Why gun lovers still fear President Obama

[dmancornell]

The only people that benefit from no Referee are the ones who play dirty.

Typical statist scaremongering. Voluntary associations have served humanity for better or worse long before the dominance of the modern state, and somehow we're expected believe contemporary society cannot function without a bunch of fascist bureaucrats stealing from everyone and murdering anyone who dissents.

Again, 2A is resistance against tyranny, Obama is a tyrant, Romney would be a tyrant. Ron Paul is the only viable candidate for any gun owner who values the true meaning of 2A.

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

Just because somebody calls themselves a Lefty or a Democrat doesn't mean everything that the party stands for, applies to their own views. Look at Mitt Romney, he supports gun control and basically wrote Obamacare for him.

The difference between Obamacare and Romneycare is federal v. state. Obama forgets (which is odd, for a "Constitutional" scholar) the 10th Amendment....what a state does might be legal, what the federal government might try could be unconstitutional. Big difference. That's why there is no "federal" driver's license, and why the "enhanced" driver's license issue died.

It's also why, for so many years, gun control was done by "taxing" firearms. The power to tax IS a federal job, controlling firearms wasn't viewed that way....even under the CGA of 68, most of the legislation was aimed based on tax law. That's why the ATFE was, for so long, a revenue organization...

 

[MikeSettles]

The difference between Obamacare and Romneycare is federal v. state. Obama forgets (which is odd, for a "Constitutional" scholar) the 10th Amendment....what a state does might be legal, what the federal government might try could be unconstitutional. Big difference. That's why there is no "federal" driver's license, and why the "enhanced" driver's license issue died.

It's also why, for so many years, gun control was done by "taxing" firearms. The power to tax IS a federal job, controlling firearms wasn't viewed that way....even under the CGA of 68, most of the legislation was aimed based on tax law. That's why the ATFE was, for so long, a revenue organization...

Congress, in 1934, knew that criminalizing possession of (what became) NFA firearms would be viewed as "infringement", so they made them too expensive to acquire by the little people through an excessive tax.
Come 1986, and the Congress slips the NFA from the tax statute to the criminal statute when no one was looking: We the People allowed this abuse because of our being asleep at the switch. It will take a long time to get back to where we should be, because it took a long time to get where we are.
The Supremacy Clause and 14th Amendment both require the states to fit their laws within the Federal Constitution. Our problems include that people (especially politicians) see "Statute" as law, but not the Constitution/Bill of Rights.
Why is it that when a politician proposes/passes a law which is on it's face unconstitutional, and an activist judge says "that's ok", that said individuals are not immediately prosecuted for violation of their oaths?

 

[nick80]

crazy
LMAO

 

[Sling Blade]

This thread is a disaster.

 

[Kevatc]

Here, read this if you can: The Price of Gun Control?By Dan Baum (Harper's Magazine)

Lefties have already acknowledged that gun control cost them a lot of votes in the 90's. Them not openly going after the issue at this time (ignoring Gunrunner for now) has no bearing on the fact that the leftist movement revolves around the state, and the state cannot tolerate 2A as it was originally written.

By definition a leftist cannot support the original intent of 2A, they can only support the watered-down version which essentially says "hunting and self-defense against muggers is legal in the US". Might as well flush that down the toilet along with due process.

So all you leftist gun-owners can piss off, we don't want your help and we don't need it.

Thanks for the comic relief!

 

[Kevatc]

And yet somehow those same people are defending a president who has shown nothing but contempt for the private economy.

Since 2A was written specifically to guarantee means for the individual to defend his constitutional rights (most importantly, his economic rights), a statist president who has shown blatant hostility towards individual economic rights is by definition hostile towards 2A (original meaning, not the BS modern reading).

2A has never been about hunting or self-defense against petty crooks, leftist gun owners do the 2A community no favors by pushing that garbage interpretation.

Oh brother. I don't know who poops in your Wheaties everyday but if I were you I'd find them and kick their can for making you a very sour person. Have a nice day! :winkkiss:

 

[TKevlar]

This thread is a disaster.

Best post in this thread.

 

[Grunwald]

What were all the Obama supporters saying?

 

[Stomper]

As the song says... "How ya like me now?!"

As some have said in other threads, "This thead should be in the joke section...."


I have some baby wipes so some of you can wipe the egg off your faces, which can be picked up on Feb. 8th @ the pro2A demonstration....

LMAO (I'm only laughing on the outside)

 

[timac]

 

[Trlsmn]

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.

Ah the good old days of pre second term naivety!

 

[Trlsmn]

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.

Ah the good old days of pre second term naivety!

 

[MountainBear]

"But the Republicans won't do what I want. I'm the President." I swear, with respect due to his position, he sounds like a petulant child who's mother won't give him cookies for dinner. I can't figure out how he figures winning election means it's his way or no way...

 

[Trlsmn]

The distrust is due to statements that he has made before he was elected.

His words then were pandering to a base. What politician doesn't do that? At any rate, words are one thing and actions another. Who was it that signed the legislation that allowed concealed carry in national parks? Hmmmm .... let me think .... thinking .... Was it Bush? No ..... Obama? DING DING DING!

Here's the other thing: What pupose would the NRA serve if gun laws were liberalized rather than restricted like they were during Clintons term? The NRA is trying to stir the pot of fear in order to fill their cofers. There is nothing more dangerous to an organization than realizing they might become irrelevant. The fear mongering is job security for the NRA.

Ah the good old days of pre second term naivety!

 

[MountainBear]

Oh brother. I don't know who poops in your Wheaties everyday but if I were you I'd find them and kick their can for making you a very sour person. Have a nice day! :winkkiss:

He's been on my ignore list for quite a while. It makes these threads much less sour...

 

[fd15k]

Ah the good old days of pre second term naivety!

Wow, three times of the quality argument! Totally worthy of a moderator!

 

[Trlsmn]

Wow, three times of the quality argument! Totally worthy of a moderator!

Typical, an Ad hominum attack!

 

[oknow]

This thread is a disaster.

yea it's a bummer when most of the people on the forum know your a obozo kindred

 

[fd15k]

Typical, an Ad hominum attack!

There was nothing to attack. Perhaps when you actually post something with a bit of a sense in it, we can talk then.