Obama's after guns AGAIN

[ants]

Ahh...you idiot...Your response does not disappoint: You show your true colors. Your mother should have admonished you..."Stupid people should not lie!" I will have no more conversation with you...for now...but, remember, when Obama wins again....I will be the first to tell you, "I told you so!"

Bye, bye....moron!

LOL...So smart!! Who was in favor of a ban on gun sales at gun shows, other than "antiques" ,in favor of an increased federal tax on the sale of guns ,in favor of gun sales being restricted to one sale per person per month and said that AK 47s only belong in the hands of soldiers???...Give ya a hint his picture is in a heart shaped locket around your neck!!

Your mother should have told you "you're not as crazy smart as you think you are, so go out and sell those last two boxes of girl scout cookies sweetie"

Bye, bye genius, Teacher...Right???

Edited September 16, 2012 by ants

[ants]

Ants ain't got now woman...no problem for him. Now...if Obama wants to take his fella...different story!

wow ...missed that one!!!! whats next ? your mother jokes ? Well I heard that you're a big stupid head!!! LOL.... Teacher...right??? Run away now..LOL

Edited September 16, 2012 by ants

[Grouse]

What Obama wil do in a 2nd term is easily predicted by looking at his past voting record as a US Senator (a job he was never qualified for either)

His record indicates he is very anti gun.

If you think he has changed, or that name calling makes you right, you don't believe in reality.

[greybeard]

I came back to this topic tonight in hopes of reading informed opinions regarding the forfeiture procedures referred to at the beginning. I am disappointed to see the direction that the discussion has gone.

It's too bad because I looked forward to a meaningful debate.. shame on me...This ends this topic for me.

[Felonious_Monk]

Greybeard, I understand your point, I really do. Yes, we definitely do disagree though. I am utterly against civil forfeiture in any case where guilt has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Call it a Constitutional thing if you will. Civil forfeiture rules, as they stand in any case, grant all power to the government and place the burden of proof that the material seized is not illicit on the citizen. This is backwards and unAmerican in any fashion. The burden of proof is, and ALWAYS SHOULD BE on the accuser. In cases like these, the accuser(s) are the people, through their representatives in government and law enforcement. I cannot condone the theft of property by government without due process. The Constitution itself, as I posted earlier, enumerates this requirement. I'm sorry that you feel the way you do. I understand the concept of punishing criminals, but no one is adjudicated a criminal unless they either plead guilty to a charge of their own volition, or are found guilty by a jury of their peers. Anything else is a circumvention of the limitations placed on government power by our founding charter.

Let's propose a hypothetical. You have a root canal done, and your oral surgeon writes you a prescription for 10 vicodin, 2 a day for 5 days. That should be more than enough for you to get to a point where the pain is no longer so great you need any such drugs to cope. You stop taking the pills after 3 days, and still have 2 days worth, or 4 pills left. You don't need them anymore, so they get shuffled to the back of your medicine cabinet where they are promptly forgotten. A year goes by, and those pills are still there. You now possess a controlled substance without a valid prescription, a federal felony. You are by definition a "controlled substance offender." Would you be perfectly fine with the BATFU coming and confiscating your arms over that? Essentially, that's what this executive directive does. It gives the BATFU power over everyone, not just hardened criminals who are out on the street selling methamphetamine to kindergartners.

Now, I know you'd never keep those pills after their expiration date. Heck, you're probably man enough where you'd not only not fill the prescription, but you'd eat nails and spit thumbtacks just to prove it. Remember though, this was purely a hypothetical situation.

Sort of like in California, where medical marijuana users are placed in the NICS "deny" column. Even though our current Executive said he would not pursue legal action against citizens in states where medical marijuana is legal.

Would you like mustard, mayo, or ketchup on your poop sandwich?

Edited September 17, 2012 by Felonious_Monk

[ants]

You're right...sorry I stooped to her level again.

[d-bone20917]

If you think he has changed, or that name calling makes you right, you don't believe in reality.

So why is everyone so quick to think Romney changed when he was so clearly anti-gun before?

[ants]

Felonius_Monk...Thats the way I'm seeing this whole thing too. I admit that I may be missing something but so far all can find is the same article thats posted here.

[Felonious_Monk]

Felonius_Monk...Thats the way I'm seeing this whole thing too. I admit that I may be missing something but so far all can find is the same article thats posted here.

Ants, that's not just the way you see it, it's the way it is. Like I said in my first post in this thread, do you think the BATFU would give you a pass because you forgot those pills were there? Or do you think they'd snatch up every firearm, round of ammunition and accccessory in your house under "civil forfeiture" rules, AND haul your ass away in bracelets for good measure? Remember "The law makes no exceptions." Nevermind that this isn't actually a law, but executive fiat. It will be treated as law, because the power hungry thugs at BATFU love their new found gifts,

So why is everyone so quick to think Romney changed when he was so clearly anti-gun before?

I don't know who everyone is, but I for one will not be voting for Willard. I'm not a Republocrat, but when I saw who the party elite were grooming for the position of heir to the dynasty, I thought to myself; "You guys aren't even trying. You deserve to lose."

[Sogaard]

I came back to this topic tonight in hopes of reading informed opinions regarding the forfeiture procedures referred to at the beginning. I am disappointed to see the direction that the discussion has gone.

It's too bad because I looked forward to a meaningful debate.. shame on me...This ends this topic for me.

I know that feeling all too well.

At least Felonious is true Libertarian. I can respect that, even if we disagree on a lot of issues. Ants is....Ants. I honestly can't wait for the election to be over so most of these political posts will stop appearing. Though if (when) the President wins his bid for reelection, I think I'll make a post, once a month, entitled, "HAZ HE TAKEN UR GUNZ YET?!?!".

I'm guessing it is going to be a rather short thread.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I think everyone is hoping you are 100% correct. I don't believe the other side wants to be right on that one.

[trashman]

President Obama actually requested that the President of the NRA sit down with him and help him review any new or proposed changes to American gunlaws and the NRA refused. As far as seizures go if you are found not guilty your property is returned to you. Please take the guns away from dealers and users so people like us can worry less about our safety

[Geno C]

Obama is 100% anti gun... thats MO and im sticking to it, dont trust the guy, dont care for him either.

[Geno C]

THE NRA will never side with Obama or consider anything he has to say, from articles ive read they know whos getting their votes and sure IS NOT Obama. the US can not even limit illegals coming into this country and they think they can get a hold on illegal weapons? thats a joke... things people can fit in their pockets they think they can try and stop but walking humans not legally supposed to be here they cant seem to thin out? comedy

[ants]

Said I was sorry for stooping to early's level. Ya got me. It's just hard for me not to respond when she, or anyone else, breaks out with the insults. (everyone is a "moron", "racist" blah...blah)

My point is that Obama is far, far left and has taken pro control stances in the past. The thought that he wouldn't take stronger anti gun stances in a second term is, in my opinion, wrong.

Just ants being ants

Edited September 17, 2012 by ants

[virgil]

For those of you that are so convinced that Obama is after your guns, how do you explain the fact that the Brady Campaign gives his administration an 'F' for their lack of gun control efforts. Last I heard, 'F' was pretty bad. It seems to me that he would have a much better grade if he were as anti-gun as some of you claim. I know that facts are boring, but I'm curious how you would explain the fact that your claims don't match the opinion of the most prominent watchdog agency on gun control. Also, aren't you at all concerned about Romney being the former governor of a state with some of the tougher gun laws in the country?

Edited September 17, 2012 by virgil

[d-bone20917]

The truth is that Obama has been great for gun sales. So the NRA will continue with their fear campaign that Obama is going to take all your guns because it will continue to lead to more gun sales. I'm a long time NRA member, but they are clearly playing a game here and it has been working great for the firearms industry.

[virgil]

Zactly. And the rest of the yahoos buy it hook, line, and sinker.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

For those of you that are so convinced that Obama is after your guns, how do you explain the fact that the Brady Campaign gives his administration an 'F' for their lack of gun control efforts. Last I heard, 'F' was pretty bad. It seems to me that he would have a much better grade if he were as anti-gun as some of you claim. I know that facts are boring, but I'm curious how you would explain the fact that your claims don't match the opinion of the most prominent watchdog agency on gun control. Also, aren't you at all concerned about Romney being the former governor of a state with some of the tougher gun laws in the country?

I guess the same reason Romney gets an F from me for conservative views. no where near enough. I can see that group grading him as such because they expected so much more form him and a Democrat controlled House and Senate. Should have bee a slam dunk. I really didn't think his first term would be earth shattering forgun owners. I do have concerns in a second term since he can't be back a third time. I think his biggest danger he poses to gun owners ia actually in possible appointments to the SCOTUS. If he does gets reelected I certainly hope for a Republican controlled House ans Senate.

[virgil]

_{Culver, so you're saying that they're grading him not on his record, but by comparing his actions to what they expected of him? So, he's being graded by them on a curve? Why can't you concede that they're judging his record objectively?}

[Felonious_Monk]

I know that feeling all too well.

At least Felonious is true Libertarian. I can respect that, even if we disagree on a lot of issues. Ants is....Ants. I honestly can't wait for the election to be over so most of these political posts will stop appearing. Though if (when) the President wins his bid for reelection, I think I'll make a post, once a month, entitled, "HAZ HE TAKEN UR GUNZ YET?!?!".

I'm guessing it is going to be a rather short thread.

Thanks for the quasi-endorsement. I'd be willing to bet we'd find lots of common ground, especially on social issues, or those of personal freedom. It's obvious we disagree on firearms, and I'm almost positive we're diametrically opposed on fiscal issues. But hey, I can't stop you from being wrong.

As for your thread, if these executive directives get carried out to the fullest extent of the power the grant, your threads may be longer than you think. I hope you're right, and they have hundreds of views and no responses, but I for one am uncomfortable with a Constitutionally limited government that is gluttonous and mad with power.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

_{Culver, so you're saying that they're grading him not on his record, but by comparing his actions to what they expected of him? So, he's being graded by them on a curve? Why can't you concede that they're judging his record objectively?}

Realyu I am not trying to spin it. If you went to any special interest group I think they would grade based on what they expected when they supported them getting elected. Tey expected more restrictions and more guns taken off the street. He failed to produce that at their expected level. I guess my take on their grade is as good as any. I can't find any actual criteria that was used in presenting an F rating.

[Grouse]

Fast & Furious is all the evidence anyone needs to see what Obama is trying to do "under the radar".

When he has nothing to fear after he gets re-elected by people who think he's their friend, God help America!

[Geno C]

Realyu I am not trying to spin it. If you went to any special interest group I think they would grade based on what they expected when they supported them getting elected. Tey expected more restrictions and more guns taken off the street. He failed to produce that at their expected level. I guess my take on their grade is as good as any. I can't find any actual criteria that was used in presenting an F rating.

i agree, thats why he recieved an F rating.... DOES NOT mean Obama is not a supporter of anti guns just because he received and "F". In their eyes he just may not have done enough in regards to their expectations...

[ants]

in the past Obama has...supported a 500% increase in taxes on guns and ammo, supported the ban of the manufacture, sale and possession of ALL hand guns, he has backed Federal law to to abolish right to carry laws, has supported a Washington D.C. ban on guns in the home for self defense and the list goes on. You can google all of the this. But leftists will call you "idiot, moron racist" But what ever.... They are soooooooo smart!