Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 38

Thread: Obama vs. the 2nd Ammendment gunbanobama.com

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    102

    Post imported post

    Check out the following site: http://www.gunbanobama.com/

    In this website, you will find direct contradictions between Barack Obama's words recently and his consistent voting record and his previous stances. Scary...is the nice way to put it.

    You will also find where his campaign is fighting the NRA's recent ad which is about to force this whole issue on the public forum. (already mentioned on a recent new topic)
    http://www.gunbanobama.com/Default.a...D=11588&Type=1

    2nd Ammendment and Obama:
    http://www.gunbanobama.com/Default.a...6-892463d99f08

    Get the word out before it's too late...

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    LaConner, Washington, USA
    Posts
    649

    Post imported post

    I think it's a reasonable conclusion from all the evidence in BO's voting record and his public statements, many of which are presented in this thread that he secretly wants to repeal the Second Amendment. What would this do for him? It would wipe away the clutter of all the lawsuits and state and local laws limiting this and prohibiting that that get in the way of his real objective, which is to ban all private ownership of guns.

    Could he pull it off? He certainly has a lot of highly-charged support in the US Congress, and in the legislatures of some of the blue states like California. One such example is Dianne Feinstein, who shares much of Obama's sentiments on the subject. (Feinstein's views were undoubtedly shaped by the assasination in 1978 of Mayor George Moscone of San Francisco and Supervisor Harvey Milk in their offices in City Hall. That event undoubtedly traumatized her but it propelled her to the mayorship of San Francisco and subsequently to her seat in the Senate.) All that would be needed to get a repeal bill started is an anti-guncampaign in the Senate and House. With both controlled by Democrats this may not be all that difficult for him. He would need 2/3 vote in both houses, a tough call but not beyond possibility in the current political environment. If he can get that far the next step would be to get3/4 of the state legislatures (38)to approve it, and he wins.* Then guess what: no more guns, no more gun rights.

    This guy is hiding who he really is. He won't stop at just the Second Amendment. He will attack the First, and Fourth, and likely the Fifth as well. He will undertake a massive re-distribution of wealth through his already-stated economic policies and continue the massive nationalization of businesses that has already started with the financial industry. Let me be completely clear about this: he is more than a liberal Democrat, he is a socialist, plain and simple. Fidel Castro didn't announce that he was a Communist until his revolution was complete. The same will happen with Obama if the American people are so blind as to elect him.

    * Source: US Constitution, Article V

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Melbourne, Florida, USA
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post


    Factcheck And Brady Campaign Share Same Sugar Daddy

    - Impartial? Independent? NO! -
    FactCheck and Brady Campaign in Bed with Annenberg Foundation


    FactCheck supposedly exists to look beyond a politician's claims. Ironically, in its analysis of NRA materials on Barack Obama, these so-called "FactCheckers" use the election year campaign rhetoric of a presidential candidate and a verbal claim by one of the most zealous gun control supporters in Congress to refute facts compiled by NRA's research of vote records and review of legislative language.

    There's another possible explanation behind FactCheck's positions. Just last year, FactCheck's primary funding source, the Annenberg Foundation, also gave $50,000 to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence for "efforts to reduce gun violence by educating the public and by enacting and enforcing regulations governing the gun industry." Annenberg made a similar grant for $100,000 in 2005. (source)

    Regardless of the cause, it's clear that while FactCheck swoons over a politician's rhetoric, NRA prefers to look at the more mundane details - like how that politician voted on a bill and what kind of impact that legislation had or may have had on law-abiding gun owners.

    FactCheck claims that NRA advertisements "distort" Barack Obama's anti-gun positions, but FactCheck's own sources prove otherwise. In fact, even Obama's campaign has refused to deny his most extreme positions.

    FactCheck also dismisses NRA's statements as "contrary to what [Obama] has said throughout his campaign." But as FactCheck says, "believing something doesn't make it so." And unless FactCheck is an arm of the Obama campaign, isn't it their job to find out if Obama is telling the truth?

    FactCheck claim: "Obama is proposing no ...ban" on use of firearms for self-defense in the home.

    FactCheck is wrong. Obama supported local handgun bans in the Chicago area by opposing any allowance for self-defense. Obama opposed an Illinois bill (SB 2165, 2004) that would have created an "affirmative defense" for a person who used a prohibited firearm in self-defense in his own home.

    As FactCheck notes, the bill was provoked by a case where a Wilmette, Ill. homeowner shot an intruder in self-defense in his home; the homeowner's handgun was banned by a town ordinance. (After the U.S. Supreme Court found Washington, D.C.'s similar ban unconstitutional, Wilmette repealed the ordinance to avoid litigation.)

    The legislation was very plainly worded, but as limited as its protection was, Obama voted against it in committee and on the floor:

    It is an affirmative defense to a violation of a municipal ordinance that prohibits, regulates, or restricts the private ownership of firearms if the individual who is charged with the violation used the firearm in an act of self-defense or defense of another ...when on his or her land or in his or her abode or fixed place of business.

    If a person cannot use a handgun for self-defense in the home without facing criminal charges, self-defense with handguns in the home is effectively banned.

    Even aside from SB 2165, Obama's support for a total handgun ban (see below) would be a crippling blow to defense in the home, since (as the Supreme Court recently affirmed) handguns are "the most preferred firearm in the nation to 'keep' and use for protection of one's home and family." (District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 2818 (2008)).

    FactCheck claim: Obama "did not ...vote to 'ban virtually all deer hunting ammunition."

    FactCheck is wrong. Obama voted for an amendment by longtime ammunition ban advocate Sen. Edward Kennedy (S. Amdt. 1615 to S. 397, Vote No. 217, July 29, 2005), which would have fundamentally changed the federal "armor piercing ammunition" law (18 U.S.C. ' 922(a)(7)), by banning any bullet that "may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines... to be capable of penetrating body armor" that "meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers."

    Federal law currently bans bullets as "armor piercing" based upon the metals used in their construction, such as those made of steel and those that have heavy jackets. (18 U.S.C. ' 921(a)(17)). The Kennedy amendment would have fundamentally changed the law to add a ban on bullets on the basis of whether they penetrate the "minimum" level of body armor, regardless of the bullets' construction or the purposes for which they were designed (e.g., hunting).

    Many bullets designed and intended for use in rifles (including hunting rifles) have, over the years, been used in special-purpose hunting and target handguns, thus they "may be used in a handgun."

    The "minimum" level of body armor, Type I, only protects against the lowest-powered handgun cartridges. Any center-fire rifle used for hunting, target shooting, or any other purpose, and many handguns used for the same purposes, are capable of penetrating Type I armor, regardless of the design of the bullet.

    Obama also said, on his 2003 questionnaire for the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, that he would "support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons." (source) The rifles banned as "assault weapons" under the 1994 Clinton gun ban fire cartridges such as the .223 Remington and .308 Winchester - the same ammunition used in common hunting rifles.

    It's true that in 2005, Sen. Kennedy denied his amendment would ban hunting ammunition. But in a floor debate on an identical amendment the previous year, Kennedy specifically denounced the .30-30 Winchester rifle cartridge, used by millions of deer hunters since 1895. "It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America," said Sen. Kennedy. (Congressional Record, 2/26/04, p. S1634.)

    Isn't it FactCheck's job to be skeptical of politicians' claims, especially when the plain language says otherwise?

    FactCheck claim: "Obama says he does not support any ... handgun ban and never has."

    FactCheck is wrong. Obama has never disavowed his support for a handgun ban. On Obama's 1996 questionnaire for the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, he clearly stated his support for "state legislation to ...ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." Although Obama first claimed he had not seen the survey, a later version appeared with his handwritten notes modifying some of the answers. But he didn't change any of his answers on gun issues, including the handgun ban.

    FactCheck itself cites Obama's 2003 questionnaire to the same group. When asked again if he supported a handgun ban, he could simply have said, "No." Instead, as FactCheck notes, he "avoid[ed] a yes-or-no answer" by saying a ban on handguns "is not politically practicable," then stated his support for other restrictions.

    The 1996 and 2003 positions are not at all contradictory. Many anti-gun groups, such as the Violence Policy Center and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, support total bans on handguns but also support lesser regulations that are more "politically practicable."

    FactCheck claim: Saying Obama supports gun licensing is "misleading."

    FactCheck is wrong. Obama's fancy election-year footwork - claiming he doesn't support licensing or registration because he doesn't think he "can get that done" - isn't enough to get around his clear support for handgun registration and licensing.

    What's really misleading is the idea that handgun registration isn't really gun registration. Handguns are about one-third of the firearms owned in the United States, and American gun owners know better than to think registration schemes will end with any one kind of gun.

    FactCheck claim: Saying Obama would appoint judges who agree with him is "unsupported."

    This FactCheck claim is just strange. Don't most Americans expect that the President will appoint people who agree with him to all levels of the government? And putting all Obama's campaign rhetoric about "empathy" aside, why would judges be any different?

    And on the larger issue of Obama's view of the Second Amendment, FactCheck once again takes Obama's spin at face value. While Obama now claims to embrace the Supreme Court's decision striking down the D.C. gun ban, he refused to sign an amicus brief stating that position to the Court. And when Washington, D.C. television reporter Leon Harris said to Obama, "You support the D.C. handgun ban and you've said that it's constitutional," Obama nodded - and again didn't disavow his support. (WJLA TV interview, 2/11/2008.)



  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    LaConner, Washington, USA
    Posts
    649

    Post imported post

    Your facts seem unassailable. Given that you are right on all counts, or even most counts, would you agree with my post, above, speculating that Obama secretly wants to try to repeal the Second Amendment? Do you think he would have a run at it, once he's in office?

  5. #5
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Post imported post

    This is just totally scary to me. The fact is NObama has claimed to be a "Citizen of the World" and we all know that the UN wants guns banned. We'll lose not only our guns, but our National sovereignity.

    ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ Thomas Jefferson

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    KansasMustang wrote:
    This is just totally scary to me. The fact is NObama has claimed to be a "Citizen of the World" and we all know that the UN wants guns banned. We'll lose not only our guns, but our National sovereignity.
    I'll be dead then. Fight on!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    LaConner, Washington, USA
    Posts
    649

    Post imported post

    KansasMustang wrote:
    This is just totally scary to me. The fact is NObama has claimed to be a "Citizen of the World" and we all know that the UN wants guns banned. We'll lose not only our guns, but our National sovereignity.
    +1

    We are well on our way to the Socialist States of America. We will lose our liberties including gun rights, capitalism will be a thing of the past and who knows we may be strapped with a Gestapo-like police state. I'm glad I won't be around to see the worst of it but I fear for my kids and (eventually) grandchildren. We have no one to blame but ourselves. Remember, Hitler was elected by a popular vote. And it all stems from that vile hatred of George Bush. There is always a scapegoat for tyrannical movements, and in this case it's Bush. "Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it."

  8. #8
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Post imported post

    Richard, I didn't intend to die in the two combat zones I was in, don't intend to die in any others. Of course I know that it's inevitable that I do, I figure that I'll be @#%^ if they can get me that easy
    ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ Thomas Jefferson

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    LaConner, Washington, USA
    Posts
    649

    Post imported post

    KansasMustang wrote:
    Richard, I didn't intend to die in the two combat zones I was in, don't intend to die in any others. Of course I know that it's inevitable that I do, I figure that I'll be @#%^ if they can get me that easy
    KM: I share your sentiments and before going further I and everyone else on this board THANK YOU FOREVER FOR YOUR SERVICE AND DEDICATION TO THIS NATION But... as it now appears we are going to be saddled with an Obama presidency because of the gullible gimme-gimme-gimme voters. If you read the current American Rifleman there is an article about Obama's connection with and support from George Soros. This article makes a strong case for the argument that Soros will fund a drive in this country to approve the UN worldwide gun ban treaty. This is even more dangerous than any war we have ever fought because its goal is to disarm us. They have already been successful in banning long guns in Australia, and are now targeting handguns. It was only thanks to John Bolton and George Bush that the UN treaty was stopped at our shore. With Obama soon to be in the White House and supported by a Democrat-controlled Congress, this issue is very likely going to be resurrected. Now comes my argument about the Second Amendment: I think that Obama, backed by Soros, will try to repeal the first of several Articles of the Bill of Rights.Obama's gun-hating record is well-documented, and with support of anti-gun members of Congress such as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) I think it quite likely he will have a run at a repeal amendment. I seem to be the voice in the wilderness here, but that's my $.02 worth.

  10. #10
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Post imported post

    I read the article about Soros and it' scared me, really bad. I don't mean to sound reactionary but I think that before that happens there will be an uprising the likes of which this country hasn't seen since 1775. When the redcoats were marching to disarm the people at Concord. Wonder if there will be a Paul Revere to warn us? To Arms, To Arms !!! Your voice is heard, just me sayin it
    ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ Thomas Jefferson

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    460

    Post imported post

    KansasMustang wrote:
    I read the article about Soros and it' scared me, really bad. I don't mean to sound reactionary but I think that before that happens there will be an uprising the likes of which this country hasn't seen since 1775. When the redcoats were marching to disarm the people at Concord. Wonder if there will be a Paul Revere to warn us? To Arms, To Arms !!! Your voice is heard, just me sayin it
    Remember what precipitated the "shot heard 'round the world" when they ask, "what can it hurt to register weapons and gun owners?"


  12. #12
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    According to Thomas Jefferson (and I would bet Patrick Henry and George Mason as well as other Founders), the Bill of Rights is unamendable. However, I wouldn't hold my breath on that. The document has been cast aside so often it has all but lost its true meaning.


    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!

  13. #13
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    Slayer of Paper wrote:
    KansasMustang wrote:
    I read the article about Soros and it' scared me, really bad. I don't mean to sound reactionary but I think that before that happens there will be an uprising the likes of which this country hasn't seen since 1775. When the redcoats were marching to disarm the people at Concord. Wonder if there will be a Paul Revere to warn us? To Arms, To Arms !!! Your voice is heard, just me sayin it
    Remember what precipitated the "shot heard 'round the world" when they ask, "what can it hurt to register weapons and gun owners?"
    If there's anyone here who doesn't have a problem with registration:

    Please tell me what I need to do in order to LAWFULLY move to Chicago with my handguns?

    Other than racial slurs andinfantile attempts to change the subject, NOBODY has provided an answer.

    Registration for firearms is the same as a "literacy" test for voting, with the same motivations and the same effects.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    263

    Post imported post

    Deanimator wrote:
    Slayer of Paper wrote:
    KansasMustang wrote:
    I read the article about Soros and it' scared me, really bad. I don't mean to sound reactionary but I think that before that happens there will be an uprising the likes of which this country hasn't seen since 1775. When the redcoats were marching to disarm the people at Concord. Wonder if there will be a Paul Revere to warn us? To Arms, To Arms !!! Your voice is heard, just me sayin it
    Remember what precipitated the "shot heard 'round the world" when they ask, "what can it hurt to register weapons and gun owners?"
    If there's anyone here who doesn't have a problem with registration:

    Please tell me what I need to do in order to LAWFULLY move to Chicago with my handguns?

    Other than racial slurs andinfantile attempts to change the subject, NOBODY has provided an answer.

    Registration for firearms is the same as a "literacy" test for voting, with the same motivations and the same effects.
    Don't get me started on registration. No matter how hard I tried I could not register my CAR in MO when I moved there. Every time I showed up with the forms they said I needed they said I needed a different form. Then, when I moved to TX, I had to cry and beg to register it since I hadn't been registered in MO. That's a CAR! Don't tell me anyone will let you register you gun if they don't want to.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    LaConner, Washington, USA
    Posts
    649

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    According to Thomas Jefferson (and I would bet Patrick Henry and George Mason as well as other Founders), the Bill of Rights is unamendable. However, I wouldn't hold my breath on that. The document has been cast aside so often it has all but lost its true meaning.

    You are confusing Article V of the Constitution with the statement in the Declaration of Independence which proclaims "our inalienable rights". (It gives me goose-bumps to read that.) That document says that we as human beings have our God-given rights which are inalienable, that is, cannot be revoked by any human authority. This is NOT the same as Article V of the Constitution which sets forth the requirements and procedure for amending provisions of the Constitution. NO PART OF THE CONSTITUTION IS EXEMPT FROM AMENDMENT AS PROVIDED IN ARTICLE V. While the framers purposely made it difficult to enact an amendment, it is not impossible. This means that any article or amendment can be repealed or altered in whole or in part by a duly ratified amendment. One notable example of repeal of an amendment isthe repeal of Prohibition (Amendment XIX) by enactment of Amendment XXI December 5, 1933.

    Although I am not a lawyer, I keep a pocket-size copy of the Constitution on my desk at all times. It's a handy item to have whenever an issue comes up.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    LaConner, Washington, USA
    Posts
    649

    Post imported post

    thorvaldr wrote:
    Deanimator wrote:
    Slayer of Paper wrote:
    KansasMustang wrote:
    I read the article about Soros and it' scared me, really bad. I don't mean to sound reactionary but I think that before that happens there will be an uprising the likes of which this country hasn't seen since 1775. When the redcoats were marching to disarm the people at Concord. Wonder if there will be a Paul Revere to warn us? To Arms, To Arms !!! Your voice is heard, just me sayin it
    Remember what precipitated the "shot heard 'round the world" when they ask, "what can it hurt to register weapons and gun owners?"
    If there's anyone here who doesn't have a problem with registration:

    Please tell me what I need to do in order to LAWFULLY move to Chicago with my handguns?

    Other than racial slurs andinfantile attempts to change the subject, NOBODY has provided an answer.

    Registration for firearms is the same as a "literacy" test for voting, with the same motivations and the same effects.
    Don't get me started on registration. No matter how hard I tried I could not register my CAR in MO when I moved there. Every time I showed up with the forms they said I needed they said I needed a different form. Then, when I moved to TX, I had to cry and beg to register it since I hadn't been registered in MO. That's a CAR! Don't tell me anyone will let you register you gun if they don't want to.
    Big difference: there is no provision in the Constitution that gives us the right to own and drive a car.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    LaConner, Washington, USA
    Posts
    649

    Post imported post

    Richard6218 wrote:
    thorvaldr wrote:
    Deanimator wrote:
    Slayer of Paper wrote:
    KansasMustang wrote:
    I read the article about Soros and it' scared me, really bad. I don't mean to sound reactionary but I think that before that happens there will be an uprising the likes of which this country hasn't seen since 1775. When the redcoats were marching to disarm the people at Concord. Wonder if there will be a Paul Revere to warn us? To Arms, To Arms !!! Your voice is heard, just me sayin it
    Remember what precipitated the "shot heard 'round the world" when they ask, "what can it hurt to register weapons and gun owners?"
    If there's anyone here who doesn't have a problem with registration:

    Please tell me what I need to do in order to LAWFULLY move to Chicago with my handguns?

    Other than racial slurs andinfantile attempts to change the subject, NOBODY has provided an answer.

    Registration for firearms is the same as a "literacy" test for voting, with the same motivations and the same effects.
    Don't get me started on registration. No matter how hard I tried I could not register my CAR in MO when I moved there. Every time I showed up with the forms they said I needed they said I needed a different form. Then, when I moved to TX, I had to cry and beg to register it since I hadn't been registered in MO. That's a CAR! Don't tell me anyone will let you register you gun if they don't want to.
    Big difference: there is no provision in the Constitution that gives us the right to own and drive a car.
    Sorry to get off-topic with the remark about registering cars. Yours was a legitimate question about guns and Chicago city ordinances. While I have no first-hand knowledge of Chicago, I do know that they have a gun ban similar to the one in DC that was overturned by the Heller decision. I don't believe Chicago has changed its ordinance; it may have to be overturned by a lawsuit in the wake of Heller. If there is a suit in progress I have not heard of it. Meanwhile, for the average "Joe" in the city, the safest course isjust to go along with it and keep weapons out of town. I don't like to say stuff like this, but the alternative is to risk arrest. Best to wait for resolution of the ban, perhaps joining in any campaign to get it overturned. I have a parallel example for this. My son has a good assortment of guns including an HK .40 handgun and an M14. This year the Navy transferred him to a station in California where the M14 is considered an "assault weapon". So I took custody of all his guns and he has to do without. He was fortunate that I was here to keep them for him.

    So to answer your question about lawfully moving to Chicago with your guns, I think for now it just can't be done. As to the issue of registration, it's just a tool of government for controlling our lives. I don't agree that it's directed at any particular group; if the law is in force it applies to everyone and is equally burdensome to all. In the same manner as outright bans, registration has to be resisted not by defiance but by litigation and political action.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    Richard6218 wrote:
    So to answer your question about lawfully moving to Chicago with your guns, I think for now it just can't be done. As to the issue of registration, it's just a tool of government for controlling our lives. I don't agree that it's directed at any particular group; if the law is in force it applies to everyone and is equally burdensome to all. In the same manner as outright bans, registration has to be resisted not by defiance but by litigation and political action.
    1. Chicago's "moratorium" on registering handguns remains in force. The same day that Heller was handed down, a suit was filed against Chicago.

    2. I already knew it was impossible for me to LAWFULLY move to Chicago with my handguns. My point was that the reason why is that Chicago has REGISTRATION. It simply won't allow me to register. This shows that anyone who says that registration isn't a problem is at best naive and at worst (and usually the case) a liar.

    3. If you don't think that registration in Chicago (and its suspension) ISN'T aimed directly at Black people, then clearly you don't know much about Chicago. Certainly you've never been Black in Chicago. If the law is APPLIED differently to different groups of people, then it does NOT apply equally. I have a friend who used to do pro bono defense work as an attorney in Chicago. He says that the only White faces you'll see in "gun court" in Chicago are the judges, bailiffs and testifying officers. Whites caught carrying guns in Chicago, if they're not otherwise committing a crime are usually released on the scene, WITH THEIR GUNS. Blacks are arrested, tried and sentenced to jail time. Gun control in America arises out of a desire to disarm disfavored minority groups, including Blacks, Indians, Italians and Jews. Chicago is the ironclad proof of this. If you need any more proof, consider the case of Alderman Richard Mell. When he forgot to register his firearms and the police would not register them after the fact, Daley supported a measure in the city council tailored SPECIFICALLY to allow MELL to register HIS firearms. Mell is White.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    LaConner, Washington, USA
    Posts
    649

    Post imported post

    Deanimator wrote:
    Richard6218 wrote:
    So to answer your question about lawfully moving to Chicago with your guns, I think for now it just can't be done. As to the issue of registration, it's just a tool of government for controlling our lives. I don't agree that it's directed at any particular group; if the law is in force it applies to everyone and is equally burdensome to all. In the same manner as outright bans, registration has to be resisted not by defiance but by litigation and political action.
    1. Chicago's "moratorium" on registering handguns remains in force. The same day that Heller was handed down, a suit was filed against Chicago.

    2. I already knew it was impossible for me to LAWFULLY move to Chicago with my handguns. My point was that the reason why is that Chicago has REGISTRATION. It simply won't allow me to register. This shows that anyone who says that registration isn't a problem is at best naive and at worst (and usually the case) a liar.

    3. If you don't think that registration in Chicago (and its suspension) ISN'T aimed directly at Black people, then clearly you don't know much about Chicago. Certainly you've never been Black in Chicago. If the law is APPLIED differently to different groups of people, then it does NOT apply equally. I have a friend who used to do pro bono defense work as an attorney in Chicago. He says that the only White faces you'll see in "gun court" in Chicago are the judges, bailiffs and testifying officers. Whites caught carrying guns in Chicago, if they're not otherwise committing a crime are usually released on the scene, WITH THEIR GUNS. Blacks are arrested, tried and sentenced to jail time. Gun control in America arises out of a desire to disarm disfavored minority groups, including Blacks, Indians, Italians and Jews. Chicago is the ironclad proof of this. If you need any more proof, consider the case of Alderman Richard Mell. When he forgot to register his firearms and the police would not register them after the fact, Daley supported a measure in the city council tailored SPECIFICALLY to allow MELL to register HIS firearms. Mell is White.
    I hope you are not applying your Item 2 to me. I never said registration is not a problem; quite the contrary. I said it needs to be resisted by litigation and political action. I am trying to help and support you with a problem that you postulated here.

    Your Item 3 is something I have frankly never had to deal with. First, I am not Black, so I have to follow your lead in the discussion. Second, I have only spent two days in Chicago and that was as a tourist 8 years ago. BTW, inthose two days I had a very ugly enounter with a cabbie that left a nasty taste in my mouth about Chicago. More to the point of your third paragraph, I agree only partly about the law vs. the application of the law. A law is merely a statement of policy of the political authority. Unless it specifically addresses a group, such as Blacks, or Jews, or other such minorities, it is ethnically neutral. Where I agree with you entirely is in the application of the law. Chicago has long been known for its corrupt politicians, courts, police, ..... everything, back to the 1920's and probably long before that. Everyone in the world knows Chicago's reputation. And it sounds from your story like nothing has changed. As I see it, there is only one solution to this. Someone has to get the Federal Government involved and get some prosecutions of the perpetrators of this blatant discrimination. Maybe it will take a complaint to your congressman, or maybe your senator. (But Obama is a bit preoccupied these days, and I don't know if Durbin would be any help.) Whatever the ultimate means to solve this, it's going to take a lot of clout. Another thought: I don't know if any politicians are going to be really keen about a Second Amendment issue, which is the other side of the problem.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    Richard6218 wrote:
    Deanimator wrote:
    Richard6218 wrote:
    So to answer your question about lawfully moving to Chicago with your guns, I think for now it just can't be done. As to the issue of registration, it's just a tool of government for controlling our lives. I don't agree that it's directed at any particular group; if the law is in force it applies to everyone and is equally burdensome to all. In the same manner as outright bans, registration has to be resisted not by defiance but by litigation and political action.
    1. Chicago's "moratorium" on registering handguns remains in force. The same day that Heller was handed down, a suit was filed against Chicago.

    2. I already knew it was impossible for me to LAWFULLY move to Chicago with my handguns. My point was that the reason why is that Chicago has REGISTRATION. It simply won't allow me to register. This shows that anyone who says that registration isn't a problem is at best naive and at worst (and usually the case) a liar.

    3. If you don't think that registration in Chicago (and its suspension) ISN'T aimed directly at Black people, then clearly you don't know much about Chicago. Certainly you've never been Black in Chicago. If the law is APPLIED differently to different groups of people, then it does NOT apply equally. I have a friend who used to do pro bono defense work as an attorney in Chicago. He says that the only White faces you'll see in "gun court" in Chicago are the judges, bailiffs and testifying officers. Whites caught carrying guns in Chicago, if they're not otherwise committing a crime are usually released on the scene, WITH THEIR GUNS. Blacks are arrested, tried and sentenced to jail time. Gun control in America arises out of a desire to disarm disfavored minority groups, including Blacks, Indians, Italians and Jews. Chicago is the ironclad proof of this. If you need any more proof, consider the case of Alderman Richard Mell. When he forgot to register his firearms and the police would not register them after the fact, Daley supported a measure in the city council tailored SPECIFICALLY to allow MELL to register HIS firearms. Mell is White.
    I hope you are not applying your Item 2 to me. I never said registration is not a problem; quite the contrary. I said it needs to be resisted by litigation and political action. I am trying to help and support you with a problem that you postulated here.

    Your Item 3 is something I have frankly never had to deal with. First, I am not Black, so I have to follow your lead in the discussion. Second, I have only spent two days in Chicago and that was as a tourist 8 years ago. BTW, inthose two days I had a very ugly enounter with a cabbie that left a nasty taste in my mouth about Chicago. More to the point of your third paragraph, I agree only partly about the law vs. the application of the law. A law is merely a statement of policy of the political authority. Unless it specifically addresses a group, such as Blacks, or Jews, or other such minorities, it is ethnically neutral. Where I agree with you entirely is in the application of the law. Chicago has long been known for its corrupt politicians, courts, police, ..... everything, back to the 1920's and probably long before that. Everyone in the world knows Chicago's reputation. And it sounds from your story like nothing has changed. As I see it, there is only one solution to this. Someone has to get the Federal Government involved and get some prosecutions of the perpetrators of this blatant discrimination. Maybe it will take a complaint to your congressman, or maybe your senator. (But Obama is a bit preoccupied these days, and I don't know if Durbin would be any help.) Whatever the ultimate means to solve this, it's going to take a lot of clout. Another thought: I don't know if any politicians are going to be really keen about a Second Amendment issue, which is the other side of the problem.
    2 referred to people I've seen actually claim that registration is not a problem.

    I was born in Chicago and lived there until I went to college and joined the Army.

    Obama has been endorsed by Daley. Daley needs to be indicted (if for nothing else, knowledge of police torture) and the Chicago PD put under Federal supervision. If Obama's elected, that'll never happen.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    LaConner, Washington, USA
    Posts
    649

    Post imported post

    Deanimator wrote:
    Richard6218 wrote:
    Deanimator wrote:
    Richard6218 wrote:
    So to answer your question about lawfully moving to Chicago with your guns, I think for now it just can't be done. As to the issue of registration, it's just a tool of government for controlling our lives. I don't agree that it's directed at any particular group; if the law is in force it applies to everyone and is equally burdensome to all. In the same manner as outright bans, registration has to be resisted not by defiance but by litigation and political action.
    1. Chicago's "moratorium" on registering handguns remains in force. The same day that Heller was handed down, a suit was filed against Chicago.

    2. I already knew it was impossible for me to LAWFULLY move to Chicago with my handguns. My point was that the reason why is that Chicago has REGISTRATION. It simply won't allow me to register. This shows that anyone who says that registration isn't a problem is at best naive and at worst (and usually the case) a liar.

    3. If you don't think that registration in Chicago (and its suspension) ISN'T aimed directly at Black people, then clearly you don't know much about Chicago. Certainly you've never been Black in Chicago. If the law is APPLIED differently to different groups of people, then it does NOT apply equally. I have a friend who used to do pro bono defense work as an attorney in Chicago. He says that the only White faces you'll see in "gun court" in Chicago are the judges, bailiffs and testifying officers. Whites caught carrying guns in Chicago, if they're not otherwise committing a crime are usually released on the scene, WITH THEIR GUNS. Blacks are arrested, tried and sentenced to jail time. Gun control in America arises out of a desire to disarm disfavored minority groups, including Blacks, Indians, Italians and Jews. Chicago is the ironclad proof of this. If you need any more proof, consider the case of Alderman Richard Mell. When he forgot to register his firearms and the police would not register them after the fact, Daley supported a measure in the city council tailored SPECIFICALLY to allow MELL to register HIS firearms. Mell is White.
    I hope you are not applying your Item 2 to me. I never said registration is not a problem; quite the contrary. I said it needs to be resisted by litigation and political action. I am trying to help and support you with a problem that you postulated here.

    Your Item 3 is something I have frankly never had to deal with. First, I am not Black, so I have to follow your lead in the discussion. Second, I have only spent two days in Chicago and that was as a tourist 8 years ago. BTW, inthose two days I had a very ugly enounter with a cabbie that left a nasty taste in my mouth about Chicago. More to the point of your third paragraph, I agree only partly about the law vs. the application of the law. A law is merely a statement of policy of the political authority. Unless it specifically addresses a group, such as Blacks, or Jews, or other such minorities, it is ethnically neutral. Where I agree with you entirely is in the application of the law. Chicago has long been known for its corrupt politicians, courts, police, ..... everything, back to the 1920's and probably long before that. Everyone in the world knows Chicago's reputation. And it sounds from your story like nothing has changed. As I see it, there is only one solution to this. Someone has to get the Federal Government involved and get some prosecutions of the perpetrators of this blatant discrimination. Maybe it will take a complaint to your congressman, or maybe your senator. (But Obama is a bit preoccupied these days, and I don't know if Durbin would be any help.) Whatever the ultimate means to solve this, it's going to take a lot of clout. Another thought: I don't know if any politicians are going to be really keen about a Second Amendment issue, which is the other side of the problem.
    2 referred to people I've seen actually claim that registration is not a problem.

    I was born in Chicago and lived there until I went to college and joined the Army.

    Obama has been endorsed by Daley. Daley needs to be indicted (if for nothing else, knowledge of police torture) and the Chicago PD put under Federal supervision. If Obama's elected, that'll never happen.
    +1

    If I recall it was Daley's father who was mayor at the time of the 1968 riots. Nothing has changed. And I agree about Obama. He wants others like Daleyto perpetuate a racist image so he will have greater control of the country. The notion that election of Obama will end racism in the country is a complete myth.

  22. #22
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Post imported post

    I dunno, was it me and I had to move to Chicago, God forbid, I guess I'd just be a criminal in their eyes . Cuz God knows I'd never register my guns. I was born in Cook county and often heard my father talk about the *Gangsters* that run Chicago and Richard Daley (King Richard the 1st) and all the corruption of that city. Dunno,,but if it was me,,I'd live in one of the Northwest Burbs and have a longer commute.
    ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ Thomas Jefferson

  23. #23
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    KansasMustang wrote:
    I dunno, was it me and I had to move to Chicago, God forbid, I guess I'd just be a criminal in their eyes . Cuz God knows I'd never register my guns. I was born in Cook county and often heard my father talk about the *Gangsters* that run Chicago and Richard Daley (King Richard the 1st) and all the corruption of that city. Dunno,,but if it was me,,I'd live in one of the Northwest Burbs and have a longer commute.
    The cop who ran the Chicago PD's torture operation starting in the '70s just got indicted by the Feds for perjury. Guess who the States Attorney was when the worst of the torture was going on?

    Between Rezko and Burge, Blagojevic and Daley must be eating TUMS like cattle from a trough.

    Of course if Obama gets elected, NEITHER will ever be indicted, much less arrested.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    LaConner, Washington, USA
    Posts
    649

    Post imported post

    Deanimator wrote:
    KansasMustang wrote:
    I dunno, was it me and I had to move to Chicago, God forbid, I guess I'd just be a criminal in their eyes . Cuz God knows I'd never register my guns. I was born in Cook county and often heard my father talk about the *Gangsters* that run Chicago and Richard Daley (King Richard the 1st) and all the corruption of that city. Dunno,,but if it was me,,I'd live in one of the Northwest Burbs and have a longer commute.
    The cop who ran the Chicago PD's torture operation starting in the '70s just got indicted by the Feds for perjury. Guess who the States Attorney was when the worst of the torture was going on?

    Between Rezko and Burge, Blagojevic and Daley must be eating TUMS like cattle from a trough.

    Of course if Obama gets elected, NEITHER will ever be indicted, much less arrested.
    If Obama gets elected the whole country will go in the tank.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    Richard6218 wrote:
    Deanimator wrote:
    KansasMustang wrote:
    I dunno, was it me and I had to move to Chicago, God forbid, I guess I'd just be a criminal in their eyes . Cuz God knows I'd never register my guns. I was born in Cook county and often heard my father talk about the *Gangsters* that run Chicago and Richard Daley (King Richard the 1st) and all the corruption of that city. Dunno,,but if it was me,,I'd live in one of the Northwest Burbs and have a longer commute.
    The cop who ran the Chicago PD's torture operation starting in the '70s just got indicted by the Feds for perjury. Guess who the States Attorney was when the worst of the torture was going on?

    Between Rezko and Burge, Blagojevic and Daley must be eating TUMS like cattle from a trough.

    Of course if Obama gets elected, NEITHER will ever be indicted, much less arrested.
    If Obama gets elected the whole country will go in the tank.
    Whenever a fellow liberal expresses support for Obama, I just ask them, "Do you want the FBI and BATFE run like the Chicago PD?"
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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