Bill ensures Gun Rights if UN Agenda passes

[TheTman]

Bills Introduced To Ensure Gun Rights

June 13, 2012 by Bob Livingston (http://personalliberty.com/author/boblivingstonpl/)

Companion bills have been introduced in the U.S. House and Senate to prohibit funding to negotiate a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty that restricts 2nd Amendment rights of Americans.
S2205 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s2205) was introduced by Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) and HR5846 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr5846) was introduced by Representative Ben Quayle (R-Ariz.). They are both titled the Second Amendment Sovereignty Act of 2012.
The Administration of Barack Obama reversed George W. Bush’s policy in October 2009 and voted to support U.N.-sponsored talks on a treaty to limit small arms sales. If passed, such a treaty would have a direct impact on the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans.
While there is little chance of such a treaty getting enough Senate support to pass, passage of this act would stop it in its tracks.

[muggsy]

Please explain to me why we need a bill to protect a God given constitutionally guaranteed right. I have no intention of honoring any such treaty.

[tarheelcm9]

Do states have to honor international treaties? Like the man said, even if it is ratified, it would be knocked down by the Supreme Court. It would be no different if they agreed on a treaty to establish a unified religion.

[TheTman]

I don't see why anyone should be offended by bills to help safeguard our 2nd amendment rights. The Supreme Court might not always have the 5-4 conservative majority we now have, that votes to protect our rights. Almost all their important decicisions come down to a 5-4 vote. Who knows what will happen should we lose the majority. Another Kagan-like appointment to replace one of the conservative judges could have disastrous effects on our 2nd amendment and other rights. Too many of the justices think the constitution is a document that needs to be updated to keep up with the times, and that it not set in stone.
I don't think the Senate will approve any treaty that would negate any of our constitutional rights, but that can't be guaranteed. The current administration wants our guns, and is using every avenue they can to acheive this, seizing on every tradgedy they can to push their anti-gun agenda. With all this going on, I don't see that a bill to help safeguard our rights can do any harm.
I would think that states would have to honor any treaty the Federal Government enters into. Federal law supercedes state law. What a person chooses to honor is up to them, but has no bearing on what laws or passed or treaties entered into. If they were to restrict gun ownership, ammo sales, sales or reloading components, etc, You'd more or less be forced into honoring it.

[TucsonMTB]

I don't see why anyone should be offended by bills to help safeguard our 2nd amendment rights.
Agreed! But, don't relax yet. Sadly, GovTrack.US estimates these bills have 1% and 2% chances respectively of being passed. :eek:

[onalandline]

A UN Treaty is non-binding unless 2/3 of Congress approves it.

[wyntrout]

The Senate must ratify it.

Wynn:)

[TheTman]

Yes, and conceivebly he could get the 2/3's vote needed by haveing Harry Reid, cutting deals to help further a Senators carreer, promising cash for their disctrict. All sorts of what you and I call bribery goes on daily in DC. I doubt that he can pull it off, but never say never. He has probably 54 of the 66 votes needed, although a few democrats may vote against it, and counting the the traitor republicans that vote with the democrats most of the time.
Hopefully the Republicans will stand their ground and not accept Harry's offers.
And thank God for the filibuster. November can't get here fast enough. The lame duck session might be pretty ugly. At least we have the House. And hopefully the other two branches in January 2013 or both sides of congress at least.
I certainly pray for certain members of the Supreme Court to remain healthy. If Obama gets another appointment we are doomed.
I was looking up treaty's and how enforcable they are and came found this: http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm. Says the issue has been brought up recently, in the 50's when we making NATO treaties.

[les strat]

Do states have to honor international treaties? Like the man said, even if it is ratified, it would be knocked down by the Supreme Court. It would be no different if they agreed on a treaty to establish a unified religion.

Now, would they???? After the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare this week (thanks to our Bush-appointed progressive judge desguised with an "R."), I don't underestimate ANY Constitutional violation coming from that bunch. :31:

I am sick of them all, Republicans as well. They are all BIG government progressives. We need a change and it isn't D. or a R. A mass exodus from DC.

[CrabbyAzz]

More republican political theater...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

[les strat]

Well the proposed UN gun ban plan is for real, been in the works for some time now..... don't know about this bill. But NOTHING will surprise me coming from all the progrssives in DC, dems and reps. Obama has already supported the notion of a total gun ban, even for sporting, as governor of Illinois, so it is 100% fact he and his regime are Brady lovers. I'm very cautious of a lame duck gun grabber. He is so stupid thinking the 2nnd Ammendment is for sporting. What an idiot. Yeah, that's not stupid, that's brainwashing of the Constitutionally-dumb citizens we have so much of. Oh, and our SCOTUS as well. Traitors.

But if they think they can take an entire legion of weapons owner's arms, bring it.

[CrabbyAzz]

Well the proposed UN gun ban plan is for real, been in the works for some time now..... don't know about this bill. But NOTHING will surprise me coming from all the progrssives in DC, dems and reps. Obama has already supported the notion of a total gun ban, even for sporting, as governor of Illinois, so it is 100% fact he and his regime are Brady lovers. I'm very cautious of a lame duck gun grabber. He is so stupid thinking the 2nnd Ammendment is for sporting. What an idiot. Yeah, that's not stupid, that's brainwashing of the Constitutionally-dumb citizens we have so much of. Oh, and our SCOTUS as well. Traitors.

But if they think they can take an entire legion of weapons owner's arms, bring it.

Read my previous link. The whole thing is bogus political theater. A politician is just grandstanding to rile you up and make you think he's fighting a battle for your rights when their is no battle to fight. Nothing at all is going on. Just smoke and mirrors. He can go on the house floor and propose a bill that requires you to get an erection when a flag is raised if he wants. Nobody is going to vote on it. They do it every day to make you fear something. It's called firing up the base.

[onalandline]

Well the proposed UN gun ban plan is for real, been in the works for some time now..... don't know about this bill. But NOTHING will surprise me coming from all the progrssives in DC, dems and reps. Obama has already supported the notion of a total gun ban, even for sporting, as governor of Illinois, so it is 100% fact he and his regime are Brady lovers. I'm very cautious of a lame duck gun grabber. He is so stupid thinking the 2nnd Ammendment is for sporting. What an idiot. Yeah, that's not stupid, that's brainwashing of the Constitutionally-dumb citizens we have so much of. Oh, and our SCOTUS as well. Traitors.

But if they think they can take an entire legion of weapons owner's arms, bring it.

I agree. Never trust these bastards. BTW, Obama was never Governor. :)

[onalandline]

Read my previous link. The whole thing is bogus political theater. A politician is just grandstanding to rile you up and make you think he's fighting a battle for your rights when their is no battle to fight. Nothing at all is going on. Just smoke and mirrors. He can go on the house floor and propose a bill that requires you to get an erection when a flag is raised if he wants. Nobody is going to vote on it. They do it every day to make you fear something. It's called firing up the base.

Then so be it. Fire up the base for November.

[les strat]

I agree. Never trust these bastards. BTW, Obama was never Governor. :)

LOL, meant Senator :rolleyes:

[CrabbyAzz]

LOL, meant Senator :rolleyes:

He was Illinois senator for 2005 to 2008.

[dkmatthews]

More republican political theater...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

Four years ago I would have called it political theater if anyone suggested we could be taxed for refusing to make a purchase... Just because it seems outrageous today doesn't mean it won't come to pass.

"Sundown at Coffin Rock" (http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/sundown.html)

[les strat]

Barack Obama on Gun Control

Democratic incumbent President; IL Senator (2004-2008)




Midwestern "bitter clingers" frustrated over broken promises

What Obama said in San Francisco seemed to denigrate the very people he was struggling to win: "You go into some of these small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama told his donors. "Each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or antitrade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

The fund-raiser was closed to the press. No one from the Obama campaign even had a recording of the comments. Hillary had argued that she was the real champion of the beleaguered middle class, while Obama was the darling of the latte-drinkers. She said, "Senator Obama's remarks are elitist and out of touch. They are not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans." Obama tried to backpedal. Source: The Battle for America 2008, by Balz & Johnson, p.206-207 (http://ontheissues.org/Battle_2008.htm) , Aug 4, 2009


Opposed bill okaying illegal gun use in home invasions

Hale DeMar, a 52-year-old Wilmette resident, was arrested and charged with misdemeanor violations for shooting, in the shoulder and leg, a burglar who broke into his home not once, but twice. Cook County prosecutors dropped all charges against DeMar.

In March 2004, the Illinois Senate passed Senate Bill 2165, a law introduced in response to DeMar's case, with provisions designed to assert a right of citizens to protect themselves against home invasions, such that self-defense requirements would be viewed to take precedence over local ordinances against handgun possession. The measure passed the Illinois Senate by a vote of 38-20. Barack Obama was one of the 20 state senators voting against the measure.
Governor Rod Blagojevich vetoed the bill. On Nov. 9, 2004, the Illinois Senate voted 40-18 to override Blagojevich's veto. Again, Obama acted against the bill.
On Nov. 17, the Illinois House voted overwhelmingly, 85-30, to override the governor's veto and Senate Bill 2165 became law. Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p.241-242 (http://ontheissues.org/Obama_Nation.htm) , Aug 1, 2008


Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws

Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms?

A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.
Q: But do you still favor the registration & licensing of guns?
A: I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don’t have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets. Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary (http://ontheissues.org/2008_Dems_Philly.htm) , Apr 16, 2008


Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban

Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, “No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”

Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:
35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.
Obama’s campaign said, “Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did--and there are several answers that didn’t reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn’t reflect his views.” Source: FactCheck.org analysis of 2008 Philadelphia primary debate (http://ontheissues.org/2008_Dems_Philly.htm) , Apr 16, 2008


April 2008: "Bittergate" labeled Obama elitist

April 11th produced "Bittergate." The Huffington Post website posted an explanation Obama gave at a private fundraiser in San Francisco of the challenges he faced with working-class voters in Pennsylvania and Indiana. "It's not surprising they get bitter," he said, referring to decades of constrained economic opportunities. "They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Clinton said the remarks were "not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans." McCain said Obama showed "breathtaking" elitism. Obama challenged the accusations, and noted in response to the charge of elitism that he had been raised by a single mother who relied on food stamps, but conceded he could have been more diplomatic. Source: Obama for Beginners, by Bob Neer, p. 61 (http://ontheissues.org/Obama_for_Beginners.htm) , Apr 1, 2008


Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok

Q: You said recently, “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.” But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you’ve said that it’s constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?

A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions. Source: 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview (http://ontheissues.org/2008_Politico.htm) , Feb 11, 2008


Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing

Q: When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president?

A: I don’t think that we can get that done. But what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. The efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers. As president, I intend to make it happen. We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You’ve got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you’ve got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets. Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas (http://ontheissues.org/2008_Dems_Las_Vegas.htm) , Jan 15, 2008

[les strat]

2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month

Obama sought moderate gun control measures, such as a 2000 bill he cosponsored to limit handgun purchases to one per month (it did not pass). He voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense, but also voted in2004 to let retired police officers carry concealed handguns.
Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.148 , Oct 30, 2007


Concealed carry OK for retired police officers

Obama voted for a bill in the Illinois senate that allowed retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons. If there was any issue on which Obama rarely deviated, it was gun control. He was the most strident candidate when it came to enforcin and expanding gun control laws. So this vote jumped out as inconsistent.

When I queried him about the vote, he said, “I didn’t find that [vote] surprising. I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he has previously done--and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms.“
It wasn’t until a few weeks later that another theory came forward about the uncharacteristic vote. Obama was battling with his GOP opponent to win the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police. Source: From Promise to Power, by David Mendell, p.250-251 (http://ontheissues.org/Promise_to_Power.htm) , Aug 14, 2007


Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities

Q: How would you address gun violence that continues to be the #1 cause of death among African-American men?

A: You know, when the massacre happened at Virginia Tech, I think all of us were grief stricken and shocked by the carnage. But in this year alone, in Chicago, we’ve had 34 Chicago public school students gunned down and killed. And for the most part, there has been silence. We know what to do. We’ve got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books. 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. But what we also have to do is to make sure that we change our politics so that we care just as much about those 30-some children in Chicago who’ve been shot as we do the children in Virginia Tech. That’s a mindset that we have to have in the White House and we don’t have it right now. Source: 2007 NAACP Presidential Primary Forum (http://ontheissues.org/2007_NAACP_Primary.htm) , Jul 12, 2007


Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality

I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer’s lobby. But I also believe that when a gangbanger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do ew need to punish thatman for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there’s a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair.
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.215 , Oct 1, 2006


Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban

KEYES: [to Obama]: I am a strong believer in the second amendment. The gun control mentality is ruthlessly absurd. It suggests that we should pass a law that prevents law abiding citizens from carrying weapons. You end up with a situation where the crook have all the guns and the law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves. I guess that’s good enough for Senator Obama who voted against the bill that would have allowed homeowners to defend themselves if their homes were broken into.

OBAMA: Let’s be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban. Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes (http://ontheissues.org/IL_2004_Senate_3rd.htm) , Oct 21, 2004


Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions



Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test , Jul 2, 1998




Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.




A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:

Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations
Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices
Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN397:) ; vote number 2005-219 (http://ontheissues.org/SenateVote/Party_2005-219.htm) on Jul 29, 2005


From ontheissues.org

[muggsy]

More republican political theater...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

And what Snopes has to say must be gospel, because it was posted on the internet. So who are you going to believe, CrabbyAzz, Snopes or the dirty rotten leaders of the NRA?

http://nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2012/international-firearm-abolitionists-prepare-to-draft-arms-trade-treaty.aspx

[CrabbyAzz]

And what Snopes has to say must be gospel, because it was posted on the internet. So who are you going to believe, CrabbyAzz, Snopes or the dirty rotten leaders of the NRA?

http://nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2012/international-firearm-abolitionists-prepare-to-draft-arms-trade-treaty.aspx

Snopes and Fact check.org without a doubt.

[downtownv]

The Senate is Democrap controlled (Gun Haters)

[CrabbyAzz]

The Senate is Democrap controlled (Gun Haters)

Its all how you look at it. I see the house as repugnacant controlled extremist.

[les strat]

Not being mean CrabbyAzz, but do you not think that democratic politicians in general are not out to make it tougher (or sometimes impossible) to own or bear arms? Snopes and factcheck aside, liberal democrats have and continue to vote for sand push anit-gun legislation. When guns control goes up, so does violent crime, and the opposite applies as well as we see right now with the all-time highest gun sales ever and a good devrease in violent crimes. THAT is a fact. I understand if you believe in liberal views on other things, but if you are a gun owner and CCW person, you have to see liberals are not on your side. Overall, if it is anti-gun, anti-God and pro tax, and wipes it's ass with the Constitution, I consider it/them the enemy.

Like I said earlier, even if the UN passed anything, that doesn't mean they can enforce it in the USA. Too many folks that just won't comply . Way too many. I am one of those.

[CrabbyAzz]

Your painting us democrats with a broad brush. Many of us are gun owners. Somewhere on this forum I commented that the most of the crap Republicans are voting for or arguing about is political theater. Well the same can be said of the democrats. Only a handful are virulent anti gun, he rest of them use it as political theater to get the votes of the extreme left wing of the party. The republicans house has spent the last two years voting in lock step for the silliest crap to appeal to the radical right wing of he party. This is stuff they would not vote for it they had a super majority and the possibility it couldbecome law. The democrats are the same. If they wanted to go after your rights they would have done it back in 2009 when they had a super majority.

[muggsy]

Your painting us democrats with a broad brush. Many of us are gun owners. Somewhere on this forum I commented that the most of the crap Republicans are voting for or arguing about is political theater. Well the same can be said of the democrats. Only a handful are virulent anti gun, he rest of them use it as political theater to get the votes of the extreme left wing of the party. The republicans house has spent the last two years voting in lock step for the silliest crap to appeal to the radical right wing of he party. This is stuff they would not vote for it they had a super majority and the possibility it couldbecome law. The democrats are the same. If they wanted to go after your rights they would have done it back in 2009 when they had a super majority.

Every major piece of anti-gun legislation over the last 40 years has been initiated and passed by a democrat. There used to be conservative democrats, but the party is now controlled by liberal socialist. They want to control every aspect of your life down to what size soft drink you can buy. For the socialists to maintain power they must disarm the general populous. You had better wake up Crabazz, your freedom is on the line.

[CrabbyAzz]

And the conservatives aren't stripping away our personal liberties. Especially those of women and minorities...

[dkmatthews]

They are all statists, with the exception of a very small minority led by Drs. Ron and Rand Paul.

I think we can all agree that we need to return to the days of citizen statesmen instead of professional power mongers bought and sold by lobbyists.

[les strat]

And the conservatives aren't stripping away our personal liberties. Especially those of women and minorities...

Please tell me where conservatives have stripped away personal liberties of legal citizen minorities or women. Minorities, especially female minorties have it better than anyone in the country. More opportunities than anyone. That is sexist and racist in itself. We should all be equal don't you think???

The raping of the first ammendment by taking away freedom of speech around the president or anyone protected by the secret service (HR347), the ability to charge and imprison a citizen for any reason that the feds label as a threat without trial and indefinitley (NDAA, HR1540), the ability to pilfer in anyone's private accounts, emails, texts, etc, without warrants (the Patriot Act, HR3162 and extension HR514, SOPA HR 3261), infringement on the 2A (HR 1312, HR 308, too many to name), circumventing Congress....... all show BOTH parties are capable of shredding our Bill of Rights and abusing power.

When a government grows to the point they are shredding civil liberties to make it "safe" for everyone (but still allow open borders? How dumb) and when "they" provide for the people who won't work (with my money), it's just a matter of time before it all collapses and the wrong man steps into power and seriously abuses these laws. You are left with the haves and have nots. Nothing in between. History shows this to be true 100% of the time.

The conservatives (not the progressive republicans) I know just want what our forefathers wanted: a govt that will leave us alone and not tax the wages for some socialistic plans that are doomed to fail (like Social Security, Osamacare, etc). There are just too many people not contributing in the US for any of it to work. There's no questioning it with multi-generations of slackers. Pot luck is great until 6 out of 10 people don't contribute. Then, everyone starves.

Want a better America? Lessen the tax burden on the working class AND the upper class. You'll see a better economy, more jobs and business HERE, and more charity for those who really deserve it. Do the opposite, and you will see business closing, moving overseas, layoffs, and people who are bitter towards helping anyone but their own. These are the groups that can save America, but only if the govt lessens the weight we are carrying. The feds cannot do it with some bogus plan, funding, or bailout. They have no money, only what they rob from us. Don't make the poor comfy or they will stay there.

I am affraid a lot of people are blinded with some utopian dream that this world will ever be John Lennon's "Imagine".

[onalandline]

Snopes and Fact check.org without a doubt.

I don't know about Snopes but Factcheck.org is unreliable. Here's why:

"It (factcheck.org) is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, and is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation."

"Barack Obama was a founding member, chairman, and president of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was also funded by the Annenberg Foundation."

[onalandline]

And the conservatives aren't stripping away our personal liberties. Especially those of women and minorities...

Sounds like typical uninformed liberal talking points.

Care to back this up?

[CrabbyAzz]

Sounds like typical uninformed liberal talking points.

Care to back this up?

Yes, I'll be backing it up in the voting booth in November.

[getsome]

Sieg Heil, Sieg Heil, All bow before Obamaus Caesar!!!...:rolleyes:...God Help Us!!!

[DKD]

All I have to say is that this administration isn't fit to hold my jock strap!

[southx]

Why would the UN or any indvidual country care about the citizens being armed unless they were planning to invade us:7:

[muggsy]

Yes, I'll be backing it up in the voting booth in November.

You're backing a loser, CrabbyAzz. Why is the most open and honest administration in history obstructing justice and claiming executive privilege in the congressional investigation of Fast and Furious? Why did the democrats have to bribe the members of their own party to vote in favor of socialized medicine? Why did we have to pass the healthcare bill to find out what was in it? What's fair about taking the wealth of those who work and giving it to those who refuse to work? Why would anyone want to fundamentally change the most successful and free nation in the world? Why isn't the administration that fears voter suppression not prosecuting the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation? Instead of parroting the democrat talking points try thinking for a change.

[yqtszhj]

Why would the UN or any indvidual country care about the citizens being armed unless they were planning to invade us:7:

To exert some control over the greatest and most free nation there is. And by the way everyone in office now needs to go because they can't balance a budget. And that is both side of the aisle. None of them will admit that we are in trouble even when the independent rating agencies tell the news media that the US is the only country that has no plan in place to deal with their money issues. You can't raise taxes enough to compensate for the government spending.

Hmmm... maybe that is why gun control is wanted so when it all hits the fan :rolleyes:

[CrabbyAzz]

You're backing a loser, CrabbyAzz. Why is the most open and honest administration in history obstructing justice and claiming executive privilege in the congressional investigation of Fast and Furious? Why did the democrats have to bribe the members of their own party to vote in favor of socialized medicine? Why did we have to pass the healthcare bill to find out what was in it? What's fair about taking the wealth of those who work and giving it to those who refuse to work? Why would anyone want to fundamentally change the most successful and free nation in the world? Why isn't the administration that fears voter suppression not prosecuting the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation? Instead of parroting the democrat talking points try thinking for a change.


Fast and Furious is just a distraction. Holder is standing in the way of all those conservative attempts to block the poor, minorities and students from voting. This is the conservative trying everything in their power to distract or stop him from doing his job. Like the beach bully throwing sand in your face.

[muggsy]

Fast and Furious is just a distraction. Holder is standing in the way of all those conservative attempts to block the poor, minorities and students from voting. This is the conservative trying everything in their power to distract or stop him from doing his job. Like the beach bully throwing sand in your face.

Fast and Furious wasn't an issue when Holder refused to prosecute the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation. Try again, CrabbyAZZ. No republican wants to obstruct anyone from voting. They just want them to prove that they are eligible to vote. Why is the democrat party objecting to fair and honest elections? You need a photo ID to stay at a Motel 6, buy a beer, get treated at a hospital, obtain a prescription drug, or fly on a plane. Do you have a photo ID, CrabbyAZZ? Me doth think that thou protests too, much.

[les strat]

Fast and Furious was an act of treason, and Holder needs to be in prison for it. He adn his crew fed the Mexican drug cartel tons of weapons which caused the deaths of many Mexicans and a border patrol agent. Tell his mounrning mother it was a distraction. All in the name of bring a bad name on American gun sales. It backfired right in his face. Miles worse than watergate.

You need to presnt hard facts about your claim of conservatives trying to block votes of minorities, students, and the poor.

Holder's buddies, the new black panthers - a hate group - are the ones he closed the case on for voter intimidation. Check your facts. No net lore. Pure fact. Defend him all you want, but he is a criminal no matter how you slice it.

[yqtszhj]

I'm so confused :confused: Huh, well maybe we should be more like Greece, Italy, France, UK, Spain, Portugal. look how good it's working for them at the moment... :rolleyes:

[gm412]

And the conservatives aren't stripping away our personal liberties. Especially those of women and minorities...
No they are not.

[gm412]

Fast and Furious wasn't an issue when Holder refused to prosecute the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation. Try again, CrabbyAZZ. No republican wants to obstruct anyone from voting. They just want them to prove that they are eligible to vote. Why is the democrat party objecting to fair and honest elections? You need a photo ID to stay at a Motel 6, buy a beer, get treated at a hospital, obtain a prescription drug, or fly on a plane. Do you have a photo ID, CrabbyAZZ? Me doth think that thou protests too, much.

OK I have suspected you were a plant. My guess is you do not own any guns.

[CrabbyAzz]

OK I have suspected you were a plant. My guess is you do not own any guns.

Nope .. Any by the way. http://www.npr.org/2012/01/28/146006217/why-new-photo-id-laws-mean-some-wont-vote

[yqtszhj]

Nope .. Any by the way. http://www.npr.org/2012/01/28/146006217/why-new-photo-id-laws-mean-some-wont-vote

Here's a thought, if people don't want to present a photo ID, then when they register to vote they need to give a thumbprint at the courthouse. Then when they go to the polling station they can present that same thumb print and if it doesn't match, NO VOTE!!!

People have to present a photo ID when they go to the bank, grocery store, department store, drive a car, etc... and they still commit fraud. You don't think that these same people (no matter what side they are voting for) will attempt to vote for someone else that is not showing up, or is even dead already? Oh that's right. They have too much integrity for that when it comes to voting because it's too important and they care about the country too much. Yeah right.

I can tell you for a fact that even illegals aliens (and yes I didn't say undocumented immigrants for a reason) will try and get government aid and vote if they can get away with it. There needs to be a form of ID besides a power bill presented when voting.

[CrabbyAzz]

Here's a thought, if people don't want to present a photo ID, then when they register to vote they need to give a thumbprint at the courthouse. Then when they go to the polling station they can present that same thumb print and if it doesn't match, NO VOTE!!!

People have to present a photo ID when they go to the bank, grocery store, department store, drive a car, etc... and they still commit fraud. You don't think that these same people (no matter what side they are voting for) will attempt to vote for someone else that is not showing up, or is even dead already? Oh that's right. They have too much integrity for that when it comes to voting because it's too important and they care about the country too much. Yeah right.

I can tell you for a fact that even illegals aliens (and yes I didn't say undocumented immigrants for a reason) will try and get government aid and vote if they can get away with it. There needs to be a form of ID besides a power bill presented when voting.


You obviously didn't read the whole article or you would understand why some American's don't have photo ID's. And it you did read the article you would notice that the demographics of these people indicate that they are not generally conservative voters.

We know this is going to be a very close election and the Red states are pulling out all the stops to keep as many democrat voters away from the polls. While I'm sture this makes many of you conservatives very happy, somehow I don't think you would be pleased if the democrats were pulling some stunt to keep conservatives away from the polls.

[yqtszhj]

I am very familiar with the article and the topic. This has been an issue for over 20 years. Maybe you don't remember that far back. And the excuses for not being able to identify voters no matter what side they vote on is wearing thin. I see no excuse why someone can't have an ID of some type. Have the state issue it for free.

Be cautious with your labels. While my opinions tend to be conservative my politics are very libertarian and I feel all government has too much control. I like neither candidate very much. Romney didn't get elected to a liberal state like Mass. by having conservative views. Republican Mayor Bloomberg of NYC is as socialist as any trying to legislate soft drinks for crying out loud. You think at some point down this primrose path our firearms are not next?

I can agree with you that most of politics is a "show" and they just like to hear their self speak. But 65% of republicans and 75% of democrats are incompetent. There needs to be term limits because voters can't remember 4-6 years ago when the next election time comes up again and they just vote for whoever brings home more of someone else's money.

The fact that you recognize how much theatrics are going on puts you ahead of the curve so congratulations. Now I would say just take a peek behind the curtain and you'll see that all of us are getting screwed by both parties. They all have their own agenda. Look at the national debt. There is a link on my signature line so you can check out our debt in case you haven't seen it. The reason our US credit rating is falling is because the US is the only developed nation that has no plan for resolving their issue. Neither Republicans or Democrats are willing to do what needs to be done because they like keeping their job more than they love the country. This will be the end of us. It's happened to too many civilizations in the past if we look at history.

In 1992 there was a little man with a big nose that ran for president. Everyone laughed at him and his charts. Whoopie Goldberg said that someone had their hand up his butt and he was a talking like puppet. This man said where we would be in 20 years and you know what? He was exactly right. I'm not saying he would have been a good president but he predicted our spending issues and was right on target. This was Perot and he knew about running a budget and business because he created his own.

I'll give Romney a chance for 4 years not because I necessarly trust him but the last 4 years have got us nothing. And if he doesn't do anything, he's out too. Of course it may be too late then. One thing for sure though, socialist ideals and government control hasn't worked for Europe and it won't work for us.

One suggestion, get yourself a few more really nice firearms because one day we either won't be able to get them or wont be able to afford them. Either way that will be the time when we may need them for our own self protection. One other thought and an invitation, come join me on the libertarian side.

[yqtszhj]

Nope .. Any by the way. http://www.npr.org/2012/01/28/146006217/why-new-photo-id-laws-mean-some-wont-vote

Back on track with the link (gun related.)

If you like that CM9 you should get you a CW45. They're great. They just cost a little more to shoot. :86:

[JFootin]

I don't care who they are, if they cannot present proper ID, they should not be allowed to vote. It is basically dishonest and criminal the way Democrats and liberals want ineligible people to vote because, as CA stated, they think they will gain votes that way. That is the ONLY reason they resist measures to require IDs and other votor fraud prevention initiatives. Ineligible people don't have some overriding "right" to vote anyway, and attempts to quell illegal voting activity is not denying any legitimate "right" to anyone! :mad:

[CrabbyAzz]

Back on track with the link (gun related.)

If you like that CM9 you should get you a CW45. They're great. They just cost a little more to shoot. :86:

I've been tempted. Maybe next year.

[downtownv]

:4::4:Tis years election is the most divisive in history. Is there anybody here actually voting for the 1/2 white Sleaze ball?
If so please delete yourself from the forum.....

[JFootin]

:popcorn:

[yqtszhj]

I've been tempted. Maybe next year.

Took mine out today for 150 trouble free rounds. It was my first Kahr to actually take the first 200 rounds to smooth out but now it is smooth as butter.

[yqtszhj]

:4::4:Tis years election is the most divisive in history. Is there anybody here actually voting for the 1/2 white Sleaze ball?
If so please delete yourself from the forum.....

When in doubt vote them out. Teach all of them a lesson. That will protect our 2nd amendment rights and freedoms better than anything else.

Then in 2 more years, turn them over again. :D

[dkmatthews]

Nope .. Any by the way. http://www.npr.org/2012/01/28/146006217/why-new-photo-id-laws-mean-some-wont-vote

The senior citizens, more than any other demographic, are the ones who take their right to vote seriously. Ask them if they support people being able to vote fraudulently in the name of a dead person or just because a neighbor "vouched" for them... Explain to these senior citizens that a voter ID law would exist to preserve the sanctity of the right to vote and they will get in line to support it.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk 2

[yqtszhj]

Hey dkmatthews, I love that signature line.

"to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences."

That say's it all.

[CrabbyAzz]

The senior citizens, more than any other demographic, are the ones who take their right to vote seriously. Ask them if they support people being able to vote fraudulently in the name of a dead person or just because a neighbor "vouched" for them... Explain to these senior citizens that a voter ID law would exist to preserve the sanctity of the right to vote and they will get in line to support it.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk 2

It's the honest legal senior citizens that will be most hurt by this. I think your point is , you would rather that thousands of legitimate US citizens be turned away at the polls to keep a handful of people away.

[dkmatthews]

No, I would rather you come up with a better solution than to continue to advocate for a system with known flaws and vulnerabilities being exploited every election cycle.

Put up or shut up.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk 2

[les strat]

If we don't crack down and be stricter at the poles, we will continue to have a large population of dead people and dogs making our presidential decision.

Standing at the poles swinging billy clubs is what needs cracking down on, but Holder pulled an epic fail once again. Loser.

[CrabbyAzz]

No, I would rather you come up with a better solution than to continue to advocate for a system with known flaws and vulnerabilities being exploited every election cycle.

Put up or shut up.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk 2

I agree. But we need an easy, convenient and cost free way for people to get the necessary ID's.

[yqtszhj]

I agree. But we need an easy, convenient and cost free way for people to get the necessary ID's.

A state issued picture ID to those that don't have a drivers license. Cost $1 to cover postage. The street people earn that much sitting by the exit ramp at the interstate. They can use the exit ramp as a mailing address to determine their polling location at voting time.

Have the state person that inspects nursing homes handle any registration and pictures needs there when they make their annual visits there. Retirees are not left out. Retired folks on a limited income get their ID for free if needed.

I'll chip in and pay my part of what's needed to make up for the reduced $1 ID when I renew my drivers license to keep the illegal aliens from voting.

For those that don't have $1 just show proof of no income for my state and send the bill to my house. Should be no more than $100 for my state I figure per year.

There we go. That settles that problem. Now for the national debt. Hmmm... I've got it. STOP SPENDING!!

Also, stop federal government taxes on firearms and ammo. That would be a good one too.

Wow, look what we can fix once the politicians are not involved :cool:

[CrabbyAzz]

A state issued picture ID to those that don't have a drivers license. Cost $1 to cover postage. The street people earn that much sitting by the exit ramp at the interstate. They can use the exit ramp as a mailing address to determine their polling location at voting time.

Have the state person that inspects nursing homes handle any registration and pictures needs there when they make their annual visits there. Retirees are not left out. Retired folks on a limited income get their ID for free if needed.

I'll chip in and pay my part of what's needed to make up for the reduced $1 ID when I renew my drivers license to keep the illegal aliens from voting.

For those that don't have $1 just show proof of no income for my state and send the bill to my house. Should be no more than $100 for my state I figure per year.

There we go. That settles that problem. Now for the national debt. Hmmm... I've got it. STOP SPENDING!!

Also, stop federal government taxes on firearms and ammo. That would be a good one too.

Wow, look what we can fix once the politicians are not involved :cool:


Not quite that easy. In this state you have to physically go to a drivers license office to get one of those ID's and you need a birth certificate to get it. Most people don't have one of those laying around. To get one you have to first, know where to get one (Dept of Health - Vital Records). And it cost $10...

By the way to get a copy of your birth certificate you need this....

" You must present valid government issued photo identification. Examples of acceptable identification are a state issued driver's license or non-driver photo ID with requestor's name and current address, etc. If you do not have acceptable photo identification, please follow this simple set of instructions (http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=1116212&mode=2) in order to obtain a birth certificate. "

Huh...


Try to explain all this to your 80year old mother.

[onalandline]

Yes, I'll be backing it up in the voting booth in November.

You're unable to learn from your mistakes.

[onalandline]

Fast and Furious is just a distraction. Holder is standing in the way of all those conservative attempts to block the poor, minorities and students from voting. This is the conservative trying everything in their power to distract or stop him from doing his job. Like the beach bully throwing sand in your face.

F&F is a scandal that the Obama Admin wish would go away. They are trying by ignoring it. Issa will keep pushing for justice.

How is voter ID blocking anything? Please explain.

[onalandline]

It's the honest legal senior citizens that will be most hurt by this. I think your point is , you would rather that thousands of legitimate US citizens be turned away at the polls to keep a handful of people away.

If you are a legitimate U.S. Citizen, then it should be no problem to have/obtain an ID.

[CrabbyAzz]

If you are a legitimate U.S. Citizen, then it should be no problem to have/obtain an ID.

Doesn't sound like you read anything posted. Voting is a right. The concept of putting financial impediments in the way of voting is a southern idea called poll tax. It was outlawed. Thats why the federal government looks over the shoulder of those southern states. This whole voter ID thing is a way of going around the poll tax, but accomplishing the same thing.

[Tinman507]

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxjlubLtHY1rn1xxfo1_100.gif

[OldLincoln]

Doesn't sound like you read anything posted. Voting is a right.

And a birth certificate is a requirement!

[CrabbyAzz]

And a birth certificate is a requirement!

And it cost to get a copy of that. Poll tax... and in some states you need a drivers license to get a copy of your birth certificate. Catch 22.

[Bawanna]

People who don't have the ability to secure a birth certificate or make enough money to pay for a legitimate identification got no business in the selection process of our countries leaders.

That's what happened last time and probably what will happen this time too.


I'm not sure this thread has anywhere positive to go, I'm leaving it open since I do so hate to close out with my own thoughts but it's hanging by a thread.

Is that a pun? A thread hanging by a thread.

[dkmatthews]

People who don't have the ability to secure a birth certificate or make enough money to pay for a legitimate identification got no business in the selection process of our countries leaders.

That's what happened last time and probably what will happen this time too.


I'm not sure this thread has anywhere positive to go, I'm leaving it open since I do so hate to close out with my own thoughts but it's hanging by a thread.

Is that a pun? A thread hanging by a thread.

CrabbyAzz finally admitted his principal gripe is cost.

yqtszhj came up with a solution. Any further whining or hypothetical complaints are merely refusals to adopt a process that prohibits election/voting fraud.

You might as well shut it down...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk 2

[yqtszhj]

You might as well shut it down...



+1 and I second the motion. I would say this one is fully cooked.