American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Punter127;433441]Obama and the gun grabbers are now in [b]lie and wait[/b] mode.
Which in this case means tell a lot of lies and wait for the next crisis (even if it's a false flag) to push their gun agenda in congress.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;433443]I thought you were smarter than that.[/QUOTE]Sorry I didn't meet you expectations, but I'm sharp enough to know when I'm being hoodwinked.

I guess you and I are on a level field, because I never thought you would be so credulous!

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;433443]No one wants to take your guns away, just keep them out of the wrong hands.[/QUOTE]What makes you think they don't want to "take your guns away", what do you base that statement on? And please define "the wrong hands", because it appears to me that the gun grabbers think the American people are the "wrong hands".

[I][u][b]"No one wants to take your guns away", [/b] [/u][/I] If you believe that, I've got a bridge that you just have to buy. I'll even throw in a guarantee for a bridge to nowhere. Because for many on the left, banning gun ownership is the ultimate goal.

It's foolhardy and naïve to believe that the goals of those attacking the Second Amendment are simply attempts at "common sense gun legislation," (a very broad but subjective phrase with a wide array of unconstitutional possibilities).

Law abiding Americans, are in fact, in constant danger from those trying to take away our rights.

[I][u][b]"No one wants to take your guns away", [/b] [/u][/I] that is except of course for New York state, California, Colorado, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington State, and more specifically President Obama, Senator Feinstein, San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne, Mayor Bloomberg, and Esten just to name a few.

The anti-gun people know that the only way they can achieve their goal (of confiscating all privately owned guns) is to chip away, little by little, at our 2nd Amendment rights until a de facto ban has eventually been codified into law.

Have you noticed, all of the anti-2nd Amendment groups are Far Left. They call themselves "progressives" but their goals are anything but. A move backwards to Socialist tyranny is not progress.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;433443]Or do you have something to hide?[/QUOTE]Please elucidate the question for me. I'm having a hard time getting to your intelligence level and connecting the question with the current subject.



I have but one thing to say to the politicians / gun grabbers trying to disarm the American people,

[center][b][size=+1][NOPARSE]ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ![/NOPARSE][/b][/center][/size]

Why not try watching another TV station, other than Fox.

The NRA people don't even want background checks.

The NRA is a in the business of helping the Gun Selling Companys. Not Helping to protect the people. Even the First President Bush Quit the NRA.

VP Biden said that nobody wants to take away your 2nd Amendment Rights. They just want to get rid of the Military weapons off the street and the nuts with guns.

Gun shows should be required to do background checks.

When I said Hide, I mean I hope you not trying to hide some illegal weapons, that you are afraid they might find out about.

[QUOTE=Punter127;433467]Sorry I didn't meet you expectations, but I'm sharp enough to know when I'm being hoodwinked.

I guess you and I are on a level field, because I never thought you would be so credulous!

What makes you think they don't want to "take your guns away", what do you base that statement on? And please define "the wrong hands", because it appears to me that the gun grabbers think the American people are the "wrong hands".

[I][u][b]"No one wants to take your guns away", [/b] [/u][/I] If you believe that, I've got a bridge that you just have to buy. I'll even throw in a guarantee for a bridge to nowhere. Because for many on the left, banning gun ownership is the ultimate goal.

It's foolhardy and naïve to believe that the goals of those attacking the Second Amendment are simply attempts at "common sense gun legislation," (a very broad but subjective phrase with a wide array of unconstitutional possibilities).

Law abiding Americans, are in fact, in constant danger from those trying to take away our rights.

[I][u][b]"No one wants to take your guns away", [/b] [/u][/I] that is except of course for New York state, California, Colorado, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington State, and more specifically President Obama, Senator Feinstein, San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne, Mayor Bloomberg, and Esten just to name a few.

The anti-gun people know that the only way they can achieve their goal (of confiscating all privately owned guns) is to chip away, little by little, at our 2nd Amendment rights until a de facto ban has eventually been codified into law.

Have you noticed, all of the anti-2nd Amendment groups are Far Left. They call themselves "progressives" but their goals are anything but. A move backwards to Socialist tyranny is not progress.

Please elucidate the question for me. I'm having a hard time getting to your intelligence level and connecting the question with the current subject.



I have but one thing to say to the politicians / gun grabbers trying to disarm the American people,

[center][b][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;433469]Why not try watching another TV station, other than Fox.

The NRA people don't even want background checks.

The NRA is a in the business of helping the Gun Selling Companys. Not Helping to protect the people. Even the First President Bush Quit the NRA.

VP Biden said that nobody wants to take away your 2nd Amendment Rights. They just want to get rid of the Military weapons off the street and the nuts with guns.

Gun shows should be required to do background checks.

When I said Hide, I mean I hope you not trying to hide some illegal weapons, that you are afraid they might find out about.[/QUOTE]WT,

Congratulations for actually posting something that appears to be of your own composition.

It's a refreshing change from your usual idiotic cartoons and quotations from failed union leaders.

Thanks,

Jackson.

Is that why you deleted my post from yesterday?

[QUOTE=Jackson;433470]WT,

Congratulations for actually posting something that appears to be of your own composition.

It's a refreshing change from your usual idiotic cartoons and quotations from failed union leaders.

Thanks,

Jackson.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;433390]The Democrats in the Senate who voted "NO" did listen to the MAJORITY in their districts as well as the Republicans who voted NO. You just don't seem to get the point here.[/QUOTE]Doppel avoided betting on his statement, because he knows he posted false information. He may try to pivot to his alternate bet, but that's what we call a "red herring". The question here is whether one can stand behind their own words. Clearly, Doppel cannot.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;433476]Is that why you deleted my post from yesterday?[/QUOTE]WT, that carton you posted yesterday was so pointlessly idiotic that I decided to do you a favor and save you from the latent personal embaressment at having published it.

No need to thank me.

Jackson.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;433469] Why not try watching another TV station, other than Fox. [/QUOTE]I don't watch much TV news but what's wrong with Fox News, I thought they were the number one rated news channel? What channel do you suggest?

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;433469]The NRA people don't even want background checks.[/QUOTE]Really, I thought they supported the current background check system.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;433469] The NRA is a in the business of helping the Gun Selling Companys. Not Helping to protect the people. Even the First President Bush Quit the NRA.[/QUOTE]I think Barack Obama is the best gun salesman ever! [B]"Barack Obama, Gun Salesman of the Year".[/B].

He's also helped the NRA membership surge to 5 million active members.

[URL]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-29/barack-obama-gun-salesman-of-the-year.html[/URL]

Bush 41 was never a true firearms supporter and in terms of how he carried out his Presidential oath to defend the Constitution, including the Second Amendment, Bush 41 was an absolute disaster.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;433469] VP Biden said that nobody wants to take away your 2nd Amendment Rights. They just want to get rid of the Military weapons off the street and the nuts with guns. [/QUOTE]I don't think Biden has a clue what's in the 2nd Amendment or the Supreme Courts rulings on the 2nd Amendment.

If they only want to get "military weapons off the street" why did DiFi's (Dianne Feinstein) bill include semi-automatic rifle, I thought the military only used full-automatic rifles.

"Nuts with guns" or gun nuts?

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;433469] Gun shows should be required to do background checks.[/QUOTE]They are required to do background checks, under current law all firearms dealers are required to run background checks.

Did you know it's currently illegal for an individual to knowingly sell a firearm to another individual who can not legally own a firearm? Even for the tiny percentage of criminal guns acquired at gun shows (and the 25% figure for gun stores) does not mean that the criminal necessarily purchased the gun himself at that location. Many people with criminal records use a straw man purchaser. (someone with a clean record who buys the gun, and then transfers it to the criminal).

Straw man purchases have been classified a federal felony since the Gun Control Act of 1968; the federal law against straw purchases was strengthened in 1986 by the [B]NRA-sponsored[/B] Firearms Owners Protection Act.

Attacking gun shows is the first step to abolishing all privacy regarding firearms, en route to implementing universal gun registration.

BTW I would support opening the NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) via a toll-free number or the Internet, to check the eligibility of buyers for individual sales on a voluntary bases, provided both the seller and the buyer agree to it. I would not support making it mandatory.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;433469]When I said Hide, I mean I hope you not trying to hide some illegal weapons, that you are afraid they might find out about.
[/QUOTE]Rest assured I do not, and I resent your implication of dishonesty!

So, you violate my 1st Amendment rights?

Freedom of the Press.

The text and the cartoon were reported in the news, the "Truth, you Can Not Handle".

Such plutocracy.

[QUOTE=Jackson;433478]WT, that carton you posted yesterday was so pointlessly idiotic that I decided to do you a favor and save you from the latent personal embaressment at having published it.

No need to thank me.

Jackson.[/QUOTE]

Have you ever noticed liberals are the first ones to scream about their rights being violated and lecture everyone about being tolerant of others views. Well that is right up until you disagree with them, then they are ready to suspend your rights and are totally intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them. WT69 I'm ROTFLMAO at your protest.

I was a member of 2 unions for more than 40 years, and have a comfortable pension. WT69 does not represent the retired union members. WT69 appears to be a disgruntled retiree who wishes he had more.

Tres3.

I also been in 2 unions for over 45+ years and am happy with my pensions. And still work with the Printers Union.

So why do you say what you say? "Off The Wall".

Jackson can do what he wants to do. He is the CEO of this site.

It's all about Freedom of Expression. That what I did and he did not like it. BFD.

[QUOTE=Tres3;433485]I was a member of 2 unions for more than 40 years, and have a comfortable pension. WT69 does not represent the retired union members. WT69 appears to be a disgruntled retiree who wishes he had more.

Tres3.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;433482]So, you violate my 1st Amendment rights?

Freedom of the Press.

The text and the cartoon were reported in the news, the "Truth, you Can Not Handle".

Such plutocracy.[/QUOTE][BLUE]Hey WT,

Apparently you missed an important day in civics class, so let me enlighten you.

"Freedom of Speech" is a constitutional protection of a citizen's right to speak out against the government, and as such it is a restriction on government activities attempting to curtail this right.

However, this forum is a private enterprise, and as such I cannot be compelled to publish whatever you choose to post, much in the same way as the New York Times cannot be compelled to publish every letter you might choose to send to their editor.

What I do in my forum is not called censorship, it's called editing, and it is a necessary function and the responsibility of every publisher who wishes to maintain an organized publication. Of course, as I said previously, in your case I was meerly trying to save you from some personal embarassment.

Thanks,

Jackson[/BLUE]

I said you were CEO and can do what you want.

But, you are a government of sorts. You Govern this site.

[QUOTE=Jackson;433487][BLUE]Hey WT,

Apparently you missed an important day in civics class, so let me enlighten you.

"Freedom of Speech" is a constitutional protection of a citizen's right to speak out against the government, and as such it is a restriction on government activities attempting to curtail this right.

However, this forum is a private enterprise, and as such I cannot be compelled to publish whatever you choose to post, much in the same way as the New York Times cannot be compelled to publish every letter you might choose to send to their editor.

What I do in my forum is not called censorship, it's called editing, and it is a necessary function and the responsibility of every publisher who wishes to maintain an organized publication. Of course, as I said previously, in your case I was meerly trying to save you from some personal embarassment.

Thanks,

Jackson[/BLUE][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;433490]I said you were CEO and can do what you want.

But, you are a government of sorts. You Govern this site.[/QUOTE]WT 69 that B/S is so thin it is practically transparent. Stick with the cartoons dude.

According to the liberal media's reporting one would believe that blood in running in the streets from rampant and out of control gun violence. The liberals demand a new assault weapons ban and total gun registration, even though we have gun registration now it's not enough for the liberals. No they want every gun in the nation registered, an impossible task, just ask Canada. Esten will argue this point but universal background checks are a euphemism for universal registration.

Now low and behold the fed's on Bureau of Justice Statistics has just released a report documenting a 39% DECREASE in firearms violence since it's high water mark in 1993. Even with the demise in 2004 of the original "assault weapons ban" firearms violence has continued to FALL not rise as liberals had predicted a sharp rise in such violence after the ban ended.

When this is coupled with the new Pew report which compared firearms deaths per 100,000 people, the rate fell by 49%. In 1993 the rate was 7 deaths per 100,000 people which fell to 3.6 deaths per 100,000 people in 2012.

According to the Department of Justice / Treasury in 2010 there were 48,321 attempts to purchase firearms in violation of current law but only 44 prosecutions of those violations for a 0.0009 prosecution rate. You have a much better chance of being audited by the IRS than prosecuted by the DOJ for a documented violation.

The icing on the cake is a recent study just completed on Chicago's firearms violence which had some remarkable findings. Black on black firearms violence in Chicago accounted for over 70% of the firearms deaths. Perhaps what we have here is the result of violence on the federal plantation caused by the Democrats darling program called Welfare. White deaths via firearms violence was 4%. Draw your own conclusions.