See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Saint Obama on the 2nd amendment
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 25, 2008
Author: BHO
Post Date: 2008-03-25 17:19:57 by Jethro Tull
Keywords: None
Views: 10458
Comments: 170
Dear Friend, Thank you for contacting me about gun laws and the Second Amendment. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue. Americans broadly agree that guns must be kept from those who may pose a threat, and that the rights of legitimate hunters and sportsmen should be protected. We must work to ensure that guns do not fall into the hands of criminals or the mentally ill through an effective background check system. We also have to strike a reasonable balance between public safety and sportsmen's rights. I will continue to work for effective gun laws, including reinstatement of the assault weapons ban that the last Congress allowed to expire, and effective law enforcement. I will also speak out against the culture of violence that traps so many of our young people. Thank you again for contacting me on this important issue. Sincerely, Barack Obama*
Poster Comment: Did you know that it was written for *"..sportsman's rights.."*? Saint Barack: the final nail in the coffin of America.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-130) not displayed.
.
.
.
#131. To: X-15 (#128)
Mastering the rifle was easy, and my well tuned super accurate rifles are ready with hundreds of tailored handloads to match. Combat handgunning is a little more difficult. Hell, even Brownies and Cub Scouts shoot well the first time out with a shoulder stocked arm.
Did the cops who were shot deserve it? You advocate shooting them and made no distinction between good ones or bad ones. Should the whole NYPD suffer collectively for the crimes of the more egregious officers?
Who are you talking about?
Last week in a thread about cops abusing protesters you wrote "Shoot the bastards."
Show me the thread, and what does that have to do with this one?
I'm sorry, I didn't bookmark it. I thought it was odd that a former cop would advocate shooting them. If you wish to declare war and stand toe to toe with the enemy, fine. But, it's irresponsible to advocate "shooting the bastards" for grievances either real or perceived that do not warrant a death penalty. I can think of no situation where I should fire in the direction of someone who isn't trying to take my life at that moment. It is not a proper course of action to advocate shooting politicians, cops, county inspectors, meter maids or anyone else before fat assed Americans have even tried to restore the country through peaceful means. Unfortunately, too many video-sated sugar babies of today demand instant gratification to any and all problems even if that means the use of deadly force, as long as they don't have to actually exert themselves over the long stretch. The SLA, The Weathermen, Black Panthers, The Arm, The Sword & The Cross Of The Lord, etc., were/are all convinced that their reasons for shooting cops are just. And, when I see you embrace that same self serving lunacy it's disturbing to me.
'Dowg, all I can do is defend my comments. On this thread I said I'd use any amount of force necessary to keep my guns from government confiscation. I don't see the problem with that position. I don't advocate it for everyone, and I believe people like me will be in the extreme minority when and if that day comes. So be it.
Well, that's certainly reasonable and I have no reason to dispute it. My problem in this and other threads is with the "instant gratificons" who seem to think that life is a video game and the solution to all political problems is gun play. Not only will they fold when the shit hits the fan but they will refuse to accept any responsibility for diverting attention away from boring but necessary political action we should take and for providing the govt the necessary inflammatory evidence to clamp down on other forms of expression. Last night when I jammed Dakmar up he immediately retreated into "it was a joke" (although I don't know any sane people who think that's funny) and you summoned the spirit of Pat Robertson for support. I don't want to match the neocons' evil blow for blow because then I'll be no better than them. and if I cannot make a manly, declarative statement that stands on its own merits without relying on a quote, ("Is it time yet, Claire?") as justification then I won't make any statement at all. If you'll notice I seldom prop up my argument with quotes from others. I write what I feel and take the heat for it. But, right now a quote may be appropriate since I can't seem to garner respect for my own mature, well reasoned point of view. The problem is just as Charlie Reese has described it below. "We have met the enemy and he is us." Too many stupid, testosterone-driven young men are rattling their sabers instead of using the brains that God gave them. And, when I chew one of them out they cluster together for support and celebrate their mediocrity. After all, if Bush proved anything it's that "It's every American's right to be a stupid sonofabitch." Of course all are equal in christine's little world, including Todd when I tried to warn her about him. She needs to discourage these mindless shits who post here in order to make it attractive for those with real power, the power of reason coupled with the courage to resist tyranny. (That doesn't mean back shooting some low level bureaucrats as one poster was openly wishing for last night)
So you have your hot button issues, eh? Join the crowd :) My experience w/forums is that at different times, depending on the subject, posters have reactions that might be driven by emotion more than a sober reaction to the clusterbang we find ourselves in. Further compounding this form of communication is that posting back and forth eliminates the many nuances a normal conversation allows. Humor to some in a post is a harsh blow to others. When a poster is challenged, and h/she says their comment was a joke, their word should be good, esp. given the history of that poster as in Dak’s case. I have always gotten his humor and I saw how his comment was connected to a previous one. As for your broader concern about a scattered band of internet commandos engaging in governmental insurrection, I only wish it were true. Truth be known, Pogo was right. We have met the enemy and he is us. Just as the Ron Paul revolution was an illusion offered up to those who still believe they can effect change, the words of some here, myself included, are nothing more than a hope that things can change. That isn't going to happen, so here I sit locked into the ride.
Horrible, of course. Your example only underlines the criticalness of ridding the nation of the Clintons and the fascist party's pitiful offering.
The road to perdition .... Bush/Clinton/Bush/McClinton
Marvelously creative phrasing!
The road to perdition .... Bush/Clinton/Bush/McClinton
1Associated Press, "Research finds Cheney, Obama distant cousins," October 17, 2007.
#132. To: Jethro Tull (#130)
#133. To: HOUNDDAWG (#132)
You advocate shooting them and made no distinction between good ones or bad ones.
#134. To: Jethro Tull (#133)
#135. To: HOUNDDAWG (#134)
#136. To: Jethro Tull (#135)
#137. To: PnbC (#67)
Those that support Obama winning are at least hoping he will be the least interventionist of the three front runners. Whether their hope is misplaced or not is besides the point. It is the war, and nothing else, that is the prime mover here.
#138. To: HOUNDDAWG (#136)
#139. To: Jethro Tull, Dakmar, christine (#138)
(Edited)
'Dowg, all I can do is defend my comments. On this thread I said I'd use any amount of force necessary to keep my guns from government confiscation. I don't see the problem with that position. I don't advocate it for everyone, and I believe people like me will be in the extreme minority when and if that day comes. So be it.
#140. To: HOUNDDAWG (#139)
My problem in this and other threads is with the "instant gratificons" who seem to think that life is a video game and the solution to all political problems is gun play.
#141. To: FormerLurker (#68)
And what say you about the cost of life here?
#142. To: HOUNDDAWG (#139)
"instant gratificons"
#143. To: iconoclast (#142)
Your thoughts on Obama's 2nd Amendment position?
The U.S. Senate Debated:
Voted: Supporting concealed carry for citizens10 Banning many common semi-automatic firearms11 Disallowing self-defense in towns where guns are banned12 Imposing one handgun a month restrictions13 Requiring lock up your safety trigger locks14 Protecting gun dealers from frivolous lawsuits15 Outlawing gun confiscations during a national emergency16 Squelching the free speech rights of gun owners17 Restricting the interstate sales of firearms18 Repealing the gun ban in Washington, DC19
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.
#144. To: Jethro Tull (#143)
icon neither reads nor comprehends well so maybe you could come up with a diagram for third graders?????
#145. To: X-15, HOUNDDAWG (#128)
Good for you, I admire Jelly Bryce's. I will stick to my rifles, it's much more interesting for me to hit little targets at a good distance. Never bring a pistol to a rifle fight.
I'm quite likely the best pistolero on this fucking board
Rebates for Ron - Ron Paul For Dummies - New R3volution
#146. To: Cynicom (#144)
Icon might read the damaging positions Obama takes, but like a true cultist it doesn't cause him to get up off his knees.
#147. To: Jethro Tull, Original_Intent, TwentyTwelve, FormerLurker, Artisan, robin, christine, ALL (#10)
No. You've got to be freakin' kidding me, right? Right? Oh no... Fear of govt. is a form of mental illness
"I would not run round a corner to see the world blow up." ~ Henry David Thoreau
#148. To: wudidiz (#147)
I've told this story before here, about a neighbor I knew from Bulgaria. She had been a doctor, as had her husband; and even both her daughters became doctors. But that's not the point of the story, just background. She was afraid to leave her trash barrels out beyond the time allowed by the city ordinance. She was afraid to leave her car parked along the curb (I forget why). She spied out of her window routinely, checking for only God knows what. She knew which neighbors were home all day, and which ones spread rumors. Growing up in the Soviet Bloc never left her.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
#149. To: iconoclast (#141)
You've said many times that you wished the Republican Party would essentially go the way of the Whigs. Correct?
What North American Union? ~~~~~ Have you seen THIS yet? Pass it around...
#150. To: wudidiz (#147)
You didn't know how sick you were did you...
What North American Union? ~~~~~ Have you seen THIS yet? Pass it around...
#151. To: HOUNDDAWG (#55)
No they can't. But you are welcome to try.
Americans can take this country back without firing a shot,...
God is always good!
#152. To: RickyJ (#151)
Good luck with that one...pistolero man LOLOL
What North American Union? ~~~~~ Have you seen THIS yet? Pass it around...
#153. To: Jethro Tull (#146)
If the fascist party gets its ass against the wall it take your gun away so fast it'll make your head swim (or blow up). The difference will be that it will be done by Presidential fiat and the already established/organized brown shirts. Think Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Cuban kid and many many more outrages. But you guys go ahead and order up a third portion of the experienced and ready-on-day-one single party establishment. FEAR the new guy with his message of reconciliation and bi-partisanship. Sheesh!
Icon might read the damaging positions Obama takes, but like a true cultist it doesn't cause him to get up off his knees.
The road to perdition .... Bush/Clinton/Bush/McClinton
#154. To: Jethro Tull (#10)
Fear is the normal American state of mind after seven years of totalitarianism.
Fear of govt. is a form of mental illness
The road to perdition .... Bush/Clinton/Bush/McClinton
#155. To: Jethro Tull (#0)
Upon further thought, I think a whole lot of politicians need to have a gun stuck in their face and be told to straighten up or else.... They continually ignore the polite letters we are told to write to them, as if any politician gives a damn what the people want (unless it's more government). No, I will stand up and say we have suffered more abuses from our current government than we suffered under British rule. Does anybody think the Founding Fathers would implore us to "write more polite letters"????
"If the Union was formed by the accession of States, then the Union may be dissolved by the secession of States." ---Daniel Webster, US Senate, Feb. 15, 1833
#156. To: X-15 (#155)
They've moved our jobs offshore, debased our culture, opened our borders to invaders, added layers of taxation yearly, waged war in our name, used our schools as indoctrination camps, jailed our population in record numbers and used prisoners as manufacturing slaves, and redistrict their congressional districts to ensure a reelection rate of 95%, and we should write a letter of protest? These elitists need to feel fear, and not the comfort of a walnut paneled Washington office.
They continually ignore the polite letters we are told to write to them, as if any politician gives a damn what the people want (unless it's more government).
#157. To: iconoclast (#153)
You're really a dimbulb. Have to be. If your stated purpose is to destroy the (R) Wing of the CFR Party, electing the (D) Wing will serve the opposite purpose. McTraitor will bury what's left of the GOP so fast it won't be funny. No worries, Hitlery! is the selection. Juan might not even know it yet. I could give 2 sh*ts about the CFR Party you play games with, you gun grabber Universal Health Care OWM NAU freak...
What North American Union? ~~~~~ Have you seen THIS yet? Pass it around...
#158. To: X-15 (#155)
The FFs would disown us...
What North American Union? ~~~~~ Have you seen THIS yet? Pass it around...
#159. To: Jethro Tull (#156)
I second that.
What North American Union? ~~~~~ Have you seen THIS yet? Pass it around...
#160. To: iconoclast (#153)
This is where I resist.
If the fascist party gets its ass against the wall it take your gun away so fast it'll make your head swim (or blow up). The difference will be that it will be done by Presidential fiat and the already established/organized brown shirts.
#161. To: Hayek Fan (#17)
Wow, I think I've missed something along the way. Course I don't have time to read threads much any more.
Many of those on this site who want Obama to be president only care about one thing and that is his promise of "free" healthcare.
Vote Republicrat or Democin, it doesn't matter, you still get McHillobama
#162. To: Jethro Tull (#160)
The thing is, the JBT's will find out real quick that they keep dying faster than they can be replaced, and that we can pop up anywhere/anytime at our pleasure, just like the VC did in Viet Nam. American topography favors the citizens if a shooting war breaks out.
"If the Union was formed by the accession of States, then the Union may be dissolved by the secession of States." ---Daniel Webster, US Senate, Feb. 15, 1833
#163. To: Jethro Tull, christine, ghostdogtxn, Dakmar, iconoclast, robin (#79)
I'm sure I don't have to tell you that this is not the same America that existed in 1969 when that decision was handed down. Sadly, this website is trending toward the lowest common denominator and away from intelligence and reason. And, my instincts tell me that now is not the time to be edging up to the line of dangerous speech. And, the reality is this; to be charged with any federal crime is to be punished because even if you win you lose. If Dakmar's comments are presented to a grand jury as offering aid and comfort to terrorists, there is no question that they will indict. And it will cost $20,000 to get even a totally frivolous indictment or information dismissed and his record expunged! Unlike these inexperienced people who cluster together for comfort and support, I've been standing on my own against the feds for 25 years (I haven't won but I didn't lose, either) and I've seen too many Lilliputians cling to the false belief that there's safety in numbers. And, I suspect that as I write this the enemy is planning to chill net speech with a high profile prosecution that vaporizes the illusion of internet anonymity and constitutionally protected speech. (And, why would anyone think that they have any more right to irritate Bush than protesters who are caged away from his line sight at each public appearance? Is there any doubt that he can get away with anything and that the SCOTUS will sustain it under emergency war powers or some such shit? Judge Sol Wachtler, the former Chief Judge of New York State, was quoted as saying that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich. ..." and this is especially true for a federal grand jury.) Do you recall how the feds got to Doug Thompson of CAPITOL HILL BLUE? (CHB is the first political internet newsletter and it was Thompson who reported that Bush called the constitution "a goddamned piece of paper" and he was the most courageous electronic journalist out there) Under the Patriot Act it's a federal felony for him to even tell his readers about the letters and visits he received, but he risked it and telegraphed the info "between the lines" anyway. And, now that he's been effectively neutered the retroactive damage control is in full swing. And, now Thompson has suddenly been diagnosed with a brain tumor! Hell, sudden cancer is exactly how he govt dealt with Jack Ruby after he begged The Chief Justice to get him out of TX so he could tell what he knew! One day I was posting comments about Thompson's articles and the neocons were outraged because I was gleefully accusing BushCo of being a bunch of closet queens, and the next day my comments were gone as was the ability to comment on his articles, and his era as a political gadfly was over. My concern is that if christine keeps providing cover for anonymous trolls who wouldn't dare tweak the govt's nose on their own website, then she too may disappear or just stop answering her phone one day. But, hey, if the mediocre majority wish to shout me down (with christine's blessing) then they can have this place. I don't go or stay where I'm not welcome.
Watts v The United States
#164. To: HOUNDDAWG (#163)
You make a good point about Doug Thompson, but as we know, there are now many who express themselves very well along the same vein. Christopher Bollyn's case is another example. I think it has to do with the size of the readership, and perhaps more to do with what else do these investigative journalists know? Beckett Saunders on LP threatened to report posters before. A fine example of a helpful pawn for the KGB/Stasi/DHS. But I don't believe an individual poster's comment has reached the level of unconstitutional interference you describe. If Michael Savage (Wiener) can say on the radio that the US should kill 100 million Muslims, and still have a show, then we should be able to make political cartoon like comments. Of course killing 100 million Muslims is part of the Bush regime's agenda, just like their agenda to silence America's true patriots. Let's not allow them to succeed merely because we are so afraid of what happened to Doug Thompson and Chrisopher Bollyn.
Do you recall how the feds got to Doug Thompson of CAPITOL HILL BLUE? (CHB is the first political internet newsletter and it was Thompson who reported that Bush called the constitution "a goddamned piece of paper" and he was the most courageous electronic journalist out there)
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
#165. To: robin (#164)
Point taken. I thought about Christopher Bollyn but, the post was long enough. And, yes, Muslims are fair game as were Japanese Americans in 1942. The problem I have with all of the rationalization is, why defend inflammatory speech that serves no other laudable goal? I mean, to me that's the equivalent of mooning people for sophomoric shock value. I'm not calling for moderator censorship, but she sure didn't haven't trouble telling me why my inflammatory posts on race were a problem for her. So, to criticize that while defending "jokes"(?) about murder of innocents seems illogical to me. But we're talking about a friend of christine's and I suppose certain folks are more equal than others.... It's not like Americans will be inspired by anonymous persons calling for the cold blooded murders of public officials, and those that ain't wired too tight and who may be moved to act aren't the people I'd knowingly share a foxhole with. But, again if you and others agree that this is an acceptable use of bandwidth then I won't argue. But, I won't invest any more energy in the attempt to make reasoned arguments, either. That's what happened at Liberty Forum, too. The trolls turned it into a mosh pit and I don't post there now. And, if you compare some of the earlier political dissertations with the inane topics now there's really no need to wonder why the founder John Deere lost interest and faded into the background. I know, I won't be missed. (I'll snatch that hambone off the trolls' plates)
#166. To: HOUNDDAWG (#165)
Well, that is an incorrect assumption. I know of no one here that wants "censorship" regardless of what name is used. I have taken my lumps here also, was even told leaving was an option. However after being thrown out of FReakville, Luciannes and ElPee, I can say that 4um is not 100 per cent but it is the best I have encountered in ten long years. Myself, I hate to see any AMERICAN leaving, there are far too few of us, in that vein, bear with us, the majority that have the same ideals and concerns.
I know, I won't be missed.
#167. To: HOUNDDAWG (#163)
First, let me say that your concern and protective sentiment towards me is not unappreciated and, second, this has nothing at all to do with who is a friend and who isn't in terms of my moderation on this forum. I consider you my friend. My guideline for moderation is explained here, Free Speech on Freedom4um. This has been and still is the policy to which I adhere standing by my Creator given right of free speech as specified in the 1st Amendment. If you'll notice, I particularize two contingencies with emphasize on the first and that is, (1) do not make a specific threat against an identifiable person or target. I don't think that Dakmar's comment or anyone else's on this thread rises to that level. Lastly, Jim, with all due respect, I have to disagree with your assertion that " this website is trending toward the lowest common denominator and away from intelligence and reason."
#168. To: HOUNDDAWG (#163)
As the current President of the mediocre majority it is my obligation to respond to your post. My position is one of self appointment so noone(222) is to blame. These forums are sometimes considered by the members themselves to be far more important/critical than they truly are. People say a lot of things in the course of any given day because most still think America is a semi-free country that honors freedom of speech. Some of these things may be considered highly offensive to corrupt government officials, but who cares about them ? At a time when something so basic as free speech is regularly challenged, people are being placed in "free speech zones" or areas far removed from the action, more noise and not less needs to be made in opposition to this unacceptable behavior on the part of "PUBLIC SERVANTS" ... Damn the Torpedos, Full Steam Ahead. If you in your post were referencing Zip or Jim Betker as MIAs due to their participation on this forum that is an understandable concern. I don't think Zip would have ever made a remark that could be determined violent or so aggregious as to alarm the authorities. BTP was a different story. The long and short of it is that both have disappeared and some among us are truly concerned about their well being, although none probably think it had anything to do with participation on this forum. Lastly, we should admit that we're in a fight to retain our liberty and it could get ugly. Christine is a very intelligent adult that is motivated to support real American values, one of which is free speech. She understands that there could be some risk or negative blow back but obviously feels free speech is too important to simply forfeit. I would hope that you wouldn't leave the forum because you are an articulate and intelligent presence here. People will still speak out in ways that may not meet with your approval, but I'd imagine the same sort of thing was taking place during the 1st Revolution.
But, hey, if the mediocre majority wish to shout me down (with christine's blessing) then they can have this place. I don't go or stay where I'm not welcome.
Guns don't kill people ... Governments do
#169. To: All (#0)
Bump considering tonight's Obama comment on guns.
#170. To: Jethro Tull (#2)
Which is why I Despise these obamaphiles and have them all Bozod forever.
From Ron Paul to the above is the political leap I can't get my head around.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom.~~William Wallace
"Corporation: An entity created for the legal protection of its human parasites, whose sole purpose is profit and self-perpetuation." ~~ IndieTx
ALAS, BABYLON
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest