PDA

View Full Version : Inside "sources" warn of imminent BHO anti-2AM action


Tarn_Helm
01-05-2009, 2:03 PM
"Storm Warning! Obama Will Attack . . . " (http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/2009/01/storm-warning-obama-will-attack.html)

Gun writer Michael Bane (http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/2009/01/storm-warning-obama-will-attack.html) at his blog, and Jim Shepherd, at the SHOOTING WIRE (http://www.shootingwire.com/) (scroll down to New Tactics Needed (http://www.shootingwire.com/)), are reporting similar rumors today.
:lurk5:

bwiese
01-05-2009, 2:06 PM
That blogger is a drama queen.

Lateralus
01-05-2009, 2:23 PM
Im going to use the tinfoil hat on this one. All I see is wild speculation.

odysseus
01-05-2009, 2:29 PM
A little early to be calling the game on this.

However I am of no doubt Obama with Pelosi and the Dems controlling Congress will push something, certainly a renewed AWB with who knows what inside of it. Whether it is successful is another story, but I am convinced something is coming in his term. Maybe not in 2009, but we got him at least until 2012.

.

OrovilleTim
01-05-2009, 2:31 PM
Wow, he'd actually be a man of his word then. He stated at a Violence Policy Center (http://www.vpc.org) Fund Raiser that reinstatement of the AW ban would be his first priority when he took office. Not to mention, he also said that within the first year he would work on a national no carry law, a one gun a month limit (and we thought 1 handgun every 30 days was nuts,) and a ban on all semi-automatic guns.

sorensen440
01-05-2009, 2:32 PM
He has to mail me my hope and change first... he promised...

Tarn_Helm
01-05-2009, 2:35 PM
Im going to use the tinfoil hat on this one. All I see is wild speculation.

It would indeed be wonderful if the links I supplied turn out to be nothing more than "drama" and "wild speculation."

Unfortunately, if the "drama" ends up infringing 2nd Amendment rights through legislation and regulation, then the "wild speculation" will have transformed itself in hindsight into a brilliantly prophetic reading of the actual political landscape.

At this point, I have to agree that "our only rational hope is that Obama's term will be such a fiasco that he will not get a second term--but not such a fiasco that the country will be irreparably damaged."
:beatdeadhorse5:

Dr Rockso
01-05-2009, 2:36 PM
I wonder if the "inside source" is actually inside his pants, specifically the booty-hole region.

jacques
01-05-2009, 2:45 PM
He has to mail me my hope and change first... he promised...

Yeah, and isn't he supposed to make my car payment and pay my rent?

CalNRA
01-05-2009, 2:51 PM
Yeah, and isn't he supposed to make my car payment and pay my rent?

first things first. He hasn't paid for my gasoline bills yet. I thought he sympathized with the high gas prices we were paying and wanted to help, I mean he said he understood the pain of working class people? :chris:

Jpach
01-05-2009, 2:59 PM
Micheal Bane is a BA and has one of the coolest jobs ever if you ask me, but I think this is more of a ploy to get us to donate to the NRA more than anything. I think a crap load of people would be majorly pissed if an AWB were signed into affect. Pissed off enough to get violent. If they decide to pass an AWB, its their funeral.

CalNRA
01-05-2009, 3:02 PM
first off I'm not employed by NRA at all, neither at the national level nor at the state level.

but if anything we don't need a "ploy" to realize that this is the time to donate to defend our 2nd amendment rights.

and second, last time the AWB got passed no one got violent and just took it. So this thinly veiled attack on the NRA is a poor attempt to spin the situation.

Micheal Bane is a BA and has one of the coolest jobs ever if you ask me, but I think this is more of a ploy to get us to donate to the NRA more than anything. I think a crap load of people would be majorly pissed if an AWB were signed into affect. Pissed off enough to get violent. If they decide to pass an AWB, its their funeral.

Tarn_Helm
01-05-2009, 3:06 PM
Micheal Bane is a BA and has one of the coolest jobs ever if you ask me, but I think this is more of a ploy to get us to donate to the NRA more than anything. I think a crap load of people would be majorly pissed if an AWB were signed into affect. Pissed off enough to get violent. If they decide to pass an AWB, its their funeral.

:confused:

I usually know acronyms, but not this one in this context.

I thought "BA" was baccalaureus artium.

What is a "BA" in the context of your comment?
:o

Dr Rockso
01-05-2009, 3:06 PM
Wow, he'd actually be a man of his word then. He stated at a Violence Policy Center (http://www.vpc.org) Fund Raiser that reinstatement of the AW ban would be his first priority when he took office. Not to mention, he also said that within the first year he would work on a national no carry law, a one gun a month limit (and we thought 1 handgun every 30 days was nuts,) and a ban on all semi-automatic guns.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_promise_last_year_to_ban.html
Chain e-mail: 1
Reality: 0

Obama is not a friend of the second amendment, but speculation based on anonymous or fabricated claims is not going to do anything but fuel the current panic situation.

odysseus
01-05-2009, 3:18 PM
I think a crap load of people would be majorly pissed if an AWB were signed into affect. Pissed off enough to get violent. If they decide to pass an AWB, its their funeral.

So what? They did it before, and do it all the time in other ways here in Cali and elsewhere. No one is going to get "violent", that's a lot of tough-guy-internetz talk. An AWB bill is coming, when and what details who knows - but I wouldn't be betting it isn't by 2012.

.

bulgron
01-05-2009, 3:36 PM
A renewed AW ban has been introduced into Congress every session since the last one expired. I'll get excited about this when our eyes and ears in Washington tell us we'd better get excited about it.

Remember that Bush said he'd sign a renewed AW ban if one made it to his desk, and remember that the Dems had control of Congress for the last two years of Bush's term, yet no AW ban made it to his desk. If they were ever going to renew the AW ban, that would have been the time to do it, because then they would have had a Republican President to share the blame with.

But they didn't do it. So now, if the Dems pass a renewed AW ban, they run the risk of losing their majority in Congress -- and then there goes the ballgame on Obama's agenda. Plus, as things stand now, the courts will just kick the AW ban based on Heller.

It would be an incredibly stupid move on their part.

I'm a lot more worried about the sort of Federal judges Obama is going to seat over the next few years. If he tilts the courts far enough in the direction of the interest-balancing crowd before we can strengthen Heller, that will be the ballgame for us.

If we assume that the Dems are going to push a renewed AW ban through sooner or later, let's hope it happens sooner rather than later because that way we'll still have some sanity in the courts with which to fight it.

_Odin_
01-05-2009, 3:37 PM
Wow, he'd actually be a man of his word then. He stated at a Violence Policy Center (http://www.vpc.org) Fund Raiser that reinstatement of the AW ban would be his first priority when he took office. Not to mention, he also said that within the first year he would work on a national no carry law, a one gun a month limit (and we thought 1 handgun every 30 days was nuts,) and a ban on all semi-automatic guns.

Wow. I read a bit through the website in the above link... What an unbelievable load of crap.

Utter propaganda.

From the site:
In 1992 the VPC released More Gun Dealers Than Gas Stations, a study of abuses by Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders. The study revealed that 80 percent of FFL holders did not operate storefront businesses, but sold guns from their homes.

I love the spin here - as if it's illegal for an FFL to operate from their own home.

In 2006, as the result of the findings of the 2004 Violence Policy Center study Vest Buster: The .500 Smith & Wesson Magnum—The Gun Industry's Latest Challenge to Law Enforcement Body Armor, which warned of the threat posed to law enforcement officers by the .500 Smith & Wesson Magnum handgun round a new bullet-resistant vest capable of defeating the .500 Smith & Wesson Magnum round was developed to protect law enforcement. The vest has been certified by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) as meeting its Level IIIA soft body armor standards.

...wow

MP301
01-05-2009, 3:40 PM
I think I said somewhere here before...... I would like to think that Obama will be so busy dealing with other stuff. Thats what I want to believe. I am not the doom and gloom type.

But all it would take for sweeping and draconian "change" with our guns is a major incident..... Some idiot redneck trying to whack him with an AW he got at a gunshow without a waiting period loaded with environmentally unfriendly led ammo yada yada.... :44:

Oh well, at least he is going to make my car payment, right? A Modern day Robinhood? Take from everyone and give to the poor? :party:

C H A N G E -

Cant ya Help A Narcissist Get Elected?

nar·cis·sism [ nrssə sìzzəm ]

noun

Definition:

1. self-admiration: excessive self-admiration and self-centeredness

2. personality disorder: in psychiatry, a personality disorder characterized by the patient's overestimation of his or her own appearance and abilities and an excessive need for admiration. In psychoanalytic theory, emphasis is placed on the element of self-directed sexual desire in the condition.

[Early 19th century. After Narcissus]

nar·cis·sist noun
nar·cis·sis·tic [ nrssə sístik ] adjective
nar·cis·sis·tic·al·ly adverb

:King:

:rant:

Jpach
01-05-2009, 3:54 PM
BA=Bad Azz :43:. I wasnt attacking the NRA. I was saying its probably to get people to donate more, and I have nothing against donating to the right people. Im sure some crazy people could get violent depending on the severity of the legislation that could pass, especially since we have so many more people on our side than in 1994. What I said was not a thinly veiled attack or any attack for that matter. I simply think he's trying to stir people up and get them to donate. If you feel Im wrong its ok. If you think he typed that just because hes bored then thats fine, you are entitled to your own opinion. And please dont assume.

Jpach
01-05-2009, 4:05 PM
I feel that I should have rephrased my original post about ppl getting violent. Just take it as some people may possibly get upset and do bad things. If that idea too internetz tough guy for some people then I appologize to all for potentially scaring/disturbing you by talking about such tough things.

nhanson
01-05-2009, 4:13 PM
first things first. He hasn't paid for my gasoline bills yet. I thought he sympathized with the high gas prices we were paying and wanted to help, I mean he said he understood the pain of working class people? :chris:

I'm surprised he has not, as yet, claimed responsibility for the the recent reduction in gas prices.......want to start a pool to see how long before claims are made that Obama and the Dems are responsible for the falling price of gas? ;)

Enjoy

DocSkinner
01-05-2009, 4:45 PM
BA=Bad Azz :43:. I wasnt attacking the NRA. I was saying its probably to get people to donate more, and I have nothing against donating to the right people. Im sure some crazy people could get violent depending on the severity of the legislation that could pass, especially since we have so many more people on our side than in 1994. What I said was not a thinly veiled attack or any attack for that matter. I simply think he's trying to stir people up and get them to donate. If you feel Im wrong its ok. If you think he typed that just because hes bored then thats fine, you are entitled to your own opinion. And please dont assume.


I think with the unemployment and financial crisis, that will take tops, but there is always room for jello, er, some antigun laws...

I do think that we all need to donate (Royal we = mainly you with jobs/income!) as, much like with cal guns, we need to push as many lawsuits through as possible in the near future. We have a rare opportunity with the pendulum swung to our side to help create precedents and get blocks in place, because like all pendulums, it will swing back. The more we can do now, the harder and less other will be able to do on the back swing later.

I was reading pre Keller that many pro-gun types, particularly the tops at NRA, were very worried that far to many would take it as the ultimate victory, and we would win a big battle but lose the war. So the shock and awe are over - now its all the house to house fighting and street clearing.

FreedomIsNotFree
01-05-2009, 5:12 PM
I'm surprised he has not, as yet, claimed responsibility for the the recent reduction in gas prices.......want to start a pool to see how long before claims are made that Obama and the Dems are responsible for the falling price of gas? ;)

Enjoy

But they are...as well as the Repubs....by ruining not only our economy, but that of the world, they have cut demand drastically, which is why we now have lower prices.

tommyid1
01-05-2009, 6:40 PM
yeah i want my gas and other essentials first. ie ammo lol

DDT
01-05-2009, 6:46 PM
I'm surprised he has not, as yet, claimed responsibility for the the recent reduction in gas prices.

very OT but...

He won't take credit for the drop because he wants to, and will, take the price right back to $4.00/gal.

The only thing wrong with $4.00 gas to the Environmental extremists and tax-leeches is that too much of the $4.00 was going the oil companies and sheiks. I'm sure they'd all like to tack on a $2.00/gal "carbon tax" or "environmental fee" to bring us right back up to $4.00/gal. It's not the price they despise it was the fact that they weren't getting enough of it.

OrovilleTim
01-05-2009, 6:55 PM
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_promise_last_year_to_ban.html
Chain e-mail: 1
Reality: 0

Obama is not a friend of the second amendment, but speculation based on anonymous or fabricated claims is not going to do anything but fuel the current panic situation.

Dig a little deeper: http://www.gunbanobama.com/Default.aspx?NavGuid=c3d25dd2-7abd-4f24-8efd-d62bd977d7c2&ID=11574&Type=1

Tarn_Helm
01-05-2009, 7:21 PM
Dig a little deeper: http://www.gunbanobama.com/Default.aspx?NavGuid=c3d25dd2-7abd-4f24-8efd-d62bd977d7c2&ID=11574&Type=1

:thumbsup:

I'm glad to see that my donations to the NRA Political Victory Fund are getting a second life here!

A lot of people don't know this, but the NRA PVF needs money above and beyond what the NRA gets for membership.

If we all consistently chipped in whatever small amount we could, the NRA PVF would be a lot better off.

I'm now wishing that the money I gave (out of sheer desperation) to McCain had gone to NRA PVF.

The fight against the Obamachine is far from over, no matter how much the present handwringing is touted as premature drama and/or wild speculation.
:beatdeadhorse5:

FreedomIsNotFree
01-05-2009, 7:23 PM
Obama could hold a press conference and announce his intention to ban anything and everything gun and there would still be those here that say he has no such intention. :shrug:

Dr Rockso
01-05-2009, 7:36 PM
Dig a little deeper: http://www.gunbanobama.com/Default.aspx?NavGuid=c3d25dd2-7abd-4f24-8efd-d62bd977d7c2&ID=11574&Type=1
The specific post I was responding to was a reference to the "VPC speech" chain e-mail that contained a quote Obama never said: "My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban as soon as I take office. Within 90 days, we will go back after kitchen table dealers, and work to end the gun show and internet sales loopholes. In the first year, I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."

I know that Obama is not a friend of the second amendment, but just because he has an anti-gun voting record (fairly typical for a democrat) doesn't mean that he's on some grand crusade to ban all your guns as soon as he can. Spreading false information, or in the case of the links in the OP, anonymous speculation, isn't doing anything but driving prices up for no good reason.

live2offroad
01-05-2009, 7:40 PM
Dig a little deeper: http://www.gunbanobama.com/Default.aspx?NavGuid=c3d25dd2-7abd-4f24-8efd-d62bd977d7c2&ID=11574&Type=1


A web site that merely reiterates the talking points that factcheck is disputing to make it's point is senseless..

http://a229.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/122/l_a0b4c6f784f966d382a92efa9c11214c.jpg

odysseus
01-05-2009, 7:46 PM
If that idea too internetz tough guy for some people then I appologize to all for potentially scaring/disturbing you by talking about such tough things.

Nice a retraction with an added slight. Look your post made it pretty plain that you were claiming there would be violence if another AWB was put in, and the point is that didn't happen before. Calling that out is crying wolf when there is no reason for it in a political process.

Scary or disturbing? Not to me, it's going to take a lot more than thread posts. However how it represents the forum and people in this discussion makes it clear the need for rebuttle.

.

TTT
01-05-2009, 7:48 PM
FreedomIsNotFree: Obama could hold a press conference and announce his intention to ban anything and everything gun and there would still be those here that say he has no such intention.

Thank you! I could never have imagined there were so many Obama apologists in the world, I can hardly stand to get on gun boards anymore. :mad:

sorensen440
01-05-2009, 7:49 PM
If BO could ban all guns he would ban all guns
I don't think he will have that ability though

bulgron
01-05-2009, 8:41 PM
Thank you! I could never have imagined there were so many Obama apologists in the world, I can hardly stand to get on gun boards anymore. :mad:

Is it being an apologist to insist that an actual bill be making it's way through congress before I start to get excited.

I did everything I could to help defeat Obama in the election. It didn't work. I'm not now about to run wildly about, waving my hands in the air, screeching, and desperately trying to avoiding falling chunks of sky, until I have something concrete to panic over.

Panic at this point does no good. I can't do anything about "what ifs." Show me concrete legislation and I'll start calling committee members, writing letters, donating money at a national level instead of just the state, etc.

Until then, I'm gonna chill.

bwiese
01-05-2009, 8:48 PM
Bulgron: a voice of sensibility!

We don't need panic, we need focus.

cryptkeeper
01-05-2009, 9:03 PM
It's funny because he says he's all about creating jobs but as far as I can see it, this ban is only going to cause more job loss because now you have a segment of the market no longer allowed to sell to the masses.

wildhawker
01-05-2009, 9:18 PM
The "other side" can accomplish as much, or more, by allowing us to lose sight of the ball as any legislation. Composure, strategy and vigilance will see us to future victories... as long as our own fears don't triumph over us first.

foxtrotuniformlima
01-05-2009, 10:02 PM
That blogger is a drama queen.

I'll second that.

aplinker
01-05-2009, 10:13 PM
http://www.yournutz.com/store/images/fuzzy%20dice%20black.jpg
http://www.metronetiq.com/archives/crystal%20ball/crystal-ball.jpg
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/tinfoil_hat_cat.jpg

sigsauer887
01-05-2009, 10:24 PM
http://www.yournutz.com/store/images/fuzzy%20dice%20black.jpg
http://www.metronetiq.com/archives/crystal%20ball/crystal-ball.jpg
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/tinfoil_hat_cat.jpg

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

MP301
01-05-2009, 10:32 PM
I agree with bulgron and bwiese. Panic is never good even if the sky were actually falling. I love it when my opponent panics. But I do think its not a bad idea to discuss these things as possibilities because, well, they are possibilities in some form or another.

Being a little more prepared, in whatever way you can within your abilities, is far from panic. The opposite of panic is apathy, which seems to me as one of the main reasons we are more in a defensive position most of the time then on the offensive.

If this means buying a few guns or ammo or whatever, I dont see that as panic. Last time there was a ban I didnt get around to getting an AR in time and I kicked myself for being too busy (read apathetic). Will I make that mistake again?

From the moment I discovered that you could purchase an OLL (Thanks to Calguns!), I had a Stag lower in my safe within 3 weeks - including the waiting period. The rest of the rifle was delivered a couple weeks later.

Do I think that BO will easily be able to pull off all of these draconian bans or restrictions the way things sit right now? No. Do I think that he could possibly pull some crap if there were a big enough well publicized Mumbai type incident on our soil? Damn Skippy I do! Thats only common sense.

Yeah, prices went up when the demand exceeded the supply, but its not like the manufacturers couldnt have seen this coming and planned better. And every distributer / dealer I have talked to, when asked why the manufacturers dont ramp things up a bit to catch up with the demand, say the same thing. They are afraid that they will make all this stuff and then it will get banned and they will get stuck with it! I have no idea if thats really true or not cause you dont always get the correct info down the food chain, but if it is..... that would say that the manufacturers are a little concerned with things to come as well.

I agree that we shouldnt overreact, but we shouldnt underreact either. Talking about the possibilites is just food for the mind. Are we not supposed to think about things before they happen, even if they never do....to be prepared? Doesnt mean we think "the sky is falling.....the sky is falling!"
( Quote by; Little, Chicken s. ). I dont carry a gun every day because im a bubba gun nut, I carry it just in case..........And I train and I practice and I prepare for what may never happen....well, you get the point.

Tarn_Helm
01-05-2009, 10:45 PM
A web site that merely reiterates the talking points that factcheck is disputing to make it's point is senseless..
http://a229.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/122/l_a0b4c6f784f966d382a92efa9c11214c.jpg

Take the time to read BHO's voting record on 2AM.

He has consistently, prior to getting elected to be POTUS, VOTED AGAINST the fullest and freest exercise of the Second Amendment.

Have you done any research into the Joyce Foundation?

Even "YAHOO NEWS" knows that it is not "circular reasoning" to compare BHO's past politicking to the lies of his campaign: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080419/pl_politico/9722

And if you want to really see who BHO is networked (http://www.gunbanobama.com/Default.aspx?NavGuid=e7a4e2d7-1dff-47cd-9d6e-ef10cbb9623b&ID=322) to, check this site: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/default.asp

For those of you who are new to the game of checking out politicians for the purpose of determining what they really stand for and what they are most likely to do in the office for which they are running (and in BHO's case, in the office which he has won), here is what you do:

1) Locate his previous voting record on a topic.
(http://www.gunbanobama.com/Default.aspx?NavGuid=530ecfa4-ae4e-4819-97e6-892463d99f08)
2) Look at his current "stated" positions (http://www.gunbanobama.com/Default.aspx?NavGuid=430d7335-d158-44f5-aab6-bb7d1226f3fa).

3) Make an inference based on the principle that his past voting actions are the best and only real indicators of what policies he will support in the future.

THAT is not circular reasoning.
:dupe:

Please correct me if I misunderstand you, Mr. live2offroad (:owned:), but BHO is definitely out to destroy full and free exercise of the Second Amendment to furthest extent that he can.
:rant:

Tarn_Helm
01-05-2009, 10:57 PM
. . . I agree that we shouldnt overreact, but we shouldnt underreact either. Talking about the possibilites is just food for the mind. Are we not supposed to think about things before they happen, even if they never do....to be prepared? Doesnt mean we think "the sky is falling.....the sky is falling!"
( Quote by; Little, Chicken s. ). I dont carry a gun every day because im a bubba gun nut, I carry it just in case..........And I train and I practice and I prepare for what may never happen....well, you get the point. (bold and font enlargement added by me)

Too late for that.

Unfortunately there were too many people who "under-reacted" to the "potential" threat posed by an Obama administration to prevent an Obama administration from coming into existence.

We'll see . . .

. . . after BHO has had his fun in the White House . . .

. . . we'll see whether, in the next presidential election, we 2AMers regard ourselves as needing to be more committed to overestimating the enemy than underestimating him . . . as we did with BHO.

FreedomIsNotFree
01-06-2009, 12:31 AM
We are a long way from any ban. Not only does Obama have to deal with serious political implications, but there are also the Constitutional hurdles, such as Heller, that could prove the most daunting.

Call it what you want to, but there are many people making a lot of money off the current craze. I'm sure they would love to ride this wave for the next 4 years. I mean, one article based on hearsay and a blog post and look where we're at.

MP301
01-06-2009, 5:34 AM
(bold and font enlargement added by me)

Too late for that.

Unfortunately there were too many people who "under-reacted" to the "potential" threat posed by an Obama administration to prevent an Obama administration from coming into existence.

We'll see . . .

. . . after BHO has had his fun in the White House . . .

. . . we'll see whether, in the next presidential election, we 2AMers regard ourselves as needing to be more committed to overestimating the enemy than underestimating him . . . as we did with BHO.

Aint that the truth! The amazing part is that some folks still appear to be under-reacting now....he cant do this and get get away with that....yada yada..... Sure hope thier right, but ya know, for anyone not paying attention, we are in a whole new and unexplored territory with this particular guy and these uncertain times. None of us know what is going to happen, we can only speculate. There are more variables then usual.....too many unknowns.

Heller is supposed to protect our individual rights, but how would the heller decision stop, say, an 800% tax on ammo or some other back door screw job?

Dont get me wrong, I actually tend to think its too big of a bite for BO to chew, at least for the time being (barring some major bad event), but I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the intent is there. Other then his say so, what would make people think that he no longer has this intent is way beyond me........

GrayWolf09
01-06-2009, 1:25 PM
Panic! Panic! Panic!

Buy more guns.

Drive up the price!

Panic! Panic! Panic!

(repeat cycle)


Why does this forum seem to be us vs. Obama rather than us vs gun control. The election is over. It is time to focus on opposing gun control rather than the president-elect. To suggest otherwise is to believe that the NRA has a much broader political agenda than gun control.

DDT
01-06-2009, 1:27 PM
What's that? You think that Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi MIGHT try to pass further restrictions on your Second Amendment rights? Next thing you know you'll be telling me the sun MIGHT rise in the east tomorrow.

MAILMAN187
01-06-2009, 4:41 PM
I'M JUST GLAD OL' SLICK WILLY WAS TOO STONED TO MAKE THE '94 BAN NEVER EXPIRE (LIKE OBAMA WILL DO). I LEARNED MY LESSON ONCE. I'M BUYING ALL I CAN NOW. YOU SHOULD TOO.
GET WHAT YOU CAN GET BEFORE ITS GONE......
FOREVER THIS TIME.

MAILMAN187
01-06-2009, 5:04 PM
http://www.yournutz.com/store/images/fuzzy%20dice%20black.jpg
http://www.metronetiq.com/archives/crystal%20ball/crystal-ball.jpg
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/tinfoil_hat_cat.jpg

The cat with the foil hat just made me S*#T my pants.
LMFAO!

formerTexan
01-06-2009, 5:37 PM
To stir the pot a bit, "sources" indicate that BO may try to put in an increase of gun and/or ammo excise taxes as part of the "stimulus" package he's trying to ram through with the rest of the 'rats. We need to make sure the GOP Senators and Reps. are on the look out for this sneaky crap, much like the ACORN funding buried in the bailout bovine stool.

bohoki
01-06-2009, 6:12 PM
guess he'll be working on the 2am thing at 3am

56Chevy
01-06-2009, 6:12 PM
Yeah, and isn't he supposed to make my car payment and pay my rent?
You'll get your Obama card in the mail shortly. You can use it to open the door of a bank (if they still had old fashioned doors).:p

Kestryll
01-06-2009, 6:12 PM
Why does this forum seem to be us vs. Obama rather than us vs gun control. The election is over. It is time to focus on opposing gun control rather than the president-elect. To suggest otherwise is to believe that the NRA has a much broader political agenda than gun control.

Just out of curiosity why do you think that this forum sounding 'us vs. Obama' as you put it has anything to do with what the NRA's agenda?

GrayWolf09
01-07-2009, 10:54 AM
The question, as I see it, is one of message discipline. If you are opposed to gun control and there is an election. good strategy says support the candidates who will oppose gun control (McCain). Attacking those who favor gun control (maybe Obama) may or may not also be good strategy.

Once the election is over, however, opposing gun control and attacking the winner (Obama) is not good strategy, because then you alienate those who oppose gun control and also support Obama (and there are some on these forums). To continue to attack Obama, as opposed to gun control, especially when he has done nothing so far to restrict gun rights dilutes the message.

Kestryll
01-07-2009, 11:48 AM
The question, as I see it, is one of message discipline. If you are opposed to gun control and there is an election. good strategy says support the candidates who will oppose gun control (McCain). Attacking those who favor gun control (maybe Obama) may or may not also be good strategy.

Once the election is over, however, opposing gun control and attacking the winner (Obama) is not good strategy, because then you alienate those who oppose gun control and also support Obama (and there are some on these forums). To continue to attack Obama, as opposed to gun control, especially when he has done nothing so far to restrict gun rights dilutes the message.

While I'm not really oppose to what you're saying I'm just wondering why the connection between this forum and the NRA's agenda.

bwiese
01-07-2009, 11:59 AM
I doubt these guys' "sources" are any better - and likely worse - than CGFers.

pdq_wizzard
01-07-2009, 1:35 PM
We are a long way from any ban. Not only does Obama have to deal with serious political implications, but there are also the Constitutional hurdles, such as Heller, that could prove the most daunting.

Call it what you want to, but there are many people making a lot of money off the current craze. I'm sure they would love to ride this wave for the next 4 years. I mean, one article based on hearsay and a blog post and look where we're at.

So no one remebers what Bush did after 9/11 ? just wait, Obama will sell it as "for the children" and we will be F'ed!

bulgron
01-07-2009, 1:47 PM
So no one remebers what Bush did after 9/11 ? just wait, Obama will sell it as "for the children" and we will be F'ed!

Again, given the urgency of the message that we've been receiving here, I have to ask what you want us to do?

The election is over. The Second Amendment lost that particular battle (but not, I trust, the war).

Obama hasn't even been sworn in yet.

Congress hasn't started doing business yet.

No gun control legislation has therefore been proposed.

So what do you want us to do? Sit here and desperately wring our hands, wailing that the sky is falling?

There is such a thing as message exhaustion, you know. If you keep screaming about things before they've happened, then it's quite possible no one is going to listen when things do start happening.

The best thing anyone can do right now is chill out until congress or the president actually does something we don't like. At that point, no doubt there's things we'll be able to do about it, whatever 'it' is.

But for now, man, have a beer, go shooting, do whatever it is that you do to relax.

DocSkinner
01-07-2009, 1:53 PM
Again, given the urgency of the message that we've been receiving here, I have to ask what you want us to do?

The election is over. The Second Amendment lost that particular battle (but not, I trust, the war).

Obama hasn't even been sworn in yet.

Congress hasn't started doing business yet.

No gun control legislation has therefore been proposed.

So what do you want us to do? Sit here and desperately wring our hands, wailing that the sky is falling?

There is such a thing as message exhaustion, you know. If you keep screaming about things before they've happened, then it's quite possible no one is going to listen when things do start happening.

The best thing anyone can do right now is chill out until congress or the president actually does something we don't like. At that point, no doubt there's things we'll be able to do about it, whatever 'it' is.

But for now, man, have a beer, go shooting, do whatever it is that you do to relax.

+1!