Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Slamfire on October 01, 2008, 02:23:18 PM
-
Obama's campaign is now threatening to sue media outlets who run negative ads about him:
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4192
Unreal... :mad:
-
Just big bro looking out for you.
-
Is there a mainstream media outlet that doesn't don their knee pads and put on their chapstick when they hear he is around?
lazs
-
More heavy-handed Chairman Obama tactics: "The Truth Squad" (jackbooted association of Sheriffs and Prosecutors):
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76438 (http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76438)
http://www.kmov.com/video/topvideo-index.html?nvid=285793&shu=1 (http://www.kmov.com/video/topvideo-index.html?nvid=285793&shu=1)
-
Are there more sources to these claims? I mean, I am an NRA member, but they are so right of Fox News that I'd like a more neutral source reporting these allegations.
-
I have been hearing a buzz about osamabamas brownshirts... errr i mean 'truth squads' for awhile now.... going 'googling'!
-
I have yet to find anything the NRA reports to be an outright lie. They like to quote out of context from time to time is all I have found. Still.. I agree.. it is good to have a backup.
The good news is that the NRA has like 4 million members and maybe 30 million sympathizers.
lazs
-
I heard Obama just lost the black vote..he promised everyone jobs if he`s elected.
-
Just big bro looking out for you.
You mean Big 'Brah :lol
-
From Missouri's Governor:
Governor Matt Blunt of Missouri released the following statement concerning certain law enforcement officials in Missouri who have formed "Truth Squads" to intimidate and threaten critics of Barack Obama:
"St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.
"What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.
"This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson's thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.
"Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society."
-
I heard Obama just lost the black vote..he promised everyone jobs if he`s elected.
he just got 'em back.. he clarified that the new jobs for his disadvantaged black constituents will be at the IRS.
-
I read the cease and desist letter from Obama's lawyers. It's here:
http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/ObamaLetterNRAAd.pdf
A cease and desist letter is not an infringement on the first amendment, wingnuts.
In fact, Fox News sent one to McCain - because they were using a Fox correspondent's voice without permission:
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM106_080919_mccain_ad.html
The Obama lawyer cites a FCC court ruling that airing an ad that is false and misleading with knowledge of that, is the basis for the FCC to remove the license to broadcast.
It's like if Obama ran an ad that said that McCain drinks the blood of African children every night before bed, and the television station wouldn't stop airing it.
You can whine that not being able to lie on tv infringes your right to free speech. You would be wrong, but you can have cheese with that whine.
-
From NBC about osamabama truth squad hotline during the SC primary in JANUARY 08:
The Obama campaign held a conference call to announce the South Carolina Truth Squad “to respond forcefully” to “the incredible distortions that are coming from the Clinton campaign in particular and our desire to set the record straight,” said former Sen. Tom Daschle, an Obama supporter, from Greenville, S.C., where Obama is expected to speak at Furman College later today.
Daschle cited that “Bill Clinton this morning again” was distorting Obama’s record on the war and what Obama had said about Republicans.
“Over and over again,” Daschle said, “we find the Clinton campaign has made an overt effort to distort his [Obama’s] record.”
The campaign also announced a hotline (877-622-6228) for supporters to call if they get robo-calls or negative mailers, which the campaign has said happened in Iowa, New Hampshire and alluded to it now taking place in South Carolina.
-
Bill Clinton on Obamas campaign trail today said the Wall Street banks the bailout plan would save no longer exist. So I guess that means Congress can go on voting no on the bailout. That is good news! :aok
-
A cease and desist letter is not an infringement on the first amendment, wingnuts.
Making intimidating threats to pull FCC licenses is. So is using the police and local prosecutors to intimidate people who speak against your messiah.
I guess we're seeing the beginnings of Chairman Obama's planned Stasi-like "C.N.S.F." force in action.
-
Obama's campaign is now threatening to sue media outlets who run negative ads about him:
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4192
Unreal... :mad:
Is the NRA not a 501 tax-exempt organization? If they are it's against the law to support or denounce a political candidate. Running adds about Obama no matter in support or against would be breaking federal law and violating their tax exempt status. I know the http://www.nrafoundation.org is a 501 group, but I'm not sure how or if it's seprated from the other parts of the NRA.
-
I guess we're seeing the beginnings of Chairman Obama's planned Stasi-like "C.N.S.F." force in action.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Well said, from the Republican side that brought you warrantless wiretapping, and holding U.S. citizens without charge for indefinite periods of time.
-
dos equality.. since you probly know very little about firearms and ammo.. I will tell you that the letter you sited was false in that everything the NRA was saying about osamabinbiden was exactly correct... the best they could come up with was one of "flimsy evidence"
What they meant was that osamabinbiden had not hid his position on the subject quite well enough.
The major claims of the NRA about his positions on the second amendment were not even contested or talked about... that he would do away with all concealed carry.. all semi auto firearms.. all handguns. That he stated that he believed the second was a "collective right" (no right at all) that he voted against the protection of firearms manufacturers against frivolous lawsuits.. that he felt the DC ban was lawful and refused (one of only a few) the amicus brief sent to the court.
The guy is twisting in the wind.. he doesn't want 80 million gun owners to know how much he is the enemy.
Why is he so ashamed... or deceptive about his position? cause he knows that most don't agree with him or the gun grabbers who finance him so he wants there to be no discussion on it.
lazs
-
Lazs because he is a lying marxist,
-
I read the cease and desist letter from Obama's lawyers. It's here:
http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/ObamaLetterNRAAd.pdf
A cease and desist letter is not an infringement on the first amendment, wingnuts.
That letter is full of crap and nothing more than a scare tactic. If I was the station manager, I'd air those letters and show the truth about Obama and his scare police. Statements like "flimsy evidence" coming from the Washington Post are as laughable as they are hypocritical.
The quote from page two, "Senator Obama made clear that he only opposed firearms that were irrelevant for hunting unless the deer were wearing "bullet-proof vests"", scares me more than anything that the NRA put forth. It tells me flat out that Obama feels he has a right to restrict my right to bear arms as he sees fit.
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.
Nothing in the 2nd says I can only have guns for hunting.
-
we be the change we was waiting fo.
-
Is the NRA not a 501 tax-exempt organization? If they are it's against the law to support or denounce a political candidate. Running adds about Obama no matter in support or against would be breaking federal law and violating their tax exempt status. I know the http://www.nrafoundation.org is a 501 group, but I'm not sure how or if it's seprated from the other parts of the NRA.
The NRA is a 501(c)(4) organization and not a 501(c)(3) organization.
(3) is tax deductible an yes, they cannot get involved in political campaigning. (4) is not tax deductible and CAN get involved in political campaigning.
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Well said, from the Republican side that brought you warrantless wiretapping, and holding U.S. citizens without charge for indefinite periods of time.
I'm not a Republican. They're almost as bad as Democrats.
-
Dos whatever....I thought we were rid of you for a couple weeks..... :P
-
The NRA is a 501(c)(4) organization and not a 501(c)(3) organization.
(3) is tax deductible an yes, they cannot get involved in political campaigning. (4) is not tax deductible and CAN get involved in political campaigning.
ahh ok, interesting.. I thought they all had to stay away from political campaigns of they were tax exempt. Guess yea learn something new everyday, thanks for the clarification.
-
I'm confused, even if Obama gets elected, he can't take our guns all by his lonesome...Wouldn't Congress have to pass it? Wouldn't there be a public out cry? I like guns just like anyone else, I own some, but I don't see one guy taking away a right...just how I don't see one guy abolishing abortion. And unless a judge dies or commits a serious crime I don't see him appointing any new ones...
To me, abortion and gun control just seem like good ways for each side to use the other like tools, when in the end nothing will change.
Of course there is always the fact you would be against someone who wants to take your guns away just because you have a problem with that mentality and lack of principle (like me), but that's another discussion entirely.
-
ahh ok, interesting.. I thought they all had to stay away from political campaigns of they were tax exempt. Guess yea learn something new everyday, thanks for the clarification.
One thing to keep in mind about the NRA - they're neither Right or Left wing, Republican or Democrat. They VERY RARELY endorse anyone for president (they DO NOT endorse McCain for instance)... They're simply a bi-partisan Pro-Second Amendment group. They're party blind and support politicians who are pro 2nd amendment, and likewise call out those who are anti-second amendment.
They APPEAR on the surface to be pro-Republican but that's only because Republicans generally are pro-2nd and Democrats, typically, anti-2nd.
Example - Bush Sr. and the NRA got majorly into it after the NRA called Bush Sr Administration's ATF "Jack Booted Thugs".
-
I'm confused, even if Obama gets elected, he can't take our guns all by his lonesome...Wouldn't Congress have to pass it? Wouldn't there be a public out cry? I like guns just like anyone else, I own some, but I don't see one guy taking away a right...just how I don't see one guy abolishing abortion. And unless a judge dies or commits a serious crime I don't see him appointing any new ones...
To me, abortion and gun control just seem like good ways for each side to use the other like tools, when in the end nothing will change.
Of course there is always the fact you would be against someone who wants to take your guns away just because you have a problem with that mentality and lack of principle (like me), but that's another discussion entirely.
The president appoints supreme court justices.
-
A cease and desist letter is not an infringement on the first amendment, wingnuts.
typically the left testicle hangs lower than the right testicle. Think on that comjob.
-
I'm confused, even if Obama gets elected, he can't take our guns all by his lonesome...Wouldn't Congress have to pass it?
whoever the next pres is will be appointing at least two supreme court justices.......those supreme court justices are the folks who get to decide what laws you WILL obey.
I have always that when the day comes that the supreme court rules against private firearms ownership every law enforcement officer in the country will develop a bright red target on their forehead. Heres to change we can believe in :rolleyes:
-
I hope they file the lawsuits by the truckload.
I also hope that they are ,in turn, made public.
If this would happen it might possibly be cold water poured on some of the veggies who support him.
I doubt it, but it`s a shot.
-
I'm confused, even if Obama gets elected, he can't take our guns all by his lonesome...Wouldn't Congress have to pass it? Wouldn't there be a public out cry? I like guns just like anyone else, I own some, but I don't see one guy taking away a right...just how I don't see one guy abolishing abortion. And unless a judge dies or commits a serious crime I don't see him appointing any new ones...
To me, abortion and gun control just seem like good ways for each side to use the other like tools, when in the end nothing will change.
Of course there is always the fact you would be against someone who wants to take your guns away just because you have a problem with that mentality and lack of principle (like me), but that's another discussion entirely.
Not only would Obama likely nominate at least two Supreme Court Justices, but a large Democrat majority in the House and the Senate would likely ride his coat tails into office. They would approve the no doubt VERY liberal justices Obama would nominate, and with such a large majority would be more than happy to pass all sorts of anti-gin legislation. It does not have to be obviously or blatantly anti-gun, either. It can be laws that gun manufacturers, gun stores, and/or gun owners could not realistically obey.
-
Oh no there coming for our guns......... :noid
-
No, they're not coming for your guns, they're coming for the guns of the law abiding American citizens :aok
:devil
-
mojava.. of course they are.. the last time a democrat got into power he signed dozens of bills "coming after our guns" guns people already owned were declared illegal overnight..ammo that was legal became illegal..
The "assault weapons ban" how was that not "coming after our guns"?
osamabamas idea that no one.. that 40 states should repeal their concealed carry law.. that semi autos should be banned... that the DC ban and chicago ban were models of gun ownership and reasonable laws.. that no one should have a handgun...
How the hell is that not "coming after our guns"? are you an idiot?
Anyone here that cares about the second should pony up.. man up.. and send $35 to the NRA to join today.. it is the only thing, in many cases, standing in the way of the gun grabbers.
You will get a magazine that is a good read and be part of the solution instead of just squeaking.... sadly...You will also get a lot of junk mail begging for more money but you can ignore that.
I will go further.. if someone here wants to join up but simply can't afford the $35.. please email me.
lazs
-
I don't know Laz, are you an idiot? You think every American should have the right to own assault weapons. I don't see anything wrong with laws that allow for safety locks on guns, or for background checks. How about for people registering there firearms with law enforcement. It seems like the responsible thing to do. But then again all you ever see is things through your rosy little glasses. Maybe you need a reality check....Democrats own guns too. To think anyone is going to take your guns away is both ignorant and naive.
-
(http://www.nerepublican.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/hillary-ad.jpg)
(http://caosblog.com/images/gun_control_works.gif)
-
I don't know Laz, are you an idiot? You think every American should have the right to own assault weapons. I don't see anything wrong with laws that allow for safety locks on guns, or for background checks. How about for people registering there firearms with law enforcement. It seems like the responsible thing to do. But then again all you ever see is things through your rosy little glasses. Maybe you need a reality check....Democrats own guns too. To think anyone is going to take your guns away is both ignorant and naive.
Hitler thought gun registration was a good idea too. It worked out well, unless you were a Jew, a Pole, a Slav, a "Gypsy", etc. Wasn't World War II fun? :rolleyes:
-
Hitler thought gun registration was a good idea too. It worked out well, unless you were a Jew, a Pole, a Slav, a "Gypsy", etc. Wasn't World War II fun? rolleyes
There is a difference between having responsible gun laws and confiscating everyone's guns. I know the thing to do is go to extremes, like your post showed, but in reality, both Democrats and Republicans own a whole lot of guns. A gun ban would never fly. That being said, having laws on the books that required background checks, waiting periods, safety locks, registering your firearms etc...are all responsible actions.
-
Is the NRA not a 501 tax-exempt organization? If they are it's against the law to support or denounce a political candidate. Running adds about Obama no matter in support or against would be breaking federal law and violating their tax exempt status. I know the http://www.nrafoundation.org is a 501 group, but I'm not sure how or if it's seprated from the other parts of the NRA.
I'm surprised no one has challenged this law yet in federal courts. Last time I checked the first amendment didn't guarantee the rights of free speech and free press to everyone except 501 tax exempt groups.
-
There is a difference between having responsible gun laws and confiscating everyone's guns. I know the thing to do is go to extremes, like your post showed, but in reality, both Democrats and Republicans own a whole lot of guns. A gun ban would never fly. That being said, having laws on the books that required background checks, waiting periods, safety locks, registering your firearms etc...are all responsible actions.
1) Responsible gun laws lead to ever more restrictive gun laws until guns are eventually being confiscated.
2) Gun bans already exist....Washington DC, Chicago, Morton Grove Illinois are all prime examples.
3) Waiting periods don't stop or decrease crime. Safety locks only slow down law abiding citizens who need to defend themselves, and locks only keep honest people honest.
Background checks I can agree with as long as they are the variety that can be done while you fill out the rest of the required paperwork to purchase a firearm.
-
Here is the "Cease and Desist" letter. Judge for yourself.
http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/ObamaLetterNRAAd.pdf
-
Here is the "Cease and Desist" letter. Judge for yourself.
http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/ObamaLetterNRAAd.pdf
That letter is full of crap and nothing more than a scare tactic. If I was the station manager, I'd air those letters and let the people see what is happening in their area. Statements like "flimsy evidence" coming from the Washington Post are as laughable as they are hypocritical.
The quote from page two, "Senator Obama made clear that he only opposed firearms that were irrelevant for hunting unless the deer were wearing "bullet-proof vests"", scares me more than anything that the NRA put forth. It tells me flat out that Obama feels he has a right to restrict my right to bear arms as he sees fit.
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.
Nothing in the 2nd says I can only have guns for hunting.
-
(http://www.nerepublican.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/hillary-ad.jpg)
(http://caosblog.com/images/gun_control_works.gif)
(http://www.nerepublican.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/hillary-ad.jpg)
Figures that a Hillary ad would have a bolt action gun... For LEFTIES! :D
-
(http://www.nerepublican.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/hillary-ad.jpg)
Figures that a Hillary ad would have a bolt action gun... For LEFTIES! :D
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Good eye!
-
(http://bp2.blogger.com/_8rpICX9hHPU/SGj30Dps_8I/AAAAAAAAAxQ/mm5uZXuk5ss/s400/topNews.jpg)
(http://www.vanriet.com/mt/archives/images/january_img/nuns_with_guns_big.jpg)
:D :D :D
-
mojava...others have answered you here and you should read them but...
Please explain to me what an "assualt weapon" is to you and why it should be banned. why a low powered semi auto carbine that was rarely used in any murders should be banned.
As for "allowing" gun locks.. they were always allowed.. you could put one on any gun you wanted.. this of course would make it useless as a firearm to not only children but to you in case you needed it for defense but.. you were always welcome to do it.
In england, australia and other countries.. regestration has been used to confiscate guns that were legal at the time of the law.. later.. when those guns were outlawed.. they knew right where to go..
please explain how osamabinbidens ban on concealed carry and handguns ideas are not a threat to us.
So yes.. I would still ask you to answer the question on if you are an idiot or not.
lazs
-
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The first amendment prohibits congress from passing a law restricting your freedom of speech: it does not prohibit me from suing you for what you say.
-
You think Ak47s and uzis should be sold to the general public, or armor piercing rounds? What is so wrong with registering a firearm, or a background check. Maybe you should reread my post instead of drawing conclusions. You come across as incredibly paranoid.
Check your facts oh paranoid one http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html)
-
Ok.. I guess you answered my question.. you seem to be saying that yes.. you are an idiot.. read the moronic factcheck article.. it pretty much says that your boy only wants "reasonable" restrictions.. that is like saying I want reasonable restrictions on abortion.. for me.. reasonable means no woman under the age of 65 can have one.
You don't even know what an uzi or an ak47 is do you? really... you don't. What klinton banned and what your boy wants to ban are semi auto versions of said firearms. Your boy voted against the protection of commerce bill for gun manufacturers.. a bill that would prevent manufacturers from being sued out of existence...
He says right in it that he favors making it impossible for a gun to be useful by imposing trigger locks and he says right in his own statement that he would bring back the assault weapon ban that had nothing to do with uzi's or ak47's at all...
The armor piercing ban is about any ammo that can penetrate any level of vest.. that would be most handguns and their ammo today.. My 44 would eat through a level 3 vest of the old style with bullets made from common wheelweights... My gun or at least it's ammo would be banned.. yes.. I feel threatened by your boy
even factcheck admits that your boy wants to end the most successful expression of our second amendment rights.. that of concealed carry.. HOW IS THAT NOT "COMING AFTER OUR GUNS"? they also say that it is true that he wants to restrict handguns and regtister em with.. again "reasonable" restrictions.
Does it not make you uneasy that he does not just come out and say what these "reasonable restrictions" are?
could he not just clear up this mess by stating his position? Of course he could and that is why he does not.
He made the statement after the DC decision that he agreed that the second was an individual right.. yet.. he was one of the few who would not sign a brief urging the SC to say that it was an individual right.. up until the decison.. he said many times that it was a "collective right" or... no right at all.
He has voted against gun owners 100% of the time.. I ask you.. At what point will enough gun grabbing be enough for him? at what point will he vote against or veto a bill that takes away the rights of gun owners?
He never has yet.. SO FAR HE HAS NOT SEEN AN ANTI SECOND BILL THAT HE DIDN'T LIKE.
lazs
-
You think Ak47s and uzis should be sold to the general public, or armor piercing rounds?
[/url]
Actually, I DO... Until some gun grabbers (FDR in 1934) crippled us early last century, we could order one of these by mail!:
(http://www.nfatoys.com/tsmg/images/cowboy.gif)
The gangsters would have had a much tougher time muscling in if the average citizen had access to these... Any further gun restrictions would have us helpless against the mexican drug cartel which now controls our southern border and has a trail of corruption that leads, IMHO all the way to the WhiteHouse
-
Lazs anything that doesn't agree with your overblown opinion is idiotic. There is absolutely nothing anyone could say to you that would change your mind about Obama. I believe if you check the amount of Democrats and Republicans that own guns, you'll find it a fairly even mix. No one is taking your guns away, and no amount of name calling or over dramatizing will prove to me otherwise. Your thing is to see everything in extremes, the left is all communist, they want my guns etc... It's just a bunch of horse hooey. Listen to yourself sometimes.
Here you go Mr No Name http://www.gangstersandoutlaws.com/Tommygun.html (http://www.gangstersandoutlaws.com/Tommygun.html)
-
some folks ya just cant reach....
I own 12 guns. of which only 2 are "registered" and thats only because I have a CHL.
I had <cough> a AK 47 full auto BEFORE the ban.
I also still have several boxes of Black Talons <they the shiznit>
I recently purchased a 16gauge shotgun for the wife. She also has a 9mm but the shotgun is primaritly for home defense iffen im on the crapper when the door gets kicked in and my rotty "entertains" the would be visitor while she displays her shooting prowess. :D
I recently bought several large pieces of PVC pipe with end caps "just in case"
They can have my guns.....IF they can find em :salute
-
I KNOW the gangsters used them... and the B.A.R.... Problem is, the access was taken away from law-abiding people and they could do as they wish because they had the superior firepower. If everyone had the access to these guns, their reign of mayhem would have been much shorter.
In a few countries you are REQUIRED to have a fully automatic working weapon in your house. I bet breaking and entering in those countries isn't much of a problem.
-
Actually.. the public sided with dillinger, bonnie & clyde, etc.. back then, robbing banks was considered patriotic. For good reason. Looks to me like an acceptable form of protest in the years to come.
:D
-
The president appoints supreme court justices.
Yes, but he can't fire the ones already in place..as in the ones Bush appointed. Correct me if I'm wrong, then forgive me for being ignorant and not paying enough attention in school... I try :)
-
some folks ya just cant reach....
I own 12 guns. of which only 2 are "registered" and thats only because I have a CHL.
I had <cough> a AK 47 full auto BEFORE the ban.
I also still have several boxes of Black Talons <they the shiznit>
I recently purchased a 16gauge shotgun for the wife. She also has a 9mm but the shotgun is primaritly for home defense iffen im on the crapper when the door gets kicked in and my rotty "entertains" the would be visitor while she displays her shooting prowess. :D
I recently bought several large pieces of PVC pipe with end caps "just in case"
They can have my guns.....IF they can find em :salute
So.... let me get this right.
You "used" to have a fully automatic AK47. Your rottweiler is trained to attack anybody who comes through the door.
You have pipe bomb material, as you say, "just in case".
In case of what?
Yeah, you guys aren't wingnuts. Not at ALLLLL.
-
You don't even know what an uzi or an ak47 is do you? really... you don't.
I guess at the O'Club, there is only one man who knows his weapons. The rest of you... wussies... all of you. Lazs is your man! He can tell you the difference between a AK-47 and an AK-74. He can clean the firing pin between his teeth! He turns off all the lights in his basement - now converted into a gun range - so he can test out his tracer ammo!
lazs - Master of his domain! Soldier of Fortune! Wingnut amongst wingnuts!
-
dos, would you mind holding this and running back and forth about 500 yards out?
(http://www.theodoresworld.net/pics/0408/ObamaHATESAmericalogobama.jpg)
Thanks! :aok
-
Is the NRA not a 501 tax-exempt organization? If they are it's against the law to support or denounce a political candidate. Running adds about Obama no matter in support or against would be breaking federal law and violating their tax exempt status. I know the http://www.nrafoundation.org is a 501 group, but I'm not sure how or if it's seprated from the other parts of the NRA.
I'm not sure if they are or aren't tax exempt. I heard they were spending $40 million on attack ads. If they are tax exempt then they may be walking in the gray area. That would be defending a constitutional right. I'm no lawyer though. Somehow I will bet what they are doing is quite alright. They have been doing it for years.
-
There is a difference between having responsible gun laws and confiscating everyone's guns. I know the thing to do is go to extremes, like your post showed, but in reality, both Democrats and Republicans own a whole lot of guns. A gun ban would never fly. That being said, having laws on the books that required background checks, waiting periods, safety locks, registering your firearms etc...are all responsible actions.
Well, actually I think it would be okay for the elitist to own guns but not you. Like the Healthcare plan, you think Obama will wait in line? Not hardly. You think environmental wackos won't drive suvs. They will they just don't think you should.
They don't just through a canoe in the water and paddle the wilderness. Like in Animal Farm, the pigs get to walk upright 2 days a week.
-
mojava...others have answered you here and you should read them but...
Please explain to me what an "assualt weapon" is to you and why it should be banned. why a low powered semi auto carbine that was rarely used in any murders should be banned.
As for "allowing" gun locks.. they were always allowed.. you could put one on any gun you wanted.. this of course would make it useless as a firearm to not only children but to you in case you needed it for defense but.. you were always welcome to do it.
In england, australia and other countries.. regestration has been used to confiscate guns that were legal at the time of the law.. later.. when those guns were outlawed.. they knew right where to go..
please explain how osamabinbidens ban on concealed carry and handguns ideas are not a threat to us.
So yes.. I would still ask you to answer the question on if you are an idiot or not.
lazs
Laz, you should have added that swimming pools should be banned since more kids die in swimming pools that are killed by guns.
-
Let's not forget those EVIL motor vehicles that kill HUNDREDS more people than guns!!111one!one!11one
ZOMFG WE HAVE TO TAKE AWAY THEIR CARS FOR THEIR OWN GOOD!
*runs around and panics*
-
mojava and dos equality.. of course I will not change your mind about voting liberal socialist democrat.. you will do it every time.
You are simply making sure that everyone knows that you believe in marx and "the end justifies the means"
You know nothing of guns yet you defend your messiahs stance on them.. you lie and say that he and your socialists are not taking guns away from us.. I show you numerous laws passed and asked for by your people that do indeed infringe on our rights (for no reason at all) and you sputter...
You should just say that in this case.. your guy and all the democrat socialists are wrong or.. that you agree that any anti gun law is a good law.
Name one anti gun law that he ever voted against. He will not veto one gun grabber law put to him by a democrat house an senate.
Like your people.. you don't know what an assuault weapon is and you don't know what armor piercing ammo is and you wouldn't know a powerful gun from a relatively weak one.. it is all emotion with no thinking.
lazs