0
warpedskydiver

Obama supports the Second Amendment

Recommended Posts

Quote

Huh! It has nothing to do with guns. It's almost as if some gun nuts fabricated a lot of "facts" and hoped no one checked them.

Coming up next - Obama is a Muslim who won't say the Pledge of Allegiance.



Reading if fundamental - too bad you didn't read the amendment to the bill -

Quote

Sec. 24-3.1A. Unlawful acquisition of handguns.
12 (a) Except as exempted in subsections (b) and (c), it is
13 unlawful for any person other than a person holding a license
14 under the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, to
15 acquire more than one handgun within any 30-day period.



Obama voted "Yea"
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Just took a random sample of those "facts." Here's the first one I looked at:

FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month handgun purchase restrictions. (Ref: Illinois Senate, May 16, 2003, HB 2579, vote 34.)

Synopsys from the Illinois State Legislature Home Page for HB2579:

"Amends the Illinois Vehicle Code. Provides that the removal of a false or secret compartment from a motor vehicle, or the promise to do so, shall not be the basis for a defense to forfeiture of the motor vehicle under the Criminal Code of 1961 and shall not be the basis for the court to release the vehicle to the owner. Increases the penalty for owning or operating a motor vehicle with the knowledge that it contains a false or secret compartment from a Class C misdemeanor to a Class 4 felony."

Huh! It has nothing to do with guns. It's almost as if some gun nuts fabricated a lot of "facts" and hoped no one checked them.

Coming up next - Obama is a Muslim who won't say the Pledge of Allegiance.



Screw the synopsis, what's the rest of the law read?

At the federal level you can end up with a thousand double spaced pages for there to be enough in it for everyone for a bill to get through Congresss.

Some state laws are simple. Some state laws aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

No. that is all you were willing to see, I posted his positions on many pieces of legislation.



Indeed, like stiffer penalties for those who commit murder in churches.


Why the fuck should there be stiffer penalties for murders committed in churches? :S


Quote

Your tactic is to post long lists of things claiming they show Obama in a bad light, not figuring that some people actually check.

You've been rumbled.



This of course begs the question, "So, Kallend, what in THIS LIST have you checked into and found false?"

Answer: probably nothing--which is why rather than cite what's false, you just imply that something "must be." I've seen, over time, that this is your standard M.O. It's really pathetic to see in action.
Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

How about these then:

From his own website:

They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof.




What the fuck does that mean?!


Quote

They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.



Really? Despite the fact that the CDC could not establish that the AWB did ANYTHING to help reduce gun crime?!

And since when does the military issue semi-automatic, NON-select-fire rifles to soldiers? So much for "such weapons belong on foreign battlefields"...

Quote

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.



And they call the dumb motherfucker douchebag shitpile a "constitutional scholar." Here he is saying that we GET our rights FROM the Constitution! >:(

Personally, IF he gets elected, I hope he does move forward with efforts to eradicate gun ownership. He'll ignite a new civil war in the United States, which we will settle definitively, and that'll be that. And his legacy will be having caused a second civil war over his moronic, shitbrained idea that Americans shouldn't have guns, and he couldn't give up on a losing ideology. Bring it the fuck ON.
Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Huh! It has nothing to do with guns. It's almost as if some gun nuts fabricated a lot of "facts" and hoped no one checked them.

Coming up next - Obama is a Muslim who won't say the Pledge of Allegiance.



Reading if fundamental - too bad you didn't read the amendment to the bill -

Quote

Sec. 24-3.1A. Unlawful acquisition of handguns.
12 (a) Except as exempted in subsections (b) and (c), it is
13 unlawful for any person other than a person holding a license
14 under the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, to
15 acquire more than one handgun within any 30-day period.



Obama voted "Yea"


HAHAHA!!!! Billvon is BUSTED!! :D:D:D:D:D
Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Reading if is fundamental

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


Evidently my spelling isn't!!



I saw it... but gave ya a pass..:)

Anyone on here can speak typoese.... at least you TRY to use that wonderfully elitist form of American English.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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.



That question and answer right there symbolizes and summarizes his two-faced fork-tongued lying rhetoric.

In other words, he supports gun ownership, unless someone wants to take them away from you, and then he supports the gun ban.

This is a typical lying politician answer, trying to please both sides of the fence to win votes. And in the end, it reveals his true feelings, which is to support gun bans whenever they arise.

And if you support taking guns away from entire communities whenever they feel like it, then you're not supporting the 2nd Amendment. So that's a true contradiction.

Very few reporters bother to ask such a pointed question. They continuously allow him to get away with this bullshit answer, without pointing out the built-in contradiction. But it's the response he gives any time the 2nd Amendment comes up. He has it built into his brain like a tape recorder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

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.



That question and answer right there symbolizes and summarizes his two-faced fork-tongued lying rhetoric.

In other words, he supports gun ownership, unless someone wants to take them away from you, and then he supports the gun ban.

This is a typical lying politician answer, trying to please both sides of the fence to win votes. And in the end, it reveals his true feelings, which is to support gun bans whenever they arise.

And if you support taking guns away from entire communities whenever they feel like it, then you're not supporting the 2nd Amendment. So that's a true contradiction.

Very few reporters bother to ask such a pointed question. They continuously allow him to get away with this bullshit answer, without pointing out the built-in contradiction. But it's the response he gives any time the 2nd Amendment comes up. He has it built into his brain like a tape recorder.




Some here have regarded Obama in high esteem due to his being a constitutional lawyer and teaching constitutional law....yet he feels gun bans are constitutional?! Ok I've known this but it still baffles my mind.
www.FourWheelerHB.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

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.



That question and answer right there symbolizes and summarizes his two-faced fork-tongued lying rhetoric.

In other words, he supports gun ownership, unless someone wants to take them away from you, and then he supports the gun ban.

This is a typical lying politician answer, trying to please both sides of the fence to win votes. And in the end, it reveals his true feelings, which is to support gun bans whenever they arise.

And if you support taking guns away from entire communities whenever they feel like it, then you're not supporting the 2nd Amendment. So that's a true contradiction.

Very few reporters bother to ask such a pointed question. They continuously allow him to get away with this bullshit answer, without pointing out the built-in contradiction. But it's the response he gives any time the 2nd Amendment comes up. He has it built into his brain like a tape recorder.




Some here have regarded Obama in high esteem due to his being a constitutional lawyer and teaching constitutional law....yet he feels gun bans are constitutional?! Ok I've known this but it still baffles my mind.



So, apparently, did several members (but not a majority) of the Supreme Court. So I guess it's not quite as black and white as you would have us believe.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets



So Obama isn't too bright. Though this is a great statement, you don't take 'illegal' handguns off the streets with a community gun ban. That only takes 'legal' guns away.

Once he shows he can connect actions with intent properly, you have to question his ability to make any correct judgement call.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Do you believe handgun bans are consititutional?



Not a blanket ban, according to Scalia, but some restrictions are.



I can live with that although I am only in favor of effective legislation. It is my opinion that anyone who thinks a total ban on handguns is constitutional simply does not understand the 2nd Amendment or are intentionally skewing the meaning of the words in order to fit their needs. Considering Obama agreed with the Heller decision which one do you think he is?
www.FourWheelerHB.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets



So Obama isn't too bright. Though this is a great statement, you don't take 'illegal' handguns off the streets with a community gun ban. That only takes 'legal' guns away. Once he shows he can connect actions with intent properly, you have to question his ability to make any correct judgement call.



Ding ding ding!

When asked about so-called "assault weapons", his standard tape-recording sound byte response is to say that since the bullets can penetrate a policeman's bullet-proof vest, that they should be banned.

There are major problems with the logic of this statement. First of all, so-called "assault weapons" fire only medium-power bullets. They're not as powerful as most hunting rifles. Therefore, if "assault weapons" are "too powerful" for civilian ownership, then it stands to reason that all full-power hunting rifles should be banned along with them, for they can penetrate bullet-proof vests even easier.

In other words, the only rifles he would allow us to own is .22 rimfire.

Since Obama is grossly ill-informed on gun issues, then he doesn't have any business advocating bans of any type.

What such statements tell me is that he's a man that cares only about political posturing, and not about determining the facts. And I don't want such a man to be President.

And if he's this misinformed about guns, then how many other issues is he also clueless about, while offering-up grand solutions for the worshiping mindless masses? You have to wonder...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0