Ok folks, Obama has been in office about 18 mo., what new gun bans?

[Dee]

If you reject the dominant two parties you waste your vote. I know this because someone that votes the dominant two parties told me so, and it must be true.

[ironglow]

  Yes; there are even some folks who don't believe BHO has attempted to curtail our Constitutional rights either!
    We can't do much for those who refuse to notice "the elephant in the room", but a couple videos can help the truly conscious decide;

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUTCdN6NcNk&feature=related

[ironglow]

  For those wo STILL can't see the elephant in their lazyboy...here's the straight dope from a group of folks who are much better informed than you or I;

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO0k9SHljCc

[Dee]

Seems to me some haven't noticed the elephant OR the donkey in the room.

[SHOOTALL]

If we wish to change things it will need to start at local level nation wide . Then state wide then national. To screw up American Govt. has taken some time and it will take time to right it. To try and change to much to fast could cause more harm than good a real issue . Best to have republicans in congress and dem for pres until a third party is on line to stand alone and compete not just screw up the vote. The big ? is do we have the time .

[teamnelson]

If we wish to change things it will need to start at local level nation wide . Then state wide then national. To screw up American Govt. has taken some time and it will take time to right it. To try and change to much to fast could cause more harm than good a real issue . Best to have republicans in congress and dem for pres until a third party is on line to stand alone and compete not just screw up the vote. The big ? is do we have the time .

That's a reasonable approach, shootall. The Democrats are pushing for an IDEA, and that is to remove our ability to SHOOT, MOVE & COMMUNICATE. Folks can say what they want about Ron Paul, but there's one thing his fellow Republicans could learn from him if we get that Republican congress you mention, just say "No." Seriously, just no. Stall the board until they get someone with vision & passion for the conservative IDEA to start to shape the future.

[ironglow]

guzzijohn;
   How will you have your crow..fried, roasted or broiled ?


   Voters in the midwest..keep the name Lugar in mind..and dump him..

  In wyoming, remember the name Barasso, he's fighting to save your guns..see how he does the rest

[ironglow]

Seems to me some haven't noticed the elephant OR the donkey in the room.

  Dee;
  Wrong elephant; even though that elephant is not hugely better than the donkey, as Lou Dobbs so aptly pointed out..when it comews to gun-grabbing, there is a vast difference between that elephant and the donkey.
   
      To confirmed lefties who are hunters/shooters, the "gun control" push by Democrats, is the elephant they prefer not to see..

  http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/6/messages/836.html

[guzzijohn]

From ironglow:

Yes; there are even some folks who don't believe BHO has attempted to curtail our Constitutional rights either!

So far not near what George W did.
GuzziJohn

[SHOOTALL]

Dead men aren't the problem today 

[Dee]

Seems to me some haven't noticed the elephant OR the donkey in the room.

  Dee;
  Wrong elephant; even though that elephant is not hugely better than the donkey, as Lou Dobbs so aptly pointed out..when it comews to gun-grabbing, there is a vast difference between that elephant and the donkey.
   
      To confirmed lefties who are hunters/shooters, the "gun control" push by Democrats, is the elephant they prefer not to see..

  http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/6/messages/836.html

ironglow, you and I have sparred a many a time on this lessor of two evils voting and neither have given ground. I will explain exactly the way I see the philosophy of the lessor of two evils once again in a more descriptive manner and drop off this thread.
I as a kid, would occasionally watch a cartoon in which a cartoon character was "frantically running for his life" down a snow covered mountain. His eyes were huge, and he was looking over his shoulder at a snowball that was growing larger and larger, and gaining speed as the cartoon character ran. The problem with the cartoon character's method of escape, was he wasn't watching where he was going, as all he was looking at was what he was afraid of and running from, and ran into a tree. He hit the tree, and the snowball caught him and got him too. Running from his worst fear didn't save him, but stepping out of the path, and not running anymore would have.

[SHOOTALL]

 I see both sides in this case . We need change but we need stablity in these bad times . Like i suggested a slow but sure rise of a third party with gridlock in the transition period . In reality the other 2 parties may change their platform and get back to protecting freedom of the voters . But we need to realize that with 3 parties it will always be easier to have friction between the two most wanted parties to cause the less wanted party to win. Good change takes time . With regard to Dee's post it would be like taking an angle off to the side picking a safe route not jumping out the way not knowing if we were jumping off an unseen cliff or not , a real risk with an unproven party. The ? is do we have time to be safe or do we need to risk the cliff .

[Dixie Dude]

If you guys noticed, a lot of Tea Party movement cantidates won last Tuesday against the Republican establishment.  This is why it is important to vote in the primarys. 

[Mikey]

he hasn't gone whole hog on banning and confiscation yet because his sorry butt has been sidetracked - first by his healthcare folly which has taken more to push through and gain acceptance than hillary's closed door healthcare tactics under her husband, including having to deal with those 20 some odd states that have sued the feds on that front as well as the issue of manufacturing firearms and ammo, and then by both the Arizona Immigration Law (and now the Az. efforts to pass another law that would deny citizenship to children born on US soil to non-citizens) and now the gulf oil disaster.  

And let's also not forget the disdain his administration has taken regarding his foreign policy gaffs but, let's please not forget that he and the d-rats in power are arrogant sons of witches who feel they have the power to do as they please and they will certainly attempt a gun-grab.  In fact, I would not doubt two things - first, I have no doubt that some stupid disturbed d-rat or lib fool will do something 'columbine-ish' or hit some kindergarden play ground with a assault rifle just to give them the impetus they need to begin a ban (they are not above sacrificing children for their cause, you know..) and that they will allow some nonsense under that international weapons treaty that would spike a armed revolt within the US that he could deploy US troops to control OR that he will move more troops into the gulf area and then spread them west toward Az to help contain a 'immigration' problem.  Just watch, he will pull something.....

[ironglow]

Dee;
  I do understand your position and believe me, I have been tempted at times to do the same but let me offer you an extreme example.
  Suppose there in Texas, someone comes along from the extreme radical left and somehow, he/she had a good chance of winning; would you still refuse to vote for either the Democrat or Republican ?
      I don't condemn your choice, you have all the right in the world to make it. I am concerned that with the "throw them all out" idea, people may in many cases, be "throwing the baby out with the bath water".  I believe if we have someone who has voted absolutely correct 98% of the time, he/she should not be thrown out with the politician with a 100% score from the ACLU.
  We have sources where we can find how they voted in times past, if they have a political history, I like to use them to help me decide. One good place is   www.ontheissues.com

    Suppose we had a Barney Frank type facing an Ollie North type... Any conservative would  be compelled to cast a vote...

  Still, your choice is yours and you have a perfect right to it; that is what makes the USA really great (so far).

  BTW: I am sooo pleased with the rise of the "T" party and having attended some of their events, Identify with them and their goals. With the "T" party, we do get real choices....

[ironglow]

  Just for the record, the value of research offered by sites such as   http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm       
    Try this exercise; Click onto the website above and imagine the year is 2012. The Chicago messiah has proven his incompetence, so it is VP Biden vs former VP candidate Palin.
   With the map showing, click onto Deleware..then find Biden and click on his name..you will find alist of his voting record and or statements in speeches which reveal his positions..from everything from abortion to gun control...
   Next, go back and click onto Alaska and examine Palin's record..the contrast should be obvious, especially to we hunters & shooters.
  Do you suppose it would help to guide your vote ?
     Die-hard party liners need not answer, we already know what you will do..so do the political pimps. 

[Buckskin]

  ironglow, you and I have sparred a many a time on this lessor of two evils voting and neither have given ground. I will explain exactly the way I see the philosophy of the lessor of two evils once again in a more descriptive manner and drop off this thread.
I as a kid, would occasionally watch a cartoon in which a cartoon character was "frantically running for his life" down a snow covered mountain. His eyes were huge, and he was looking over his shoulder at a snowball that was growing larger and larger, and gaining speed as the cartoon character ran. The problem with the cartoon character's method of escape, was he wasn't watching where he was going, as all he was looking at was what he was afraid of and running from, and ran into a tree. He hit the tree, and the snowball caught him and got him too. Running from his worst fear didn't save him, but stepping out of the path, and not running anymore would have.

While that is very creative reasoning (or maybe a load of bull) I think most people who vote for someone who doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell in winninng because then they can bitch about the winner no matter who is the victor and they can blame everyone else for their foolish choice...  Safe bet for people who are at their best complaining about everything under the sun and from what I can tell that is about 5-7% of our population.

[nw_hunter]

[/quote]

While that is very creative reasoning (or maybe a load of bull) I think most people who vote for someone who doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell in winninng because then they can bitch about the winner no matter who is the victor and they can blame everyone else for their foolish choice...  Safe bet for people who are at their best complaining about everything under the sun and from what I can tell that is about 5-7% of our population.
[/quote]


This country has voted the lesser of two evils for many century's, and look where it's brought us.
You keep voting for tired old socialist Republicans like John McCain. "Like Dee", I'll vote for a believer in the Constitution every time, and don't tell me I do it so I'll have reason to Bitch about it. You appear to be the one bitching about anyone who doesn't vote for your man.

"For crying out loud" You and a few others on this forum are kinder to true Liberals who admitted to voting for Obammy, than a true Conservative, that has the common sense to vote his or her conscience.

Truth is!.........Your the one urinating up a tree. "JMHO" I'm sure yours will differ!

[Redhawk1]

Just for fun I went back on this board to around and after the election and read all the dire comments about all the restrictive gun laws and gun grabs that would take place "within months" of the election. So, tell me about the new restrictive laws and gun grabs that have taken place so far.
GuzziJohn

Obama is not going after our guns (YET), but you can take it to the bank, it will come. He and his liberal congress is to busy taking all the other rights, and doing unconstitutional things, than when they are done with destroying all the other amendments, the second amendment will fall without a battle... Unless we can change the congress in this years election, we do have a chance. If not 2011 and 2012 are going to be a hell ride.

As for all the new laws, there have been so many to list. Seeing how you have so much time on your hands, you do the research. I am to busy with actually fighting my Legislators in my State. I don't have the time to get into proving a pointless argument in this thread, eventually to just turn into a (P) contest..

[dukkillr]

when they are done with destroying all the other amendments, the second amendment will fall without a battle...

I am not debating the validity of your statement here, just asking for clarification.  What specific amendments have been directly attacked, and how so? Which ones are next, and what do you expect that he will do to, say, the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, seventeenth, nineteenth, twentieth, twenty-first, twenty-second, twenty-third, twenty-fourth, twenty-fifth, twenty-sixth, and twenty-seventh?

I am not a supporter of Obama, but rather I hate these declaratory statements without any support.  I will assume you can support your statement, and in which case I will join you in being very concerned for the collective rights codified by the Constitution and it's amendments.

[ironglow]

Dukkillr;
  You're the lawyer and I am not, but I do believe some of our original Bill of Rights have been greatly infringed upon. I am not blaming this administration alone, since it has been an incremental process. I do believe this present administration has moved against the Constitution  with unprescedented vigor. I always look at "original intent", referring often to the Federalist Papers.
 
      I mention specifically amendments 1,2,4,5,6, possibly 7,9 and 10...

[dukkillr]

Dukkillr;
  You're the lawyer and I am not, but I do believe some of our original Bill of Rights have been greatly infringed upon. I am not blaming this administration alone, since it has been an incremental process. I do believe this present administration has moved against the Constitution  with unprescedented vigor. I always look at "original intent", referring often to the Federalist Papers.
  
      I mention specifically amendments 1,2,4,5,6, possibly 7,9 and 10...

OK, on some specifics I might even agree.  But it's those specifics I'm honestly interested in.  It would be impossible to count the number of wide ranging statements made on this board like, "[Politician I don't Like] is wiping his butt with the Constitution" or "We are losing our rights every day".  And no one ever looks more closely at those claims.  Frankly, I suspect that it is almost entirely driven by a belief that the second amendment is the only important right.  I hope I am wrong.  I hope when people say they support an expansive personal interpretation of the second they also extend that to all rights... but I doubt it.

So anyway, the question stands:  What rights have we lost under Obama, specifically (please cite the law and the right effected) starting with any amendment that doesn't include guns and what do you believe is Obamas plan to attack those rights not yet destroyed (again, please cite a likely law and amendment).  

BTW, was it intentional to skip the 8th in your list?

I think Obama has not addressed the second because he does not have the political capital either personally or as a party, to do so and it has fallen down in his list of priorities.  I don't see that changing during his term or terms.  If he could, I suspect he would certainly impose more restrictions than we see today.  I do not believe Obama is a supporter of the second amendment but I also don't see him as hostile to many of the other rights we should all care about (but probably don't).

This is not to be viewed as support for Obama.  I am only hoping to learn about some of these other attacks I am unaware of.

[Redhawk1]

when they are done with destroying all the other amendments, the second amendment will fall without a battle...

I am not debating the validity of your statement here, just asking for clarification.  What specific amendments have been directly attacked, and how so? Which ones are next, and what do you expect that he will do to, say, the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, seventeenth, nineteenth, twentieth, twenty-first, twenty-second, twenty-third, twenty-fourth, twenty-fifth, twenty-sixth, and twenty-seventh?

I am not a supporter of Obama, but rather I hate these declaratory statements without any support.  I will assume you can support your statement, and in which case I will join you in being very concerned for the collective rights codified by the Constitution and it's amendments.

dukkillr, I have been a board member of the 9-12 Delaware Patriots for well over a year now. We are constantly fighting with our legislators on bill  and legislation. A lot of it is Unconstitutional

I will give you some examples seeing how that is what our organization does on a daily bases.
Just look at the new bill there trying to pass,  The DISCLOSE Act (HR 5175) It Is Unconstitutional and affects or First amendment rights.
We are under attack with the freedom of religion, saying God, the pledge of allegiance, flying U.S. flags that my offend people. Just a few more just on the first amendment.

The second amendment is under attack all the time. Just do some research.

The Thirds Amendment is not anything I have look into much.

The fourth Amendment I have no real experience with this nor anyone I know.But we here of Illegal search and seizures all the time.

The fifth amendment.. Just look at the Patriot act. nuff said.

The eight amendment another one that is related to the courts concerning bail and cruel and unusual punishment and I don't get involved with that either as I am no lawyer or bails bondsman.

The tenth amendment deals with our States rights, the Federal Government is doing everything in there power to take control over all the States. Which Violates our State Solvency.

The fourteenth amendment, Congress is trying to pass amnesty for Illegal's in our Country. This goes agents the 14th Amendment. Anchor babies, another one agents the 14th amendment.

What the problem here is, so many people want you to show them everything to prove them wrong, or give examples of why we feel or know what is going on. When everyone here should be doing there own research and get informed on all the issues facing us in the United States. Hell just look around you, every other country is going down the tubes and this clown the Stupid American elected is taking us down the same road. The definition of insanity is, doing the same things over and over and expecting  a different result.

I should not have to point out all the wrong this congress and President are doing, anyone with half a brain can see it for themselves.

[Redhawk1]

dukkillr, you made a statement about hoping it is not just about the second amendment. You are 100% correct. That is why any Second Amendment group does us such a disservice. They need to look at the over all big picture. The Constitution of the United States. Just because someone get an A+ rating from the NRA or any other group, does not mean they would make a great Congressman.

All of the amendment need to be taken care of, we cannot just focus on the second amendment.

[Dee]

Well Redhawk, that pretty much some's it up. +1 here

[Redhawk1]

Well Redhawk, that pretty much some's it up. +1 here

Dee, I was one of the people that fell asleep for many years, and only cared about the 2nd Amendment. It took the Election of the most liberal congress and president to wake me up. I am so ashamed of how I was unaware of what this country has become. When I took the my Oath to defend my country form all enemy foreign and domestic, I did that well while I served. Now they have woke up the sleeping giant, and I am dedicating my life to fight for my children and grandchildren. The United States Constitution is the solution!

It is time everyone wake up, get educated on "ALL" the issues facing us, and lets make some real change in this country.

I am proud to say GOD Bless America!

[ironglow]

Dukkillr;
 Llet me show you where (IMO) the original 10 have been usurped over the years..

  1) " Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF".
   I believe All administrations have shown deference to the first part of that sentence, but some have preferred to ignore the second part, (in caps).
  Now the govt wants to limit free speech with the "faoirness doctrine'.

  2) Self explanatory
..been there, done that..doing it every day.
 
 3) not listed..no recent forceful quartering.

 4)  Lots of eavesdropping, seizure of property goes on (especially by DEC claiming lands).

 5) Here again, often private lands are taken ..without paying full value.

 6)  A person has a right to confront witnesses..unless it is somebody being "called in" for child spanking and now the feds want to use neighbors to turn in tax cheats etc on the same conditions.

  7) Not sure about # 7..you can tell me..Can one accused of theft of more than $20 still demand..and get, a jury trial ?

  Yes, I left #8 out, simply because I personally have no reference point on it.

 9) It seems that often, govt lawyers will for instance, use article #1 in an injudicious manner . They insist upon punishing those of faith who may pray at a high school athletic event (first part) while ignoring "the free exercise thereof " (second part). I believe there are other instances also.

 10) Number 10 is easy ! So many programs not delegated to the US are now being fostered by it.. ATDP, WIC, college scholarships, National Endowment for the Arts , PBS and hunbdreds of other programs.

  For reference, those who wish, here's the Bill of Rights.
     http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/BillOfRights.html#6

[DDZ]

  1) " Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF".
   I believe All administrations have shown deference to the first part of that sentence, but some have preferred to ignore the second part, (in caps).
  Now the govt wants to limit free speech with the "faoirness doctrine'.

 

IG. Yes, our courts sure have trashed the original intent of this one, haven't they?  I guess Obama didn't have anything much to do with stomping on this one, although I'm sure he is quite comfortable with it.

It got all twisted around in 1947 when the courts changed the original intent of the 1st Amendment. Then continued to be changed over the years. The true intent of it was to keep affairs of the state out of the affairs of the church and religion. Not to keep Christians and their religion out of public affairs.
The Supreme court ruled in 1947 that any content had to be secular. Government can't appear friendly toward religion, and if someone feels as an outsider religion must be removed. So if 10 school students wanted to pray, and one person felt as an outsider because they didn't want to pray. The ten that wanted to pray had to be stopped, because it was ruled unconstitutional.
 
The words Separation of Church and State did not appear in any government documents authored by the founders. The words and phrase were invented in 1947 by a ACLU attorney named Leo Pfeffer. The ACLU, and other anti Christian groups, has used it ever since to harass Christians. Many people don't know that this was an ACLU invention, and its the extreme opposite of what our Founders intended. The idea is to keep people ignorant of the original intent of the Founders, so secularists and Government have an open road to drive their agenda. I think its been working well for them.

Our Congress once thought that religious expression was so important that they funded it. Congress hired Chaplains to lead in prayer during sessions and to preach sermons in the capitol building and other government buildings. In 1800 Congress also decided that the Capitol building would be used as a church. How times have changed.

Fisher Ames, the man that wrote the language for the first Amendment, said Bibles should be the #1 text book in class rooms. Now its more appropriate for someone to have a playboy in school than a Bible.
 In 1962 Prayer in schools was struck down by the Supreme Court. In 1980 the Courts ruled that the Ten Commandments had to be removed from schools, because a student may read them, and might obey them. This they ruled unconstitutional. So down came the Ten Commandments. 

Something else Congress would do is, if they wanted to get a message out to "the people" they would tell Pastors and they would spread it from the pulpit. Now the only people that don't have free speech is Pastors.  I guess if you wanted to silence truth, just silence Pastors, and like from the public arena. 

[Buckskin]

+1 for Redhawks statements.  If you don't FEEL what this congress and Joker are doing to this Country everyday your not looking or just don't care.

[ironglow]

+1 for Redhawks statements.  If you don't FEEL what this congress and Joker are doing to this Country everyday your not looking or just don't care.

  Right at this moment Obammy has more problems than he wants on his plate. I have no question that as soon as he can he will get to the 2nd.
   Neither the radical left nor George Soros likes the second amendment and that's where he takes his marching orders from.