Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Having a good day, I am here to destroy it.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558

    Having a good day, I am here to destroy it.

    http://www.ijreview.com/2013/04/4509...-put-in-place/

    President Obama said that the Constitutional system that he took an oath to preserve, protect and defend constrains his ability to tackle gun control.
    He's right -- that's how it was designed. I would post more but if you click the link be ready for blood to shoot out of your eyes.
    Last edited by zack991; 04-04-2013 at 03:46 PM.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  2. #2
    Regular Member ron73440's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Suffolk VA
    Posts
    477
    The President also said this:

    "So surely we can have a debate thatís not based on the notion that somehow your elected representatives are trying to do something to you other than potentially prevent another group of families from grieving Ö"

    If they were actually doing something that would prevent anything, like going after the people who get the guns to the criminal, maybe we could have a real debate, but when they are pushing for things that only affect LAC's it's hard to take them seriously.

    And I know going after the ones who get criminals their guns has nothing to do with Newtown, but it could actually be a realistic step.

    Problem with that is even if it's effective, it might lead to more stolen weapons.
    What I told my wife when she said my steel Baby Eagle .45 was heavy, "Heavy is good, heavy is reliable, if it doesn't work you could always hit him with it."-Boris the Blade

    MOLON LABE

  3. #3
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    They like to dance around some issues as do we. They do less of it than one might think because they go straight to the point many times whereas we tend to ignore or dismiss their thrust because it intersects with what we believe to be dangerous to liberty. And this raises a simple question.

    Are you willing to sacrifice, to give up some of your freedom and some of your liberty in order to "make the children safer"? (they always like to use the children idea) Would you be willing to live with less liberty if you knew it would result is fewer people being killed with firearms?

    Personally, I say no. And while that may seem cold and heartless, I don't believe for a minute that our Founders had it in mind that we should do anything of the sort to buy more safety for anyone. I believe that if we were to offer up the sacrificial lamb in the form of the outlawing and confiscation of a whole class of firearms, indeed rendering us down to bolt action rifle and revolvers, we would be making The People less secure, less safe, and more easily susceptible to creeping tyranny. Is that worth their argument of "if it saves just one life"?
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  4. #4
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    I have no issue with his statement. In fact, I support it. So what, President Obama has acknowledged a Constitutional restraint.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    I have no issue with his statement. In fact, I support it. So what, President Obama has acknowledged a Constitutional restraint.
    Acknowledgement doesn't mean he gives a **** or plans to follow it. He has proven that already, if anything this statement would reaffirm he wants to go after the 2A so that he is free to push all the gun control he wants to.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by ADobbs1989 View Post
    Acknowledgement doesn't mean he gives a **** or plans to follow it. He has proven that already, if anything this statement would reaffirm he wants to go after the 2A so that he is free to push all the gun control he wants to.
    I agree, it doesn't mean he gives a crapola. Apparently he plans to follow it.

    You're in it for the fight, and the mulling in typical firearm community propaganda.

    If you were interested in a constructive approach, you would tame the rhetoric, and take a balanced approach.--you're a dime a dozen in this community.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    I agree, it doesn't mean he gives a crapola. Apparently he plans to follow it.

    You're in it for the fight, and the mulling in typical firearm community propaganda.

    If you were interested in a constructive approach, you would tame the rhetoric, and take a balanced approach.--you're a dime a dozen in this community.
    I can only go off of his actions. And his actions represent someone who doesn't care about our Constitution and will do what he wants to do regardless. Someone who respected the 2A wouldn't be pushing for AWB's, Magazine limits, Universal Background Checks, and supporting people in States like Illinois, California, New York, and Connecticut who are trying their hardest to completely remove the citizens right to keep and bear arms. I'm not interested in a constructive approach, he has shown where his interest lies and it's definitely not with the Constitution.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by ADobbs1989 View Post
    I can only go off of his actions. And his actions represent someone who doesn't care about our Constitution and will do what he wants to do regardless. Someone who respected the 2A wouldn't be pushing for AWB's, Magazine limits, Universal Background Checks, and supporting people in States like Illinois, California, New York, and Connecticut who are trying their hardest to completely remove the citizens right to keep and bear arms. I'm not interested in a constructive approach, he has shown where his interest lies and it's definitely not with the Constitution.
    So, his statement, being the action that it is, is one that falls under not caring about the Constitution? Just making sure we are clear, here.


    The Second Amendment states nothing about AWB, mag limits, UBC, so, we're playing it by ear here.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    So, his statement, being the action that it is, is one that falls under not caring about the Constitution? Just making sure we are clear, here.


    The Second Amendment states nothing about AWB, mag limits, UBC, so, we're playing it by ear here.
    Actions speak louder than words. What he says is not compatible with what he is doing. He says that the 2A limits what he can do, but supports legislation that isn't in agreement with the 2A. All of those things DO apply to the 2A, "shall not be infringed". Any legislation that in anyway infringes on a persons right to keep and bear arms is in direct violation. Including the unconstitutional ban on automatic weapons. Banning thousands of modern firearms is infringement. Banning magazines with the capacity of more than 10 rounds is infringement. Forcing me to submit to a background check before purchasing a weapon, including forcing my children to obtain a background check before I can give them a firearm is infringement. Period, no compromise. I don't give a rats ass about what he says, I care about what he does.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059

    Having a good day, I am here to destroy it.

    He has always said that the Constitution is the thing. Look back as his campaigns, when he said that the federal government cannot get rid of guns.

    That said, while he is taking the "lets be reasonable about everything short of a ban" approach, the problem becomes one of which restrictions make us safer but do not prevent us from being effective as a militia of individual gun owners. The disagreement spurs hinges (this time) on the idea that things like restricting who buys a military-style rifle can or should be the domain of the federal government.

    92 thinks restrictions are ok. Many of us think they are an ineffective folly that will lead to us being ineffective as a militia, should the need arise. Again, some people want the government to have control, most of those here do not ever want that.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by nonameisgood View Post
    He has always said that the Constitution is the thing. Look back as his campaigns, when he said that the federal government cannot get rid of guns.

    That said, while he is taking the "lets be reasonable about everything short of a ban" approach, the problem becomes one of which restrictions make us safer but do not prevent us from being effective as a militia of individual gun owners. The disagreement spurs hinges (this time) on the idea that things like restricting who buys a military-style rifle can or should be the domain of the federal government.

    92 thinks restrictions are ok. Many of us think they are an ineffective folly that will lead to us being ineffective as a militia, should the need arise. Again, some people want the government to have control, most of those here do not ever want that.
    you want to know what I think, ask me, and I'll tell you.

    I didn't say restrictions are OK. I said that I could care less about some restriction.

    I never stated restrictions are effective, in fact, I have stated that restriction will have ZERO effect on violence by firearm.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059

    Having a good day, I am here to destroy it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    you want to know what I think, ask me, and I'll tell you.

    I didn't say restrictions are OK. I said that I could care less about some restriction.

    I never stated restrictions are effective, in fact, I have stated that restriction will have ZERO effect on violence by firearm.
    Sorry, didn't mean to say that you felt they were effective, it was a poorly formed paragraph. But my reading of your posts was that you felt certain restrictions are acceptable. I stand corrected.

    I do think that many people, not just liberals, feel that gun control works, most likely because they have been told that by the media and politicians and academics. And they think incremental restrictions will incrementally decrease crime and violence. (And it's amazing to me how many people don't know the differences in prevention between a criminal and some crazy person who suddenly goes ballistic.)

  13. #13
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by nonameisgood View Post
    Sorry, didn't mean to say that you felt they were effective, it was a poorly formed paragraph. But my reading of your posts was that you felt certain restrictions are acceptable. I stand corrected.

    I do think that many people, not just liberals, feel that gun control works, most likely because they have been told that by the media and politicians and academics. And they think incremental restrictions will incrementally decrease crime and violence. (And it's amazing to me how many people don't know the differences in prevention between a criminal and some crazy person who suddenly goes ballistic.)
    Restrictions aren't acceptable; some restriction will have an actual effect on my firearm, and some won't; restrictions are Constitutional.

    Firearm restrictions do not work, period! It's pandering at best, not Constitutional at worse.

    And the Right think incremental increase in prison sentences will decrease crime and violence...such as: Death Penalty. The death penalty is not a deterrent.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059

    Having a good day, I am here to destroy it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Restrictions aren't acceptable; some restriction will have an actual effect on my firearm, and some won't; restrictions are Constitutional.

    Firearm restrictions do not work, period! It's pandering at best, not Constitutional at worse.

    And the Right think incremental increase in prison sentences will decrease crime and violence...such as: Death Penalty. The death penalty is not a deterrent.
    Except that dead men don't kill people.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by nonameisgood View Post
    Except that dead men don't kill people.
    The death penalty ought to exist for the sole purpose of executing someone that deserves to be executed; it has nothing to do with pandering crapola like a deterrent factor, that doesn't exist to begin with.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  16. #16
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    you want to know what I think, ask me, and I'll tell you.

    I didn't say restrictions are OK. I said that I could care less about some restriction.

    I never stated restrictions are effective, in fact, I have stated that restriction will have ZERO effect on violence by firearm.
    B92FSL will only tell you what she truly thinks if it suits her anti-liberty and anti-citizen agenda.

    She will not "say" that restrictions are "OK" but there is not a "restriction" she does not support because she votes liberal. When the power of the federal government comes knocking on her door then her interest in restrictions may be piqued. Until then she is very comfortable with restrictions on any other citizen that do not affect her.

    Liberals routinely achknowledge that restrictions have no affect on 'X' but this does not stop them from implementing restrictions inspite of fact or logic. Remember, B92FSL is a liberal and she is anti-liberty and anti-citizen.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  17. #17
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    B92FSL will only tell you what she truly thinks if it suits her anti-liberty and anti-citizen agenda.

    She will not "say" that restrictions are "OK" but there is not a "restriction" she does not support because she votes liberal. When the power of the federal government comes knocking on her door then her interest in restrictions may be piqued. Until then she is very comfortable with restrictions on any other citizen that do not affect her.

    Liberals routinely achknowledge that restrictions have no affect on 'X' but this does not stop them from implementing restrictions inspite of fact or logic. Remember, B92FSL is a liberal and she is anti-liberty and anti-citizen.
    I will tell you what I think, if it suits my fancy.

    I voted for President Obama, twice, and hope to again in 2016.

    Blah, blah, anti-Liberty, blah, blah, blah, antio-Freedom, blah, blah. Obviously, like myself, you have nothing better to do with your time.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  18. #18
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    I will tell you what I think, if it suits my fancy.

    I voted for President Obama, twice, and hope to again in 2016.

    Blah, blah, anti-Liberty, blah, blah, blah, antio-Freedom, blah, blah. Obviously, like myself, you have nothing better to do with your time.
    Exposing liberals at every opportunity is one of my hobbies. I don't have many hobbies, being a productive citizen and all, but I find that liberals permit me to engage in this hobby quite frequently.

    What other hobby requires such a trifling investment of effort to receive such wholesale rewards.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  19. #19
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Exposing liberals at every opportunity is one of my hobbies. I don't have many hobbies, being a productive citizen and all, but I find that liberals permit me to engage in this hobby quite frequently.

    What other hobby requires such a trifling investment of effort to receive such wholesale rewards.
    I make it a daily quest to expose myself, every day, by all accessible means.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Peoples' Republic of Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    283
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    I make it a daily quest to expose myself, every day, by all accessible means.
    Careful. If you do that in the presence of children you may lose your 2A rights.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •