law abiding or staunch patriot (even to the point of criminal) - Page 3
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism >

law abiding or staunch patriot (even to the point of criminal)


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-09-2010, 12:36 AM   #21
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SW OK
Posts: 4,994
Liked 2568 Times on 1416 Posts
Likes Given: 4076

Default

Obama is not my favorite politician-far from it. There are lots of legitimate stuff that we can go after Obama with without resorting to the propagation of distortions and lies. Obama and the Democrats are well aware that any attempt to pass gun control would cost them dearly.

Do not buy into the false theory that Republican politicians in DC give a damn about our gun rights. In 1994 the "assault weapons ban" passed the US house by one vote. That vote was Bob Michels, the Republican minority leader. 38 House Republicans voted for the AWB and 76 Democrats voted against it.

Bush I outlawed the importation of certain military weapons. Bush II would have signed an extension of the AWB if it had hit his desk: Thanks to House Speaker Hastert that did not happen. The US senate passed an extension of the AWB with 10 Republican votes. Senator Harry Reid voted against the extension of the AWB.

Republicans in the US congress could have rolled back some of the more onerous gun control stuff but they refused to do so because Bush II did not want that to happen. It is significant that Bush and the Republican congress wussed around for years on carry in national parks. The rule was finally overturned late in the reign of Bush II but it did not stick. Final analysis: Bush II and the Republican congress did nothing for gun owners or our 2nd Amendment rights.

Folks do not flatter themselves or help our cause by spreading propaganda that is not true. Anyone who believes that Hillary Clinton signed a UN treaty to take away our guns needs a 9th grade course in American government.
alsaqr is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2010, 12:41 AM   #22
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
canebrake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 150 miles NE of Sloppy Joe's Bar
Posts: 21,941
Liked 1443 Times on 812 Posts
Likes Given: 1290

Default

law abiding or staunch patriot (even to the point of criminal) - Legal and Activism
__________________
http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/v...brake02jpg.jpg

http://i1060.photobucket.com/albums/...ps18cfbeae.jpg

Get her dirty, then clean her so she starts to respect you. When her trust is complete, she will serve you well for a lifetime!

"...if doves shot back, there wouldn't be a need for a bag limit."
- orangello
canebrake is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2010, 05:51 PM   #23
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alsaqr View Post

Do not buy into the false theory that Republican politicians in DC give a damn about our gun rights.
Yep.There are 'progressives' in the Republican party.

What a 'progressive' is,is someone who believes that big government can solve all problems faced by society;by 'socially engineering' society to be what a few elite believe it would best resemble.Big government can solve all problems,if only we should all surrender our will to it.
Freely or otherwise.

Doesn't matter the party-there are misguided politicians of that ilk on both sides of the political aisle.
They might not even identify themselves as 'progressive';but if it walks like a duck,and it quacks like a duck......

I wasn't a fan of Bush,or his daddy,and I am very disappointed that the last election didn't offer a limited government option from either side of the aisle,after what we just went thru with Bush jr. and his massive expansions of government power.


John C. Calhoun-

Quote:
Moreover, it is a “great mistake,” Calhoun wrote, to suppose that “the mere insertion of provisions to restrict and limit the powers of the government, without investing those for whose protection they are inserted, with the means of enforcing their observance, will be sufficient to prevent the major and dominant party from abusing its powers” (emphasis added). The party “in possession of the government” will always be opposed to any and all restrictions on its powers. They “will have no need of these restrictions” and “would come, in time, to regard these limitations as unnecessary and improper restraints and endeavor to elude them . . .”

The “part in favor of the restrictions” (i.e., strict constructionists) would inevitably be overpowered. It is sheer folly, Calhoun argued, to suppose that “the party in possession of the ballot box and the physical force of the country, could be successfully resisted by an appeal to reason, truth, justice, or the obligations imposed by the constitution” (emphasis added). He predicted that “the restrictions [of government power in the Constitution] would ultimately be annulled, and the government be converted into one of unlimited powers.” He was right, of course.
Check this out-Doomed From the Start?

Quote:
Originally Posted by alsaqr View Post

Folks do not flatter themselves or help our cause by spreading propaganda that is not true. Anyone who believes that Hillary Clinton signed a UN treaty to take away our guns needs a 9th grade course in American government.
I agree.
This kind of rhetoric is only appropriate IF and/or WHEN such a treaty is actually signed and implemented-to the degree that it threatens liberty the way the post presumes....
Otherwise it is propaganda.....

But I wouldn't put it past them (Hitlery and ALL big government types) to try........And at this point,its going to take education outside of the one 'given' to us by government to truly understand just whats going on in government today.....
After all,any 9th grader SHOULD know that this is a "Republic with democratic process under Constitutional law",and NOT a "Democracy"...but ask one.

I seem to remember my grade school history and civics teachers calling the Constitution a "living document subject to modern interpretation" rather than the Supreme Law of The Land,which it clearly declares itself to be(the Supremacy Clause).

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
James Madison

And as for the 'modern progressive' Democrats Billary Klintoon- anyone whos been around long enough to see what happened during the Klintoon regime should know that they will do anything,say anything,and make any circumstance,reason or excuse to totally disarm the American people.

No wonder people are making such outlandish claims about Hitlerys involvement with the "United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs".
One could hardly blame them.

However,your absolutely right.
People should be careful what they're saying and how they are presenting the facts,in this particular instance they shouldn't be making FACT-LESS claims like this-

Quote:
OBAMA FINDS LEGAL WAY AROUND THE 2ND AMENDMENT

AND USES IT. IF THIS PASSES, THERE could BE WAR


On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a

Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States
This is a very bold accusation,and if its baseless-it makes people who repeat it look pretty silly.

All that being said,I still believe that there is a grain of truth in every lie.

I still refuse to put it past the misguided hoplophobic masses that yearn for total disarmament 'for the good of the children' and the manically power hungry crooked politicians who are too eager to deliver this for them and reap the ultimate power of a total monopoly on arms by a government they control, from doing anything they can conceive might be even remotely helpful in accomplishing their goals.

And if theres any doubt there will be any restraint from implementing Constitutionally illegitimate 'law',just consider 'gun control' itself.

And undeniably,part of the UN agenda is,in fact,focused on control of small arms:

http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/ArmsTradeTreaty/html/ATT.shtml


I believe a more factual debate on the subject could have been started with that UN webpage.

Then it wouldn't have been 'propaganda',but "right out of the horses' mouth" fact.

We can start with this quote-

Quote:
"world leaders must accept the fact that we cannot let
the free market rule the international arms trade”.
Oscar Arias, President of Costa Rica and.Nobel Peace Prize laureate
So who gets 'control' if not the free market?

Who gets to 'dictate' the 'global arms trade' to the world?

Who is this that wants total global control over small arms?

What does that 'global control' entail regarding our sacred,inalienable right to keep and bear arms in defense of ourselves and our nation,as a free people?

Historically speaking,has 'gun control' ever been in the best interests of the people denied small arms or has it been a tool used for 'control' over those people by those who demand that 'control'?

What has been the cost of denying personal arms -the tools of self defense from criminal and tyrant alike- to any group of people,for any reason?

What have the governments instituting such 'gun control' measures been like,and do we really want a self-described world governing body having that kind of control?

And what could our progressives,long in the business of stirring up fear and bigotry to implement their agenda of total control of weapons in America hope to garner by such global control?
Mere international weapons trade restrictions?
In that case say good bye to imported weapons and ammo in the least.....

Better question could be:why is it so important for the world to now have a 'world government' like the UN take control of international arms trading?For the good of the children in the entire world?Because they know whats best for everyone in the entire world at the UN?
Or,like the historically proven proclivities of almost all forms government implementing 'weapons laws' or 'gun control' before them-is it that they seek to have a monopoly on the use of force?

Should members of our government -the Citizens employees- even be participating in such discussions of seceding 'control' of any kind of trade to a global government,or should the rule of Constitutional law dictate how much control our government may have and/or will allow over the trade of American citizens?

Are our employees acting on our best behalf in this regard?

The answers to these and more questions-inquiring minds would like to know......
__________________
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
-Mahatma Gandhi

http://jpfo.org/
III%

Last edited by KalashnikovJosh; 05-10-2010 at 09:00 PM.
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Law Abiding Citizen User Name The Club House 4 10-30-2009 08:48 PM
This is criminal layton Politics, Religion and Controversy 2 08-17-2009 04:34 AM
Gangs behind up to 80% of U.S. crime, yet gun ban lobby focuses on the law-abiding pr sculker The Club House 0 02-09-2009 03:08 AM
what kind of rifle sling is this - 2 point? 3 point? lowead Firearm Accessories & Gear 3 10-17-2008 10:02 PM



Newest Threads