Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: GUN CONTROL . . FRUSTRATES . . OBAMA

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    861

    Post imported post

    . . . Associated Press : Barack Obama

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090525/...obama_liberals

    Frustrated Obama liberals want to know why they can't stop new gun rights laws from passing . [ loaded guns in national parks]

    Obama does not want to endanger Democrats from conservative districts by stressing divisive issues such as gun control , at this time .

    Rep. Carolyn McCarthy , D-N.Y. ,wants Americans to stand up against gun groups like the NRA & GOA . What are Americans supposed to do ?

    " People do not want to be on the wrong side of this particular cultural divide " Wait for it ... " It's too bad there's not a national organization to counter the NRA . " Rep. David Price , D-N.C. ...

    And then David said ... " Linking the Democratic Party to gun control can be dangerous at election time . "



  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Obama is too smart to start passing anti-gun laws. As for Gitmo, that baffles me. I don't know who's stupid enough to support keeping that place open.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    861

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    As for Gitmo, that baffles me. I don't know who's stupid enough to support keeping that place open.

    There you go again AWDstylez... changing the subject away fromgun rights.

    To be honest though , are you baffled as to why the detainees are not being shipped to Bristol ? How about Obama's mansion in Chicago ? You could getmo done that way . That mansion with a quest house is going to be empty for four years on our dime . I'd go Chicago pizza over Connecticut seafood .

    Let's refocus on on OC & RKBA .

    Do you know anyone stupid enough to believe a progressive liberalwhen it comes to our Second Amendment's individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms ?






  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    581

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Obama is too smart to start passing anti-gun laws. As for Gitmo, that baffles me. I don't know who's stupid enough to support keeping that place open.
    People who don't want to have dangerous terrorists realeased maybe? I don't know who is stupid enough to even consider closing Gitmo and putting dangerous terrorists captured in combat zones of foreign countries into US justicesystem and subjectingthemto legal protections and rights they were never eligible to have. That's supid right there!

    P.S. I never liked Busha single bit and I never thought thatwhatever comesafter him could possibly be worse. But here you go - 6 months into Nobama's administration and I say what I thought I'd never say: "I'd rather have Bush back for another 8 years!"

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    R a Z o R wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    As for Gitmo, that baffles me. I don't know who's stupid enough to support keeping that place open.

    There you go again AWDstylez... changing the subject away fromgun rights.


    Ah, you're right. Civil rights has nothing to do with the second amendment cause.

    :quirky

    Your threads are totally worthless, so I don't feel the least bit bad about focusing on the more relevant, realistic, non-fear mongering issues.


  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Chaingun81 wrote:
    rights they were never eligible to have. That's supid right there!

    Inalienable rights what?

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    861

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Inalienable rights what?
    That's easy AWDstylez ,our Second Anendment is frustrating all the progressive liberals and Obama's agenda to take away our inalienable rights .

    I believe what they say and I don't like it . Do you think they are liars ?

    Thank God for our elections . UNITE & VOTE



  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    581

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Chaingun81 wrote:
    rights they were never eligible to have. That's supid right there!

    Inalienable rights what?
    These people were captured inthe combat zones abroad while armed and firing upon US military and not belonging to an official armed force of any country. Neither US Criminal Law nor International laws pertraining to POW apply to them. As far as I'm concerned, the only inalienable right they have is abullet in the head.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Chaingun81 wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    Chaingun81 wrote:
    rights they were never eligible to have. That's supid right there!

    Inalienable rights what?
    These people were captured inthe combat zones abroad while armed and firing upon US military and not belonging to an official armed force of any country.


    proof or it didn't happen


    Funny that this oh-so pro-rights group can't see the slipperly slope of Gitmo.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    581

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Chaingun81 wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    Chaingun81 wrote:
    rights they were never eligible to have. That's supid right there!

    Inalienable rights what?
    These people were captured inthe combat zones abroad while armed and firing upon US military and not belonging to an official armed force of any country.


    proof or it didn't happen


    Funny that this oh-so pro-rights group can't see the slipperly slope of Gitmo.
    I'm not gonna waste my day arguing with you. Especially, I'm not gonna respond to yourusual childish "proof or it didn't happen" line. Neither you nor me have positively reliableinformation to prove either way.

    I told you my opinion, you told me yours. We aren't gonna convince each other otherwise, so why waste time.



  11. #11
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    R a Z o R wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    As for Gitmo, that baffles me. I don't know who's stupid enough to support keeping that place open.

    There you go again AWDstylez... changing the subject away fromgun rights.


    Ah, you're right. Civil rights has nothing to do with the second amendment cause.

    :quirky

    Your threads are totally worthless, so I don't feel the least bit bad about focusing on the more relevant, realistic, non-fear mongering issues.
    Civil rights have nothing to do with unlawful combatants found on foreign battlefields.

    Shoot them and move on.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Texas, United States
    Posts
    130

    Post imported post

    As someone who has actually been shot by terrorists, I say we should line them up, put them on their knees and put one in the head of every single person who shoots at our troops.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    581

    Post imported post

    forever_frost wrote:
    As someone who has actually been shot by terrorists, I say we should line them up, put them on their knees and put one in the head of every single person who shoots at our troops.
    +100

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Chaingun81 wrote:
    me have positively reliableinformation to prove either way.


    Then why did you state it like fact? If there's no positive proof that they ARE terrorists, what are we doing holding them indefinitely with no due process, Innocent until proven guilty, etc?


    When you start compromising what makes America America, all in the name of "safety," (where's Huffy?)you head down a slippy slope from which there is no returning.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Deanimator wrote:
    Civil rights have nothing to do with unlawful combatants found on foreign battlefields.

    Shoot them and move on.
    Or anyone proclaimed a "terrorist," for any reason, with no proof or trial, according current law. Get all those "terrorist" pro-2A people, we're going to line them up and shoot them, maybe waterboard them first for false confessions. The safety of the country depends on it. It's for the children...

  16. #16
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    Last I checked, ununiformed combatants were considered SPIES and are entitled to a summary execution by the oh-so-hallowed "Geneva conventions". You no playa by the rules, you outta da game POIMENENT.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    861

    Post imported post

    Chaingun81 wrote:
    These people were captured inthe combat zones abroad while armed and firing upon US military and not belonging to an official armed force of any country. Neither US Criminal Law nor International laws pertraining to POW apply to them. As far as I'm concerned, the only inalienable right they have is abullet in the head.
    This article proves in their own words that the liberals want to destroy the Second Amendment but do not want to be voted out. Why should we keep them at the ready ?

    Where do the captured U.S. military gettaken ?

    Beheadings save on prison cost , where inalienable rights don't exist .

    Unite & Vote to save all of our inalienable rights .





  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Alexcabbie wrote:
    Last I checked, ununiformed combatants

    We're fighting a war against a feeling: terror. What do the uniforms of the "terror" military look like?

    Do you see, by declaring war onsomething non-physical, you can make the military of that non-existant opposing force... anyone you want.

    We aren't at war with Iraq. We aren't at war with Afganistan. We're at war with "terror." Who is "terror" and where are its uniformed combatants?

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    861

    Post imported post

    R a Z o R wrote:
    . . . Associated Press : Barack Obama

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090525/...obama_liberals

    Frustrated Obama liberals want to know why they can't stop new gun rights laws from passing . [ loaded guns in national parks]

    Obama does not want to endanger Democrats from conservative districts by stressing divisive issues such as gun control , at this time .

    Rep. Carolyn McCarthy , D-N.Y. ,wants Americans to stand up against gun groups like the NRA & GOA . What are Americans supposed to do ?

    " People do not want to be on the wrong side of this particular cultural divide " Wait for it ... " It's too bad there's not a national organization to counter the NRA . " Rep. David Price , D-N.C. ...

    And then David said ... " Linking the Democratic Party to gun control can be dangerous at election time . "

    AWDstylez ,

    please stay focused on the topic of Open Carry and Gun Rights .





  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    R a Z o R wrote:
    R a Z o R wrote:
    . . . Associated Press : Barack Obama

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090525/...obama_liberals

    Frustrated Obama liberals want to know why they can't stop new gun rights laws from passing . [ loaded guns in national parks]

    Obama does not want to endanger Democrats from conservative districts by stressing divisive issues such as gun control , at this time .

    Rep. Carolyn McCarthy , D-N.Y. ,wants Americans to stand up against gun groups like the NRA & GOA . What are Americans supposed to do ?

    " People do not want to be on the wrong side of this particular cultural divide " Wait for it ... " It's too bad there's not a national organization to counter the NRA . " Rep. David Price , D-N.C. ...

    And then David said ... " Linking the Democratic Party to gun control can be dangerous at election time . "

    AWDstylez ,

    please stay focused on the topic of Open Carry and Gun Rights .




    Civil rights are directly applicable. Your topic is more pointless,rhetoric crap. How many anti-Obama misinformation topics do you need spewing the same garbage?


  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    861

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    How many anti-Obama misinformation topics do you need spewing the same garbage?
    AWDstylez ,

    Associated Press is reporting on the Obama's Brady Bunch . :quirky


  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    R a Z o R, While I can't say I agree with much of what you are saying, I would like to say I have noticed a marked improvement in the clarity of your posts. I know that you've had some problems communicating, and I congratulate you on your improvements.

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Alexcabbie wrote:
    Last I checked, ununiformed combatants
    ¬*

    We're fighting a war against a feeling: terror.¬* What do the uniforms of the "terror" military look like?

    Do you see, by declaring war on¬*something non-physical, you can make the military of that non-existant opposing force... anyone you want.

    We aren't at war with Iraq.¬* We aren't at war with Afganistan.¬* We're at war with "terror."¬* Who is "terror" and where are its uniformed combatants?
    I guess it's just not a slippery slope they find themselves on, AWD.

    Unfortunately, if the day came when we had to bear arms against our government, I imagine we'd be considered "non-uniformed combatants" and subject to gitmo ourselves in short order.

Posting Permissions

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