Obama wants to outlaw guns in 2nd term

RobMoore · Feb 12, 2012

Yeah. I was excited about the tea party at its onset, before the right wing coopted and changed it.

EL1227 · Feb 12, 2012

jmcgonig said:
Yeah, I thought that would happen the last election. I was really hoping the GOP would get to its roots and get rid of the religious zealots in the party and focus on its moderate base - fix the economy, less govt, less spending.

Instead we got the tea party which was the group of zealots IMHO (My dad is one of them FWIW).

I'd love to see a mainstream conservative movement...

Rhetorical question ...
Is your dad a 'religious zealot' trying to take away your guns ?

Having religious convictions doesn't neccessarily make you less a moderate or unwilling to listen to voices of reason. And they are a mainstream conservative movement, contrary to how Nanny Pelosi and others on the left portray it.

Bottom line, do you want the present administration to continue down the road we've been on for the past three years ?

jmcgonig · Feb 12, 2012

edleary1227 said:
Rhetorical question ...
Is your dad a 'religious zealot' trying to take away your guns ?

Having religious convictions doesn't neccessarily make you less a moderate or unwilling to listen to voices of reason. And they are a mainstream conservative movement, contrary to how Nanny Pelosi and others on the left portray it.

Bottom line, do you want the present administration to continue down the road we've been on for the past three years ?

Sorry, I should why my terminology...

Religious Zealot to me is...
- Having no ability to understand pro-choice (not pro abortion, pro choice).
- Removing funding for good programs because you can't change the law (Planned parenthood)
- Attacking the right of a person to use birth control
- Attacking the the right of a person to be gay
- Attacks the way other religions live (the moderate ones at least)
- Ignores scientific fact on a whole host of subjects
- Host of other BS that escapes me for now
- Demonizes anyone that doesn't believe what they believe

Gun rights are important, but I'm not going to vote for someone that does the above just for that reason.

diesel-man · Feb 12, 2012

jmcgonig said:
I'm amazed at some of these threads to think that Obama's secret plan is to ban all guns/turn us into socialist/etc... once he gets re-elected. My guess is that he has plenty of other problems to solve w/o getting into that. I haven't seen any of his actions that indicate he is anything more than a moderate with some liberal tendencies. No matter what you think about the health care or other things he has done, they were attempts at fixing things - some worked out, some didn't.

Most of this is just fear mongering because we can't find a fluent, educated conservative that doesn't sound more like a preacher than a politician. If we could find a conservative that would leave their views of how we should live out of the equation, they would be a very strong candidate. Half of the conservatives running now days sound more like Christian version of a Sharia Muslim.

Just my 2 cents. FWIW, I consider my self an independent. Some of the liberal ideas are good some of the conservative ideas of good. I like to pick and choose what I think is best instead of just responding to the party line.

-Jim

The truth is that after election day this November...we won't be "dating" anymore...and it won't be any honeymoon, either. The gloves come off, there is no reason to hold back, and he can't get elected a third term...unless dictator in chief. So if we got "beat up" while "dating"...your going to be black and blue...and pennyless too. (after November) Believe what you want, but I hope we don't find out that I'm right.

No need to keep up the job numbers, economy, dollar, on and on...

Anybody but "O"...just sayin'

:sad20:

EL1227 · Feb 12, 2012

jmcgonig said:
Sorry, I should why my terminology...

Religious Zealot to me is...
- Having no ability to understand pro-choice (not pro abortion, pro choice).
- Removing funding for good programs because you can't change the law (Planned parenthood)
- Attacking the right of a person to use birth control
- Attacking the the right of a person to be gay
- Attacks the way other religions live (the moderate ones at least)
- Ignores scientific fact on a whole host of subjects
- Host of other BS that escapes me for now
- Demonizes anyone that doesn't believe what they believe

Gun rights are important, but I'm not going to vote for someone that does the above just for that reason.

That's a pretty broad brush you've painted them with and I can't think of one of my fellow TEA-Party members who meet ALL of your defintions of a 'religious zealot' let alone any one in particular.

You see MOST TEA-Party members are 'pro-choice' ... GASP !!!

You are of 'free will' to make your own choices, just don't expect anyone else to pick up the tab if those choices are proven wrong and you're left in poor health or penniless. And, that includes expecting the government to pay for your mistakes. Because the way things are going in that regard, religious arguments aside, the government has become the Daddy Warbucks of bailouts, so why not force the American people to pay for everybody elses 'choices' including the ones you mention in your list. Call us 'heartless bastards' for feeling this way, but 'religious zealots' ... I don't think so.

That Sir, is the jist of the TEA-Party ... TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY.

jmcgonig · Feb 12, 2012

edleary1227 said:
That's a pretty broad brush you've painted them with and I can't think of one of my fellow TEA-Party members who meet ALL of your defintions of a 'religious zealot' let alone any one in particular.

You see MOST TEA-Party members are 'pro-choice' ... GASP !!!

You are of 'free will' to make your own choices, just don't expect anyone else to pick up the tab if those choices are proven wrong and you're left in poor health or penniless. And, that includes expecting the government to pay for your mistakes. Because the way things are going in that regard, religious arguments aside, the government has become the Daddy Warbucks of bailouts, so why not force the American people to pay for everybody elses 'choices' including the ones you mention in your list. Call us 'heartless bastards' for feeling this way, but 'religious zealots' ... I don't think so.

That Sir, is the jist of the TEA-Party ... TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY.

Not what I meant. The problem with the tea party is that they have too many of those types in it. There are plenty of tea party members that don't fall in that category. Sorry, didn't mean to group them as the same.

Mark75H · Feb 12, 2012

jmcgonig said:
Not what I meant. The problem with the tea party is that they have too many of those types in it. There are plenty of tea party members that don't fall in that category. Sorry, didn't mean to group them as the same.

By the same token, one could say Obama supporters have too many card carrying Communists ... just as you have said "The problem with the tea party is that they have too many of those types in it."

PJDiesel · Feb 12, 2012

Tea Party = irrelevant at this point.

Mark75H · Feb 12, 2012

If the (hopefully) Republican House feels Obama has acted outside the constitution after the election, they always have the option of impeachment. Whether it is by criminal act or overstepping the constitution.

Its like ... what are the limits of what any president can do re the war powers act? ... the limit is, as always has been, what Congress will allow.

I could say, even Barry knows this, but with what he has shown so far ... we shall see ...

todbiker · Feb 12, 2012

Checking my facts

Markp said:
Vote for more .fail if you must...

Actually, no we're not... Just like people who don't own homes are not required to have homeowners insurance, people who don't own cars are not required to have auto insurance.

Additionally, homeowners are NOT required to have homeowner insurance by law but by condition of contract with their mortgage company... just as in many states car insurance is also not mandatory for those who are rich enough to self-insure.

Better start checking out how the world really works... Facts fvck up liberals every time... liberals hate facts.

Even if the .gov required all people to carry both auto and home owners insurance, it would not be proper under this constitutional government to make any such demand of its citizens, but that's a whole different ball of wax.

The NRA is NOTHING like a labor union. Labor unions promote mediocrity be demanding everyone be treated the same regardless of their actual ability. The NRA is an association of people who have similar interests. There are plenty of differences between the NRA and a union... However the NRA is a shooting sports association that has a large membership and a powerful voice.

The SC did not put corporations over people. Ugh. Really. I don't know what to say... all I know is that I would have trouble functioning if I was this wrong all the time.

I was under the assumption it was understood owning a car was a prerequisite to having to have insurance for it, my bad not spelling that out...
All I know is when I register a car with the MVA, they require me to have a policy?

I don't remember saying anything about homeowner insurance, but whatever it takes to prop up your facts. I do however understand HO insur. is a contractual obligation versus law.

I do however pay taxes that support public schools, yet have no children attending them.

I know enough about the world to understand the temptation of money and the unscrupulous things some folks are willing to do for it. Things are not black and white, but shades of grey. In the real world, the streets don't all run north-south and east-west, and if you only use the ones that do, you won't get too many places.

I didn't say the NRA was a union, only that it was like a union in some aspects, namely it started out with the sole intention of protecting one of the fundamental rights of its members, but over time perhaps the powers that control it are also interested in making money while perpetuating itself and if spreading a little fear helps that endeavor, so be it. I still support it for what it can do for me and my fellow gun owners, but that doesn't make it above reproach or criticism.

With regards to the SC reference, that was a broad and overly general statement on my part. It's my understanding there was a rollback on campaign contribution ceiling limits for corporations and unions around 2010, hence making it much easier for corporations and unions to back and market their candidates over the choice of the people.

Sorry for the clutter, but I didn't have all the facts on using the Multi-Q feature. :lol2:

BlackBart · Feb 12, 2012

RobMoore said:
Because your original statement wasn't as benign as you're trying to portray now. There is a bar that divides politeness from rudeness and in MY opinion you make a habit of intentionally hanging below it to be provocative.

Here's a dime................ :rolleyes:

EL1227 · Feb 12, 2012

Boy, has this thread run off into the ditch ...

I'm sorry ... I contributed to the slippery conditions too ...

Someone call a tow truck.

Meanwhile, back to your regularly scheduled Obama-bashing re: 2A. :rolleyes:

hvymax · Feb 12, 2012

Mark75H said:
If the (hopefully) Republican House feels Obama has acted outside the constitution after the election, they always have the option of impeachment. Whether it is by criminal act or overstepping the constitution.

Its like ... what are the limits of what any president can do re the war powers act? ... the limit is, as always has been, what Congress will allow.

I could say, even Barry knows this, but with what he has shown so far ... we shall see ...

Boehner's only negotiating position is laying across the table so they can line up on both sides.

jimsoden · Feb 12, 2012

hvymax said:
Boehner's only negotiating position is laying across the table so they can line up on both sides.

Oh, so true... Sadly, if Barry gets "installed" via Soros, etc., we are sooo screwed. :sad20:

Limitless money and unstoppable voter fraud...thug unions, etc. We need a miracle. :cool:

EL1227 · Feb 12, 2012

jimsoden said:
Oh, so true... Sadly, if Barry gets "installed" via Soros, etc., we are sooo screwed.

Limitless money and unstoppable voter fraud...thug unions, etc. We need a miracle.

And our guns ... :innocent0

Markp · Feb 12, 2012

todbiker said:
I was under the assumption it was understood owning a car was a prerequisite to having to have insurance for it, my bad not spelling that out... All I know is when I register a car with the MVA, they require me to have a policy?

That's not a prerequisite to owning a car, that's a prerequisite to driving it on a public road. Once again you are so completely wrong on the issue that the facts are going to piss you off.

I have a race car, you know those cars that you don't operate on a public road. It has no insurance. Why because INSURANCE isn't required by law for the OWNERSHIP of a car. PERIOD. You might consider my race car the assault weapon of motor vehicles.

And as you can see below, people can self insure.

http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/SubtitleSearch.aspx?search=11.18.02.*

I don't remember saying anything about homeowner insurance, but whatever it takes to prop up your facts. I do however understand HO insur. is a contractual obligation versus law.

See above

I do however pay taxes that support public schools, yet have no children attending them.

You pay taxes because if you don't, .gov will take your home. Would you pay them voluntarily? Do you give extra to your government to support public programs?

With regards to the SC reference, that was a broad and overly general statement on my part. It's my understanding there was a rollback on campaign contribution ceiling limits for corporations and unions around 2010, hence making it much easier for corporations and unions to back and market their candidates over the choice of the people.

Sorry for the clutter, but I didn't have all the facts on using the Multi-Q feature.

If you think that the SC decision really affected the money game in DC, you're out of your mind. The big dogs will always find a way to spend their money to get their guys in office. The choice of the people... lmao. The system is way too broken.

MDFF2008 · Feb 12, 2012

RobMoore said:
Yeah. I was excited about the tea party at its onset, before the right wing coopted and changed it.

Yeah. The original tea party people I met were all about individual liberty and small government.

Then slowly I noticed more and more religious influence, then it got to the point people were telling me that you could believe in the tea party and in legislating morality.

Truly there are only two things that worry me about term 2 Obama

1.) If he gets a Supreme Court Pick

2.) If he gets a democratic congress.

BlackBart · Feb 12, 2012

gprimr1 said:
Yeah. The original tea party people I met were all about individual liberty and small government.

Then slowly I noticed more and more religious influence, then it got to the point people were telling me that you could believe in the tea party and in legislating morality.

Truly there are only two things that worry me about term 2 Obama

1.) If he gets a Supreme Court Pick

2.) If he gets a democratic congress.

Just curious, why did you vote for him last time around? You didn't see him for what he is, white guilt, liberalism???

He's already made TWO SC appointments, another would be a disaster for the country and apparently you realize this.

MDFF2008 · Feb 12, 2012

BlackBart said:
Just curious, why did you vote for him last time around? You didn't see him for what he is, white guilt, liberalism???

He's already made TWO SC appointments, another would be a disaster for the country and apparently you realize this.

I was much more liberal in 2008 than I am now and if now I'm on the liberal tend of the MDS spectrum; you can imagine how scary I was.

jimsoden · Feb 12, 2012

edleary1227 said:
And our guns ...

I knew I forgot something! Thanks for that. That honestly cheered me up!

Obama wants to outlaw guns in 2nd term

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

The Mad Scientist

R.I.P.

Active Member

Ultimate Member

R.I.P.

Active Member

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

Banned

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

Ultimate Member

Banned

R.I.P.

Attachments

Banned

Super Lurker

R.I.P.

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Banned

Ultimate Member

Super Lurker

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics