PDA

View Full Version : Demo candidates talking about gun control


savasyn
01-18-2008, 6:14 PM
Sorry if this was posted before.

With two or more faces and forked tongues, the candidates "square off" and guess what, they all want another AW ban!:

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=10512

The first half is about gun control, the second half is about 9/11
terror response.

9 minutes total

Patriot
01-18-2008, 6:22 PM
Notable & Quotable
January 17, 2008; Page A17

A gun-control exchange from Tuesday night's Democratic presidential debate:

MODERATOR TIM RUSSERT: Sen. Clinton, when you ran for the Senate in 2000, you said that everyone who wishes to purchase a gun should have a license, and that every handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry. Will you try to implement such a plan?

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I am against illegal guns, and illegal guns are the cause of so much death and injury in our country. I also am a political realist and I understand that the political winds are very powerful against doing enough to try to get guns off the street, get them out of the hands of young people.

The law in New York was as you state, and the law in New York has worked to a great extent. I don't want the federal government pre-empting states and cities like New York that have very specific problems.

So here's what I would do. We need to have a registry that really works with good information about people who are felons, people who have been committed to mental institutions like the man in Virginia Tech who caused so much death and havoc. We need to make sure that that information is in a timely manner, both collected and presented.

We do need to crack down on illegal gun dealers. This is something that I would like to see more of. And we need to enforce the laws that we have on the books. I would also work to reinstate the assault-weapons ban. We now have, once again, police deaths going up around the country, and in large measure because bad guys now have assault weapons again. We stopped it for awhile. Now they're back on the streets.

So there are steps we need to take that we should do together. You know, I believe in the Second Amendment. People have a right to bear arms. But I also believe that we can common-sensically approach this.

RUSSERT: But you've backed off a national licensing registration plan?

CLINTON: Yes.

Link (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120053364436796229.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)

boogak
01-18-2008, 6:33 PM
~no swearing even with ***

Josh3239
01-18-2008, 6:34 PM
Scary times indeed.

troyus
01-18-2008, 6:42 PM
^&%*&^!!... "I am against illegal guns."

No kidding....

Let's... make them more illegal.... yes... that will fix the problem.

dfletcher
01-18-2008, 6:54 PM
For someone who was married to a fellow who could use the definition of the single word "is" to his best advantage, she has accorded herself much wiggle room to do whatever she wants.

The "I believe in the 2nd - people have a right to bear arms" was thrown in (at the end, as an after thought I suppose) those poor souls who are Democrats and gun owners and wish to delude themselves that voting for her won't result in new and far reaching restrictions.

RRangel
01-18-2008, 7:02 PM
All of them are pathetic. They'd remove our gun rights without blinking.

Charliegone
01-18-2008, 7:33 PM
Damn illegal's those guns need to go back where they came from. Glock needs to go back to Austria!:mad:

















;)

Hopi
01-18-2008, 7:34 PM
Where are all of our gun-owning "I vote democrat because there are other important issues" members........

Ech0Sierra
01-18-2008, 7:41 PM
Let's make guns more illegal, Dirty-Harry S&Ws, Glock fo-ty XDs, Sniper rifle Mosin-Nagants and Brownings, Bi-Metal Armor-Piercing cop killing bullets, Hydra-Shok and Gold Dot "explosive" rounds, did that affect gun crime? No? MORE BANS! Rinse, lather, repeat. This will be HillBanma's reign.

FlyingPen
01-18-2008, 8:07 PM
A Democrat is going to win the office, of the Democrat runners who will most likely win, Barak Obama seems to be the least anti-gun and he at least recognizes the spirit of the 2nd.

It would be great if Fred Thompson had a snowball chance in hell but he doesn't even have that. He seems to be the least crazy of the Republican field.

Ech0Sierra
01-18-2008, 8:29 PM
A Democrat is going to win the office, of the Democrat runners who will most likely win, Barak Obama seems to be the least anti-gun and he at least recognizes the spirit of the 2nd.

It would be great if Fred Thompson had a snowball chance in hell but he doesn't even have that. He seems to be the least crazy of the Republican field.
It sounded like a report from the National Enquirer. Dick Cheney and Barack Obama... cousins?

Say it ain't so, Mrs. Cheney.

But in fact, the Vice-President's wife revealed this bombshell in her recent book, Blue Skies, No Fences. According to Lynne Cheney, the current veep and the Illinois Democrat Senator, who wants to be the next president, are distant cousins -- eighth cousins, to be exact.1

When hit with this revelation, the Obama campaign took the news in stride, saying that, "Every family has a black sheep."2

All kidding aside, it's too bad that Dick Cheney and Barack Obama didn't do more shooting and target practice together in their youth, because today, they couldn't be more polar opposites when it comes to the Second Amendment.

Whereas one would be hard-pressed to find an anti-gun vote on Cheney's House record -- as he served the state of Wyoming for many years -- Obama's gun record is just simply atrocious.

Oh sure, Obama told Iowa radio listeners last year that he is a "strong believer" in the rights of hunters and sportsmen, and that homeowners should have a firearm "to protect their home and their family." But then in the next breath, he says, "It's hard for me to find a rationale for having a 17-clip semiautomatic [sic]."3

Good thing the ban on magazines that Obama supports was not in effect during the Los Angeles riots of 1992. That's when Korean merchants successfully used their semi-autos -- with large magazines containing multiple rounds -- to keep looters away from their stores. Their businesses remained standing, even while many others (which were left unprotected) burned to the ground.

Obama supports the existing gun control laws on the books. Nowhere in his literature or in his campaign speeches does he stake out a position in favor of repealing any gun control measure that has passed into law.

Not surprisingly, Obama supports the gun ban in the nation's capital, saying the "DC handgun law is constitutional."4 And he is opposed to people using guns for self-defense, when those guns are owned in localities like Washington, DC and Chicago where firearms are banned.

Illinois resident Hale DeMar was prosecuted by the town of Wilmette for using a handgun in his home to defend his family in 2003. Because Wilmette had imposed a ban on the possession of handguns, several Illinois state legislators introduced SB 2165 to protect the right of self-defense for residents like DeMar.

True to form, Obama voted against the pro-gun legislation.5

It is very telling that Obama moved further to the left than most of the liberal legislators in his state. The self-defense bill protecting gun owners like DeMar passed the state senate 41-16 and was later enacted into law over the governor's veto (and over Obama's opposition).

The concealed carry of firearms is another important issue for gun owners, and yet Obama is not only opposed to citizens carrying guns, he supports using federal laws to override those states which currently allow the practice.

In 2004, Obama said he supports a national ban on concealed carry because the states that allow it are "threatening the safety of Illinois residents."6 Never mind the fact that concealed carry laws have improved the safety of citizens in the states that have enacted such laws.7

Obama has also taken a strong position in favor of the Clinton semi-auto ban which sunset in 2004. "I believe we need to renew -- not roll back -- this common sense gun law," Obama said.8

Well, there's nothing that's "common sense" about the Clinton ban. Not only did it outlaw almost 200 types of firearms, legislators like Senator Chuck Schumer of New York tried to amend the law (before it sunset) to include additional types of semi-autos -- even banning classic (wood-stock) long guns such as the Remington shotgun which Senator John Kerry received as a gift during his 2004 presidential bid.9

Bottom line: Senator Obama may not be as gun ban-crazed as the infamous Chuck Schumer. He may not lay awake at night dreaming of ways to disarm honest gun owners. But sure enough, Obama is a committed anti-gunner.

The chart below lays out the key votes and positions that Sen. Obama has taken over the past few years.



Barack Obama's Gun-Related Votes The U.S. Senate Debated: Obama
Voted:
Supporting concealed carry for citizens10 No
Banning many common semi-automatic firearms11 Yes
Disallowing self-defense in towns where guns are banned12 Yes
Imposing one handgun a month restrictions13 Yes
Requiring lock up your safety trigger locks14 Yes
Protecting gun dealers from frivolous lawsuits15 No
Outlawing gun confiscations during a national emergency16 No
Squelching the free speech rights of gun owners17 Yes
Restricting the interstate sales of firearms18 Yes
Repealing the gun ban in Washington, DC19 No




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1Associated Press, "Research finds Cheney, Obama distant cousins," October 17, 2007.
2Ibid.
3O.Kay Henderson, "Three leading Democrats talk about gun control," Radio Iowa News, April 22, 2007.
4James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins, "Court to hear gun case," Chicago Tribune, November 20, 2007.
5Illinois State Senate, vote on SB 2165 (41-16), May 25, 2004.
6Obama says, "National legislation will prevent other states' flawed concealed-weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents." David Mendell, "Democratic hopefuls vary a bit on death penalty," Chicago Tribune, February 20, 2004.
7See the Gun Owners of America fact sheet at http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm.
8John Chase, "Keyes, Obama are far apart on guns; Views on assault weapons at odds," Chicago Tribune, September 15, 2004.
9Senators Chuck Schumer and John Kerry had both cosponsored S. 1431 in 2003, a bill that would have banned any semi-auto shotgun that also contained a pistol grip, which the bill defined as "a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip." According to that definition, just about any semi-automatic shotgun would be banned.
10See supra note 6.
11About the so-called "assault weapons" ban, Obama says, "I believe we need to renew -- not roll back -- this common sense gun law." See supra note 8.
12See supra note 5.
13As a state senator, "Obama regularly supported gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic 'assault weapons' and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month." "Obama Record May be Gold Mine for Critics," Associated Press, January 17, 2007.
14On July 28, 2005, Senator Obama voted for a provision requiring gun dealers to include the sale of a lock-up-your-safety device with every handgun sold. The amendment, offered by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI), passed by a vote of 70-30. The provision amended the gun makers' protection act (S. 397).
15On July 29, 2005, Senator Obama voted against S. 397, a bill that was designed to put an end to the frivolous lawsuits that were threatening to put many gun dealers out of business. While an argument could be made that a pro-gun Senator might vote against this bill because it contained a lock-up-your-safety provision (see supra note 14), the fact that Obama voted in favor of that trigger lock amendment (but against the overall bill) indicates his real animus against helping gun dealers protect themselves from the anti-gun lawsuits that were aimed at driving them into bankruptcy.
16On July 13, 2006, Sen. Obama voted for Emergency Powers language that saw only 16 of the most ardent anti-gun senators vote against it. The amendment provides that no money can be used by federal agents to confiscate firearms during a declared state of emergency. The amendment was added to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill (HR 5441).
17On January 18, 2007, Senator Obama voted against a pro-gun amendment to strike language in S. 1 that would infringe upon the free speech rights of groups like Gun Owners of America. The amendment, which passed, struck requirements that would have required GOA to monitor and report on its communications with its members, and could easily have led to government demands for GOA's membership list (a.k.a. registration).
18Obama has frequently made statements which indicate that he would restrict the interstate sale of firearms. For example, he told the NAACP that, "We've got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren't loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they're not made in our communities. There aren't any gun manufacturers here, right here in the middle of Detroit." Senator Barack Obama, at the NAACP Presidential Primary Forum, July 12, 2007.
19See supra note 4.

tombinghamthegreat
01-18-2008, 8:30 PM
She wants to ban a type of gun that is used in less 1% of all crimes in the US? What the logic to this? The answer is that there is no logic to gun control. It is easier for a politican to use guns as a scapegoat for problems then to say that the government is broke and unable to fund a decent police force. If the Democrats takes office, we should have a national buy guns/ammo day so when they try to ban guns, we could follow a path Thomas Jefferson would want.

FlyingPen
01-18-2008, 8:38 PM
echo: You should see what Hillary and Edwards wants to do about guns first... Edwards just wants people to have hunting rifles only period and we know Hillary is the most antigun of the three.

Josh3239
01-18-2008, 9:15 PM
echo: You should see what Hillary and Edwards wants to do about guns first... Edwards just wants people to have hunting rifles only period and we know Hillary is the most antigun of the three.

A Democrat is going to win the office, of the Democrat runners who will most likely win, Barak Obama seems to be the least anti-gun and he at least recognizes the spirit of the 2nd.

Slow down there! Hell-ary supports an AW ban and registration. Edwards "respects" "hunting rifles" by reinstating the AW ban. Obama by no means is anywhere near gun-friendly. This is the same guy who publicily stated that all semi-automatic firearms (yes firearms, not rifles) should be illegalized.

As far as gun rights goes, the candidate I trust the least is Barack Hussein Obama.

http://ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

dfletcher
01-18-2008, 9:22 PM
In 1960 former President Harry Truman said that anyone who votes for Richard Nixon could go to hell. I think the sentiment applies to any gun owner who would vote for Clinton or Obama. In fact, with Richardson out I think it would apply to any of the mainstream Democrat candidates.

Draven
01-19-2008, 6:38 AM
In 2004, Obama said he supports a national ban on concealed carry because the states that allow it are "threatening the safety of Illinois residents."6 Never mind the fact that concealed carry laws have improved the safety of citizens in the states that have enacted such laws.7

I can explain this...

They are threatening the safety if IL residents because the criminals from neighboring states are moving to IL in the interests of job security.

grywlfbg
01-19-2008, 8:52 AM
Where are all of our gun-owning "I vote democrat because there are other important issues" members........

We're here but pi**ed that Richardson backed out. :banghead:

I have no idea who I'm voting for in the Primary. Maybe I'll vote for Richardson anyway.

Hopi
01-19-2008, 9:41 AM
We're here but pi**ed that Richardson backed out. :banghead:

I have no idea who I'm voting for in the Primary. Maybe I'll vote for Richardson anyway.

Well, now that the only 'acceptable' democrat in your mind has dropped out, perhaps there's hope that you'll vote for somebody on our side.....

mk19
01-19-2008, 9:57 AM
these snake bastards are going to screw us royally, none of the believe in the true form of the 2A, they are just blowing smoke up people's asses. the whole PROTECTING OUR HUNTERS AND SPORTSMAN gig is BS. how about the rest of us, in my view if you don't support all forms of guns you are ANTI. the only 2 candidates that are for 2A are Ron Paul and Fred Thompson, let's put our energy to elect one of them.

Rob P.
01-19-2008, 10:08 AM
these snake bastards are going to screw us royally, none of the believe in the true form of the 2A, they are just blowing smoke up people's asses. the whole PROTECTING OUR HUNTERS AND SPORTSMAN gig is BS. how about the rest of us, in my view if you don't support all forms of guns you are ANTI. the only 2 candidates that are for 2A are Ron Paul and Fred Thompson, let's put our energy to elect one of them.

The problem with either of these 2 candidates is simple.

Fred is so conservative that he's still not sure that this newfangled invention called the wheel is a good idea or not. His platform and performance shows it. He is not prepared or qualified to be president regardless of his public office past and famous media name.

Ron Paul is a kook. If he wasn't a kook, then why is he known for being a kook? Why does EVERY network agree on this? Why is he an "unknown" even at this point in time after the live debates? Because he's a kook and the people know it.

The ONLY good candidate has dropped out. WE blew it because of fragmented support of a kook and koolaid drinkers. So when things go down the sewer pipe we can only thank ourselves for it.

At this point in time Mitt is the only candidate left who can't hurt us. He won't help us, but he can't hurt us either (especially if Heller is favorable). 4 yrs of nothing is better than any of the alternatives.

Hopi
01-19-2008, 10:25 AM
If he wasn't a kook, then why is he known for being a kook? Why does EVERY network agree on this?

Oh c'mon. You know that EVERY network is interested in nothing more than maintaining the status quo. Pointing to that as support for him being a "kook" is admitting ignorance to the nature of media politics. The media outlets make money with advertising, advertisers that are supported by politicians and status quo economic policies. With Fox, and CNN marketing that he is a 'kook', that alone should give you every reason to question whether that is accurate.

SemiAutoSam
01-19-2008, 10:30 AM
I would like to see the candidates in this video define what an assault weapon is to those that want to know what it is they all want to ban.

They have no clue what makes a Rifle a so called Assault Weapon.

IMO they are relying on the public that would vote for them thinking an assault weapon is a full auto military weapon.

There is not education for the MORONS that would vote for the candidate desiring to ban assault weapons.

When the Democrat constituents have been asked in the past what an assault weapon is they have in the past stated its a full auto military machine gun.

Does this scare anyone besides me.

Ill tell you one thing even though I wouldn't want to see a RUDY or a MITT in the white house I would vote for them in the primary way way over one of these Democrat gun grabbers.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


I couldn't have put it better myself and most likely would not have stated it so as clear and to the point that you did.


Big Business and the established way things have worked for the last 30-50 years also don't want Ron Paul in the white house as he would do a lot of damage to their entrenched system.

Ron Paul would be a major setback to the NWO if he got into the white house.

Oh c'mon. You know that EVERY network is interested in nothing more than maintaining the status quo. Pointing to that as support for him being a "kook" is admitting ignorance to the nature of media politics. The media outlets make money with advertising, advertisers that are supported by politicians and status quo economic policies. With Fox, and CNN marketing that he is a 'kook', that alone should give you every reason to question whether that is accurate.

Sleepy1988
01-19-2008, 10:30 AM
The problem with either of these 2 candidates is simple.

Fred is so conservative that he's still not sure that this newfangled invention called the wheel is a good idea or not. His platform and performance shows it. He is not prepared or qualified to be president regardless of his public office past and famous media name.

Ron Paul is a kook. If he wasn't a kook, then why is he known for being a kook? Why does EVERY network agree on this? Why is he an "unknown" even at this point in time after the live debates? Because he's a kook and the people know it.

The ONLY good candidate has dropped out. WE blew it because of fragmented support of a kook and koolaid drinkers. So when things go down the sewer pipe we can only thank ourselves for it.

At this point in time Mitt is the only candidate left who can't hurt us. He won't help us, but he can't hurt us either (especially if Heller is favorable). 4 yrs of nothing is better than any of the alternatives.


Who was "the ONLY good candidate"?

Lashlarue
01-19-2008, 12:56 PM
There is none on either side! Mitt is as anti-gun as Hillary or any of the democrats.He admitted on his Meet the Press interview with Tim Russert that he would be for another assault weapons ban, although he didn't have the faintest idea why!Thought that the .223 round was more powerful than a 30.06.What he knows about guns and ammo could be written on the back of a standard business card.Nice guy and great hair...

Rob P.
01-19-2008, 2:26 PM
Oh c'mon. You know that EVERY network is interested in nothing more than maintaining the status quo. Pointing to that as support for him being a "kook" is admitting ignorance to the nature of media politics. The media outlets make money with advertising, advertisers that are supported by politicians and status quo economic policies. With Fox, and CNN marketing that he is a 'kook', that alone should give you every reason to question whether that is accurate.

So the fact that "EVERY network" is proclaiming him to be a kook is somehow supportive of the idea that he's not a kook?

This in face of evidence which shows RP to have almost no support among voters or his peers in congress because people think he's a kook. So when the media reports this they and these other people are wrong?

And the media does this because they're pandering to advertisers like Johnson & Johnson, Kaiser Permanente, or Budweiser and don't want to shake the money tree?

That's the most illogical reasoning I've ever heard.

Hopi
01-19-2008, 2:30 PM
So the fact that "EVERY network" is proclaiming him to be a kook is somehow supportive of the idea that he's not a kook?

This in face of evidence which shows RP to have almost no support among voters or his peers in congress because people think he's a kook. So when the media reports this they and these other people are wrong?

And the media does this because they're pandering to advertisers like Johnson & Johnson, Kaiser Permanente, or Budweiser and don't want to shake the money tree?

That's the most illogical reasoning I've ever heard.

Are you kidding? Remember, the media does not report fact. They report what their advertisers want them to report.They support, politically, the candidates that will continue to appease their advertisers. Wise up.

tombinghamthegreat
01-19-2008, 2:38 PM
Why don't we just focus on getting Ron Paul in office? Any pro-war GOP candidate will be very unlikely to win the white house and would rather have a minority. Another problem, every GOP candidate risks weaking the party. Mitt is too liberal and a flip flopper. Rudy would lose conserative votes. Fred is losing to RP in every state and would be unable to win a general election. Huckabee wants to run a church state and McCain political pisitions are up for sale. RP pisition on limited government and being against the Iraq conflict scares his own party. With this primary in a 6 way spit, seems the Democrats could take office:mad:

Patriot
01-19-2008, 2:44 PM
Why don't we just focus on getting Ron Paul in office? Any pro-war GOP candidate will be very unlikely to win the white house and would rather have a minority. Another problem, every GOP candidate risks weaking the party. Mitt is too liberal and a flip flopper. Rudy would lose conserative votes. Fred is losing to RP in every state and would be unable to win a general election. Huckabee wants to run a church state and McCain political pisitions are up for sale. RP pisition on limited government and being against the Iraq conflict scares his own party. With this primary in a 6 way spit, seems the Democrats could take office:mad:

RP is not going to win the GOP nomination. If he garners enough votes in the primaries a major party might make a nominal nod toward some of his positions next time around, but that's about it.

Rob P.
01-19-2008, 2:55 PM
Are you kidding? Remember, the media does not report fact. They report what their advertisers want them to report.They support, politically, the candidates that will continue to appease their advertisers. Wise up.

You have evidence of this or is this merely you're own opinion?

Last time I looked, the media DID report facts. The facts they report may be slanted, but there ARE facts in there. And no single advertiser can tell EVERY media outlet what to say in unison no matter how lavish they spend.

Or are you saying that all the advertisers are in collusion with each other to control what the media reports? In which case wouldn't it be the advertisers and not the media who are the ones to blame for RP being called a kook?

Hopi
01-19-2008, 3:09 PM
You have evidence of this or is this merely you're own opinion?

Well, there is much to read about how and why things are reported. Thousands of examples of corporate, or .gov involvement with respect to propaganda.

Last time I looked, the media DID report facts.
Where is it that you looked?

Or are you saying that all the advertisers are in collusion with each other to control what the media reports?
All the advertisers are in collusion with the $$ and are interested in smooth continuation of their flow of said $$.


There is a lot to learn from reading work by Chomsky, and Parenti. While in no way should you take what they've written as gospel, it is best to view things from all sides of the coin.

And yes, I do frequently watch FOX and CNN......you can find the facts in what they're NOT reporting to us......

Patriot
01-19-2008, 3:18 PM
There is a lot to learn from reading work by Chomsky, and Parenti. While in no way should you take what they've written as gospel, it is best to view things from all sides of the coin.

And yes, I do frequently watch FOX and CNN......you can find the facts in what they're NOT reporting to us......

Academically, Chomsky has made significant contributions to pyscho-linguistics and related fields.

Parenti = :puke:

Both of them are rather susceptible to 'Ivory Tower' syndrome, particularly when it comes to integrating specifics from their areas of academic expertise into a systemic whole.

Rob P.
01-19-2008, 3:22 PM
Well, there is much to read about how and why things are reported. Thousands of examples of corporate, or .gov involvement with respect to propaganda.


Where is it that you looked?
I watch the news nightly. I also read the statistics that are reported. AND FINALLY, I get to represent the bad guys that the media reports on (surprise surprise first hand knowledge that the media is rarely wrong in what they report on) They may omit things, but that is a far cry from intentional falsity.

All the advertisers are in collusion with the $$ and are interested in smooth continuation of their flow of said $$.
So, again, it's this the advertisers and not the media? And, if as you say, they are in collusion, isn't that a RICO violation? Surely someone would have noticed that by now and prosecuted them for it. Unless it's koolaid.

There is a lot to learn from reading work by Chomsky, and Parenti. While in no way should you take what they've written as gospel, it is best to view things from all sides of the coin.
So, your "authority" on all things evil with the media isn't to be believed fully? Could it be that they are wrong? After all, isn't Chomsky a professor at a liberal university?


And yes, I do frequently watch FOX and CNN......you can find the facts in what they're NOT reporting to us......
Things not said are not "facts." They are, at most, personal opinions about unexpressed or nonexistent things.

Seriously, look at what you're trying to say here and the means you're using to support your position.

mk19
01-19-2008, 3:33 PM
Rob.P , wow the MSM has gotten you,
As i said those 2 are the only decent candidates, all others democrat and republican would not only sell us(gun owners) out but would also sell out the rest of country as well.

Rob P.
01-19-2008, 3:45 PM
Rob.P , wow the MSM has gotten you,
As i said those 2 are the only decent candidates, all others democrat and republican would not only sell us(gun owners) out but would also sell out the rest of country as well.

This is true for ALL the candidates. Including the unnamed 2 you're referring to.

What? You think that these people give a dam about us peasants?

tombinghamthegreat
01-19-2008, 3:53 PM
This is true for ALL the candidates. Including the unnamed 2 you're referring to.

What? You think that these people give a dam about us peasants?

We could just keep our rights though overwelming firepower:D Less than 800,000 national guard left in the US vs. 80 million gun owners. All that is need is a spark and the last civil war we had would look like child's play.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. Thomas Jefferson

Holocanthus
01-19-2008, 5:56 PM
The government wants to disarm us by taking away our guns. If only we could all work together and disarm the government by stopping taxes. The only problem with that is that everyone would have to do it at once.

Voting gets harder the more you start to care about things and the problem with this country is that people are just too busy just trying to survive and raise a family to have any time to care about anything. This also explains the drug problem. People would rather get high and forget the rat race that they might or might not just barely make it in the end.

What we need right now is a politican with a spine. I don't know who I will vote for, but I know I won't vote Clinton simply because she can be bought out.

DedEye
01-19-2008, 6:08 PM
Where are all of our gun-owning "I vote democrat because there are other important issues" members........

They're changing parties to vote for someone else in the primaries :mad:.

SemiAutoSam
01-19-2008, 6:33 PM
That and if you come to realise that your not a Federal Citizen and have more rights if you maintain your Birth Citizenship IE a State Citizen over Federal citizen (US citizen status). Its really hard to try and Register to vote.

This is a somewhat controversial Issue as the Voter Registration forms ask for your citizenship and if you don't swear that your a US citizen the form states for you not to fill it out.

YET the courts have decided that there is more than one kind of Citizenship in the US. If you or anyone else wants to read the cases I will send the cites via PM.

This is just another one of the ways the Federal Government snares people into their TRAP.

Voting gets harder the more you start to care about things and the problem with this country is that people are just too busy just trying to survive and raise a family to have any time to care about anything. This also explains the drug problem. People would rather get high and forget the rat race that they might or might not just barely make it in the end.

What we need right now is a politician with a spine. I don't know who I will vote for, but I know I won't vote Clinton simply because she can be bought out.

Patriot
01-19-2008, 6:37 PM
That and if you come to realise that your not a Federal Citizen and have more rights if you maintain your Birth Citizenship IE a State Citizen over Federal citizen (US citizen status). Its really hard to try and Register to vote.

This is a somewhat controversial Issue as the Voter Registration forms ask for your citizenship and if you don't swear that your a US citizen the form states for you not to fill it out.

YET the courts have decided that there is more than one kind of Citizenship in the US. If you or anyone else wants to read the cases I will send the cites via PM.

This is just another one of the ways the Federal Government snares people into their TRAP.

:confused: Even if possible, I fail to see - short of certain immunities stemming from foreign citizenship - how 'relinquishing' US citizenship is to one's advantage

SemiAutoSam
01-19-2008, 7:04 PM
Im thinking you totally missed my meaning.

When you are born you are a Citizen or what over US State you are born in.

When your parent signed you up for a SSN or Birth Certificate they witnessed you are a US citizen.

In actuality anyone claiming to be a US citizen is unwittingly stating that they are a foreigner to the 50 Sovereign states.

Here are a few sources of information that will help those understand the Differences between US citizen's and State Citizens.

http://www.state-citizen.org/
http://political-resources.com/jurisdiction/citizen.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mcdonald/vol1-10.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/votingaz.htm
http://www.originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.php

:confused: Even if possible, I fail to see - short of certain immunities stemming from foreign citizenship - how 'relinquishing' US citizenship is to one's advantage

Patriot
01-19-2008, 7:09 PM
Im thinking you totally missed my meaning.

When you are born you are a Citizen or what over US State you are born in.

When your parent signed you up for a SSN or Birth Certificate they witnessed you are a US citizen.

Here are a few sources of information that will help those understand the Differences bwtween US citizen's and State Citizens.

http://www.state-citizen.org/
http://political-resources.com/jurisdiction/citizen.htm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/GovernmentReform/wm925.cfm
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mcdonald/vol1-10.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/votingaz.htm
http://www.originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.php

Okay, but before I invest time and cognitive energy reading all that I want to know - is this going to be one of those dubious and theoretical legal constructs like the people who claim they don't have to pay taxes?

SemiAutoSam
01-19-2008, 7:27 PM
Its as real as you would choose to make it or not make it.

If someone does not do all of the things that make themselves a Federal citizen then they are naturally a State Citizen like a American Indian or a Amish Citizen they aren't born into the Matrix that is the "United States" IE the Corporation.

Keep in mind that being a free person requires discipline and a lot more responsibility than most people are use to having.
To do this correctly you must shun all things that are a contract with the Federal Government. Most people just cant do this they are entrenched since birth into the system.

You would also need to know how to identify what a contract is.

For one thing anything that has your signature on it is a contract. But more on this issue later if you want to know about it.

Okay, but before I invest time and cognitive energy reading all that I want to know - is this going to be one of those dubious and theoretical legal constructs like the people who claim they don't have to pay taxes?

dfletcher
01-19-2008, 7:36 PM
By now I'm sure everyone sees that McCain has carried South Carolina & Fred Thompson seems out of it - I haven't seen his name bounced around, McCain just made what I'd call an "I'm a conservative" speech. Anyone believe him? Is there a case to be made that we should we go with someone who needs us to win?

Rob P.
01-20-2008, 9:28 AM
Okay, but before I invest time and cognitive energy reading all that I want to know - is this going to be one of those dubious and theoretical legal constructs like the people who claim they don't have to pay taxes?


Its as real as you would choose to make it or not make it.


IOW, yes.

grywlfbg
01-20-2008, 10:25 AM
Well, now that the only 'acceptable' democrat in your mind has dropped out, perhaps there's hope that you'll vote for somebody on our side.....

The only Repub I'd vote for is Ron Paul - the rest will continue to crap on the middle class and the environment while giving tax breaks to the rich and continuing the aristocracy (aristocracy comment applies to the leading Dems as well). The one thing I respect about the Dems is that at least they will tell you to your face when they want to take away your rights - the Repubs (RP excluded) take them away in secret and act like they're your best bud. The current batch of Repubs have taken away more of our rights in the last 8 years than decades of Dems.

Unfortunately you have to give 30 days notice to the state if you want to switch parties so it's too late for me now :(

Bad Voodoo
01-20-2008, 10:52 AM
Anyone believe him?

Sure, I believe the one guy in the GOP claiming to be conservative who wants to eliminate the southern border.

Think about it.

mikehaas
01-20-2008, 11:26 AM
...We're here but pi**ed that Richardson backed outI have no idea who I'm voting for in the Primary. Maybe I'll vote for Richardson anyway.
Well, now that the only 'acceptable' democrat in your mind has dropped out, perhaps there's hope that you'll vote for somebody on our side.....
Now you're making assumptions. How about "the other side".

Better yet, "the other party"?

Because I see grywlfbg as already being on my side, Democrat or not, as a gun-owner who is concerned about his Second Amendment rights. In fact, I feel his pain - he appears to be facing the decision of either voting outside his party or protecting his rights (and his kids and their kids...).

Of course, Republicans shouldn't push their chests out too far. Guliani blames gun makers for criminal's behavior and Romney (arguably the front-runner in the primary right now) passed an Assault Weapons Ban in Taxachusetts. McCain, co-author of the infamous "Gun Show Loophole" BS (http://www.nrawinningteam.com/0105/senate.html), will turn anti-gun on a dime (http://nrawinningteam.com/0111/mccain.html) or less (http://www.nrawinningteam.com/0105/mccain.html). And California's worst gun-rights offender (not just a gun banner, but a CONFISCATOR (http://www.nrawinningteam.com/states/Lindex.html)) is a Republican who now sits in Congress.

Gun-rights isn't a "Democrat/Republican" thing. National Democrats may try to make the issue appear so, but we should not play their game, ESPECIALLY AT THE STATE LEVEL. When we buy into the "hate all Democrats" game, it is to our detriment. Even if the state GOP voted with NRA every time, they are in such a minority (and seem quite content to stay there) that we would still lose every vote unless NRA didn't have significant Democrat support in Sacramento.

And I bet those Democrats, state OR federal (and even local) will listen to grywlfbg before a Republican or Independant. I'm glad he's there. I just hope he (and many of his fellow Democrats) doesn't compromise on this issue.

SemiAutoSam
01-20-2008, 11:33 AM
If your serious about Voting for Ron Paul or any other Candidate of your choice you have 15 days before any election to change your registration as seen below at the SOS website.

GO do it. Get thee to the US Post Office and send in the form.


http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_vr.htm
Who May Register to Vote
You may register to vote if you meet the following criteria:
You are a United States citizen
You are a resident of California
You are at least 18 years of age (or will be by the date of the next election)
You are not in prison or on parole for conviction of a felony
You have not been judged by a court to be mentally incompetent to register and vote


California Registration Deadlines

In order to be eligible to vote in the statewide election on: Your registration must be postmarked no later than:
February 5, 2008 - Presidential Primary January 22, 2008*
June 3, 2008 - Direct Primary May 19, 2008
November 4, 2008 - General Election October 20, 2008
*Asterisked date indicates that the deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday; in most cases, the deadline will move forward to the next business day.


How to Register to Vote

Fill out a Voter Registration Form Online(ENGLISH | ESPANOL) Complete this on-line form and we will mail a typed registration form to you. After you receive the pre-typed form, just sign it and mail it to your county election official. We recommend you use this service at least one month prior to election day to avoid missing your opportunity to vote due to postal delays.

Once you receive your form in the mail, which takes approximately 7 to 14 days, you must sign, date, and return it by mail to the county elections official on the return address side of the voter registration card. Please make sure all of the information is correct and drop it back in the mail. We'll pay for the postage!

For security purposes, full on-line voter registration is not yet available and current law requires the voter's original signature be affixed to the VRC, by completing the information requested in the on-line form on this site, a registration card with your information will be printed and mailed to you. (For more information on Internet voter registration and voting, please see the California Internet Voting Task Force Report).

OR

Download and Mail a Voter Registration Form (ENGLISH | ESPANOL)
Please download and complete the form by clicking the link above. Please remember to sign it and MAIL it DIRECTLY to your COUNTY REGISTRAR OF VOTERS. For COUNTY ELECTIONS OFFICE ADDRESSES, please visit: www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_d.htm.



Overseas Voter Registration and Absentee Voting
If you are a US citizen and are going to be overseas or if you are in the military and wish to vote absentee, there are special provisions for you to register and receive an overseas absentee ballot. To do this you may need to complete a "Federal Post Card Registration and Absentee Ballot Request," and mail it to your local county elections official.
The only Repub I'd vote for is Ron Paul - the rest will continue to crap on the middle class and the environment while giving tax breaks to the rich and continuing the aristocracy (aristocracy comment applies to the leading Dems as well). The one thing I respect about the Dems is that at least they will tell you to your face when they want to take away your rights - the Repubs (RP excluded) take them away in secret and act like they're your best bud. The current batch of Repubs have taken away more of our rights in the last 8 years than decades of Dems.

Unfortunately you have to give 30 days notice to the state if you want to switch parties so it's too late for me now :(

Hopi
01-20-2008, 12:12 PM
Now you're making assumptions. How about "the other side".

Assumptions, perhaps.
I do not work under the assumption that Republicans are perfect when it comes to Gun-control legislation, it is obvious that folks like Reagan and Schwarzenegger have sold us out. And there are a few democrats that will probably vote with "our side"....but speaking to the current elections, IMO there is no good to come from a vote for a democrat.

Mike, you are very involved politically and you do a great deal of service for our cause. I agree that we should not alienate any members of the voting citizenry, but when gun-owners start voting for a party that has, as a platform, championed gun-control, it just doesn't jive for me.

What we need are more gun-owning democrats who work to change the party platform and less gun-owning democrats who are so easily willing to sacrifice gun rights for other social/economic promises.

FlyingPen
01-20-2008, 11:06 PM
This may be handy:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gun_Control.htm