-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
John Warner - Anti Gun
- Thread starter Taclead
- Start date
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
rebfan wrote:
See, now that's the kind of stuff that blows my mind. In the last 8 years we have seen the rise of Homeland Security, an assault on posse comitatus and the right of habeus corpus, and domestic spying.
Yet you are afraid of what Obama might do.
All I can say is, whatever Obama does, he can thank the Republicans for giving him all the tools he needs to do it. And he can thank all of us who voted for them, too.
The people in a democracy get the government they deserve, good and hard.
rebfan wrote:
See, now that's the kind of stuff that blows my mind. In the last 8 years we have seen the rise of Homeland Security, an assault on posse comitatus and the right of habeus corpus, and domestic spying.
Yet you are afraid of what Obama might do.
All I can say is, whatever Obama does, he can thank the Republicans for giving him all the tools he needs to do it. And he can thank all of us who voted for them, too.
The people in a democracy get the government they deserve, good and hard.
imported post
I don't necessarily agree with all that you wrote, but I will point out that it was a bi-partisan effort.
Just as a candidate for President, Obama has asked the Justice Department(http://beltwayblips.com/story/obama_to_doj_block_terrorist_ad/) to go after a 527 based on an ad they did that Obama disagreed with.
Obama has twice gone after Chicago radio station WGN( http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/08/obama_campaign_confronts_wgn_r.html)because he did not agree with the fact they were running programs that were critical of him. He asked his supporters to call the radio station and demand they not run the programs. Recall, the Dems are pushing and will, if they increase their margin in the Senate, for the "fairness" doctorine that will force radio stations to carry points of views from both sides. Notice, that it does not cover newspapers or tv station, since the Dems already have control of most of those. However, talk radio is dominated by the right, and the Dems can't stand that.
What do you think Obama might do to shut us up if he is elected President?
We already know the threat the Dems are to our gun rights.
I don't necessarily agree with all that you wrote, but I will point out that it was a bi-partisan effort.
Just as a candidate for President, Obama has asked the Justice Department(http://beltwayblips.com/story/obama_to_doj_block_terrorist_ad/) to go after a 527 based on an ad they did that Obama disagreed with.
Obama has twice gone after Chicago radio station WGN( http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/08/obama_campaign_confronts_wgn_r.html)because he did not agree with the fact they were running programs that were critical of him. He asked his supporters to call the radio station and demand they not run the programs. Recall, the Dems are pushing and will, if they increase their margin in the Senate, for the "fairness" doctorine that will force radio stations to carry points of views from both sides. Notice, that it does not cover newspapers or tv station, since the Dems already have control of most of those. However, talk radio is dominated by the right, and the Dems can't stand that.
What do you think Obama might do to shut us up if he is elected President?
We already know the threat the Dems are to our gun rights.
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
rebfan wrote:
Again, and I can't stress this enough: whatever Obama does he will find easier to do thanks to all the new powers Bush, Republicans, and theirsupporters have given him.
Bipartisan effort? Sure was. Making my point that the Republicrats are all one big party, with two wings.
Which is why I will not respond to the fear mongering. Remember how McCain was the guy they invented the word "RINO" for, it was "4 legs good, 2 legs bad", now it's "4 legs good, 2 legs better".
rebfan wrote:
Again, and I can't stress this enough: whatever Obama does he will find easier to do thanks to all the new powers Bush, Republicans, and theirsupporters have given him.
Bipartisan effort? Sure was. Making my point that the Republicrats are all one big party, with two wings.
Which is why I will not respond to the fear mongering. Remember how McCain was the guy they invented the word "RINO" for, it was "4 legs good, 2 legs bad", now it's "4 legs good, 2 legs better".
imported post
You don't want me to fear what Obama may do, but if he does it, you would want us to believe it was due to the last eight years? Obama already has, as I have pointed out, notions on how heviews the 1st and second Amendments. I hardly think the last eight years have had any impact on those views.
I agree McCain better wake up and realize he needs to stop kissing up to the left. But, I would rather have him in the WH than Obama.
You don't want me to fear what Obama may do, but if he does it, you would want us to believe it was due to the last eight years? Obama already has, as I have pointed out, notions on how heviews the 1st and second Amendments. I hardly think the last eight years have had any impact on those views.
I agree McCain better wake up and realize he needs to stop kissing up to the left. But, I would rather have him in the WH than Obama.
Skeptic
Founder's Club Member
imported post
http://www.nvdaily.com/news/308756441732398.bsp
Warner now admits that he said it but now says he regrets the comments.
Which does not explain why for years he angrily denied making the comments, and impugned the veracity and integrity of the people who made the charges. I beleive one of the comments made was "nothing but words typed on a page".
I guess having a tape makes a difference.
http://www.nvdaily.com/news/308756441732398.bsp
Warner now admits that he said it but now says he regrets the comments.
Which does not explain why for years he angrily denied making the comments, and impugned the veracity and integrity of the people who made the charges. I beleive one of the comments made was "nothing but words typed on a page".
I guess having a tape makes a difference.
Skeptic
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Tomahawk wrote:
But the tools of a corrupt overly powerful state, in the hands of a man with worshipers and dedicated followers, become more than a danger, they become a dire threat.
The sort of man who would allow himself to be worshiped, to be called Messiah and a gift from God, in control of those already dark tools of the state, to me is more than just a little scary.
Tomahawk wrote:
I totally agree both parties have let the State become too powerful of a leviathan.
But the tools of a corrupt overly powerful state, in the hands of a man with worshipers and dedicated followers, become more than a danger, they become a dire threat.
The sort of man who would allow himself to be worshiped, to be called Messiah and a gift from God, in control of those already dark tools of the state, to me is more than just a little scary.
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
I won't argue with you about the danger of Obama.Videos like this really creep me out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOtGr1JFCnE
Of course, I haven't much hope either way. I fear we live in interesting times.
I won't argue with you about the danger of Obama.Videos like this really creep me out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOtGr1JFCnE
Of course, I haven't much hope either way. I fear we live in interesting times.
Marco
Regular Member
imported post
Tomahawk wrote:
At least none of these young men said they wanted to be a Mack, Pimp,Drug Dealer, Murderer, Hitman, Hustler, Rapist, Socialist/Communist/Fascist leader, BATFE agent or anything that might be considered criminal in nature.
Tomahawk wrote:
Agreed Obama and the current adminis a danger to America.
At least none of these young men said they wanted to be a Mack, Pimp,Drug Dealer, Murderer, Hitman, Hustler, Rapist, Socialist/Communist/Fascist leader, BATFE agent or anything that might be considered criminal in nature.
DonTreadOnMe
Regular Member
imported post
Tomahawk wrote
That is beyond creepy.
Tomahawk wrote
That is beyond creepy.
Thundar
Regular Member
imported post
I was curious about Bill Redpath's D rating from GOA. Here is my e-mail to him and his answer:
I do not agree with the fourth sentence in this plank of the platform. I support a background check for any transfer of a firearm, and think that they should not legally be transferred to convicted violent felons or individuals who have been adjudicated as mentally incompetent. Thank you. Bill Redpath
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 11:15 AM
To: bill@redpath2008.com
Subject: Your Stand on Gun Rights
Mr. Redpath,
Could you please provide an unambiguous statement about your position on gun rights? Do you fully support article 1.6 of the National Libertarian Platform?
National Libertarian Platform
1.6 Self-Defense
The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the right to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.
I am very concerned because the Gun Owners of America Guide gives you a grade of “D”. I do not understand and would welcome an explanation.
Thank You for your time,
XXX XXXXXXXXX
I was curious about Bill Redpath's D rating from GOA. Here is my e-mail to him and his answer:
I do not agree with the fourth sentence in this plank of the platform. I support a background check for any transfer of a firearm, and think that they should not legally be transferred to convicted violent felons or individuals who have been adjudicated as mentally incompetent. Thank you. Bill Redpath
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 11:15 AM
To: bill@redpath2008.com
Subject: Your Stand on Gun Rights
Mr. Redpath,
Could you please provide an unambiguous statement about your position on gun rights? Do you fully support article 1.6 of the National Libertarian Platform?
National Libertarian Platform
1.6 Self-Defense
The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the right to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.
I am very concerned because the Gun Owners of America Guide gives you a grade of “D”. I do not understand and would welcome an explanation.
Thank You for your time,
XXX XXXXXXXXX
DHCruiser
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Sounds like he'd be for removing the ability of an individual to sell their gun privately then. Not a good sign.
Sounds like he'd be for removing the ability of an individual to sell their gun privately then. Not a good sign.
Thundar
Regular Member
imported post
DHCruiser wrote:
DHCruiser wrote:
Troubling indeed. I sentMr. Redpathanother e-mail. Hopefully he will respond again. I really don't like his answer, but at least he answered honestly and quickly.
savery
Regular Member
imported post
Thanks for the research, Thundar.
If he disagrees with "We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition" then he pretty much disagrees with the second amendment.
Thus the D rating from GOA i presume.
Thanks for the research, Thundar.
If he disagrees with "We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition" then he pretty much disagrees with the second amendment.
Thus the D rating from GOA i presume.
Thundar
Regular Member
imported post
savery wrote:
As I said, I sent him another e-mail. I really hope he responds. Hard for me to believe that a Libertarian would advocate the loss of property rights and the building up of a firearms regulatory scheme???
I sure hope he wakes up and smells the coffee. Libertarians are supposed to shoot zombies, not turn into them.
savery wrote:
As I said, I sent him another e-mail. I really hope he responds. Hard for me to believe that a Libertarian would advocate the loss of property rights and the building up of a firearms regulatory scheme???
I sure hope he wakes up and smells the coffee. Libertarians are supposed to shoot zombies, not turn into them.