual topic.

Words mean things.

douggmc
10-16-2012, 22:28
Words mean things.

They sure do.

tsmo1066
10-16-2012, 22:28
Are you honestly saying that the criminal wouldn't have had a gun anyway?


That's not the point. The criminal had a gun that our own government illegally provided him with in full knowledge that he was a Cartel member.

You just don't get it, do you?

Fox
10-16-2012, 22:28
Are you honestly saying that the criminal wouldn't have had a gun anyway?

For the record, I think it was an atrocious and misguided idea and operation. I also think it is and has been ridiculously overplayed as a political tool and that accountability has taken place.

But, if we want to be credible, we can't have it both ways. We can't use as a primary defense that "guns are tools" and the real problem is the criminal, yet in this case, rail entirely on something other than the criminal who pulled the trigger (who would have had a gun regardless).


We have a leftist president arming drug cartels in Mexico to advance a gun control agenda on US citizens.

Remember when the Democrat talking points were that 90% of guns used by Mexican drug cartels were purchased from gunshops in the border states? They had to manufacture evidence to support their propaganda.

JFrame
10-16-2012, 22:30
Words mean things.

Indeed...They can be stated clearly, or diffused in such a way as to obscure or even shade the point. We see that a lot from the leftist MSM also.


.

Fox
10-16-2012, 22:30
That's not the point. The criminal had a gun that our own government illegally provided him with in full knowledge that he was a Cartel member.

You just don't get it, do you?

He is being obtuse because he wants Obama to get reelected.

tsmo1066
10-16-2012, 22:31
But, if we want to be credible, we can't have it both ways. We can't use as a primary defense that "guns are tools" and the real problem is the criminal, yet in this case, rail entirely on something other than the criminal who pulled the trigger (who would have had a gun regardless).

You say the real problem is "the criminal" while overlooking that our own government were criminals here as well. F&F was an illegal operation from start to finish as it violated treaties with Mexico.

You are correct, the criminal is responsible - both the one behind the trigger and the one who illegally provided him with a weapon in full knowledge that he was a killer.

Glotin
10-16-2012, 22:31
I find it quite humorous that one of our primary mantras in defense of gun rights and against the gun grabbers is:: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" and "it isn't a gun problem, it is a criminal problem".

Yet, in the case of the FnF we effectively we want it the other way around. Isn't it the person who shot Brian Terry the responsible one?

That is an interesting spin, because unless I'm mistaken, Romney has been the only executive who chose to put pen to paper and sign into law an AWB (instead of exercising his veto power).

What is your point? Romney signed a law implementing an AWB. Is it "OK" if it is "bipartisan"?

Whereas Obama has done nothing of the sort. In fact, no gun legislation at all unless I'm mistaken.

You got me. Pedantic man to the rescue !!! :upeyes:

But you aren't now ... now that we've cleared up the obvious: That when I said "executives", I meant the two executives of which [about whom] THE ENTIRE SUBJECT OF THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT.

Wow.... The fail is strong with this one.

BTW, wtf does "of which" mean?

tsmo1066
10-16-2012, 22:32
He is being obtuse because he wants Obama to get reelected.

Poor guy...:whistling:

NickC50310
10-16-2012, 22:34
Obama did better than last time but he still lost.

He cannot defend his record and he ran out of steam at the end.

Obama dodged the Fast and Furious topic.

Still its doubtful this debate changed anyone’s mind.

The moderator even stepped in to save his ass. When do we get a fox news moderator? :rofl:

douggmc
10-16-2012, 22:35
How sad, that you would all rather circle jerk each other instead of acknowledge that what I said is true. Of the two executives in this debate this evening (also ... ironically :upeyes:... the two executives being discussed in this thread), Romney is the only one that actually signed into law an AWB.

I think we should rename GT to "Group Think" instead of "Glock Talk"

GAFinch
10-16-2012, 22:36
I started my, If Obama is reelected AR-15 fund. Anyone else have one or thinking of starting one???

It'll be a whole lot cheaper to buy one before he gets re-elected. Ammo and mags also. I already did a couple months ago.

TK-421
10-16-2012, 22:38
Are you honestly saying that the criminal wouldn't have had a gun anyway?

For the record, I think it was an atrocious and misguided idea and operation. I also think it is and has been ridiculously overplayed as a political tool and that accountability has taken place.

But, if we want to be credible, we can't have it both ways. We can't use as a primary defense that "guns are tools" and the real problem is the criminal, yet in this case, rail entirely on something other than the criminal who pulled the trigger (who would have had a gun regardless).

I personally think that the criminal would've had the gun no matter what, it just makes us look really bad when we gave them the guns.

Is it being overplayed? Oh absolutely, but everything gets overplayed when it's this close to election time.

Basically, **** happens, people get over it, it just takes longer when it's because of something we did that makes us look bad, and makes our agencies look incompetent. Personally, I think it was a really stupid idea to begin with.

douggmc
10-16-2012, 22:39
I personally think that the criminal would've had the gun no matter what, it just makes us look really bad when we gave them the guns.

Is it being overplayed? Oh absolutely, but everything gets overplayed when it's this close to election time.

Basically, **** happens, people get over it, it just takes longer when it's because of something we did that makes us look bad, and makes our agencies look incompetent. Personally, I think it was a really stupid idea to begin with.

I agree.

SpectreRider
10-16-2012, 22:43
He is being obtuse because he wants Obama to get reelected.

Let me fix that for you.

He wants Obama to get reelected because he is being obtuse.

countrygun
10-16-2012, 22:55
How sad, that you would all rather circle jerk each other instead of acknowledge that what I said is true. Of the two executives in this debate this evening (also ... ironically :upeyes:... the two executives being discussed in this thread), Romney is the only one that actually signed into law an AWB.

I think we should rename GT to "Group Think" instead of "Glock Talk"

After saying,

"That is an interesting spin, because unless I'm mistaken, Romney has been the only executive who chose to put pen to paper and sign into law an AWB (instead of exercising his veto power). "


that isn't even a good backpeddle

You were mistaken, which takes a lot away from you "credibility chip pile" on the topic.

You still aren't touching on what Obama said he would do. which is the topic at hand.

skippz
10-16-2012, 23:13
You didnt watch the same show I did...and everyone else did. The Mod jumped to prove the President was right...and everyone, including Fox are scoring that one for Obama.

Out of the entire night, the Libya round was Obamas biggest win. Romney fouled that one up.

Fox IS NOT spinning it that way, Hannity just aired the video of Obama in the rose garden proving what Romney said to be, in fact, correct... Obama did not identify Libya as a terrorist attack... He said it was unclear at the moment and justice would be done to those responsible... Even days after the rose garden address he still stuck to the "this could possibly be a spontaneous attack as the result of a YouTube video".
And his administration should be forced to release details of the fast & furious scandal... That is ridiculous...
Also Obama FLAT OUT LIED about coal production...

domin8ss
10-16-2012, 23:14
How sad, that you would all rather circle jerk each other instead of acknowledge that what I said is true. Of the two executives in this debate this evening (also ... ironically :upeyes:... the two executives being discussed in this thread), Romney is the only one that actually signed into law an AWB.

I think we should rename GT to "Group Think" instead of "Glock Talk"

Cool! An old fashioned circle jerk. Can I get in on this? My wife hasn't been putting out lately. Something about her Aunt Flo coming to town this week. I hate when relatives come to visit. She never puts out. She says it has something to do with being afraid of her being heard.

:mad:

GRIMLET
10-16-2012, 23:17
I started my, If Obama is reelected AR-15 fund. Anyone else have one or thinking of starting one???

And if there would be no grandfather clause, you may lose your investment.
Watch the run on the so called assault weapons in the gun stores.
Its about to get more desperate than 4 years ago now that it may be on the horizon. But will his dream of outlawing weapons include a no possession/no transfer rule?

Rabbi
10-16-2012, 23:17
Fox IS NOT spinning it that way, ...

You are going to call me out, hours after the fact after a change of on air personalities to Hanity?

At the time, Fox, and most places, were scoring it fairly even, with Romney 1 up on energy and Obama 1 up on Libya.

Which is a somewhat fair score. Of course it is going to get spun, on all sides, as time goes on.

douggmc
10-16-2012, 23:20
After saying,

"That is an interesting spin, because unless I'm mistaken, Romney has been the only executive who chose to put pen to paper and sign into law an AWB (instead of exercising his veto power). "


that isn't even a good backpeddle

You were mistaken, which takes a lot away from you "credibility chip pile" on the topic.

You still aren't touching on what Obama said he would do. which is the topic at hand.

You are entirely incorrect. Check the post history. The sub-thread discussion started with me saying "the best predictor if future behavior is past behavior" (post 72) in response to comparison of Romney vs Obama by TK-421. Then follow up posts in 78 and 81 on same subject. You then jump in midstream out if context and decide what the subject is?!

I am on topic and the post exchanges between TK and me were regarding behavior of R vs O and who (and who didn't) signed an AWB. YOU are the one who is not on the topic of hand, which is: past behavior(past actions) vs future actions.

I pay attention to actions, not words. Especially when one of the men speaking (Romney) is unquestionably the least trustworthy and reliable on positions held on policies that I can recall in my lifetime. The man has seemingly held every position on every major policy at least once ... It is comical.

michael_b
10-16-2012, 23:22
I caught that comment as well,,,, I assume he was talking about Full Auto,,,,but they are legal to own,,just pay a 200 dollar tax fee and pass the background. Obviously R dont know all he should be knowing.

In the context of the situation, I'll take it.

skippz
10-16-2012, 23:24
You are going to call me out, hours after the fact after a change of on air personalities to Hanity?

At the time, Fox, and most places, were scoring it fairly even, with Romney 1 up on energy and Obama 1 up on Libya.

Which is a somewhat fair score. Of course it is going to get spun, on all sides, as time goes on.

I'm not calling you out, nor am I going into how anyone is scoring the debate, I'm just saying that since the debate has been over fox has never said Bama won the Libya question... They in fact spoke to the contrary, Hannity showing a video proving otherwise... That's all I'm saying...

Slug71
10-16-2012, 23:33
that is an interesting spin, because unless i'm mistaken, romney has been the only executive who chose to put pen to paper and sign into law an awb (instead of exercising his veto power).

+10000

Slug71
10-16-2012, 23:35
What is your point? Romney signed a law implementing an AWB. Is it "OK" if it is "bipartisan"?

Whereas Obama has done nothing of the sort. In fact, no gun legislation at all unless I'm mistaken.

Nice to see some people are awake......

skippz
10-16-2012, 23:38
Guys, who is the NRA backing?

countrygun
10-16-2012, 23:45
The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

http://www.infowars.com/obamas-gun-control-record-sparking-sales-worry/
* 1994 to 2001 – Obama was on the board of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation. This foundation is the largest funding source for radical anti-gun groups in the country.
* 1996 – Obama supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.
* 1999 – Obama proposed a 500 percent increase in the excise taxes on firearms and ammunition. This tax would effectively punish gun owners for buying guns and ammunition.
* 2003 – Obama voted in support of legislation that would have banned privately owned hunting shotguns, target rifles and black powder rifles in Illinois.
* 2004 – Obama voted against legislation intended to protect homeowners from prosecution in cases where they used a firearm to halt a home invasion.

skippz
10-16-2012, 23:57
http://www.infowars.com/obamas-gun-control-record-sparking-sales-worry/
* 1994 to 2001 – Obama was on the board of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation. This foundation is the largest funding source for radical anti-gun groups in the country.
* 1996 – Obama supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.
* 1999 – Obama proposed a 500 percent increase in the excise taxes on firearms and ammunition. This tax would effectively punish gun owners for buying guns and ammunition.
* 2003 – Obama voted in support of legislation that would have banned privately owned hunting shotguns, target rifles and black powder rifles in Illinois.
* 2004 – Obama voted against legislation intended to protect homeowners from prosecution in cases where they used a firearm to halt a home invasion.

+1... Finally someone gets some stats... I'm too lazy lol

ilgunguygt
10-17-2012, 00:12
Are you honestly saying that the criminal wouldn't have had a gun anyway?

For the record, I think it was an atrocious and misguided idea and operation. I also think it is and has been ridiculously overplayed as a political tool and that accountability has taken place.

But, if we want to be credible, we can't have it both ways. We can't use as a primary defense that "guns are tools" and the real problem is the criminal, yet in this case, rail entirely on something other than the criminal who pulled the trigger (who would have had a gun regardless).
Absolutely not. If that would have occured with a republican in office, he would have been out of the white house by now. At the very least Eric Holder needs to be out of a job and facing criminal charges. They canned a few people, big deal.

As far as having it both ways, no we are not. See, the laws on the books are there to punish people who sell guns ilegally to gang bangers and whatnot. The laws apparently dont apply to the president and his henchmen in the lack-of-justice department.

WarCry
10-17-2012, 00:15
http://www.infowars.com/obamas-gun-control-record-sparking-sales-worry/
* 1994 to 2001 – Obama was on the board of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation. This foundation is the largest funding source for radical anti-gun groups in the country.
* 1996 – Obama supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.
* 1999 – Obama proposed a 500 percent increase in the excise taxes on firearms and ammunition. This tax would effectively punish gun owners for buying guns and ammunition.
* 2003 – Obama voted in support of legislation that would have banned privately owned hunting shotguns, target rifles and black powder rifles in Illinois.
* 2004 – Obama voted against legislation intended to protect homeowners from prosecution in cases where they used a firearm to halt a home invasion.

And all of that was as a representative of a small group of citizens that elected him, first in his IL district, then from IL in the US Senate.

Where are the states since Jan 2009, when he was selected to represent the whole country?

— In 2009, Obama enacted legislation permitting firearms in national parks.

— In 2010, legislation permitting firearms to be carried on Amtrak was enacted, reversing a post 9/11 decision to ban them.

Psychman
10-17-2012, 05:00
I caught that comment as well,,,, I assume he was talking about Full Auto,,,,but they are legal to own,,just pay a 200 dollar tax fee and pass the background. Obviously R dont know all he should be knowing.

Yes, I agree Romney was a bit misinformed about that. However, the one thing that keeps most people from buying automatic weapons is the cost involved. Obama would clearly ban semiautos also.

Psychman
10-17-2012, 05:02
Guys, who is the NRA backing?


Rhetorical question?

Travclem
10-17-2012, 05:14
And if there would be no grandfather clause, you may lose your investment.
Watch the run on the so called assault weapons in the gun stores.
Its about to get more desperate than 4 years ago now that it may be on the horizon. But will his dream of outlawing weapons include a no possession/no transfer rule?
I hope that for everyone's sake this doesn't happen. .

Travclem
10-17-2012, 05:18
http://www.infowars.com/obamas-gun-control-record-sparking-sales-worry/
* 1994 to 2001 – Obama was on the board of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation. This foundation is the largest funding source for radical anti-gun groups in the country.
* 1996 – Obama supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.
* 1999 – Obama proposed a 500 percent increase in the excise taxes on firearms and ammunition. This tax would effectively punish gun owners for buying guns and ammunition.
* 2003 – Obama voted in support of legislation that would have banned privately owned hunting shotguns, target rifles and black powder rifles in Illinois.
* 2004 – Obama voted against legislation intended to protect homeowners from prosecution in cases where they used a firearm to halt a home invasion.

And lest we forget Joe Biden's involvement in the '94 ban.

frizz
10-17-2012, 05:18
Wants to have an assault weapons ban.

That was unwise, I think. It isn't going to get his constituency energized, but it will tend to grab gun folks by the lapels.

This will hurt him, I think.

Travclem
10-17-2012, 05:22
That was unwise, I think. It isn't going to get his constituency energized, but it will tend to grab gun folks by the lapels.

This will hurt him, I think.
Sadly, I don't think it will. I'd venture a guess that very few gun owners are undecided voters.

frizz
10-17-2012, 05:25
And if there would be no grandfather clause, you may lose your investment.
Watch the run on the so called assault weapons in the gun stores.
Its about to get more desperate than 4 years ago now that it may be on the horizon. But will his dream of outlawing weapons include a no possession/no transfer rule?

I do not think that there is the political will to pass this again. Gun people are revved up by the recent, landmark wins in the USSCt, and there is a good chance that the Supreme Court would strike it.

Nowhere near 100% on the court, but Congress is another story. The anti-gun lobby has been having its ass handed to it in the states with the CCW laws. It isn't doing any better at the federal level either.

Psychman
10-17-2012, 05:27
Sadly, I don't think it will. I'd venture a guess that very few gun owners are undecided voters.

That may or may not be true, but what it may do is energize the more apathetic people to actually go out and vote.

Flying-Dutchman
10-17-2012, 05:29
Guys, who is the NRA backing?
The NRA endorsed Romney.

Gun control is very low on the American people’s list of issues.

It would be political suicide to push gun control so even Obama, rated the most Liberal Senator (Biden was rated 2nd) did not touch guns.

Remember who demands gun bans whenever there is a mass shooting. It is only and always the Democrats and we remember.

And now Obama let is slip. Obama wants an AWB and Obama will have more flexibility in a second term.

And remember, Obama likes to bypass Congress and use Executive Orders; expect an AWB Executive Order under Obama.

9mmdude
10-17-2012, 05:30
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1444388

Question answered, except you got it wrong.

Travclem
10-17-2012, 05:31
I do not think that there is the political will to pass this again. Gun people are revved up by the recent, landmark wins in the USSCt, and there is a good chance that the Supreme Court would strike it.

Nowhere near 100% on the court, but Congress is another story. The anti-gun lobby has been having its ass handed to it in the states with the CCW laws. It isn't doing any better at the federal level either.
You never know with our current court. Johnny boy might crawfish and drill us in the ass on guns just like he did on Obummercare.

frizz
10-17-2012, 05:31
That may or may not be true, but what it may do is energize the more apathetic people to actually go out and vote.

Yep.


Folks, understand that, in a partisan election, getting people to change their minds is less important than getting your vote excited enough to go to the polls while demoralizing your opponent's vote.

Travclem
10-17-2012, 05:34
That may or may not be true, but what it may do is energize the more apathetic people to actually go out and vote.
Maybe so, who knows:dunno:

jp3975
10-17-2012, 05:54
How sad, that you would all rather circle jerk each other instead of acknowledge that what I said is true. Of the two executives in this debate this evening (also ... ironically :upeyes:... the two executives being discussed in this thread), Romney is the only one that actually signed into law an AWB.

I think we should rename GT to "Group Think" instead of "Glock Talk"

What you said is a foolish half truth.

Did romney sign off on an awb?

Yes.

Was what he did for the good of gun owners?

Yes

He intervened to make it less restrictive. His veto power would have been overruled and it would have been a hell of a lot worse. Why cant you understand such simple concepts?

Your point about Romney being the one of the two that has signed an awb is retarded. I could see it if you said that without knowing but its been explained to you over and over.

You either hate Romney and are saying whatever you can to put him down because you're a hater or dont have the ability to use logic and reason.

Gallium
10-17-2012, 06:39
The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.


Not true at all. The best predictor in politics of future behavior is party affiliation and pecking order.

JFrame
10-17-2012, 06:41
Not true at all. The best predictor in politics of future behavior is party affiliation and pecking order.


Quite insightful... http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/good3.gif


.

okie
10-17-2012, 06:49
But unless I'm mistaken he hasn't even come close to pushing this issue, and outside of the direct question probablywouldn't even consider it.

o is waiting for second term, then ALL hell will break loose:alex:

Bilbo Bagins
10-17-2012, 06:52
The NRA endorsed Romney.

Gun control is very low on the American people’s list of issues.

It would be political suicide to push gun control so even Obama, rated the most Liberal Senator (Biden was rated 2nd) did not touch guns.

Remember who demands gun bans whenever there is a mass shooting. It is only and always the Democrats and we remember.

And now Obama let is slip. Obama wants an AWB and Obama will have more flexibility in a second term.

And remember, Obama likes to bypass Congress and use Executive Orders; expect an AWB Executive Order under Obama.

Not only did Obama mention he wants a new AWB, he want to make handguns more expensive. Here is a direct quote I grabbed from another thread.

Obama quote from the debate:

“My belief is that, (A), we have to enforce the laws we’ve already got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill. We’ve done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we’ve got more to do when it comes to enforcement.

“But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets. And so what I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.”

I guess my guns are more important to me than a promise made to Jeremy.

So expect gun and ammo to be taxed so that that the average joe cannot afford to shoot anymore.

Romney did some stupid things in the past, but he is commited to keep the Status quo with the current gun laws. Also, unlike Obama, he will listen to the GOP voters and the NRA. You got to vote for Romney if you want things to stay they way they are with gun laws.

JFrame
10-17-2012, 06:58
I guess we need to stop talking about Obama simply in the context of an AWB, and just refer to a gun ban in general.


.

Maxx702
10-17-2012, 07:36
Romney did some stupid things in the past, but he is commited to keep the Status quo with the current gun laws. Also, unlike Obama, he will listen to the GOP voters and the NRA. You got to vote for Romney if you want things to stay they way they are with gun laws.

I find it amazing (in a disappointing sort of way) that some people here fail to recognize the dangers of allowing the clearly anti-gun President to serve a second term.

The empty suit community organizer serves at the pleasure of the Democrat Party. Some here have been lulled to sleep by Obama's sympathetic media, others are taking a stand against why they see as a wishy washy RINO.

There is nothing pro 2A or even moderate about Obama.
We probably would have seen an AWB in Congress had the Dems not dedicated their efforts on Obamacare in 2009 and lost their super-majority in Congress as a result.

Like it or not, It's Romney or Obama. The distinction should be clear.

Gallium
10-17-2012, 07:41
Quite insightful... http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/good3.gif


.


I should have also qualified that with saying I was referring more to CONGRESS than the office of POTUS, but it does apply to who is in POTUS as well to some degree.

:cool:

Fear Night
10-17-2012, 07:47
It doesn't matter which candidate takes office, if an AWB was presented to their desk, I'm confident they would sign it. All it would take is a few more shootings to get us to the point of Congress trying to implement feel-good laws, whether AWB or otherwise.

I'd be more concerned with some type of UN agreement to disarm the population implemented by Obama than a new AWB.

mgs
10-17-2012, 07:56
http://www.infowars.com/obamas-gun-control-record-sparking-sales-worry/
* 1994 to 2001 – Obama was on the board of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation. This foundation is the largest funding source for radical anti-gun groups in the country.
* 1996 – Obama supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.
* 1999 – Obama proposed a 500 percent increase in the excise taxes on firearms and ammunition. This tax would effectively punish gun owners for buying guns and ammunition.
* 2003 – Obama voted in support of legislation that would have banned privately owned hunting shotguns, target rifles and black powder rifles in Illinois.
* 2004 – Obama voted against legislation intended to protect homeowners from prosecution in cases where they used a firearm to halt a home invasion.

Now that's some past behavior!

WarCry
10-17-2012, 08:23
You never know with our current court. Johnny boy might crawfish and drill us in the ass on guns just like he did on Obummercare.

But you're still forgetting the point that, whether you like the method or not, the healthcare reform WAS passed through both the Senate and the House, at the time with Democratic majorities. Now the Republicans have the House (and don't seem likely to lose it) while the Dems have the Senate. If your belief and faith in the Republicans is so strong, then you have to realize this would never clear COMMITTEE, let alone come to a floor vote and pass in the House. And if it doesn't pass there, it doesn't MATTER what the President wants.

And for those saying "Executive Orders!!!", when the fight was so hot for the healthcare reform, why didn't he save himself the trouble and just do it as an EO?? The answer is because that's simply not the way it works. EOs are not the "word of God coming down the mountain", regardless of who's writing them.



The fact that you all want to argue semantics, instead of the actual topic.

Words mean things.

And I have yet to see anyone else address the ONE word that I think tells the REAL story of the President's answer:

Reintroduced

Politicians parse their words carefully, and some more than others. Do you think this one doesn't know EXACTLY what he was saying? He didn't say passed. He didn't say enacted. He didn't say in place. He said Reintroduced. So it gets read in the Senate well, sent to some committee, and dies a natural death. The President KEPT his campaign/debate promise, and then no one cares again.

So, yes, "Words mean things."

kirgi08
10-17-2012, 08:38
:popcorn:

Glotin
10-17-2012, 09:41
But you're still forgetting the point that, whether you like the method or not, the healthcare reform WAS passed through both the Senate and the House, at the time with Democratic majorities. Now the Republicans have the House (and don't seem likely to lose it) while the Dems have the Senate. If your belief and faith in the Republicans is so strong, then you have to realize this would never clear COMMITTEE, let alone come to a floor vote and pass in the House. And if it doesn't pass there, it doesn't MATTER what the President wants.

And for those saying "Executive Orders!!!", when the fight was so hot for the healthcare reform, why didn't he save himself the trouble and just do it as an EO?? The answer is because that's simply not the way it works. EOs are not the "word of God coming down the mountain", regardless of who's writing them.





And I have yet to see anyone else address the ONE word that I think tells the REAL story of the President's answer:

Reintroduced

Politicians parse their words carefully, and some more than others. Do you think this one doesn't know EXACTLY what he was saying? He didn't say passed. He didn't say enacted. He didn't say in place. He said Reintroduced. So it gets read in the Senate well, sent to some committee, and dies a natural death. The President KEPT his campaign/debate promise, and then no one cares again.

So, yes, "Words mean things."

You are completely ignoring the Supreme Court. We are ONE justice away from the Supreme Court ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is a collective right of the militia, not an individual right. That was the dissent in Heller.

Neither Congress nor the President has to do a damn thing. Obama just has to appoint another liberal justice and we no longer have (according to the gov't) an individual right to own or carry guns.

WarCry
10-17-2012, 09:53
You are completely ignoring the Supreme Court. We are ONE justice away from the Supreme Court ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is a collective right of the militia, not an individual right. That was the dissent in Heller.

Neither Congress nor the President has to do a damn thing. Obama just has to appoint another liberal justice and we no longer have (according to the gov't) an individual right to own or carry guns.

Based on what? SCOTUS isn't going to re-write the law, there has to be some legal challenge to it. Could it happen? Sure, but precedent play. Stare decisis has historically been a major factor in whether the courts even TAKE a case, let alone judging the outcome.

But let's suppose your assumption is right. Whoever is nominated STILL has to go through a Senate confirmation. Are you saying you lack the confidence in the Republicans in the Senate from blocking any extreme appointments?

This level of "doom and gloom" is only benefiting two groups - manufacturers and sellers. And while I think it's great for them, these fears are not grounded in how the system actually works.

wjv
10-17-2012, 10:01
I bet tonight is seen as a draw (so far)

Looks like the PEOPLE think that Obama LOST. . .
MSNBC's Undecided Voter Panel Swayed by Romney
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/msnbcs-undecided-voter-panel-swayed-romney_654728.html

Luntz Focus Group Of Mostly Former Obama Voters Switch To Romney
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/16/luntz_focus_group_of_mostly_former_obama_voters_switch_to_romney.html

Glotin
10-17-2012, 10:08
But let's suppose your assumption is right. Whoever is nominated STILL has to go through a Senate confirmation. Are you saying you lack the confidence in the Republicans in the Senate from blocking any extreme appointments?

Why on earth would I have any confidence that a Republican minority in the Senate would block any "extreme" appointments?

They didn't block Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor or Kagan...

Any Obama appointment is going to be "extreme".

G36's Rule
10-17-2012, 10:11
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v206/Texasbagman/01af7f135e96a7795d5de8473bd44bc1.jpg

kirgi08
10-17-2012, 10:15
:animlol:

GAFinch
10-17-2012, 10:26
And if there would be no grandfather clause, you may lose your investment.
Watch the run on the so called assault weapons in the gun stores.
Its about to get more desperate than 4 years ago now that it may be on the horizon. But will his dream of outlawing weapons include a no possession/no transfer rule?

There's also been the talk of the EPA banning lead ammo and the talk of "strengthening" background checks, both of which could be done via executive order/executive fiat.

GreenDrake
10-17-2012, 10:28
fun stuff, an old high school friend and Facebook friend mentioned something about how debates mean nothing and don't sway voters. I was not being offensive but mentioned that I thought Obama's mention of wanting another AWB would be impacting negatively on the fence sitters or independents, citing how Gore lost the Presidency when gun control was brought into the fray. Hoooo doggie, did I get jumped "did Fox news tell you that?" "you are being an a$%^%l"

I remained calm and cited my sources, as I was continually attacked and verbally assaulted by the lefties. I took personal pleasure in watching them come unraveled after all I said was that it was my opinion that there probably already was an impact and that Obama even mentioning an AWB was going to be jumped on quickly. So much for the party of equality and tolerance.

Travclem
10-17-2012, 10:57
Why on earth would I have any confidence that a Republican minority in the Senate would block any "extreme" appointments?

They didn't block Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor or Kagan...

Any Obama appointment is going to be "extreme".
This is my point, and Ginsburg is creepin up on 100.

F350
10-17-2012, 11:30
Obama won the Libya round....he really turned it on. Much of the rest has been back and forth.

He only survived because the "impartial moderator" jumped to save his @ other wise Romney had him on the ropes on that one.

And on energy, loved when Obummer kept asking "needs to lay off the Candy" to move on to a new topic.:rofl::rofl:

GMB
10-17-2012, 11:42
Why was that misleading debate question even allowed?

There are not a bunch of AK-47s "on the streets".

Uninformed soccer moms will take this and interpret it to mean that there is currently a glut of full-auto AKs being sold out of hot dog stands on each street corner.

Obama himself said that criminals and gangbangers don't even utilize AKs in their crimes, and admitted that his home city of Chicago (despite having among the worst records on gun rights and some of the most restrictive laws anywhere) has crimes committed by youths with handguns instead of quote-unquote "assault weapons".

I hope beyond hope that your average voter doesn't think AWB-redux has any chance of preventing mass shootings or street crime.

Fox
10-17-2012, 11:51
But unless I'm mistaken he hasn't even come close to pushing this issue, and outside of the direct question probablywouldn't even consider it.

Obama is a real charmer. You would trade your gun rights to get another term for Obama.

Fox
10-17-2012, 11:57
Based on what? SCOTUS isn't going to re-write the law, there has to be some legal challenge to it. Could it happen? Sure, but precedent play. Stare decisis has historically been a major factor in whether the courts even TAKE a case, let alone judging the outcome.

But let's suppose your assumption is right. Whoever is nominated STILL has to go through a Senate confirmation. Are you saying you lack the confidence in the Republicans in the Senate from blocking any extreme appointments?

This level of "doom and gloom" is only benefiting two groups - manufacturers and sellers. And while I think it's great for them, these fears are not grounded in how the system actually works.

Sotomayor and Kagan lied to Congress in their confirmation hearings when asked about their opinion on the 2nd Amendment RTKBA.

Once appointed, they went on to join the dissenting liberal activist judges in stating that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms.

I see that you are from Illinois and likely a union type that would gladly trade in his guns to get Obama four more years of power.

Peace Warrior
10-17-2012, 11:59
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v206/Texasbagman/01af7f135e96a7795d5de8473bd44bc1.jpg

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

cangler
10-17-2012, 12:07
^ LOL

We have enough gun laws as it is, can't imagine more!

Psychman
10-17-2012, 12:33
fun stuff, an old high school friend and Facebook friend mentioned something about how debates mean nothing and don't sway voters. I was not being offensive but mentioned that I thought Obama's mention of wanting another AWB would be impacting negatively on the fence sitters or independents, citing how Gore lost the Presidency when gun control was brought into the fray. Hoooo doggie, did I get jumped "did Fox news tell you that?" "you are being an a$%^%l"

I remained calm and cited my sources, as I was continually attacked and verbally assaulted by the lefties. I took personal pleasure in watching them come unraveled after all I said was that it was my opinion that there probably already was an impact and that Obama even mentioning an AWB was going to be jumped on quickly. So much for the party of equality and tolerance.

I finally had to block my own brother because I just couldn't stand the crap he was posting. I will unblock him after the election is over. It will be much better for both of us that I blocked him for now.
He actually had expressed outrage at the way Romney defined the middle class. All of my brother's left leaning friends agreed with him. When I mentioned that Obama defines the middle class the same way, not one more word was mentioned.

WarCry
10-17-2012, 12:55
I see that you are from Illinois and likely a union type that would gladly trade in his guns to get Obama four more years of power.

And I see an arrogant ass that doesn't like people believing differently than you, so you just make up stuff in your head to fit your world-view.

Yes, I'm an Illinois resident. One who has fought for years to get CCW passed - an effort being spearheaded by a down-state Democrat - and one who has worked as part of group to get the CCW issue successfully on the county ballot (along with about a half-dozen other counties just in this election alone).

I've never been a member of a union, and can't foresee that as a possibility in the future. You make general assumptions about people you know absolutely nothing about and it makes you look imbecilic. But feel free to continue to tell another American - who has all the same rights and privileges that you do - that my opinions are somehow less valid than yours. The way you regard those who disagree with you is a true measure of immaturity.


So, to recap, I have yet to see anyone explain how any new gun legislation will come into being without going through Congress, where it would have to have Republican support AND support of Democrats that want a repeat of the 1994 congressional election massacre. No one has explained how the Supreme Court is going to magically overturn themselves in less than a decade when they are to this day hesitant to overturn rulings from a hundred fifty years ago. And no one has yet responded to the fact that - in one of the most heated election cycles in a while, in a closely watched debate when every sentence is dissected to the nth degree - the President state he wanted a bill INTRODUCED, but that somehow this magically means that the paperwork is all done and ready for signatures come Nov 7th.

Instead, I get implied insults about where I live and explicit insult that I'm willing to give up hard-fought-for rights.


Glad this is a place for mature discussions.

ChuteTheMall
10-17-2012, 20:32
... - the President state he wanted a bill INTRODUCED, but that somehow this magically means that the paperwork is all done and ready for signatures come Nov 7th.
.

So, you think Obama wants a new Assault Weapons Ban introduced just so he can veto it?

:upeyes:

Did you ever vote for Obama?

WarCry
10-17-2012, 21:31
So, you think Obama wants a new Assault Weapons Ban introduced just so he can veto it?

:upeyes:

Did you ever vote for Obama?

No, I think he wants it introduced so that either the Senate or the House can (and will) shoot it down, but he can go back and say "Look, see, I tried!"

itisbruno
10-17-2012, 22:32
That was unwise, I think. It isn't going to get his constituency energized, but it will tend to grab gun folks by the lapels.

This will hurt him, I think.

Mainstream media isn't running with it, go figure.

ilgunguygt
10-17-2012, 22:57
Sotomayor and Kagan lied to Congress in their confirmation hearings when asked about their opinion on the 2nd Amendment RTKBA.

Once appointed, they went on to join the dissenting liberal activist judges in stating that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms.

I see that you are from Illinois and likely a union type that would gladly trade in his guns to get Obama four more years of power.
Dont start the "from Illinois" Bull crap again. :upeyes:

99 out of 102 counties in IL vote conservative, we just cant beat the cook county liberal lie machine with all its vote fraud and overall gerrymandering.

Painting us all as "union types that would trade guns for four more years of Obama" makes you look like a stupid ass.

WarCry
10-17-2012, 22:59
Mainstream media isn't running with it, go figure.

And if they WERE, you'd be here saying "The MSM is pushing this new AWB and trying to get everyone behind it!"

Are they evil for not talking about it, and it would be better if they did? Or would they be more evil for talking about it in a way you don't like?

BTW, isn't FOX News THE highest-rated cable news network? Doesn't that make them, by the very definition, Mainstream Media?

WarCry
10-17-2012, 23:00
Dont start the "from Illinois" Bull crap again. :upeyes:

99 out of 102 counties in IL vote conservative, we just cant beat the cook county liberal lie machine with all its vote fraud and overall gerrymandering.

Painting us all as "union types that would trade guns for four more years of Obama" makes you look like a stupid ass.

I appreciate the back-up. Don't know if you agree with me on ANYTHING else, but for this part, glad to see I'm not alone.

ilgunguygt
10-17-2012, 23:07
I appreciate the back-up. Don't know if you agree with me on ANYTHING else, but for this part, glad to see I'm not alone.
The beauty of this country is that we dont have to agree on everything, to agree on something!:wavey:

All of us here in the Peoples Republic of Illinois get tired of being painted with the half-fag, liberal wanna-be, anti-gun, pro-union tag because we live in IL. Usually after that they say "then grow a pair and leave." Yeah, because its that easy to walk away from a mortgage, parents who are in poor health and have nearly no time left, etc.

Its easy to tell who the real stupid ones are, when they pull that crap.

domin8ss
10-17-2012, 23:16
Yes, I'm an Illinois resident. One who has fought for years to get CCW passed - an effort being spearheaded by a down-state Democrat - and one who has worked as part of group to get the CCW issue successfully on the county ballot (along with about a half-dozen other counties just in this election alone).

Please keep up the good work. My wife is active duty, and we are stationed at Great Lakes. We love it here. She has already said she wants to retire here. The only thing keeping me from agreeing with her are the tight gun laws. I'm a Utah resident with a Utah resident CFP & Virginia nonresident CWP, yet I can't even purchase ammo here. I even got in an argument with a guy at Dick's Sporting Goods about how I don't need a FOID Card according to a state supreme court ruling in April 2011. I would love to carry while out here. Hopefully you'll be successful in getting nonresidents to either get a nonresident card, or for Illinois to have reciprocity with other states.

Btw, if you need statistics in favor of concealed carry, I recommend contacting the Utah Bureau of Criminal Investigations. They can tell you all sorts of good things.

kirgi08
10-18-2012, 00:00
No, I think he wants it introduced so that either the Senate or the House can (and will) shoot it down, but he can go back and say "Look, see, I tried!"

:upeyes:

Obama will attempt ta control the 2nd through EO or SCOTUS,he will bypass the houses as it suits him.It's not like he's not done it before.'08. :shocked:

countrygun
10-18-2012, 00:29
And all of that was as a representative of a small group of citizens that elected him, first in his IL district, then from IL in the US Senate.

Where are the states since Jan 2009, when he was selected to represent the whole country?

— In 2009, Obama enacted legislation permitting firearms in national parks.

— In 2010, legislation permitting firearms to be carried on Amtrak was enacted, reversing a post 9/11 decision to ban them.

that is a misrepresentation of events.

Obama wanted a certain bill on credit passed and the carry in national parks was added as a rider to the bill. With no "line-item veto" Obama had to sign the bill if he wanted "his" bill passed.

It sure wasn't his idea but he wanted the rest of the bill

WarCry
10-18-2012, 08:44
that is a misrepresentation of events.

Obama wanted a certain bill on credit passed and the carry in national parks was added as a rider to the bill. With no "line-item veto" Obama had to sign the bill if he wanted "his" bill passed.

It sure wasn't his idea but he wanted the rest of the bill

Actually, the National Parks issue was around before that bill. It was a GW Bush initiative - by Executive Order, I believe - just before he left office, and it was being challenged in court (by Brady's group, if I recall). It was an EO that overturned a REAGAN-signed law banning loaded concealed weapons in National Parks. The EO took effect Jan 11, 2009, and was promptly challenged in court.

The incoming-Obama administration took up the challenge and fought FOR the EO to remain effective. In March of 2009, a federal court issued an injunction against the government, stopping the EO.

The law was added to a bill and signed - in part - to put an end to the court battle that the US Government, as directed by President Obama, was still fighting to maintain this right to carry in National Parks.


It's never as simple as you think it is, and to dismiss it out of hand as a foot-note to something else is absurd.

mgs
10-18-2012, 09:31
Michelle will soon be kicked to the curb and her and Barry will be heading back to Chitown.....just a heads up! Current poll....Mitt 51% and Barry 45%. Obummer has pulled his negative ads because they are not working against Mitt. More Hope and Change Ads coming for feel good Kool Aid Drinkers.

kiole
10-18-2012, 09:40
His AWB comments along with his illogical argument that job creators need to be taxed more has made me consider seriously voting for Romney over Gary Johnson and as of last week I would have never voted for Romney.

rick458
10-18-2012, 10:18
Yes, I agree Romney was a bit misinformed about that. However, the one thing that keeps most people from buying automatic weapons is the cost involved. Obama would clearly ban semiautos also.

Does anyone think you can accurately get Class 3 into a 10 second line

suffice it to say that WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE GOVT
you cant legally own or posses class 3 items

M&P Shooter
10-18-2012, 10:21
That is true....but we have this on the table.

Obama...wants ban.

Romney, not interested in new gun laws.

That means something.
It means all politicians lie and only say what they think voters want to hear at the moment. We will never really know what they care about until after the election.

Henry Kane
10-18-2012, 11:12
Michelle will soon be kicked to the curb and her and Barry will be heading back to Chitown.....just a heads up! Current poll....Mitt 51% and Barry 45%. Obummer has pulled his negative ads because they are not working against Mitt. More Hope and Change Ads coming for feel good Kool Aid Drinkers.

Has this been officially (or unofficially) reported somewhere, or is this your personal observation?

WarCry
10-18-2012, 12:23
Has this been officially (or unofficially) reported somewhere, or is this your personal observation?

That's Gallup's poll today, of likely voters. Registered shows 49/47, as does Rasmussen.

douggmc
10-18-2012, 12:33
That's Gallup's poll today, of likely voters. Registered shows 49/47, as does Rasmussen.

Hmm ... Gallup today?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/158048/romney-obama-among-likely-voters.aspx

Registered voters from that graph look like effectively even:
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/jqm3kirw-0cfwf-lm8fkaw.gif

... and that is accounting for rolling average ending Oct. 15 (before second debate).

Nonetheless, i don't pay much attention to the national popular vote type polling. Electoral college matters, not popular vote ... and the only states that matter are Florida and Ohio effectively. I don't know what those states are polling .... but I'm going to guess it was within margin of error pre-debate #2 and maybe tightened a bit post debate #2.

edit: http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx Front page says 48/47 Registered Voters through yesterday.

edit: Ohio is probably the most important. Ohio per Rasmussen .. Likely voters, 49 Obama vs 48 Romney: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/ohio/election_2012_ohio_president
and another Ohio poll has 45 Obama vs 42 Romney most recently (but tightening): http://www.politico.com/p/2012-election/polls/president/ohio

WarCry
10-18-2012, 13:41
Hmm ... Gallup today?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/158048/romney-obama-among-likely-voters.aspx

Registered voters from that graph look like effectively even:
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/jqm3kirw-0cfwf-lm8fkaw.gif

... and that is accounting for rolling average ending Oct. 15 (before second debate).

Nonetheless, i don't pay much attention to the national popular vote type polling.



I don't really care too much about polls either, but someone asked where the numbers were from.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx

http://www.redgallows.com/poll.jpg

SunsetMan
10-18-2012, 13:47
Does anyone think you can accurately get Class 3 into a 10 second line

suffice it to say that WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE GOVT
you cant legally own or posses class 3 items

I would guess that 99.9% of the U.S. population believes that full auto and suppressors are illegal, this includes most gun owners too. I'll cut Mitt some slack.

Buki192327
10-18-2012, 16:59
That is true....but we have this on the table.

Obama...wants ban.

Romney, not interested in new gun laws.

That means something.

Rabbi, you are absolutely right that means something. Romney, just picked up more votes, and Obama lost votes.

RonS
10-18-2012, 18:43
The media can still throw the election. I have a suspicion that the media wants Romney and his supporters to feel confident and then throw in a media blitz at the last moment.

Hef
10-18-2012, 19:10
The media can still throw the election. I have a suspicion that the media wants Romney and his supporters to feel confident and then throw in a media blitz at the last moment.

I wouldn't be surprised if the media deliberately acts to incite riots on election night should it appear Obama will lose, or does in fact lose.

JuneyBooney
10-18-2012, 19:28
Romney said "not interested in any new gun laws"

Anyone who knows Obama knows that he is not an American. His views are very extreme and he has clouded vision. :whistling: I talk to lots of people in the area and they don't like either guy but Romney seems more liked than obama except to the media.

Peace Warrior
10-19-2012, 00:15
...
Did you ever vote for Obama?
Decoding postest the bestest! :supergrin:

jp3975
10-19-2012, 18:01
No one has explained how the Supreme Court is going to magically overturn themselves in less than a decade when they are to this day hesitant to overturn rulings from a hundred fifty years ago.

I'll play.

The liberal side of the court has said that they look forward to a "wiser" future court overturning the ruling.

They overturn past rulings about twice a year.

What you're saying is true...its rare that they overturn past decisions, but what about when they really want to...AS THEY SAY.

In addition to our two new far left scotus members, Obama has appointed 125 liberal judges to lower courts.

There are other gun cases that should go before SCOTUS before 2017.

Again...THEY SAY THEY WANT TO OVERTURN IT.

I dont think it takes a genius to figure out that they arent kidding. Only a fool would blow it off as nothing.

If one of the 5 pro-gun justices who are pushing 80 retires...by choice or because of illness/death, and Obama's in. You can bet your *** that the second will be redefined and there will be no pro-gun victories until we replace a lib justice with pro-gun, God knows when, since its a life appointment.

AK74play
10-19-2012, 19:13
It really wont matter when right after the election Hillary signs the NATO treaty. Then Obamanation can testify live on TV that he has nothing agains our 2nd Ammendment rights and again lie through his teeth because NATO will now be in control via the treaty which will over ride our constitutional rights. This is why O has been silent on the issue throughout most his campaign and avoiding it at all cost. He didn't want you to know that Hilliary was doing his dirty work for him behind the scenes with NATO.
I know this is kinda off the wll but I for one will NEVER recognise NATO as any kind of governing power and certainly not when they do not recognise my Constitunial rights.
O may seem stupid on the surface, but his strength has always been, mis direction and just outright lieing about anything to do with ANY important issue.
I am not sideing with Romney because I beleive the Republican party could have and SHOULD have submitted a far better representative, but if the last 4 years hasn't proved what O is all about then your just not recognising the destruction of America and it's finishing if he is given 4 more years to acheive his goal.
Remember Mrs. O's comments on the American flag befor his election ?? She said it was nothing more than a symble of oppression and hatred. I still watch the recording I have of her saying that and it makes me beleive beyond a shaddow of a doubt that they fully intend to destroy America. This is only a 2 step process: 1, Break us down financially so we have nowhere to turn but the Federal Government.: 2, the you MUST dis arm said Americans so when they rebel against your demands as the now Dictatorship, known as the Federal Government they (US) will not be able to protect ourselves. NOW you have total control and folks, Step 1 is almost completed. :help:

Panglоss
10-21-2012, 13:43
It really wont matter when right after the election Hillary signs the NATO treaty. Then Obamanation can testify live on TV that he has nothing agains our 2nd Ammendment rights and again lie through his teeth because NATO will now be in control via the treaty which will over ride our constitutional rights. This is why O has been silent on the issue throughout most his campaign and avoiding it at all cost. He didn't want you to know that Hilliary was doing his dirty work for him behind the scenes with NATO.
I know this is kinda off the wll but I for one will NEVER recognise NATO as any kind of governing power and certainly not when they do not recognise my Constitunial rights.

Contrary to all the propaganda out there about gun ban treaties, international treaties cannot usurp the constitution. This has already been decided by the supreme court. Treaties can never supersede what is constitutionally protected. And DC v Heller just affirmed that what the 2nd amendment protects is an individual right to bear arms.

WarCry
10-21-2012, 15:34
Contrary to all the propaganda out there about gun ban treaties, international treaties cannot usurp the constitution. This has already been decided by the supreme court. Treaties can never supersede what is constitutionally protected. And DC v Heller just affirmed that what the 2nd amendment protects is an individual right to bear arms.

But as so many in this thread would have you believe, the Court is just chomping at the bit to completely change everything they've said on the issue of guns for the last couple of centuries.

railfancwb
10-21-2012, 16:14
Are you honestly saying that the criminal wouldn't have had a gun anyway?

For the record, I think it was an atrocious and misguided idea and operation. I also think it is and has been ridiculously overplayed as a political tool and that accountability has taken place.

But, if we want to be credible, we can't have it both ways. We can't use as a primary defense that "guns are tools" and the real problem is the criminal, yet in this case, rail entirely on something other than the criminal who pulled the trigger (who would have had a gun regardless).

If during a 7-11 robbery A hands B a gun and B murders a clerk with that gun, A is a murderer...even though B had another gun.




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Detectorist
10-21-2012, 17:00
But as so many in this thread would have you believe, the Court is just chomping at the bit to completely change everything they've said on the issue of guns for the last couple of centuries.

I guarantee you that if Obama is reelected he's not going to appoint any pro gun Justice. The next president may have the opportunity to appoint up to 3 SC judges.

So yes. If those judges are appointed by Obama, it will radically change the picture.

I don't understand why folks can't see that.

Panglоss
10-21-2012, 17:30
But as so many in this thread would have you believe, the Court is just chomping at the bit to completely change everything they've said on the issue of guns for the last couple of centuries.

Well, maybe about half the court is. Heller was actually the decision that "changed everything", because before that ruling the 2nd amendment had never been held to protect an individual right to bear arms.

The thing is, Heller still leaves a lot of questions/clarifications to be decided in future cases. For one thing, how broad/narrow is the individual right to "bear arms"...e.g., what kinds of arms are protected under this right? An assault weapons ban, for instance, could very well be found constitutional if it goes to the supreme court.

WarCry
10-21-2012, 18:44
Well, maybe about half the court is. Heller was actually the decision that "changed everything", because before that ruling the 2nd amendment had never been held to protect an individual right to bear arms.

The thing is, Heller still leaves a lot of questions/clarifications to be decided in future cases. For one thing, how broad/narrow is the individual right to "bear arms"...e.g., what kinds of arms are protected under this right? An assault weapons ban, for instance, could very well be found constitutional if it goes to the supreme court.

I believe this case is going to be the "Heller"/"McDonald" case in regards to Bear (those dealt with Keep):

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2012/oral-arguments-presented-in-illinois-carry-case-(shepard-v-madigan).aspx

It's actually two cases that were combined in the 7th Circuit. The attorney for the state got hammered pretty hard on why they think a ban on carrying should be allowed to stand.

jp3975
10-22-2012, 03:48
But as so many in this thread would have you believe, the Court is just chomping at the bit to completely change everything they've said on the issue of guns for the last couple of centuries.

I quoted you and answered your question with facts. Why did you ignore me and agree with a guy and continue trying to sell your disproven idea?

Because what you're saying makes 0 sense.

THEY HAVE SAID THEY WANT TO OVERTURN THAT RULING AND REDEFINE THE SECOND.

REPLACE ONE PROGUN SC JUSTICE AND IT WILL HAPPEN.

Why do we tell you the left side of the SC wants to change things?

BECAUSE THEY SAID SO.

Now then...either we can believe you...that scotus would never go back on its ruling...ignoring the fact that they reverse past rulings twice a year.

Or we can believe SCOTUS...the left of which says they want to overturn the ruling and that they got it very wrong. They only need one more vote to do just that.

SCOTUS or Warcry on a gun forum...which shall we trust?


Seriously. Ignore logic and keep spewing bs.

I proved you wrong and you refuse to address it.

NEOH212
10-22-2012, 04:02
Romney said "not interested in any new gun laws"

Until his second term you mean. :whistling:

Panglоss
10-22-2012, 10:03
Because what you're saying makes 0 sense.


lol @ the irony here

jp3975
10-22-2012, 15:27
lol @ the irony here

What irony?

I stated fact. You have evidence to the contrary?

If it doesnt make sense to you, that's your problem. Makes sense to everyone else.

It probably makes sense to you and WarCry as well because you have nothing to say about it.

Let me guess...butt hurt Paul fanatics? Obama lovers?

Scotus said it, not me. Logic isnt on your side.

dogmower
10-22-2012, 16:48
Pangloss, WTF are you thinking? anyone who would even THINK of trusting BHO is in for a rude awakening. the plan to destroy the US is obvious to anyone with eyes. you don' t need an advanced degree in economics to know you can't borrow your way out of debt. and that is the first step, economic destruction. c'mon man, wake up!

Boot Stomper
10-22-2012, 17:17
And if there would be no grandfather clause, you may lose your investment.
Watch the run on the so called assault weapons in the gun stores.
Its about to get more desperate than 4 years ago now that it may be on the horizon. But will his dream of outlawing weapons include a no possession/no transfer rule?


Your statement is a legitimate concern. This is part of the reason I have not bought an AR to date. IMO, a no grandfather clause would be hard to pass. We can only wait and see. Hopefully by November 7th we will have a better idea of the future.

Panglоss
10-22-2012, 18:35
What irony?

I stated fact. You have evidence to the contrary?

If it doesnt make sense to you, that's your problem. Makes sense to everyone else.

It probably makes sense to you and WarCry as well because you have nothing to say about it.

Let me guess...butt hurt Paul fanatics? Obama lovers?

Scotus said it, not me. Logic isnt on your side.

Ok, please post up the full quotation, with proper citation, of all and any supreme court justices who have claimed that they support trying to overturn the Heller decision in the near future.

Once you do that, then we'll discuss your logic...or lack thereof.

Pangloss, WTF are you thinking? anyone who would even THINK of trusting BHO is in for a rude awakening. the plan to destroy the US is obvious to anyone with eyes. you don' t need an advanced degree in economics to know you can't borrow your way out of debt. and that is the first step, economic destruction. c'mon man, wake up!

I don't trust Obama. I hope he loses this next election and gets sent packing back to Chicago.

But the reality is that with all of the legal precedents there is little that he or any other politician can do to ban gun ownership at the federal level...even at the state level.

Now, as I pointed out, there are still issues that could be decided by the supreme court that were not determined in Heller. So they could take a case on an assault weapons ban, or a high capacity magazine ban, or perhaps the concealed carry case in Illinois. And the ruling on those future cases will of course be dependent on who is on the court. And who is on the court will be dependent on who makes the appointments.

To recap my main points - UN gun ban: not something to worry about. Full on national gun ban: also not something to really worry about.

jp3975
10-23-2012, 01:40
Ok, please post up the full quotation, with proper citation, of all and any supreme court justices who have claimed that they support trying to overturn the Heller decision in the near future.

Once you do that, then we'll discuss your logic...or lack thereof.



Sure thing Mr. Eastwood.

For example, in the Supreme Court’s landmark Heller decision that narrowly struck down Washington, D.C.’s unconstitutional gun ban by a 5-4 vote, Ginsburg and three of her colleagues concluded that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to own a firearm, nor does it protect our right to defend ourselves, our property, or our loved ones.

Ginsburg may have lost that round, but assuredly, she knows how close the anti-freedom wing of the court is to erasing our Second Amendment freedom out of existence. As Ginsburg told a Harvard Club audience in 2009, she looks forward to the day when a “future, wiser court” overturns 5-4 decisions like Heller.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2012/justice-ginsburg-reminds-us-what-is-at-stake-in-november.aspx

^ quick google search.

Accujeff said it best...

We were fortunate that 5 Supreme Court Justices in Heller and McDonald confirmed the Second Amendment as an individual right to armed self defense and must be applied to all levels of government. And, in case you forgot, we were fortunate that Bush, often labeled not pro-2A enough, appointed Alito and Roberts as Justices to make that pro-Second Amendment majority and obtain that opinion.

However, the minority opinion by the other four Justices was that the Second Amendment:

- did not protect a private right of armed self-defense
- does not apply to the states
- does not apply to individuals outside of the militia context

If there were five, instead of four, anti-Second Amendment Justices the RKBA would have been effectively written out of the Bill of Rights.

It could still happen. The composition of the Court can change and prior decisions can be overturned.

Four US Supreme Court Justices (Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer and Ginsburg) will be over the age of 80 by the end of Obama's second term. He could likely appoint 4 more Justices if he is re-elected - all of whom will be making momentous decisions about our lives for decades to come. An anti-2A Court would be free to re-define and dismantle the RKBA out of existence. The current anti-2A Justices have already stated their intention to do exactly that.

Anti-Second Amendment Justice Ginsberg has stated that the majority opinions in this case are “grievously mistaken”, that minority opinions would be used to rewrite legal history and create a purely “collective right connected to the militia” and she looks forward to the day a “future, wiser court“ overturns Heller. John Paul Stevens recently told Time magazine the one thing in particular he would change about the American judicial system “I would change the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The court got that quite wrong.”

Obama appointed anti-Second Amendment Justices, Sotomayor and Kagan. Given the opportunity he will do it again. All they need is one more like minded Justice to get a majority of five anti’s and implement their stated agenda through the courts.

If that happens we’ll never see a pro-RKBA victory again in our lifetime.

There are already more RKBA cases headed to the Supreme Court involving the private right of armed self-defense outside the home and the heavy restrictions in places like Chicago and Washington DC.

In addition, since taking office, Obama has appointed 125 anti-RKBA liberals to federal judgeships, including 25 to appellate courts. At present, there are 86 vacancies on district and appellate courts, 39 of which already have pending nominees before the Senate. It’s not in gun owners best interests to give him a second term and the opportunity to appoint more anti-2A judges and justices.

Though there are a few folks revising and misrepresenting his record, Romney has a much better record and a much better choice for gun owners than Obama. He is campaigning on appointing conservative Supreme Court Justices like Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. While Justices don't always vote the same way, these four Justices have consistently ruled in favor of the RKBA.

Do you think it would be better for gun owners to have Obama make a majority of anti-2A Justices or Romney make a majority of pro-2A Justices?

JFrame
10-23-2012, 04:37
Sure thing Mr. Eastwood.



http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2012/justice-ginsburg-reminds-us-what-is-at-stake-in-november.aspx

^ quick google search.

Accujeff said it best...


Well -- all righty then...


.

Bren
10-23-2012, 07:00
No, I think he wants it introduced so that either the Senate or the House can (and will) shoot it down, but he can go back and say "Look, see, I tried!"

So you think Obama is pro-gun but would have the bill introduced for the popularity it would gain him? Even though he will never again run for a political office, is clearly an anti-gunner from an anti-gun party, state and background, and gun copntrol laws usually have the opposite effect?

That was well thought out.:upeyes:


But as so many in this thread would have you believe, the Court is just chomping at the bit to completely change everything they've said on the issue of guns for the last couple of centuries.

Really? You feel qualified to speak on the issue and you don't even know that DC v. Heller in 2008, was the first Supreme Court decision on the issue? Heller was "everything." (prior to McDonald)

Changing everything they have said requires 1 vote in which 1 justice changes his/her mind...and they also have to write it down...but they have clerks to do that.

You are not well informed on law, the court and numerous other issues.

JMag
10-23-2012, 12:09
Romney made up more ground in the first debate than Obama has in the latter ones. Plus, Romney proved himself to not be the "bad" man the MSM has portrayed him as being. That is the same caricature that the Obama campaign has painted. The dem strategy has failed, Obama is tanking, Romney is winning. People have seen through the facade and Obama's house of cards should fall in two weeks barring some catastrophic event.

Oh, tell Chris "leg tingle" Matthews that Romney supporters don't hate the POTUS, as he suggests---due to race! Romney supporters hate the man's policies that run counter to what has made America the greatest nation the planet has ever known. The pulling, yet again, of the race card is simply desperation and thinking folks know it.

:wavey:

fwm
10-23-2012, 17:05
But unless I'm mistaken he hasn't even come close to pushing this issue, and outside of
the direct question probably wouldn't even consider it.

His history of voting in IL, some of the few times he bothered to vote, was to continue the Chicago bans.

WarCry
10-23-2012, 18:18
His history of voting in IL, some of the few times he bothered to vote, was to continue the Chicago bans.

But what you're failing to recognize or acknowledge is that he was, at that time, doing what he was asked - representing the views of the people that put him in office. He doesn't represent only Chicago now (contrary to what every wants to think/accuse/etc).

ilgunguygt
10-23-2012, 18:48
But what you're failing to recognize or acknowledge is that he was, at that time, doing what he was asked - representing the views of the people that put him in office. He doesn't represent only Chicago now (contrary to what every wants to think/accuse/etc).
arguing obama is anything other than Anti-gun is foolishness. Either you are clueless about everything or you have just drank that much kool-aid that you cant see truth anymore.

Schlitz
10-23-2012, 19:26
Wants to have an assault weapons ban.

Romney said "not interested in any new gun laws"

threads like this really make me laugh. Obama AND your beloved Romney have both spoken out AGAINST 'assault weapons.' You guys are so devoted to supporting ANYONE who has an R by there name that you'll support an anti gun progressive...BECAUSE HE HAS AN R BY HIS NAME.

The difference between Obama and Romney on assault weapons? Your beloved Romney put his money where is mouth is and actually signed an AWB into law.

You guys look just as silly as the antigunners out there supporting Obama by supporting Romney. Threads like this just set you back even farther.

“These guns (semi-auto firearms) are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”
Lie to yourself if you want, but don't try to lie to us. Mitt Romney has done more to hurt gun rights for Americans than Obama and you all know it.

Rabbi
10-23-2012, 19:32
threads like this really make me laugh. Obama AND your beloved Romney have both spoken out AGAINST 'assault weapons.' You guys are so devoted to supporting ANYONE who has an R by there name that you'll support an anti gun progressive...BECAUSE HE HAS AN R BY HIS NAME.

The difference between Obama and Romney on assault weapons? Your beloved Romney put his money where is mouth is and actually signed an AWB into law.

You guys look just as silly as the antigunners out there supporting Obama by supporting Romney. Threads like this just set you back even farther.


Lie to yourself if you want, but don't try to lie to us. Mitt Romney has done more to hurt gun rights for Americans than Obama and you all know it.

You obviously dont have a clue at to my position on politics. I have splashed them all over this site.

The irony is, you take the few words I have said and formulated my stance about the few words someone else said.

Swing and a miss.

Hef
10-23-2012, 19:42
You obviously dont have a clue at to my position on politics. I have splashed them all over this site.

The irony is, you take the few words I have said and formulated my stance about the few words someone else said.

Swing and a miss.

You're just a big, mean, jerk and obviously a racist. You shouldn't have woken up. Have a Soma and go back to sleep.

WarCry
10-23-2012, 20:19
arguing obama is anything other than Anti-gun is foolishness. Either you are clueless about everything or you have just drank that much kool-aid that you cant see truth anymore.

Oh, I have NO question at all that, if he could, he would eliminate every firearm in existence and use the melted-down metal to make a victory train that he'd ride around the country waving a cowboy hat and yelling "YEEEEHHHHAAAWWWW!!!!!"

But realistically, his PERSONAL views have very little bearing on what, as president, he can actually do. And for everyone that wants to say otherwise, regardless of whether you AGREE with him or not, he's NOT a stupid man.

He IS anti-gun. No question. He brings it up to soothe his base. But his record on the issue over the last four years speaks for itself. The great big fat "F" from Brady says quite a bit, too.

railfancwb
10-23-2012, 21:19
Oh, I have NO question at all that, if he [Obama] could, he would eliminate every firearm in existence...

Well, not EVERY firearm. His "troops" in Homeland Security et.al. would keep theirs so the billion or so rounds of ammo they've bought wouldn't go to waste.




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Cubdriver
10-23-2012, 22:16
But realistically, his PERSONAL views have very little bearing on what, as president, he can actually do.

What, you mean like possibly appointing more justices to the Supreme Court? Cut from the same cloth as Elena Kagen and the wise Latina, Sonia Sotomayor, those two staunch second amendment supporters? :upeyes:

Why do people seem to be so blind to the whole Supreme Court thing?

-Pat

jp3975
10-23-2012, 23:03
Ok, please post up the full quotation, with proper citation, of all and any supreme court justices who have claimed that they support trying to overturn the Heller decision in the near future.

Once you do that, then we'll discuss your logic...or lack thereof.



I posted it.

No comment?

What, you mean like possibly appointing more justices to the Supreme Court? Cut from the same cloth as Elena Kagen and the wise Latina, Sonia Sotomayor, those two staunch second amendment supporters? :upeyes:

Why do people seem to be so blind to the whole Supreme Court thing?

-Pat

Looks like you just made WarCry's ignore list. Anytime someone uses logic or mentions scotus, he ignores it and tries to argue with someone else.

threads like this really make me laugh. Obama AND your beloved Romney have both spoken out AGAINST 'assault weapons.' You guys are so devoted to supporting ANYONE who has an R by there name that you'll support an anti gun progressive...BECAUSE HE HAS AN R BY HIS NAME.

The difference between Obama and Romney on assault weapons? Your beloved Romney put his money where is mouth is and actually signed an AWB into law.

You guys look just as silly as the antigunners out there supporting Obama by supporting Romney. Threads like this just set you back even farther.


Lie to yourself if you want, but don't try to lie to us. Mitt Romney has done more to hurt gun rights for Americans than Obama and you all know it.

Lets see. One guy wants to appoint new scotus justices who will make anti-gun rulings without a doubt. He has appointed 2 far left anti-gunners and 125 libs as judges. We can expect future appointments to be left to far left. Maybe we'll get another communist in a govt position like Van Jones...or a mass murderer[mao] lover like Anita Dunn.

The other guy says he will appoint new members of scotus like the ones on the right. We can expect them as well as his other appointments to be moderate at worst.

One guy says no new gun laws.

The other says "hey, we need to have a new awb and there a real problem with cheap pistols."

Obama will be on his second term if he wins and will be free to do/say more of what he wants...but he doesnt even need to do that. He just needs to appoint one new member of scotus to replace one of the soon to be 80 year olds.

But you go ahead and write in Paul. You can feel proud that you're one of the half a percent that voted that way and helped Obama get back in to appoint more pos liberals.

jp3975
10-23-2012, 23:11
I cant believe some on this forum are so eager to give Obama the satisfaction of a second term.

You want the libs to be smug and happy after the election?

Even if you hate Romney, he's obviously a better choice than Obama. If you lean right that's a FACT... for all the appointments the president gets to make if nothing else.

Peace Warrior
10-24-2012, 06:42
romney = RINO

JFrame
10-24-2012, 07:06
romney = RINO

Obama = MARXIST

As they say at Staples -- "That was easy..."


.

Peace Warrior
10-24-2012, 07:15
Obama = MARXIST

As they say at Staples -- "That was easy..."


.

Yup! :wavey:

JFrame
10-24-2012, 07:31
Yup! :wavey:

http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/drinks.gif


.

Peace Warrior
10-24-2012, 07:39
http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/drinks.gif


.
make mine Merlot. :wavey:

JFrame
10-24-2012, 07:45
make mine Merlot. :wavey:

You got it -- I always try to have a Merlot, a Pinot, and a Cab or Shiraz on hand... :supergrin:


.

kirgi08
10-24-2012, 08:11
No single malt.'08. :faint: :miff: :rant:

JFrame
10-24-2012, 08:18
No single malt.'08. :faint: :miff: :rant:

Now, now...It ain't the bestest in the world, but I keep a Glenlivet sitting around for those who are so inclined... Although (yeah--call me barbaric), I'm perfectly happy with a snort of Jameson myself...

Oh, and my wife mixes the meanest Margaritas this side of Sonora... :tequila:


.

fwm
10-24-2012, 08:39
But what you're failing to recognize or acknowledge is that he was, at that time, doing what he was asked - representing the views of the people that put him in office. He doesn't represent only Chicago now (contrary to what every wants to think/accuse/etc).


Strongly disagree. The PEOPLE want the right to own and carry for self protection. It is the LAWMAKERS that are afraid of an armed public.

Voted AGAINST the voters wishes!!!

JMag
10-24-2012, 10:26
i cant believe some on this forum are so eager to give obama the satisfaction of a second term.

You want the libs to be smug and happy after the election?

Even if you hate romney, he's obviously a better choice than obama. If you lean right that's a fact... For all the appointments the president gets to make if nothing else.

this!

ilgunguygt
10-24-2012, 11:38
threads like this really make me laugh. Obama AND your beloved Romney have both spoken out AGAINST 'assault weapons.' You guys are so devoted to supporting ANYONE who has an R by there name that you'll support an anti gun progressive...BECAUSE HE HAS AN R BY HIS NAME.

The difference between Obama and Romney on assault weapons? Your beloved Romney put his money where is mouth is and actually signed an AWB into law.

You guys look just as silly as the antigunners out there supporting Obama by supporting Romney. Threads like this just set you back even farther.


Lie to yourself if you want, but don't try to lie to us. Mitt Romney has done more to hurt gun rights for Americans than Obama and you all know it.
Wow, thats full of fail.

I guess the solution is to vote for a third party candidate that cannot win, but can siphon enough votes off to make sure that Obama can win and stack the supreme court, right?:faint:

kirgi08
10-24-2012, 12:43
:perfect10:

redbaron007
10-24-2012, 13:06
.....snip...

Lie to yourself if you want, but don't try to lie to us. Mitt Romney has done more to hurt gun rights for Americans than Obama and you all know it.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Please...stop the rhetoric...go cold turkey off the koolaid.

Now the hard part for you...please tell us what Romney has done for American's gun rights, one way or another?

:wavey:

red

jp3975
10-25-2012, 23:16
Wow, thats full of fail.

I guess the solution is to vote for a third party candidate that cannot win, but can siphon enough votes off to make sure that Obama can win and stack the supreme court, right?:faint:

They always seem to shut up when you tell them things like that.

Though i did have one reason that Romney may put an anti gun justice in scotus so their witting paul in.:rofl:

Peace Warrior
10-26-2012, 00:44
Now, now...It ain't the bestest in the world, but I keep a Glenlivet sitting around for those who are so inclined... Although (yeah--call me barbaric), I'm perfectly happy with a snort of Jameson myself...

Oh, and my wife mixes the meanest Margaritas this side of Sonora... :tequila:


.
Ah awh....

Lisa MY ex got me hooked on Merlot(s).

Schlitz
10-27-2012, 14:53
I'd rather see Obama win a second term than abandon my values and support an anti-gun politician like Romney.

Wow, thats full of fail.
^says the gun enthusiast who supports a politician that passed an assault weapons ban:rofl:

ilgunguygt
10-27-2012, 15:25
I'd rather see Obama win a second term than abandon my values and support an anti-gun politician like Romney.


^says the gun enthusiast who supports a politician that passed an assault weapons ban:rofl:
And you would rather see Obama win? Ignore the fact that the Supreme Court will be stacked against us for a long time? The more you talk the dumber it sounds.....