What The Left Won't Tell You About Gun Sales

[wdoall]

What's the name of the Bill that's being used to ban guns again? And who wrote and chaired it in congress?

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Obama is VERY anti gun, and his voting record as a Senator undeniably reflects that. Whether he'll take away guns or not, isn't the point. Whether he'll work to limit, or restrict future ownership of firearms, and ammunition, isn't the point.

The point is, he wants to, and would do it in a second if he could pull it off, without having to get Congressional, and Senatorial approval. If he's elected, he WILL appoint justices to the Supreme Court that are very much anti gun, and once that happens, doors open.

The fact is, he has no respect for the Constitution, and no matter what he can, or cannot do, alone, or with support, in of itself, is more then enough for me.

 

[Red Spyder]

Obama is going to ban guns as much as Romney is going to ban abortions

:stir:

 

[Mayhem]

Mayhem, you are tool and a dip-shit of major proportions!

UN Small Arms Treaty: Barack Obama’s Backdoor Gun Control May Pass

There are always enemies of individual liberty. Many, in socialist and globalist circles, hate the fact that the common US citizen can exercise his or her liberty of free speech, worship without government intrusion, and is protected by ‘due process of law’. However, there is no hate in this world among those who promote and prop up tyranny like there is against the 2nd Amendment: the US citizen’s God-given liberty to own firearms.

This is why men, like George Soros, put in an ‘honest day’s work’ attempting to utilize United Nations powers in order to neutralize US sovereignty and the 2nd Amendment with it. According to John Wolverton, II of The New American, Soros is pulling every little string possible to strip your home of its defenses against crime and tyranny:

George Soros is financing the fight to give the United Nations control of your guns.

"Through his Media Matters organization, Soros is dumping pro-UN gun control propaganda into the mainstream media to coincide with the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty being held in New York July 2–27.”

While it is difficult to sift through the various UN treaties, the ‘small arms treaty’ is a part of a much larger initiative to curtail individual gun rights. In essence, the ‘small arms treaty’, the ‘Law of the Sea’ treaty, and the ‘Arms Trade Treaty’ can be bundled into one giant effort to remove US sovereignty, giving the UN control over the liberties of US citizens, nullifying protections Americans have enjoyed since the birth of the US.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have already vowed to sign such a treaty. In fact, both have largely been working behind closed doors, as they know full-well that Americans would surely show staunch resistance if their agenda committed to ‘open war’.

"Regardless of how unlikely it would appear that the U.S. Senate would ratify the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, the antagonism to the right to bear arms in the U.S. by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and our elected officials cannot be disputed. While seeming to loathe the Second Amendment, the majority of their efforts to enforce gun control appear to be “under the radar” to avoid raising the ire of the advocates of the right to bear arms.”

What does this mean for Americans? All of these ‘treaties’ have a common thread, which boil down to 4 directives. Katie Pavlich, the Editor of TownHall.com, reports:

-Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.

-Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).

-Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the anti-gun media never seem to grasp).

-Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.

In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.”

According to various White House insiders, Barack Hussein Obama has not been idle, saying, “I just want you to know that we are working on it,” he continues …“We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.” Perhaps, this is why the President has been curiously silent on the subject, as he does not want to attract attention to what he is truly doing through the various UN treaties.

Either way, this spells bad news for American gun rights. Anthony Martin of the Examiner.com stated:

"As the United Nations prepares its final push to ratify a controversial gun treaty, the U.S. Senate is set to approve the measure which critics say will not only give away U.S. sovereignty but directly attack the individual gun rights of American citizens, according to a report published Thursday at Stand Up America.

Democrats still hold the majority in the Senate.”

If we wish to keep our liberties, then we must send a clear message to our politicians …their jobs will not survive election day if they even consider the ‘small arms treaty’ to be a good idea. The disarmament of the American people will signal the beginning of the end of any semblance of freedom we had left. As the saying goes, ‘Hitler, Stalin, and Mao agree …gun control works.’

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/07/100...-barack-obamas-backdoor-gun-control-may-pass/

The scary part is you actually believe this bullshit to the point that you don't actually read it.

"Regardless of how unlikely it would appear that the U.S. Senate would ratify the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty,

Bingo! There is no fuckin' way any such thing gets ratified by anyone. You know this. There are not 51 Senators that want the existing term to be their last term. There never will be. You are engaging in the same politics-of-fear that the anti-gunners smeared all over the landscape during the 80s and 90s.....and you should be ashamed. This is a non-issue and all the hysteria in the world isn't going to change that.

But look on the bright side, you now have something in common with Rosie O'Donnell. :thefinger:

 

[Will E Worm]

I sincerely hope there is a revolution, I hope you are one of the leaders, and I hope it is televised. I really want to see you trying to down a helicopter with a handgun. Just let me know when you are going to do it, Will, so I can set my DVR.

I never said handgun. I also never said bring down a helicopter with one. Might be possible.

What I said is a marksman could shoot a pilot of a helicopter.

Also, it is restoration not revolution.

Liberals.

At this point it would just be futile. I can make a phone call or two right now and I can get a firearm (.45) and I've come across more than you can imagine on the streets that were dirty growing up in the inner city (I'm legit, BTW, so I own legally). The best bet is to do thorough background checks (they are already VERY strict on that matter - trust me, I know) and pray those sad sack motherfuckers like Westminster Movie shooter don't slip through the cracks. At the end of the day, life is fragile - nothing will ever change that. There are so many guns on the streets it's not even funny; best to have sane, sound law abiding good Americans owning than not. Just check Chicago with a monumental murder rate yet strictest gun laws in the country. It's absurd to overlook such a situation.

And they're not going to take mine, either.

How do these people think criminals get their weapons?

Chicago is a great example of gun control and nothing good happening from it.

You must apply for permits to own fully automatic weapons so I do not mind, nor do I believe it unconstitutional to have to pass a back ground check to purchase firearms. Now as to type of firearms I as a responsible American who has never even had his miranda rights read to him should be limited in no way from owning any kind of firearm I desire. Law abiding people should never be limited in what they would care to own or pursue because of the acts of a few 'nut jobs' but oversight is necessary is many cases to ensure public safety. As to keep the populous armed to fight a tyrannical government, I believe the original intention was to be able to mobilize as many armed people as possible to repulse foreign invaders as possible. Imagine if Mexico decided to invade the US??? 250 million armed fighting men??? That's quite the deterrent....

You must purchase a permit? Where is that declared in the Constitution again?

Read Bloodshot Scott's comment.

Obama is VERY anti gun, and his voting record as a Senator undeniably reflects that. Whether he'll take away guns or not, isn't the point. Whether he'll work to limit, or restrict future ownership of firearms, and ammunition, isn't the point.

The point is, he wants to, and would do it in a second if he could pull it off, without having to get Congressional, and Senatorial approval. If he's elected, he WILL appoint justices to the Supreme Court that are very much anti gun, and once that happens, doors open.

The fact is, he has no respect for the Constitution, and no matter what he can, or cannot do, alone, or with support, in of itself, is more then enough for me.

Obama does not need to be appointing anyone.

He's already appointed two of the most moronic liberal bats he could.

I doubt he can understand the Constitution. Just look at the way he stammered and stuttered through his inauguration.

 

[Rey C.]

Bingo! There is no fuckin' way any such thing gets ratified by anyone. You know this. There are not 51 Senators that want the existing term to be their last term. There never will be. You are engaging in the same politics-of-fear that the anti-gunners smeared all over the landscape during the 80s and 90s.....and you should be ashamed. This is a non-issue and all the hysteria in the world isn't going to change that.

I'm still waiting for someone to give me a plausible. logical explanation of how Obama could force through this U.N. Treaty all by his lonesome - especially as you say, there is no sign of any meaningful support in the Senate for such a thing. Do these paranoid people truly not know how the Constitution works? :dunno: This has come up several times in gun control threads and the people who believe this fantasy seem to be relying on a lack of knowledge of the Constitution... and they just fill in the blanks based on their own unfounded fears.

I am opposed to criminals owning or possessing firearms. But I am also opposed to gun control efforts which would remove firearms from law abiding citizens. And unfortunately, most gun control efforts seem to focus on firearms ownership by law abiding citizens. It is already illegal for people convicted of certain crimes to own forearms in the U.S. That's where the focus needs to be. But at the same time, there are some gun owners (like some in the NRA off-shoot, Gun Owners of America) who foolishly believe these moonbat, whacky conspiracy theories and get themselves lathered up over absolutely nothing.

Rational, knowledgeable people on both sides could come to a reasonable compromise. Unfortunately (as on other topics of national interest), extremists on both sides are allowed to hog the mic and crowd other people out.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

By far the most irrational, knee-jerk assholes on the issue are on the left, with absolutely no knowledge about guns and gun ownership at all. Prime example was fascist Piers Morgan and his lacky guest Alan Dershowitz and their recent "debate"/filibuster following the Westminster tragedy. This is only part of it:

 

[Will E Worm]

By far the most irrational, knee-jerk assholes on the issue are on the left, with absolutely no knowledge about guns and gun ownership at all. Prime example was fascist Piers Morgan and his lacky guest Alan Dershowitz and their recent "debate"/filibuster following the Westminster tragedy.

Alan Dershowtwit


The liberals need to go. No one that is born in another country should be in American politics.
No one that is not born in America should be able to vote.

Including anchor-babies. They do not have a right to vote.


No more Dershowtwits allowed in politics either.


This is terrible news: At Harvard, Natalie Portman was Alan Dershowitz's research assistant.

 

[zeeblofowl_1969]

Dial it down. :nono: No one is calling anyone a "liar". Johan and I disagree about the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership. But it is the responsibility of all (all) freedom loving people to engage in civil and constructive debate, and that is what's been going on here.

I do not believe he is capable of such things.

 

[zeeblofowl_1969]

Alan Dershowtwit


The liberals need to go. No one that is born in another country should be in American politics.
No one that is not born in America should be able to vote.

Including anchor-babies. They do not have a right to vote.


No more Dershowtwits allowed in politics either.


This is terrible news: At Harvard, Natalie Portman was Alan Dershowitz's research assistant.

What? Just sick nonsense. Really what planet are you from?

 

[darkwarrior3007]

Alan Dershowtwit


The liberals need to go. No one that is born in another country should be in American politics.
No one that is not born in America should be able to vote.

Including anchor-babies. They do not have a right to vote.


No more Dershowtwits allowed in politics either.


This is terrible news: At Harvard, Natalie Portman was Alan Dershowitz's research assistant.

I have to ask, what do you smoke when you write this shit?

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Alan Dershowtwit


No one that is born in another country should be in American politics.

Unfortunately that only applies to Commander In Chief, but I wouldn't be opposed to broader laws to that regard.

anchor-babies. They do not have a right to vote.

Absolutely agree. The thought that someone here is granted birthright citizenship is still on the books is ludicrous. Dr. Ron Paul was actually going to fight to stop that, as America is of a very few nations (there are none in Europe) that still have this insane law on the books. Also:

Among the findings:

Only 30 of the world’s 194 countries grant automatic citizenship to children born to illegal aliens.

Of advanced economies, Canada and the United States are the only countries that grant automatic citizenship to children born to illegal aliens.

No European country grants automatic citizenship to children of illegal aliens.

The global trend is moving away from automatic birthright citizenship as many countries that once had such policies have ended them in recent decades.

14th Amendment history seems to indicate that the Citizenship Clause was never intended to benefit illegal aliens nor legal foreign visitors temporarily present in the United States.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the U.S.-born children of permanent resident aliens are covered by the Citizenship Clause, but the Court has never decided whether the same rule applies to the children of aliens whose presence in the United States is temporary or illegal.

Some eminent scholars and jurists have concluded that it is within the power of Congress to define the scope of the Citizenship Clause through legislation and that birthright citizenship for the children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens could likely be abolished by statute without amending the Constitution.

http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship

This is terrible news: At Harvard, Natalie Portman was Alan Dershowitz's research assistant.

She's way out there. I used to have a crush on her but that was like 8 years ago.

 

[Will E Worm]

I have to ask, what do you smoke when you write this shit?

I keep you coming back for more.

Unfortunately that only applies to Commander In Chief, but I wouldn't be opposed to broader laws to that regard.

I am ready for that bill to pass.

Absolutely agree. The thought that someone here is granted birthright citizenship is still on the books is ludicrous. Dr. Ron Paul was actually going to fight to stop that, as America is of a very few nations (there are none in Europe) that still have this insane law on the books. Also:

http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship

It would help a lot if that law went into effect.

She's way out there. I used to have a crush on her but that was like 8 years ago.

It's too bad. She's not bad looking and is on the wrong side.

 

[darkwarrior3007]

I keep you coming back for more.

Ironically, this is true.

 

[Rey C.]

By far the most irrational, knee-jerk assholes on the issue are on the left, with absolutely no knowledge about guns and gun ownership at all. Prime example was fascist Piers Morgan and his lacky guest Alan Dershowitz and their recent "debate"/filibuster following the Westminster tragedy. This is only part of it:

To be honest, I've never had much use for Al Dershowitz, Di Feinstein or Babs Boxer, especially on this particular issue. I did strongly agree with Feinstein's and Boxer's opposition to NAFTA though - they were 100% in the right on that one. But watching Feinstein and Leslie Stahl on a 60 Minutes segment several years ago (mid 90's maybe?), discussing how much more dangerous an SKS was with a bayonet lug or flash hider versus a weapon without one was downright hilarious. I can't remember which one of the geniuses was holding the SKS as they prattled away. But yeah, I admit, in the deep, dark recesses of my brain, I was kind of hoping that one of the dingbats would shoot the other one. Now that would have been a real Must See TV moment!

As for comparing the various crazies on the two sides of this issue, I wouldn't want to have to judge that contest. You'd have to go with me and my pal, "Trooper Buddy", to a gun show to know what I mean. Or talk to my other pal who owns a gun shop and sells anything you want to buy with easy, squeezy financing (around 28% APR, last I heard :eek - and the rubes suck it up. Guys who can't buy food for their families or make the next trailer payment will come in there all bright eyed and buy a fully outfitted AR-15 HBAR Match Target for $1500+. My buddy says that he loves and hates Obama. He doesn't agree with his politics at all (the hate) but he also loves what he's done for his business, because Obama has these poor bastards convinced that U.N. troops are going to come swooping down through Canada the day after the election (if he's re-elected) and seize their guns by order of this fantasy treaty. He had a pre-ban Colt AR Model SP1 in his store for $2500. And he said this one rough looking codger, driving a pickup truck that looked like it was just waiting to die, came in and said he'd let my buddy fuck his wife if he'd get the price down to $2000. He dismissed the offer and assumed the guy was joking - but he said he kind of wished that he'd at least asked the guy for a picture of lil wifey.

Trust me... there's plenty of fucked-upness on both sides. Way too much paranoia and ignorance on both sides, IMO.

 

[Deepcover]

By far the most irrational, knee-jerk assholes on the issue are on the left, with absolutely no knowledge about guns and gun ownership at all. Prime example was fascist Piers Morgan and his lacky guest Alan Dershowitz and their recent "debate"/filibuster following the Westminster tragedy. This is only part of it:

Guns is bad and shouldn't be kept in homes. What part of that do you not understand?

 

[Rey C.]

Guns is bad and shouldn't be kept in homes. What part of that do you not understand?

With all due respect, Deepcover, I see guns as neither bad nor good. They are inanimate objects incapable of possessing any good or bad traits. Only in the hands of a good or bad person do they become anything at all. Until they are picked up, they aren't even dangerous. I mean, a gun won't discharge itself, right?

I think it comes down to a matter of choice. While I agree that certain types of weapons need to be more heavily regulated than others, it still comes down to choice. If a person chooses not to own a firearm, he shouldn't be forced to (I think some goofball county down south tried to mandate gun ownership several years ago - that was retarded). But if a person meets the legal qualifications, he should be able to purchase one.

My girlfriend's sister is pretty anti-gun. When she and her husband were at my house fro the first time and I was showing them around, she asked me why I needed this gun or that gun... or any guns at all (without going into detail, my collection makes the pictures that our pal Sammy Fisher showed of his toys look like a kid's starter kit). I told "Sis" what I've always told people who've asked me that question: I don't need them. In reality, there are very few things that I own which I actually need. I have two cars that will exceed 150 mph. I don't need them either. No one, who drives primarily on public roads, needs such things. Like the guns, they are just things that I wanted when I bought them. I made a choice. And with my choice to own high performance cars and my choice to own firearms, I feel that there is definitely a sense of responsibility that goes along with both. There are certainly people who may not take that sense of responsibility as seriously as I do (in either case), but I can only make decisions for me. I don't want to make that kind of life & liberty decision for others and I'm not really keen on others, who albeit may have valid enough concerns, making life & liberty decisions for me either.

Unless or until I start acting a fool with my cars or my guns... or anything else really (which admittedly in my case could be any second), I generally don't want others telling me what I'm allowed to have or not have.

:hatsoff:

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Guns is bad and shouldn't be kept in homes. What part of that do you not understand?

Have you read one word in this thread?

Fact is, you aren't from my city, don't know my neighborhood and don't know me or my family. Nor do I suspect you know anything about the situation in America nor have you lived in America, amirite? Are you even Canadian?

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Guns is bad and shouldn't be kept in homes. What part of that do you not understand?

By your logic as well this girl would have been probably raped and murdered:

Oklahoma Girl Shoots Home Intruder: 12-Year-Old Uses Family's Gun To Protect Self, Home

When one Oklahoma girl found herself in a tough spot, she took matters into her own hands.

Police say the Calera 12-year-old used the family's gun to shoot and injure an alleged home invader on Wednesday, KFOR reports.

"And what we understand right now, he was turning the doorknob when she fired through the door," said the Bryan County Undersheriff Ken Golden, according to News9.

Police say the girl contacted her mother, who instructed her to take the weapon, hide in a closet and phone police.

"I see a lot of girls on TV that get their house broken into and they turn up missing and just knowing that that could have happened to me. I was scared," she said, according to KOCO.

The suspect was taken to a hospital and then sent to the Bryan County jail, according to NewsOK.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...=maing-grid7|maing5|dl1|sec1_lnk2&pLid=223095

 

[Deepcover]

Have you read one word in this thread?

Fact is, you aren't from my city, don't know my neighborhood and don't know me or my family. Nor do I suspect you know anything about the situation in America nor have you lived in America, amirite? Are you even Canadian?

Why do I feel somehow as if I wasn't worth to talk about America cause I don't live in America? How would you call that? I do not know anything about your family and don't care...Bare in mind anything that effects America also effects Canada. Yes I am Canadian more into American culture (cinema, music, artists, politics, history, porn) You are such a typical conservative jerk...