Obama Attacks Gun Owners

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Chip Duglass wrote:
<<< Just read his past voting record on the 2nd amendment. >>>

This is the one and only, I mean single solitary relevant source of information for what a politician is going to do in office. For me they could skip the whole campaign. I know within 12 hours of somebody announcing they’re running all I ever need to.

They will say and do EHN EEEE THING to get elected and it will all change 20 times during the campaign.

It is especially terrifying when you see a guy with an out of the atmosphere leftist record attempting to sound centrist. Obama is the very worst, bar none, I have ever heard of. He made bold faced statements on a whole host of issues that indicated either a body double had lived his life before running for president or he is a frighteningly brazen liar.

The 2nd amendment will be only one of many issues where he shits all over the constitution while looking straight into the camera and telling us he didn’t actually do what he just did.

I was waiting for him to announce, just for chuckles, that he was actually an albino descended from citizens of Suriname who’s heritage had been misrepresented by partisan enemies. Then he and his his crew could laugh at the spin doctors defending the staement and polls showing a majority of Americans believing him.
[/quote]

Exactly.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Quote from a friend of mine:

A long very good post

[/quote]

When Oh when will people realize that gun laws are not about public safety. They are about public control… period. Gun murders were at their statistical lowest when guns were most readily available. Good God already. People are the damn problem not inanimate objects that cannot fire themselves.

50-60-70 years ago ANYBODY could get a gun with no checks at the hardware store while picking up some paint and the murder RATES were an infinitesimal fraction of what they are today because people just didn’t want to kill each other as much. It is utterly mind boggling that people cannot grasp these simple undeniable facts.

The Obama’s of the world cannot sleep knowing there are people in a position to resist their tyranny. That is always what gun control is about, not keeping people safe or they would support capital punishment and merciless penalties for violent felons which they ironically do not.

They would rather disarm honest citizens than fry some molesting murderous lowlife the world would be better off without.

I feel safer already

You know, I can admit that I messed up on the title this one. I’ve got no problem saying it.It still bothers me that the guy doesnt ask any questions about drug use but asks about gun ownership.

[quote]jawara wrote:
You know, I can admit that I messed up on the title this one. I’ve got no problem saying it.It still bothers me that the guy doesnt ask any questions about drug use but asks about gun ownership.
[/quote]

Well, he has done drugs. If I was president drug usage and lack of owning, knowing how to use etc. about guns might work against you.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
I’m a staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment, shoot somewhat regularly, kill things for food, and oppose even more gun legislation.

Having said that, this thread is misleading at best. The story covers a questionnaire for high ranking future presidential staff (for lack of a better phrase).

In this context, it makes sense for the future President to ensure that everyone’s skeletons are out of the closet and asking that folks register their arms (amongst other behaviors), while seemingly overkill, makes sense in that context. Much better than a headline about Senior Obama booked on a gun charge (unlikely, but possible).

I wouldn’t be surprised if similar questions are asked in Republican teams as well but we just don’t hear about it because they’re generally ‘gun friendly’. Hell, it’s standard for family doctors to ask, in questionnaire, if you have firearms in the house (I ignore the question).

The point is, with all of this Crying Wolf, no one is going to be paying attention if something credible actually pops up. We get it, some here literally seem to hate Obama…and they think they are rational as a result.

These threads show that to not be the case at all. Some of you may need counseling.[/quote]

You may need counseling too. Because while you wholeheartedly point out where everyone gets anything with regards to Obama wrong, is crying wolf and must clearly base it all on a secret hate of the man. Maybe you think he’s so hated because of the quiet hidden racism?

Noone hates him, but you are foolish to look at his FACTUAL voting record, again FACTUAL, and not see his stance on gun laws. Seriously, Sometimes you’re as dense as you are smart.

[quote]Chip Duglass wrote:
jawara wrote:
It’s not an outright “attack”, I’ll give you that. But think it’s step 1 in his anti-gun campaign and he hasn’t even been sworn in yet.

Just read his past voting record on the 2nd amendment.

Notables:

-Voted for the prosecution of those who use a firearm in their home as self defense.

-Raising firearm & ammunition taxes by 500%

-Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition used for hunting and shooting.

-Obama opposes all “right to carry” laws. Face it people. Bad guys are always going to have guns. How can Obama see a problem with qualified individuals being able to carry a concealed weapon? For people like my uncle (a FL resident where concealed carry is legal) who is past the age of being able to fight with his hands, what is he left with? Carrying a firearm. What is the problem with that?

Obamas anti 2nd amendment stance is one of the major reasons I didn’t vote for him other than his tax plan. But I wish him the best in office. I just hopes he focuses on the biggest issues in America…The right to own a firearm is hardly a major issue. They can have my AR-15 when they pry it from my cold dead fingers :wink: [/quote]

Exactly. I hope we have a great president, but i don’t like this part of him.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I read that whole ridiculous article and nowhere did they mention anything that indicates he is “attacking gun owners”.

Why do some of you post this bullshit and why are so few calling you out on it?[/quote]

Because why be bothered dude? Seriously, I had to listen to 8 years of whacky conspiracy theories and all other manner of ridiculous bullshit about the Bush administration, and now I’m going to have to listen to at least 4 years of retarded Chicken Littles running around screaming about the sky falling again because of the Democrats…

Anyone that polarized either right or left - means it’s an utter waste of time to try and change their minds. Best thing to do is just sit back and watch all the idiots proclaim the end of the world at Obama’s hands (just like they proclaimed the end of the world at the hands of GWB) and smugly laugh to yourself when absolutely NONE of it actually comes to pass…

[quote]Professor X wrote:
bigflamer wrote:

However, the question arises; why would a potential employer give two shits if someone he might hire owned a gun? The only reason said potential employer would give a shit, is if there was a personal bias against gun ownership. I mean, as long as the potential hiree understood that firearms are not welcome at work, then it should be left at that.

There is a very good reason because this is politics. That is why he is concerned about My Space pages and whether someone is carrying LEGALLY. Think about that for a second, do you think it is smart for a person in politics today to hire someone without paying attention to who they are in cyberspace as well as whether they own a gun with all necessary paper work and have never been in trouble based on it?

The moment he ignores some issue like that, the media or critics (or both) will be all over it. Who the hell would NOT ask these questions today if they operate on a very public political stage?[/quote]

Who said anything about MySpace pages? I thought this thread was about Opies anti gun track record and his hiring policies w/r/t his staff positions?

Listen, I understand that the president can appoint whomever he damn well pleases; a presidential perogotive that the left skewered Bush for using. And I also understand that he can ask whatever questions he wants in his interviews. Nobody is questioning his right to this. However, those of us who cherish our second amendment rights are rightfully fearful of Obama’s anti gun track record and consider these questions to be further proof that he is not as comfortable with the second amendment as we are.

According to the article, he was asking if the individual owned guns, not if the individual owned any guns illegally. There’s a big difference there. His inclusion of the gun question is definitely a window into his ideology. To ignore this is ignorance of the obvious. I believe that he’s trying to avoid the embarrasing moment when a reporter might hit him with “but Mr. President, how can you work to ban assault rifles when one of your staff members owns several of them?”

On a side note, I’m excited to be purchasing my first pistol soon. A Glock 30 that I can’t wait to try out this week at the range.

[quote]Gregus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
I’m a staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment, shoot somewhat regularly, kill things for food, and oppose even more gun legislation.

Having said that, this thread is misleading at best. The story covers a questionnaire for high ranking future presidential staff (for lack of a better phrase).

In this context, it makes sense for the future President to ensure that everyone’s skeletons are out of the closet and asking that folks register their arms (amongst other behaviors), while seemingly overkill, makes sense in that context. Much better than a headline about Senior Obama booked on a gun charge (unlikely, but possible).

I wouldn’t be surprised if similar questions are asked in Republican teams as well but we just don’t hear about it because they’re generally ‘gun friendly’. Hell, it’s standard for family doctors to ask, in questionnaire, if you have firearms in the house (I ignore the question).

The point is, with all of this Crying Wolf, no one is going to be paying attention if something credible actually pops up. We get it, some here literally seem to hate Obama…and they think they are rational as a result.

These threads show that to not be the case at all. Some of you may need counseling.

You may need counseling too. Because while you wholeheartedly point out where everyone gets anything with regards to Obama wrong, is crying wolf and must clearly base it all on a secret hate of the man. Maybe you think he’s so hated because of the quiet hidden racism?

Noone hates him, but you are foolish to look at his FACTUAL voting record, again FACTUAL, and not see his stance on gun laws. Seriously, Sometimes you’re as dense as you are smart.

[/quote]

I didn’t even speak on his voting record. I spoke on this bullshit article that provides NO PROOF AT ALL for the rant you all are doing about gun legislation.

Either bring up real new legislation that is about to happen or quit fucking complaining about things that have not happened.

The man hasn’t even gotten into office yet and you are already complaining about legislation that does not exist.

[quote]SkyNett wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I read that whole ridiculous article and nowhere did they mention anything that indicates he is “attacking gun owners”.

Why do some of you post this bullshit and why are so few calling you out on it?

Because why be bothered dude? Seriously, I had to listen to 8 years of whacky conspiracy theories and all other manner of ridiculous bullshit about the Bush administration, and now I’m going to have to listen to at least 4 years of retarded Chicken Littles running around screaming about the sky falling again because of the Democrats…

Anyone that polarized either right or left - means it’s an utter waste of time to try and change their minds. Best thing to do is just sit back and watch all the idiots proclaim the end of the world at Obama’s hands (just like they proclaimed the end of the world at the hands of GWB) and smugly laugh to yourself when absolutely NONE of it actually comes to pass… [/quote]

Good point.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Professor X wrote:
bigflamer wrote:

However, the question arises; why would a potential employer give two shits if someone he might hire owned a gun? The only reason said potential employer would give a shit, is if there was a personal bias against gun ownership. I mean, as long as the potential hiree understood that firearms are not welcome at work, then it should be left at that.

There is a very good reason because this is politics. That is why he is concerned about My Space pages and whether someone is carrying LEGALLY. Think about that for a second, do you think it is smart for a person in politics today to hire someone without paying attention to who they are in cyberspace as well as whether they own a gun with all necessary paper work and have never been in trouble based on it?

The moment he ignores some issue like that, the media or critics (or both) will be all over it. Who the hell would NOT ask these questions today if they operate on a very public political stage?

Who said anything about MySpace pages? I thought this thread was about Opies anti gun track record and his hiring policies w/r/t his staff positions?

Listen, I understand that the president can appoint whomever he damn well pleases; a presidential perogotive that the left skewered Bush for using. And I also understand that he can ask whatever questions he wants in his interviews. Nobody is questioning his right to this. However, those of us who cherish our second amendment rights are rightfully fearful of Obama’s anti gun track record and consider these questions to be further proof that he is not as comfortable with the second amendment as we are.

According to the article, he was asking if the individual owned guns, not if the individual owned any guns illegally. There’s a big difference there. His inclusion of the gun question is definitely a window into his ideology. To ignore this is ignorance of the obvious. I believe that he’s trying to avoid the embarrasing moment when a reporter might hit him with “but Mr. President, how can you work to ban assault rifles when one of your staff members owns several of them?”

On a side note, I’m excited to be purchasing my first pistol soon. A Glock 30 that I can’t wait to try out this week at the range.
[/quote]

The gun question is there because he doesn’t want pro gun, in other words pro constitution, people. We’ll see that soon enough.

On you other points.

I will be very disappointed if he does not appoint people everywhere that are every bit as waaay out left as he is. If he does not it will show a lack of conviction in his vision to “fundamentally change” this country.

I actually have some respect for people I thoroughly disagree with if they demonstrate some overt consistent conviction in their principles which is why I always respected Osama Bin Laden more than Bill Clinton. Ho Chi Minh more than LBJ. William Ayers than Barack Obama. It’s also why Dr. Marc Lamont Hill is my favorite liberal. I gag on just about every syllable that falls from his lips, but he’s a leftist believer and owns it like a man.

Respect is not in any way the same as allegiance.

Now that Obama is POTUS I’m hoping for a Dem super majority in the Senate and that they hold true to form in their militant quest to recreate this country in the image of our enemies for 1 major reason with 2 possible outcomes either of which is becoming preferable to what we have now.

The major reason is that it would finally display the leftist agenda for what it is.

The 2 possible outcomes are the people rejecting it or embracing it. We have to make up our minds already. Either we are going to be the United States of America in more than name only or we are going to expunge the principles that made us the envy of the world and embrace those with a long consistent history of survival at best and disaster at worst.

This bastardized Frankenstein’s monster of constantly trying to define America in socialistic, collectivist, they the government instead of we the people terms is flat down ugly and poisonous.

If we do not want to live by our constitution then let’s just stop pretending we do.

Question…Does this mean the secret serivce won’t be carrying firearms? If that’s the case someone might be in trouble.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Question…Does this mean the secret serivce won’t be carrying firearms? If that’s the case someone might be in trouble. [/quote]

Was that a threat? I just want to know because I might need to call The Patriot Act for help dealing with you.

I don’t think I’m a big threat to Mr. Obama since he is in a round about way my boss. Just making a point.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t think I’m a big threat to Mr. Obama since he is in a round about way my boss. Just making a point. [/quote]

…and I am making the point that if similar had been written about Bush, you and many others would be all over it. Somehow, it is now ok.

I didn’t vote for Bush, but you never caught me writing anything like what you did in the several years I was writing on this board and he was my “boss” at the time as well.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Question…Does this mean the secret serivce won’t be carrying firearms? If that’s the case someone might be in trouble. [/quote]

Let’s don’t be silly huh?

How many times have you seen politicians surrounded by armed security talking about how much safer WE’D be without our weapons?

[quote]Professor X wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t think I’m a big threat to Mr. Obama since he is in a round about way my boss. Just making a point.

…and I am making the point that if similar had been written about Bush, you and many others would be all over it. Somehow, it is now ok.

I didn’t vote for Bush, but you never caught me writing anything like what you did in the several years I was writing on this board and he was my “boss” at the time as well.[/quote]

I have not and would not ever call for or even tacitly condone violence against any president regardless of how reprehensible including Barack Obama. That is not how things are done here.

Maybe that attitude colored my reading of this guy,s post, but I find it astonishing that you saw anything like a threat in what he said.

I took him as pointing out how vulnerable a public official would be without the very protection some of them would deny to us.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t think I’m a big threat to Mr. Obama since he is in a round about way my boss. Just making a point.

…and I am making the point that if similar had been written about Bush, you and many others would be all over it. Somehow, it is now ok.

I didn’t vote for Bush, but you never caught me writing anything like what you did in the several years I was writing on this board and he was my “boss” at the time as well.

I have not and would not ever call for or even tacitly condone violence against any president regardless of how reprehensible including Barack Obama. That is not how things are done here.

Maybe that attitude colored my reading of this guy,s post, but I find it astonishing that you saw anything like a threat in what he said.

I took him as pointing out how vulnerable a public official would be without the very protection some of them would deny to us.[/quote]

Oh, it doesn’t surprise me that you didn’t see it that way at all. I expected it.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t think I’m a big threat to Mr. Obama since he is in a round about way my boss. Just making a point.

…and I am making the point that if similar had been written about Bush, you and many others would be all over it. Somehow, it is now ok.

I didn’t vote for Bush, but you never caught me writing anything like what you did in the several years I was writing on this board and he was my “boss” at the time as well.

I have not and would not ever call for or even tacitly condone violence against any president regardless of how reprehensible including Barack Obama. That is not how things are done here.

Maybe that attitude colored my reading of this guy,s post, but I find it astonishing that you saw anything like a threat in what he said.

I took him as pointing out how vulnerable a public official would be without the very protection some of them would deny to us.

Oh, it doesn’t surprise me that you didn’t see it that way at all. I expected it.[/quote]

Why would I? Or you?

Unless you’ve seen more of this particular guy than I have, it sounded simply like an acknowledgment of inconsistency. No guns here, but plenty there.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t think I’m a big threat to Mr. Obama since he is in a round about way my boss. Just making a point.

…and I am making the point that if similar had been written about Bush, you and many others would be all over it. Somehow, it is now ok.

I didn’t vote for Bush, but you never caught me writing anything like what you did in the several years I was writing on this board and he was my “boss” at the time as well.

I have not and would not ever call for or even tacitly condone violence against any president regardless of how reprehensible including Barack Obama. That is not how things are done here.

Maybe that attitude colored my reading of this guy,s post, but I find it astonishing that you saw anything like a threat in what he said.

I took him as pointing out how vulnerable a public official would be without the very protection some of them would deny to us.

Oh, it doesn’t surprise me that you didn’t see it that way at all. I expected it.

Why would I? Or you?

Unless you’ve seen more of this particular guy than I have, it sounded simply like an acknowledgment of inconsistency. No guns here, but plenty there.[/quote]

You also thought there was no way in hell Obama would win this last election. Perspective is everything, isn’t it?