more on the real barak

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

more on the real barak

Postby pennsyltucky » Sun Sep 07, 2008 2:07 pm

muleskinner wrote:you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth and a benalli in the other.
User avatar
pennsyltucky
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3167
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:21 pm
Location: stoneboro, PA


Postby captainduckhead » Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:09 am

How do you like him now Brydog? :thumbsdown:
Mojo Mallards are gay
captainduckhead
hunter
 
Posts: 3816
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: St. Lawrence River, NY

Postby dudejcb » Mon Sep 08, 2008 1:19 pm

this is pathetic scare mongering... again.

Obama was pretty forthright in his speech at the Dem convention about guns. I share his view that we shoudl do something to try and keep guns out of the hands of criminals or those with pchychooogic problems, while protecting our 2nd amendment rights.

It's not an easy problem to solve, but he gets credit for trying, as opposed to appealing to your lesser virtues.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5250
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby pennsyltucky » Mon Sep 08, 2008 1:32 pm

if obama says he is actually a white man, and is married to a white woman, will you take his word? and joe biden is pro-gun too right? dude, some things can be debatable, but their stance on gun control is plain as day




http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/search/s_560181.html

"I am not in favor of concealed weapons," Obama said. "I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."



http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/12/sweet_column_obamas_2003_iviip.html

35. Do you support legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of
a. handguns?

While a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable, I believe reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of handguns are necessary to protect the public safety. In the Illinois Senate last year, I supported a package of bills to limit individual Illinoisans to purchasing one handgun a month; require all promoters and sellers at firearms shows to carry a state license; allow civil liability for death or injuries caused by handguns; and require FOID applicants to apply in person. I would support similar efforts at the federal level, including retaining the Brady Law.

b. assault weapons?

Yes.

c. ammunition for handguns and assault weapons?

I would support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons and limiting the sale of ammunition for handguns.

36. Do you support legislation
a. mandating background checks of purchasers of weapons at gun shows, through the internet and through print advertisements?

Yes.

b. increasing penalties for illegal resale of weapons?

Yes.




http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-guns21web20,1,1290211.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

But the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he "...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constititional.



http://obama.senate.gov/news/050729-gunmakers_may_get_suitproof_vest/

...the passage of legal protection for the gun industry would mark an enormous setback for gun control advocates and for leaders of cities such as Chicago, who have filed suit against gun dealers and manufacturers.



http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/chi-0409150153sep15,1,7897647.story?coll=chi-elections-utl

I believe we need to renew--not roll back--this common sense gun law," Obama said. - In reference to the 1994 AWB.


The Audacity of Hope, p.215 Oct 1, 2006

I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer's lobby.



1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998

Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:

Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.



http://volokh.com/posts/1203389334.shtml

Obama is proposing to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home.

He's proposing restricting gun purchases to one weapon a month and banning the sale of firearms at gun shows except for "antique" weapons. Obama is also proposing increasing the licensing fee to obtain a federal firearms license. ....

He's proposing that all federally licensed gun dealers sell firearms in a storefront and not from their homes while banning their business from being within five miles of a school or a park. He's also banning the sale of 'junk" handguns like the popular Saturday Night Specials.



1996 Independent Voters of Illinois – Independent Precinct Organization Questionnaire.

35. Do you support state legislation ???

a. ban the manufacture, sale or possession of handguns?

Yes.

b. ban the manufacture, sale or possession of assault weapons?

Yes.

c. mandatory waiting periods with background checks for weapons?

Yes.





Just a few more things Obama supported while a state senator.

He supported a 500 % increase in federal ammo tax

He supported banning "compact" guns

He supported limiting the amount of guns you can purchase

He supported banning all guns sales (except antique) at gun shows

He supported charging a person with a felony offense if a gun is stolen from their home

He supported the prohibition of people under the age of 21 from owning possessing ANY firearm. ( no more youth hunting)

He supported a giant increase in gun dealers licensing fees

He supported making it illegal to sell a gun within 5 miles of a school or park

He supported the ban on police agencies from selling old service weapons to generate funds for new ones.

He was also the director of the JOYCE foundation which is the largest supporter of radical anti gun groups ( he gave $19 million) including 1.5 million to the ultra radical Violence Policy Center.

Here are some upcoming bills and legislation.

Banning all non serialized/encoded ammo

Banning lead bullets

Banning guns that don't "micro stamp"

Banning "large" ammo mags

Ban all conventional ammo as "armor piercing"

Ban "nonsporting" ammo

Banning Hollow point

Banning or prohibitivley taxing handgun ammo

Banning ammo and guns through consumer product legislation.

Banning .25, .32 ,9mm, 5.7x28, and all 50 cal. ammo

Ban All Black talon, Rhino, Hydro shok, and all other ammo specifically for self defense.



Obama voiced support for or voted to enact laws for:

A ban on all handguns

To ban the sale or transfer of all semiautomatic firearms. (that includes your Benelli shotgun)

Ban the right to carry a concealed weapon in everystate, nation wide.

Ban all home ownership of firearms, even for self defense

He vote against a bill that would excuse people who in violation of a gun ban could be prosecuted for defending themselves. (what that means is if you keep your glock after its banned, and shoot someone defending your life, you go on trial for murder)

He supported a law that all firearms must be stored with individual locks regardless of bulk(safe type) storage.

He voted "present" when asked if he was in support of teenage gang member criminals as adults. Even if the gang member killed someone, they could not receive death.

He opposes mandatory sentencing guidelines for armed criminals.

He supports the DC gun ban.




And finally...

Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)

2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month.



btw, thats seastreets little compilation. i cant take credit for it
muleskinner wrote:you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth and a benalli in the other.
User avatar
pennsyltucky
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3167
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:21 pm
Location: stoneboro, PA

Postby seastreet » Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:24 pm

Let's not forget that Obama just a month ago, voted WITH Bush to grant immunity to telecos for spying on American citizens. The left has jumped up and down, hyperventilating about Bush trampling on the constitution by using warrant less wire taps.

But when Obama votes to protect the scumbags doing the spying, he votes with Bush, and not a damn thing is mentioned about it in the mainscream press. It's another case of "Pot, meet Kettle". Absolute hypocrisy ignored by the mainvein media, which are Obama sycophants to begin with.

IMO, Obama is just as bad (if not worse) than Bush. Just add the socialism aspect along with a passive approach to foreign policy, and we will have Jimmy Carter REDUX.
Glimmerjim wrote: I may be slow but I'm dumb!
User avatar
seastreet
hunter
 
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:56 pm
Location: Downeast, NC

Postby DuckinFool » Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:12 pm

I went through the Jimmy Carter years. Never ever again !!!! :no:
Recession-neighbor loses job...Depression-you lose job...Recovery-Obama loses job.
Image
Don't blame me.....I didn't vote for him !!!
User avatar
DuckinFool
hunter
 
Posts: 1477
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 6:47 am
Location: Southern Illinois

Postby ohsay » Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:05 pm

I don't like Obama. I've said that before, but I don't have a problem with most of his gun stances. And the ones that I do oppose, have no possible hope of being passed into law. So it's not a huge concern for me. I worry about people who feel threatened by some of that though. Waiting periods? Background checks? Restrictions on assault weapon ammo? None of that's going to effect my gun ownership or hunting practices. Paranoia seems to be driving the anti-Obama campaign. Of course, that's what a lot of conservative media hopes to create, so I guess it makes sense.
say what?
User avatar
ohsay
hunter
 
Posts: 3214
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:53 pm
Location: NE

Postby Redline29 » Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:13 pm

ohsay wrote: Waiting periods? Background checks? Restrictions on assault weapon ammo? None of that's going to effect my gun ownership or hunting practices.


And this is why we loose our rights...apathy. The "well, it will not effect me" crowd. That is a slippery slope you stand on. Lets say they ban all "assult rifles" and or the ammo. How long before they decide that that did not work and they ban hi-powered rifle ammo because it can penitrate bullet proof vests? Or they come after semi auto shot guns?

The second admendment it not about hunting. Maybe you should should look at the 2nd in the context for what it really means.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Pretty strait forward.
20 Jan 2009...the beginning of an error.
User avatar
Redline29
hunter
 
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 11:55 pm
Location: NW, PA

Postby pennsyltucky » Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:28 pm

its all in the definition. they cant change laws, but they can and do change definitions. banning assault weapons seems fine on the surface, but what is an assault weapon? depends on who's makin the definition. most any hunting arms can fall under that definition in some way or another.

what if they banned any rounds that can penetrate a bullet proof vest? how about "bores of .50cal or more in diameter"? they seem harmelss to our sport till you think a little about it. those 2 simple definitions will make almost every gun you own illegal.

its not even this that really matters. its the legislation they will pass that will cripple the industry, and make the cost of owning or using a gun extremely prohibitive. its a constitutional right, and these things chip at it from behind. it goes one piece at a time, and its hard to see without stepping back and looking at the big picture..

i doubt that obama and biden really WANT to relieve us of ALL our guns. they have good intentions of relieving criminals of their guns. the problem is the ones behind them with other intentions for the legislation. the little fine print that the extreme left will put in there is what will reduce or relieve us of our 2A rights
muleskinner wrote:you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth and a benalli in the other.
User avatar
pennsyltucky
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3167
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:21 pm
Location: stoneboro, PA

Postby WisconsinWaterfowler » Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:36 pm

Yet these ignorant liberals still dont get it. Even if the banning of semi-auto shotguns doesnt effect you doesnt mean you shouldnt care. Think about others for a chang especially your fellow duck hunters. :no:
User avatar
WisconsinWaterfowler
hunter
 
Posts: 5585
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: Southern Wisconsin

Postby ohsay » Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:45 pm

I assume you're not well read in law redline if you think one can be passed that simply bans 'assault rifles'. They're much more descriptive that that when entered in. And I'm not concerned about ones being passed that I feel will infringe on my personal practices or rights, because if the wording allowed for the banning of a commonly owned rifle used for nonviolence means, it wouldn't pass. Hunters, sportsman, and collectors are not idiots. I'm not worried about them 'slipping one past us'.

We've had the slipperly slope argument countless times on here. Laws can and must evolve with us. To change any of them creates your beloved slope though. Not just the ones that pertain to your beliefs. Would you rather no more restrictions were ever placed on anything? That the laws we have are entrusted to judges to interpret on an ever broadening scale. That's the kind of thing that worries me, because that's when an *individual's* personal beliefs decide what is right and wrong, and not the people.

The definitions of any passed laws/legislation would be strictly defined, and wittled down to what is acceptable to the majority. That's what a democracy is.
say what?
User avatar
ohsay
hunter
 
Posts: 3214
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:53 pm
Location: NE

Postby WisconsinWaterfowler » Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:52 pm

I agree with you that it would be unlikely that the guns we use will be banned but once you start with those why not keep going. I dont know what is going to happen to our guns because I cannot predict the future but I can make a guess that they will not be very safe with Obama. I want to know why you find it ok to ban some guns though :huh: and what that will accomplish?
User avatar
WisconsinWaterfowler
hunter
 
Posts: 5585
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: Southern Wisconsin

Postby seastreet » Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:03 pm

ohsay wrote:I assume you're not well read in law redline if you think one can be passed that simply bans 'assault rifles'. They're much more descriptive that that when entered in. And I'm not concerned about ones being passed that I feel will infringe on my personal practices or rights, because if the wording allowed for the banning of a commonly owned rifle used for nonviolence means, it wouldn't pass. Hunters, sportsman, and collectors are not idiots. I'm not worried about them 'slipping one past us'.

We've had the slipperly slope argument countless times on here. Laws can and must evolve with us. To change any of them creates your beloved slope though. Not just the ones that pertain to your beliefs. Would you rather no more restrictions were ever placed on anything? That the laws we have are entrusted to judges to interpret on an ever broadening scale. That's the kind of thing that worries me, because that's when an *individual's* personal beliefs decide what is right and wrong, and not the people.

The definitions of any passed laws/legislation would be strictly defined, and wittled down to what is acceptable to the majority. That's what a democracy is.


1. I am astonished that people still come on here and think the second amendment is about their hunting guns. Show me where in the second amendment where it says "all guns except hunting guns".

2. Acceptable to the majority is only acceptable to a democracy. We are not a democracy. We are a representative republic based upon democratic principles and governed by the rule of law. Our God given rights are protected by the constitution, and not subjected to a mob rule mentality.

Until you understand that concept, you are doomed to consuming the commie koolaid. As for me... No thanks!!!
Glimmerjim wrote: I may be slow but I'm dumb!
User avatar
seastreet
hunter
 
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:56 pm
Location: Downeast, NC

Postby Redline29 » Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:34 pm

seastreet wrote:
ohsay wrote:I assume you're not well read in law redline if you think one can be passed that simply bans 'assault rifles'. They're much more descriptive that that when entered in. And I'm not concerned about ones being passed that I feel will infringe on my personal practices or rights, because if the wording allowed for the banning of a commonly owned rifle used for nonviolence means, it wouldn't pass. Hunters, sportsman, and collectors are not idiots. I'm not worried about them 'slipping one past us'.

We've had the slipperly slope argument countless times on here. Laws can and must evolve with us. To change any of them creates your beloved slope though. Not just the ones that pertain to your beliefs. Would you rather no more restrictions were ever placed on anything? That the laws we have are entrusted to judges to interpret on an ever broadening scale. That's the kind of thing that worries me, because that's when an *individual's* personal beliefs decide what is right and wrong, and not the people.

The definitions of any passed laws/legislation would be strictly defined, and wittled down to what is acceptable to the majority. That's what a democracy is.


1. I am astonished that people still come on here and think the second amendment is about their hunting guns. Show me where in the second amendment where it says "all guns except hunting guns".

2. Acceptable to the majority is only acceptable to a democracy. We are not a democracy. We are a representative republic based upon democratic principles and governed by the rule of law. Our God given rights are protected by the constitution, and not subjected to a mob rule mentality.

Until you understand that concept, you are doomed to consuming the commie koolaid. As for me... No thanks!!!


Thanks for saving me some typing...cuz I was just about to say the same thing.
20 Jan 2009...the beginning of an error.
User avatar
Redline29
hunter
 
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 11:55 pm
Location: NW, PA


Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests