1911Forum banner

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,091 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
It appears that alot of people are thinking of Barak Obama as a "reasonable" alternative for President, compared to Hillary Clinton or [oh, horror of horrors!] another Republican President.

What is Obama's philosophy on our right to arms? It's basically this: We don't have one.

Obama's position on our right top arms is laid out here http://www.snubnose.info/wordpress/news/barack-obama-on-gun-control/

Here's a brief synopsis of Obama's view and his plans for our right to arms:

Positions on Gun Control:

Ban semi-automatics, and impose more restrictions on other types of firearms possession; Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998

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.

On the issue of prohibiting citizens from carrying concealed weapons, Obama said he believes national legislation should be passed to “prevent other states’ laws [allowing citizens to conceal their guns] from threatening the safety of Illinois residents.”

“I believe we need to renew–not roll back — this common sense gun law,” [The Clinton “Assault Weapons” Ban]

Proposes several gun-control laws, including restricting purchases of weapons and ammunition at gun shows, establishing a national database that would capture and record imprints left by bullets, and making gun locks mandatory.

Obama said concealed weapons should be allowed for retired police officers and some military personnel.

“Ordinary citizens should not be allowed to own military assault weapons, such as AK-47s and Uzis.”
Does ANY of that sound "reasonable" to you? It sure as hell doesn't to me.

The bottom line: Obama in the White House is just as bad as Clinton in the White House. When it comes to our right to arms, there is no difference between the two. NONE.

We already have the only gun law we need - it's called the Second Amendment.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,968 Posts
He's just going by the Democrat Platform

Mr. Obama is a formula man. He is going to back the Democrat platform right down the line. This should surprise no one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,091 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 · (Edited)
As will 99.98% of Democrats. Disarming American citizens is one of their articles of faith - if not the main article of faith.

Why? Jeff Snyder explains it better than anyone ever has in his essay, Nation of Cowards:
When columnist Carl Rowan preaches gun control and uses a gun to defend his home, when Maryland Gov. William Donald Schaefer seeks legislation year after year to ban semiautomatic "assault weapons" whose only purpose, we are told, is to kill people, while he is at the same time escorted by state police armed with large-capacity 9mm semiautomatic pistols, it is not simple hypocrisy. It is the workings of that habit of mind possessed by all superior beings who have taken upon themselves the terrible burden of civilizing the masses and who understand, like our Congress, that laws are for other people.

The liberal elite know that they are philosopher-kings. They know that the people simply cannot be trusted; that they are incapable of just and fair self-government; that left to their own devices, their society will be racist, sexist, homophobic, and inequitable -- and the liberal elite know how to fix things. They are going to help us live the good and just life, even if they have to lie to us and force us to do it. And they detest those who stand in their way.

The private ownership of firearms is a rebuke to this utopian zeal. To own firearms is to affirm that freedom and liberty are not gifts from the state. It is to reserve final judgment about whether the state is encroaching on freedom and liberty, to stand ready to defend that freedom with more than mere words, and to stand outside the state's totalitarian reach.
Link to entire essay: http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,354 Posts
I doubt we have to worry about Osama! He has about as much of a chance of winning as Sadam Hussein getting icewater in Hell! With or Without Oprah!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,158 Posts
Handgun Guy said:
I doubt we have to worry about Osama! He has about as much of a chance of winning as Sadam Hussein getting icewater in Hell! With or Without Oprah!
I`d like to think this is true...but I`m just haunted by the possibility that whoever wins the republican nomination may be weak enough to allow a 3rd party candidate to pull votes away from the republicans come the General election that either Obama or The Witch could win. I sure hope I`m wrong on this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,909 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
965 Posts
Obama said: On the issue of prohibiting citizens from carrying concealed weapons, Obama said he believes national legislation should be passed to “prevent other states’ laws [allowing citizens to conceal their guns] from threatening the safety of Illinois residents.”


So, in other words, all of the crime in IL committed with handguns is being perpetrated by people from surrounding states where, apparently, CCW permits are being given out to criminals.:rofl:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
757 Posts
Handgun Guy said:
I doubt we have to worry about Osama! He has about as much of a chance of winning as Sadam Hussein getting icewater in Hell! With or Without Oprah![/QUOT

With Bill's wife as President and Osama as VP they may be unbeatable.:mummy:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,045 Posts
Marineus beat me to it - Osama [er, I mean Obama] as Hillary's running mate, and you can be sure it will either be him or Edwards.

We've been saying that Hillary is unelectable - and that may be - but if Guiliani is even LESS electable then Hillary can win.

Not much difference between Gulliana and Hilllary when it comes to 2A. Both of their records are about equal. Of course, Guliani has a new set of lies but who believe them?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
91 Posts
first off a woman for president? who actually thinks this is a noble idea, if the majority elects her im moving! i would rather have a retarded texan running the country than a woman, let alone a woman with such plans as hillary! are the good old days and the way this country has been ran for 200 years just out the window?

what is this country coming to, it boggles my mind just watching the news and having to take the time to figure out what is really going on by figuring out who is backing who on what subjects and what company's are paying for it, and who is screwing who. i prefer to just sit back and watch it explode
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
166 Posts
In fairness to Obama and her Hillaryness, Harvard Law and Yale Law probably teach from the early drafts of the Constitution which do not have all of the Amendments.:dope: I look forward to voting for a Republican-to-be-Named-Later.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,091 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 · (Edited)
What, Harvard and Yale law schools don't have complete texts of the Constitution??
:biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh:

Clinton and Obama are Constitution-trampling antigun bigot scumbags who know exactly what they are doing.

Regarding fairness, what's fair about the Political Class destroying our Bill of Rights to satisfy their pathological greed for power?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,354 Posts
Punisher45 first off a woman for president?
My mother even said women have to much imotional to run a country..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,091 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 · (Edited)
6285108 said:
A synopsis on all of them
http://www.ontheissues.org/Gun_Control.htm

The Dems are anti gun down the line

Romney and Rudy will NOT get my vote unless my only other choice is some POS DemonRat
What's the difference between Romney/Rudy and Clinton/Obama?

Romney/Rudy put (R) after their names instead of (D).

Regarding our right to arms, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FOUR OF THEM.

*ALL FOUR want to create a federal gun owner registry

*ALL FOUR want to outlaw self loading rifles ["assault weapons"]

*ALL FOUR want to outlaw 50 cal. rifles ["terrorist rifle of choice"]

*ALL FOUR want to outlaw scoped hunting rifles ["sniper rilfes"]

*ALL FOUR want to outlaw semiauto handguns and magazines ["no need for 'civilians' to have them"]

All four call the above gutting of our right to arms "common-sense
measures"
and "reasonable restrictions."

Regarding our right to arms, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FOUR OF THEM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,091 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 · (Edited)
From the link http://www.ontheissues.org/Gun_Control.htm given above:

Mitt Romney on Gun Control

Former Republican Governor (MA)

*Supports Second Amendment rights but also assault weapon ban. (May 2007)

*Will support assault weapons bill and Brady Bill. (Aug 1994)



Rudy Giuliani on Gun Control

Former Mayor of New York City; Republican Candidate for 2000 Senate (NY)

*Focus on criminals, not on guns. (Sep 2007)

*NYC gun control laws made NYC safest big city in US. (Sep 2007)


*2nd Amendment gives people the individual right to bear arms. (May 2007)

*Supported nationwide licensing & assault weapons ban. (May 2007)

*Things you do in NY about guns may be different than TX. (May 2007)

*Gun control reduces urban crime; no effect on hunting. (Feb 2007)

*NYC sued two dozen major gun manufacturers and distributors. (Jun 2000)

*All gun owners should pass written test. (Mar 2000)



NOW: Will someone please explain to us all why having Giuliani or Romney in the White House would be any different from or any better than having Obama of Clinton in the White House??

Regarding our right to arms, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FOUR OF THEM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,973 Posts
progunner1957 said:
NOW: Will someone please explain to us all why having Giuliani or Romney in the White House would be any different from or any better than having Obama of Clinton in the White House??
But...but...WE MUST ALL VOTE FOR RUDY TO KEEP HILLARY OUT!!!!!!

:eek: :mad:

This is EXACTLY what I keep talking about; if everyone keeps voting for the lesser of two evils, sooner or later neither of the evils will be any "lesser."

Don't anyone think for one minute that our rights can't be screwed over by a "conservative Republican" just as quickly as they can by a liberal Democrat, yet I keep getting fed the argument that we should vote for anyone who opposes Hillary.

I will NOT vote for Rudy Guiliani and I don't give a damn if it's Vladimir Lenin running against him.
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top