Once obama gets his Health care plan, Guns are NEXT

[Deanimator]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

Try again. This time tell the truth.

no

AHSA just doesn't do truth.

 

[Deanimator]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

Is that like how 100% of the membership of AHSA is made up of pathologically lying anti-gunners in the tank for Obama?

Calling anyone "AHSA" who challenges the rampant hate evidenced by many gun owners is akin to urban sophisticates calling gun owners "KKK."

Most gun owners are more AHSA than they dare admit.

Try to find ANYTHING on which he differs from AHSA.

Good luck with that.

 

[Deanimator]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

drkarrow wrote:

It's easy to sit around and blame this group or that. Categorizing and insulting mass groups of individuals does not help our cause in any way. We need a way to educate and teach them rather than publicly insult them in forums.

It's also easy to say that Obama's going to take all the guns. It might be better for freedom, long term, if he did.

He's got a DOCUMENTED record as one of the most militantly hysterical anti-gunners in the legislative branch. His DOCUMENTED statements include a desire to ban concealed carry.

 

[Deanimator]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

...who think freedom is a smorgasbord. The sad fact is that so many gun owners are authority-loving, belligerent, intolerant, unsophisticated, homophobic, racists. When I see a loud, raised pickup, emblazoned with flags and insulting taunts and slogans, driven by a large moustached man of coarse manners, am I seeing a person who is likely to defend a homosexual or a Muslim being abused, or am I seeing someone who would join in?

That's kind of interesting in light of the fact that I'm Black and the VAST majority of racial slurs and racist rhetoric hurled at me and others in usenet that I've experienced came from self-identified Democrat anti-gunners. Any time I want to have a variety of racial slurs hurled at me in usenet, I just need to refuse to obey a White anti-gunner's COMMAND to support historically racist gun controls.

And no, I"m not a Republican. I don't want to ban abortion OR guns.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

Deanimator wrote:

smoking357 wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

Is that like how 100% of the membership of AHSA is made up of pathologically lying anti-gunners in the tank for Obama?

Calling anyone "AHSA" who challenges the rampant hate evidenced by many gun owners is akin to urban sophisticates calling gun owners "KKK."

Most gun owners are more AHSA than they dare admit.

Try to find ANYTHING on which he differs from AHSA.

Good luck with that.

He's no cop-lover. Where does AHSA stand on that?

 

[Deanimator]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

smoking357 wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

Is that like how 100% of the membership of AHSA is made up of pathologically lying anti-gunners in the tank for Obama?

Calling anyone "AHSA" who challenges the rampant hate evidenced by many gun owners is akin to urban sophisticates calling gun owners "KKK."

Most gun owners are more AHSA than they dare admit.

Try to find ANYTHING on which he differs from AHSA.

Good luck with that.

He's no cop-lover. Where does AHSA stand on that?

1. How does he feel about the BATFE?
2. Other than police based justifications for various gun and ammunition bans, I doubt they HAVE an official position on cops. Where GUNS and gun RIGHTS are concerned, they're operating off of the same sheet of music.

 

[Skeptic]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

compmanio365 wrote:

At the end of the day, if everything else is gone, the guns we own will determine whether we are free men or subjects of a tyrannical government.

We're not free, now, and I have plenty of guns.

I just read about a rapper who was arrested for writing a rap song about the cops, and the cops posted his lyrics to their web site.

Oh, yeah, how many of you "freedom lovers" support workplace drug testing?

If you mean I support a private business from setting standards for it's employees who are free to meet the terms or not meet the terms, absolutely.

Would I work for an employer who demanded that as a condition of employment? Absolutely not. Judge your employees on their results, and they will tend to reward you well over time.

I am free to choose another job, and I should be free to make whatever contract of employment with whatever employer that pays me the best total compensation for my efforts.

Allowing voluntary contracts between people or businesses is at the very heart of liberty. The role of the government is to help enforce the voluntary agreements/contracts that we enter into - not to force them upon us. Apparently you do not agree.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Glock34 wrote:

Chaingun81 wrote:

compmanio365 wrote:

Oh, and if you think Europe is so great and their people are so free, why are they all crying for their gun rights back and complaining about the vast corruption in their government and legal system? No, the facts clearly state that the less armed the populace, the less free the people. To state otherwise is to ignore decades of empirical evidence for your own ends, whatever they may be.

+1

+ 2, right on

+3, completely agree... but then again, when have liberals ever let pesky facts get in the way of their agenda?

When have idiots ever stepped outside their doors to see if the ridiculous statements they make are true? These are the same idiots that support Gitmo, the "war on terruh," the PatriotAct, and all that other, freedom killing horse@#$%... just as long as it's directed at people different than them.



As was pointed out by 357 (possibly in another thread), we're very NOT free in America. In fact, we're probablyin the bottom half of nations as far as freedom goes. Yet we have the loosest gun laws in the world. How does that fit into your more guns=more freedom thesis?


The fact of the matter is, guns are a side show. #1: You'll never actually use them against the government. Talk all you want, your tubby ass just wants another BigMac. You'll never put actions to your words. And even if someone else did, they have ZERO chance of succeeding. So, in that sense, guns are useless. #2: If you don't have a tyrannical government, having guns to overthrow one isn't all that important. In the US, we NEED guns because who knows if during the next crisis the JBTs are going to be out looting your house and raping your wife. That sort of stuff isn't an issue in countries that don't operate in a police state, which makes guns less of a necessity.

 

[Skeptic]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Glock34 wrote:

Chaingun81 wrote:

compmanio365 wrote:

Oh, and if you think Europe is so great and their people are so free, why are they all crying for their gun rights back and complaining about the vast corruption in their government and legal system? No, the facts clearly state that the less armed the populace, the less free the people. To state otherwise is to ignore decades of empirical evidence for your own ends, whatever they may be.

+1

+ 2, right on

+3, completely agree... but then again, when have liberals ever let pesky facts get in the way of their agenda?

When have idiots ever stepped outside their doors to see if the ridiculous statements they make are true? These are the same idiots that support Gitmo, the "war on terruh," the PatriotAct, and all that other, freedom killing horse@#$%... just as long as it's directed at people different than them.



As was pointed out by 357 (possibly in another thread), we're very NOT free in America. In fact, we're probablyin the bottom half of nations as far as freedom goes. Yet we have the loosest gun laws in the world. How does that fit into your more guns=more freedom thesis?


The fact of the matter is, guns are a side show. #1: You'll never actually use them against the government. Talk all you want, your tubby ass just wants another BigMac. You'll need put actions to your words. So, in that sense, guns are useless. #2: If you don't have a tyrannical government, having guns to overthrow one isn't all that important. In the US, we NEED guns because who knows if during the next crisis the JBTs are going to be out looting your house and raping your wife. That sort of stuff isn't an issue in countries that don't operate in a police state, which makes guns less of a necessity.

That is quite an assertion - where is the list of more free countries that don't have to worry about "JBTs" and the less free ones. And how many people live in those countries? Or is it your assertion that China is a more free country for it's cirizens than the US :lol::lol::lol:

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Skeptic wrote:

Or is it your assertion that China is a more free country for it's cirizens than the US :lol::lol::lol:

wat

 

[compmanio365]

imported post

Skeptic...for real.....don't bother feeding the troll. I don't even see his posts anymore, but can see what was quoted. It's just what the troll wants, to get a rise out of you. Just refuse to respond in any way, and he'll either sit there and talk to himself or leave when he realizes his "lulz" are no more. The rest of us can have an adult conversation.

 

[Skeptic]

imported post

compmanio365 wrote:

Skeptic...for real.....don't bother feeding the troll. I don't even see his posts anymore, but can see what was quoted. It's just what the troll wants, to get a rise out of you. Just refuse to respond in any way, and he'll either sit there and talk to himself or leave when he realizes his "lulz" are no more. The rest of us can have an adult conversation.

Yeah I just noticed some of his other posts. Not worth it.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

The fact of the matter is, guns are a side show. #1: You'll never actually use them against the government. Talk all you want, your tubby ass just wants another BigMac. You'll never put actions to your words. And even if someone else did, they have ZERO chance of succeeding. So, in that sense, guns are useless. #2: If you don't have a tyrannical government, having guns to overthrow one isn't all that important. In the US, we NEED guns because who knows if during the next crisis the JBTs are going to be out looting your house and raping your wife. That sort of stuff isn't an issue in countries that don't operate in a police state, which makes guns less of a necessity.

MY

FREAKING

POINT,

EXACTLY

Why does Denmark not worry terribly about guns? Because Danes are not American hillbilly Bible-beating pricks and are not likely to impose a brutal cop police state on other Danes.

 

[R a Z o R]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

The fact of the matter is, your tubby ass just wants another BigMac.

MY

FREAKING

POINT,

EXACTLY

 

[SouthernBoy]

imported post

Glock34 wrote:

Guns in General, Once his health care billis signed into law& after the 2010 elections , the Assault weapons ban will be next. Read the text of the Assault weapons reauthorization act of 2008 , anything semi auto will be on his hit list, ANYTHING SEMI AUTO, Hand guns, Rifles, Shot guns...All Gone. 7 the the Assault weapons reauthorization act of 2008 will be retroactive, to the date of the last Ban that ended a few years ago. So all those semi auto guns that were purchased since will be Illegal.

Go ahead,don't believe any of this. But go read the text of the bill

This is a violation of the Constitution and therefore illegal and not enforceable. Please see Article 1, Section 10

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Such a retroactive law would fall under the ex post facto heading and is clearly not legal.

 

[Skeptic]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

The fact of the matter is, guns are a side show. #1: You'll never actually use them against the government. Talk all you want, your tubby ass just wants another BigMac. You'll never put actions to your words. And even if someone else did, they have ZERO chance of succeeding. So, in that sense, guns are useless. #2: If you don't have a tyrannical government, having guns to overthrow one isn't all that important. In the US, we NEED guns because who knows if during the next crisis the JBTs are going to be out looting your house and raping your wife. That sort of stuff isn't an issue in countries that don't operate in a police state, which makes guns less of a necessity.

MY

FREAKING

POINT,

EXACTLY

Why does Denmark not worry terribly about guns? Because Danes are not American hillbilly Bible-beating pricks and are not likely to impose a brutal cop police state on other Danes.

You need to read the book "While Europe Slept" - not written by a hillbilly bible thumper, but by Bruce Bawer, a gay man who moved to Europe seeking more freedom from those evil bible thumping rednecks in America.

Because it turns out that the people that the Danes, and the Dutch, and the British , and the French have invited into their nations and supported with the largess of their public dole are far more prone to use violence against those who disagree with them than the "evil American rednecks". And the population trends favor the visitors quite strongly.

You might scoff at such a possibility, but the people of Beiruit , once the Paris of the Med, might beg to differ

For those who don't want to go buy the book, you can read his essay "Hating America" http://www.hudsonreview.com/BawerSp04.html comparing the "Bible thumping" culture of America to the deification of secular humanism in Europe.

 

[Flintlock]

imported post

Glock34 wrote:

Flintlock wrote:

Glock34 wrote:

:what:

What is the point of your post? To paint millions of people into a catagory because of the illegal and morbid activities of the few is the same logic used by antis to push for bans, registrations, etc. For every one of thesehe posts, I can post success stories that paint gun owners in a brighter light.

What about that do you not understand?

What are you talking about ??!! Illegal / Morbid activities ?? Enlighten me please.

How did I paint Millions of gun owners in a negative light ?

Some of us have decided to live life with our eyes WIDE open to what THEY are planning. If some of you out there prefer to live in a perpetual coma state thats your business.

I was reffering to smoking357's posts. You gave me the big eyes when I was responding to someone else.

 

[GLOCK21GB]

imported post

Flintlock wrote:

Glock34 wrote:

Flintlock wrote:

Glock34 wrote:

:what:

What is the point of your post? To paint millions of people into a catagory because of the illegal and morbid activities of the few is the same logic used by antis to push for bans, registrations, etc. For every one of thesehe posts, I can post success stories that paint gun owners in a brighter light.

What about that do you not understand?

What are you talking about ??!! Illegal / Morbid activities ?? Enlighten me please.

How did I paint Millions of gun owners in a negative light ?

Some of us have decided to live life with our eyes WIDE open to what THEY are planning. If some of you out there prefer to live in a perpetual coma state thats your business.

I was reffering to smoking 357's posts. You gave me the big eyes when I was responsing to someone else.

I gave the big eyes, because it sounded like you were peed off at someone, then , it sounded like it was me....but, now I understand. thanks for clearing this up.

 

[rodbender]

imported post

SouthernBoy wrote:

Glock34 wrote:

Guns in General, Once his health care billis signed into law& after the 2010 elections , the Assault weapons ban will be next. Read the text of the Assault weapons reauthorization act of 2008 , anything semi auto will be on his hit list, ANYTHING SEMI AUTO, Hand guns, Rifles, Shot guns...All Gone. 7 the the Assault weapons reauthorization act of 2008 will be retroactive, to the date of the last Ban that ended a few years ago. So all those semi auto guns that were purchased since will be Illegal.

Go ahead,don't believe any of this. But go read the text of the bill

This is a violation of the Constitution and therefore illegal and not enforceable. Please see Article 1, Section 10

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Such a retroactive law would fall under the ex post facto heading and is clearly not legal.

And you think that just because it's unconstitutional that it won't be put into effect and upheld by SCOTUS? It's never stopped 'em before, why should it this time? Sotomayor will see to it, if she has her way.