Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 46

Thread: ObamaCare Could be Used to Ban Guns in Home Self-Defense

  1. #1
    Regular Member mark5019's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    atlanta ga
    Posts
    135

    Post imported post


    [size=ObamaCare Could be Used to Ban Guns in Home Self-Defense][/size]
    [size=-- Important vote to occur on Tuesday

    Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
    8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
    Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
    http://gunowners.org

    ]
    [/size] Friday, October 9, 2009

    Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus has something to say to gun owners: "Own a gun; lose your coverage!"

    Baucus' socialized health care bill comes up for a Finance Committee vote on Tuesday. We have waited and waited and waited for the shifty Baucus to release legislative language. But he has refused to release anything but a summary -- and we will never have a Congressional Budget Office cost assessment based on actual legislation. Even the summary was kept secret for a long time.

    But, on the basis of the summary, the Baucus bill (which is still unnumbered) tells us virtually nothing about what kind of policy Americans will be required to purchase under penalty of law -- nor the consequences. It simply says:

    * "all U.S. citizens and legal residents would be required to purchase coverage through (1) the individual market...";

    * "individuals would be required to report on their federal income tax return the months for which they maintain the required minimum health coverage...";

    * in addition to an extensive list of statutorily mandated coverage, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius would be empowered to "define and update the categories of treatments, items, and services..." within an insurance plan which would be covered in a policy constituting "required minimum health coverage."

    ObamaCare and gun control

    It is nearly certain that coverage prescribed by the administration will, to control costs, exclude coverage for what it regards as excessively dangerous activities. And, given Sebelius' well-established antipathy to the Second Amendment -- she vetoed concealed carry legislation as governor of Kansas -- we presume she will define these dangerous activities to include hunting and self-defense using a firearm. It is even possible that the Obama-prescribed policy could preclude reimbursement of any kind in a household which keeps a loaded firearm for self-defense.

    The ObamaCare bill already contains language that will punish Americans who engage in unhealthy behavior by allowing insurers to charge them higher insurance premiums. (What constitutes an unhealthy lifestyle is, of course, to be defined by legislators.) Don't be surprised if an anti-gun nut like Sebelius uses this line of thinking to impose ObamaCare policies which result in a back-door gun ban on any American who owns "dangerous" firearms.

    After all, insurers already (and routinely) drop homeowners from their policies for owning certain types of guns or for refusing to use trigger locks (that is, for keeping their guns ready for self-defense!). While not all insurers practice this anti-gun behavior, Gun Owners of America has documented that some do -- Prudential and State Farm being two of the most well-known.

    The good news is that because homeowner insurance is private (and is still subject to the free market) you can go to another company if one drops you. But what are you going to do under nationalized ObamaCare when the regulations written by Secretary Sebelius suspend the applicability of your government-mandated policy because of your gun ownership?

    All of this is in addition to something that GOA has been warning you about for several months ... the certainty that minimum acceptable policies will dump your gun information into a federal database ... a certainty that is reinforced by language in the summary providing for a study to "encourage increased meaningful use of electronic health records."

    Remember, the federal government has already denied more than 150,000 military veterans the right to own guns, without their being convicted of a crime or receiving any due process of law. They were denied because of medical information (such as PTSD) that the FBI later determined disqualified these veterans to own guns.

    Is this what we need on a national level being applied to every gun owner in America?

    Incidentally, failure to comply would subject the average family to $1,500 in fines -- and possibly more for a household with older teens. And, although a Schumer amendment purports to exempt Americans from prison sentences for non-purchase of an ObamaPolicy -- something which was never at issue -- it doesn't prohibit them from being sent to prison for a year and fined an additional $25,000 under the Internal Revenue Code for non-payment of the initial fines.

    ACTION: Contact your two U.S. Senators. Ask him or her, in the strongest terms, to vote against the phony Baucus bill.

    You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your senators the pre-written e-mail message below.

    ----- Pre-written letter -----

    Dear Senator:

    You already know that the phony Baucus bill:

    * Is predicated on $283 billion in phony "cuts" which have never, never ever been realized since a similar commitment to cut Medicare costs in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 -- and will never, never ever be realized under the Baucus bill;

    * Requires massive numbers of Americans to have government-approved insurance which the CBO predicts will be more expensive than current policies;

    * Refuses to provide a cost for these policies, making it almost certain that more and more Americans will find insurance beyond their reach;

    * Has no legislative language and nothing but a CBO "guesstimate" of the cost and benefits, based on a summary.

    On the basis of the summary, the Baucus bill tells us virtually nothing about what kind of policy Americans will be required to purchase under penalty of law -- nor the consequences. It does say that the "Secretary of HHS [Kathleen Sebelius] would be required to define and update the categories of treatments, items, and services..." within an insurance plan which would be covered in a policy constituting "required minimum health coverage."

    This could spell trouble for gun owners.

    It is nearly certain that coverage prescribed by the administration will, to control costs, exclude coverage for what it regards as excessively dangerous activities. And, given Sebelius' well-established antipathy to the Second Amendment -- she vetoed concealed carry legislation as governor of Kansas -- I presume she will define these dangerous activities to include hunting and self-defense using a firearm. It is even possible that the Obama-prescribed policy could preclude reimbursement of any kind in a household which keeps a loaded firearm for self-defense.

    This is, of course, in addition to the certainty that minimum acceptable policies will dump my gun information into a federal database -- a certainty that is reinforced by language in the summary providing for a study to "encourage increased meaningful use of electronic health records."

    Incidentally, failure to comply would subject the average family to $1,500 in fines -- and possibly more for a household with older teens. And, although a Schumer amendment purports to exempt Americans from prison sentences for non-purchase of an ObamaPolicy -- something which was never at issue -- it doesn't prohibit them from being sent to prison for a year and fined an additional $25,000 under the Internal Revenue Code for non-payment of the initial fines.

    Please oppose the Baucus bill.

    Sincerely,
    ar15 sbr glock 19 beretta m9
    Proud Lifetime georgia carry member
    nam vet

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

    Post imported post

    Well, I am glad that somebody besides me sees this possibility and takes it seriously. The "Keep your laws off my body" Left is now trying to grab everyone's body and smear their filthy schemes all over it. These rats are attempting to weave chains of slavery right into the very fabric of the Charter of Freedom. Read "The Screwtape Letters" and see if you don't think the Ratz are taking pages right out of Screwtape's book.

    Obama got the Nobel for his attempts to castrate America. Obamacare is his attempt to castrate the American individual. The chain used to plumb the depths of the perfidy of these lice would reach beyond the limits of the known universe. fortunately the American people are awakening. Despite such an appalling thing as a peace prize for our insignifigant dweeb of a "President", his Party is in full panic mode. As they have swollen with power they have become obtuse in corruption, and corruption that fairly shouts on its own.

    Today the Washington Post's editorial cartoonist - certified leftie Tom Toles - scorcched Charles Rangel - who writes the tax laws - for not paying up his own self. Even the Ratz know that the American people will not sit still for ssuch shenannigans. They are about to throw Rangel right under the bus. the upcoming Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial elections are about to show the light to waffling Blue Dog Democrats. The Ratz know they MUST get Obamacare passed NOW. It is key to their plans to totally abrogate the Constitution and lord it over we proles.

    Even if Obamacare DOES get passed it has a fatal flaw. They cannot afford to have its effects being felt prior to the 2012 electons, so it is set to start in 2013. However, if it is passed, it will finally be out there in all its awfullness and for all to read. If it passes, it will make great campaign fodder for conservative politicians.

    Our advantage liess in the fact that with the results of last year's election, the Ratz became overconfident and reached too far. Our demonstrations and their obtuse perfidy have begun to show the American People just who and what these folks are. This year is urgent, 2010 is supremely important, and 2013 is absolutely critical if we are to avoid Concord Bridge II. So far it is the First Amendment and the Ballot. Only rigorous use of these can stave off the terrible day of the Second Amendment and the Musket.

    I could be wrong. But I am not.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    The passing of any form of Obamacarewill be severelyhazardous to any congress critters political health who votes in favor of it. Could be worse than that.

  4. #4
    Regular Member mark5019's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    atlanta ga
    Posts
    135

    Post imported post

    yes but worse for us
    ar15 sbr glock 19 beretta m9
    Proud Lifetime georgia carry member
    nam vet

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    The passing of any form of Obamacarewill be severelyhazardous to any congress critters political health who votes in favor of it. Could be worse than that.
    I agree but to unpass it is going to be very very difficult and both democrats and republicans are trying to ram through some sort of Health care bill.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    Task Force 16 wrote:
    The passing of any form of Obamacarewill be severelyhazardous to any congress critters political health who votes in favor of it. Could be worse than that.
    I agree but to unpass it is going to be very very difficult and both democrats and republicans are trying to ram through some sort of Health care bill.
    It's the Dems that are trying to ram it through. The Republicans would rather take more time and tackle isolated issues of health care, one at a time.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    Obama Health care is in trouble which is an understatement. The last thing the democrats need or want is to declare war on 70 million firearm owners by proposing such a policy and have it added to Obamacare. If there is one thing that a good many democrat congress membersdislike more than gun owners is the prospect of losing their power. We overthrew one anti-gun congress in 1994 when we as gun owners were a lot less organized than we are now. The democrats have not forgotten that which is only reason that a host of anti gun ownership laws have not been shoved through Congress already. After all, they do control the congress and have one of their stooges in the White House. Anger gun owners at this point in time will only cause millions of second amendmentsupporters to galvanize and become one issue voters.



  8. #8
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    Keep in mind that the perfidious lice trying to ram this disaster through have uniformly set it to take effect AFTER the 2012 elections, so as to give them two Congressional and one Presidential elections during which to consolidate power. Look at the Virginia gubernatorial race. The Deeds people are using tried-and-true DemonRat campaign tactics of personal destruction; but McDonnell's people - to the complete surprise and shock of the Ratz - are throwing it right back in their faces!! The same thing is happening in New Jersey. Finally it seems the Republicns are learning to fight like Francis Marion and not like Howe and Gage. Of course the Ratz are crying "foul" but any fool can plainly see they are hypocrites at best.

    After the victory - which do not forget has yet to be won - we must keep after those who have triumphed. It was not the superior values of the Ratz that got them where they are now; it was the perception that the Republicans were little better. Right now the Ratz bask in the glory of their leader having been awarded a medal by a group of snooty socialists whose idea of "peace" is the decline of the United States and who are well pleased by the current President who has even during his campaign promised them to cut us down a peg or two. Holding the Ratz at bay during the next 12 months will be a hard task, but more and more the ordinary good hard-working American People are realzing that they are the victims of one gigntic fraud and are in terrible danger of losing everything they have to a cabal of would-be despots. Such despots fear the Second Amendment, and well they should; because it was at such as that provision was aimed from the beginning. And they know it!!

    SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS

  9. #9
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241

    Post imported post

    c45man wrote:
    The last thing the democrats need or want is to declare war on 70 million firearm owners by proposing such a policy and have it added to Obamacare. If there is one thing that a good many democrat congress membersdislike more than gun owners is the prospect of losing their power. We overthrew one anti-gun congress in 1994 when we as gun owners were a lot less organized than we are now. The democrats have not forgotten that which is only reason that a host of anti gun ownership laws have not been shoved through Congress already. After all, they do control the congress and have one of their stooges in the White House. Anger gun owners at this point in time will only cause millions of second amendmentsupporters to galvanize and become one issue voters.
    Let's hope you're right. But as I see it Congress has ceased listening to,and fearing theAmerican people.Those in power and thoseassembled to assist have a vision of a new American Government, and will attempt achieving this it at all costs. Use gun 70 million gun owns are a needlein the haystack compared to the county in a whole who areon the verge of lossing all our rights. IMO.
    Im proudly straight. I'm free to not support Legalization, GLBT, Illegal Aliens, or the Islamization of America.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    I just saw somewhere that Representative Rangel in the House has said that the House health care bill meets the requirements to go through by reconciliation--the so-called "nuclear option."

    http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=102x4105932

    http://www.lifeandhealthinsurancenew...-Maneuver.aspx
    If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.--Samuel Adams as Candidus, Boston Gazette 20 Jan. 1772

    Veteran--USA FA
    NRA Benefactor Life
    Tennessee Firearms Association Life

  11. #11
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    It is worse than that. I have in my posession an Email by Sen. Warner explaining that the House bill will be passed as a TAX bill, sent to the Senate, have its language stripped out and replaced by Senate language and VOILA! a health care bill that is a license to tax, granted by the House, that sails through the reconciliation bullcrap. This means the IRS will be given control over your medical expenditures and "healthcare needs" could be BACKDOOR TO OUTRIGHT CONFISCATION of wealth and really anything else. The Demonrat drool over this power grab is threatening to make the Potomac flood. Of course they will call that "global warming" and try to ram through even more tyranny.

    Here is the reason that this is not (yet) reason for an armed defense of the Constitution:

    Although the Ratz have been avoiding posting the final legislation to be passed so that the general public can review and comment (and this is what Obama SWORE would happen); the Ratz cannot afford to have the effects hit until after the 2012 elections, so nothing will change. However, once the bill - whatever it may wind up being - passes - and that is STILL an IF - then they can no longer hide it. Can you say Republican campaign fodder??

    The DemonRatz fight DIRTY. I say we need to fight dirty, too. There is no reason in Hell why you shouldadhere toQueensbury Rules in a streetfight. In fact, it's damned downright foolish.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    I don't believe there is a law on the books that can't be repealed. That's why the mid-terms are so important right now. If enough Dems are ousted and replaced by Republcans or Independants there may be a chance to undo much of what has been done so far. Won't be easy by any means, but I think it can be done.

    One way or the other.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    The GOA made this up out of whole cloth. The bulk of the article is nothing more than a window into the over-wrought imagination of the writer.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    I smell a "bait and switch" coming down the pike, in this legislation.

    I thought that was against the law?

  15. #15
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    Dude, if you would put ANYTHING past the DemonRatz, then let me tell you I have a great deal. I will sign a Deed of Quitclaim to any or all of several bridges over the Potomac River for the mere sum of then thousand dollars each. Yesss indeed. Imagine that..

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    Well if GOA had some proof, even a shred . . . .

    They present no evidence even pointing to the possibilities outlined in the article.

    It's an opinion piece, the thrust of which is the Dems are so craven that their plan is to outlaw guns through health care legislation and administrative rules. The arguments in the article are buttressed only by the shifting sands of presumption.

    Again, not a shred of evidence . . . .

  17. #17
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    IF your neighbor has openly said that he wants to dig a tunnel under your property line and undermine the foudation of your house; and if in fact you have in the past caught him at it and stopped him and filled in the tunnel; and one day you notice that he has bought a brand new shovel and other digging equipment; and he tells you he is going to plant a posey garden; and if there is not "a shred of evidence" that he intends to use the equipment for a second undermining attempt; would you then take him at his word??

    Or would you suspect the sneaky SOB is up to his old tricks??

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    deanf wrote:
    Well if GOA had some proof, even a shred . . . .

    They present no evidence even pointing to the possibilities outlined in the article.

    It's an opinion piece, the thrust of which is the Dems are so craven that their plan is to outlaw guns through health care legislation and administrative rules. The arguments in the article are buttressed only by the shifting sands of presumption.

    Again, not a shred of evidence . . . .
    What do you call this?????
    It is nearly certain that coverage prescribed by the administration will, to control costs, exclude coverage for what it regards as excessively dangerous activities. And, given Sebelius' well-established antipathy to the Second Amendment -- she vetoed concealed carry legislation as governor of Kansas -- we presume she will define these dangerous activities to include hunting and self-defense using a firearm. It is even possible that the Obama-prescribed policy could preclude reimbursement of any kind in a household which keeps a loaded firearm for self-defense
    Or this?
    The ObamaCare bill already contains language that will punish Americans who engage in unhealthy behavior by allowing insurers to charge them higher insurance premiums. (What constitutes an unhealthy lifestyle is, of course, to be defined by legislators.) Don't be surprised if an anti-gun nut like Sebelius uses this line of thinking to impose ObamaCare policies which result in a back-door gun ban on any American who owns "dangerous" firearms.
    GOA has presented a potential scenario based on what we know about the current administration and the Dems that control congress. I don't think there is anyone on Obama's staff that isn't anti-gun.

    You don't wait until your enemies actually do something against you, before your react. You have to try and anticipate what they might do and set about counter measures to prevent them from being able to initiate those possibilities.

    We know what the goals of the memebers of theObama Administration are. One of them is to do away with our 2A Rights. They can't openly do that through straight up legislation. So they'll have to find a sneaky way to do it. That's what they've been doing for decades with many of our Rights.


  19. #19
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    Not only gun rights are at stake. The Ratz want to eliminate the 2A so as to remove all other obstacles which it protects. There are already examples of how this subterfuge works in private industry.

    For example, Valeo Oil recently increased the deductible on the insurance it provides employees with from $400 to $4,000. However, by meeting (or having alreay met) such adjustments in personal lifestyle as Valero deems appropriaate and needful, one can get that deductible back down to $400. And no, the increased deductible is NOT a "penalty"; the re-instatement of a normal deductible is a "Healthy Reward". I am not making one word of this up.

    It ought to be as clear as beer pi$$ why the Ratz are insisting on an "Individual Mandate" forcing everyone to buy health insurance. The hubbub over the "public option" is a smokescreen. "Getting everyone into the system" is what they advertise this as. Yep, they want us in one system or the other; and if they can't get us into the criminal justice system, then they will settle for the "health care" system. This system, that system it doesn't matter as long as they have the last word and call the shots. Back in the day the Left said "Keep your laws off my body!!"

    But they are determined to put their laws on mine, big time. Well, I am not going to have it. If they want a revolt.....

    SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS!!!

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    deanf wrote:
    Well if GOA had some proof, even a shred . . . .

    They present no evidence even pointing to the possibilities outlined in the article.

    It's an opinion piece, the thrust of which is the Dems are so craven that their plan is to outlaw guns through health care legislation and administrative rules. The arguments in the article are buttressed only by the shifting sands of presumption.

    Again, not a shred of evidence . . . .
    What do you call this?????
    -- we presume she will define these dangerous activities to include hunting and self-defense using a firearm.
    Or this?
    Don't be surprised if an anti-gun nut like Sebelius uses this line of thinking to impose ObamaCare policies which result in a back-door gun ban on any American who owns "dangerous" firearms.
    . . . .
    You don't wait until your enemies actually do something. . . .
    No evidence. Mere presumption.

    If the Obama administration actually did anything along these lines, pro-gun democratic legislators would be the first to support an amendment that would preclude it. The Obama administration knows this -- they won't try it.

    Nothing stops private insurers fromdefining gun ownership as a dangerous activity and raising rates on usnow. What we should be doing is seeking an amendment to the current billsthat would preclude all insurers from pulling this sort of thing.

    Next straw man, please. . . .

  21. #21
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    What in the Constitutiongives the Federal Government any sort of authority concerning 'health care'? Where in the Constitution does it saythe Federal Government may compete financially with the private sector and 'own/control' any of that? WHERE?

    Quote:"What we should be doing is seeking an amendment to the current billsthat would preclude all insurers from pulling this sort of thing."


    No! what we should be doing is screaming at the top of our lungs that the bills are unconstitutional at any level, in any form for any reason. No neocom apologists...



    NO!

    If they foist this crap off on us... the governmentbecomes de facto illegitimate.

    Next step?



  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    What do you call this?????
    Or this?
    Again, only presumptions. The GOA even admits the are only presuming what might happen.
    we presume she will define these dangerous activities to include hunting and self-defense using a firearm.
    They present no evidence that this is the true plan. By using the word "presume" they admit they have no evidence for their theory. You do know that the word "presume" implies a lack of evidence, don't you?

    The GOA has a history of these sorts of wild imaginary presumptions.

  23. #23
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    But they leave the door wide open for it to happen, so I would presume the same thing.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    But they leave the door wide open for it to happen
    A door built through a wall of conspiracy theories made up out of whole cloth.

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    deanf wrote:
    What do you call this?????
    Or this?
    Again, only presumptions. The GOA even admits the are only presuming what might happen.
    we presume she will define these dangerous activities to include hunting and self-defense using a firearm.
    They present no evidence that this is the true plan. By using the word "presume" they admit they have no evidence for their theory. You do know that the word "presume" implies a lack of evidence, don't you?

    The GOA has a history of these sorts of wild imaginary presumptions.
    deanf,

    Suppose you find a pride of wild lions roaming around outside your house.

    1. You know that lions are predatores and kill for food
    2. You know that they are not real particular as to what they eat as long as it is meat.
    3. You know that they are more powerful than you are.

    Would it not be safe to "assume" that if you go outside, the lions will attack, kill and eat you?

    We know that most, if notall, of Obama's administration staff are anti-gunners.
    We know that many of them would like nothing more than to do away with the 2A.
    We know that many of them would like nothing more than to ban all firearm ownership.

    I believe it is pretty safe to "assume" that they will try every angle they can find to strip us of our guns.

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
  •