JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
I'm sorry, you don't trust Hawaii because they like Obama, but trust Arizona (or rather a clown from Arizona) because they dislike him there ? You need to establish your baseline, otherwise you can't have an objective opinion.



A lot of people here say that. Not sure why though, since the second term is not for life (we aren't electing a king), and any drastic stuff can be reversed by the next president. Assuming of course Congress passes some restrictions in the first place. Also presidents can be impeached. I mean there are just so many variables here, I don't understand why people believe in some absolute conspiracies.

1) The birth certificate thing is still an issue because Obama's army of lawyers fight any and all lawsuits that are brought forth. He does not want to present it as evidence in a court of law where presenting a fake equals perjury. He could extinquish all doubt (for reasonable people) by allowing at least one of these to go forward.


2) If you think that a president needs congress to mess with the 2nd, go back and look at what Bush Sr. did all by himself with just an executive order.
 
You really like to assume peoples political opinions. I could care less what that guy from Arizona says. I've downloaded and looked at the certificate myself. I dont need to take someone else's word.
I did to and I found it interesting that it loaded in layers (like you get when you edit a file in Photoshop), not as one flat file (like you get if it's a photocopy). Then there is the pixilation around the serial number as though it had been edited in Photoshop.
Yes I do own a legal full copy of Photoshop but I'm not an expert in the field.
 
It is important to keep in mind that Obama cannot do anything to curb 2A rights. As the OP stated, so far Obama has not done anything to even attempt to restrict firearms. In fact it appears that he has tried to generate interest in a universal concealed weapons license program. But no matter what Obama may or may not do with regard to 2A rights, it still has to get through congress. No way anything that curbs our rights is going to make it through the congressional voting process. Those boys in congress aren't interested in anything as politically suicidal as stepping on gun rights.
Guess you missed the Presidential proclamation requiring long gun registration in four states a few months ago?
 
An interesting article on Politico about Obama:



Thoughts about this? While he's certainly no friend of the second amendment, he also hasn't done much in this area during his first term. Things haven't been as bad as I thought they would be. Of course, that's no guarantee he won't push this issue if elected again - either through supreme court choices, legislation or executive action.

- 2A embodies the right of the citizenry to rebel against tyrannical regimes both domestic and foreign
- obummer is the current standard bearer of an out-of-control confiscatory regime
- ergo, any 2A proponent with a brain hates obama

None of the DC ruling class apparatchiks believe in 2A, so the only logical answer to why they haven't done anything yet is that they are currently busy with other schemes (i.e. the destruction of your economic rights).
 
Only difference between Obama and Romney, is that one is a Black Dude From Kenya. Ask Massachusetts how universal health care is working!! A good portion of the State's residence are on Medicaid(read welfare), due to the fact that business' packed up and left..Period...and so did I!! I was born and raised there, and it went to hell in a hand basket. If You believe that either one of these power hungry clowns is better than the other, I want some of what You are smoking....Vote Ron Paul...If an over whelming majority of Americans do, we could take the popular vote, and the Country back.....13 OUT

Presidents are not elected by popular vote.
 
Some of you people speculate too much. Let's look at the record so far. This article lists it out.
Obama, Romney views have evolved toward gun rights - Yahoo! News

I see Obama's positions as "evolving" in his political actions and attitudes on the gun issue. I see Romney's position changes as pandering. I honestly distrust Romeny on the gun issue more so than Obama.

I believe that most thinking folks outside of the Brady bunch realize that it isn't the guns or laws that are the issue. Blaming the gun woud be like blaming the car for a drunk driving accident.
 
Guess I missed it as well.

In April of this year, the Obama administration unilaterally imposed the "Demand letter 3" registration requirement.

The plan requires all of the 8,700 firearm dealers in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to report all sales of two or more semi-automatic rifles within five consecutive business days, if the rifles are larger than .22 caliber and use detachable magazines.
 
Guess you missed the Presidential proclamation requiring long gun registration in four states a few months ago?

In April of this year, the Obama administration unilaterally imposed the "Demand letter 3" registration requirement.

The plan requires all of the 8,700 firearm dealers in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to report all sales of two or more semi-automatic rifles within five consecutive business days, if the rifles are larger than .22 caliber and use detachable magazines.

That is not the same as "requiring long gun registration", and you know it. Existing long guns in those four states are not required to be registered, and reporting multiple new sales of some types of long guns is not "long gun registration". Here is the ATF's FAQ on it <broken link removed>

Let me make it clear that I'm not saying the order is a good idea - since some people on this forum are easily confused and think if you aren't jumping up and down criticizing something you are "endorsing" or "arguing for" something - but let's be intellectually honest about what the order says and does. It isn't "requiring long gun registration".
 
That is not the same as "requiring long gun registration", and you know it. Existing long guns in those four states are not required to be registered, and reporting multiple new sales of some types of long guns is not "long gun registration". Here is the ATF's FAQ on it <broken link removed>

Let me make it clear that I'm not saying the order is a good idea - since some people on this forum are easily confused and think if you aren't jumping up and down criticizing something you are "endorsing" or "arguing for" something - but let's be intellectually honest about what the order says and does. It isn't "requiring long gun registration".

It is, in fact, defacto registration of legally purchased long guns.
 
My problem isn't with one individual, so much, as a party philosophy. When you have Diane Feinstein saying ""If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it." I worry. Sure, she said that in '94, I believe, but her attitude is the same now as then. There is reason to worry about that party, or any party, that has an attitude like that.

I know that the Dems got hurt as a result of the vote on the crime bill that involved the AWB, but do you really believe that they "learned" their lesson, or just got sneakier? (Hint, they are politicians.)

Not to blame it all on Dems, the 'pubs aren't all that much better...I don't trust any politician further than I can throw them.
 
Ultimately it's more important to discipline the Senate:
1. The president's picks for SCOTUS get confirmed, or don't.
2. Treaties (think the UN Arms Control Treaty) get ratified, or don't.
3. Whoever controls the Senate controls what does or doesn't get to the floor for a vote. Think "no budget for the past three years". Also if Hillary signs the ATT, and the majority of Senators have indicated that they oppose ratification but Harry Reid refuses to allow a vote, then it's automatically ratified - with all the prospective damage that the treaty might do. There is a bill before a Senate committee to prevent action on any treaty that would limit civilian gun rights, but how does it get acted on if Reid is allowed to prevent a floor vote?
 
Also if Hillary signs the ATT, and the majority of Senators have indicated that they oppose ratification but Harry Reid refuses to allow a vote, then it's automatically ratified - with all the prospective damage that the treaty might do. There is a bill before a Senate committee to prevent action on any treaty that would limit civilian gun rights, but how does it get acted on if Reid is allowed to prevent a floor vote?

How can something be ratified if it never makes it to the floor for a vote? Something just doesn't sound right about this. Could you show me the language that backs up this claim?
 
Also if Hillary signs the ATT, and the majority of Senators have indicated that they oppose ratification but Harry Reid refuses to allow a vote, then it's automatically ratified

That is completely false. All treaties must be approved by a 2/3 vote of the Senate. Even if the treaty gets 60 yes votes it is not approved and can't be ratified.

Article. II.
Section. 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
 
That is completely false. All treaties must be approved by a 2/3 vote of the Senate. Even if the treaty gets 60 yes votes it is not approved and can't be ratified.

Thank you for posting this. I knew there was something totally wrong with the notion that a treaty could get ratified without a vote.
 
Thank you for posting this. I knew there was something totally wrong with the notion that a treaty could get ratified without a vote.

But but... it's the Constitutional requirement for such process of ratification, and we know that POTUS will circumvent the Constitution! :D :D :D
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top