mnealtx 0 #26 October 2, 2008 QuoteHuh! It has nothing to do with guns. It's almost as if some gun nuts fabricated a lot of "facts" and hoped no one checked them. Coming up next - Obama is a Muslim who won't say the Pledge of Allegiance. Reading if fundamental - too bad you didn't read the amendment to the bill - Quote Sec. 24-3.1A. Unlawful acquisition of handguns. 12 (a) Except as exempted in subsections (b) and (c), it is 13 unlawful for any person other than a person holding a license 14 under the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, to 15 acquire more than one handgun within any 30-day period. Obama voted "Yea"Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #27 October 2, 2008 QuoteJust took a random sample of those "facts." Here's the first one I looked at: FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month handgun purchase restrictions. (Ref: Illinois Senate, May 16, 2003, HB 2579, vote 34.) Synopsys from the Illinois State Legislature Home Page for HB2579: "Amends the Illinois Vehicle Code. Provides that the removal of a false or secret compartment from a motor vehicle, or the promise to do so, shall not be the basis for a defense to forfeiture of the motor vehicle under the Criminal Code of 1961 and shall not be the basis for the court to release the vehicle to the owner. Increases the penalty for owning or operating a motor vehicle with the knowledge that it contains a false or secret compartment from a Class C misdemeanor to a Class 4 felony." Huh! It has nothing to do with guns. It's almost as if some gun nuts fabricated a lot of "facts" and hoped no one checked them. Coming up next - Obama is a Muslim who won't say the Pledge of Allegiance. Screw the synopsis, what's the rest of the law read? At the federal level you can end up with a thousand double spaced pages for there to be enough in it for everyone for a bill to get through Congresss. Some state laws are simple. Some state laws aren't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #28 October 2, 2008 Quote FACT: Bold makes anything more "factual." Fact: actual senate votes are cited, and that's all you had to say in rebuttal. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #29 October 2, 2008 Quote Quote No. that is all you were willing to see, I posted his positions on many pieces of legislation. Indeed, like stiffer penalties for those who commit murder in churches. Why the fuck should there be stiffer penalties for murders committed in churches? Quote Your tactic is to post long lists of things claiming they show Obama in a bad light, not figuring that some people actually check. You've been rumbled. This of course begs the question, "So, Kallend, what in THIS LIST have you checked into and found false?" Answer: probably nothing--which is why rather than cite what's false, you just imply that something "must be." I've seen, over time, that this is your standard M.O. It's really pathetic to see in action.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #30 October 2, 2008 Quote How about these then: From his own website: They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. What the fuck does that mean?! Quote They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets. Really? Despite the fact that the CDC could not establish that the AWB did ANYTHING to help reduce gun crime?! And since when does the military issue semi-automatic, NON-select-fire rifles to soldiers? So much for "such weapons belong on foreign battlefields"... Quote Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual's right to bear arms? A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it. And they call the dumb motherfucker douchebag shitpile a "constitutional scholar." Here he is saying that we GET our rights FROM the Constitution! Personally, IF he gets elected, I hope he does move forward with efforts to eradicate gun ownership. He'll ignite a new civil war in the United States, which we will settle definitively, and that'll be that. And his legacy will be having caused a second civil war over his moronic, shitbrained idea that Americans shouldn't have guns, and he couldn't give up on a losing ideology. Bring it the fuck ON.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #31 October 2, 2008 Quote Quote Huh! It has nothing to do with guns. It's almost as if some gun nuts fabricated a lot of "facts" and hoped no one checked them. Coming up next - Obama is a Muslim who won't say the Pledge of Allegiance. Reading if fundamental - too bad you didn't read the amendment to the bill - Quote Sec. 24-3.1A. Unlawful acquisition of handguns. 12 (a) Except as exempted in subsections (b) and (c), it is 13 unlawful for any person other than a person holding a license 14 under the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, to 15 acquire more than one handgun within any 30-day period. Obama voted "Yea" HAHAHA!!!! Billvon is BUSTED!! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #32 October 2, 2008 Quote Reading if is fundamental Evidently my spelling isn't!! Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #33 October 2, 2008 Quote Quote Reading if is fundamental Evidently my spelling isn't!! I saw that. Said nothing.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #34 October 2, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Reading if is fundamental Evidently my spelling isn't!! I saw that. Said nothing. I completely missed it when I proofread it - mea culpa.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #35 October 2, 2008 Quote Reading if is fundamental -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Evidently my spelling isn't!! I saw it... but gave ya a pass..Anyone on here can speak typoese.... at least you TRY to use that wonderfully elitist form of American English. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #36 October 2, 2008 QuoteQ: You said recently, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions? A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. That question and answer right there symbolizes and summarizes his two-faced fork-tongued lying rhetoric. In other words, he supports gun ownership, unless someone wants to take them away from you, and then he supports the gun ban. This is a typical lying politician answer, trying to please both sides of the fence to win votes. And in the end, it reveals his true feelings, which is to support gun bans whenever they arise. And if you support taking guns away from entire communities whenever they feel like it, then you're not supporting the 2nd Amendment. So that's a true contradiction. Very few reporters bother to ask such a pointed question. They continuously allow him to get away with this bullshit answer, without pointing out the built-in contradiction. But it's the response he gives any time the 2nd Amendment comes up. He has it built into his brain like a tape recorder. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #37 October 2, 2008 >too bad you didn't read the amendment to the bill . . . You are correct; my error. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #38 October 2, 2008 QuoteQuoteQ: You said recently, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions? A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. That question and answer right there symbolizes and summarizes his two-faced fork-tongued lying rhetoric. In other words, he supports gun ownership, unless someone wants to take them away from you, and then he supports the gun ban. This is a typical lying politician answer, trying to please both sides of the fence to win votes. And in the end, it reveals his true feelings, which is to support gun bans whenever they arise. And if you support taking guns away from entire communities whenever they feel like it, then you're not supporting the 2nd Amendment. So that's a true contradiction. Very few reporters bother to ask such a pointed question. They continuously allow him to get away with this bullshit answer, without pointing out the built-in contradiction. But it's the response he gives any time the 2nd Amendment comes up. He has it built into his brain like a tape recorder. Some here have regarded Obama in high esteem due to his being a constitutional lawyer and teaching constitutional law....yet he feels gun bans are constitutional?! Ok I've known this but it still baffles my mind.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,112 #39 October 2, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQ: You said recently, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions? A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. That question and answer right there symbolizes and summarizes his two-faced fork-tongued lying rhetoric. In other words, he supports gun ownership, unless someone wants to take them away from you, and then he supports the gun ban. This is a typical lying politician answer, trying to please both sides of the fence to win votes. And in the end, it reveals his true feelings, which is to support gun bans whenever they arise. And if you support taking guns away from entire communities whenever they feel like it, then you're not supporting the 2nd Amendment. So that's a true contradiction. Very few reporters bother to ask such a pointed question. They continuously allow him to get away with this bullshit answer, without pointing out the built-in contradiction. But it's the response he gives any time the 2nd Amendment comes up. He has it built into his brain like a tape recorder. Some here have regarded Obama in high esteem due to his being a constitutional lawyer and teaching constitutional law....yet he feels gun bans are constitutional?! Ok I've known this but it still baffles my mind. So, apparently, did several members (but not a majority) of the Supreme Court. So I guess it's not quite as black and white as you would have us believe.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #40 October 2, 2008 Do you believe handgun bans are consititutional?www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,112 #41 October 2, 2008 QuoteDo you believe handgun bans are consititutional? Not a blanket ban, according to Scalia, but some restrictions are.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #42 October 2, 2008 Quoteso I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets So Obama isn't too bright. Though this is a great statement, you don't take 'illegal' handguns off the streets with a community gun ban. That only takes 'legal' guns away. Once he shows he can connect actions with intent properly, you have to question his ability to make any correct judgement call. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #43 October 2, 2008 QuoteQuoteDo you believe handgun bans are consititutional? Not a blanket ban, according to Scalia, but some restrictions are. I can live with that although I am only in favor of effective legislation. It is my opinion that anyone who thinks a total ban on handguns is constitutional simply does not understand the 2nd Amendment or are intentionally skewing the meaning of the words in order to fit their needs. Considering Obama agreed with the Heller decision which one do you think he is?www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #44 October 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteso I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets So Obama isn't too bright. Though this is a great statement, you don't take 'illegal' handguns off the streets with a community gun ban. That only takes 'legal' guns away. Once he shows he can connect actions with intent properly, you have to question his ability to make any correct judgement call. Ding ding ding! When asked about so-called "assault weapons", his standard tape-recording sound byte response is to say that since the bullets can penetrate a policeman's bullet-proof vest, that they should be banned. There are major problems with the logic of this statement. First of all, so-called "assault weapons" fire only medium-power bullets. They're not as powerful as most hunting rifles. Therefore, if "assault weapons" are "too powerful" for civilian ownership, then it stands to reason that all full-power hunting rifles should be banned along with them, for they can penetrate bullet-proof vests even easier. In other words, the only rifles he would allow us to own is .22 rimfire. Since Obama is grossly ill-informed on gun issues, then he doesn't have any business advocating bans of any type. What such statements tell me is that he's a man that cares only about political posturing, and not about determining the facts. And I don't want such a man to be President. And if he's this misinformed about guns, then how many other issues is he also clueless about, while offering-up grand solutions for the worshiping mindless masses? You have to wonder... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
