Closing the "Obama and Guns" thread is

[PlayboyPenguin]

il·lic·it (-lst)
adj.
1. Not sanctioned by custom or law; unlawful.

Again, the NRA agrees with me.
Let's hope the Senate has the backbone to throw out this trash.

Very good, you can look up a word in the dictionary....now see if you can understand the word in context. How does you loading ammo violate any law?

Plus, heaven forbid the NRA would use any misleading info to create discourse and increase memberships and donations.

 

[Jamie6.5]

How does you loading ammo violate any law?

No existing laws. Just the ones this treaty demands we enact to be in compliance.

There is no safety in denial PP, get vigilant or get in line for your next glass of kool-aide.

What do you have against any one of us writing our Senators asking them to vote against this ratification?
Why are you so bent on lulling us to sleep over this?
Why do you protest to this extent?

You sound so certain we need this treaty. That we can trust our rights to others,... From other countries,...

Why is that?

 

[eldbillbo]

During the election many Obama supporters signed up to various gun boards and acted to be one of us said they owned ar15 collections but had no idea how many rounds a 30 rd mag held, just to stir the pot pointing out all the negatives of R candidates

after the election many of them faded away some stayed.

 

[Trlsmn]

No, I just do not support partisan misrepresentation and needless hysteria. To quote a certain motor city madman...aybe I am just weird that way.

Partisan misrepresentation? You think we fight against any and all gun control for the sake whats good for a political party?

We have to fight any and all laws that have any possibility of curbing our gun right no matter how big or small.

To think that a law made for one purpose can never and has never been perverted and misused for another is naive to put it kindly. We would have no need of SCOTUS in that Utopian world, this is an idealist view and sorry but I am a realist.

Look at the driving while intoxicated laws, they were made for motor vehicles and people are receiving drunk driving citations for riding a bicycle intoxicated.

And BTW not trusting the current administration to do right by us is not hysteria it is being a realist.

 

[claypigeon]

If the only law pertaining to the subject stated it was only illegal to "hunt AND gather" then it would be legal to hunt if you did not gather. That is called a loophole. The law would not be written that way if it was intended to stop hunting alone.

So, just so I have this right. By your interpretation of how it is written, because they use "and" they must both take place in order to be a violation? And if that is the case then I should be OK trafficking the illicitly manufactured weapons, ammo etc. as long as it was not me who manufactured it?

 

[Karma]

I guess I see this entire discussion as pointless. Obama has never hidden his thoughts on the 2nd Amendment. Anti-gun legislation hasn't been passed in spite of Obama, not because of him. That isn't good enough in my book. Many politicians from both sides have made it clear that they will not support such legislation because it is political suicide. Let's not forget also that he has had his hands full in his first 6 months. We have had a financial crisis as well as Obama's metal being tested by other nations just as his V.P. said it would.

I did a lot of research on Obama when I found out he would be running for the office. He is very much anti 2nd Amendment by most people's definition. If a person looks at his past voting record as well as his statements concerning the 2nd amendment it is painfully obvious where he will take us if given the opportunity. You will have to forgive me if I error on the side of caution and watch his every move with skepticism. He made his intentions crystal clear, and I have absolutely no reason to doubt that he will follow through when the opportunity presents itself. He may even create a opportunity such as the Mexican drug cartels supposedly obtaining full-auto assault weapons from the U.S.

He has said straight out that he is against concealed carry permits in ANY state. That is a hard position to back since even government data shows a link between states who allow concealed carry licenses and a decrease in crime. There also is very little abuse by concealed carry license holders. None of this even takes into consideration state sovereignty and the limited reach the feds are supposed to have.

Obama is on record as being against ownership of "assault weapons" because they have no legitimate sporting purpose! To start with, the term "assault weapon" is very misleading. I hate to bring up the fact that the 2nd Amendment wasn't written for hunters or target shooters! It was written for us to have a check on a government that would grow to powerful and get out of control. This is very important since our government has been growing increasingly and in my humble opinion, becoming more and more out of control. Giving that very government the ability to regulate that check is insanity! It cracks me up that people are o.k. with the erosion of "rights" until it is one that they care about. It has been said that the 2nd Amendment is the most important right we have because it guarantees all of our other rights. I think that is very accurate and important for people to understand.

I also have to comment on the debate that was going on concerning Biden and the man with the AR-15. First off, people talk about items of great value to them as being their "baby" all of the time. My uncle has a 1958 Impala that he has countless hours and substantial finances into. He calls that car his "baby", as do many other car enthusiasts, and collectors of every kind. Does that make these people crazy or emotionally unstable? I don't think so. If that was the case, people all across the US would be deemed unable to own a weapon. Of course, that may be exactly the point. ****, I am sure at some point I have referred to a inanimate object in such a manner. Probably many of us have. I would submit that using terminology like this can simply be a way of communicating the personal meaning of a item and not a statement by which someone should be judged as mentally incompetent by our many "mental health professionals". By the way, is Biden a licensed psychologist and somehow qualified to make a determination concerning the mans mental ability to own a weapon?

In closing, weather you are a Republican or Democrat has no bearing on this conversation. We are all Americans. If we want to keep the rights that our forefathers and every generation since have fought to protect, we are going to have to be vigilant and not divided by imaginary party lines. We are now being faced with a possible BAN ON POCKET KNIFES for gods sake! Take a minute and think about that! Do you really think that our guns are safe?

 

[treemanx]

In closing, weather you are a Republican or Democrat has no bearing on this conversation. We are all Americans. If we want to keep the rights that our forefathers and every generation since have fought to protect, we are going to have to be vigilant and not divided by imaginary party lines. We are now being faced with a possible BAN ON POCKET KNIFES for gods sake! Take a minute and think about that! Do you really think that our guns are safe?

Good post Karma, I agree 100%.

I think the most important underlying fact has already been stated many times in all these Obama and Guns threads. The majority of Lib Dems in Washington do not believe that citizens should have guns. Period. They have made that abundantly clear for quite some time.

I understand CEF's original idea for the Obama and Guns thread, he wanted to ask if anyone had "proof" that our SA rights are in danger from the Obama Administration. I think the preverbial proof is in the pudding on this one. Obama himself has made his opinion on the matter very clear, even though nothing has happened as of yet.

Its my opinion that not just our SA rights are in danger, but our very Constituion as well. Now, should we all run around and freak out like our hair is on fire and make fools of ourselves because we think this may be the case? No. But we shouldnt allow ourselves to be complacent and sit back with the attitude that big brother will do whats right for us, like so many Americans do. All you get when you do that, is cheap slight of hand parlor tricks. They wave a health care proposal in front of your face with one hand, and pull away freedoms with the other while your distracted.

I think CEF's last sentence in the first thread of "Obama and Guns 2" is right on the money. "I'm keeping my powder dry, my pistol cocked and locked, and my eyes wide open."

 

[Sawdust]

Kudos to Karma.

Well stated.

 

[Trlsmn]

Yeah, and what he said was anyone that cannot distinguish between a gun being their "baby" and being a tool might not be mentally capable of owning an "assault" rifle. Then spoke how the mentally unstable, who cannot comprehend the severity of using a firearm on another person, need to be prevented from owning firearms. I agree with that completely.

My own professional opinion of the person showing his firearm would be one of questioning his competence too based on his words and actions. He was a little too anxious to brandish his tricked out semi-automatic rifle and a little too emotionally "involved" with his tool.

http://www.northwestfirearms.com/forum/showpost.php?p=40521&postcount=1

Hypocrisy:

What say you Playboypenguin.

Now if I just had the cash to pick it up. I am afraid it is going to be in lock down for a few weeks while I pay off the S&W 686 SSR I put on lay-a-way.

This thing is even more beautiful in person. I love the lack of cluttered looking graphics on the slide. The only issue I have with it is that it came with those extended bottom combat style mags. I hate those. I prefer flush fitting ones. Luckily I think the ones from my CBOB will fit it.

A couple cell phone pics of my new baby.

 

[treemanx]

Nice catch Trlsmn!

 

[Trlsmn]

Nice catch Trlsmn!

Not to worry he will have a "professional" excuse!

 

[claypigeon]

Not to worry he will have a "professional" excuse!

You are probably right but it is still a priceless find!

From what I have seen of PP, I would venture to say that he did that on purpose just to get a rise.

 

[Monkeyman]

Not to worry he will have a "professional" excuse!

I'm guessing it would sound something like:

"Wow. The level ignorance in which some people are willing to live their lives just to protect their own desires is unbelievable.

My point just keeps being made that neo-cons and Bushies just cannot bare to admit the truth without trying to deflect blame. "

Trismn, you ARE the man.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I have no problem admitting to using "cutesy" terminology on a gun forum. Everyone on here understands that it is tongue-in-cheek and does not mind (even though some people even on the forums get upset when you call guns "your baby" or "toys"). There is a huge difference between that and holding up a rifle in a national forum and referring to it as "my baby." I really do hope you are able to make the mental distinction between the two events.

I know you are still upset that you had to admit to speaking without any knowledge in another thread but I am still flattered that you have enough time to try to "catch" me in something. Even though it was a wasted effort because it is comparing apples to oranges.

Biden was not out of line to find the person asking the question's behavior odd. Now do not take that to mean I like Biden. I actually think he is the reason that Obama will not get a second term.

PS: I also do not mind if someone questions my mental stability for something I say. People can think I am crazy all they want. I do not mind. It makes it easier to get a seat on the max.

 

[Trlsmn]

I have no problem admitting to using "cutesy" terminology on a gun forum. Everyone on here understands that it is tongue-in-cheek and does not mind (even though some people even on the forums get upset when you call guns "your baby" or "toys"). There is a huge difference between that and holding up a rifle in a national forum and referring to it as "my baby." I really do hope you are able to make the mental distinction between the two events.

Just keep telling yourself you're not a hypocrite I'm sure eventually you will beleive you.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Just keep telling yourself you're not a hypocrite I'm sure eventually you will beleive you.

Are you making the mistake of thinking you have actually said something that bothers me? That could never happen. I already have pegged you as someone who remains willfully ignorant while spewing garbage so you opinion is pretty worthless to me...or did you ever bother to attempt to redeem yourself by addressing that issue in the other thread?

You can't speak to a single issue because you know nothing about the issues. When you are forced to accept that fact you retreat from the issue and start attacking. That is your MO and it is a common one. It does not bother me.

 

[Trlsmn]

Are you making the mistake of thinking you have actually said something that bothers me? That could never happen.

Probably the truest thing you've ever said!

I already have pegged you as someone who remains willfully ignorant while spewing garbage so you opinion is pretty worthless to me...or did you ever bother to attempt to redeem yourself by addressing that issue in the other thread?

How am I to blame for your hypocrisy?

Nice try at diverting the attention away from your hypocrisy on to me.

Kudos to Monkeyman, he just confirmed what you said he would say, just in different words, score!

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

How am I to blame for your hypocrisy?

You are to blame for your own willful ignorance...and then you compound the claims I made against you by proving me right. I said you were a lap dog for the far right that simply regurgitates what you are told to think and then attacks anyone that points out your error...then you go and do exactly what I accused you of doing.

 

[Trlsmn]

You are to blame for your own willful ignorance...and then you compound the claims I made against you by proving me right. I said you were a lap dog for the far right that simply regurgitates what you are told to think and then attacks anyone that points out your error...then you go and do exactly what I accused you of doing.

To summarize the above bla, bla, snivel, snivel, school yard............


So you are fighting truth with Supposition, any attorney would tell you that's a flawed defense.

Again how am I to blame for your hypocrisy?

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

So you are fighting truth with Supposition, any attorney would tell you that's a flawed defense.

Again how am I to blame for your hypocrisy?

You might want to look up the word hypocrisy before you keep going down this line. You see that little smiley face after my words. That is called an emoticon which denotes I am saying something in a playful manner. It is called context. I know it is subtle but you should be able to understand it if you try. I also do not care if someone questions me on something I say. I also do not mind when someone questions someone else based on something they say. that is not hypocrisy. had I said the guy should never refer to his gun as "his baby" amongst friends or ever...that would be hypocrisy. I simply said Biden was within his rights to question the guys behavior in a pubic forum. I would have accepted the same judgement if I had done the same thing. understand the difference?