Government WILL Ban Guns Soon....

[Hydrosun]

finish the story Disco Biscuit, seems you forgot the present dudes accomplishments.

The present dude has paid off all the debt and lowered the FICA cap back to 37K right? Also dropped the FICA rate right? And quit spending more than the government takes in right?

Good to know things are all under control now.

It makes me ask this cynical question: If it will ALWAYS be shitter tomorrow WHY do ANYTHING to try and change it? Any action seems to be wasted action when dealing with a con man, best solution drop out and find a different game. Oh yeah when the system spends hundreds of thousands or millions to cage a weed grower, three more drop out of their system (BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO PAY ANY MORE) and join the Dank side

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

This isn't an etch-a-sketch moment where the current president pretends he's not making interest payments on old debt. When Clinton left office, tax rates and economic conditions extrapolated to debt relief at 11 years out.

W's tax cuts, profligate spending and policies that generate macro contraction, i.e. supply-side-economics pushed debt relief several decades beyond. It's no coincidence if one acknowledges the half-dozen lawmakers on public record admitting their profligate spending is intentional.

 

[Treetops]

Gun Restrictions Coming After The Election

Gun Restrictions Coming After The Election

http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/gun-restrictions-coming-after-the-election/23957/

Gun Restrictions Coming After The Election
Posted on October 18, 2012 by # 1 NWO Hatr
Before It’s News – by Josey Wales Anytime you start talking about a coming bans on firearms, people come out of the woodwork to tell you how crazy you are and how that could never happen in America.

Well if you watched [Tuesday's] presidential debate, it should be painfully obvious that this is no conspiracy theory.

Come election time, gun owners are going to be under attack from new federal legislation that will severely limit what you can and can’t purchase.

Anyone who believes in the right to bear arms, needs to start paying serious attention to what’s going on.

In a very telling sign of what’s to come, both candidates seemed to indicate that the so called “assault weapons ban” could be again rearing its ugly head.

While Romney didn’t say that he would outright introduce the ban nationally, he did admit that he supported a ban on these firearms while Governor of Massachusetts.

On the other hand, President Barack Obama admitted that during a second term his agenda would include, reintroducing a ban on what he calls, “assault weapons”. This legislation would ban firearms like, AR15’s, AK47’s and numerous other rifles and shotguns.

In the debate Obama said:

…”What I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced.”

As we’ve pointed our numerous times in the past, we have two of the most anti-gun presidential candidates in history running for office.

While one candidate, President Obama, has now come out and telegraphed his intentions for the world to hear; the other candidate also has a pretty shady gun record that we must be aware of.

During a February 18, 2007 interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, Romney was asked to reconcile his support for an assault weapons ban and the Brady background check law with his then-recent decision to join the National Rifle Association.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s talk about guns. You were supportive of the Brady Bill, the handgun waiting period in the past. You sign an assault weapon ban into law, and you said in the past, I don’t line up with the NRA. Now you -

ROMNEY: Well, on that, on that issue.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Now you’re a member of the NRA.

ROMNEY: Yes. And I – and I know the NRA does not support an assault weapon ban, so I don’t line up on that particular issue with the NRA, either does President Bush. He likewise says he supported an assault weapon ban. [This Week via Nexis, 2/18/07]

During a 2002 debate, gubernatorial candidate Romney declared, “We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them. I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.” [The Boston Globe, 1/14/07]

And he did exactly that as governor. In a July 1, 2004 press release titled “Romney Signs Off On Permanent Assault Weapons Ban,” Romney explained the rationale behind signing the ban into law, including his belief that assault weapons are “instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people”:

In a move that will help keep the streets and neighborhoods of Massachusetts safe, Governor Mitt Romney today signed into law a permanent assault weapons ban that forever makes it harder for criminals to get their hands on these dangerous guns.

“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony with legislators, sportsmen’s groups and gun safety advocates. “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

Like the federal assault weapons ban, the state ban, put in place in 1998, was scheduled to expire in September. The new law ensures these deadly weapons, including AK-47s, UZIs and Mac-10 rifles, are permanently prohibited in Massachusetts no matter what happens on the federal level.

The leading Massachusetts gun advocacy group, Gun Owners Action League (GOAL), was furious with Romney over the new law. Its own press release titled “Firearm Reform Bill Signed, Romney Takes Opportunity to Betray Gun Owners,” attacked Romney for lining up with Democratic gun violence prevention stalwarts Ted Kennedy and John Kerry on the assault weapons issue. GOAL encouraged its members “to contact Governor Mitt Romney and Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey and express their outrage with their betrayal of gun owners in Massachusetts.”

If voters are confused about Romney’s position on guns, the National Rifle Association is partly to blame. In a recent interview with the NRA, the gun rights organization did not press Romney to expand on his previous stances when he said, “I do not support any additional laws to restrict the right to keep and bear arms.”

Chris Cox, the NRA’s chief lobbyist, who interviewed Romney, asked leading questions such as, “As governor, you signed a major bill reforming Massachusetts’ gun registration and licensing laws. Some in the media and elsewhere claim this bill was a reauthorization of the semi-auto ban in Massachusetts. What’s your response?”

In response, Romney claimed that he was “proud to support legislation that expanded the rights of gun owners.”

When election time rolls around, gun owners are going to have a lot to watch out for.

 

[Yes4Prop215]

^yikes better get them now while their still available...


my fucking AK has been back ordered for over 2 months...getting very impatient.

 

[rives]

The other thing that came out during the debate that was very interesting was when Obama brought up the murder rate in Chicago and attributed it to handguns during the segment about "having a conversation" about tougher gun laws. The fact that handgun ownership was illegal in Chicago for 28 years until the Supremes overturned the law in 2010, and that they still have some of the most restrictive laws in the country apparently doesn't need to enter the "conversation".

http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/war...ma-romney-chicago-gun-violence-174503261.html

 

[Grant Holt]

The other thing that came out during the debate that was very interesting was when Obama brought up the murder rate in Chicago and attributed it to handguns during the segment about "having a conversation" about tougher gun laws. The fact that handgun ownership was illegal in Chicago for 28 years until the Supremes overturned the law in 2010, and that they still have some of the most restrictive laws in the country apparently doesn't need to enter the "conversation".

http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/war...ma-romney-chicago-gun-violence-174503261.html

from your link

"The president said issues of poverty and school violence, and more engagement from parents, could do more good than simply putting additional laws on the books."

Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/war...ago-gun-violence-174503261.html#ixzz29m0LPpgH

 

[rives]

from your link

"The president said issues of poverty and school violence, and more engagement from parents, could do more good than simply putting additional laws on the books."

Yep, I heard him say that too. However, politicians are far more effective at putting additional laws on the books than they are at dealing with the other issues that he enumerated.

 

[Grant Holt]

Yep, I heard him say that too. However, politicians are far more effective at putting additional laws on the books than they are at dealing with the other issues that he enumerated.

not really the number of gun laws passed as a president by Obama

is 0

This is great for gun sales though

 

[wantaknow]

to bad you dont get the big picture ,it will happen right after the collapes of the dollar ,go to you tube and type in cspan classifyed ,listen carfully to what the senitor is sayin ,list 2,3,4,times the more you listen the more you pickup ,a new constitution by the un?alreadin place!there going to use airborn what on ppeople who fight for the rightsas americans ,they will use airforce on civilains ?there is going to be a lot of dead americans at the hands of our goverment be ashured of that

 

[Grant Holt]

that video was made by the onion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EcRMpRfhQk


its a spoof on a zombie bill

http://www.theonion.com/video/proposed-classified-bill-will-defend-against-flesh,14175/

 

[wantaknow]

that onion lable was put on that c span video for deception of people like you ,i not throwing rocks at u either ,just sayin,read the captions below the video,this was recorded from c span it is not a spoof ,until the onion piced it up ,simply put it is damage control

 

[rives]

not really the number of gun laws passed as a president by Obama

is 0

So far. The concern is whether or not it stays that way.

 

[Relentless]

if someone wants to kill someone they will find a way.. car.. bomb.. etc..
they arent going to take away my guns..

 

[wantaknow]

i can remember when that label was not on that clip and it had the senitors right name on it ,heres one for you if you think google is not tracking your seaches get a few friends together everybody use google to look up say midel east issues ,and see who screen is athe same? no bodys will be alike ,weard huh, trust me when i say that video was tampered with

 

[redbudduckfoot]

the sky is falling

rbdf

 

[rives]

I think that it is ironic as hell when Democrats typify concerns such as this as absurd because it "hasn't happened yet". If that were a valid viewpoint, then why all of the anxiety about Romney potentially being elected? After all, none of your concerns have become reality yet. Additionally, he has proven himself pretty successful at dealing with an opposition majority, whereas Obama has dismally failed at it. In fact, about the only thing that Obama can point to as an accomplishment that originated within his tenure is the AHCA. Unfortunately, it was done under such partisan circumstances that it virtually guaranteed that he would never see an ounce of cooperation from the other party no matter how beneficial it might be.

The potential for more gun control laws at this point is a very minor issue in where my vote will be cast - it's very similar to the likelihood of either candidate legalizing mj. Both issues are important to me, but in the grand scheme of things, they pale to unimportance. It is, however, one of many factors that I will be factoring in.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I think that it is ironic as hell when Democrats typify concerns such as this as absurd because it "hasn't happened yet".

IMO, it's not that at all. It's that you equate an assault weapons ban to a weapons ban.

It's not unlike saying I should be able to run nitrous and a blower on my V8 and somebody says, no.

Oh, I can't have that? Next you'll take away my car!

 

[iampolluted]

this whole topic is a slippery slope fallacy augmented with scare tactics to sway, likely, right wing voters.

 

[rives]

IMO, it's not that at all. It's that you equate an assault weapons ban to a weapons ban.

It's not unlike saying I should be able to run nitrous and a blower on my V8 and somebody says, no.

Oh, I can't have that? Next you'll take away my car!

No, I wasn't talking about any type of weapon in particular - my point was that simply because Obama hasn't pushed any gun-related bill yet doesn't necessarily mean that he will continue in that vein. As the financial folks say, "Past performance is not a guarantee of future returns".

Personally, I'm not wild about the modern rendition of "assault rifles" and don't own anything that fits the popular description, but I do know a lot of people that enjoy punching paper with AR's, as well as varmint hunting. The big problem is that "assault rifle" is such a nebulous description that it is totally meaningless. A wooden-stocked Mini 14 (which I do own) is functionally identical to an AR, yet they don't seem to bother anyone.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Wow, I've got you mixed with the wrong demographic. My bad.