obama and guns

[Sling Blade]

Yeah. First they make you have free health care, next thing you know you're sitting in an outdoor cafe, sipping aperitif during a government enforced one month paid vacation in August. Too scary for words.

I'll smoke Gaualoises and drink Absinthe, but with my figure I draw the line at wearing horizontally striped T shirts. Of that, I am quite serious.

 

[timac]

Two pieces of corn from the same pile of !!!!

<broken link removed>

 

[timac]

Oh no more fear mongering!
Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban - ABC News

 

[fd15k]

Oh no more fear mongering!
Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban - ABC News

I have mentioned that earlier in this thread. It was stated on his campaign website before he even got into the office. Then it was on whitehouse.gov. Now it's not anywhere, probably because it's a well-kept secret

 

[SonicBlue03]

Oh no more fear mongering!
Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban - ABC News

It's pretty hard for me to refute an article like that....written over three years ago.

Google fail.

 

[SonicBlue03]

Well now, why didn't you say Fox News was making an observation after speculation on an item 8 months ago that never bore any fruit. Consider my position switched!


Edit: I figure I better add the disclaimer since some of you might have taken that too literally. I was kidding. "Safety rules" that were never publicized aren't removals of freedoms, they're vaporware.

 

[Kevatc]

If someone clearly and repeatedly points out a danger, as Gunfixx has done here, and others continue to deny the obvious danger, one is forced to believe there is a blindness going on. That blindness is deliberate and based on an erroneous world view. Conscious denial of reality because of a refusal to face the truth. Willful ignorance.

No. What Gunfixx has done is expressed his opinion. That is freakin' awesome. What some of us were asking for is some tangible and credible evidence that supports his opinion. Asking for tangibles isn't deliberate willful ignorance. Think about that for a second. It is exactly the opposite.

 

[Kevatc]

I'm saving this thread in case Obama is re-elected.

Oh you pessimist!

For the time being it appears it's not a case of "if" but "when". Please do save this thread. I know I will so that round about November 2016 when can see who was on target.

 

[Jamie6.5]

What some of us were asking for is some tangible and credible evidence that supports his opinion. Asking for tangibles isn't deliberate willful ignorance. Think about that for a second. It is exactly the opposite.

I'll offer a few insights about where and why this narrative is what it is here and now in this country. It may require a little more historical perspective than some of our more youthful members are capable of, but trust me, I will tell you how it was.

We know that as president (the most transparent admin ever?) Barack Obama assured Sarah Brady that his admin was working "under the radar" or "behind the scenes" to enact greater gun control.

Now, as a 50 something used-to-be-an-ideologue-liberal turned conservative, I can with good conscience tell you that the media is protecting this president on gun control, and specifically Fast and Furious in ways unseen in history.
As an example, I would offer the MSM's reaction to Watergate.

For the uninitiated (youth) of this country, I can tell you that the media coverage was ABSOLUTELY STIFLING!

You could not turn on your television and watch anything OTHER than the senate hearings on the matter. ALL PROGRAMMING was suspended in the effort to bring the ugly details to the American public. It was a total saturation.
And yes, what Nixon's henchmen did was reprehensible,...
But nobody died. Certainly not law enforcement officers, and certainly not hundreds of neighboring country's citizens.

As to the "willful ignorance" argument about Fast and Furious, it is valid.
The reason I say this is because the press is protecting Obama and his DOJ, and as proof I offer the comparison to Watergate.

Aside from Sheryl Atkisson's efforts at CBS, the mainstream press has managed to stifle this story at every turn. What did her efforts get her when she asked WH press people about it?

A reporter for CBS claimed that White House and Department of Justice officials screamed and cursed at her due to a story she was pursuing about a controversial DOJ program.

CBS Reporter Claims White House Officials Screamed And Cursed At Her (AUDIO)

Not only is this story rarely if ever in the mainstream press, when it is, it's presented with primarily, or solely the democrat's talking points. For those that rely on the mainstream press, or MSNBC, Mother Jones, The Daily KOS, Huff-Po, WAPost and NYT for their "news": Please note that Huff-Po did not name Fast and Furious. Instead they said "a controversial DOJ program."
There is the whitewash, plain and simple.

Then try googling "Vincent Cefalu." The whistleblower that the DOF/ATF has fired over his revelation(s) to congress and the press.

Try reading " cleanupATF.org "

Look into the transfer and promotions of those in the ATF and the DOJ with the most likely link to admin officials, and Fast and Furious.

Then we get this, from someone who claims to have voted for Bush, and claims to be a center-right republican:

I'm struggling with F&F and Castaway being seen as an erosion of 2A; that struck me more as a blatant misappropriation by ATF and AG Holder than anything. True that the President put Holder in office, but I'm having difficulty linking that to an overt act by Obama to undercut 2A.

Really? Obama put Holder in place at the DOJ (the parent agency of the BATFE) "despite" the fact that he is a rabid anti gunner? That in his first press conference as AG he said the admin would pursue the AWB?
That it was really just "misappropriation" on the part of ATF and holder?

Even after e-mails were discovered that revealed admin officials planning to use the numbers of "walked" guns to support long gun purchase restrictions?

What fantasy world are you guys living in?
I can assure you, that if the press went after the TRUTH of Fast and Furious, the way they went after the Watergate break in, you wouldn't have a choice, and at the very least Holder would have been fired, and the democrat party would be running a primary election to replace the incumbent as general election candidate. If the Obama presidency had survived this long.
Am I wrong to compare the two? OH HE!! NO.
People are dead. Innocent people. Hundreds of them. Hundreds more may die before the last of these guns are rounded up. Some of those may well be on this side of the border.
And you can betchurazz, that as they are, the call for greater gun control will be sounded again in the press, and from admin officials.

American law enforcement officers have had to give up their lives because this admin's people wanted to make a case against the 2nd Amendment to our most important founding document!


So I ask those of you that claim to be informed voters.
That claim to not see "anyone better."

Where the HE!! is your outrage over these illegal acts?
Over dead Americans and dead innocent Mexicans?
Over the obfuscation, outright lies and stonewalling this admin has done to hide the truth?
Over the mainstream media's complicity in this matter.
How could anyone on the Republican side NOT BE BETTER?
An even better question is: How could anyone running screw up any worse?

If you aren't willing to answer these questions for yourselves honestly, thoughtfully and with the perspective of holding your leaders accountable, then you really have no business in this conversation.
Would Romney/Santorum/Newt/Paul be better?
That's easy, of course they would be. All they have to do is live within Constitutional guidelines with regard to The Bill of Rights and the separation of powers.

And all they have to do is hold the MSM's responsibility up to the American voter in the light of day.
The media made this president, and screwed Hillary, the voter, the very process itself and the country along the way.
If that doesn't tell you something then you are hopeless.

We'll debate the insurmountable debt, and the admin's power over the senate some other time.

 

[fd15k]

Obama put Holder in place at the DOJ (the parent agency of the BATFE) "despite" the fact that he is a rabid anti gunner?

Not to comment on your other points, but I'm just wondering... Would a lung-cancer-dying alcoholic lifetime NRA member be an ideal head of DOJ ?

 

[Jamie6.5]

Not to comment on your other points, but I'm just wondering... Would a lung-cancer-dying alcoholic lifetime NRA member be an ideal head of DOJ ?

Do you want to have a serious discussion about the DOJ, and their antics in Fast and Furious?
Or are you just here to cast aspersions and ridicule the opposition.

Like the DNC has told you to, and the mainstream media gives you examples of.

 

[RB87]

Until there is some logic or evidence quit blowing smoke - its all hear say and scare tactics - typical Republican methed of getting votes and controlling debates. Until someone can provide logic that a Republican candidate will do a better job I have no reason to vote for a Republican. I lost more rights under the last Republican president than I have under Obama.

James Ruby

Oh for the love of... they all use scare tactics. Just look at the healthcare debates of the last 3 years. OMG, women in college can't afford birthcontrol pills! Yet, we hear folks from all corners proving it not so unaffordable as some law student says in front of congress. OMG, concealed carry/open/assault weapon/shoulder thing that goes up is legal? Its gonna be the wild wild west!

 

[fd15k]

Do you want to have a serious discussion about the DOJ, and their antics in Fast and Furious?
Or are you just here to cast aspersions and ridicule the opposition.

Like the DNC has told you to, and the mainstream media gives you examples of.

You are suggesting a media conspiracy, so I don't see any seriousness in the discussion. In my opinion F&F received more media coverage than it really deserves. Meanwhile I'm still waiting for somebody to get punished for 3 trillion dollars spent and over 4000 US troops dead in Iraq over false intel on WMD's.

 

[fd15k]

Oh for the love of... they all use scare tactics. Just look at the healthcare debates of the last 3 years. OMG, women in college can't afford birthcontrol pills! Yet, we hear folks from all corners proving it not so unaffordable as some law student says in front of congress. OMG, concealed carry/open/assault weapon/shoulder thing that goes up is legal? Its gonna be the wild wild west!

That's true. So the question is, if one is claiming to be more intelligent than an average member of the opposing group, should one resort to the same methods ?

 

[Jamie6.5]

I lost more rights under the last Republican president than I have under Obama.

James Ruby

Good point JGR You lost rights through the constitutional process that included all but a hand full of Representatives and Senators.
They passed a bill they thought (at the time) was necessary, and GWB signed it.
Then candidate Obama came along during the campaign, and said he would fight for it's repeal. So you voted for him.

But he didn't fight for it's repeal.
He strengthened it. And he further centralized power through it, to the office of the president.

But you don't seem to want to hold him accountable. Just GWB,...

Get over your partisanship and hold the man you voted for accountable,...
Threaten him with firing!
And when his actions prove his lies, FOLLOW THROUGH!

 

[Jamie6.5]

Meanwhile I'm still waiting for somebody to get punished for 3 trillion dollars spent and over 4000 US troops dead in Iraq over false intel on WMD's.

This discussion again?
You want me to post the list available on Snopes (for the 3rd time) of all the liberal democrats claiming Saddam had WMDs? Before GWB was even elected?
You want to bring up the FACT that a vast majority of congress, from both parties, gave GWB the authorization to do that?


Don't obfuscate. The topic is Obama and guns. GWB, the wars in the ME, and WMDs are a different thread.

 

[fd15k]

This discussion again?
You want me to post the list available on Snopes (for the 3rd time) of all the liberal democrats claiming Saddam had WMDs. Before GWB was even elected?
Don't obfuscate. The topic is Obama and guns. GWB, the wars in the ME, and WMDs are a different thread.

My bad. Well, I stated my position on F&F. It's a bubblegum of below average importance, and hopefully responsible will be found and punished. End of story

 

[Jamie6.5]

You are suggesting a media conspiracy, so I don't see any seriousness in the discussion.

You don't see it, because your son/dad/brother/sister/daughter hasn't died because of a Fast and Furious gun.

You don't see it because the DNC and the mainstream press keep calling it a "botched sting operation," instead of explaining to you that the admin made no attempt to "sting" anyone.
How could they? They didn't follow the guns!

You don't see it because the people the press quotes most often are Rep Cummings and E. Holder.

You don't see it because you refuse to.
Because that would mean you made a mistake last time, when you cast your vote for the most inept, and possibly the most corrupt admin in history, that is responsible for hundreds of needless deaths on BOTH sides of the border.


And is, to this day, LYING about it, with the press' help!
And it's especially easy to prove this last one is true, because all you do is parrot the admin's and the DNC's talking points about it!

 

[Jamie6.5]

My bad. Well, I stated my position on F&F. It's a bubblegum of below average importance, and hopefully responsible will be found and punished. End of story

The deaths of hundreds is "below average importance" to whom?
You?
Why, you great humanitarian you. Such understanding from a champion of "people over power."

A vote for Obama is a vote for those responsible.
So punish him. Have the courage and the honesty to vote for his opposition.

We'll get around to the convictions later.

 

[fd15k]

Because that would mean you made a mistake last time, when you cast you vote for the most inept, and possibly the most corrupt admin in history, that is responsible for hundreds of needless deaths on BOTH sides of the border.

Once again, not to debate you on all of the points, but here is the thing: we never cared and will never care about the other side of the border. Don't bring it up now. If you did care, you would at least want to have the background checks on all gun sales. But I bet you don't want that, and I don't want that either.