Author Topic: Lefties, here's your chance.. (Read 4367 times)

nw_hunter · « **Reply #60 on:** January 28, 2013, 12:44:40 PM »

Quote from: BUGEYE on January 27, 2013, 07:35:28 AM

Gun grabbers, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George Bush, Hussein Obama, Ron Paul.
Seems like they all did it up front, except that last one. he tried to sneak it in under the radar.
feinstein and obama want your "assualt" rifles. Paul wants them all, plus ammunition.

Care to explain in a little more detail?The part about R. Paul wanting guns and ammo?

LONGTOM · « **Reply #61 on:** January 28, 2013, 03:11:44 PM »

snopes is a poor source to quote.
They have been proven wrong many times.
Heck, I even proved it once myself.
Don't know about the other two you mention.
Now for the dead votes, don't throw that crap at me.
It happened right here in my own little district.
Not as bad as the news made it out to be but it did happen none the less and our district was recounted.
Romney was the winner both times so it really didn't matter but the truth is the other side cheated and was caught at it.
The quote about more voted then was in the district was stated on more then one news channel at the time so I don't know it it is false or not.
I really don't even know what state that was suppose to have happened in.
Was there any attempts of intimidation at the polls, you bet there was.
Again at a few of our voting places there were reports of people pulling voters aside before they entered the building and trying to talk to them which they are not to do.
No body mentioned Acorn but if you really think they were disbanded then you really do like that kool-aid.
While they did file for Chapter 7 liquidation many of the chapters and state-wide organizations simply changed their names and are still doing the same work as before.

LONGTOM

ironglow · « **Reply #62 on:** January 31, 2013, 04:49:19 AM »

Those so-called "fact check" websites are exposing themselves more every day as leftie spin operations. An informative article:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2923825/posts

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''From that article''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

" If you look behind the scenes at these phony "fact check" sites, you find that they are funded by organizations with political biases. You must always ask yourself. Who is writing about this so-called "truth." Who funds the site and pays their expenses. What are the origins and history of the funders and who are they associated with. In the case of factcheck.org they receive their funding from the liberal Annenberg Foundation.

The Annenberg Foundation was originally founded by Walter J. Annenberg, a conservative who supported Ronald Reagan. However, when Walter Annenberg died, his family took over the management of the foundation and it took a turn to the far left and has ties to radical left individuals such as Bill Ayers and his friend and fellow left wing radical collegue Barack Obama. How is factcheck.org associated with these people: "To start, Ayers was the key founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was a Chicago public school reform project from 1995 to 2001. Upon its start in 1995, Obama was appointed Board Chairman and President of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Geesh, that alone connects all three. Well, it branches out even more from there.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Don't trust the "fact checkers"..do your OWN research!

BUGEYE · « **Reply #63 on:** January 31, 2013, 05:15:33 AM »

Quote from: nw_hunter on January 28, 2013, 12:44:40 PM

Quote from: BUGEYE on January 27, 2013, 07:35:28 AM
Gun grabbers, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George Bush, Hussein Obama, Ron Paul.
Seems like they all did it up front, except that last one. he tried to sneak it in under the radar.
feinstein and obama want your "assualt" rifles. Paul wants them all, plus ammunition.

Care to explain in a little more detail?The part about R. Paul wanting guns and ammo?

One of the liberal tactics to bankrupt gun and ammo makers was through frivolous lawsuits, blaming them for the crimes committed with their products. congress passed a law disallowing those kind of suits unless negligence could be proven. this law protected more than just the firearms industry. the liberals and Ron Paul voted against that law.

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #64 on:** January 31, 2013, 05:32:24 AM »

Quote from: mcwoodduck on January 26, 2013, 08:40:13 AM

Quote from: yellowtail3 on January 26, 2013, 03:12:08 AM
what exactly was his challenge? He's wanting someone - who? - to do what?
Since you liberals think of Obama as the be all do all....

I think that can be dismissed as strawman BS, but let's go on...

Quote

At what point have the left gone too far in their goal to disarm America?

I think gov't types (not just 'the left') went too far with the 1934 Firearms Act. How'd you like that?

Quote

Are you OK with the arming of America in the fear that the government is going to take our firearm choices and ammo to feed them.

I don't understand the question. I'm fine with 'the arming of America' but I am much distressed by ammo prices lately

Quote

Do you own anyting that is on the Liberal hit list? Own anything that holds more than 10 rounds?

No to both. Sold the Hi-Power a couple years ago. I dearly wish I'd made the AR plunge a year back... too steep now. Maybe it'll calm down.

johnpaulh · « **Reply #65 on:** January 31, 2013, 08:10:54 AM »

FACT - Ronald Reagan made it illegal for gun manufacturers to manufacture full autos for civilians like us to buy. This has caused the existing full autos to reach a price that the average American can't afford along with the fact that we have to pay a $200 tax and get treated like a criminal just to exercise a God given right. Most gun owners don't realise that Reagan did this to us or they give him a pass and make excuses for him despite the fact that he was a gun grabber.

Hey Double, I have to point something out here. My favorite President of all time, good old Ronnie Ray-Gun did not make it illegal....etc.....it was the fault of the House on this occasion. Yeah, I know, he signed the bill and could have vetoed, but I believe ol' Ron was duped in this case.

(Our current King however is no patsy, and will declare rule by decree when he takes our weapons)

I offer the following:

As debate for FOPA was in its final stages in the House before moving on to the Senate, Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.) proposed several amendments including House Amendment 777 to H.R. 4332 ^[4] that would ban a civilian from ownership or transfer rights of any fully automatic weapon which was not registered as of May 19, 1986. The amendment also held that any such weapon manufactured and registered before the May 19 cutoff date could still be legally owned and transferred by civilians.
In the morning hours of April 10, 1986, the House held recorded votes on three amendments to FOPA in Record Vote No's 72, 73, and 74. Recorded Vote 72 was on H.AMDT. 776, an amendment to H.AMDT 770 involving the interstate sale of handguns; while Recorded Vote 74 was on H.AMDT 770, involving primarily the easing of interstate sales and the safe passage provision. Recorded Vote 74 was the controversial Hughes Amendment that called for the banning of machine guns. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), at the time presiding as Chairman over the proceedings, claimed that the "amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed to."
However, after the voice vote on the Hughes Amendment, Rangel ignored a plea to take a recorded vote and moved on to Recorded Vote 74 where the Hughes Amendment failed.^[5]^[6]

The bill, H.R. 4332, as a whole passed in Record Vote No: 75 on a motion to recommit. Despite the controversial amendment, the Senate, in S.B. 49, adopted H.R. 4332 as an amendment to the final bill. The bill was subsequently passed and signed on May 19, 1986 by President Ronald Reagan to become Public Law 99-308, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act.

ironglow · « **Reply #66 on:** January 31, 2013, 04:06:04 PM »

The OP was not about Reagan, Bush or the GCA of 1934 OR 1968..
The question was simply an opportunity for the gun owners who got sucked in by the "great pretender" to man up and admit they were duped by a liar who said he had no plan on instituting "gun control"..
So far it appears, none of the really dedicated.. has had stones enough to man up!

two-blocked · « **Reply #67 on:** January 31, 2013, 05:04:07 PM »

Here's six recomended fact checking sites
http://www.vikitech.com/454/get-your-facts-right-6-fact-checking-websites-that-help-you-know-the-truth

With regard to factcheck.org I believe this staff strives to be unbiased
http://www.factcheck.org/about/

Article on non-partisan sites
http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2008/09/political-fact-check-sites-proliferate-but-can-they-break-through-the-muck268.html

ironglow · « **Reply #68 on:** February 01, 2013, 12:12:32 AM »

Quote from: two-blocked on January 31, 2013, 05:04:07 PM

Here's six recomended fact checking sites
http://www.vikitech.com/454/get-your-facts-right-6-fact-checking-websites-that-help-you-know-the-truth

With regard to factcheck.org I believe this staff strives to be unbiased
http://www.factcheck.org/about/

Article on non-partisan sites
http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2008/09/political-fact-check-sites-proliferate-but-can-they-break-through-the-muck268.html

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

.There is absolutely NO doubt Obama & Co are at this very moment, perpetrating a huge gun-grab!!
..But STILL we get no "man up"! ...none, nada, zilch..zed...

.

...

guzzijohn · « **Reply #69 on:** February 01, 2013, 12:22:01 AM »

quote from ironglow:
"But STILL we get no "man up"! ...none, nada, zilch..zed... "

Apparently you only consider "manning up" to mean agreeing with you.
GuzziJohn

-Shaggy- · « **Reply #70 on:** February 01, 2013, 01:37:58 AM »

Quote from: guzzijohn on February 01, 2013, 12:22:01 AM

quote from ironglow:
"But STILL we get no "man up"! ...none, nada, zilch..zed... "

Apparently you only consider "manning up" to mean agreeing with you.
GuzziJohn

Go ahead and disagree with him. Explain to him how the libtards are NOT working on another gun ban that some people have seen coming for the last four years, and others have tried to deny would happen.

BUGEYE · « **Reply #71 on:** February 01, 2013, 01:59:55 AM »

Quote from: guzzijohn on February 01, 2013, 12:22:01 AM

quote from ironglow:
"But STILL we get no "man up"! ...none, nada, zilch..zed... "

Apparently you only consider "manning up" to mean agreeing with you.
GuzziJohn

I've looked and looked, and haven't found anything to disagree with him.

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #72 on:** February 02, 2013, 11:54:56 AM »

Quote from: guzzijohn on February 01, 2013, 12:22:01 AM

quote from ironglow:
"But STILL we get no "man up"! ...none, nada, zilch..zed... "

Apparently you only consider "manning up" to mean agreeing with you.
GuzziJohn

Are you saying he is wrong? or just deflecting and trying to steer the argument away from the facts?

two-blocked · « **Reply #73 on:** February 02, 2013, 01:26:18 PM »

Here's some more info on fact checking:

Digital technology opens the doors for new levels of scalability both in terms of fact generation and dissemination. There are even organizations and services such as FactCheck, PolitiFact, and NewsTrust's Truth Squad dedicated entirely to fact checking. Craig Newmark of Craigslist is making major pushes for new fact checking tools and is searching for projects that will provide "information he can trust."[edit] Prominent fact checkers[edit] Individuals

Ben McGrath - New Yorker staff writer
Matthew Power - Harper's Magazine contributing editor
Susan Choi - American novelist^[3]
Jay McInerney - American novelist, wine columnist, and socialite
William Gaddis - American novelist^[4]
Anderson Cooper - Television anchorman^[5]
Nancy Franklin - New Yorker staff writer^[6]
Sean Wilsey - McSweeney's Editor-at-Large and memoirist^[7]
Roger Hodge - Editor, Harper's Magazine^[8]
Esther Dyson - technologist^[9]
David Rees - cartoonist^[10]
Daniel Menaker - Former Editor-in-chief of Random House^[11]
Thomas Meehan - Tony award-winning author of Annie
David Kirkpatrick - New York Times reporter
Virginia Heffernan - New York Times television critic^[12]
Steve Rushin - Sports Illustrated columnist

[edit] Organizations and websitesUnited States

FactCheck.org: a non-partisan, nonprofit website that describes itself as a "'consumer advocate' for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics." It is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, and is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation.
FlackCheck.org: Headquartered at the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, FlackCheck.org is a video-based counterpart to APPC’s award-winning program FactCheck.org. FlackCheck.org uses parody and humor to debunk false political advertising, poke fun at extreme language, and hold the media accountable for their reporting on political campaigns. FlackCheck.org is funded by an endowment provided by the Annenberg Foundation to support the Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics and by a grant from the Omidyar Network.
PolitiFact.com:^[13] A service of the St. Petersburg Times - Created August 2007, uses the "Truth-o-Meter" to rank the amount of truth in public persons' statements. 2009 Pulitzer Prize Winner.
The Fact Checker (The Washington Post):^[14] A project of The Washington Post, known for grading politicians on the factual accuracy of their statements with one to four "Pinocchios."^[15] Created September 2007 by Post diplomatic writer Michael Dobbs specifically for the 2008 presidential campaign.^[16] Shutdown Nov 4, 2008.^[17] Relaunched with a broader focus in January 2011 with veteran Washington Post diplomatic correspondent Glenn Kessler at the helm.^[18]
Bama Fact Check:^[19] An Alabama-based, statewide partnership of newsgathering organizations which checks factual claims by politicians and public figures in Alabama. Partners in the project include The Anniston Star, The Decatur Daily, The Dothan Eagle, The Florence TimesDaily, The Opelika-Auburn News, The Tuscaloosa News and WVTM-TV in Birmingham.
FactCheckEd.org:^[20] An educational resource for high school teachers and students. Sister site to FactCheck.org and a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.^[21] Created September 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact_checker#Prominent_fact_checkers

ChungDoQuan · « **Reply #74 on:** February 02, 2013, 01:55:34 PM »

Facts? The rightys (the most vocal of them, anyway) are people who think that a PhD college professor making $100,000 a year is irresistibly enticed by the prospect of the renewal of a $10-20000 research grant to alter his/her data, endangering professional standing, reputation, and employment, while at the same time accepting data from big money corporations, like drug and oil companies, not to mention banks, who stand to lose hundreds of billions in profits each year if the data goes against them. It's part of the whole false equivalency farce the right maintains. Their inside the bubble logic (or lack thereof) causes them to believe that just wanting to check facts against their beliefs shows that you are biased. They cannot distinguish belief from reality.

ironglow · « **Reply #75 on:** February 02, 2013, 04:23:38 PM »

OK...Back to the origin of this thread;

Obama said he & his would not even consider attacking our gun rights. All I asked of you lefties is that you admit he suckered you into believing that when you voted for him.

To "man up" means not that younecessarily agree with me, but that you admit he lied, and did suck you into voting for him.

Since I still have no "man up"..I suppose that means you believe one of two things;

A) That Obama didn't lie when he said he wouldn't attack our gun rights
...or
B) That Obama & co are not presently trying to inflict damage on our gun rights..

Do you believe (A) ..or do you believe (B) ? Or do you actually believe both?

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #76 on:** February 02, 2013, 04:39:02 PM »

Quote from: ChungDoQuan on February 02, 2013, 01:55:34 PM

Facts? The rightys (the most vocal of them, anyway) are people who think that a PhD college professor making $100,000 a year is irresistibly enticed by the prospect of the renewal of a $10-20000 research grant to alter his/her data, endangering professional standing, reputation, and employment, while at the same time accepting data from big money corporations, like drug and oil companies, not to mention banks, who stand to lose hundreds of billions in profits each year if the data goes against them. It's part of the whole false equivalency farce the right maintains. Their inside the bubble logic (or lack thereof) causes them to believe that just wanting to check facts against their beliefs shows that you are biased. They cannot distinguish belief from reality.

I believe it, as that is what happend in east Anglia U. with the man made global warming. As they then got Millions and millions in grants, and enviromental impact studies. made the University famous and was able to raise the cost per credit as people flocked to the school for grad studies and lab jobs. We have seen the e-mails stating just this.
Also the left is the one that the ends justify the means and the ends are to have global communism. So to obtain this we need to have workers unemployed, costs rising and a scape goat. They want to see the US as no longer a world power.

Oh and Right means correct
Left has another word - sinister. So you are saying that the right is thinking correctly and the left has sinister thoughts?

ChungDoQuan · « **Reply #77 on:** February 02, 2013, 04:53:45 PM »

Quote from: ironglow on February 02, 2013, 04:23:38 PM

OK...Back to the origin of this thread;

Obama said he & his would not even consider attacking our gun rights. All I asked of you lefties is that you admit he suckered you into believing that when you voted for him.

To "man up" means not that younecessarily agree with me, but that you admit he lied, and did suck you into voting for him.

Since I still have no "man up"..I suppose that means you believe one of two things;

A) That Obama didn't lie when he said he wouldn't attack our gun rights
...or
B) That Obama & co are not presently trying to inflict damage on our gun rights..

Do you believe (A) ..or do you believe (B) ? Or do you actually believe both?

What you do not understand is that us "liberals" are not one-issue voters. The threat to gun rights was just less important than other social issues at the time. In fact, realistically, look at my post about political posturing earlier--- nothing much is going to happen, so your terror at losing your machine guns is pretty well unfounded. To tell the truth, I'm personally glad it happened, since it allowed me to trade my SKS "assault rifle" that I paid $39 for 23 years ago for TWO .38 snubbies. Life is good! Sorry about yours... I'd have voted Obama over Rmoney anyway, to save the country. Peace on you, brother!

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #78 on:** February 02, 2013, 05:05:31 PM »

Wait you bought an assault rifle and sold it? So you are admitting you are an assault weapons traficer?
You seem to have made a profit on the sale of the assault rifle? Did you pay capital gains on the value of the rifle and pistols at the time of the sale? or did you pay the higher tax reates of income on the trade? Or did you, a liberals that thinks taxes are needed, not pay taxes on your gain?

two-blocked · « **Reply #79 on:** February 02, 2013, 06:00:19 PM »

Typically bartering on such an infrequent basis and small scale is ignored by the IRS.
That can't be said for someone wanting to engage in name calling or making a lame point.

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #80 on:** February 03, 2013, 07:00:07 AM »

Quote from: two-blocked on February 02, 2013, 06:00:19 PM

Typically bartering on such an infrequent basis and small scale is ignored by the IRS.
That can't be said for someone wanting to engage in name calling or making a lame point.

Whait, you said ignored by the IRS, not that it is legal. So the question is still on the table. Did he evade taxes? Did he do what he has said others should do and pay the highest tax rates?
And if pointing out hypocracy is name calling then OK I am a name caller. I called him a hypocrite. He rails about assault weapons and then boasts that he owned one and sold it for a huge profit and has not said that he paid taxes on the gain.
He seems to be OK with an assault weapons ban as long as he no longer has one and has made a profit on it.
I find it strange that these same people rail against others for making a profit and leaving someone holding the bag at the end as long as they got theirs.
Would he be OK with the assault ban if he had to give back the two snub nose revolvers and loose his original $23? And yet they rail against corporate profits while doing the same thing.
Now I will tell you I have sold some guns for a profit. And no I have not declared the income, but I do not tell anyone they need to pay more in taxes.

ironglow · « **Reply #81 on:** February 03, 2013, 07:54:08 AM »

Quote from: ChungDoQuan on February 02, 2013, 04:53:45 PM

Quote from: ironglow on February 02, 2013, 04:23:38 PM
OK...Back to the origin of this thread;

Obama said he & his would not even consider attacking our gun rights. All I asked of you lefties is that you admit he suckered you into believing that when you voted for him.

To "man up" means not that younecessarily agree with me, but that you admit he lied, and did suck you into voting for him.

Since I still have no "man up"..I suppose that means you believe one of two things;

A) That Obama didn't lie when he said he wouldn't attack our gun rights
...or
B) That Obama & co are not presently trying to inflict damage on our gun rights..

Do you believe (A) ..or do you believe (B) ? Or do you actually believe both?

What you do not understand is that us "liberals" are not one-issue voters. The threat to gun rights was just less important than other social issues at the time. In fact, realistically, look at my post about political posturing earlier--- nothing much is going to happen, so your terror at losing your machine guns is pretty well unfounded. To tell the truth, I'm personally glad it happened, since it allowed me to trade my SKS "assault rifle" that I paid $39 for 23 years ago for TWO .38 snubbies. Life is good! Sorry about yours... I'd have voted Obama over Rmoney anyway, to save the country. Peace on you, brother!

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

OK..so you sold your AK..and made some profit..congrats!

Now! ...Back to the original questions, just a simple yes por no will suffice:

A) Did Obama lie when he said he would not infringe upon our gun rights?

B) Is Obama & Co at this very moment, trying to inhibit our gun rights?

OK.. Let's add one more;
C) Were you sucked in TWICE by the same line of BS?

ironglow · « **Reply #82 on:** February 03, 2013, 08:00:53 AM »

Quote from: two-blocked on February 02, 2013, 06:00:19 PM

Typically bartering on such an infrequent basis and small scale is ignored by the IRS.
That can't be said for someone wanting to engage in name calling or making a lame point.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx

Looks like bartering, trading, shadow buying ..to provide guns for gangsters was "overlooked", not just by the IRS..but also Erik Holder's "justice"

department, the Obama administration..and sundry govt officials, such as Hillary Clinton, the Secy of State!
In fact this illegal buying was sponsored by this anti-gun administration! Judging by their actions, and we should look at what they actually DO..rather than what they SAY..
It is obvious they don't want guns in the hands of honest citizens..but do want them in the hands of the gangster drug cartels.
Just typical "liberal Logic" I presume..

DDZ · « **Reply #83 on:** February 03, 2013, 08:39:35 AM »

Quote from: ChungDoQuan on February 02, 2013, 04:53:45 PM

What you do not understand is that us "liberals" are not one-issue voters. The threat to gun rights was just less important than other social issues at the time. In fact, realistically, look at my post about political posturing earlier--- nothing much is going to happen, so your terror at losing your machine guns is pretty well unfounded. To tell the truth, I'm personally glad it happened, since it allowed me to trade my SKS "assault rifle" that I paid $39 for 23 years ago for TWO .38 snubbies. Life is good! Sorry about yours... I'd have voted Obama over Rmoney anyway, to save the country. Peace on you, brother!

Hmmm... so what other rights do you think you would have with no 2nd Amendment rights? Or do you think that we should only have rights to own what guns you think we should own? Whats wrong with owning fully automatic weapons? If I'm a law abiding citizen, I or anyone else that is law abiding, should be able to own one if the wish to.

Liberals are one issue voters. Their one issue and belief is that government should be the provider of everything, and that everyone should empty their pockets, along with corporations, and give it to government so they can divvy it up as they see fit. Liberals also feel that its governments job to tell us little citizens how we should live, and if any our rights, or the Constitution gets in the way of accomplishing that, so be it. If that is not the truth, then why do all you liberals vote that way?

Anna · « **Reply #84 on:** February 03, 2013, 12:29:26 PM »

Quote from: nw_hunter on January 28, 2013, 12:44:40 PM

Quote from: BUGEYE on January 27, 2013, 07:35:28 AM
Gun grabbers, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George Bush, Hussein Obama, Ron Paul.
Seems like they all did it up front, except that last one. he tried to sneak it in under the radar.
feinstein and obama want your "assualt" rifles. Paul wants them all, plus ammunition.

Care to explain in a little more detail?The part about R. Paul wanting guns and ammo?

I would like to know that too. I've never heard anything like that come out of his mouth.
Do you have some kind of a link or a news story that I can read about this ?
Because from what I am seeing he is the only one that has stuck to his guns .

Doublebass73 · « **Reply #85 on:** February 04, 2013, 12:18:31 PM »

Quote from: Anna on February 03, 2013, 12:29:26 PM

Quote from: nw_hunter on January 28, 2013, 12:44:40 PM
Quote from: BUGEYE on January 27, 2013, 07:35:28 AM
Gun grabbers, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George Bush, Hussein Obama, Ron Paul.
Seems like they all did it up front, except that last one. he tried to sneak it in under the radar.
feinstein and obama want your "assualt" rifles. Paul wants them all, plus ammunition.

Care to explain in a little more detail?The part about R. Paul wanting guns and ammo?

I would like to know that too. I've never heard anything like that come out of his mouth.
Do you have some kind of a link or a news story that I can read about this ?
Because from what I am seeing he is the only one that has stuck to his guns .

Anna,

Gun Owners of America grades him at an A+. He was the most 2nd Amendment friendly presidential candidate in my lifetime. He has never voted against the Constitution. I'll save you the suspense, there are no links or news stories about him wanting your guns and ammo. I'll let you make your own decision from there.

ironglow · « **Reply #86 on:** February 04, 2013, 12:27:04 PM »

This thread isn't about Ron Paul..

It's about this;

Now! ...Back to the original questions, just a simple yes or no will suffice:

A) Did Obama lie when he said he would not infringe upon our gun rights?

B) Is Obama & Co at this very moment, trying to inhibit our gun rights?

So lefties..let's bring this thread to a close...just admit you got a load of BS..and swallowed it..hook, line and sinker..

ChungDoQuan · « **Reply #87 on:** February 05, 2013, 01:40:30 AM »

A) NO
B) NO

NO

(And, by the way, after the investigation, the whole East Anglia University "Climategate" spiel was found to be unfounded--- i.e. "...no evidence of academic or research impropriety." Look it up on any fact check site you prefer. And there NEVER WAS any "millions and millions" of research dollars. )

ironglow · « **Reply #88 on:** February 05, 2013, 02:04:41 AM »

Quote from: ChungDoQuan on February 05, 2013, 01:40:30 AM

A) NO
B) NO

NO

(And, by the way, after the investigation, the whole East Anglia University "Climategate" spiel was found to be unfounded--- i.e. "...no evidence of academic or research impropriety." Look it up on any fact check site you prefer. And there NEVER WAS any "millions and millions" of research dollars. )

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

OK Chung..your answer is in.. and it speaks for itself.. Let others decide if it is realistic..

gypsyman · « **Reply #89 on:** February 05, 2013, 02:04:49 AM »

I'm sitting back with about my 4th bowl of popcorn, waiting for someone to come up with FACTS, to dispute IG's original post. Good thing I didn't start drinking a beer with it, or I'd be so blind stinking drunk by know, I wouldn't be able to type, or, I'd have a big wet spot under the chair!

gypsyman