Obama: I am working on gun control under the radar”

[red states rule]

Working under the radar?

More transparency from the Obama administration







While the Obama administration said it is committed to gun rights, a gun control advocate has spilled the beans, saying Obama is using stealth to work on firearms restrictions.

The Washington Post did a story on Steve Crowley, the White House gun control czar. Crowley is considered to be an expert on regulation and tort law. His approach to gun control appears to be a regulatory one.

According to the article, Jim and Sarah Brady visited Capital Hill on March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan; to push for a ban on "large magazines."

The couple reportedly were meeting with press secretary, Jay Carney, when, according to Sarah Brady, the President came in. She said the President told her he wanted to talk about gun control and "fill us in that it was very much on his agenda."

She went on to say Obama told her, "I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."


http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=9614

[avatar4321]

You think this President cares about transparency?

[red states rule]

You think this President cares about transparency?

Everything the most transparent President in history has done up until now has been under the radar, behind closed doors, and slipped inside legislation at the last moment when nobody was looking

[SassyLady]

That's OK ... there are a lot of Americans working on this issue under the radar, too. It'll be interesting to see who gets the final say about it all.

[red states rule]

That's OK ... there are a lot of Americans working on this issue under the radar, too. It'll be interesting to see who gets the final say about it all.

We will in November 2012

[revelarts]

Another Stealth tactic. Bring gun control in through the treaty door.


Larry Bell

U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms
Jun. 7 2011 - 2:04 pm | 420,504 views | 1 recommendation | 47 comments


It may not come as surprising news to many of you that the United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment. Not one bit. And they very much hope to do something about it with help from some powerful American friends. Under the guise of a proposed global “Small Arms Treaty” premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates” you can be quite certain that an even more insidious threat is being targeted – our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.

What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail?...

http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/2011/06/07/u-n-agreement-should-have-all-gun-owners-up-in-arms/2/

[fj1200]

Wouldn't the constitution trump any treaty?

[CSM]

Wouldn't the constitution trump any treaty?

Once a treaty is ratified by the Senate it becomes the law of the land. That means the Supreme court would then have to get involved and rule that the treaty itself is unconstitutional. I would not want to see this country even begin to start that process and I sure would not hang my hat on the outcome determined by the SC we have now. Keep in mind that many in our government either ignore the Constitution altogether or twist it's rather clear verbage so much it becomes incomprehensible. There are some in our government that firmly believe that international law trumps our own Constitution as well. I, for one, have no desire to see this country governed by an international body such as the UN but there are those who work to that end every day.

[revelarts]

Wouldn't the constitution trump any treaty?

Well constitution says:
Article 6
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Both the left and right have noted this passage when in favor of some Otherwise un-Constitutional aspect of a Treaty that they want to implement.

ANd FJ, when has the constitution stopped much anything lately?

[fj1200]

Well constitution says:
Article 6
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Both the left and right have noted this passage when in favor of some Otherwise un-Constitutional aspect of a Treaty that they want to implement.

ANd FJ, when has the constitution stopped much anything lately?

National failings re: the Constitution aside, your excerpt puts laws and treaties on the same footing making laws and treaties subject to Constitutional muster.

[revelarts]

National failings re: the Constitution aside, your excerpt puts laws and treaties on the same footing making laws and treaties subject to Constitutional muster.

I agree. it seems pretty clear to me that's the way it reads as well. if you look at the intent re the founders writing's, even moreso. Leaving nat'l failings aside there' should be no question.


http://www.mikenew.com/treaties.html

[J.T]

Expect them to user the new AQ video as an excuse to further crack down on firearms.

Can't have the populace able to defend itself, now.

[gabosaurus]

With all the radical gun nuts out there, why would any politician approach gun control on the record?

[red states rule]

With all the radical gun nuts out there, why would any politician approach gun control on the record?

We all know which one Gabby would be :laugh2:


Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Southerner?
Here is a little test that will help you decide.

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife
And two small children.

Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife
Comes around the corner,
Locks eyes with you,
Screams obscenities, praises
Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you...

You are carrying a
Kimber 1911 cal. 45 ACP, and you are an expert shot.
You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.
What do you do?

Democrat's Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!
Does the man look poor or oppressed?
Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
Could we run away?
What does my wife think?
What about the kids?
Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
What does the law say about this situation?
Does the pistol have appropriate safety built into it?
Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?
Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?
If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?
Should I call 9-1-1?
Why is this street so deserted?
We need to raise taxes, have paint & weed day.
Can we make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior?
I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and try to come to a consensus.
This is all so confusing!

.............................................
Republican's Answer:

BANG!


.........................................



Southerner's Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
BANG ! BANG! BANG! BANG!
Click..... (Sounds of reloading)
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
BANG!
BANG!
BANG!
Click

Daughter: 'Nice grouping, Daddy!'
'Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?! '

Son: 'Can I shoot the next one?!'

Wife: 'You ain't taking that to the Taxidermist!

[DragonStryk72]

With all the radical gun nuts out there, why would any politician approach gun control on the record?

Name one "radical gun control nut" you know, and define what makes them a nut.

[J.T]

Name one "radical gun control nut" you know, and define what makes them a nut.
1)Whoever put forth the D.C. gun ban idea

2)They think criminals obey anti-gun laws

[revelarts]

With all the radical gun nuts out there, why would any politician approach gun control on the record?

Why would any honest representative of the people try to hide his public duties?

Is he there because he thinks he knows whats best for the poor ignerant masses?
or sumthin?

[red states rule]

Why would any honest representative of the people try to hide his public duties?

Is he there because he thinks he knows whats best for the poor ignerant masses?
or sumthin?

If the representative is a liberal and running for national offcie - they have to if they want to have any chance of winning

[TheShadowKNows]

Working under the radar?

More transparency from the Obama administration

This is nothing new on the wish list of bam bams intentions to eventually bring us all under strict government regulations. He originally initiated a three pronged approach to complete confiscation of private ownership of firearms.
The first was more or less an "in your face" attempt by supporting random attacks regarding excessive taxes on ammunition, pressure on local police dept's. to "stall" pistol purchase permits ( sometimes up to a year ), maligning statistics ( an oldie but goodie ), ETC. ETC. ETC.. While literally sticking a magnifying glass up the ass of the N.R.A., as to find ANYTHING even remotely nefarious in their day to day operations. Ostensibly using the manufactured findings to spearhead a campaign of demagoguery. This fiasco was stalled by all the inherent problems that have/are/will plague bammys admin. from the onset.
Second is the aforementioned attack on the Constitution. Programmed by one of his Czars, and banking heavily on the litany of activist judges that have been appointed, beginning with the Clinton admin.. Culminating with bammys appointment of Sodameyier ( forgive the spelling ) to the Supreme Court, as a hopeful deciding vote.
Lastly is by far the most insidiousness of the triumvirate, for we as Americans, will have no way to stop the machinery once it is in place. That being the inclusion of the United States in the "New World Order". As membership will indelibly bind all Countries therein to abide within the dictates of the rules/laws set forth. While the elimination of private ownership of firearms is a given priority on their "bucket list".
While none of this is "news" to those close to the subject, nonetheless it is all still a bitter pill to swallow. The good news is if gun owners employ the same tactics as we have in the past, that being applying pressure whenever and wherever we can. There is a distinct possibility that combined with all the problems confronting bammy, pursuing gun control to any degree may be "overstepping" his manpower, authority, and time limitations.
MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON US ALL

[fj1200]

That being the inclusion of the United States in the "New World Order".

Oh geez.

[TheShadowKNows]

Oh geez.

Don't let it scare you. You are welcome to hide in my cellar.
PS: You can bring Kathianne with you.

[fj1200]

Don't let it scare you. You are welcome to hide in my cellar.
PS: You can bring Kathianne with you.

Why would the ravings of a lunatic scare me? And why would I want to hide in his cellar?

[TheShadowKNows]

Why would the ravings of a lunatic scare me? And why would I want to hide in his cellar?

Because you're paranoid enough to respond negatively to my thread, that you no doubt are incapable of understanding. While being dumb enough not to realize that you make your fear and ignorance obvious.
As far as the mantle of "Lunatic" goes, I yield to the expert on that subject.
HAVE A NICE DAY
PS: You can still bring your cheerleader Kathianne with you.

[Kathianne]

Because you're paranoid enough to respond negatively to my thread, that you no doubt are incapable of understanding. While being dumb enough not to realize that you make your fear and ignorance obvious.
As far as the mantle of "Lunatic" goes, I yield to the expert on that subject.
HAVE A NICE DAY
PS: You can still bring your cheerleader Kathianne with you.

You're really hung up on me, no? Why? That I agreed with someone that thinks you posted a rant? Well you did.

[fj1200]

Because you're paranoid enough to respond negatively to my thread, that you no doubt are incapable of understanding. While being dumb enough not to realize that you make your fear and ignorance obvious.
As far as the mantle of "Lunatic" goes, I yield to the expert on that subject.
HAVE A NICE DAY
PS: You can still bring your cheerleader Kathianne with you.

:laugh: You should reread your post and then double check the definition of paranoid. Might want to look into "understanding," "ignorance," etc., as well.

Oh, and glad you caught on to my subtlety as well, I was afraid it would go right past you.

I gave a "cheerleader" thanks to Kathianne too.

[J.T]

Oh geez.
2171

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=301325
http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/EloquentBlue/misc/pencil.png

[red states rule]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5P9rZXcXhtw/TVkmwbLCl9I/AAAAAAAAC94/-0GpSPocEVU/s400/gun%2Bcontrol.jpg

[TheShadowKNows]

:laugh: You should reread your post and then double check the definition of paranoid. Might want to look into "understanding," "ignorance," etc., as well.

Oh, and glad you caught on to my subtlety as well, I was afraid it would go right past you.

I gave a "cheerleader" thanks to Kathianne too.

I've come to the conclusion that some of the words, not to mention the concepts that I've been expousing, have become a victim of the obvious gap in your education.
I'll try to work with you, and your cheerleader as best as I can, time permitting. Now lets begin with commonly used words with simpler definitions, such as R-E-F-R-I-G-E-R-A-T-O-R. ( The big white appliance in the kitchen that your mommy keeps all her perishable foods in )
That'll be your homework assignment for now. Please take your time, and let me know when you have mastered the above. I will then repeat the process until I believe that you have been brought up to speed with the "Adults" within our community.
HAVE A NICE DAY

[TheShadowKNows]

You're really hung up on me, no? Why? That I agreed with someone that thinks you posted a rant? Well you did.

Every post on this, and every other forum on the web that has more than one paragraph, could be considered a rant. There are "interesting" rants and there are "Boring" rants. While there are also rants that completely, totally, and mercilessly disprove your individual political, intellectual, and emotional ideology, in going beyond your limitations for emotional peace of mind.
As what has happend here is an obvious case of insulting your sensibilities. That being for the most part, how much negativity ( albeit; truth ) you can absorb in the course of the day, and lay your head on the pillow at night and fall to sleep. No doubt that I "crossed" your threshold in so talking about the "New World Order".
While trying to discredit my premise through the usual means of "lumping" it in with "conspiracy theories", wasn't sufficient to make BAD MAN GO WAY. You then joined in unison with another wass of your Ilk, seeking desperately to demagogue me and my theories. If only to be able to get to sleep at night, by allowing yourself intellectually to disprove my offerings.
The solution is simple if not easily attainable. GROW UP !!!!!!!!!!!!!
As the word "Liberal" ( regardless as to what you call yourself ) keeps coming to mind. If only because the unavoidable facsimile of immature, cowardly, and self serving behavior, appear to be closer to the surface of your psychic than you would want to believe they are.
HAVE A NICE DAY

[revelarts]

I for one think It was a good post Shadow. But that won't get far with FJ and Kath. A few of my comments have rated the conspiracy wall of shame here a time or 2.
But "New World Order" hmmmm.. that's just crazy conspiracy jargon... um
except when Bush 1 and W used it... and Kissinger used it and Obama and and Harper and Blair and Brown. It's euphemism for a full blown globalism. International laws, global new deal, North American Union, global institutions, Global governance , Global currency etc etc etc..

I mean c'mon folks, You all know even Lou Dobbs covered some of this "new world Order" type stuff. When exposing the some of the open broader policy sources.
There are people in politics that want it. the exact mechanics of the goal is kinda blurry and diffused even among the folks working toward it , IMO, but the goal is real. Not some conspiracy fantasy. Not by a far piece. Sure It's Unlikely top of mind for most in gov't but we're lurching towards this Global crap every month.

You can't, with any credibility, just dismiss it with a Snide remark and a roll of the eyes. That's just being willingly in the dark on this global governance theme of some on left, and some high muc-ka-ti-muc power broker allies.

Good post Shadow and welcome to the board. Or is it Welcome back? seems like some of the new players know each other.

[TheShadowKNows]

I for one think It was a good post Shadow. But that won't get far with FJ and Kath. A few of my comments have rated the conspiracy wall of shame here a time or 2.
But "New World Order" hmmmm.. that's just crazy conspiracy jargon... um
except when Bush 1 and W used it... and Kissinger used it and Obama and and Harper and Blair and Brown. It's euphemism for a full blown globalism. International laws, global new deal, North American Union, global institutions, Global governance , Global currency etc etc etc..

I mean c'mon folks, You all know even Lou Dobbs covered some of this "new world Order" type stuff. When exposing the some of the open broader policy sources.
There are people in politics that want it. the exact mechanics of the goal is kinda blurry and diffused even among the folks working toward it , IMO, but the goal is real. Not some conspiracy fantasy. Not by a far piece. Sure It's Unlikely top of mind for most in gov't but we're lurching towards this Global crap every month.

You can't, with any credibility, just dismiss it with a Snide remark and a roll of the eyes. That's just being willingly in the dark on this global governance theme of some on left, and some high muc-ka-ti-muc power broker allies.

Good post Shadow and welcome to the board. Or is it Welcome back? seems like some of the new players know each other.

Thanx for the breather revelarts. I find it to be far less exhausting when debating "smart" people regardless of their position, than morons who don't know a damn thing.
As someone once said; ( I am paraphrasing ) " The greatest swordsman in France, isn't worried about entering into a duel with the second greatest swordsman. But he is very apprehensive as to dueling with an amateur".
Good post and thanx again, I really like where you are coming from. Couldn't have said it better myself.
PS: Is that Randy Roddy Piper in the insert?

[J.T]

seems like some of the new players know each other.
Another board many here might be familiar with is seeing a small exodus of sorts as a result of recent issues with the board administration and some security concerns. A number of the refugees have come here seeking asylum.


It's kinda like the Reconquista...

[revelarts]

Thanx for the breather revelarts. I...
PS: Is that Randy Roddy Piper in the insert?

No Problemo,
But FJ and Kath are good peoples, no need for name calling.
(they still might call you crazy though)

And yep that Rowdy Roddy Pipper, finding it hard to believe what he sees.

[fj1200]

2171

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=301325
http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/EloquentBlue/misc/pencil.png

Is that supposed to be a smoking gun? :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

I've come to the conclusion that some of the words, not to mention the concepts that I've been expousing, have become a victim of the obvious gap in your education.
I'll try to work with you, and your cheerleader as best as I can, time permitting. Now lets begin with commonly used words with simpler definitions, such as R-E-F-R-I-G-E-R-A-T-O-R. ( The big white appliance in the kitchen that your mommy keeps all her perishable foods in )
That'll be your homework assignment for now. Please take your time, and let me know when you have mastered the above. I will then repeat the process until I believe that you have been brought up to speed with the "Adults" within our community.
HAVE A NICE DAY

The concepts you've been espousing? :laugh: You've made 10 frickin' posts and from what I've seen you don't have the ability to follow up other than to denigrate ignorantly. :laugh:

You know nothing of me or my education so unless you have something more than paranoid rantings wrapped in blither, don't bother replying to my posts... although I do love a good online debate, right Rev?

[fj1200]

Every post on this, and every other forum on the web that has more than one paragraph, could be considered a rant. There are "interesting" rants and there are "Boring" rants. While there are also rants that completely, totally, and mercilessly disprove your individual political, intellectual, and emotional ideology, in going beyond your limitations for emotional peace of mind.
As what has happend here is an obvious case of insulting your sensibilities. That being for the most part, how much negativity ( albeit; truth ) you can absorb in the course of the day, and lay your head on the pillow at night and fall to sleep. No doubt that I "crossed" your threshold in so talking about the "New World Order".
While trying to discredit my premise through the usual means of "lumping" it in with "conspiracy theories", wasn't sufficient to make BAD MAN GO WAY. You then joined in unison with another wass of your Ilk, seeking desperately to demagogue me and my theories. If only to be able to get to sleep at night, by allowing yourself intellectually to disprove my offerings.
The solution is simple if not easily attainable. GROW UP !!!!!!!!!!!!!
As the word "Liberal" ( regardless as to what you call yourself ) keeps coming to mind. If only because the unavoidable facsimile of immature, cowardly, and self serving behavior, appear to be closer to the surface of your psychic than you would want to believe they are.
HAVE A NICE DAY

:laugh: Quoted for the pure comedy of it.

[fj1200]

I for one think It was a good post Shadow. But that won't get far with FJ and Kath. A few of my comments have rated the conspiracy wall of shame here a time or 2.
But "New World Order" hmmmm.. that's just crazy conspiracy jargon... um
except when Bush 1 and W used it... and Kissinger used it and Obama and and Harper and Blair and Brown. It's euphemism for a full blown globalism. International laws, global new deal, North American Union, global institutions, Global governance , Global currency etc etc etc..

No rev, YOU make a good post. I don't agree with much of your interpretations, and you me of course, but it's all good fun and the spirit of debate. I don't waste my time on NWO stuff but wouldn't the Bushes need to have a gun ban as a goal to be wrapped in the same blanket as the others mentioned? Seems to be a dichotomy in the logic.

[fj1200]

And yep that Rowdy Roddy Pipper, finding it hard to believe what he sees.

Wow I didn't recognize him. I have, however, been having my own They Live moment in this thread. ;)

[red states rule]

Look who is for more gun laws. All guns should be illegal according to this guy

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ngsKzdKNAmo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[TheShadowKNows]

No rev, YOU make a good post. I don't agree with much of your interpretations, and you me of course, but it's all good fun and the spirit of debate. I don't waste my time on NWO stuff but wouldn't the Bushes need to have a gun ban as a goal to be wrapped in the same blanket as the others mentioned? Seems to be a dichotomy in the logic.

The above statement proves what I've been saying about your short-sighted approach to the subject. Why would the Bushes "need" to expouse in favor of gun control, ( especially since a large demographic of both of their constitutes were 2nd. Amendment advocates ) when ultimately the NWO will supersede international laws, that will include all of those concerned.
PS: How are your "lessons" coming along?

[TheShadowKNows]

The concepts you've been espousing? :laugh: You've made 10 frickin' posts and from what I've seen you don't have the ability to follow up other than to denigrate ignorantly. :laugh:

You know nothing of me or my education so unless you have something more than paranoid rantings wrapped in blither, don't bother replying to my posts... although I do love a good online debate, right Rev?

My advice to you is hold your breath till' your face turns blue, no doubt it's worked for you before. :poke:

[fj1200]

The above statement proves what I've been saying about your short-sighted approach to the subject. Why would the Bushes "need" to expouse in favor of gun control, ( especially since a large demographic of both of their constitutes were 2nd. Amendment advocates ) when ultimately the NWO will supersede international laws, that will include all of those concerned.
PS: How are your "lessons" coming along?

Don't know much about the Constitution do you? Also, complete, coherent sentences with proper spelling would be helpful, must be tough with your nose that high in the air though.


My advice to you is hold your breath till' your face turns blue, no doubt it's worked for you before. :poke:

You don't really add much to the conversation around here. You make me yearn for the days of Palin Rider and SpidermanTuba. They, liberals by the way, would actually attempt to make arguments to support their position, you made one paranoid blitheristic post and spend the rest of the time acting like you have a clue.

[Kathianne]

Don't know much about the Constitution do you? Also, complete, coherent sentences with proper spelling would be helpful, must be tough with your nose that high in the air though.



You don't really add much to the conversation around here. You make me yearn for the days of Palin Rider and SpidermanTuba. They, liberals by the way, would actually attempt to make arguments to support their position, you made one paranoid blitheristic post and spend the rest of the time acting like you have a clue.

Perfect response to an inane poster. Thanks. I'm still trying to figure out why RSR thanked him for a post, a most incomprehensible post!

[TheShadowKNows]

Perfect response to an inane poster. Thanks. I'm still trying to figure out why RSR thanked him for a post, a most incomprehensible post!

I can't believe that I spent most of my life spending a great deal of money in the interim, for the various forms of entertainment that I pursued. The fact that your responses to my posts are lame by anyone's standards above the age of 12, we'll put aside for the moment.
As the point of my post is the plethora of unententional humor that you project with one asinine statement after another. The fact that you cannot understand my offerings, does not negate them to those who can. Just because they tend to be above your intellectual capacity, and therby trigger your ego which controls your fear, resulting in the need to "strike back" ( although ineffectively ).
Somewhere between the two of you I find myself instinctively beginning to put a "Care" package together, as your stupidity begins to border on pathetic, and raises a level of empathy beyond the norm. But I stop myself at that point, and concentrate on the consistent humor produced by your feeble attempt to "answer" my charges within the limited capacity of your arrested development.
HAVE A NICE DAY

[fj1200]

... feeble attempt to "answer" my charges within the limited capacity of your arrested development.

You can't even put a paragraph together that presents a coherent argument. Most people will follow up a ranty post like yours with further evidence and argument but your complete inability to do so tells me more than your feeble attacks on those that challenge you.

[Kathianne]

You can't even put a paragraph together that presents a coherent argument. Most people will follow up a ranty post like yours with further evidence and argument but your complete inability to do so tells me more than your feeble attacks on those that challenge you.

Lead sentence:


I can't believe that I spent most of my life spending a great deal of money in the interim, for the various forms of entertainment that I pursued.Huh?

[fj1200]

Lead sentence:

Huh?

I thought the same thing. I guess hookers and blow to excess take their toll.

I was curious though how much red ink that you, as a teacher, would have marked up on his paper if he had handed it in? Would there be any white space left?

[revelarts]

uh .. err... Cough... um anyway...


....I don't waste my time on NWO stuff but wouldn't the Bushes need to have a gun ban as a goal to be wrapped in the same blanket as the others mentioned? Seems to be a dichotomy in the logic.

FJ, the Bushes were not hardy gun right supporters, Both were for less guns, just not as rabid or outspoken as many on the left.


Pres. George W. Bush, endorsed by the NRA as a Republican candidate in 2000, said during that campaign he would support an extension of the weapons ban, but hasn't pressed the issue while in office. The NRA withheld its support from his father, former Pres. George H. W. Bush in a lost re-election bid against Bill Clinton. George H.W. Bush had supported the ban of some semi-automatic rifles as well as other gun control efforts. In fact, since 1980, no Republican has won the highest office without the endorsement of the powerful gun lobby.

A White House spokeswoman said just prior to the ban expiring that President Bush would still sign an extension if Congress could pass it. But Democratic leaders and ban supporters criticized the president for not doing enough to push the issue with key congressional leaders....

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/july-dec04/assaultban_9-13_printout.html

No dichotomy there, just shorter steps to the goal of Gun control.
You may give W the benefit of the doubt here, saying that he was playing politics. but that make him no better than the politicians Gab has described as "hiding their real intentions".
And i think he would have extended the ban just as he said during his campaign. Neither Bush had any great love of the constitution that i can see.

[TheShadowKNows]

uh .. err... Cough... um anyway...



FJ, the Bushes were not hardy gun right supporters, Both were for less guns, just not as rabid or outspoken as many on the left.



http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/july-dec04/assaultban_9-13_printout.html

No dichotomy there, just shorter steps to the goal of Gun control.
You may give W the benefit of the doubt here, saying that he was playing politics. but that make him no better than the politicians Gab has described as "hiding their real intentions".
And i think he would have extended the ban just as he said during his campaign. Neither Bush had any great love of the constitution that i can see.

Thanx for the incisive post Revelarts. In more ways than one. First it solidifies what an ignoramous he is, in the most blatant terms regarding the facts of his false contentions concerning the Bush's.
But secondly and most importantly, it proves what a flaming hypocrite that he also actually is. In so much as blaming me for not following up on my assertions, with the "proof" that you have shown him to sorely lack.

[TheShadowKNows]

I thought the same thing. I guess hookers and blow to excess take their toll.

I was curious though how much red ink that you, as a teacher, would have marked up on his paper if he had handed it in? Would there be any white space left?

Well what do you know, another Charlie Sheen Wannabe. Sorry lad but your dreams of "the good life", will forever remain dreams. You see mortimer, what you need to "be" Charlie ( in spite of his current downward spiral ) is everything that you don't have.
Talent, Good Looks, "CLASS", Intelligence, and the gift of "Jole D' Fare". The man has lived his life as he wanted to, and took no prisoners. Which takes an abundance of courage, another attribute that you can only aspire to.
So go back to the closet, ( and make sure Mom isn't home ) with your collection of Playboys, and a ready supply of batteries, and let it all hang out. For your dreams of "hookers and blow", will always be dreams.

PS: If your comrade Kathianne is a teacher and belongs to that GOD awful teachers union. Then maybe she should take a long and hard look at herself. For "Selling" out your Country on promises from bammy that she will be "excluded" from the forthcoming carnage that his economic policies are bringing about. Tells me that she should become a "pupil" instead of a teacher, for she has a whole bunch to learn............A WHOLE BUNCH

HAVE A NICE DAY

[TheShadowKNows]

Perfect response to an inane poster. Thanks. I'm still trying to figure out why RSR thanked him for a post, a most incomprehensible post!

The sum total of things that you cannot "figure out", would probably have given Einstein a nervous breakdown, 5 minutes off the starting line.
HAVE A NICE DAY

[red states rule]

Support your local carjacker and demand more gun laws

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zPwZeWOZ8JU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[fj1200]

uh .. err... Cough... um anyway...

:laugh:


FJ, the Bushes were not hardy gun right supporters, Both were for less guns, just not as rabid or outspoken as many on the left.

No dichotomy there, just shorter steps to the goal of Gun control.
You may give W the benefit of the doubt here, saying that he was playing politics. but that make him no better than the politicians Gab has described as "hiding their real intentions".
And i think he would have extended the ban just as he said during his campaign. Neither Bush had any great love of the constitution that i can see.

Not exactly the smoking gun you're looking for IMO especially considering the original rant that set all this off, the three-pronged attack and all.

[fj1200]

Thanx for the incisive post Revelarts. In more ways than one. First it solidifies what an ignoramous he is, in the most blatant terms regarding the facts of his false contentions concerning the Bush's.
But secondly and most importantly, it proves what a flaming hypocrite that he also actually is. In so much as blaming me for not following up on my assertions, with the "proof" that you have shown him to sorely lack.

First of all I didn't make an assertion, I asked a question. As soon as you learn what a "?" is then I suppose a rousing debate would be in order because so far you haven't been able to actually engage in one. Rev is the one who is doing the heavy lifting for your so called intellect. Being able to back up your own argument rather than cheerleading a far superior debater than you would at least be a step in the right direction.

I must laugh however that in your own post you acknowledge that you lack any capability to follow up your own arguments. Sad really.


Well what do you know, another Charlie Sheen Wannabe. Sorry lad but your dreams of "the good life", will forever remain dreams. You see mortimer, what you need to "be" Charlie ( in spite of his current downward spiral ) is everything that you don't have.
Talent, Good Looks, "CLASS", Intelligence, and the gift of "Jole D' Fare". The man has lived his life as he wanted to, and took no prisoners. Which takes an abundance of courage, another attribute that you can only aspire to.
So go back to the closet, ( and make sure Mom isn't home ) with your collection of Playboys, and a ready supply of batteries, and let it all hang out. For your dreams of "hookers and blow", will always be dreams.

PS: If your comrade Kathianne is a teacher and belongs to that GOD awful teachers union. Then maybe she should take a long and hard look at herself. For "Selling" out your Country on promises from bammy that she will be "excluded" from the forthcoming carnage that his economic policies are bringing about. Tells me that she should become a "pupil" instead of a teacher, for she has a whole bunch to learn............A WHOLE BUNCH

HAVE A NICE DAY

You want to be Charlie Sheen? That would explain your complete lack of being able to build a solid argument to defend your rant, err, position. :rolleyes: I do however think you have attained "Sheen status" as your laughing stock creds are pretty well locked up.

[red states rule]

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ymrNz_liYhU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[TheShadowKNows]

First of all I didn't make an assertion, I asked a question. As soon as you learn what a "?" is then I suppose a rousing debate would be in order because so far you haven't been able to actually engage in one. Rev is the one who is doing the heavy lifting for your so called intellect. Being able to back up your own argument rather than cheerleading a far superior debater than you would at least be a step in the right direction.

I must laugh however that in your own post you acknowledge that you lack any capability to follow up your own arguments. Sad really.



You want to be Charlie Sheen? That would explain your complete lack of being able to build a solid argument to defend your rant, err, position. :rolleyes: I do however think you have attained "Sheen status" as your laughing stock creds are pretty well locked up.

Why would I attempt to waste my time debating a completely clueless wannabe such as yourself? You proved beyond any doubt by your immediate dismissal of my contention of the "NWO". Proving that the premise is not only above your ability to comprehend, but further goes to prove the immaturity of your psyche in showing the instantaneous "Fear" that it produces in your arrested emotional development.
Question in point as to this "debate" I am "avoiding", would be your above response to my previous posts. While mumbling through several paragraphs, and saying absolutely nothing, you then "Pat" yourself on the back as if the empty offering was up for a Nobel Prize.
Delusional is the first word that comes to mind, but if I search the depths of Freuds "Interpretation of Dreams" I'm sure there must be a more appropriate label. As not only have you failed to make a legitimate criticism of anything that I have posted on this thread. But your delusions are sophmoric at best, and quite frankly pathetic at the worst. As never being able to specify any of your nefarious charges being the least of your empty accusations.
While "creating" a disasterous scenario for my opinions of you and the Ilk that supports you, is part n' parcel of the paranoid delusion that exists only in the recesses of your limited intellect.
BTW Mortimer, Trying to aim the Charlie Sheen "gun" at me, is more proof of your inability to be creative, introspective, inventive, or even pungently humorous.
HAVE A NICE DAY

[TheShadowKNows]

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ymrNz_liYhU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I've been fighting for the Second Amendment for just about 40 years now. Preaching, and repreaching to anyone who would listen with any degree of objectivity. From every plausible angle that I believed might penetrate their "learned emotional resistance".
As the point you have made with the videos you posted was always in my repertoire. Explaining in minute detail the reality that anyone with aggressive unlawful intent, will not as a usual matter of course, bother anyone who is armed ( extreme psychosis being the only recognizable exception ).
If I received a favorable response. Which I considered at least to sense them beginning to question their negative stance. I would then suggest that they take the time to read, what I consider one of the most definitive works on private ownership of firearms. The accumulated findings of Professor Gary Kleck, of Florida State University ( a card carrying member of the A.C.L.U. ).
Starting out in his quest to "prove" that the perpetuation of private gun ownership was an ongoing bane on our society, resulting in "innocent" deaths on a regular basis. As the project was sponsored by left wing zealots, who needed reinforcement for proposed new restrictive gun legislation.
Gathering what I believe were 6 very extensive previous statictical reports on the subject, and using them as the basis for his study. He then researched the subject from every angle imagineable to insure verifiability, and came up with the following results.
On average nationwide an individual saves life, and or property, 1 million times per year, sometimes by the mere presence of a firearm.
Needless to say that his benefactors were not happy with the results, and sent him back for more testing. While after retracing his stats, and re-examining his findings he did conclude that he was in error. But the new results were even more of a disappointment to his supporters, in so much as he then stated that 1.5 million times a year were the true figures.
After much haggling back and forth and Kleck refusing to "fudge" the results, they sent him about one more time. But as luck would have it the news got even worse. Now he found another error in his research, and brought the numbers up to 2.5 million times per year.
In total disgust they abandoned the project, wrote the cost off, and hoped that the media did not pick up on the fiasco. While unfortunately the N.R.A. heard of it, and made him an advocate of the Second Amendment, posting his findings on their web site.
The moral of the story is as I always said; "There is a GOD !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[fj1200]

Why would I attempt...

I thought I'd wait a day to see if rev would fight your argument for you. Nope. But kudos for bringing up Charlie Sheen on a political forum. :rolleyes: