Attorney General Holder says, "WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO POSSESS GUNS

[slicediceputinrice]

GO TO WALMART AND BUY ALL THE AMMO THUS JACKING UP PRICES AGAIN!!!! THEM OBAMMMAS GUNNA TAKE OUR GUNS DEN TOOKER-JOBS

"dey tooker job! den dey tooker guns!"

BUSH/CHENEY 2012
NEVER FORGET

 

[JimmyS1985]

Did you vote for Bush in 2004? be honest, because I knew that president would be the worst president since Warren G Harding died in office on August 2nd, 1923, in other words, hes been the worst president in about 90 years.

I won't get into politics too much since its not allowed, but even if you really don't like Eric Holder, you should see Alberto Gonzalez going back n forth with Arlen Specter and the right to Habeas Corpus. Bush's hand picked AG was complete f'n garbage at his job, even when compared to Eric Holder. I think he picked him to try and pick up some hispanic voters in the 2008 election, since obviously the Republican party has nothing else going for them with that demographic other than the first hispanic AG (Who completely sucked at his job) was picked by George W Bush.

Alberto Gonzales: No Constitutional Right of Habeas Corpus - YouTube

I'd rather have an AG that might be anti-gun than one that thinks its ok to indefinitely detain Americans without trial in this country.

Once Bush said to the president of China "The thing that keeps me up at night is terrorism." to which the Chinese president replied "The thing that keeps me up at night, is creating 25 million jobs a year for my citizens." Yea we are quote unquote "safe" from terrorism, but we got no employment, so where does that get us?

Losing Habeas Corpus which was a provision the previous AG said American's have no right to, is one more major leap towards fascism in this country.

edit: Point of this post is, Eric Holder had incredibly small shoes to fill, and we didn't put the last Attorney General in contempt of congress for very questionable ethics while holding that position.

 

[slicediceputinrice]

Did you vote for Bush in 2004? be honest, because I knew that president would be the worst president since Warren G Harding died in office on August 2nd, 1923, in other words, hes been the worst president in about 90 years.

I won't get into politics too much since its not allowed, but even if you really don't like Eric Holder, you should see Alberto Gonzalez going back n forth with Arlen Specter and the right to Habeas Corpus. Bush's hand picked AG was complete f'n garbage at his job, even when compared to Eric Holder. I think he picked him to try and pick up some hispanic voters in the 2008 election, since obviously the Republican party has nothing else going for them with that demographic other than the first hispanic AG (Who completely sucked at his job) was picked by George W Bush.

Alberto Gonzales: No Constitutional Right of Habeas Corpus - YouTube

I'd rather have an AG that might be anti-gun than one that thinks its ok to indefinitely detain Americans without trial in this country.

Once Bush said to the president of China "The thing that keeps me up at night is terrorism." to which the Chinese president replied "The thing that keeps me up at night, is creating 25 million jobs a year for my citizens." Yea we are quote unquote "safe" from terrorism, but we got no employment, so where does that get us?

Losing Habeas Corpus which was a provision the previous AG said American's have no right to, is one more major leap towards fascism in this country.

George W could do whatever he wants,I voted for him not once BUT TWICE and it was the best decisions I have EVER made. "haebus corpus christi?" I don't know much about that because I don't speak spanish or latin. All I know is that when he was in office AMMO WAS CHEAP!!!

 

[stratbastard]

Won't be calling anyone a putz, or any other names. However, I'll respectfully disagree about whether it is a concern. Our present administration is already passing legislation and executive directives violating the Bill Of Rights and Constitution WITHOUT asking how we might feel about it. I Expect to see another false-flag disaster before the end of the year (likely before the election can take place) accompanied by marshall law. When the Army/National Guard starts doing house-to-house forced evacuations under FEMA regulations/directives, you can damned well be sure they'll be consfiscating guns. It has been allowed to proceed thus far because people still roll their eyes, laughing about "conspiracy theories", and still believing it can't happen in our America... while it is happening right before their eyes. The America we once knew is ALREADY gone, what with our presidents' involvement with the UN and Agenda 21, 911, the loss of Habeas Corpus, our own Army now being trained to control/intern citizens, FEMA prison camps, diluting the money supply and subsequent hyper-inflation, and... well, pick your favorite dozen outrages. I hope everyone considers these concerns closely BEFORE they're looking through razor wire.

A poll from 2007, within which 97% disagree is not what I would classify as a real concern...So maybe that makes me a putz, I don't however believe that to be the case

 

[JimmyS1985]

No offense to fellow enthusiasts, but just in general gun owners have to be the most paranoid crowd of people of all the hobbies Im into. Im a magician, I like RC cars, I like to drag race (Personally I think cars developed for street racing at incredible speeds can be a much more dangerous weapon than any gun). I don't mean to ruffle anyones feathers, but I got kind of pissed off when I felt the gun lobby had duped me into buying far more ammunition than I would ever need. Obama got elected in 2008, I kept hearing everywhere I went where gun enthusiasts were, that Obama was going to limit ammo sales, jack up the federal tax on guns and ammo, or limit availability of weapons like the AK-47, and AR15.

Its 3 and a half years later, Im sitting on a couple thousand rounds of 9mm (mainly because I couldn't afford a new gun, but I could stop by the Walmart and pick up bullets everytime I went), I can't really go anywhere in my state to shoot it asides spending $25 everytime I go to the indoor shooting range. I can't help but feel the gun lobby duped me and fellow enthusiasts into buying more ammunition and firearms than we ever needed, to me it was a ploy, just because Clinton passed a crappy law therefore every Democratic President after him will do the same. In case you guys forget, that 1994 AWB was also the same year that Democrats overwhelmingly got voted out of congress because of anti-gun liberal laws like that and voters hating the laws that were being passed with Democratic majorities between 93-94. I like to think my fellow Democrats can learn from their past mistakes unlike our colleagues across the aisle.

As someone who studies politics, I know it would make piss poor political strategy to go after gun control, or spend political capital, trying to restrict American's freedom to go into any gun store and buy just about any gun they want to. Most American's really enjoy being able to walk in a gun store, and walk out with a handgun the same day, it would make no sense to run a major political campaign on trying to restrict that freedom, unless that politician is committing political suicide. Yes Obama is from one of the most anti-gun states in the union, fact of the matter is when you get to President, you represent American's from all 50 states, not just the state you came from, hence what flies in Illinois would not fly if you are President.

I go into my local Walmart, and you can walk out with an AR15 if you so feel like it if you have the cash to spare. This is 3 and a half years into the Obama presidency, I guarantee you, you couldn't of done that under Clinton in 1994.

I believe the NRA that the price of Ammo and taxes on it would skyrocket under this president. It never happened, while you guys may allow yourselves to be fooled multiple times by the gun industry, I've lost trust in the NRA and people telling me about the impending doom if Obama is re-elected. If he didn't restrict guns in his first term, despite what the gun lobby says, I doubt he is going to in his 2nd term.

If I could go back in time, instead of investing thousands in buying a firearm and plenty of ammo to spare, I would of invested my money in Glock, Smith and Wesson, Winchester, in shares of their stock and made money off the complete paranoia the gun industry spread just because it was the first time the country had a Democratic president in 8 years. I might do that after this election if Obama wins re-election.

Also look for somewhere on this site, there was an anti-Obama ad and appeared to be from a Super-Pac, and in the end it was an ad to go buy more ammo. The ammo distributor was advertising fear and paranoia to try to get me to buy a ton of ammo from their site. How stupid do they think I am?

 

[bikejunkie]

I just don't believe our government will ever function well enough to do something as monumental as trying to declare martial law, or veto the second amendment. The system has been broken too long, except the politicians have themselves and the majority of people it still works, except all it is is empty rhetoric and table pounding. I mean for the love of Gus, we haven't even had a federal budget since 1997 just a bunch of continuing resolutions...

 

[MrNiceGuy]

I don't mean to ruffle anyones feathers, but I got kind of pissed off when I felt the gun lobby had duped me into buying far more ammunition than I would ever need. Obama got elected in 2008, I kept hearing everywhere I went where gun enthusiasts were, that Obama was going to limit ammo sales, jack up the federal tax on guns and ammo, or limit availability of weapons like the AK-47, and AR15.

That's what you get for listening to the gun lobby.
I made the equally stupid mistake of listening to the president and his appointees who themselves said they intended on bringing back the AWB.

As someone who studies politics, I know it would make piss poor political strategy to go after gun control, or spend political capital, trying to restrict American's freedom to go into any gun store and buy just about any gun they want to. Most American's really enjoy being able to walk in a gun store, and walk out with a handgun the same day, it would make no sense to run a major political campaign on trying to restrict that freedom, unless that politician is committing political suicide. Yes Obama is from one of the most anti-gun states in the union, fact of the matter is when you get to President, you represent American's from all 50 states, not just the state you came from, hence what flies in Illinois would not fly if you are President.

And yet it worked.
I didnt read this on NRA.com, I read this at WhiteHouse.gov.

Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

That was on his election campaign website throughout 2008, it was then moved to whitehouse.gov. They took it down in early 2009.

A Month or so later, Holder stirs the pot some more:

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.

Holder declined to offer any time frame for the reimplementation of the assault weapons ban, however.

"It's something, as I said, that the president talked about during the campaign," he said. "There are obviously a number of things that are -- that have been taking up a substantial amount of his time, and so, I'm not sure exactly what the sequencing will be."

Every ~10 months since the election, someone has let it slip that they plan on enacting stricter gun control. Even though enacting stricter gun control any time soon would be political suicide.
In 2007 I said that there's no way Obama would pass more gun control in his first term. All bets are off if there's a 2nd term though.
Heck, Biden is the one who wrote the initial AWB in the first place.

I dont like the NRA, i'm not a member, and I dont read any of their material.
The fear of a new AWB and stricter gun laws is something that is kept very much alive by the administration themselves.

 

[JimmyS1985]

I think the right wing feeds off of fear, thats why they perpetuate this notion that all Democrats are anti-gun or hell bent on taking their guns away. YES, there are anti-gun democrats, NO, not all democrats are anti-gun. Thats a stereotype, and in my case, completely baseless. I think anyone should be able to walk into my Walmart and buy that fine AR15 with a 30 round magazine, unless they have a history of violence or some kind of unstable mental history. If guns killed people, than I should blame beer for making me fat, since personal choice and responsibility has nothing to do with those decisions.

This is an interesting article about the differences in brain structure of Liberals vs Conservatives.

Liberal vs. Conservative: Does the Difference Lie in the Brain? | Healthland | TIME.com

The brain structure was larger, probably stronger, in the decision making part of the brain for liberals, and smaller for conservatives.

Where the Conservatives excelled was at in brain structure was perceiving threats and being fearful. I think this means that Republicans are fearful, even when there should be no fear.

Hence Conservatives feed off of fear, its easy to disrupt the beehive that is conservatives because it is in the very core of their brain structure. Liberals weigh the facts, and come to an entirely different decision that isn't based off of fear and emotion, hence that is why the parties are absolutely incompatible on a range of topics.

So far Obama has passed ZERO laws, taxes, or anything else restricting gun rights, but you rarely hear anyone take note of this at a gun show. I'm a bit of a democratic political strategist, and I know, despite what actions have done in the past, that it doesn't make sense to make restricting gun rights in this country, when the country has significantly shifted towards a more pro-gun position over the last 15 years.

Really as far as the administration is concerned, I haven't heard any major pronouncements about limiting gun rights. Usually they focus more on increasing rights of homosexuals, increasing the number of Americans with health insurance, trying to compromise with the Republicans, on reigning in the debt and increasing revenue.

George W Bush reflected the brain structure difference. He seemed very uninterested in governing effectively. When he told the Chinese president "What keeps me up at night is terrorism", and the Chinese president said what kept him up at night was making sure everyone in his country had a job. Well the country reflects those differences, China has been quite successful at job creation, George W Bush's recovery from the dot com bubble was a jobless recovery. He focused heavily, monetarily and with our military on invading countries with ties to terrorism, but by the time he left office, people were losing their jobs fast. He perceived the threat of terrorism to be of greater priority, than the economy and now more Americans care more about getting a job, than they do about the terrorists not winning the war on terror.

For example, Romney, if you read his tax plan for this country, appears to be entirely, either incompetent, or incapable, of simple budgetary math, and ignores the history of economics. The country did better under the Clinton tax system, the country did worse under the Bush tax cuts. Romneys solution? More tax cuts, damn the torpedoes even if history has proven that they generally have more negatives than positives. I never thought Id vote for Obama as better for the fiscal situation until I saw Romney's tax plan, but his tax plan is such f'n garbage, that I am all but dead positive the national debt will top $25 trillion if Romney holds office for 4 years and passes his planned tax cuts.

 

[The B]

I was watching Rachel Maddow last night in which she had an old clip where she saw a bunch of protestors in Alaska hanging out on a street corner with signs protesting the election of Lisa Murkowski. She asked them why they were outside protesting and the protestors said because she had voted for allowing Eric Holder to be Attorney General and he was anti-gun. So she asked them what he had done specifically that was "anti-gun" and they really couldn't give a definitive answer. She asked another and the woman didn't really have any factual reasoning for why she was against Eric Holder.

They came off as a bunch of angry confused people. Can't they do a google search on a public official to find out the facts before they make up that he is anti-gun.

Also on TRMS there was a right wing conspiracy theorist, one of the ones who told his listeners to break the windows of Democratic law makers offices who had voted for the Healthcare law, saying that the plan by Eric Holder, was to let some guns get into the hands of Mexican criminals, so they would kill each other, and then he could ignite a campaign against guns. That really doesn't sound plausible, I really don't have any faith or trust anything coming from the fact free zone of the right wing conspiracy bubble, since I've seen so many of their conspiracy theory's (such as Obama not being a citizen) flatly proven 100% false and they still believe in that crap in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The last AG pissed me off a lot more than Eric Holder, when he told Arlen Specter in a Senate hearing, that US Citizens have no right to Habeas Corpus. That truly pissed me off, that the top law enforcement official in the country said the Bush administration can pick Americans off the street and hold them indefinitely without trial for no reason what so ever. I didn't see any major protests coming from the right when that blatant violation of a fundamental US Constitutional right was not allowed by the AG back then. To me I see being picked up off the street and held indefinitely to be a major breach of my constitutional rights than some guns getting in the hands of Mexican criminals.

Oh and BTW, F&F started in 2006, so it started under the Bush administration, so Obama inherited this scandal from the last administration. Don't hear too many people talking about that though.

edit: I also think taking guns away from citizens would be highly impractical for law enforcement. I don't know about you guys, but I've always said that I'd rather die like a man than live like a coward. In other words, if some police came to take my gun away and I hadn't done anything violent or threatening to warrant it, they would have to pry my handgun from my cold dead hands. I imagine a lot of other gun owners feel the same way towards law enforcement attempting to take guns away from its citizenry. Obviously very anti-gun laws in Chicago did nothing to prevent gun violence in that city.

Did you vote for Bush in 2004? be honest, because I knew that president would be the worst president since Warren G Harding died in office on August 2nd, 1923, in other words, hes been the worst president in about 90 years.

I won't get into politics too much since its not allowed, but even if you really don't like Eric Holder, you should see Alberto Gonzalez going back n forth with Arlen Specter and the right to Habeas Corpus. Bush's hand picked AG was complete f'n garbage at his job, even when compared to Eric Holder. I think he picked him to try and pick up some hispanic voters in the 2008 election, since obviously the Republican party has nothing else going for them with that demographic other than the first hispanic AG (Who completely sucked at his job) was picked by George W Bush.

Alberto Gonzales: No Constitutional Right of Habeas Corpus - YouTube

I'd rather have an AG that might be anti-gun than one that thinks its ok to indefinitely detain Americans without trial in this country.

Once Bush said to the president of China "The thing that keeps me up at night is terrorism." to which the Chinese president replied "The thing that keeps me up at night, is creating 25 million jobs a year for my citizens." Yea we are quote unquote "safe" from terrorism, but we got no employment, so where does that get us?

Losing Habeas Corpus which was a provision the previous AG said American's have no right to, is one more major leap towards fascism in this country.

edit: Point of this post is, Eric Holder had incredibly small shoes to fill, and we didn't put the last Attorney General in contempt of congress for very questionable ethics while holding that position.

No offense to fellow enthusiasts, but just in general gun owners have to be the most paranoid crowd of people of all the hobbies Im into. Im a magician, I like RC cars, I like to drag race (Personally I think cars developed for street racing at incredible speeds can be a much more dangerous weapon than any gun). I don't mean to ruffle anyones feathers, but I got kind of pissed off when I felt the gun lobby had duped me into buying far more ammunition than I would ever need. Obama got elected in 2008, I kept hearing everywhere I went where gun enthusiasts were, that Obama was going to limit ammo sales, jack up the federal tax on guns and ammo, or limit availability of weapons like the AK-47, and AR15.

Its 3 and a half years later, Im sitting on a couple thousand rounds of 9mm (mainly because I couldn't afford a new gun, but I could stop by the Walmart and pick up bullets everytime I went), I can't really go anywhere in my state to shoot it asides spending $25 everytime I go to the indoor shooting range. I can't help but feel the gun lobby duped me and fellow enthusiasts into buying more ammunition and firearms than we ever needed, to me it was a ploy, just because Clinton passed a crappy law therefore every Democratic President after him will do the same. In case you guys forget, that 1994 AWB was also the same year that Democrats overwhelmingly got voted out of congress because of anti-gun liberal laws like that and voters hating the laws that were being passed with Democratic majorities between 93-94. I like to think my fellow Democrats can learn from their past mistakes unlike our colleagues across the aisle.

As someone who studies politics, I know it would make piss poor political strategy to go after gun control, or spend political capital, trying to restrict American's freedom to go into any gun store and buy just about any gun they want to. Most American's really enjoy being able to walk in a gun store, and walk out with a handgun the same day, it would make no sense to run a major political campaign on trying to restrict that freedom, unless that politician is committing political suicide. Yes Obama is from one of the most anti-gun states in the union, fact of the matter is when you get to President, you represent American's from all 50 states, not just the state you came from, hence what flies in Illinois would not fly if you are President.

I go into my local Walmart, and you can walk out with an AR15 if you so feel like it if you have the cash to spare. This is 3 and a half years into the Obama presidency, I guarantee you, you couldn't of done that under Clinton in 1994.

I believe the NRA that the price of Ammo and taxes on it would skyrocket under this president. It never happened, while you guys may allow yourselves to be fooled multiple times by the gun industry, I've lost trust in the NRA and people telling me about the impending doom if Obama is re-elected. If he didn't restrict guns in his first term, despite what the gun lobby says, I doubt he is going to in his 2nd term.

If I could go back in time, instead of investing thousands in buying a firearm and plenty of ammo to spare, I would of invested my money in Glock, Smith and Wesson, Winchester, in shares of their stock and made money off the complete paranoia the gun industry spread just because it was the first time the country had a Democratic president in 8 years. I might do that after this election if Obama wins re-election.

Also look for somewhere on this site, there was an anti-Obama ad and appeared to be from a Super-Pac, and in the end it was an ad to go buy more ammo. The ammo distributor was advertising fear and paranoia to try to get me to buy a ton of ammo from their site. How stupid do they think I am?

I think the right wing feeds off of fear, thats why they perpetuate this notion that all Democrats are anti-gun or hell bent on taking their guns away. YES, there are anti-gun democrats, NO, not all democrats are anti-gun. Thats a stereotype, and in my case, completely baseless. I think anyone should be able to walk into my Walmart and buy that fine AR15 with a 30 round magazine, unless they have a history of violence or some kind of unstable mental history. If guns killed people, than I should blame beer for making me fat, since personal choice and responsibility has nothing to do with those decisions.

This is an interesting article about the differences in brain structure of Liberals vs Conservatives.

Liberal vs. Conservative: Does the Difference Lie in the Brain? | Healthland | TIME.com

The brain structure was larger, probably stronger, in the decision making part of the brain for liberals, and smaller for conservatives.

Where the Conservatives excelled was at in brain structure was perceiving threats and being fearful. I think this means that Republicans are fearful, even when there should be no fear.

Hence Conservatives feed off of fear, its easy to disrupt the beehive that is conservatives because it is in the very core of their brain structure. Liberals weigh the facts, and come to an entirely different decision that isn't based off of fear and emotion, hence that is why the parties are absolutely incompatible on a range of topics.

So far Obama has passed ZERO laws, taxes, or anything else restricting gun rights, but you rarely hear anyone take note of this at a gun show. I'm a bit of a democratic political strategist, and I know, despite what actions have done in the past, that it doesn't make sense to make restricting gun rights in this country, when the country has significantly shifted towards a more pro-gun position over the last 15 years.

Really as far as the administration is concerned, I haven't heard any major pronouncements about limiting gun rights. Usually they focus more on increasing rights of homosexuals, increasing the number of Americans with health insurance, trying to compromise with the Republicans, on reigning in the debt and increasing revenue.

George W Bush reflected the brain structure difference. He seemed very uninterested in governing effectively. When he told the Chinese president "What keeps me up at night is terrorism", and the Chinese president said what kept him up at night was making sure everyone in his country had a job. Well the country reflects those differences, China has been quite successful at job creation, George W Bush's recovery from the dot com bubble was a jobless recovery. He focused heavily, monetarily and with our military on invading countries with ties to terrorism, but by the time he left office, people were losing their jobs fast. He perceived the threat of terrorism to be of greater priority, than the economy and now more Americans care more about getting a job, than they do about the terrorists not winning the war on terror.

For example, Romney, if you read his tax plan for this country, appears to be entirely, either incompetent, or incapable, of simple budgetary math, and ignores the history of economics. The country did better under the Clinton tax system, the country did worse under the Bush tax cuts. Romneys solution? More tax cuts, damn the torpedoes even if history has proven that they generally have more negatives than positives. I never thought Id vote for Obama as better for the fiscal situation until I saw Romney's tax plan, but his tax plan is such f'n garbage, that I am all but dead positive the national debt will top $25 trillion if Romney holds office for 4 years and passes his planned tax cuts.

I don't really have a point... just multi-quoted all this for effect.

And as to you voting for Bush.... I'm pretty sure the main reason you didn't vote for W is because you were 12.

 

[JimmyS1985]

why would someone who was 12 years old in 2004 have 1985 in their name?

 

[JimmyS1985]

FactCheck.org : NRA Targets Obama

Factcheck.org did an article on the NRA and their accusations that Obama has a secret plan to restrict gun rights. It was found that the NRA's claims were largely, or entirely, baseless and false.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/jun/15/nra-right-obama-coming-our-guns/

Politifact.com also found a lot of the NRA's claims about Obama to be entirely baseless. As much as you may distrust Obama, the fact checking websites in this country says the NRA is quicker to lie, than Obama is, when it comes to gun rights.

Also people, lets not forget that Obama DID sign a law that allows us to carry our firearms into Federal parks. Hence he increased gun rights in this country, and that right would be very useful if you were camping or traveling through bear country (even though bear mace is a better deterrent to a bear than a gun). He also received a failing grade from the Brady Campaign in restricting gun rights in this country.

 

[Grunwald]

Did you vote for Bush in 2004? be honest, because I knew that president would be the worst president since Warren G Harding died in office on August 2nd, 1923, in other words, hes been the worst president in about 90 years.

I won't get into politics too much since its not allowed, but even if you really don't like Eric Holder, you should see Alberto Gonzalez going back n forth with Arlen Specter and the right to Habeas Corpus. Bush's hand picked AG was complete f'n garbage at his job, even when compared to Eric Holder. I think he picked him to try and pick up some hispanic voters in the 2008 election, since obviously the Republican party has nothing else going for them with that demographic other than the first hispanic AG (Who completely sucked at his job) was picked by George W Bush.

Alberto Gonzales: No Constitutional Right of Habeas Corpus - YouTube

I'd rather have an AG that might be anti-gun than one that thinks its ok to indefinitely detain Americans without trial in this country.

Once Bush said to the president of China "The thing that keeps me up at night is terrorism." to which the Chinese president replied "The thing that keeps me up at night, is creating 25 million jobs a year for my citizens." Yea we are quote unquote "safe" from terrorism, but we got no employment, so where does that get us?

Losing Habeas Corpus which was a provision the previous AG said American's have no right to, is one more major leap towards fascism in this country.

edit: Point of this post is, Eric Holder had incredibly small shoes to fill, and we didn't put the last Attorney General in contempt of congress for very questionable ethics while holding that position.

I have just watched that video and from that particular clip you are dead wrong about Gonzalez. You really need to pay closer attention that what is said while knowing and keeping it in mind that the US Constitution is a document that limits the power of government and is not a laundry list of rights. Gonzalez was splitting hairs and being very precise. He is right - the Constitution does not grant you the right to Habeas Corpus, as it is understood that you already have that right. What he said is that the Constitution prevents the government from taking that right away from you.
The reason that we have the Bill of Rights, is because some of the founders were afraid that unless the very fundamental rights were specified, government would infringe on those rights over time. It is alsi why they included the 'catch all' safety in the 10th. Good idea on their part but is still did not really work.

 

[The B]

why would someone who was 12 years old in 2004 have 1985 in their name?

That'd be the year that POS S10 you're driving was originally sold.

 

[Grunwald]

I think the right wing feeds off of fear, thats why they perpetuate this notion that all Democrats are anti-gun or hell bent on taking their guns away. YES, there are anti-gun democrats, NO, not all democrats are anti-gun. Thats a stereotype, and in my case, completely baseless. I think anyone should be able to walk into my Walmart and buy that fine AR15 with a 30 round magazine, unless they have a history of violence or some kind of unstable mental history. If guns killed people, than I should blame beer for making me fat, since personal choice and responsibility has nothing to do with those decisions.

This is an interesting article about the differences in brain structure of Liberals vs Conservatives.

Liberal vs. Conservative: Does the Difference Lie in the Brain? | Healthland | TIME.com

The brain structure was larger, probably stronger, in the decision making part of the brain for liberals, and smaller for conservatives.

Where the Conservatives excelled was at in brain structure was perceiving threats and being fearful. I think this means that Republicans are fearful, even when there should be no fear.

Hence Conservatives feed off of fear, its easy to disrupt the beehive that is conservatives because it is in the very core of their brain structure. Liberals weigh the facts, and come to an entirely different decision that isn't based off of fear and emotion, hence that is why the parties are absolutely incompatible on a range of topics.

So far Obama has passed ZERO laws, taxes, or anything else restricting gun rights, but you rarely hear anyone take note of this at a gun show. I'm a bit of a democratic political strategist, and I know, despite what actions have done in the past, that it doesn't make sense to make restricting gun rights in this country, when the country has significantly shifted towards a more pro-gun position over the last 15 years.

Really as far as the administration is concerned, I haven't heard any major pronouncements about limiting gun rights. Usually they focus more on increasing rights of homosexuals, increasing the number of Americans with health insurance, trying to compromise with the Republicans, on reigning in the debt and increasing revenue.

George W Bush reflected the brain structure difference. He seemed very uninterested in governing effectively. When he told the Chinese president "What keeps me up at night is terrorism", and the Chinese president said what kept him up at night was making sure everyone in his country had a job. Well the country reflects those differences, China has been quite successful at job creation, George W Bush's recovery from the dot com bubble was a jobless recovery. He focused heavily, monetarily and with our military on invading countries with ties to terrorism, but by the time he left office, people were losing their jobs fast. He perceived the threat of terrorism to be of greater priority, than the economy and now more Americans care more about getting a job, than they do about the terrorists not winning the war on terror.

For example, Romney, if you read his tax plan for this country, appears to be entirely, either incompetent, or incapable, of simple budgetary math, and ignores the history of economics. The country did better under the Clinton tax system, the country did worse under the Bush tax cuts. Romneys solution? More tax cuts, damn the torpedoes even if history has proven that they generally have more negatives than positives. I never thought Id vote for Obama as better for the fiscal situation until I saw Romney's tax plan, but his tax plan is such f'n garbage, that I am all but dead positive the national debt will top $25 trillion if Romney holds office for 4 years and passes his planned tax cuts.

Too bad that the author of the article does not even know the real meaning of the word 'liberal' and just parots back the mis-defintion that is so commonly used today.
Lets try the the real definition: Liberal - comes from the word 'liberty'. So it is an individual that wants as little interfence from governemnt and private entities as possible.
Thus all thise political lefties that want a huge government that controls everything are anything but liberal.

As to the comparing statements made by Bush and head of China as to what keeps them up at night, the analysis is flawed at best. Bush warried about terrorism because of 9/11, which was a terrorist attack.
The head of China's government worried about people having jobs because lack of jobs could lead to a revolution. China had not had a terrorist attack. They do however have a totalitarian form of government and a lot of poor people. I spare you the details but look at what happened in Romania when they revolted in the 1990's.

 

[Grunwald]

FactCheck.org : NRA Targets Obama

Factcheck.org did an article on the NRA and their accusations that Obama has a secret plan to restrict gun rights. It was found that the NRA's claims were largely, or entirely, baseless and false.

PolitiFact | Is the NRA right that Obama is 'coming for our guns'?

Politifact.com also found a lot of the NRA's claims about Obama to be entirely baseless. As much as you may distrust Obama, the fact checking websites in this country says the NRA is quicker to lie, than Obama is, when it comes to gun rights.

Also people, lets not forget that Obama DID sign a law that allows us to carry our firearms into Federal parks. Hence he increased gun rights in this country, and that right would be very useful if you were camping or traveling through bear country (even though bear mace is a better deterrent to a bear than a gun). He also received a failing grade from the Brady Campaign in restricting gun rights in this country.

Factcheck.org = George Soros = big pile of elephant dong

 

[Trlsmn]

I was watching Rachel Maddow last night.

I'm sorry?

she asked them what he had done specifically that was "anti-gun" and they really couldn't give a definitive answer. She asked another and the woman didn't really have any factual reasoning for why she was against Eric Holder

They came off as a bunch of angry confused people.

The power of video editing...

 

[JimmyS1985]

Too bad that the author of the article does not even know the real meaning of the word 'liberal' and just parots back the mis-defintion that is so commonly used today.
Lets try the the real definition: Liberal - comes from the word 'liberty'. So it is an individual that wants as little interfence from governemnt and private entities as possible.
Thus all thise political lefties that want a huge government that controls everything are anything but liberal.

As to the comparing statements made by Bush and head of China as to what keeps them up at night, the analysis is flawed at best. Bush warried about terrorism because of 9/11, which was a terrorist attack.
The head of China's government worried about people having jobs because lack of jobs could lead to a revolution. China had not had a terrorist attack. They do however have a totalitarian form of government and a lot of poor people. I spare you the details but look at what happened in Romania when they revolted in the 1990's.

Fascism is closely associated with far right ideology, also the absolute opposite of liberty.


I dont really have time to respond at the moment since Im cooking a ribeye.

 

[optiontrigger]

In case you guys forget, that 1994 AWB was also the same year that Democrats overwhelmingly got voted out of congress because of anti-gun liberal laws like that and voters hating the laws that were being passed with Democratic majorities between 93-94. I like to think my fellow Democrats can learn from their past mistakes unlike our colleagues across the aisle.

...it would make no sense to run a major political campaign on trying to restrict that freedom, unless that politician is committing political suicide.

But Supreme Court justices are appointed by the Prez and not voted in by the public so their jobs are not at stake if the new replacements vote with the biases that got them appointed.

 

[JimmyS1985]

The conservative justices are the biggest threat to a side hobby I have, which is having sex and not fathering children. They allow states to infringe on abortion and contraception of women. The police constantly get more powerful under conservative courts, I can't remember the last time the police lost a Supreme court case, but the major ones seem to always side with police thanks to the Conservative SCOTUS. And then lets not forget citizens United, that was a major step towards corporate fascism in this country. That sure was a crap ruling, Ill never have to make another political donation again because the billionaires can match my donation 100,000:1 as a minimum.

 

[Joe Link]

Guys, lets keep this thread polite and on the topic of firearms