Obama is "willing to bet"

[drgrant]

i posted asking for examples on how Obama was anti-gun.......and rather than actually supply examples....you people went on a several page rant claiming i am a know nothing sheepish fool.........

I was going to refrain from commenting, because I figured you would keep bloviating, but I'll play for a minute here.

He nominated this guy, that's all you really need to know. (IIRC Holder is probably one of the top ten anti gun AG's this country has ever seen)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Holder

If Obama was concerned about someone's gun rights, why would he nominate people like Holder and this new guy Traver (for the ATF post)? They're both 110% antis. Anyone who isn't an anti, would not put people like that in positions where they could influence the rights of gun owners.

That's just the tip of the iceberg, too.

-Mike

 

[jarhead66]

.........did you bother to read the article.....or just see 'Obama' and 'gun control' and immediately form an opinion.


now im not a fan of Obama by any means......but at least hes making an attempt to be somewhat reasonable.....

"A reasonable man adapts himself to his surroundings. An unreasonable man adapts his surroundings to himself. All progress depends upon unreasonable men." George Bernard Shaw.

A right is simply that, a right. A right is not something a politician grants you. It is something a politician can't take away. When it comes to ANY voilations of my rights, I get real unreasonable, unreasonably fast.

 

[JuergenG]

@OP
In my country it started with "reasonable restrictions" and registration of all privately possessed firearms in 1972.
From there the salami went smaller and smaller with each slice cut off of our rights with every new round of firearms legislation. Whenever a crazy guy snapped, the screws have been tightened another pitch or two.
The current "wishes" of the left/green politicos have now arrived at
- no big bore firearms in any private dwelling
- no ammunition in any private dwelling
- prohibition of target shooting with anything bigger than a .22 or a double
barreled shotgun = "Olympic" competitions only
- prohibition of any "dynamic" shooting, whereas firing a shot while not having
both feet on the ground is prohibited for sport shooters already

Is this, what you would call "reasonable" ?
Don't think so, but that's the ultimate goal of IANSA and the notorious gun
grabbers influenced by them.
You'd better be happy that the RKBA has been manifested into a Constitutional Amendmend in your country.

 

[Mcameron]

I was going to refrain from commenting, because I figured you would keep bloviating, but I'll play for a minute here.

He nominated this guy, that's all you really need to know. (IIRC Holder is probably one of the top ten anti gun AG's this country has ever seen)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Holder

If Obama was concerned about someone's gun rights, why would he nominate people like Holder and this new guy Traver (for the ATF post)? They're both 110% antis. Anyone who isn't an anti, would not put people like that in positions where they could influence the rights of gun owners.

That's just the tip of the iceberg, too

which you are just getting around to posting now.......

i dont know if its because you people are so used to having everyone around here agree with eachother......but when someone has a differing opinion...you people dont know how to react...

...thats the point i am trying to get at...............thats the point ive been trying to get at this entire time.

 

[Mike S]

Hey Mcameron.

Get your head around this, it's not "anti-gun" any more than drunk driving laws are "anti-car"

It's ANTI CIVIL RIGHTS.

What part of "shall not be infringed" are you having a hard time with?

Obama and his anti civil rights ilk objectify guns as being evil objects, hence "anti-gun", "illegal weapon", and other such catch phrases that the left love to use.

The only thing they want to do is take away our means of protecting freedom, should we give an inch they will take a foot, don't believe me? Go back and study history, or as Juergen posts above study what is happening-has happened in europe

 

[drgrant]

i dont know if its because you people are so used to having everyone around here agree with eachother......but when someone has a differing opinion...you people dont know how to react...

I think the problem is that when someone comes onto a gun forum (especially one where 85% of the user base leans heavily towards the libertarian-right side of the spectrum) and tries to tell people that Obama isn't an anti, those people will rightly react by calling him a troll, because the assertion that Obama isn't an anti, on it's face, is so flamingly stupid that it is mind numbing. So far yet you haven't come up with a compelling argument that he isn't an anti, other than by telling us we should give him the benefit of the doubt, aside from the fact that his actions have already demonstrated that he basically talks out of both sides of his mouth on the issue.

-Mike

 

[Boghog1]

Hey Mcameron.

Get your head around this, it's not "anti-gun" any more than drunk driving laws are "anti-car"

It's ANTI CIVIL RIGHTS.

What part of "shall not be infringed" are you having a hard time with?

Obama and his anti civil rights ilk objectify guns as being evil objects, hence "anti-gun", "illegal weapon", and other such catch phrases that the left love to use.

The only thing they want to do is take away our means of protecting freedom, should we give an inch they will take a foot, don't believe me? Go back and study history, or as Juergen posts above study what is happening-has happened in europe

my guess would be the "not" part

 

[TimMcG74]

i dont know if its because you people are so used to having everyone around here agree with eachother......but when someone has a differing opinion...you people dont know how to react...

Wrong, and that's a feeble attempt to turn the tables on those who have proven you to be an ill informed nitwit. There is a great deal of thoughtful debate on NES, although you're clearly not engaged in any of it. People like you are attacked here because you don't offer anything that resembles a substantive argument. You've been treated dismissively because you repeatedly defended the positions of an on the record anti-gun President on a forum comprised of firearms enthusiasts, and you evidently expect people to validate your argument by engaging in polite debate. That is foolish. Say outrageous things and you’ll generate outrage. As far as I am concerned, you got the treatment you deserved. Don't blame others because you can't deal with the consequences of your words.

 

[richc]

Mcameron must be

a) the dumbest person in the world
b) the most naive person in the world
c) a DU troll

If he takes Obama at his word

As my Dad used to say, "You can lead a horse's ass to water, but you can't make him think."

+1 Jose.

 

[Bob P]

you see, i knew some of you could do it....

....now stop with all the 12 year old name calling ( we are all adults afterall, start acting like it) and you might actually get good at this debating thing.

you people need to realize that by harrasing people, calling names, and posting stupid pictures have never changed anyones opinion on anything....ever....thats just going to make people hate you and listen to you even less

you need to express a convincing arguement in a level headed manor.

if you people cant even pose a convining arguement to me....how the hell do you expect to convince people who actually think obama is in the right and actually agree with what he says.

What's all this 'you people' stuff? Sounds racist to me.

 

[Mcameron]

you people still dont get it.....

im trying to help you understand...that you can not act the way you have in this thread...and have people take you seriously



that has been the entire purpose of every one of posts....


ive observed that "gun people" cant debate at all......everyone goes to the "what part of shall not be infringed....." or the "these are god given rights....."

and look where its gotten you........not very far......the anti gun crowd have heard all those before.....they arent going to change thier minds just because you say them again, or start yelling at them....


there are hundreds of reasons supporting but you people are 'to tired' or 'stoped trying' or 'dont care enough' to use them


so you can continue to go ahead, waste your time and get mad at me if you want....im not the one you have to convince.

 

[Supermoto]

you people still dont get it.....



and look where its gotten you........not very far......the anti gun crowd have heard all those before.....they arent going to change thier minds just because you say them again, or start yelling at them....


there are hundreds of reasons supporting but you people are 'to tired' or 'stoped trying' or 'dont care enough' to use them


.im not the one you have to convince.

We haven't gotten very far because of FUDDs like you.

 

[Bob P]

you people still dont get it.....

im trying to help you understand...that you can not act the way you have in this thread...and have people take you seriously



that has been the entire purpose of every one of posts....


ive observed that "gun people" cant debate at all......everyone goes to the "what part of shall not be infringed....." or the "these are god given rights....."

and look where its gotten you........not very far......the anti gun crowd have heard all those before.....they arent going to change thier minds just because you say them again, or start yelling at them....


there are hundreds of reasons supporting but you people are 'to tired' or 'stoped trying' or 'dont care enough' to use them


so you can continue to go ahead, waste your time and get mad at me if you want....im not the one you have to convince.

YOU don't get it. We're not interested in debating it. Period. It's a constitutionally protected right, it isn't up for debate.

 

[Serapis]

Surely you can't be serious.

hahahaha

 

[Bill Katt]

There's supposed to be something about this coming up on Fox news in about 10 mins or so.

MAKE THAT NOW...

 

[Mike S]

Mcameron,

I will ask you again. WHAT PART OF SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ARE YOU HAVING A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING???

Seems you took the typical liberal attitude of packaging anybody that doesn't agree with your opinion in the "you people" box and talking down to us from the podium because we're too stupid to understand...

And for the record, I'm not a "gun person" (more labeling, thanks for that) I am an American who's family has fought and died for the freedoms that we currently enjoy. Freedoms that I will also fight to protect, from any enemy, foreign or domestic.

 

[DrRansom]

you people still dont get it.....

im trying to help you understand...that you can not act the way you have in this thread...and have people take you seriously

i don't think anyone really wants that kind of help. you expect everyone to try and understand your way of thinking, but won't do the same. isn't going to happen. Plus, you're not making any sense. reading your posts, i can't really figure out what exactly it is you're trying to say.

that has been the entire purpose of every one of posts....

No. most of your posts are rambles, and poorly aimed retorts or accusations of dodging your nonexistant points.

ive observed that "gun people" cant debate at all......everyone goes to the "what part of shall not be infringed....." or the "these are god given rights....."

Maybe just can't debate with you?? When something is always everyone else's problem, it's usually not their problem.

and look where its gotten you........not very far......the anti gun crowd have heard all those before.....they arent going to change thier minds just because you say them again, or start yelling at them....

there are hundreds of reasons supporting but you people are 'to tired' or 'stoped trying' or 'dont care enough' to use them

so you can continue to go ahead, waste your time and get mad at me if you want....im not the one you have to convince.

I don't even know what you're talking about. I don't think this forum is for you...why do you keep arguing with people who clearly are not responsive to your poorly worded and elementary level arguments?

 

[Jose]

which you are just getting around to posting now.......

i dont know if its because you people are so used to having everyone around here agree with eachother......but when someone has a differing opinion...you people dont know how to react...

...thats the point i am trying to get at...............thats the point ive been trying to get at this entire time.

I can't believe you still don't get the fact that it is not our job to spoon feed you with information.

 

[economist]

you people still dont get it.....

im trying to help you understand...that you can not act the way you have in this thread...and have people take you seriously



that has been the entire purpose of every one of posts....


ive observed that "gun people" cant debate at all......everyone goes to the "what part of shall not be infringed....." or the "these are god given rights....."

and look where its gotten you........not very far......the anti gun crowd have heard all those before.....they arent going to change thier minds just because you say them again, or start yelling at them....


there are hundreds of reasons supporting but you people are 'to tired' or 'stoped trying' or 'dont care enough' to use them


so you can continue to go ahead, waste your time and get mad at me if you want....im not the one you have to convince.

I don't take you seriously. That, perhaps, explains why myself and others are not meeting your expectations. If you offered a coherent argument (other than just telling us we lacked the same), then I might be motivated to debate. If you presented your ideas in a mature and legible fashion, I might respect their source (but just look at the mess you posted above). Obama is trying to be reasonable, you claim, but what is reasonable about enforcing existing laws that violate our rights and passing new laws that will violate them more? If you find these things to be reasonable then we already know there is little that can be said to convince you otherwise.

 

[George D]

you people still dont get it.....

im trying to help you understand...that you can not act the way you have in this thread...and have people take you seriously



that has been the entire purpose of every one of posts....


ive observed that "gun people" cant debate at all......everyone goes to the "what part of shall not be infringed....." or the "these are god given rights....."

and look where its gotten you........not very far......the anti gun crowd have heard all those before.....they arent going to change thier minds just because you say them again, or start yelling at them....


there are hundreds of reasons supporting but you people are 'to tired' or 'stoped trying' or 'dont care enough' to use them


so you can continue to go ahead, waste your time and get mad at me if you want....im not the one you have to convince.

So let me see if I understand what you are saying.

1.You agree with everyone here that Obama is not good for gun owners.
2. You don't support Obama or his policies.
3. You want NES people to have undeniable facts and figures instead of vague generalizations to use when debating antis.
4. This whole thing is a training excercise so we appear more well informed when debating with an anti.

Is that the point you are trying to make?

 

[Gadsden]

YOU don't get it. We're not interested in debating it. Period. It's a constitutionally protected right, it isn't up for debate.

This.
Mcameron, I understand what you are trying to do (other than being an obnoxious troll). Folks that enjoy debate with antis and speaking for the cause will get best results with articulate argument. That being said, this is a friggin' gun forum. Other than a couple fudds and useful idiots that hang out here everyone pretty well understands their rights and why they are important.

That being said, you don't need to come in preaching to the pulpit on how to spread the word. It is a constitutional right, and we get it. There is no "reasonable restrictions" that can be added by Obama unless he is removing said restrictions in place now. The burden of proof is not on us, and who the f--k are you to come in saying so? Is there a "burden of proof" to show that citizens should not have to quarter troops in their homes? What about being able to worship how they choose? The list goes on and on. Either you get the concept of freedom and the Constitution or you don't. If you don't, do not come into a group of folks that do and get mad when they don't want to play your "well... prove that you can argue for this freedom!" game.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

YOU don't get it. We're not interested in debating it. Period. It's a constitutionally protected right, it isn't up for debate.

That, seriously.

i don't think anyone really wants that kind of help. you expect everyone to try and understand your way of thinking, but won't do the same. isn't going to happen. Plus, you're not making any sense. reading your posts, i can't really figure out what exactly it is you're trying to say.

That is because he was proven wrong, can't accept it, and it now trying to swim in circles to look intellectually superior due to his debating abilities.

YOU don't get it. We're not interested in debating it. Period. It's a constitutionally protected right, it isn't up for debate.

That, was just worth repeating again.

 

[Mcameron]

YOU don't get it. We're not interested in debating it. Period. It's a constitutionally protected right, it isn't up for debate.

and how has that been working out for you....last i checked your rights were still being infringed upon.......but if you say it again the antis might get it.

 

[Bob P]

and how has that been working out for you....last i checked your rights were still being infringed upon.......but if you say it again the antis might get it.

Pretty well actually. The courts are helping us win back some of the ground lost by those willing to debate and compromise.

 

[Bob P]

There really is only one way to deal with creeping incrementalism and that a refusal to bend.

 

[Mcameron]

Pretty well actually. The courts are helping us win back some of the ground lost by those willing to debate and compromise.

yeah guy...how do you think that happened.....to think the NRA/GOAL/ ect. went into court and pounded their fists and made stupid remarks called the judge a mindless sheep........no........they had to argue their point.

 

[radioman]

Mcameron will change his tune when the "common sense" gun laws start to apply to firearms he owns. Then it will be a whole different story. Assuming he's a real gun owner and not a DU plant.

I hear O is going to set limit at one O/U per household? Also #7 shot is banned because it hurts the birdies. Sounds like common sense to me?

 

[Boghog1]

yeah guy...how do you think that happened.....to think the NRA/GOAL/ ect. went into court and pounded their fists and made stupid remarks called the judge a mindless sheep........no........they had to argue their point.

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...f-Glock-quot?p=1802057&viewfull=1#post1802057
have at it, since you seem to know the best way to do it

 

[sportycliff]

If everyone on the forum added him, and he posted, would the post really exist?

 

[Mike S]

yeah guy...how do you think that happened.....to think the NRA/GOAL/ ect. went into court and pounded their fists and made stupid remarks called the judge a mindless sheep........no........they had to argue their point.

yes and their point was that the Constitution is being infringed upon and civil rights were being held back by an unconstitutional Supreme Court decision that was made 11 years after the Civil War ended.

we've won two in a row at the Supreme court and there are a whole bunch more to follow

Why? Because it's a civil right and our judges, unlike you, understand "shall not be infringed"