• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Saner Gun Laws?

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
I thought this was an interesting line in the article: "Asked last week about the administration’s positions on these matters, Mr. Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said the White House was focused on “the important healing process.” That is part of the president’s duties. So is protecting public safety."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/opinion/23sun1.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print

So, the President (D) is focusing on the healing process and not gun-restriction. And this whole time I was under the impression by some in the media, that President Obama was out to take our firearms away. You would think this gun-hating Democrat would be capitalizing on this tragic event, but all indicators are that he is interested in discussing current political discourse, not firearm confiscation.

There are some fun little lines in this article about how we would be "safer" if this that and the other were to occur--hey, it's the NY Times, what do you expect!
 

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
I thought this was an interesting line in the article: "Asked last week about the administration’s positions on these matters, Mr. Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said the White House was focused on “the important healing process.” That is part of the president’s duties. So is protecting public safety."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/opinion/23sun1.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print

So, the President (D) is focusing on the healing process and not gun-restriction. And this whole time I was under the impression by some in the media, that President Obama was out to take our firearms away. You would think this gun-hating Democrat would be capitalizing on this tragic event, but all indicators are that he is interested in discussing current political discourse, not firearm confiscation.

There are some fun little lines in this article about how we would be "safer" if this that and the other were to occur--hey, it's the NY Times, what do you expect!


The president is nothing if not pragmatic. He knows his public persona must be father figure; the Congress will take care of the specifics.
 

KaosDad

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
74
Location
Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
Obama has set the agenda. He will now let his minions execute against teh agenda and keep his own hands clean. He has started to seed the SCOTUS and his next appointment to the BATFE will tell all.
 

Ruby

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
1,201
Location
Renton, Washington, USA
Obama has set the agenda. He will now let his minions execute against teh agenda and keep his own hands clean. He has started to seed the SCOTUS and his next appointment to the BATFE will tell all.

See the Michigan forum. BATFE outed by their own emplyees for smuggling the guns into Mexico. If this is proven, it will be the death knell for BATFE; apparently they have a history of committing crimes.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
Obummer knows that if he wants to be president 8 years instead of 4, he needs to stay away from gun control. If he is re-elected, he will go after them with a passion. Then he'll probably try to kill the election process.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Obummer knows that if he wants to be president 8 years instead of 4, he needs to stay away from gun control. If he is re-elected, he will go after them with a passion. Then he'll probably try to kill the election process.

Of course he will, he's a NAZI :rolleyes: A half black (not actually black) , half white (not actually white), Mohamed (Christian) worshiping middle easterner (was born in America) NAZI:rolleyes:, just ask Glenn Beck...he has all the dirt on those dirty "progressives."

*YAWN*...and I expected more from a rodbender, much MUCH more!
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
Of course he will, he's a NAZI :rolleyes: A half black (not actually black) , half white (not actually white), Mohamed (Christian) worshiping middle easterner (was born in America) NAZI:rolleyes:, just ask Glenn Beck...he has all the dirt on those dirty "progressives."

*YAWN*...and I expected more from a rodbender, much MUCH more!

Say what you will. All you need to do is go back in time a little and look at all the votes he had made while in the Illinois legislature. He is anti-gun ALL THE WAY. He is just biding his time. The color of his skin and whatever religion he professes does not even come into play until one of you "progressives" bring it up.

How dare you call me a racist, a birther, and say that I believe he is a Muslim, you don't even know me. I challenge you to show me one post of mine that indicates that what you accuse me of is true.
 

beebobby

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
847
Location
, ,
Despite all the hate and fear of this President that some project, I have more guns, more ammo, fewer restrictive gun laws,my health ins. has not gone up and I got more back on my last tax return (for roughly the same income). Without some kind of evidence, it's hard for me to buy into this whole "Obama is destroying our country and coming for my guns" diatribe.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
Despite all the hate and fear of this President that some project, I have more guns, more ammo, fewer restrictive gun laws,my health ins. has not gone up and I got more back on my last tax return (for roughly the same income). Without some kind of evidence, it's hard for me to buy into this whole "Obama is destroying our country and coming for my guns" diatribe.

Right. He is bringing change we can believe in. He is truly the messiah. Now I see the light. You got more back on your tax returns--under the law written by the Bush Administration that he opposes and will make a campaign issue in '12, so that makes it so. "Evidence"? Open your eyes, and the impact on future generations of his health totalitarianism has yet to occur. His appointees are marxist, he is indoctrinated by marxism, not educated in political science, and looking at his pronouncements make it clear where he stands on stateism as well as his contempt for Americans who "cling to their guns and bibles." You are one of those we can thank for this dark age in US history because you believe the lies and have a surface deep understanding of realpolitik. Congratulations.
 

beebobby

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
847
Location
, ,
Marxist blablablah, totalitarian blahblahblah, socialist blahblahblah, messiah blahblahblah. Well you certainly hit all the talking points except you missed the one where Obama has personally invited the illegal aliens to dinner and offered them a ride down to the voting station. I will not buy into any talking point by either side without substantiation from several sources. I go on evidence and facts, not rhetoric.

My extra tax money came from Obama's Making Work Pay tax credit.
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Here is his past voting record

Opposed bill okaying illegal gun use in home invasions. (Aug 2008)
Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
April 2008: "Bittergate" labeled Obama elitist. (Apr 2008)
Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)


Barak Obama " I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry." Yet than continued to explain why he voted ok for retired cops to carry.

More quotes

1 "I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer’s lobby."

2 Let’s be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the
assault weapons ban.


Bush was no angel either:

Voting record:
Make America safer by prosecuting criminals with guns. (Oct 2004)
If gun laws are broken, hold people accountable. (Oct 2000)
First, enforce the law; then keep guns from wrong people. (Oct 2000)
Restrict lawsuits against gun makers. (Sep 2000)
Government should pay for voluntary trigger locks. (May 2000)
Project Sentry: juvenile gun laws & school accountability. (Apr 2000)
Avoid Columbine via gun control, values & character ed. (Apr 2000)
Would sign, but would not push, gun restrictions. (Apr 2000)
Ban automatic weapons & high-capacity ammunition clips. (Apr 2000)
More laws & enforcement on juveniles with guns. (Apr 2000)
Best gun control is more prosecution & certain jail. (Dec 1999)
Supports gun ownership for protection and hunting. (Dec 1999)
Raise legal age for guns to 21; ban certain ammo. (Aug 1999)
No child-safety locks on guns; concealed carrying ok. (Jun 1999)
Arrest for guns in school; track juvenile offenders. (Jun 1999)
No city lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jun 1999)
Gun restrictions OK within basic right to own guns. (May 1999)
Gun show checks OK; ban guns near schools & kids. (Apr 1999)
Assault weapon OK; waiting period not OK. (Apr 1999)


Quotes:

1 I did think we ought to extend the assault weapons ban and was told the bill was never going to move. I believe law-abiding citizens ought to be able to own a gun. I believe in background checks. The best way to protect our citizens from guns is to prosecute those who commit crimes with guns.

2 That’s why I’m for instant background checks at gun shows. I’m for trigger locks. I think we ought to raise the age at which juveniles can have a gun. I also believe that the best way to make sure that we keep our society safe is to hold people accountable for breaking the law. If we catch somebody illegally selling a gun, there needs to be a consequence. The federal government can help.
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Say what you will. All you need to do is go back in time a little and look at all the votes he had made while in the Illinois legislature. He is anti-gun ALL THE WAY. He is just biding his time. The color of his skin and whatever religion he professes does not even come into play until one of you "progressives" bring it up.

How dare you call me a racist, a birther, and say that I believe he is a Muslim, you don't even know me. I challenge you to show me one post of mine that indicates that what you accuse me of is true.

Suuure, you don't notice he is dark skinned until a progressive points it out:rolleyes:...now I know you are full of it. Your side rants about him possibly being a Muslim, and then blame progressives for looking at you and asking you what is the basis of your assertion. You are right, I do not know you, but I have a pretty good idea what right-wingers think of the President.

You must think all I read and watch are left skewed media. Nopers, not me, I actually read, and watch both sides; and watch both sides make a$$e$ of themselves.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
Your response is little over the top, isn't it? Rape isn't a joking matter. Do you really feel like you have been raped?

When the feds take my money and give it to someone who has not worked for it nor earned it,

HELL YES!!!!

Now you are thinking that I want to do away with welfare and medicaid and let all the little kids out there to starve. No I don't want the kids to starve, but I do want welfare done away with. It is not the place of the federal government to tend to these matters. If the states want to, it's OK by me, but not the feds. There is no provision in the Constitution for charity, be it for an individual, a city, a state, a corporation, or a foreign nation. It just ain't there.

Th. 3:10 if any would not work, neither should he eat.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
Suuure, you don't notice he is dark skinned until a progressive points it out:rolleyes:...now I know you are full of it. Your side rants about him possibly being a Muslim, and then blame progressives for looking at you and asking you what is the basis of your assertion. You are right, I do not know you, but I have a pretty good idea what right-wingers think of the President.

You must think all I read and watch are left skewed media. Nopers, not me, I actually read, and watch both sides; and watch both sides make a$$e$ of themselves.

You need to work on your comprehension skills. I did not say I didn't notice, I said,

rodbender said:
The color of his skin and whatever religion he professes does not even come into play until one of you "progressives" bring it up.

And I stand by that statement. I have been in and heard a lot of heated conversations about our president, and it's ALWAYS the leftie that brings up the color of his skin or his religious faith first, and I mean ALWAYS, so get off my ass about it.

I also noticed that you didn't take me up on my challenge. Good thing because you would lose. All you lefties have is empty words and accusations with absolutely nothing to back it up. Prove me wrong.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
I also noticed that you didn't take me up on my challenge. Good thing because you would lose. All you lefties have is empty words and accusations with absolutely nothing to back it up. Prove me wrong.

Who we associate ourselves ideologically is a reflection, at least generally, of our ideological stance. You either sharing the general ideology of the right-wing or the "tea party" is a statement without words...it is implied. I would offer you examples, but you are well aware of what right-wingers and "tea party" members ideological stance and view of the President is.

Ok, I will offer some examples of the side you support:


"What you're saying makes sense to me here when I'm hearing what you say but then I read on your blog, you say, you call the President an Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug and a racist in chief." Williams shrugs and responds, "Yeah, that's the way he's behaving." An incredulous Cooper asks Williams if he really believes Obama is an Indonesian Muslim and a welfare thug. The tea party leader digs the hole a little deeper: "He's certainly acting like it. Until he embraces the whole country what else can I conclude."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/15/tea-party-leader-melts-do_n_286933.html

I am aware of the company that I keep as someone who leans left, and acknowledge that I do not agree with many stances that the left has. Do you stand by your ilk?
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
Who we associate ourselves ideologically is a reflection, at least generally, of our ideological stance. You either sharing the general ideology of the right-wing or the "tea party" is a statement without words...it is implied. I would offer you examples, but you are well aware of what right-wingers and "tea party" members ideological stance and view of the President is.

Ok, I will offer some examples of the side you support:


"What you're saying makes sense to me here when I'm hearing what you say but then I read on your blog, you say, you call the President an Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug and a racist in chief." Williams shrugs and responds, "Yeah, that's the way he's behaving." An incredulous Cooper asks Williams if he really believes Obama is an Indonesian Muslim and a welfare thug. The tea party leader digs the hole a little deeper: "He's certainly acting like it. Until he embraces the whole country what else can I conclude."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/15/tea-party-leader-melts-do_n_286933.html

I am aware of the company that I keep as someone who leans left, and acknowledge that I do not agree with many stances that the left has. Do you stand by your ilk?

Who the hell is Mark Williams? I don't associate with any tea party. I wouldn't beleive the first thing that the puffington host has to say anyway.

Not going to take me up on my challendge? You are smart for refusing to do so.
 
Top