Page 1 of 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | >
Show 30 post(s) from this thread on one page

Gold & Silver Forum (http://goldismoney.info/forums/index.php)
- Firearms (http://goldismoney.info/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=159)
- - Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's (http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=296074)

oz in sc | 08-29-2008 12:02 AM
Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Quote: "...The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don�t tell me we can�t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals." http://www.politicswest.com/29461/fu...eptance_speech

gangsta99 | 08-29-2008 12:08 AM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Gonna buy me 2 AK-47s just because of his dumbass comment and to represent in Ohio. :)

oz in sc | 08-29-2008 12:12 AM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Of course we all knew this was going to happen,however I thought he would wait until elected.... I might buy something worse than a AK....:D

Silver Shield | 08-29-2008 07:29 AM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's I want whatever the government does not want me to have...

Twisted Avatar | 08-29-2008 08:30 AM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver Shield (Post 1260007) I want whatever the government does not want me to have...
Guns, sound money, critical thought and the abilty to provide for oneself. T

graspAU | 08-29-2008 08:42 AM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's I'm putting in an order for a custom LMT AR lower today and will order a BCM midlength upper as soon as they get back in stock. The girlfriend's going to buy me another AR lower for my birthday in short order. Already have a couple of complete ones. Get them now or wish you had! I will be able to buy PM's in the future....guns, not too sure!

jrog100 | 08-29-2008 08:45 AM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Check out www.centerfiresystems.com if you need to satisfy your AK needs.

Twisted Avatar | 08-29-2008 08:47 AM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Quote:
Originally Posted by jrog100 (Post 1260080) Check out www.centerfiresystems.com if you need to satisfy your AK needs.
Looks great!!! Bookmarked it! T

phideaux | 08-29-2008 08:53 AM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver Shield (Post 1260007) I want whatever the government does not want me to have...
A+ Be careful though, I once tried smoking cigarettes, just because the goobermint said that I shouldn't. That lasted about 6 days. :wink:

oz in sc | 08-29-2008 09:17 AM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's I think ARs will be safe for a while,only the cheaper more dangerous looking rifles will be banned.

Twisted Avatar | 08-29-2008 09:31 AM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in sc (Post 1260123) I think ARs will be safe for a while,only the cheaper more dangerous looking rifles will be banned.
That is the way it always starts but it will finish with bee bee's in the end. T

Abouthadit | 08-29-2008 09:32 AM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Avatar (Post 1260056) Guns, sound money, critical thought and the abilty to provide for oneself. T
+1,000,000,000,000,000 (I stopped at a quad in memory of the derivative tsunami)

The Argent Dragon | 08-29-2008 09:41 AM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Obama's a big fat A-hole....... So everyone who own's an AK is now a criminal ? :banghead: http://www.tucsonguns.net/pic/00-5-11-07-058.jpg Let's go SHOPPING !!!!

Big_Rob | 08-29-2008 09:48 AM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Gotta love it! The Democrats true anti-gun agenda is showing. You know when he said criminals he was talking about people like us. Only Democrats and their useful idiot supporters think they can pass laws that will actually stop real criminals from acquiring weapons.

Silver Shield | 08-29-2008 09:49 AM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Avatar (Post 1260056) Guns, sound money, critical thought and the abilty to provide for oneself. T
That pretty much sums it up...

oz in sc | 08-29-2008 09:50 AM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Avatar (Post 1260159) That is the way it always starts but it will finish with bee bee's in the end. T
Well yes it will. But my point was for those looking to buy now is to concentrate on the first things to be banned....and to also buy only what they actually want not simply to get it before it is gone sort of thing. So many gun owners seem to be the 'next big thing' sort of buyers and then move onto the next 'big thing'.... I am hoping our insurance claim comes through quickly and I will buy a couple of pistols in the same caliber(wife likes revolvers so probably .357),another FAL(if enough $$$ a Para) and a Remington 870....

FireMattMillen | 08-29-2008 10:01 AM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Why should we be punished for the fact that the ghetto sucks? Good link for www.centerfiresystems.com....I'll probably have to get that Yugoslavian SKS sometime soon.

oz in sc | 08-29-2008 10:04 AM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Quote:
Originally Posted by FireMattMillen (Post 1260222) Why should we be punished for the fact that the ghetto sucks?
For society to be equal,we must all equally suffer....:sarc:

hypervel | 08-29-2008 11:26 AM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Obama stated before-years ago.....HE WILL CONTROL AMMO THROUGH TAXATION. AW ban is a foregone conclusion, either candidate. We lose ammo too if Obama is in.

oz in sc | 08-29-2008 11:30 AM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Things may have just changed with McCains pick for VP.... Pro-gun,pro-hunting...

The Argent Dragon | 08-29-2008 11:34 AM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in sc (Post 1260387) Things may have just changed with McCains pick for VP.... Pro-gun,pro-hunting...
Lifetime NRA member, too ! :love: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

oz in sc | 08-29-2008 11:35 AM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's If only McCain wasn't on the ticket....he is such a horrible pick.

gopher29 | 08-29-2008 11:38 AM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in sc (Post 1260387) Things may have just changed with McCains pick for VP.... Pro-gun,pro-hunting...
Sarah Palin is not going to be able to save the Republicans this time around. McCain is unelectable. George W Bush's poor policy making for the past eight years has sealed Mccain's doom. Buy your guns and ammo now while there's still time!

oz in sc | 08-29-2008 11:50 AM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's I disagree......Obama has never taken the lead decisively even with almost all the MSM supporting him.... If only McCain wasn't on the ticket.:D

Osaka | 08-29-2008 12:15 PM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Quote:
Originally Posted by gopher29 (Post 1260396) McCain is unelectable.
Simply untrue. McCain is very much electable. The powers behind the Republican Party most likely did a great deal of polling and research to determine exactly how electable he was before they allowed him to become the front runner and eventual nominee. They have at least thousands of dollars of research dollars to spend. How much research did you do to determine that McCain isn't electable.

oz in sc | 08-29-2008 12:19 PM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Quote:
Originally Posted by Osaka (Post 1260472) Simply untrue. McCain is very much electable. The powers behind the Republican Party most likely did a great deal of polling and research to determine exactly how electable he was before they allowed him to become the front runner and eventual nominee. They have at least thousands of dollars of research dollars to spend. How much research did you do to determine that McCain isn't electable.
This is actually very true....and sad. It means the majority of the people polled thought McCain represents their views.:banghead: I have come to the conclusion that most people care little about what I think are important issues.

gopher29 | 08-29-2008 12:33 PM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Quote:
Originally Posted by Osaka (Post 1260472) Simply untrue. McCain is very much electable. The powers behind the Republican Party most likely did a great deal of polling and research to determine exactly how electable he was before they allowed him to become the front runner and eventual nominee. They have at least thousands of dollars of research dollars to spend. How much research did you do to determine that McCain isn't electable.
It will take a miracle for McCain to win this election. The Republican Party knows that and that is why they have chosen to add a woman to the ticket. They're grasping at straws and hoping that the addition of a woman will help shake things up enough to pull off an upset in November. It isn't going to happen and most of them know it. The rest of the Republicans, like yourself, are in denial.

oz in sc | 08-29-2008 12:44 PM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Polls show otherwise,Obama doesn't ever seem to get ahead...no matter how much MSM support.

hernancortes | 08-29-2008 12:48 PM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Quote:
Originally Posted by gopher29 (Post 1260507) It will take a miracle for McCain to win this election. The Republican Party knows that and that is why they have chosen to add a woman to the ticket. They're grasping at straws and hoping that the addition of a woman will help shake things up enough to pull off an upset in November. It isn't going to happen and most of them know it. The rest of the Republicans, like yourself, are in denial.
Bingo. The Repub base still dislike McCain. Too many of the base will stay home on election day. Independents hate him too. Bottom line, Obama will clean up.

The Argent Dragon | 08-29-2008 12:53 PM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Quote:
Originally Posted by hernancortes (Post 1260539) Bingo. The Repub base still dislike McCain. Too many of the base will stay home on election day. Independents hate him too. Bottom line, Obama will clean up.
Such pessimism..........egads ~ look at this and think again ! http://livingalaska.files.wordpress....rah_palin2.jpg

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:22 AM. |
Page 1 of 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | >
Show 30 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright = None use it and Link to GIM

Gold & Silver Forum - Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's

Page 2 of 3 | < | 1 | 2 | 3 | >
Show 30 post(s) from this thread on one page

Gold & Silver Forum (http://goldismoney.info/forums/index.php)
- Firearms (http://goldismoney.info/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=159)
- - Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's (http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=296074)

Big_Rob | 08-29-2008 12:58 PM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Quote:
Originally Posted by hernancortes (Post 1260539) Bingo. The Repub base still dislike McCain. Too many of the base will stay home on election day. Independents hate him too. Bottom line, Obama will clean up.
I dont see it that way. Obama's obvious and outright Marxist class warfare talk scares the shit out of conservatives both rich and middle class. I dont see conservatives sitting this one out with so much to lose. As big of a Ron Paul fan I am and as much as I like Bob Barr, I'm going to have to hold my nose and vote for McPain because at least I know that hes not going to take our right to bear arms away. Obama and Biden are staunchly anti-gun and will take our firearm rights away via legislation or the death of a thousand cuts.

hernancortes | 08-29-2008 02:23 PM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Obama yard signs sprout like weeds here in "conservative" Indiana. Didn't see those in '04 for Kerry. Obama will bring many more new voters this time around while activating the black vote as never before. Blacks will go for Obama by at least 92%. Repub base gains no ground, even allowing for Obama/Commie/Gun grab fear. They will be totally demoralized even before polls open. Tidal wave Victory for Obama.

The Argent Dragon | 08-29-2008 02:40 PM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Quote:
Originally Posted by hernancortes (Post 1260689) Obama yard signs sprout like weeds here in "conservative" Indiana. Didn't see those in '04 for Kerry.
I must admit that is 'scarry' :shocked_ma: Quote:
Obama will bring many more new voters this time around while activating the black vote as never before. Blacks will go for Obama by at least 92%.
And what about the Hispanic community ? Quote:
Repub base gains no ground, even allowing for Obama/Commie/Gun grab fear. They will be totally demoralized even before polls open. Tidal wave Victory for Obama.
Ok, but remember that you're on record so I'll revisit this post in November. :wink:

graspAU | 08-29-2008 02:53 PM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's 2 Attachment(s) Hope to not Have Obama/Biden

renegade_01 | 08-29-2008 03:56 PM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's someone alot wiser than I said something like... give em a backpack full of rocks, and make em swim home to the sharks... *NUM* *NUM*

Alquimia | 08-29-2008 04:15 PM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Quote:
Originally Posted by The Argent Dragon (Post 1260177) Obama's a big fat A-hole....... So everyone who own's an AK is now a criminal ? :banghead: http://www.tucsonguns.net/pic/00-5-11-07-058.jpg Let's go SHOPPING !!!!
Ummm... I own an AR-15 and a crate of pre-ban SKS'. But I agree with Obama, I don't see how this affects my rights in any way. The amount of gun violence that we put up with in this country is an embarassment and SOMETHING has to be done about it. Of course most of these NRA wackos don't mind as long as it's just those "darkies" capping each other. Wake up people, this is the USA you are never going to have all of your guns confiscated; but as a gun owner, a parent, and a patriot I am more than happy to make some compromises in the name of the progress of humanity. Of course I also believe that Americans should have the right to lawfully marry said firearms and that the gospel of the flying spaghetti monster should be taught in public schools, so what the **** do I know?

The Argent Dragon | 08-29-2008 04:18 PM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Quote:
Originally Posted by Alquimia (Post 1260920) Wake up people, this is the USA you are never going to have all of your guns confiscated; but as a gun owner, a parent, and a patriot I am more than happy to make some compromises in the name of the progress of humanity.
I'm not worried about confiscation........I'm worried about high $$$$ prices. WHo here wants to spend $5,000 on an AK ?.....or $500 for a Drum ? :shocked_ma:

Alquimia | 08-29-2008 04:43 PM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Quote:
Originally Posted by The Argent Dragon (Post 1260929) I'm not worried about confiscation........I'm worried about high $$$$ prices. WHo here wants to spend $5,000 on an AK ?.....or $500 for a Drum ? :shocked_ma:
Maybe the same people that will be willing to pay $5000/oz for gold in 2011. If you really, really need an AK, and let's be honest, unless you are actively hunting real Al Queda or dragons, you don't. AK's are ****ing cool, but I have to admit, I don't really need one. I hunt deer with my AR-15, but I could easily use my .308, I hunt hogs with an SKS, because it's fun, but there are better choices in firearms for that task too. Anyway, I'm a rich, white elitist so none of this really matters to me. I live in a neighborhood where we get our lawns mowed by white people, that's how rich I am. :sarc: (not really)

Big_Rob | 08-29-2008 05:01 PM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Quote:
Originally Posted by Alquimia (Post 1260920) Ummm... I own an AR-15 and a crate of pre-ban SKS'.
After reading your Obama propaganda, I seriously doubt it. Quote:
Originally Posted by Alquimia But I agree with Obama, I don't see how this affects my rights in any way.
so you agree with Obama that the second amendment is only for hunting and not an armed rebellion? Quote:
Originally Posted by Alquimia The amount of gun violence that we put up with in this country is an embarassment and SOMETHING has to be done about it.
Instead of giving up your 2nd amendment rights up so the government will take care of you cradle to grave, why is it we cant have criminal control? Why is it that time after time after time gun control FAILS to control the criminals? Of course, people like you blame the LAW ABIDING gun owners and wish to subjugate them instead. Quote:
Originally Posted by Alquimia Of course most of these NRA wackos don't mind as long as it's just those "darkies" capping each other.
Pardon me? NRA wackos??? That just earned you the lone spot on my ignore list. I am the NRA and take high offense to your statement. BTW, thats called a personal attack on this forum. Quote:
Originally Posted by Alquimia Wake up people, this is the USA you are never going to have all of your guns confiscated;
So you are in favor of SOME of my firearms being confiscated? MOLON LABE! Quote:
Originally Posted by Alquimia but as a gun owner, a parent, and a patriot I am more than happy to make some compromises in the name of the progress of humanity.
Sorry there skippy, Im not willing to surrender any of my rights as quickly as you. Since you're so quick to capitulate YOUR freedom, do you feel that the fairness doctrine should be re-instituted to stiffle and outright censor the freedom of speech of those you dont agree with as well? Quote:
Originally Posted by Alquimia Of course I also believe that Americans should have the right to lawfully marry said firearms and that the gospel of the flying spaghetti monster should be taught in public schools, so what the **** do I know?
Have fun in the lonely kingdom of ignoreland...

Alquimia | 08-29-2008 05:45 PM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Even though I am now being ignored by Big Rob, and I do not take that lightly seeing his long time membership and post count, I will respond. 1) My Obama "propaganda" (belated disclosure: yes I will be voting for him) has no relevance to the firearms I own. I think propaganda is a bit of an exaggeration, I'm not exactly Fox "news" over here. 2) The 2nd amendment was brilliantly written. The men who devised it knew that times would change and the American experiment would grow and evolve. That is why it, and much of the bill of rights are open to generational interpretation. BTW, rebellion and militia are not the same thing. The fact of the matter is, the NRA (a powerful enough lobbyist organization) and the heritage of responsible gun ownership have redefined the 2nd amendment. But it does read "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...." so technically, unless you are a member of a "well regulated" militia, you do not have the constitutional right to keep & bear arms. That being said, the Gov't knows that it would be met with a war if it tried to explain that to the American public, so it won't be changing the status quo. (Cold, dead hands and all that charlatan crap). 3) (continuing themes from 2) no one is going to erase the 2nd amendment, it is safe. I really don't think that we have had much of any gun control here, so how can you say it has failed? UK boasts about .07 firearm homicides per 100,000 people to our 5+. USA! USA! USA! (the low number of shootings is only because all English men are gay, that's what I heard) Only an idiot would blame law abiding people for the actions of criminals, that ones not worth any more comment. 4) I am sorry about the NRA comment. There are plenty of NRA wackos, but there are also plenty of Greenpeace wackos, AARP wackos, PETA wackos and PTA wackos. My Grandfather was lifetime NRA and gave me a lifetime NRA membership when I turned 15. My grandfather was no wacko, so I apologize for that generalization. 5) Absolutely. This conversation started on the topic of AK's, but I don't think AW's are that big of a problem. If all metro police would turn in their weapons first, then I think a major metro handgun ban would be worth considering. 6) I think you hurt your argument by the condescending use of "Skippy" but I'll let it slide. The fairness doctrine is a tool of the religious oligarchs to further penetrate our society (and our little boys) with their BS. I hate religion, and the infant-minded people that allow themselves to be raped by it. So, no. I am not that stupid.... 7) We may not agree, but I respect opinions different than my own. I even acknowledge their validity from time to time. That's one of the reasons that I am going to vote for Obama, even after voting for Ron Paul in the primary. Cheers.

nunaem | 08-29-2008 05:52 PM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Quote:
Originally Posted by Alquimia (Post 1261000) Anyway, I'm a rich, white elitist so none of this really matters to me. I live in a neighborhood where we get our lawns mowed by white people, that's how rich I am. :sarc:
Yes, let's all sacrifice our rights because poor black gangsters are killing each other in slums on the other side of the country. :sarc: If I live in a rich white crime-free neighborhood(which I don't) why should I make concessions on my rights because Los Angeles has high crime rates?

Alquimia | 08-29-2008 06:00 PM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Quote:
Originally Posted by nunaem (Post 1261148) Yes, let's all sacrifice our rights because poor black gangsters are killing each other in slums on the other side of the country. :sarc: If I live in a rich white crime-free neighborhood(which I don't) why should I make concessions on my rights because Los Angeles has high crime rates?
Because we are all Americans... And it is everyone responsibility to make the hard decisions that are necessary to move our country in a positive direction. These asshole babyboomers think that they have no responsibility for their fellow countrymen. BabyBoomers need to either learn a lesson in real patriotism and sacrifice and being our brother's keeper from the aptly named "Greatest Generation" or hurry up and die. (BTW, nunaem, the second paragraph is in no way directed at you) "Would you care to list the rights I was born with that are open to generational interpretation?" Here's one that has been drastically re-interpreted in the last 8 years: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Alquimia | 08-29-2008 06:08 PM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's ignore=ignorance. We may not agree on this, but that is no reason to discount another man's opinions entirely.... That is un-American.

nunaem | 08-29-2008 06:29 PM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Quote:
Originally Posted by Alquimia (Post 1261164) Because we are all Americans... And it is everyone responsibility to make the hard decisions that are necessary to move our country in a positive direction.
That still doesn't answer the question of how ol' farmer Joe's six-shooter in Iowa is causing gun crime in New York City. America does have a shameful amount of gun crime, I will concede to you that, but shouldn't New York City, or wherever, make the 'hard decisions' since that is where the actual crimes are taking place? Quote:
These asshole babyboomers think that they have no responsibility for their fellow countrymen. BabyBoomers need to either learn a lesson in real patriotism and sacrifice and being our brother's keeper from the aptly named "Greatest Generation" or hurry up and die.
I can understand your distaste for the baby-boomers for a number of reasons, but lack of gun control is not one of them. And the 'Greatest Generation' wasn't so great either. As for "Being your brother's keeper", wasn't that used to push Social Security? How did that Socialist program turn out?

Alquimia | 08-29-2008 06:37 PM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Quote:
Originally Posted by nunaem (Post 1261226) That still doesn't answer the question of how ol' farmer Joe's six-shooter in Iowa is causing gun crime in New York City. America does have a shameful amount of gun crime, I will concede to you that, but shouldn't New York City, or wherever, make the 'hard decisions' since that is where the actual crimes are taking place? I can understand your distaste for the baby-boomers for a number of reasons, but lack of gun control is not one of them. And the 'Greatest Generation' wasn't so great either. As for "Being your brother's keeper", wasn't that used to push Social Security? How did that Socialist program turn out?
Let us not forget the Obama quote that is the crux of this thread: Quote: "...The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don�t tell me we can�t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals." Uphold means to not infringe upon. Out Of means prevent from obtaining, not making criminals out of responsible guns owners. Thank you for re-routing this thread back onto the path of intelligent, civil discourse. Brother's keeper is a Biblical phrase from William Tyndale's translation of the story of Cain and Abel. Social Security wasn't a horrible idea when it was conceived, but the crafters didn't count on the baby boomers did they! Socialist programs are all around us, and they aren't all bad: Fire department, Law enforcement, public schools, public libraries, public works & maintenance, etc.

graspAU | 08-29-2008 06:38 PM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's 1 Attachment(s) That's it, just went and purhased another AR lower. from: http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=17936

nunaem | 08-29-2008 07:10 PM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Quote:
Originally Posted by Alquimia (Post 1261238) Let us not forget the Obama quote that is the crux of this thread: Quote: "...The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don�t tell me we can�t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals." Uphold means to not infringe upon. Out Of means prevent from obtaining, not making criminals out of responsible guns owners.
Who could object to keeping AK's out of the hands of violent criminals? How to go about this is an entirely different matter, and one that Obama does not cover, but he is probably going to just make it more difficult to buy a gun legally which will do nothing to keep them out of the hands of criminals(by definition they do not follow the law). Quote:
Social Security wasn't a horrible idea when it was conceived, but the crafters didn't count on the baby boomers did they!
Any program that can be brought to bankruptcy by the ebb and flow of population growth isn't such a bright idea. Quote:
Socialist programs are all around us, and they aren't all bad: Fire department, Law enforcement, public schools, public libraries, public works & maintenance, etc
Imagine how much better all these services would be if they were run by the private sector efficiently.

Big_Rob | 08-29-2008 09:05 PM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's NEWS RELEASE Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms 12500 N.E. Tenth Place Bellevue, WA 98005 MICHIGAN CCW RECORD PROVES ANTI-GUNNERS LIED...AGAIN, SAYS CCRKBA For Immediate Release: January 8, 2008 BELLEVUE, WA � After six years of expanded concealed carry in Michigan, the record speaks for itself: No shootouts at traffic stops, a decline in firearms deaths and suicides, and violent crime is down. Concealed carry works, and the hysteria pandered by anti-gun extremists who opposed the law has been proven false. �Michigan�s armed private citizens have provided the evidence we knew would come,� said Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. �Lawful concealed carry reduces crime and does not result in mass mayhem as the anti-self-defense crowd wanted us believe. Six years ago, they pulled out all the stops, fabricated every dire prediction they could imagine, and essentially told lies about concealed carry and passed them off as truth, and too many in the media ate it up as if it were manna from Heaven.� A recent story in the Detroit Free Press revealed that �the incidence of violent crime in Michigan in the six years since the law went into effect has been, on average, below the rate of the previous six years. The overall incidence of death from firearms, including suicide and accidents, also has declined.� �Anti-gun rights extremists established a track record for prevarication in state after state where they rabidly fought right-to-carry statutes,� observed CCRKBA Executive Director Mark A. Taff, �and in case after case, including Michigan, every one of their claims has been statistically refuted.� The newspaper quoted Woodhaven Police Chief Michael Martin, with the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police, who admitted that police fears about passage of concealed carry were misplaced. �Law enforcement has nothing to fear from legally-armed, law-abiding citizens,� Gottlieb said. �Their concerns were wrongly placed, and now Michigan lawmen and women know what their colleagues in other states have learned. Armed citizens make a difference, and in many cases are the true first responders. Their presence can act as a deterrent. �The experience in Michigan is like the experience in Texas, Ohio, Florida and other states, and it begs the question, if anti-gun extremists were so dishonest about this, what else have they been lying about?� With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation's premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States. The Citizens Committee can be reached by phone at (425) 454-4911, on the internet at www.ccrkba.org or by email to InformationRequest@ccrkba.org. -END-

Big_Rob | 08-29-2008 09:06 PM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Anti-Gun Schemers � More Crow for Dinner Tonight printable page Submitted by cbaus on Wed, 03/19/2008 - 01:10. Gun Grabbers By Gerard Valentino and Brian Stewart The Texas Department of Public Safety released the number of concealed carry license holders convicted of crimes in 2005. In yet another embarrassing defeat to the anti-gun schemers, permit holders in Texas proved to be in the 99th percentile of all law-abiding citizens. What that means is you are less likely to be a victim of a crime perpetrated by a license holder in Texas, than you are likely to see Sarah Brady make a straw purchase of a shotgun for her son. For those out there who have fought the good fight on the concealed handgun issue, let the gloating begin. One more set of unquestionable data has proved what the anti-gun schemers do everything to deny: America�s concealed handgun license holders are among the most law-abiding of all citizens. That is in any country, and compared to any demographic group. While not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, license holders are still less likely to commit a crime than most police officers, doctors, lawyers or politicians. None if that is a knock on any of those other demographic groups; instead it is a testament to the integrity and character of license holders because the other groups are also among the most honest in America. Organizations like the anti-gun Brady gang will spring on the statistics by saying there were 27 license holders convicted of unlawfully concealed carry. They will fail to point out that over 2900 non-license holders were convicted of the same crime. That puts the conviction rate of license holders compared to the general public at .9240%. When considering other criminal acts the conviction rate of license holders remain just as infinitesimal. The Brady gang, however, will only point to the number of license holders convicted of crimes. They will not admit that by choosing to go armed in Texas, which has a decent concealed carry law, license holders are often more at risk for arrest. Which is more indisputable evidence that license holders are incredibly dedicated to following the law and do so while protecting those who refuse to make personal safety a personal responsibility. We already know that the anti-gun schemers will never get it, and stopping them from crusading to take our guns is impossible. It is the great middle ground on guns that is vitally important to our cause since their sheer number can overwhelm activists on either side of the gun debate. Disseminating the incredible statistics about how much license holders try to follow the law is vitally important to our cause. It�s vital we remain vigilant in pointing out that having a concealed handgun license will not turn the average honest person into someone prone to criminal acts of jackassery. Despite predictions of "blood in the streets", the Texas statistics provide quantifiable proof that the opponents of concealed carry were, and remain, wrong. As John Adams used to say, "Facts are stubborn things." A single Texas license holder was convicted of criminal negligent homicide during 2005, a far cry from the Wild West like scenario likely to be put out by the anti-gun con-men. While one license holder being convicted is one too many, it doesn�t change that well over 100,000 license holders in Texas went through life armed in 2005 and there was only one such criminal incident. Again, that is a testament to the care and seriousness that Texas license holders took in going armed. Which isn�t an easy proposition considering the myriad of laws most states have designed to trip up the most fervently honest concealed carry license holder. Most other states don�t keep such detailed records of crimes committed by license holders but anecdotal evidence tends to support the statistics found in Texas. Ohio�s concealed carry law has been wildly successful despite the fact that it is the most restrictive in the nation and Pennsylvania, a state with a great CHL law also has almost no crime among license holders. The Ohio establishment media�s powerful lobby succeeded in gaining access to license holders� private information in an attempt to be able to prove the failure of legal concealed carry. It backfired on them because crimes by license holders have been few and far between. The anti-gun schemers and con-men would have you believe that every license holder is a ticking bomb waiting to explode in an orgy of violence. There is nothing to support their claim, however, and other than a complicit establishment media nobody believes their ridiculous premise. Despite the anti-gunners claims to the contrary, Americans are by nature law-abiding people who make a conscious effort to do what is right. Claims that everyday Americans are incapable of handling the responsibility of owning and carrying a gun are absurd. As a people, we�ve achieved at an unthinkable level, beaten despots, tyrants and lunatics alike, and done so with an unwavering sense of doing the right thing. America alone has taken foreign lands and given it back to the people who live there. To think a people with such a remarkable resume have to rely on government for self-protection is laughable. Politicians and anti-gun schemers are the only two groups still willing to believe everyone should call 911 and wait for the police to come and save them. Most Americans know better and realize their personal safety is a personal responsibility. Only criminals and anti-gun crusaders make up the limited group of Americans who know the difference between right and wrong, and still chose to do the wrong thing. Concealed carry proponents know better and have confidence in the responsibility of law-abiding people. The statistics released by the Texas Department of Public safety are further proof that, as usual, the side betting on the best in Americans is on the right side of an issue. Gerard Valentino is the Buckeye Firearms Association Centraol Ohio Chair. Brian S. Stewart is a former infantryman and an Iraq War veteran. He recently graduated from the Ohio State University with a degree in Political Science.

Big_Rob | 08-29-2008 09:07 PM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's http://www.iwmc.org/IWMC-Forum/JamesSwan/060129.gif and what to do. However well-intentioned, gun bans are likely to get the opposite results of what they are intended to achieve. To stop them, the shooting/hunting community needs to get pro-active By James A. Swan, Ph.D. Author of "In Defense of Hunting" http://www.iwmc.org/images/back-corner-orng.gif I n November, voters in San Francisco approved a ballot measure to ban the sale and manufacture of firearms in the city, and ownership of handguns. Backers of the measure claimed that San Francisco taxpayers spent at least $31.2 million responding to gun violence every year. Proponents often said they "just didn't like guns around." The NRA has already filed a lawsuit to overturn the measure, but the vote sends a message. San Francisco joins Chicago and Washington, DC, Great Britain, Australia and Canada, in enacting draconian firearms regulations. Such bans are being pushed by a large, well-funded movement to restrict, license and ban firearms on the pretense that such bans will somehow reduce violence. And they are likely to grow in momentum, unless some drastic steps are taken. No one, except criminals, wants crime and mayhem. But however well-intentioned anti-gun folks may be, research shows that gun bans are likely to get the opposite results of what they are intended to achieve, because legal gun owners by and large are not criminally inclined. And without self-defense, people become easy prey for human predators. Simon Fraser University professor Gary Mauser finds that a year after the British obediently surrendered 160,000 legal handguns, London muggings were up 53 percent, gun murders up 90 percent and robbery up more than 100 percent. By the year following, annual gun crimes overall had risen 39 percent. This pattern has continued. The rate of violent crime in England and Wales is more than double the United States. It is now more dangerous to walk the streets of London than New York. On top of that, British Olympic shooting teams are now forced to practice their sport in another country! This is doubly absurd, for it discourages establishing positive role models for how firearms should be used. In contrast, during the last decade, violent crime has dropped 40 percent in the United States as the number of firearms and states with concealed carry permits have increased. Why the bans don't work Studies by a number of solid researchers, including Don Kates, Gary Mauser, and Dave Kopel, clearly show that legal gun owners are generally mentally healthy and more law-abiding than non-owners, and legal firearms are seldom used in crime. There are some other reasons why firearms bans don't reduce violence. It is not hard to reload your own ammunition. Many people do this as a hobby. Criminal elements are already doing this, and making more than reloaded shells. This country was won by cottage industries of firearms makers. Modern weapons are more complicated to manufacture, but there are numerous reports from abroad of illegal arms-manufacturing operations sprouting up like mushrooms after a warm, spring rain. Only about 5 percent of the cargo containers that come into the United States are opened for inspection. The odds of shipping in a load of illegally made firearms and not getting caught are pretty high. And you ask why the illegal trade in firearms is the third-largest illegal-trafficking element in the world after drugs and smuggling plants and wildlife. In Scotland, efforts are afoot to ban kitchen knives and swords. Does that reduce violence? Human nature The word "arms" comes from the fact that weapons are extensions and amplifications of intention. You can turn just about anything into a weapon � newspapers, magazines, and pencils. Remember that box cutters were all that was necessary to hijack jets on 9/11. If you ban one weapon, people with violent tendencies will substitute. The issue about weapons ownership and violence is ultimately about community mental health. Violence arises from a complex set of social and personal forces, one of the most important being the perception that some people are defenseless and can be easily victimized. The way out of being a victim is self-assertion, including defending yourself. Learning to use a weapon safely is part of self-defense training. Numerous psychological studies show that martial-arts training is good for kids, including at-risk kids who usually have low self-esteem. Check out Chuck Norris' KickStart program to see what I'm talking about. What is the safest country in the world? As attorney and author Stephen Halbrook has pointed out, it is Switzerland, where all able-bodied males serve in the militia. And after proper training, they take home modern military weapons ready to put into use at a moment's notice. The well-armed Swiss militia dissuaded the Nazis from invading in World War II. The peaceful Swiss have more shooting ranges than golf courses and one of the lowest rates of violent crime of any country in the world. Shooting sports are lifelong activities that teach self-respect, self-confidence and discipline. They level the playing field for competition, in contrast to many other sports that favor size, strength and sex. More shooting, not less, may be a path to peace. Attitude building The hunting and shooting sports community does heroic work, but it tends to focus on fighting a seemingly endless stream of defensive battles. The time is long overdue to take some pro-active steps to educate the general public about the truth surrounding people who own guns, enjoy shooting them safely and hunt. Schools are one force. If kids grow up learning to respect weapons, they are less likely to be intimidated by the fear of them. The Archery In The Schools program, which injects archery classes into physical education programs, is one of the best things that has happened to teach responsible weapons attitudes in a long time. The 4-H shooting program is equally on target. We need more like this. The media is a powerful force of shaping community attitudes, and its anti-gun bias is well-documented. Outdoor channels tend to reach the choir. The battle for public opinion about guns will be won in the general media. Preachy documentaries tend to reach "the saved." Despite the box office success of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," his candidate did not win. People want to be entertained. Consider what the film "A River Runs Through It" did for the explosive growth of flyfishing. At the upcoming Safari Club convention in Reno, Nev., I'll be chairing a panel of folks from Hollywood who shoot and hunt and want to do something about the negative media spin on hunters and guns. They will have proposals for movies, TV series, contests, promotional ventures and more. If you can't get to Reno, stay tuned, and in February I'll tell you what kind of media magic the pros want to conjure up to ban the bans. http://www.iwmc.org/images/iwmc-end.gif James Swan � who has appeared in more than a dozen feature films, including "Murder in the First" and "Star Trek: First Contact," as well as the television series "Nash Bridges," "Midnight Caller" and "Modern Marvels" � is the author of the book "In Defense of Hunting." To learn more about Swan, visit his Web site.

Big_Rob | 08-29-2008 09:09 PM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Gun Control really does work! Commentary by Alan L. Lund With all the media induced frenzy over gun control, the 80,000 Million Mommies, and the President's various plans surrounding the issue, I have to say that in reality gun control really does work. There are volumes of evidence to prove this. Before anyone gets the wrong impression (like, hey I thought this guy was opposed to gun control) let me explain how it works. Gun control is an effectiv e tool when dealing with crime. It has proven to have profound results. Why, in Australia alone gun control has had a dramatic affect on the crime rate. Don't believe it? Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, crime has risen dramatically on that continent, prompting critics of U.S. gun control efforts to issue new warnings of what life in America could be like if Congress ever bans firearms. After Australian lawmakers passed widespread gun bans, (law-abiding) gun owners were forced to surrender about 650,000 weapons, which were later slated for destruction, according to statistics from the Australian Sporting Shooters Association. The bans were not limited to so-called "assault" weapons or military-type firearms, but also to .22 rifles and shotguns. The effort cost the Australian government about $500 million, said association representative Keith Tidswell. Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story: Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent; Assaults are up 8.6 percent; Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent; In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent; In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily, now there has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly. At the time of the ban, which followed an April 29, 1996 shooting at a Port Arthur tourist spot by lone gunman Martin Bryant, the continent had an annual murder-by-firearm rate of about 1.8 per 100,000 persons, "a safe society by any standards," said Tidswell. But such low rates of crime and rare shootings did not deter then-Prime Minister John Howard from calling for and supporting the weapons ban. The statistics speak for themselves, and gun control works. The problem is "who" it works for. Everyone interested in the subject is by now familiar with John Lott's work "More Guns, Less Crime". Dr. Lott admits he had no interest in firearms until he began to research the affects of gun control on society. His conclusions led him to write a very exhaustive piece of research that proved that an armed populace is the greatest deterrent to crime. States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%; and, If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly. Again I will say it: gun control works (for the criminal). Tell me how you feel when you take your family out to eat or just an afternoon at the mall and are forced to sit at a stop light where thugs happen to be hanging around on that particular corner. If you live in a state where the gun laws are hyper-oppressive, and being the model law-abiding citizen (ready-made-victim) you are, odds are great that you are not armed. Knowing your state law prohibits you from practicing self-defense, do these seedy individuals have greater confidence in approaching you? Think about it. Here in America we are in the pre-ban phase of gun control. The tighter the gun control restrictions become, the higher the crime rate goes up. Washington DC and Chicago, IL are two examples of rigid gun control law that have led to an exploding crime rate. The arguments of both cities as to why this has happened crosses the line of stupidity. "Guns are being brought in from other areas and used to perform criminal acts in our city" is what you get from both mayors of these crime infested metropolises. Duh! Criminals don't close the doors and have going out of business sales, they just choose to operate in areas that offer the least amount of resistance and our benevolent government seems all to happy to oblige. Several years ago California required law-abiding citizens who owned one of those wicked looking "assault" rifles to register with the state. This was done with the state going out of it's way to guarantee these law-abiding citizens that their second Amendment rights were not being infringed and that this was not a pre-confiscation maneuver. Later when the state was proposing stricter gun control measures and banning so-called "assault" weapons one politician made the statement that we now have all the names, let's just go to their homes and take them. I like what one person has called this; People Registration, because that's what it is. Watch closely those countries that have recently banned citizens from defending themselves from common street criminals. The "real" criminals are not far behind and they want more than your wife's jewelry or that forty bucks you have in your wallet. They want more than what that of a sick mind requires in order to fulfill a rapists needs. Guns are less available now in this country than they have ever been. There are more restrictions on our Second Amendment rights than any time in history. Laws that make the law-abiding jump through any number of hoops just to exercise a right are written in volumes. Certain weapons have been banned in many areas of the country. Gun control is here and according to the gun grabbers crime should be all but eliminated. Yet we have a growing ATF and FBI. We have a military style local police force that is becoming more and more beholding to the federal government. Why? There has been a political ideology in place for years that seems to float from one society to the next and it has historically sought to destroy and dominate those who disagree with it. It has found a home here in America and has been allowed to flourish under our form of government. This ideology has chosen it's side and controls the very foundations that we depend on. It has perverted every social institution in the land and made that which was abnormal the norm. It has created enemies of the state by influencing government to take a side on issues where the government is required to remain neutral. Bill Clinton may be out of job in six months but his party will still be in Washington, and no matter what happens in this coming November's election, this ideology has infected both parties now. They both see the possibilities and political advantages that will come from an unarmed populace! The "real" criminals don't necessarily show their true colors immediately, but in the end they always do. And they always eliminate their opposition. History doesn't lie: "In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents were rounded up and exterminated. "In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians were rounded up and exterminated. "Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others were rounded up and exterminated. (see Footnote) "China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents were rounded up and exterminated. "Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and exterminated. "Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians were rounded up and exterminated. "Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people were rounded up and exterminated." Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. So don't tell me gun control doesn't work! The numbers prove it! The big lie is about who gun control works for! ********** Footnote: Some concern has been expressed regarding the accuracy of this statement and our attempt to locate the author for comment has been unsuccessful. We are providing the following links in order that the reader might formulate his own understanding of the situation in Germany prior to WWII and how that relates to the gun control debate. - Ed The Myth of Nazi Gun Control By N. A. Browne On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars By BERNARD E. HARCOURT "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -Thomas Jefferson http://www.kc3.com/images/gold_bar_640.gif

Big_Rob | 08-29-2008 09:12 PM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's CDC Finds No Proof Gun Laws Curb Violence Filed under: Disarmament of the people http://images.100777.com/upload/files/guns.gif October 7, 2003 - 18:46 Since violence is an inate factor of human behavior (and not all violence is inherently bad or evil - some, like defensive violence to resist attack, is obviously justified) and guns are merely an inanimate tool, why should this come as any surprise? Especially since Canada - that bastion of p.c. gun-registration and gun-banning - is now reporting that more people in Canada were killed with knives than with guns in 2002.... and that homicides in Canada are up... CDC Finds No Proof Gun Laws Curb Violence By KRISTEN WYATT Associated Press Writer October 2, 2003, 6:44 PM EDT ATLANTA -- A sweeping federal review of the nation's gun control laws -- including mandatory waiting periods and bans on certain weapons -- found no proof such measures reduce firearm violence. The review, released Thursday, was conducted by a task force of scientists appointed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC said the report suggests more study is needed, not that gun laws don't work. But the agency said it has no plans to spend more money on firearms study. Some conservatives have said that the CDC should limit itself to studying diseases, and some have complained in the past that the agency has used firearms-tracking data to subtly push gun control. In fact, since a 1996 fight in Congress, the CDC has been prohibited from using funds to press for gun control laws. Since then, the task force reviewed 51 published studies about the effectiveness of eight types of gun-control laws. The laws included bans on specific firearms or ammunition, measures barring felons from buying guns, and mandatory waiting periods and firearm registration. None of the studies were done by the federal government. In every case, a CDC task force found "insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness." "I would not want to speculate on how different groups may interpret this report," said Dr. Sue Binder, Director of CDC's Center for Injury Prevention and Control. "It's simply a review of the literature." Most of the studies were not funded by the CDC. Gun-control advocates quickly called on the government to fund better research. A spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said the laws work, but it is nearly impossible to prove it because people can buy guns in one state and carry them into one of the handful of states with strong antigun measures. "It's hard to study whether gun control laws work in this country because we have so few of them," said Peter Hamm. "Talking about studying gun control in this country is like talking about studying democracy in Iraq." The National Rifle Association said it needed more time to review the report before commenting on it. Firearms injuries were the second leading cause of injury deaths, killing 28,663 people in 2000, the most recent year for which data was available. About 58 percent of the deaths were suicides. Gun accidents claimed about 775 lives that year. About the only conclusion the task force could draw from the surveys was that mandatory waiting periods reduced gun suicides in people over 55. But even that reduction was not big enough to significantly affect gun suicides for the overall population. The task force complained that many of the studies were inconsistent, too narrow, or poorly done. "When we say we don't know the effect of a law, we don't mean it has no effect. We mean we don't know," said Dr. Jonathan Fielding, chairman of the CDC task force. "We are calling for additional high-quality studies." Among the problems: * Studies on firearm bans and ammunition bans were inconsistent. Some showed the bans decreased violence; others found the bans actually increased violence. Many firearm bans grant exemptions to people who already owned the weapons, making it hard to tell how well a ban worked. Other evidence showed that firearms sales go up right before bans take effect. * Studies on background checks were also inconsistent, with some showing decreased firearm injuries and others showing increased injuries. A major problem with those studies, the report said, was that "denial of an application does not always stop applicants from acquiring firearms through other means." * Only four studies examined the effectiveness of firearm registration on violent outcomes, and all of the findings were again inconsistent. * Too few studies have been done on child-access gun laws to gauge their effectiveness. * Study periods often are too narrow to tell whether gun laws work. The task force noted that "rates of violence may affect the passage of firearms laws, and firearms laws may then affect rates of violence."

Big_Rob | 08-29-2008 09:15 PM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's And as far as that total nonsense that the 2nd amendment only protects states rights to form a militia and not our right to keep and bear arms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric...mbia_v._Heller Not according to the supreme court, thats the right of the people. the states didnt need the right to form militias as they already had that right.

Big_Rob | 08-29-2008 09:24 PM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Alquimia, You can read the material I posted here and take the red pill to see that the anti gunners in the Democrat party is outright lying to you about gun violence and giving up your rights or you can take the blue pill and think Im one of those baby boomers (which Im not, Gen X here TYVM) that just need to die off, and keep believing that Obama and the staunchly anti-gun Joe Biden wont be regulating the right to keep and bear arms out of existence. Listen to my words carefully, A right restricted is a right lost. in the words of Van Wilder, You might want to right that down.

elroy | 08-29-2008 10:17 PM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's This has been common knowledge for years. When Florida passed it's CCW law, the law also required the most extensive record keeping on contacts between CCW holders and law enforcement that had ever been compiled. It became very clear that CCW holders were the most law abiding citizens in the state. Obama talks about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals because it is to early to pursue his real agenda. Go to this page and scroll down to Obama's positions on gun ownership/laws http://www.ontheissues.org/Gun_Control.htm

Alquimia | 08-29-2008 10:34 PM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_Rob (Post 1261450) Alquimia, You can read the material I posted here and take the red pill to see that the anti gunners in the Democrat party is outright lying to you about gun violence and giving up your rights or you can take the blue pill and think Im one of those baby boomers (which Im not, Gen X here TYVM) that just need to die off, and keep believing that Obama and the staunchly anti-gun Joe Biden wont be regulating the right to keep and bear arms out of existence. Listen to my words carefully, A right restricted is a right lost. in the words of Van Wilder, You might want to right that down.
I will assume since you are addressing me that I have not officailly made your ignore list yet. I respect that you are willing to at least read an opposing viewpoint. I understand that as a socially liberal atheist PM horder that has donated the maximum contribution to Ron Paul, Obama & Kucinich: I am an exotic breed here. I hope that our common thread of love for and faith in hard assets like gold (and guns) will allow for respectful disagreement as is the American way. I will continue to stir up shit and I look forward to doing battle again in the future. I would like to pose an open question. How can we (the people, not the so called government) address the embarassing level of gun violence in our homeland, and make a majority feel okay about the way in which we go about it. TPTB are perfectly happy with the sheeple being too afraid to go anywhere but work wal-mart and back in front of the TV to watch Everybody Loves Raymond or some other stupid shit. I live in Texas, I legally carry a Walther P99. I know that I can defend myself if I must, but it does not make me inherently safer. Any ideas?

Big_Rob | 08-30-2008 11:54 AM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Quote:
Originally Posted by Alquimia (Post 1261533) I would like to pose an open question. How can we (the people, not the so called government) address the embarassing level of gun violence in our homeland
There's a real simple solution to that problem that Obama and most of the Democrats in congress arent willing to do. Criminal control. Long prison sentences for violent forced felony offenders. Im not talking like the normal 5 years for rape or 10 years for an armed robbery, car jacking, etc, etc, etc. Im talking 50+ year prison sentences with no parole nor gain time. If a person has a penchant for violent crimes against others (not petty shit like possession of drugs) that person should be punished to the fullest extent. Making firearms unavailable to the general law abiding public isnt going to stop criminals from obatining them illegally on the black market, Thats been proven with the debacle known as the war on drugs (which Im very much so against). The criminals that have to obatin their firepower on the black market usually are disqualified from buying firearms thru legal methods. So they could care less about what firearm bans the government imposes. In other words, Obamas plan to take AK47s out of the hands of criminals is just lip service to get people to agree to the further regulation of their right to bear arms. You cannot stop the supply side in a black market, you cannot stop criminals from obtaining weapons to use against the law abiding citizens. Now, with that said. You can take the people out of the general population that rob rape murder etc etc etc and put them in a place for a very very long time where that cannot harm people like me and you. Personally myself, I would think twice about robbing a liquor store or car jacking a person if the punishment was 50+ years in prison with no parole or time off for good behavior. Once more violent criminals that feel the need to commit forced felonies against law abiding people are taken out of society the quicker all the gun crimes will drop. Again, let me make myself perfectly clear so no one thinks that Im all for the prison industrial complex, the people that would be put in prison for those extended prison sentances would not be those that got popped with a few ounces of reefer or got caught driving with a suspended license. Im talking the worst of society. Black, white, hispanic, asian, I really dont care what color they are. As long as they are kept in cages where they belong. And thats what I mean by criminal control.

Alquimia | 08-30-2008 12:38 PM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_Rob (Post 1262051) Again, let me make myself perfectly clear so no one thinks that Im all for the prison industrial complex, the people that would be put in prison for those extended prison sentances would not be those that got popped with a few ounces of reefer or got caught driving with a suspended license. Im talking the worst of society. Black, white, hispanic, asian, I really dont care what color they are. As long as they are kept in cages where they belong. And thats what I mean by criminal control.
:applause_ I am really glad that you brought up the prison industrial complex and the war on personal freedom...i mean, drugs. In order to make your plan a reality we would have to commute the sentences of everyone convicted of simple possession of controlled substances. We have the largest percentage imprisoned population in the world, decriminalizing drug possession could change that overnight. Fewer prisoners & harsher sentences, sounds good but mandatory minimum sentences have been an injustice for the most part when applied to drugs; we still have to find a way to apply justice evenly, consistently and fairly. However, as long as we allow prisons for profit your plan is impossible. The same can be said for healthcare, war, the gold standard and the NBA.

hernancortes | 08-30-2008 01:10 PM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Quote:
Originally Posted by The Argent Dragon (Post 1260721) And what about the Hispanic community ? Ok, but remember that you're on record so I'll revisit this post in November. :wink:
Well Hispanics vote for Democrats in Pres. elections typically by a margin of 6-4 and being that they will comprise an even larger % of the electorate this time around, that bodes even worse for Repubs. Please do bump this thread on election day, cause I'm sure I will have forgotten about it by then. I would gloat at the opportunity but I'm not too pleased that Obama will win.:no_ma:

Ebie | 08-30-2008 08:38 PM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Quote:
Originally Posted by Alquimia (Post 1261140) ...have redefined the 2nd amendment. But it does read "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...." so technically, unless you are a member of a "well regulated" militia, you do not have the constitutional right to keep & bear arms. .
Off duty (California) National Guard cannot bear arms (legally). I wonder if that has ever been tested in court?

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:22 AM. |
Page 2 of 3 | < | 1 | 2 | 3 | >
Show 30 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright = None use it and Link to GIM

Gold & Silver Forum - Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's

Page 3 of 3 | < | 1 | 2 | 3
Show 30 post(s) from this thread on one page

Gold & Silver Forum (http://goldismoney.info/forums/index.php)
- Firearms (http://goldismoney.info/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=159)
- - Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's (http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=296074)

DC7 | 09-03-2008 07:25 PM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Alquimia, Quote:
2) The 2nd amendment was brilliantly written. The men who devised it knew that times would change and the American experiment would grow and evolve. That is why it, and much of the bill of rights are open to generational interpretation. BTW, rebellion and militia are not the same thing. The fact of the matter is, the NRA (a powerful enough lobbyist organization) and the heritage of responsible gun ownership have redefined the 2nd amendment. But it does read "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...." so technically, unless you are a member of a "well regulated" militia, you do not have the constitutional right to keep & bear arms. That being said, the Gov't knows that it would be met with a war if it tried to explain that to the American public, so it won't be changing the status quo. (Cold, dead hands and all that charlatan crap).
Whoa, I gotta reply to this one. You have the right to your opinion...... but I hope you at least give what I have to say fair consideration even if you disagree and I am ranting........ I can't help but go on a long rant when I see these arguments. [rant] 2nd Ammendment: Quote:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Where else in the Constitution, were the words "the People" intended to mean anyone but the People? How are the People not intended to have a "right of the People"? Quote:
Would you care to list the rights I was born with that are open to generational interpretation? Take your living document BS and shove it. I'm a bitter gun-owner clinging to my religious beliefs. You want my guns...come and get them. Frikkin' communists.
F**K Yeah! The argument that the meaning of the words in the Constitution were meant to be interpreted as what people want them to mean, instead of what they were intended to mean when written, is bull. It's a modern invention, and you wont find any documents from the time to support it. The Founders spent alot of time trying to figure out how to word things to NOT be misinterpreted, but the English language will alway be open to interpretation....... even if they made the Constitution as long as the Bible trying to make certain the clear meaning of thier words couldn't be twisted by those that wanted to..... all that would have been accomplished would have been to make it so long as to obstruct it's easy and full study by the majority of the People. But many that don't agree with the original meaning of the words in the Constitution don't want to try to change it through the proper process: Amendment. And today we get the doctrine that "changing the original meaning to mean what people want text to say is ok" taught in law schools, by "experts" that claim taking the text to mean what actually meant when written is a poor method of interpretation. But even if there was no 2nd Amendment, just because something isn't listed doesn't mean it's not a right. We retain all our natural rights, which exist whether or not they are listed in the Constitution, and it's not on us to prove we have rights. It was intended that the Government had to show where it was given authority in the Constitution to do something. It was not granted any power to regulate the ownership of firearms by loyal citizens. It was even argued at the time by Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Paper 84, that a Bill of Rights shouldn't be added to the Constitution, because as absurd as it might seem to them at the time, one day would be usurpers might claim that the government had the power to do something if it WASN"T listed by the Bill of Rights. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found..._rightss7.html Quote:
But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If therefore the loud clamours against the plan of the convention on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this state. But the truth is, that both of them contain all, which in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired. I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.
The Founders likely have had this danger in mind when they included the 9th and 10 Ammendments: Quote:
9th Ammendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 10th Ammendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
I notice here, in the 10th, the States and the People are clear 2 different things. As they are are through the whole document. How is it that the 2nd Ammendment is special, where the clear meaning of the words "the right of the People" is a State right? Quote:
A right restricted is a right lost.
Exactly. Declaration of Independence: Quote:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Under the legal and philosophical concepts the Founders based the Constitution on, the government has no just legal power to violate our natural rights even if it were writen in the Constitution. That's what "unalienable right" means. It cannot be taken from you without you giving it up by your own actions. If somehow the meaning of "the right of the People shall not be infringed" that seems so clear to me isn't credible or understandable to others, then I offer an expert opinion below: http://www.urbin.net/EWW/polyticks/RKBA/2ndengl.html Quote:
The following is reprinted from the September 13, 1991 issue of GUN WEEK: THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT by J. Neil Schulman If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwartzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of theSecond Amendment to the United States Constitution? That was the question I asked Mr. A.C. Brocki, Editorial Coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus. A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise. Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field. He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publishers' Humanities Award. That sounds like an expert to me. After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter: "July 26, 1991 "Dear Professor Copperud: "I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text. "The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' "The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." "I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary." My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded: "I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance. "Sincerely, "J. Neil Schulman" After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis (into which I've inserted my questions for the sake of clarity): [Copperud:] The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia. In reply to your numbered questions: [Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to "a well-regulated militia"?;] [Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people. [Schulman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?;] [Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia. [Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?;] [Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence. [Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"] [Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia. [Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped," "well-organized," "well-drilled," "well-educated," or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?] [Copperud:] (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military. [Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.] [Copperud:] To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged." [Schulman: As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence, "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed." My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be, Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence, and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate" -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?] [Copperud:] Your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure. There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation. Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion." So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all government formed under the Constitution from abridging that right. As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power. And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution. And even the ACLU, staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing. It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak? Or will we simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor? Copyright (c) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All others rights reserved.
[/rant] Thank you for your time and consideration of my insane gun-nut opinion.

Old Man of the Mountai | 09-04-2008 12:21 AM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Our Constitution and our Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, or even dangerous criminals - it is all about DEFENDING THIS NATION FROM THE GOVERNMENT plain and simple. Our Second Amendment places no restrictions on the NATION, which is We the People of America, but rather it places a HUGE RESTRICTION ON THE GOVERNMENT. Obama is a Communist, a Kenyan, and a Muslim; there is little reason for him to be in America, let alone within our American Government!

DC7 | 09-04-2008 04:47 AM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's 2 Attachment(s) Alquimia, Quote:
Anyway, I'm a rich, white elitist so none of this really matters to me. I live in a neighborhood where we get our lawns mowed by white people, that's how rich I am.
Interesting fun fact: The first gun control laws ever passed in the United States were directed specificly at slaves, and then at free blacks. Later, gun control took off in the Southern States after the civil war, and these were the first real attempts to prevent actual citizens from owning firearms. After all, white people need to keep angry black people from getting guns, don't they?

The Argent Dragon | 09-04-2008 09:35 AM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Quote:
Originally Posted by scottp999 (Post 1261240) That's it, just went and purhased another AR lower. from: http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=17936
Congrats man :applause_ ......looksa so very nice-a ! (Italiano accent)

Abouthadit | 09-04-2008 10:14 AM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Quote:
Originally Posted by wildcard (Post 1261177) You're a fuxing idiot and going on my ignore list too.
what he said...

BellevueBully | 09-04-2008 10:14 AM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Canadian style gun control.....coming to America. Stop it while you have the chance. We failed miserably.

GoldMaster | 09-04-2008 11:58 AM
Re: Quote from Obama's speech...on AK-47's Quote:
Originally Posted by Alquimia (Post 1260920) Ummm... Of course I also believe that Americans should have the right to lawfully marry said firearms and that the gospel of the flying spaghetti monster should be taught in public schools, so what the **** do I know?
From my reading your 25 post, Not Much.........

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:22 AM. |
Page 3 of 3 | < | 1 | 2 | 3
Show 30 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright = None use it and Link to GIM