This is how Progressive Libs allways get it done OR at Least attempt to

[DMax]

Complaining? Seems to me you're the most outspoken complainer on this thread.

Don't attack the message just the messenger thats not on the liberal platform either but it is clearly thier behavior nationally

 

[Phillyfan]

Jamie6.5
"The only reason they oppose it is because it may cost them their job?"

So doesn't the fact that Dem leaders felt that they would lose their job if they voted for more gun control prove that there must be quite a few democrats out there who support the 2nd ammendment? And the fact that they voted against their conscience to keep their job means that they voted in line with their constituents?

To me this shows that maybe the line in the sand over gun control isn't the same as the line between Republican and Democrat.

There are a lot of Pro-life democrats out there, and probably just as many Republicans who support a woman's right to choose. When did these two issues come to define what party you must be in?

 

[rufus]

There are a lot of Pro-life democrats out there, and probably just as many Republicans who support a woman's right to choose. When did these two issues come to define what party you must be in?

Don't forget minorities, gays, the poor, etc.

 

[Phillyfan]

Don't forget minorities, gays, the poor, etc.

Exactly. We seem to be painting what it is to be a Republican or Democrat into a smaller and smaller corner. For a society so desparate to get away from making assumptions based on stereotypes for some reason we are going in the opposite direction in this area.

I'm registered as one, but often agree with the views of the other party regarding certain subjects. And if I feel strongly about it, or feel it is important enough, I will always vote against my own party if I feel it is right. I wish we could get rid of parties all together. Stop voting Republican/Democrat, and start voting what is good for America and Americans.

 

[fuhr52]

Jamie6.5
"The only reason they oppose it is because it may cost them their job?"

So doesn't the fact that Dem leaders felt that they would lose their job if they voted for more gun control prove that there must be quite a few democrats out there who support the 2nd ammendment? And the fact that they voted against their conscience to keep their job means that they voted in line with their constituents?

To me this shows that maybe the line in the sand over gun control isn't the same as the line between Republican and Democrat.

There are a lot of Pro-life democrats out there, and probably just as many Republicans who support a woman's right to choose. When did these two issues come to define what party you must be in?

If there are pro-life democrats they need to speak up. The main stream media has painted the democrats with a broad pro abortion brush as well as pro gay, pro poor, anti gun, anti business, anti rich, even though many of the democrat elite are quite wealthy. I believe most join the party that supports their political views. Just happens that Democrat and Republican are the main stream currently.

 

[keystir]

Since Obama has taken office, gun rights at the federal level have been expanded. Numerous times, sometimes ridiculously, people have come on the forum and presented their "evidence" that Obama's devious master plan to outlaw guns is just around the corner. Sometimes even stating it would be just mere weeks away, and oh boy, would the liberals have to eat it then. Well, i'm still waiting, still clicking on these "smoking gun" links, and still watching as the debate slowly turns into a shouting match about healthcare.

 

[CharonPDX]

The latest is the claim that Obama issued a signing statement for the omnibus budget that directs officials to pursue gun control. Funny, the words "gun" and "firearm" (and similar) are nowhere to be seen. This is just fear mongering "I know he's going to enact gun control, I KNOW IT! Therefore anything he says that is in any way vague will be construed as proof of gun control."

 

[Chee-to]

Ahhhh, the chirping of lemmings as they go over the cliff,,,,,, WHEEEEEEEEEEEEE, it ain't that far down.....

 

[Jamie6.5]

Gosh, I can't imagine how us "conspiracy theorists" (there you go again, name calling) all got the idea that obama wanted to re-institute the Assault Weapons Ban!

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban - ABC News

First 100 days: Assault weapons ban - politics - White House - The First 100 Days - msnbc.com

Or the idea that obama might work "under the radar" to increase gun control. After all this is THE most transparent admin ever right?

Obama Administration Eyeing Gun Control 'Under The Radar,' Groups Warn | Fox News

Or the idea that maybe if he couldn't get there openly, he'd manufacture a "crisis" to get what he wanted.

Documents: ATF used "Fast and Furious" to make the case for gun regulations - CBS News Investigates - CBS News
After all, one should "never let a crisis go to waste" right?

The lefties love to call us conservatives neanderthals and flat-earthers, when reality is, if you guys would stop treating this empty suit like some kind of deity, you might see him for what he really is.
An oathbreaker and a megalomaniac.

He promotes the practitioners of F&F to buy their silence, punishes (fires) the whistleblowers every chance he gets, and all you geniuses just *yawn* and tell me I need more tin-foil for my hat.

The only thing that has saved us so far is the fact that:
1)For a (supposedly) smart guy, he sure surrounds himself with some bumbling idiots, liars and racists.
2)The more conservative, constitutionally driven members of our government have reined in his pandering to the gun-control leftists.
2A)Or maybe he was reined in by those that represent "special interest" groups. That would be the special interest group of you and me, as believers and practitioners of the 2nd Amendment. (why we are deemed a "special" interest group baffles me, but there it is)

His recent signing statement, regarding the HoR de-funding of the NIH's anti-gun research, is just one example of his intent to circumvent the law(s) regarding how the federal government spends YOUR money.
All federal funding bills must originate in the House of Representatives. It's the law, and was written that way to give YOUR and MY representatives de-facto oversight of spending.
Or are you just plain old ignorant about how the funding of the dotgov is supposed to operate? In which case, maybe you shouldn't be allowed to vote. (until you are taught what you are actually voting for.)

It was put there for a reason, but all you lefties seem to think that as long as obama-the-deity is at the helm, congress should hand him a blank check.

Even if he intends to use it against us gun owners.
We conservatives disagree. Again.

To you gun-owning lefties,... You're welcome!

 

[Jamie6.5]

Jamie6.5
"The only reason they oppose it is because it may cost them their job?"

So doesn't the fact that Dem leaders felt that they would lose their job if they voted for more gun control prove that there must be quite a few democrats out there who support the 2nd ammendment? And the fact that they voted against their conscience to keep their job means that they voted in line with their constituents?

There are so many things wrong with this question and statement it's hard to know where to start.

How about the FACT that the press ALWAYS portrays the defeat of dems over gun control being due to "motivating the opposition" and never that they betrayed their *gun-loving progressive* base.

They voted "against their conscience?" Honestly? Their conscience tells them they should pass more restrictive, anti 2nd Amendment gun control legislation, yet you vote(d) for them,...???????????????
What does this tell you, as a gun owner, about your political decisions.
That maybe you are cutting your own (and everyone else's) throat?
That maybe, like CharonPDX suggested, that you need to clean your own (political) house?
That maybe you should educate your fellow dem voters better?
Oh wait! a LARGE percentage of dem voters believe more restrictive gun laws are the answer, so while you are trying to convince them, they are trying to convince you!
Good luck with that!





*The quintessential political dichotomy. Or maybe a unicorn-like mythical creature that only exists in the mind(s) of the genuinely mis-guided.*

 

[rufus]

The latest is the claim that Obama issued a signing statement for the omnibus budget that directs officials to pursue gun control. Funny, the words "gun" and "firearm" (and similar) are nowhere to be seen. This is just fear mongering "I know he's going to enact gun control, I KNOW IT! Therefore anything he says that is in any way vague will be construed as proof of gun control."

Reading comprehension. You should try it.

 

[FarmerTed1971]

If there are pro-life democrats they need to speak up. The main stream media has painted the democrats with a broad pro abortion brush as well as pro gay, pro poor, anti gun, anti business, anti rich, even though many of the democrat elite are quite wealthy. I believe most join the party that supports their political views. Just happens that Democrat and Republican are the main stream currently.

I wish we could take the word PRO out of most of this. Pro-abortion is NOT what pro-choice means. It simply means the government has no right telling a woman what she can do with her body, and I will support this right strongly. Not to go off-topic but the whole abortion debate should not be a debate... and I believe the same way about guns. The exact same way. As long as we are not hurting anyone with our firearms we should be able to own whatever we want (with the possible exception of such things as grenades, morters, rockets and such) without any type of permit or registration whatsoever.

 

[Jamie6.5]

This thread is NOT about abortion.
It's about the NIH spending tax money to make a case for more gun control, our House of Representatives de-funding their efforts, and our prez attempting to circumvent the HoR, and spend your money to do as he damn well pleases.
Even if it runs counter to your interests and The Constitution.

Please start your own thread about abortion, if it's that important to you.

 

[rufus]

I wish we could take the word PRO out of most of this. Pro-abortion is NOT what pro-choice means. It simply means the government has no right telling a woman what she can do with her body, and I will support this right strongly. Not to go off-topic but the whole abortion debate should not be a debate... and I believe the same way about guns. The exact same way. As long as we are not hurting anyone with our firearms we should be able to own whatever we want (with the possible exception of such things as grenades, morters, rockets and such) without any type of permit or registration whatsoever.

I'm about as conservative as a guy can be, and can accept your definition of "pro-choice". In fact, apply that logic to any issue and I am "pro-choice" on just about everything. The phrase "limited government" has a nice ring to it. :winkkiss:

 

[fuhr52]

I wish we could take the word PRO out of most of this. Pro-abortion is NOT what pro-choice means. It simply means the government has no right telling a woman what she can do with her body, and I will support this right strongly. Not to go off-topic but the whole abortion debate should not be a debate... and I believe the same way about guns. The exact same way. As long as we are not hurting anyone with our firearms we should be able to own whatever we want (with the possible exception of such things as grenades, morters, rockets and such) without any type of permit or registration whatsoever.

Pro-choise is supporting abortion, sugar it all you want to make it go down better. Don't intend to hijack this thread so end of comment. But I must ask are you ok with the government telling you what to eat, smoke or drink?

 

[FarmerTed1971]

No hijack intended... please read the rest of the paragraph.

 

[fuhr52]

No hijack intended... please read the rest of the paragraph.

I did.

 

[Kevatc]

And if you'd quit listening to the lefty-pundits like charlie rose and really watch/listen to a few debates, you'd quit thinking they are all "boobs" like your "news sources" tell you they are.

I don't know who Charley Rose is but I don't need him or anyone else's opinion to know that the current Repub crop of POTUS candidates aren't worth a tinkers darn. Obama is going to get re-elected not because he is a good POTUS but because his potential opponents are flip flopping, hypocritical, full of hyperbole dolts.

 

[Kevatc]

But I must ask are you ok with the government telling you what to eat, smoke or drink?

Nope nor do I want the gov telling any of us what we can and can't do with our bodies. Why is it Conservatives always want the goverment out of their lives but want government right smack dab in the middle of some woman's intensely personal decisions regarding her body?

 

[Sling Blade]

I don't know who Charley Rose is but I don't need him or anyone else's opinion to know that the current Repub crop of POTUS candidates aren't worth a tinkers darn. Obama is going to get re-elected not because he is a good POTUS but because his potential opponents are flip flopping, hypocritical, full of hyperbole dolts.

+1

By the time they get done lying to and embarrassing each other (and themselves) even Ralph Nader would look good in comparison. Someone should write a book on how the Republicans cost themselves an election.