| Author | Post |
|---|
yeahYeah
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | Las Vegas, NV |
| Posts: | 430 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29th, 2008 10:36 pm |
|
Of course he does...any good nazi would want to ban anything and anyone who speaks against him.
|
FogRider
Member
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29th, 2008 10:56 pm |
|
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
|
Comp-tech
State Researcher
| Joined: | Tue Apr 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 936 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29th, 2008 11:31 pm |
|
I'll avoid Godwin's law and put it like this.....
This election is akin to having a choice of turd soup or a sh!t sandwich....either choice will taste pretty much the same in the end.
|
imperialism2024
Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30th, 2008 02:51 am |
|
Refer to the other 50 damn threads on the same topic.
And, perhaps Obama is looking for the same immunity for his record on guns as McCain is receiving from the NRA? Or not, but it's worth consideration...
On a final note...
"And why is this thread still not locked?" -imperialism2024
|
longwatch
Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30th, 2008 03:19 am |
|
Hey guys lets have some constructive On Topic stuff, please. Bashing members because you don't agree with them doesn't reflect well on yourselves or your candidates.
Back on topic, it really does seem like the Obama campaign is going pretty hard against the NRA messages, more than I've seen them do against anything else.
|
DonTreadOnMe
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 03:30 pm |
|
I wish the topic had come up in the debate last night!. I think Palin could have scored some points last night. But, the questioner was not going to bring up a topic that might hurt the "age of obama"
Piss on the gun grabbers.....Obama and Biden.
|
The Donkey
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 305 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 03:49 pm |
|
AWDstylez wrote:
Gunslinger wrote:
Like I've said in every political thread, gun control isn't the only issue this election and those of voting based solely on the wedge issue of who's more gun friendly are going to have a rude awakening, kind of like Dubya II.
Couldn't have said it better . . . .
|
DonTreadOnMe
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 04:30 pm |
|
Speaking of apologists for gun grabbers...
Last edited on Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 04:30 pm by DonTreadOnMe
|
Teej
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 05:41 pm |
|
"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of." -- Suzanna Hupp
|
Deanimator
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 570 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 09:33 pm |
|
The Donkey wrote: AWDstylez wrote:
Gunslinger wrote:
Like I've said in every political thread, gun control isn't the only issue this election and those of voting based solely on the wedge issue of who's more gun friendly are going to have a rude awakening, kind of like Dubya II.
Couldn't have said it better . . . .
So similarly, if a candidate agrees with me, and supports abortion rights, gay marriage, and foetal stem cell research, I shouldn't allow his support for de jure racial segregation in public accomodations to stop me from voting for him? I mean, THAT would make me a "single issue voter"...
|
The Donkey
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 305 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 10:55 pm |
|
On Second Amendment enforcement: OBAMA wins.
On AWB: MCCAIN wins, but matters less.
On UN: MCCAIN wins, but matters less.
On "gun show loopholes": tie
On "armor piercing" ammo: tie
On trigger locks: tie
On conservation issues: OBAMA wins.
The point: this is a much more complex picture than what some believe.
|
deepdiver
Activist Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Missouri USA |
| Posts: | 3888 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 11:06 pm |
|
The Donkey wrote: On Second Amendment enforcement: OBAMA wins.
On AWB: MCCAIN wins, but matters less.
On UN: MCCAIN wins, but matters less.
On "gun show loopholes": tie
On "armor piercing" ammo: tie
On trigger locks: tie
On conservation issues: OBAMA wins.
The point: this is a much more complex picture than what some believe.
The broader point is that we have been asked by the ownership of the forum to mostly restrict our discussions to 2A related matters. The issue of McCain v Obama is indeed very complex and goes far beyond 2A matters. For example, as a small business owner who has studied both candidate's tax plans and been involved in numerous discussions and a conferences with those much more knowledgeable than me about the issue, I could write pages on why I believe that Obama, if he got everything he wanted from a dem congress, would very likely lead us into an economic downfall that would make the Great Depression look less significant than the NASDAQ crash in comparison. But such matters, while extraordinarily important, are beyond the venue of this forum.
|
Teej
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 11:29 pm |
|
The Donkey wrote: On Second Amendment enforcement: OBAMA wins.
Really? Then how do you justify his push for a _federal_ ban on concealed carry?
In the lingo of today...EPIC fail.
|
pro2A
Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 4th, 2008 12:06 am |
|
Hmm... sounds like he's against the 1st Amendment too.
Silly me, he's not against it, he's just for Liberal free speech.
|
Gunslinger
Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 4th, 2008 03:21 am |
|
Deanimator wrote: The Donkey wrote: AWDstylez wrote:
Gunslinger wrote:
Like I've said in every political thread, gun control isn't the only issue this election and those of voting based solely on the wedge issue of who's more gun friendly are going to have a rude awakening, kind of like Dubya II.
Couldn't have said it better . . . .
So similarly, if a candidate agrees with me, and supports abortion rights, gay marriage, and foetal stem cell research, I shouldn't allow his support for de jure racial segregation in public accomodations to stop me from voting for him? I mean, THAT would make me a "single issue voter"...
There's no such thing as "de jure" racial segration, so I miss your point. And if it means one issue can override agreement in 99, then you 'd be an idiot. What some of the crypto-literate posters can't seem to understand is that democracy is compromise. Call it lesser of evils, or closer to the mark. You vote for whomever is best for you. No one is perfect. Obooba comes pretty close to perfection in being a @#$%ing @#$%, however. Hope that isn't too partisan for a certain halfwit on the thread.
|
The Donkey
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 305 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 4th, 2008 05:01 am |
|
deepdiver wrote: The Donkey wrote: On Second Amendment enforcement: OBAMA wins.
On AWB: MCCAIN wins, but matters less.
On UN: MCCAIN wins, but matters less.
On "gun show loopholes": tie
On "armor piercing" ammo: tie
On trigger locks: tie
On conservation issues: OBAMA wins.
The point: this is a much more complex picture than what some believe.
The broader point is that we have been asked by the ownership of the forum to mostly restrict our discussions to 2A related matters. The issue of McCain v Obama is indeed very complex and goes far beyond 2A matters. For example, as a small business owner who has studied both candidate's tax plans and been involved in numerous discussions and a conferences with those much more knowledgeable than me about the issue, I could write pages on why I believe that Obama, if he got everything he wanted from a dem congress, would very likely lead us into an economic downfall that would make the Great Depression look less significant than the NASDAQ crash in comparison. But such matters, while extraordinarily important, are beyond the venue of this forum.
I think that NRA's selling out its membership on conservation issues is quite to the point because hunting is one of the reasons why many are interested in firearms, even though hunting might not be the predominant concern of this forum.
Conservation seems as pertinent -- certainly -- as armor piercing ammo -- to issues under discussion in this community.
|
The Donkey
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 305 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 4th, 2008 05:10 am |
|
Teej wrote: The Donkey wrote: On Second Amendment enforcement: OBAMA wins.
Really? Then how do you justify his push for a _federal_ ban on concealed carry?
In the lingo of today...EPIC fail.
Judges that Obama would appoint are likely to be much more friendly to civil enforcement of 2A because:
* they will tend to support incorporation into the 14th Amendment of newly recognized rights under 2A
* they will tend to look at qualified immunity more skeptically
* they may go for a more restrictive view of the 11th Amendment
* they will try to reach substantive claims in the face of procedural challenges like mootness and lack of standing.
Obama is not pushing for a federal ban now. If you are trying to nail the candidates on history, McCain doesn't fare very well either.
Last edited on Sat Oct 4th, 2008 05:11 am by The Donkey
|
Deanimator
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 570 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 4th, 2008 01:12 pm |
|
Gunslinger wrote: Deanimator wrote: The Donkey wrote: AWDstylez wrote:
Gunslinger wrote:
Like I've said in every political thread, gun control isn't the only issue this election and those of voting based solely on the wedge issue of who's more gun friendly are going to have a rude awakening, kind of like Dubya II.
Couldn't have said it better . . . .
So similarly, if a candidate agrees with me, and supports abortion rights, gay marriage, and foetal stem cell research, I shouldn't allow his support for de jure racial segregation in public accomodations to stop me from voting for him? I mean, THAT would make me a "single issue voter"...
There's no such thing as "de jure" racial segration, so I miss your point. And if it means one issue can override agreement in 99, then you 'd be an idiot. What some of the crypto-literate posters can't seem to understand is that democracy is compromise. Call it lesser of evils, or closer to the mark. You vote for whomever is best for you. No one is perfect. Obooba comes pretty close to perfection in being a @#$%ing @#$%, however. Hope that isn't too partisan for a certain halfwit on the thread.
How old are you? There was DE JURE racial segregation in this country well into my childhood. I was in grammar school when it was abolished.
There's no reason why a candidate couldn't want to REINSTATE racial segregation. To hear the Obama supporters tell it, I shouldn't let that ONE thing keep me from voting for that candidate... unless the ONLY issue that I can't be a one issue voter on is repressive gun controls.
Obama is HORRIFICALLY anti-gun. We're winning the gun control battle. Why on earth vote for the man who is to gun control what Lester Maddox was to segregation?
|
Deanimator
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 570 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 4th, 2008 01:14 pm |
|
The Donkey wrote: deepdiver wrote: The Donkey wrote: On Second Amendment enforcement: OBAMA wins.
On AWB: MCCAIN wins, but matters less.
On UN: MCCAIN wins, but matters less.
On "gun show loopholes": tie
On "armor piercing" ammo: tie
On trigger locks: tie
On conservation issues: OBAMA wins.
The point: this is a much more complex picture than what some believe.
The broader point is that we have been asked by the ownership of the forum to mostly restrict our discussions to 2A related matters. The issue of McCain v Obama is indeed very complex and goes far beyond 2A matters. For example, as a small business owner who has studied both candidate's tax plans and been involved in numerous discussions and a conferences with those much more knowledgeable than me about the issue, I could write pages on why I believe that Obama, if he got everything he wanted from a dem congress, would very likely lead us into an economic downfall that would make the Great Depression look less significant than the NASDAQ crash in comparison. But such matters, while extraordinarily important, are beyond the venue of this forum.
I think that NRA's selling out its membership on conservation issues is quite to the point because hunting is one of the reasons why many are interested in firearms, even though hunting might not be the predominant concern of this forum.
Conservation seems as pertinent -- certainly -- as armor piercing ammo -- to issues under discussion in this community.
Other than North Koreans, I've hunted ONCE in the last thirty years. Why should I give up my right to own a handgun because Obama SAYS he likes wetlands?
Virtually EVERYTHING to do with firearms that's relevant to me, Obama would ABOLISH, from handguns to modern rifles to concealed carry.
Not no, HELL NO.
|
Deanimator
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 570 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 4th, 2008 01:20 pm |
|
The Donkey wrote: Teej wrote: The Donkey wrote: On Second Amendment enforcement: OBAMA wins.
Really? Then how do you justify his push for a _federal_ ban on concealed carry?
In the lingo of today...EPIC fail.
Judges that Obama would appoint are likely to be much more friendly to civil enforcement of 2A because:
* they will tend to support incorporation into the 14th Amendment of newly recognized rights under 2A
* they will tend to look at qualified immunity more skeptically
* they may go for a more restrictive view of the 11th Amendment
* they will try to reach substantive claims in the face of procedural challenges like mootness and lack of standing.
Obama is not pushing for a federal ban now. If you are trying to nail the candidates on history, McCain doesn't fare very well either.
Who do you think you're kidding?
Obama supported the DC handgun ban. He STILL supports the Chicago handgun ban.
You actually expect me to believe that the guy who thinks nobody has the RIGHT to own a handgun, is going to nominate Supreme Court justices who believe in the 2nd Amendment AND incorporation MORE than HE does???
Everybody who has those NRA Obama cards, you had BETTER give them out where they'll do the most good. Almost nobody has heard of AHSA, but we still need to make sure that people are inoculated against their assinine lies.
|
Current time is 01:03 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7   |
|
