Next After Healthcare: Guns, Then Knives.

[Sam Fisher]

Want more? This from (not Fox News) but rather Huffington.

Obama To Unveil *** Control Reforms In Near Future
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/07/obama-unveil-***-control-reforms_n_892633.html

 

[Sam Fisher]

Still not convinced?

http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm

Opposed bill okaying ******* *** use in home invasions. (Aug 2008)
Ok for states & cities to determine local *** laws. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
April 2008: "Bittergate" labeled Obama elitist. (Apr 2008)
Respect 2nd Amendment, but local *** bans ok. (Feb 2008)
Provide some common-sense enforcement on *** licensing. (Jan 2008)
2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 *** per month. (Oct 2007)
Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
Stop unscrupulous *** dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against *** manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

 

[xfire]

http://www.csgv.org/storage/documents/reagans *** legacy.pdf

Reagan Supported the Assault Weapons Ban and the Brady Law
After leaving the White House in 1989, Ronald Reagan directly lobbied Members of
Congress to pass two of the most well-known federal *** ******** prevention laws on
the books: The federal Assault Weapons Ban and the Brady Law.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban
The NRA vigorously opposed the 1994 federal Assault Weapons Ban, which outlawed
several types of semi-automatic military-style firearms. Indeed, the *** lobby’s current
top priority is ensuring the law expires on September 13 of this year.
Despite the NRA’s intense lobbying efforts against the legislation ten years ago, the
Assault Weapons Ban ****** the U.S. House of Representatives by two votes, 216-
214. At least two swing House Members credited Reagan’s direct lobbying for their
“aye” votes.
• Former Rep. Scott Klug (R-WI) voted for the Assault Weapons Ban only after a
“last-minute plea” from Reagan. According to the Madison, WI-based Capital
Times, “[f]or Klug, R-Madison, who a day earlier had vowed his opposition to the
ban but admitted to being torn, the defining moment came when he received a
personal message from former President Ronald Reagan.”4
For text of the Klug letter, see “Reagan’s Rhetoric” below.
• Former Rep. Dick Swett (D-NH) also credited Reagan’s direct lobbying.
According to The Boston Globe, "[Swett] made up his mind after being lobbied by
the idol of GOP conservatives, President Ronald Reagan."5
The Brady Law
In 1993, Congress ****** and President Clinton signed the Brady Law, which
mandated criminal background checks for *** sales through federally-licensed firearm
dealers (FFLs).
While the NRA fought the Brady Law with all its might, President Reagan endorsed the
bill named for his former Press Secretary, James Brady. At a ceremony
commemorating the 10th anniversary of the assassination attempt on his life that left
Brady *********, Reagan said:
4 Schoenmann, J. (1994, May 6). Klug Bows to Reagan Plea on Ban. The Capital Times. Retrieved June
23, 2004 from LEXIS-NEXIS Academic database.
5 Milne, J. ( 1994, May 15). ***-Control Battle Grows Hotter Still. The Boston Globe. Retrieved June 22,
2004, from LEXIS-NEXIS Academic database.
3
"You do know that I'm a member of the NRA, and my position on the right
to bear arms is well known...But I want you to know something else, and I
am going to say it in clear, unmistakable language: I support the Brady bill,
and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."6
Since its enactment, the Brady Law has prevented nearly one million ******* firearm
transactions from prohibited purchasers, including felons and domestic *******

 

[Sam Fisher]

What does your post have anything to do with Obama? That's who we are talking about. Not, a president from 23 years ago.

 

[xfire]

What does your post have anything to do with Obama? That's who we are talking about. Not, a president from 23 years ago.

Remember this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

You brought up the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. That had everything to do with "a president from 23 years ago".

 

[hamilton88]

Remember this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

WIKIPEDIA:Assault weapon refers primarily (but not exclusively) to firearms that had been developed from earlier fully automatic firearms into semi-automatic civilian-legal versions. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine ***, rather, only 1 round is fired with each trigger pull.

Dude, assault weapons? The U.S. has one of the highest ****** rates in the world and you can still buy a *** at K-Mart, but that's not enough? You want easy access to automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns? Earlier, I seriously thought you were talking about *** for self protection and hunting....I forget you guns seriously believe you may one day need to overthrow the government.

Want more? This from (not Fox News) but rather Huffington.

Obama To Unveil *** Control Reforms In Near Future
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/07/obama-unveil-***-control-reforms_n_892633.html

***

HUFFINGTON POST: "The president directed the Attorney General to form working groups with key stakeholders to identify common sense measures that would improve American safety and security while fully respecting Second Amendment rights," Carney said at Thursday's briefing. "That process is well underway at the Department of Justice with stakeholders on all sides working through these complex issues and we expect to have more specific announcements in the near future."


The end result, one source close to the discussions said, was a package of reforms "not huge in scope." They are largely expected to mirror the topics covered in the president's op-ed. *** control advocates have pushed for more, including legislation that would limit the size of magazines -- such as the 32-round magazine that Giffords' shooter used -- or a bill that would ***** private sellers to conduct background checks at *** shows -- which was pushed in the **** of the Virginia Tech shooting.

Common sense. He's not taking guns away from anyone, law abiding citizens or otherwise. But he is asking for background checks so crazy people can't go on shooting rampages, that's a good thing, right? Oh wait, I forgot, everyone should own a *** and not just a ***...an automatic assault riffle or two or three....or a hundred!

Still not convinced?

http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm

Opposed bill okaying ******* *** use in home invasions. (Aug 2008)
Ok for states & cities to determine local *** laws. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
April 2008: "Bittergate" labeled Obama elitist. (Apr 2008)
Respect 2nd Amendment, but local *** bans ok. (Feb 2008)
Provide some common-sense enforcement on *** licensing. (Jan 2008)
2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 *** per month. (Oct 2007)
Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
Stop unscrupulous *** dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against *** manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

Opposed bill okaying ******* *** use in home invasions. (Aug 2008)
*******, meaning, "not legal." If you support ******* guns, then you must also support ******* immigrants, right?

Ok for states & cities to determine local *** laws. (Apr 2008)
So you don't want cities to determine *** laws, you'd rather have big government take care of that?

FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
I'll give you that one.

April 2008: "Bittergate" labeled Obama elitist. (Apr 2008)
I don't know what this is about, so I can't comment.

Respect 2nd Amendment, but local *** bans ok. (Feb 2008)
Again, you'd rather big government overrule them?

Provide some common-sense enforcement on *** licensing. (Jan 2008)
You don't like common sense? Oh wait, I forgot.

2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 *** per month. (Oct 2007)
I can understand someone wanted more than 1 ***. But you're saying that you need more than one brand new *** per month? How many guns per month would be a reasonable number? Are you saying you require an unlimited quantity of guns at any given moment?

Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
I don't understand why you listed this. Are you saying you want guns for everyone, but no retired police officers.

Stop unscrupulous *** dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
So you're pro "unscrupulous *** dealers"?

Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
I need more information to comment.

Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
Again, assault riffles aren't need for self-protection. But there are great for shooting up schools.

Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
Again, assault weapons.

Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against *** manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
I don't think manufacturers should be liable for crimes committed with their products. But I don't see how this infringes on anyone's right to bear arms.


The FEDERAL government is not TAKING away your guns. But obviously some SENSIBLE, COMMON SENSE measures ought to be in place to curtail your country's astronomically high ****** rate. In L.A. alone ****** is so routine, you'd have to **** a ********* (or a ****** of six) just to make the evening news. Clearly something has gone seriously wrong. Aren't you the least but concerned about any of this? And before you answer, how would you propose to the address the ****** rate while doing absolutely nothing?

Seriously, we can go back and forth all day if you want...every now and then I need to remind myself that people really believe the ridiculous things they say and do on cable news.

 

[ShikokuKichiguy]

Want more? This from (not Fox News) but rather Huffington.

Obama To Unveil *** Control Reforms In Near Future
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/07/obama-unveil-***-control-reforms_n_892633.html

Then it definitely can't be true since that info came from the Queen of the mainstream liberal media.

 

[Will E Worm]

Going from house to house to collect guns from people? That would only activate the militias and that would start a war in America. :ak47:

The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting.

Piers can go back to his own country. :tongue:

 

[Jenkum]

Obama is going to easily win the next election easily. Taking the hundreds of millions of guns away from Americans would be the biggest mistake that the tyrants ever made. That would probably be the one thing that would actually cause the Fat, lazy, Stupid Americans to get off the sofa, put down the **** and sports, and get angry for once in their pathetic lives. Those in control will not throw the frog into boiling water, they will slowly take away freedoms and restrict ownership over time, incremetally increasing the temperature until all remnants of freedom have been exterminated. The Republicans, Democrats, and NRA will continue working together to eventually disarm Americans. It will likely not happen overnight, it will probably end up being Americans who sign away their own rights in exchange for supposed "security".

 

[hamilton88]

Obama is going to easily win the next election easily. Taking the hundreds of millions of guns away from Americans would be the biggest mistake that the tyrants ever made
...
It will likely not happen overnight, it will probably end up being Americans who sign away their own rights in exchange for supposed "security".

Tyrant? You mean like, George W. (Patriot Act) Bush?

 

[Ike Stain]

If the Tea Party hands Obama a second term, he will likely use it to go after the Second Amendment. What will his Nanny State do next, after making us safe from the guns we use to defend ourselves? Take away sharp objects, starting with knives. It has already begun on the local level:

I'm skeptical only because nothing in Obama's policy so far has led me to believe this is an important issue for him, or even if he's anti-***. (You guys have been screaming that he's gonna take our guns since he got elected, and for my money, it's just a scam by weapons and ammo manufacturers to get you to stock up, improving their bottom line.)

Of course, a second term move isn't out of the realm of possibility, but you should also be open to the idea that this may just be a smokescreen to woo the Left, who Obama has very much alienated. He's first and foremost a politician, and by all accounts, he's very good at it. So don't always take everything you read at face value.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Obama has proved time and time again, that he is vehemently against the rights of the people to bear arms. As a Senator, he voted for every anti *** law put in front of him, and also voted to deny the rights of home owners, a "castle doctrine" to protect themselves. He has surrounded himself with anti *** people, including his Vice President, the architect of the original "assault weapons" ban....which clearly usurped the Second Amendment. He has brought Hillary on board, whose husband signed the bill, although she would be leaving, she continually supports the UN's anti *** agenda, and a global *** ban, along with the biggest Socialist of all, Mayor Bloomberg. Make no mistake, they will make an effort to regulate, or deny future ownership of firearms, if re-elected. If they try and take them, then they'll have problems, but they'll be working on that too.


"Guns are the peoples liberties teeth" - George Washington.

The Second Amendment is Second, because it's important enough TO BE that important. people that take their freedoms for granted, don't deserve freedom. Period>

 

[Ike Stain]

Obama has proved time and time again, that he is vehemently against the rights of the people to bear arms. As a Senator, he voted for every anti *** law put in front of him, and also voted to deny the rights of home owners, a "castle doctrine" to protect themselves. He has surrounded himself with anti *** people, including his Vice President, the architect of the original "assault weapons" ban....which clearly usurped the Second Amendment. He has brought Hillary on board, whose husband signed the bill, although she would be leaving, she continually supports the UN's anti *** agenda, and a global *** ban, along with the biggest Socialist of all, Mayor Bloomberg. Make no mistake, they will make an effort to regulate, or deny future ownership of firearms, if re-elected. If they try and take them, then they'll have problems, but they'll be working on that too.

Yeah, but those could have been "party line" votes. Hilary will be stepping down after this term so I don't expect her to be a player in a second Obama presidency. Last time I checked, no major anti-*** legislation had been ******, and unless the Dems retake the House and Senate by a wide margin, (extremely unlikely because even if the Tea Party can't get a president in office, they can certainly get Senators and Congresspeople elected,) none is going to. The president, even Obama, can't make laws just by wanting them. It's called checks and balances.

This is why people call you "*** nuts" as opposed to all the normal *** owners who aren't screaming about the sky falling every five minutes. Most of the people I know who own guns are not worried and they are all very well informed on the issue.

 

[Facetious]

Re: Next After Healthcare: Guns, Then Knives.

Yes, they're doing it in baby steps.... in increments.... they inch... and inch ever so closer...
What do the doubters know, they're like frogs enjoying themselves in a nice kettle of cool water... if only they knew they were about to be boiled... if only they knew. :stir:

Theme song for this here thread ...amirite?

 

[Ike Stain]

The more salient issue may be this: Look at the countries where everyone has fully automatic assault rifles. (Afghanistan springs to mind.) Would you rather live there or in the United States?

 

[Mr. Daystar]

The more salient issue may be this: Look at the countries where everyone has fully automatic assault rifles. (Afghanistan springs to mind.) Would you rather live there or in the United States?

People in THIS country own fully automatic weapons. They do it lawfully, and under strict, and heavy regulations....which once again, CLEARLY usurp the Constitution. The people that own those guns in Afghanistan are fucking terrorists waring with the US, or each other. They are not, lawful citizens, and if they are, and they're protecting whats theirs, let 'em **** the intruder....one bullet, or one hundred...you come into my home, and I don't want you there, you ARE going to die, or **** me to stop me from doing what I am GUARANTEED, under the Constitution.

As far as "party line" voting, that's what the *** grabbers do, and the people I have listed have viciously pursued a global *** ban....their twisted views of right and wrong, and their sad and pathetic attempts to interpret the Constitution, in an attempt to bend it to their needs, is clearly treason, and nothing more.

*** nut? okay, I'm a *** nut, I prefer firearms enthusiast, or Second Amendment advocate...but if being a proud card carrying, life time member of the NRA, and a sportsman's club with MANY shooting activities makes me a *** nut...I'll take it, and wear it with pride. The funny part will be, when all of us "*** nuts " are able to defend ourselves from the.....we'll call it..."The ZOMBIE apocalypse"....and the rest can't, I'll lend no aide to those that scoffed at me, those that told me I was over reacting. I'll watch with no remorse as they suffer the fate that comes their way.

By the way, you're the guy that advocated jerking off into your bosses food....and I'M A NUT!?!?!

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Subject: Fwd: FW: Guess Who's Buying *** Companies?
"In God We Trust!!!"
SOMETHING YOU MAY NOT KNOW THAT IS HAPPENING
Who is buying companies, manufacturing guns ?????
For the last several years a company called The Freedom Group has been buying up *** and ammunition manufacturers. Some of the companies are Bushmaster, Marlin, Remington, DPMS, Dakota Arms and H&R. Some people worry that this Freedom Group is going to control most of the firearms companies in the United States . If you control the manufacturers you can decide to stop selling to civilians. What a perfect way to control guns.
Now if you do some digging you will see that The Freedom Group is owned by a company called Cerberus Capital Management.
Guess who controls Cerberus??? GEORGE SOROS !!!!!!!!! One of the
most evil men on this planet who wants to restrict or ban all civilian guns. Please pass this on to all your freedom loving friends. This needs to come out. Why have we not heard about this in the "mainstream" media? I would think this would be BIG news. (Soros also owns Progressive Insurance)
If you don't know who George Soros is, you need to do some
research. He backed Obama with millions of dollars and
Obama is a puppet on a string controlled by Soros .
Send this to every *** owner in America .

 

[Facetious]

Most of the people I know who own guns are not worried and they are all very well informed on the issue.

Really, are you kidding me? They must not live in California. Our government has been consistently making it more and more difficult for legal law abiding citizens to obtain a firearm or related accessories. Have you seen all of the draconian anti *** **** coming down the pike c/o our state legislature? If you care enough, I urge you to investigate.

I admit, I haven't been following things as closely as I should, but isn't it now (or soon will be anyway) ******* to ship ammunition into the State of California? Yeah, it's like living in Boston or NYC... almost zero tolerance for anything firearm related in this place.

And if on one year something on the anti firearm agenda "honey do list" doesn't pass, the politicians just come back and reintroduce it in another year to try to get it ****** at that time, you know, around Christmas break or when schools get our for the summer in June when nobody is paying attention.

And isn't it interesting how the politicians use the worst possible examples of people in society to make their case against guns, you know, the *********, the ex cons, the habitually criminal parolees, the gang bangers, etc...etc.?
The guns are the problem they tell us.

All yours, Ike
signed, crazed *** nut of the central coast...
a guy who has never been charged with a misdemeanor in my life and
and a guy who doesn't even have a single traffic ********* on his record.

 

[Kingfisher]

It's really simple, it will never happen... There's enough *** toting nut jobs (not including myself, I'm sane) on this rock that you'd be looking at a second civil war.
The march in line demo's would have to have absolute control over both houses, and I mean not one repub to even come close to making it happen.

More likely, they'll tax or limit some small part of the ***'s operation to death, making it not worth the time or effort. Like a 10,000 dollar tax on the firing pin.
But of course, that doesn't apply to all the unlicensed/unregistered guns out there already or the guns that owners would go down fighting for.
So... it will never happen. Because the huge amount of negative press every time there's a ruby ridge or a waco would make it unlikely.

 

[Facetious]

It's really simple, it will never happen... There's enough *** toting nut jobs (not including myself, I'm sane) on this rock that you'd be looking at a second civil war.
The march in line demo's would have to have absolute control over both houses, and I mean not one repub to even come close to making it happen.

More likely, they'll tax or limit some small part of the ***'s operation to death, making it not worth the time or effort. Like a 10,000 dollar tax on the firing pin.
But of course, that doesn't apply to all the unlicensed/unregistered guns out there already or the guns that owners would go down fighting for.
So... it will never happen. Because the huge amount of negative press every time there's a ruby ridge or a waco would make it unlikely.

The government was never ashamed of themselves for their involvement in the Ruby Ridge or Waco incidents...
and the American people weren't really that sympathetic toward the victims either.