• 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.

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

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,956
Location
Gone
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?
 

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
imported post

What do you call 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.
 

Task Force 16

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,615
Location
Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
imported post

deanf wrote:
What do you call 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.
 

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
imported post

Gun control is a dead letter for the democrats. It's cost them dearly in the past. It will cost them dearly in the future if they resurrect it. That's why they don't. And won't.

Why hasn't the congress sent any gun control bills to the president, which they clearly have the votes to do, if they're so eager right-at-this-moment to take away our guns?
 

Alexcabbie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
2,288
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
imported post

Cheezz. How many times, how many ways does it have to be said?? This whole government involvement in health care is unconstitutional on its face. The reason the Ratz are trying to push it through is because it would provide a backdoor to not omly guns but damn ner everything else. There has been talk of requiring everyone to get a physical ever 5 years, etc. I guess then the doc cups your nads and says "cough up more taxes".

Ha-ha.

FREE GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE is available in the Northern Autonomous Zone AKA Canada. From there, real and effective care is only a short drive South back into the States.
 

Task Force 16

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,615
Location
Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
imported post

deanf wrote:
Gun control is a dead letter for the democrats. It's cost them dearly in the past. It will cost them dearly in the future if they resurrect it. That's why they don't. And won't.

Why hasn't the congress sent any gun control bills to the president, which they clearly have the votes to do, if they're so eager right-at-this-moment to take away our guns?

Clearly, you didn't read the OP.

They are trying to hide gun control in the health care bill in a round about way. The czars in Obama's administration, that would take advantage of the provisions in the bill that would give them carte blanche authority to regulate how coverage would be doled out, could deny re-imbersment to gun owners. The czars aren't worried about being re-elected because they weren't elected in the first place, they are unaccountable to anyone.

Health care reform run by government isn't about health care at all. It's about control over the lives of the masses. It's one big step towards a dictatorship.
 

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
imported post

Clearly, you didn't read the OP.
I did.
They are trying to hide gun control in the health care bill in a round about way.
How are they trying? How have they tried? Can you document their attempts?
The czars aren't worried about being re-elected because they weren't elected in the first place, they are unaccountable to anyone.
They are accountable to the President, who appointed them. He is accountable to the People, who elected him. That's the line of accountability for these so-called czars.

Again, where is the evidence?
 

Alexcabbie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
2,288
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
imported post

No, Dean, we can't "document their attempts"; other than their attempts to push this patently illegal legislation through by hook or by crook. What you are saying is like saying there's nothing wrong with somebody who has a record for burglary obtaining lock-picking equipment. Dean you have been a member since long before I joined abd I just wonder if you have been completely fooled by the Ubamanistas.

Frankly if I had deliberately gone about designing a route to total utter personal control of the lives of private citizens I could not have done better than this Constitutional trespass of a "Health Care" program. "Document the attempts"??

Pray how could the poor nomad document the camel's attempts to make him sleep outside in the sandstorm? After all, it was only a reasonable request to get the camel's nose inside and out of the sandstorm. You know how the old story ends; and that is exactly what the Ratz have in mind. Will you freaking wake up!!?
 

Task Force 16

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,615
Location
Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
imported post

deanf wrote:
Clearly, you didn't read the OP.
I did.
They are trying to hide gun control in the health care bill in a round about way.
How are they trying? How have they tried? Can you document their attempts?
The czars aren't worried about being re-elected because they weren't elected in the first place, they are unaccountable to anyone.
They are accountable to the President, who appointed them. He is accountable to the People, who elected him. That's the line of accountability for these so-called czars.

Again, where is the evidence?

Obama and his staff don't seem to believe they are accountable. Are you not aware of all the tax cheats, crooks, and admirers of Chairman Mao (at least 2 so far) and other communist figures, that make up Obama's team of czars?

deanf, you are definitely suffering from a serious case of denial. The evidence is out there that these people want to do away with the US Constitution and creat a central totalitarian government. You need to wake up and see it.
 

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
imported post

deanf wrote:
They are accountable to the President, who appointed them. He is accountable to the People, who elected him. That's the line of accountability for these so-called czars.

Again, where is the evidence?

Rather, I ask how Obama has shown he is accountable to anyone?

I see the people that he associates with and have to ask myself how much of the Weather Underground philosophy he still adhere's to.

Or did you believe him that he sat in a church for 20+ years and did not hear or agree with the sermons?

He is surrounded by people who have publicly stated that their communist/socialist views are their <implying Obama, too>agenda. And some of these people have been associated with Obama for a decade or more.

I consider your statement to be naive and juvenile in the extreme, and would recommend that you do more research into how Obama votes and what he has said in speeches over the past decade. Then look into the relationship between the czar's appointed position and which agency/department of the federal government they have influence over.

If you are as naive as you seem, then nothing anyone here can say will change your opinion, but you have a lot of research of your own that you need to do. I suggest that you start with foxnews.com.

BTW - I understand there was a federal congressional seat up for sale in Illinois about this time last year.
 

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
imported post

okboomer wrote:
deanf wrote:
They are accountable to the President, who appointed them. He is accountable to the People, who elected him. That's the line of accountability for these so-called czars.

Again, where is the evidence?

Rather, I ask how Obama has shown he is accountable to anyone?

I see the people that he associates with and have to ask myself how much of the Weather Underground philosophy he still adhere's to.

Or did you believe him that he sat in a church for 20+ years and did not hear or agree with the sermons?

He is surrounded by people who have publicly stated that their communist/socialist views are their <implying Obama, too>agenda. And some of these people have been associated with Obama for a decade or more.

I consider your statement to be naive and juvenile in the extreme, and would recommend that you do more research into how Obama votes and what he has said in speeches over the past decade. Then look into the relationship between the czar's appointed position and which agency/department of the federal government they have influence over.

If you are as naive as you seem, then nothing anyone here can say will change your opinion, but you have a lot of research of your own that you need to do. I suggest that you start with foxnews.com.

BTW - I understand there was a federal congressional seat up for sale in Illinois about this time last year.

The Constitution permits Presidents to appoint "inferior officers" without Senate confirmation. They have been doingthe "Czar" thingfor a long time.

I realize that Glen Beck uncovered that Obama's now resigned "Green Jobs Czar" had some unsavory beliefs. But jumping from that tosome sort of anti-gunMaoist overthrow conspiracy takes too aerobic an exercise in presidential psychoanalysis.
 

Alexcabbie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
2,288
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
imported post

Trying to talk sense to an Obama apologist - let alone a stone Ubamanista - reminds me of a story:

A news crew was in Israel doing a feature about an old Rabbi who had prayed at the Western ("Wailing") Wall every single day for the last 25 years. When asked what his prayers consisted of, he said:

"Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday I pray that the Jewish people will realize that the Arab people are their brothers, and put an end to the fighting and live in peace. Wednesday, Thursday and Friday I pray that the Arabs will realize the Jews are their brothers and put an end to the fighting and live in peace. And on Saturday the Sabbath I pray that both Jew and Arab will remember they are both Sons of Abraham, and put an end to the fighting and live in peace"

And how, asked the newsman, did the Rabbi feel after doing this for 25 years? The Rabbi turned to the newsman and said:

LIKE I HAVE BEEN TALKING TO A F:cuss::cuss::cuss:ing WALL!!!!
 

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
imported post

The Donkey wrote:
The Constitution permits Presidents to appoint "inferior officers" without Senate confirmation. They have been doingthe "Czar" thingfor a long time.

I realize that Glen Beck uncovered that Obama's now resigned "Green Jobs Czar" had some unsavory beliefs. But jumping from that tosome sort of anti-gunMaoist overthrow conspiracy takes too aerobic an exercise in presidential psychoanalysis.

I didn't mention Mao, you did, but see the Anita Dunn, WHCommunicatons Dir. 6/2009 speech, or theRon Bloom, Obama Mfg. czar,2/2009 speech, Obama's autobiographical book, Obama's "change" speech before his inaugration, his cheek-by-jowl association with SEIU, ACORN, Bill Ayers, the debacle with the National Endowment for the Arts.

Gun control (you must be a member to access, but that's easy, and you should be):

Important Message From NRA Chief Lobbyist Chris W. Cox on Attorney General Holder's Recent Remarks Supporting Reinstatement of the Failed 1994 Gun and Magazine Ban

Joint Statement On Judge Sonia Sotomayor's Nomination To The United States Supreme Court

"From the outset, the National Rifle Association has respected the confirmation process and hoped for mainstream answers to bedrock questions. Unfortunately, Judge Sotomayor’s judicial record and testimony clearly demonstrate a hostile view of the Second Amendment and the fundamental right of self-defense guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution."

http://www.nrapvf.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=12702&T=1#

And, Sotomayor believes her opinion should be part of her judicial process? That terrifies me.

10/21/2009 - President Obama rallies supporters at a Corzine for Governor Rally in Hackensack, NJ.:

http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/10/21/obama-likens-corzine-bid-to-his-own/

NRA rating for NJ Gov. race, and that's not the only one in question:

http://www.nrapvf.org/ELECTIONS/State.aspx?y=2009&State=NJ

As for the Czars:

What Can Obama's Czars Legally Do? - FOXNews.com

Questions Raised Over Influence of Obama 'Czars'

Obama's Army of Czars Raises Concerns About Executive Power

Warning: this ends up too much like a rant :banghead:

Some of us believe that Obama is trying to get around confirmation hearings/FBI vetting by appointing 'his people' as czars rather than as agency/department heads. As you can see in the links for the Obama czars, they are being vested with influence in areas of Manufacturing, finance, treasury, etc. and the only control over them is Barrak Obama. Who won't show the long form of his birth certificate. Who won't open his writings from before the election. His billing records from his attorney/activism phase, which might or might not reveal conflicts-of-interest concerning some of his czar appointments.

If there is nothing to hide, then why is he hiding it? It is not as if he didn't realize that as a presidential candidate he would need to disclose all aspects of his life. And yet, the network media did not press him on any of these issues, instead, they were bending over backward to trample Sarah Palin, a vice-presidential candidate and totally irrelevant to Obama's presidential campaign.

I believe that our fundamental Constitutional rights are under attack openly, and secretly, by this administration and most of the Democratic party. I believe that GW Bush damaged portions of our Constitutional rights temporarily, but I believed that there were extenuating circumstances and 'we the people' would have the opportunity to scale back these temporary exingencies(?) when they were no longer needed. Much like the Air Marshalls were discontinued after the rash of Cuban hijackings in the 60's and 70's.

This is what warrantless wiretaps were aimed at:

NYC Terror Plot Suspect Zazi Contacted by Al Qaeda's Afghan Head

And for those who are screaming bloody murder over the 'eavesdropping' on Americans, get a grip and understand how that program worked ... COMPUTERS scanned for specific criteria (words, phrases, language) from calls that originated from watch areas (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Ajerbaijon<?>, phone numbers, people) and came into the US. Only when something trippeda series offlags, did the call get routed to a digital recorder. After that, a technician scanned the first 20 words or so+ the call data to determine if it would need any further attention. This last part was anywhere from 24 hours after the call, up to a week or more. There are millions of calls made inside the US every day, plus the millions of calls incoming every day, plus the millions of calls outgoing.

A faceless, voiceless, hunk of machinery scanning the phone calls does not concern me as much as the possibility of a dirty bomb, tampering with a food supply (which is a whole nother kettle of fish), deploying weaponized anthrax into a full sports stadium (the movie Black Sunday ring any bells), or a dozen coordinated truck bombs to isolate, say DC.

The fall of the Iron Curtain did not remove the enemies of the US. They want to drag us down into the gutter with them. I was raised in the 1960's next to a 'first strike target' and in grade school we had fire drills, tornado drills, and Atomic Bomb drills. This has given me a fairly unique perspective on how safe we are as Americans. In 1966,in first grade,there were4 bomb threats in the high school next door which caused our building to be evacuated each dayalso. I watched the news crew filming the high school building from our vantage point, where one of my parents worked.I had a cousin that disappeared in Tiajuanna in 1972 who has never been heard from since his arrest and incarceration in the local jail, after the US Embassy representative talked to him one week after his arrest. You see, the family couldn't come up with the $75,000.00 'release fee' fast enough. I had to spend 72 agonizing hours when I was 14 years old waiting for word on whether my parents were going to be killed or were going to be released from a hijacked jet in Dallas in 1974. The next year, my mother, me and my sister were stalked by a former student for 4 months. And there are many other incidents in my life where I did not put myself in harm's way, rather it found me.

I walk 'with attitude' now and have far fewer incidents of victimization. However, Obama does not walk 'with attitude' and that opens the US up for victimization. Enacting stricter gun control is one of the first steps to making American citizens into victims again. Been there, done that, ain't gonna go back!

I believe that if we can get a majority of the states with open carry laws, it will be a lot harder for anyone to make us into victims again. Right now, there are no network news programs that are concerned with the right to free speech. This is demonstrated by how long it took for them to begin to react to the WH/Foxnews bruhaha. I have always been taught that the only guarantee to free speech is the 2A. It's awfully hard to subjugate someone that can shoot back.

More evidence in assertively maintaining our right to keep and bear arms is demonstrated in the recent socialist activities in Hondouras(?) where Chavez has subjugated the populace and tried to socialize the industries. The International Banking Industry held him off for a short time, and the corporations in control of the oil industry, but in the end, control of the press and communications gave him control of the people.

Another bench mark will be what Obama does with the control of the internet. What do you think our right to free speech will mean when the UN gets control of our internet? If you have noticed, access to the internet is helpful to protesters in countries like Iran and China, but is heavily restricted in those countries. Moreso than Air America or the BBC, the internet is the beacon for freedom in much of the world.

Yes, I get all but my local news from FoxNews. I don't agree with all they say, but they always give me something to think about, and they try to present advocates to both sides of an issue. This is much more than I was getting from the networks, or MSNBC or CNN.

I don't trust ANY government agency, but I have learned how to deal with them according to the rules they made. I consider it a challenge to 'get what I want' by making them follow their rules! Ya win some, ya lose some.

Rant off: Thanks for listening :lol:

cheers ~~ okboomer
 

Juggernaut

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
126
Location
Triad, North Carolina, USA
imported post

^ Nice rant :DI had to break out the popcorn on that one
smileyvault-popcorn.gif
 

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
imported post

and would recommend that you do more research into how Obama votes and what he has said in speeches over the past decade.

There's no doubt what he and his fellow counterrevolutionaries are trying to do in terms of converting the USA into a socialist state. They've all been saying it to our faces for 10 years. It's no secret. Yet he was still elected, and so was the Democrat majority. Who's at fault for that? Think about it . . .

There's also no doubt that the so-called czars are accountable to the people through the president. Again, he was elected fair and square . . . .

Here's a question: If they've been blatant about their socialist agenda, then why would they hide their gun control agenda? What would be the point if they hold all the cards? They could pass federal gun control tomorrow if they wanted to and the president would sign it. Why back-door it through HHS if they can legislate it separatley if it is truly a priority for them?
 

Task Force 16

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,615
Location
Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
imported post

deanf wrote:
There's no doubt what he and his fellow counterrevolutionaries are trying to do in terms of converting the USA into a socialist state. They've all been saying it to our faces for 10 years. It's no secret. Yet he was still elected, and so was the Democrat majority. Who's at fault for that? Think about it . . .

There's also no doubt that the so-called czars are accountable to the people through the president. Again, he was elected fair and square . . . .

Here's a question: If they've been blatant about their socialist agenda, then why would they hide their gun control agenda? What would be the point if they hold all the cards? They could pass federal gun control tomorrow if they wanted to and the president would sign it. Why back-door it through HHS if they can legislate it separatley if it is truly a priority for them?

To answer your question, many of the Democrats in DC seem to believe that Americans are too stupid to figure out what they are up to. The sad thing is, that a large portion of the populus is just that, Too Stupid. That is how Obama got elected, by stupid slackers in this country that believed all the promises Obama made, to give "them" everything they wanted.

They don't dare "blatantly" enact any more gun bans. There are estimated to be 80 to 90 million gun owners in this country. Even if half of them took up armed resistance to any braod ban, they would still outnumber LE and military combined. And don't forget that a majority of those in LE and the military will not open fire on US citizens, just because they exercise their constitutional rights. Many LE and military personal are gun owners too, you know.
 

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
imported post

I agree that President Obama and the democrats wouldn't enact a gun ban now --either overtly or surreptitiously -- but believe the reasons are political, not because of fear of armed resistance.

I am wondering what you perceive has changed since 1968, or for that matter, from the time of the Assault Weapons Ban, that makes some kind of mass revolution more likely now than it was then?
 
Last edited:

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,948
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

The Donkey wrote:
I am wondering what you perceive has changed since 1968, or for that matter, from the time of the Assault Weapons Ban, that makes some kind of mass revolution more likely now than it was then?

Three words Donkey

























Barak Hussein Obama
 
Top