April's fool....
(http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/522579_390252150993105_107699875915002_1437572_225944764_n.jpg)
But I have no doubt it is on his agenda.
Quote from: Quinton on April 01, 2012, 01:50:22 PM
But I have no doubt it is on his agenda.
You might want to polish that fact-checker because it seems to be malfunctioning.
Quote from: nathanm on April 01, 2012, 02:20:52 PM
You might want to polish that fact-checker because it seems to be malfunctioning.
Remember who this is, right? And likely why he has less than 100 total posts?
I'm googling to find relevant posts, links and pix that support my opinion...
http://www.google.com/js/reallyadvanced.html
http://mail.google.com/mail/help/promos/tap/index.html
Quote from: Teatownclown on April 21, 2012, 06:25:40 PM
oh hell....
You just love women with an adams apple neck, a horse face and blonde mane don't you? That and O'pukely that has to have subtitles for his talking points, so that the mouth breathers can understand what he is saying. And also I can't stand Chris Mathspews, Flush Limbaugh, Glenn Dreck, Randi Riddenhard, Tom Fartman, Al Farton, Madcow, Ed Blowernce, and any of the Faux News, CNN, MSNBC talking heads.
That has been on the Democrats agenda since 1968.
Quote from: Quinton on April 22, 2012, 01:24:59 PMThat has been on the Democrats agenda since 1968.
Yet for forty years plus it hasn't happened.
The NRA is great at two things. Spreading misinformation and driving up the price of ammunition through that misinformation.
Main reason I will never be a member, as a responsible gun owner.
They have managed to restrict and chip away at the gun owners since the first one was passed in 1968
Fools.... :-* :P
Quote from: Quinton on April 22, 2012, 03:56:37 PM
They have managed to restrict and chip away at the gun owners since the first one was passed in 1968
Yeah, because the need for a 31 round magazine for a 9mm is ever-prevalent for home defense.
If you can't use a 15 round mag to defend your home, and I've said this before, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG...
Quote from: Hoss on April 22, 2012, 02:32:48 PM
The NRA is great at two things. Spreading misinformation and driving up the price of ammunition through that misinformation.
Does there exist a pro-gun lobbying group that is not actually a front for the support of extreme right wing politicians? GOA ain't it, and the NRA certainly isn't.
If you arent right you must be left and they want government control over everything including guns.
Quote from: Quinton on April 22, 2012, 07:11:45 PM
If you arent right you must be left and they want government control over everything including guns.
And there you have it folks...the typical neo-con mentality. Black and white.
Oh, and as far as righties not wanting government control over anything...how about marriage, Terry Schiavo, etc. ad nauseum...
Quote from: Hoss on April 22, 2012, 07:33:21 PM
Oh, and as far as righties not wanting government control over anything...how about marriage, Terry Schiavo, etc. ad nauseum...
It is kinda funny how they want certain things to be property of the state and then act like there's some fundamental disagreement between them and the far left who want other things to be property of the state. Everything they want is a fundamental right. Everything anybody else wants is just whining.
Liberals want to control your property.
Conservatives want to control your morals.
;)
Quote from: Conan71 on April 24, 2012, 03:21:27 PM
Liberals want to control your property.
Conservatives want to control your morals.
;)
Libertarians want you to control yourself.
Quote from: Hoss on April 22, 2012, 02:32:48 PM
Yet for forty years plus it hasn't happened.
The NRA is great at two things. Spreading misinformation and driving up the price of ammunition through that misinformation.
Main reason I will never be a member, as a responsible gun owner.
It hasn't happened to the degree that the Brady Bunch want it to happen BECAUSE of the NRA! And the millions of members who recognize that battle that has been going on for that entire time, and have been actively been supporting the fight of that action. Huge setback under Billy Bob with the bogus "assault weapon" carp. That type of action is EXACTLY the tactic the Brady Clowns have taught, supported and used since time immemorial. Well, since 1968 anyway.
The 30 shot clip argument is a specious load of carp. No one wants that in a handgun - it is unmanageable for a self defense weapon. I have had a 20 shot clip for my 1911A1 at one time, that even though it was kind of fun to shoot as a novelty, it was untenable for practical use. A 100 round magazine on a Thompson sub-machine gun, on the other hand, is just about right. (Plus it looks very cool.)
It would be almost amusing to discuss how a 20 or 30 round clip is "more evil" than just 10 or 15 rounds, if there weren't otherwise semi-functional human beings actually advancing that argument. If I only have 10 rounds, I carry 2 more clips. With my .45, I only have 7 shots. I carry two extra clips. Extremely unlikely that I would ever need more than the first 7, because the situation will be over by then, or I will have had a chance to run away. Unless there are more than about 3 people involved in attacking, then I don't know what it would take - will have to play it by ear and have the extra clips in case.
What a coincidence - that during this conversation, Steve Carell in "The Office" just pulled out two semi-auto pistols and blew away some guy. Now THAT'S entertainment!!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 24, 2012, 11:02:05 PM
What a coincidence - that during this conversation, Steve Carell in "The Office" just pulled out two semi-auto pistols and blew away some guy. Now THAT'S entertainment!!
Does one need a multi-pistol endorsement on their carry license to carry more than one pistol at a time?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 24, 2012, 11:02:05 PM
Huge setback under Billy Bob with the bogus "assault weapon" carp.
Pick one or the other. It can't have been both bogus and a huge setback. I think it was idiotic to ban any firearm based merely on look, but that's what it was. Not any kind of real setback for gun rights. It was an ineffective feel-good measure. Sure did set the gun nuts to whining, though. On the bright side, it also happens to provide a nice yardstick to measure someone's politics by. ;)
The pervasiveness of guns among the criminal and otherwise stupid, which is largely due to their pervasiveness in society as a whole, turns a lot of assaults into murders. I would like it if we could figure out a way to at least reduce that and other related problems and still allow mostly unrestricted gun ownership. I'm not sure what the answer is, but it's pretty clear that what we're doing now is an utter and complete failure. That doesn't necessarily mean gun control in the sense of eliminating (most) private ownership of firearms. After all, there are other countries with high gun ownership rates and relatively low levels of gun violence.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 24, 2012, 11:06:19 PM
Does one need a multi-pistol endorsement on their carry license to carry more than one pistol at a time?
I don't see a place for that.
Reminds me of the joke where the cop pulls over the 90yo woman and as she's going for her insurance a pistol falls out of the glove compartment. He asks her if she has a permit for that and she produces one. He then asks if there are any other firearms in the car and she says "Yes." She proceeds to show him a 38 stuffed in her stocking, a 45 in the center console, a derringer in her bra-strap, and a Glock 9 under the seat.
He asks her "What are you so scared of?"
She replies "Not a God damned thing!"
Since this is the current God 'n' guns thread:
According to the Tulsa World the open carry bill which came out of the Senate will only provide for openly carrying on your own property and will allow for you to keep a loaded gun in your vehicle. I don't have a problem with that unless we start seeing a bunch of people with a holster belt on their bathrobe in the morning when they are taking out the trash. Talk about a fashion faux pas!
I still think there should be a permit process to keep a loaded firearm in a vehicle, but then again it would simply equivocate to the current conceal carry. Hmmm, sounds like this bill was nothing but yet one more waste of time brought to you by the state GOP.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 24, 2012, 11:06:19 PM
Does one need a multi-pistol endorsement on their carry license to carry more than one pistol at a time?
No. It is limited only by how many you can hide and still walk. The key is "concealed" - must remain hidden.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 25, 2012, 03:24:18 PM
Since this is the current God 'n' guns thread:
According to the Tulsa World the open carry bill which came out of the Senate will only provide for openly carrying on your own property and will allow for you to keep a loaded gun in your vehicle. I don't have a problem with that unless we start seeing a bunch of people with a holster belt on their bathrobe in the morning when they are taking out the trash. Talk about a fashion faux pas!
I still think there should be a permit process to keep a loaded firearm in a vehicle, but then again it would simply equivocate to the current conceal carry. Hmmm, sounds like this bill was nothing but yet one more waste of time brought to you by the state GOP.
Yep. We gotta outdo stupid wherever it is found.
Open carry would be the most ignorant thing to do that I can imagine - well, except for electing another Bush - because if I and a couple friends wanted to do bad stuff, the very FIRST thing we would do is to go up behind an open carry person and make sure they were dead first. Who needs that? Not I, nor Sweet Brown!
Quote from: nathanm on April 25, 2012, 12:40:28 AM
Pick one or the other. It can't have been both bogus and a huge setback. I think it was idiotic to ban any firearm based merely on look, but that's what it was. Not any kind of real setback for gun rights. It was an ineffective feel-good measure. Sure did set the gun nuts to whining, though. On the bright side, it also happens to provide a nice yardstick to measure someone's politics by. ;)
The pervasiveness of guns among the criminal and otherwise stupid, which is largely due to their pervasiveness in society as a whole, turns a lot of assaults into murders. I would like it if we could figure out a way to at least reduce that and other related problems and still allow mostly unrestricted gun ownership. I'm not sure what the answer is, but it's pretty clear that what we're doing now is an utter and complete failure. That doesn't necessarily mean gun control in the sense of eliminating (most) private ownership of firearms. After all, there are other countries with high gun ownership rates and relatively low levels of gun violence.
It was a setback for gun ownership rights because for a while, I could not enjoy the rifle configuration of choice. It was bogus because, as you say, looks don't make a criteria for gun banning. In the right hands, a .22 Winchester pump action rifle can be just as dangerous as an "assault rifle".
I think Switzerland had it right for a long time - everyone must own a machine gun. Of course, being in Europe, they eventually had to mess it up...
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 25, 2012, 05:08:04 PM
It was a setback for gun ownership rights because for a while, I could not enjoy the rifle configuration of choice.
Your bar for "setback" is apparently so low that even a snake can't slither under it. Sure, it was dumb as a post, and people were right to say that. But everyone who was screaming about it being some serious violation of their rights and Clinton was coming for all your guns was clearly loony on the subject. Or they had an agenda to push.
If you want to talk about your rights being abridged, why are you not screaming about the NFA, which prevents you from owning short-barreled rifles and shotguns as well as machine guns? (It's obviously possible to get a license, but not many of your countrymen have the means to make that happen, and it does require means)
Quote from: nathanm on April 25, 2012, 05:14:20 PM
Your bar for "setback" is apparently so low that even a snake can't slither under it. Sure, it was dumb as a post, and people were right to say that. But everyone who was screaming about it being some serious violation of their rights and Clinton was coming for all your guns was clearly loony on the subject. Or they had an agenda to push.
It is kind of like the creeping right wing extremification of America - the classic frog in a pot of cold water, versus frog in a pot of hot water - you know the story.
We have just sat back and let the RWRE drag this country to the extreme right more and more every year, so that now, it looks like Reagan was a moderate.
Well, the same thing has been attempted in the arena of gun control since 1968 - and beyond. Billy Bob has stated for many many years that he wants to get rid of your fundamental right to own a firearm. And along with quite a few others, led the charge to get started down that path when he was in office. Take away a magazine here, a bullet there, then outlaw semi-automatics, the auto pistols, the revolvers...you get the idea. This is EXACTLY the plan that has occurred in Australia and the UK in the last many decades, culminating in the criminalization of anyone who wants to enjoy the shooting sports.
Don't have tunnel vision on this - if you own a gun - that very act is thought to be dangerous in and of itself by these people. I will never give an inch, because I have read and heard what these people say. And Obama is one of them. For now, I can live with him, but it literally IS like dancing with the devil in the pale moonlight!
As for the NRA backing politicians, well they support Dan Boren, they supported Andrew Rice, they supported Jim Jones, and quite a few others - all Democrats in Oklahoma. They supported Harry Reid in Nevada (for quite a while now), with his work to allow firearms in national parks and recreation areas being a shining example of what a Democrat SHOULD be doing. (Even if he is a little flakey around the edges at times...)
Generally, there are more Republicontins who get their support, because they tend to make the mewling politician mouth noises that say they support the right to own firearms. As you pointed out about those right wingers wanting to take away certain rights, it has been a never ending source of frustration and irritation that a party that is so ostensibly about personal rights as the Dummycrats claim to be, would have anything to say about taking away one as fundamental as this. It was important enough to be number 2!
And I have been registered Dummycrat since forever, and am also a lifetime member of the NRA. Not mutually exclusive, at least some of the time.
I have been against much of the NFA for as long as I can remember. Unfortunately, that one was lost long before I was even born, so I concentrate on the more immediate problem - GCA of 1968. And that has been a losing battle. I have filled out literally thousands of the 4473 form in a previous life (not for me, but for others to sign) and it was a total waste. What criminal would say yes to the question, "are you under indictment for, or have you ever been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year?" But when they lie, you get another charge to stack on them...
Actually, the GCA of 1968 is pretty much a lost cause, too. We don't need to lose any more.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 25, 2012, 05:40:30 PM
It is kind of like the creeping right wing extremification of America - the classic frog in a pot of cold water, versus frog in a pot of hot water - you know the story.
I get what you're saying, but you also go on to say that Obama is a problem even though he hasn't even hinted at wanting more gun control, at least since he's been President. I'm not quite sure how that computes.
TBH, the only way the gun control battle can be won in the long term is if relatively sane folks like yourself can figure out a way to stop the gun violence. As long as tens of thousands of our compatriots die from gunshot wounds each year there will continue to be agitation for getting rid of what seems to others to be the cause. As is often said, guns don't kill people, people kill people. And this is true, but as I said earlier, guns often turn assault into murder. The real problem is still the idiot pulling the trigger, but were it not for him or her having a gun, there's a often good chance death wouldn't have been the result.
So yeah, solve that problem and the gun control lobby will be marginalized far more than they already are.
The thread was a joke folks....don't get sucked back into a fake issue. Guns are apple pie and the American way....
(http://www.philzone.org/discus/messages/439459/765972.jpg)
Quote from: Teatownclown on April 25, 2012, 08:32:57 PM
The thread was a joke folks....don't get sucked back into a fake issue. Guns are apple pie and the American way....
Beautiful flag there. Missing a couple of stars, but hey...
Cute little kid. Looks like she needs more ammo...
Perhaps you wish it was a joke, but it really isn't. Think Illinois - where it can be a felony to carry a gun unloaded and in a remote compartment. You know where that is...the home state of "guess who".
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 25, 2012, 09:05:51 PM
Beautiful flag there. Missing a couple of stars, but hey...
Looks like 48 stars, like when you and I and Aqua man were kids. I didn't have a gun though. Well, maybe a cap gun or a water pistol.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 25, 2012, 09:10:18 PM
Looks like 48 stars, like when you and I and Aqua man were kids. I didn't have a gun though. Well, maybe a cap gun or a water pistol.
That's the flag I pledged allegiance to for a few years. Then Alaska and Hawaii came along...
Remember cap guns with the roll caps? Then the new improved "greenie stick-um caps". And HiFlyr paper kites!!
Sorry to interupt the old man memory lane trip but the idea that Obama is anti-gun is a redneck invention. Sorry. When I hear "Obama is coming for our guns!", what I really hear is "That black bastard thinks he is good enough to be president!" Argue economics instead.
Then again, if you have a gun charge you could always have guido or lionel hutz defend you.
Can this joke thread be over with already?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 25, 2012, 09:14:15 PM
That's the flag I pledged allegiance to for a few years. Then Alaska and Hawaii came along...
Don't forget the Lincoln Memorial penny. One of my class mates' father worked in a bank and everyone in our class got a brand new one when they were first issued.
Quote
Remember cap guns with the roll caps? Then the new improved "greenie stick-um caps". And HiFlyr paper kites!!
I remember roll caps but "greenie stick-up caps" not so well. I do recognize the name.
HiFlyr kites sounds like a familiar brand but I don't distinctly remember the brand. I do remember having to choose between the regular diamond shaped kite or a box kite.
Quote from: jacobi on April 25, 2012, 09:22:32 PM
When I hear "Obama is coming for our guns!", what I really hear is "That black bastard thinks he is good enough to be president!"
I think you need a trip to "Cleartone".
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 25, 2012, 09:14:15 PM
Remember cap guns with the roll caps?
I had one of those and I was born in 19
80. ;)
Quote from: nathanm on April 25, 2012, 10:44:03 PM
I had one of those and I was born in 1980. ;)
Wow! An antique collector at an early age. Or, could only afford hand-me-down toys. Actually some hand-me down toys can be cool. One of my Uncles gave me a toy truck that actually steered and a small person could actually ride on it. It was a dump truck. The dump bed was chain operated. Tonka trucks weren't so fancy.
Either that or they made cap guns a lot longer than I would have expected. No batteries required.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 25, 2012, 10:56:13 PM
Either that or they made cap guns a lot longer than I would have expected.
Yeah, they sold them in the grocery store (die cast; real metal!) until at least 1990. I vaguely remember even seeing a few with the orange barrel inserts, so that would bring them up to at least '92. They also made cap guns with the ring style caps (real revolver action!). By then the battery powered ones that made noises using crappy piezo speakers were taking over, though.
Besides, RC cars were always much cooler than cap guns, even among those of us who shot real guns as kids. ;)
Quote from: nathanm on April 25, 2012, 11:49:04 PM
Yeah, they sold them in the grocery store (die cast; real metal!) until at least 1990. I vaguely remember even seeing a few with the orange barrel inserts, so that would bring them up to at least '92. They also made cap guns with the ring style caps (real revolver action!). By then the battery powered ones that made noises using crappy piezo speakers were taking over, though.
Besides, RC cars were always much cooler than cap guns, even among those of us who shot real guns as kids. ;)
RC planes were even better.
I remeber the orange rotary things for cap guns, though I never had one. I remember shooting the cap guns with the long tape of powder like blisters. You would pull back the trigger and the hammer would slam down on the few grains of powder in the blister then advance. You could shoot 30-40 rounds with that.
Quote from: Hoss on April 26, 2012, 12:11:06 AM
RC planes were even better.
I didn't have the $150 or whatever ridiculous price they wanted. :'(
One of these days I am going to build either an FMV plane or hexacopter. Maybe once I get the virtual pinball machine completely finished...
Quote from: nathanm on April 26, 2012, 01:32:10 AM
I didn't have the $150 or whatever ridiculous price they wanted. :'(
One of these days I am going to build either an FMV plane or hexacopter. Maybe once I get the virtual pinball machine completely finished...
If you built them they weren't that much. Get one r/c transmitter and a receiver pack and you were set. My dad got me into the hobby because he was huge into it as I was just coming into middle school. It's THE thing that got me interested in flying.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 25, 2012, 09:25:28 PM
Don't forget the Lincoln Memorial penny. One of my class mates' father worked in a bank and everyone in our class got a brand new one when they were first issued.
I remember roll caps but "greenie stick-up caps" not so well. I do recognize the name.
HiFlyr kites sounds like a familiar brand but I don't distinctly remember the brand. I do remember having to choose between the regular diamond shaped kite or a box kite.
Guess you really aren't old enough. I still have the Weekly Reader that highlighted the "new" Lincoln Memorial penny. Just happened to run across that last weekend.
Various images.
http://www.google.com/search?q=greenie+stickem+caps&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Qyi&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=gjWZT_WZNoOg2gWMvoSYBw&ved=0CGMQsAQ&biw=1285&bih=871
Quote from: jacobi on April 25, 2012, 09:22:32 PM
Sorry to interupt the old man memory lane trip but the idea that Obama is anti-gun is a redneck invention. Sorry. When I hear "Obama is coming for our guns!", what I really hear is "That black bastard thinks he is good enough to be president!" Argue economics instead.
Then again, if you have a gun charge you could always have guido or lionel hutz defend you.
Can this joke thread be over with already?
Playing the "race card" on me, huh? Interesting.
And you really should be more respectful of your elders. Didn't your parents teach you anything - or are they still trying?
And the reality is...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWajf5RkDJ8&feature=related
His campaign paper - about banning handguns - so he lies about it during the debate.
Mention of "unscrupulous" straw-man dealers who put guns in the hands of criminals - as exemplified by the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms in "Fast and Furious".
David Plouffe addressed the topic for him by saying he would address the issue at a later time (after the next election, in case you didn't understand what he meant).
Obama senior adviser David Axelrod promised Obama will "engage" on the gun-control issue.
Last March (2011), Sarah and James Brady visited the White House for a "pep talk" about gun control -right from Sarah's mouth;
On March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, Jim Brady, who sustained a debilitating head wound in the attack, and his wife, Sarah, came to Capitol Hill to push for a ban on the controversial "large magazines." Brady, for whom the law requiring background checks on handgun purchasers is named, then met with White House press secretary Jay Carney. During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, "to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda," she said.
"I just want you to know that we are working on it," Brady recalled the president telling them. "We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."
The only reason you haven't heard anything lately is because he realizes it would create more issues that he doesn't want to deal with now.
Oh, and as far as economics - well, the economics are taking care of themselves as well as can be expected. If you had been paying attention, you would have seen the reference to www.crgraphs.com where lots of good things are shown. Until we get our corporations to realize that exporting jobs, it is as good as it can get. In particular, check out the manufacturing graphs. Sooo much better than during Baby Bush...
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 26, 2012, 06:45:45 AM
Guess you really aren't old enough. I still have the Weekly Reader that highlighted the "new" Lincoln Memorial penny. Just happened to run across that last weekend.
I'm old enough. Dad wasn't really happy with us even having cap guns. We weren't allowed to point them at each other. Dad was not a gun control freak, he just wanted to keep us from getting into a bad habit. We almost got a rifle to shoot sharks if needed in the mid 60s. We had a boat that we took to the Florida Keys on a few vacations to go fishing in the Gulf Stream off of Islamorada. We never did get the rifle.
Kites were available at the local variety store about a block away. Regular diamond shaped kites were about $.10 I just never paid much attention to the brand name. It wasn't important.
Quote from: jacobi on April 25, 2012, 09:22:32 PM
Then again, if you have a gun charge you could always have guido or lionel hutz defend you.
Is Lionel Hutz code for cannon_fodder?
"Judge, I move for a bad court thingy".
I'm amazed at the paranoia here. Heiro, you're relying on a reading of the flimsiest of tea leaves to support your case. Heresay, one-off comments, oblique references. It's just like the Birther rabbit hole, except about your pet cause. But make no mistake, it's the same kind of crazy.
Obama's shown literally no willingness whatsoever to take on gun control. He hasn't even made feints in that direction. Honestly, it's complete radio silence. And for those of us who want gun ownership to be like abortion -- legal and rare -- that silence is tragic. Especially when you poke your head into Wanenmacher's and see the acres of tables filled with all kinds of ways to cap your neighbor.
The sad part for gun-control-istas is that Democrats seem to have only so much energy to push back against some of the culture-war touchpoints of the right. Gun control has been all but abandoned as an official plank of the only party that could effect meaningful change. The Republicans certainly aren't going to do it. Ergo, you should all feel reassured; without any sort of meaningful opposition, gun culture is not only going strong, it's booming.
Notice the difference. He's NRA. I'm not. I don't trust a thing NRA says about gun-grubbing anymore. They were set up in the lobby of the gun shows leading up to and after the Nov. 2008 election attempting to drive membership by spreading the word that Obama would really clamp down on guns in a way that not even Clinton would envision. Total BS. All it served to do was cause panic pricing on guns and ammo for a year or two. Once it became apparent people were lied to, there's a bunch of people holding over-priced ammo and guns. I simply cannot support a group who seeks to expand their coffers with nothing more than un-founded speculation.
FAIAC, they rank right up there with AARP on the list of self-serving associations I have no intention of belonging to.
Oh, and as far as your stance on guns? A liberal on gun control is just a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet ;)
Quote from: Conan71 on April 26, 2012, 09:49:20 AM
Notice the difference. He's NRA. I'm not. I don't trust a thing NRA says about gun-grubbing anymore. They were set up in the lobby of the gun shows leading up to and after the Nov. 2008 election attempting to drive membership by spreading the word that Obama would really clamp down on guns in a way that not even Clinton would envision. Total BS. All it served to do was cause panic pricing on guns and ammo for a year or two. Once it became apparent people were lied to, there's a bunch of people holding over-priced ammo and guns. I simply cannot support a group who seeks to expand their coffers with nothing more than un-founded speculation.
FAIAC, they rank right up there with AARP on the list of self-serving associations I have no intention of belonging to.
Oh, and as far as your stance on guns? A liberal on gun control is just a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet ;)
Also, I reserve the right to get my conceal/carry license the day my daughter starts dating.
Quote from: we vs us on April 26, 2012, 09:52:22 AM
Also, I reserve the right to get my conceal/carry license the day my daughter starts dating.
then you better find out about 90 days in advance of her first date. ;D
Quote from: we vs us on April 26, 2012, 09:31:00 AM
I'm amazed at the paranoia here. Heiro, you're relying on a reading of the flimsiest of tea leaves to support your case. Heresay, one-off comments, oblique references. It's just like the Birther rabbit hole, except about your pet cause. But make no mistake, it's the same kind of crazy.
Obama's shown literally no willingness whatsoever to take on gun control. He hasn't even made feints in that direction. Honestly, it's complete radio silence. And for those of us who want gun ownership to be like abortion -- legal and rare -- that silence is tragic. Especially when you poke your head into Wanenmacher's and see the acres of tables filled with all kinds of ways to cap your neighbor.
I'm surprised at how you can interpret what Sarah Brady said about her conversation directly with Obama as a "flimsiest of tea leaves". This is directly from the source of the Brady Bunch organization. She is, by definition, the front woman for that group.
http://www.bradycenter.org/about/centerhistory
So what would consitute REAL evidence to you to show Obama's true intentions?
I am very pleased that Obama has recognized reality so far. Like I have said, wait until after the next election.
Gun ownership is relatively rare - there are only about 80 million owners here in the US (estimate) with a total of a couple hundred million guns owned. Not even 1 per person...
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 26, 2012, 02:36:58 PM
So what would consitute REAL evidence to you to show Obama's true intentions?
Organized legislation, for one. An official plank at the DNC, or anything in Obama's official literature that indicates any sort of appetite whatsoever to approach regulation of the market. Increased enforcement on the part of Obama's Administration (via Holder) to crack down on gun crime specifically or to increase background checks or wait times or any sort of attempt to regulate the gun show market.
But no. There's nothing. There's no advertised intent or even rumor aside from a single snippet of a single conversation from a single visit from one of many Democratic interest groups (and one of many serially disappointed Democratic interest groups). You'd think that if he was delivering the goods to an important constituency that he'd want to telegraph it somehow pre-election. But no. There's nothing. Not even weak-kneed attention from Holder.
That's why this is such idiocy. Any sort of honest assessment of Obama's threat to gun-owners would have to include
what he's actually done and said about guns. Aside from the infamous sentence or two from the early 2000's (or was it the 1990's?) he's done and said squat.
Quote from: we vs us on April 26, 2012, 04:12:32 PM
Increased enforcement on the part of Obama's Administration (via Holder) to crack down on gun crime specifically or to increase background checks or wait times or any sort of attempt to regulate the gun show market.
Just for now, and just for this one point - a crack down is exactly the opposite of what would be expected if one were needing an increase in gun crime to make the point we need more gun laws... just like what Billy Bob actually did throughout much of his term - intentionally would NOT prosecute gun possession laws by convicted felons at the Federal level.
Do you remember as far back as last year, when Fast and Furious was all over the news?? Not only were they NOT enforcing gun laws, they were UN-enforcing the law by providing assault weapons TO criminals. And to be fair, Baby Bush did the same thing in his administration.
And you have heard one instance of what he actually said...unless you believe Sarah Brady is a liar. (I do believe she is a liar, besides being delusional). Will see what I can get for you. Would real live votes on gun related laws satisfy the criteria?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 26, 2012, 05:01:55 PM
Just for now, and just for this one point - a crack down is exactly the opposite of what would be expected if one were needing an increase in gun crime to make the point we need more gun laws... just like what Billy Bob actually did throughout much of his term - intentionally would NOT prosecute gun possession laws by convicted felons at the Federal level.
Do you remember as far back as last year, when Fast and Furious was all over the news?? Not only were they NOT enforcing gun laws, they were UN-enforcing the law by providing assault weapons TO criminals. And to be fair, Baby Bush did the same thing in his administration.
And you have heard one instance of what he actually said...unless you believe Sarah Brady is a liar. (I do believe she is a liar, besides being delusional). Will see what I can get for you. Would real live votes on gun related laws satisfy the criteria?
Yes real live votes on gun related laws would increase the likelihood that we were trying to pass gun related laws.
You've set up a situation where both action or inaction on gun laws constitute a threat from a specific person or party. You've built a conviction quite separate from provable reality, and that's a weird thing considering most of your other views, which seem very proof- and fact-oriented. Sarah Brady having a convo with Obama and then speaking about it doesn't constitute any sort of measurable threat to your gun rights. Might I also add that Obama has repeatedly disappointed interest groups all across the spectrum of the liberal voting bloc (such as it is), and his actions to-date point decisively towards another disappointing term for the gun-control folks.
There're plenty of issue to ding Obama on; why choose something that's a ridiculous phantom borne utterly and entirely out of right wing panic?
Quote from: we vs us on April 26, 2012, 05:11:40 PM
Sarah Brady having a convo with Obama and then speaking about it doesn't constitute any sort of measurable threat to your gun rights.
Goes to intent. And Sarah Brady not only talks about it, but has actually formed an organization dedicated to the proposition. And this very definitely IS measurable intent. And since she has shown an ability to have 'face time' with the President, and said that he expressed at least a certain amount of sympathy to the proposition, that may not quite be 'measurable', but it certainly does warrant a response to try to ensure that the thought gains NO traction.
Plus, he has votes going back quite a while on the topic. Will get you some info.
I have NO interest in being disappointed by Obama.