Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: The ultimate worst case scenario for gun owners

  1. #1
    Regular Member vt357's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    490

    Post imported post

    http://wcbstv.com/politics/Bloomberg....2.685850.html

    No Endorsement; Bloomberg Plays It Down The Middle
    Mayor Introduces Obama At Cooper Union For Speech On The Economy
    Jay Dow
    NEW YORK (CBS)

    Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Sen. Barack Obama stood side-by-side once again Thursday, nearly four months after their mystery breakfast outing at a Manhattan diner. This time, Obama was in town to deliver what was billed as a major speech on the economy, while many believed Bloomberg was poised to deliver his endorsement.

    With all eyes on the mayor as he walked onto the stage at The Cooper Union, Bloomerg introduced the Illinois senator, and while there was plenty of speculation of the endorsement, instead he played it down the middle.

    "I'm glad that Sen. Obama has chosen come to our city to speak out on the economy. There will be plenty of opinions on what he has to say, this is New York, after all. And I'm not sure that all of us will agree with every idea, myself included," he said. "But it is critical we know where each candidate stands as we make perhaps the most important decision of our lives next November."

    Obama was equally cordial, joking about treating Bloomberg to breakfast a few months ago during his last visit to the big apple.

    "The reason I bought breakfast is because I expect payback for something more expensive. I'm no dummy," Obama joked. "The mayor was a cheap date that morning. There are some good steakhouses here in New York."

    ... article continues ...
    Can you imagine an Obama - Bloomberg ticket? That would be the worst case scenario for gun owners - especially in VA. Bloomberg has unlimited personal wealth. He could finance the entire campaign himself. Combine the two of them together... I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Smart move on Obama's part. There has been morbid speculation in some media and on some forums as to whether Obama has any increased risk of assasination if elected. I would say that hooking up with Bloomberg mostly obviates that speculation because as much as some nut-jobs wouldn't like an Obama presidency to such an extreme extent, one of the few worse things they could imagine would be Nanny Bloomberg ascending to the presidency. Suddenly, even the wack-jobs have a vested interest in ensuring Obama's health.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  3. #3
    Regular Member zoom6zoom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Dale City, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,694

    Post imported post

    I just can't see someone with an ego as big as Bloomberg's taking a number two position.


  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran Dutch Uncle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,715

    Post imported post

    Knowing how that nasty little guy operates, he might figure Obama will eat a bullet at some point, and then he will find himself to be empero---, I mean President.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia USA, ,
    Posts
    1,688

    Post imported post

    I really think all 3 are the worst choice for all of our rights.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    Not necessarily a nightmare, might be just the thing to motivate gun owners to defeat Obama/Bloomberg as opposed to staying home due to a lack luster appeal of McCain. Liking McCain or not, he is way way ahead of an Obama/Bloomberg ticket on RKBA.

  7. #7
    Newbie W.E.G.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    all over VA, ,
    Posts
    503

    Post imported post

    ........Bloomberg.......


  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    hsmith wrote:
    I really think all 3 are the worst choice for all of our rights.
    I think you are referring to Clinton, Obama AND McCain? I happen to agree with you. Fortunately McCain is Pro-2A, but it seems like the constitution is simply an obstacle for him to overcome. Bush seemed to figure out how to ignore the constitution!

    I'm scared where we're heading. Please live in this bubble so we can keep you safe. And if we don't like what you have to say, who you associate with, or if you fail to submit to our searches (you know, to make sure we can keep everyone else safe from you), we'll call you a terrorist or enemy combatant, to keep you quiet. The Supreme Court can't find you there!

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    I said it a month ago and now even the press is echoing it:

    McCain is the best Republican AND Democrat running for office!



  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    Smart move on Obama's part. There has been morbid speculation in some media and on some forums as to whether Obama has any increased risk of assasination if elected. I would say that hooking up with Bloomberg mostly obviates that speculation because as much as some nut-jobs wouldn't like an Obama presidency to such an extreme extent, one of the few worse things they could imagine would be Nanny Bloomberg ascending to the presidency. Suddenly, even the wack-jobs have a vested interest in ensuring Obama's health.
    Oh, please. That's completely absurd.:quirky

    No candidate is going to choose a running mate based on his fear of assasination.

    That's just silly! It really is.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    pkbites wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    Smart move on Obama's part. There has been morbid speculation in some media and on some forums as to whether Obama has any increased risk of assasination if elected. I would say that hooking up with Bloomberg mostly obviates that speculation because as much as some nut-jobs wouldn't like an Obama presidency to such an extreme extent, one of the few worse things they could imagine would be Nanny Bloomberg ascending to the presidency. Suddenly, even the wack-jobs have a vested interest in ensuring Obama's health.
    Oh, please. That's completely absurd.:quirky I recommend Eugene Ionesco.

    No candidate is going to choose a running mate based on his fear of assasination.

    That's just silly! It really is. Of course it is.
    Main Entry:fa·ce·tious
    Pronunciation: \fə-ˈsē-shəs\
    Function:adjective
    Etymology:Middle French facetieux, from facetie jest, from Latin facetia
    Date:1599
    1 :joking or jesting often inappropriately :waggish <just being facetious>
    2 :meant to be humorous or funny :not serious <a facetious remark>
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Milford Colony, Montana, USA
    Posts
    145

    Post imported post

    No matter who wins in November, it will only be bad if we don't fill both the house and senate with people that will defend the 2nd. If we have a good hold there, whomever is president, cannot make a move.

    While I do detest McCain, at this time, I see no other viable option, not that is one.

    -MTCZ

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    VA Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    558

    Post imported post

    MontanaCZ wrote:
    No matter who wins in November, it will only be bad if we don't fill both the house and senate with people that will defend the 2nd. If we have a good hold there, whomever is president, cannot make a move.

    While I do detest McCain, at this time, I see no other viable option, not that is one.

    -MTCZ
    That's a joke and a half. The last Rino Regime didn't do a thing to help us out. All they did was let the Clinton era stuff run out. AND............ Mr war for oil Bush even said he would sign another AWB if it came his way. We have a great pro 2nd candidate this year that hardly no gun owners really backed. Some gun owners are your own worse enemies. I can't begin to tell you how many people I tried to tell about Ron Paul at gun shows. Most of YOU didn't want to hear about the only candidate that was 100 percent for the Constitution.





  14. #14
    Regular Member vt357's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    490

    Post imported post

    GLENGLOCKER wrote:
    MontanaCZ wrote:
    No matter who wins in November, it will only be bad if we don't fill both the house and senate with people that will defend the 2nd. If we have a good hold there, whomever is president, cannot make a move.

    While I do detest McCain, at this time, I see no other viable option, not that is one.

    -MTCZ
    That's a joke and a half. The last Rino Regime didn't do a thing to help us out. All they did was let the Clinton era stuff run out. AND............ Mr war for oil Bush even said he would sign another AWB if it came his way. We have a great pro 2nd candidate this year that hardly no gun owners really backed. Some gun owners are your own worse enemies. I can't begin to tell you how many people I tried to tell about Ron Paul at gun shows. Most of YOU didn't want to hear about the only candidate that was 100 percent for the Constitution.
    I agree with you that noone was willing to hear about Ron Paul. Most people don't like his foreign policy stance. But as much as I think Bush has really screwed up as president, he has appointed two very good people to the Supreme Court. How worried would you be about Heller if Gore or Kerry had appointed two people to the court? While I don't agree McCain on multiple issues, his judges will be far less offensive than any that Obama or Billary will appoint.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    vt357 wrote:
    GLENGLOCKER wrote:
    MontanaCZ wrote:
    SNIP
    That's a joke and a half. The last Rino Regime didn't do a thing to help us out. All they did was let the Clinton era stuff run out. AND............ Mr war for oil Bush even said he would sign another AWB if it came his way. We have a great pro 2nd candidate this year that hardly no gun owners really backed. Some gun owners are your own worse enemies. I can't begin to tell you how many people I tried to tell about Ron Paul at gun shows. Most of YOU didn't want to hear about the only candidate that was 100 percent for the Constitution.
    I agree with you that noone was willing to hear about Ron Paul. Most people don't like his foreign policy stance. But as much as I think Bush has really screwed up as president, he has appointed two very good people to the Supreme Court. How worried would you be about Heller if Gore or Kerry had appointed two people to the court? While I don't agree McCain on multiple issues, his judges will be far less offensive than any that Obama or Billary will appoint.
    I agree vt357. Most of what I was seeing IRL and on forums was that Paul's foreign policy and "imperialist" talk turned people off and tuned him out. I personally agreed with a lot of his domestic positions, but in the debates when we got to foreign policy I just cringed at his responses.

    I also agree that the best thing to come out of the Bush administration are the SCOTUS appts (which almost didn't happen until pressured to make better choices). With our current candidates it is not a question of who will further erode the nation but a question as to which direction you want to allow the erosion and if the erosion can be reversed. McCain, as much as I loathe seeing him as POTUS, is the best hope for gun owners. Barack has previously endorsed the position of no manufacture, purchase or possession of firearms in the US. Billary supported the AWB and even stricter. They will appoint VERY liberal SCOTUS and federal judges. McCain will appoint a mixture most likely.

    I don't understand liberal (in the modern usage) judges who are all gung ho to support the "rights" of someone to show my 11 year old daughter gay porn at the abortion clinic where she has been taken for a surgical procedure without my knowledge and against my will, while they are shooting up heroin and screwing a goat in the operating room, but think that my quietly carrying a locked and loaded sidearm in a holster, that, that is dangerous to the same child. My gun carrying will scar her for life. Yep, scary, messed up stuffs. This is the choice between shot, hanged or poisoned.

    BUT an Obama/Bloomberg ticket, that would be equivalent to being shot, hanged and poisoned and kept just on the edge of death for 4 years.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

Posting Permissions

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