# Lying piece of $hit



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

Obama said he wouldn't take your guns, but now he wants to. uke:

Sorry, I didn't see tumblebuck already posted this:
http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=66387

Read the rest here:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1

Don't say you weren't warned! uke:


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

JustAnotherDog said:


> Obama said he wouldn't take your guns, but now he wants to. uke:


I didn't see any talk of confiscation. Maybe you could point that part out to me since I must have missed it.


> Holder declined to offer any time frame for the reimplementation of the assault weapons ban, however.


I'd take that as meaning they don't have any intent of doing it in the near future. I could be wrong, but my guess is that it's not going to happen right away.


> In a brief interview with ABC News, Wayne LaPierre, president of the National Rifle Association, said, "I think there are a lot of Democrats on Capitol Hill cringing at Eric Holder's comments right now."


I'd have to agree. If the Democrats want to stay in power (which of course they do) this is about the surest way for them to get their azzes booted out of DC.

And I'd look on the bright side...


> "A semi-automatic is a quintessential self-defense firearm owned by American citizens in this country," LaPierre said. "I think it is clearly covered under Heller and it's clearly, I think, protected by the Constitution."


When/if they do reinstate the ban, it will most likely go to court. Where our side will win. Which means an end to the nonsense for good.


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

Still need to keep people aware, not about to roll over and play dead. 



> And I'd look on the bright side...


Tell that to the folks in Kalifornia that were given a deadline to either remove from the state or destroy their "assault" rifles, (there are a lot of guns stored in Nevada)!

But hey, maybe I only use a bow or shotgun so it won't affect ME!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think your way to optimistic Matt. Thinking like you do will get us caught with our pants down. Look at the man's record. You have to be in a state of denial to think he will not try add many guns to that list. He may not confiscate today, but he will do this incrementally. That's the same thing they always do.

Holder wrote the opinion that the second amendment was not for individual rights. Now we have a few supreme court judges that will be replaced within a few years. We will not win the battle coming up. Gun owners better get their head out of their back end because those who think it's a joke will be supporting the enemy.

Good God thinking Obama isn't going after the guns is like denying the sun comes up in th east, and coyotes are vegetarian. I was watching the news last night and told my wife the media and Obama will use the Mexican problem as an excuse to go after the gun shows etc.


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

> "I think closing the gun show loophole, *the banning of cop-killer bullets *and I also think that making the assault weapons ban permanent, would be something that would be permitted under Heller," Holder said, referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Washington, D.C. v. Heller, which asserted the Second Amendment as an individual's right to own a weapon.


If you are old enough to remember, the so called 'cop-killer' bullets thing was tried before. It was based on a bullet that could penetrate a police officer's soft-body-armor or ballistic vest. Then it was found that it would include most any rifle ammunition. So look on the bright side?


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Matt Jones said:


> JustAnotherDog said:
> 
> 
> > Obama said he wouldn't take your guns, but now he wants to. uke:
> ...


 :eyeroll: :eyeroll:

Hear no evil see no evil, eh Matt?

Its just one piece of the "grand scheme of things puzzle". To bad you dont see that.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Hear no evil see no evil, eh Matt?
> 
> Its just one piece of the "grand scheme of things puzzle". To bad you dont see that.


Yes, there is nothing more disappointing that a fellow sportsman that closes their eyes and refuses to look at reality. Look at Obama's record, look at Holders record, look at the anti-gun record of much of congress. Pelosi wants to reinstate it and has stated so. So does Harry Reid. Do any of them really give a crap about a few gun owners. They are busy convincing society that they are doing it for the "greater good".

You know who will be next? The animal rights groups will go after farmers even before they are done with us. I have sort of been trying to give some landowners on here 2X4 therapy and perhaps come off as a hard ***. However, I have also stated many times that we will need each other. That's one of the reasons I hate pay hunting. It's not just the money, it destroys the link between landowners and hunters. If you pay someone you sure don't owe them anything else. We and landowners will have to decide if we have a relationship that transcends money or not. I'll tell you what, if pay hunting takes over North Dakota and the bunny huggers go after the farmers they will have no one to blame but themselves if they loose.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

You guys aren't even looking at what I said. Something huge has happened since the last assault weapons ban...there' s been a landmark supreme court case that upheld the 2nd amendment as being applicable to a citizen's rights to own a firearm for self protection.

I'm the ONLY one who is seeing the reality of this. You guys are the ones with your eyes closed...apparently none of you have heard of District of Columbia versus Heller.

To be honest, I hope they are stupid enough to try to reinstate a weapon's ban. Because it will go to court and be shot down, and eventually stop any similar bans from ever happening in the future.

Like I said...look on the bright side. The courts are in our favor now. The difference between when Clinton passed this initially and now is Night and Day. Why do you think they are being so timid?

You guys need to quit being so friggin' paranoid all the time.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> Look at Obama's record, look at Holders record, look at the anti-gun record of much of congress. Pelosi wants to reinstate it and has stated so. So does Harry Reid.


Their records mean absolutely nothing since the Supreme Court ruling. It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for them to pass an assault weapons ban.


Plainsman said:


> Do any of them really give a crap about a *few gun owners.* They are busy convincing society that they are doing it for the "greater good".


Take your head out of the sand. There are more than just a few gun owners in this country.


> Most estimates range between 39% and 50% of US households having at least one gun(thats about 43-55 million households). The estimates for the number of privately owned guns range from 190 million to 300 million. Removed those that skew the stats for thier own purposes the best estimates are about 45% or 52 million of american households owning 260 million guns).


Beyond that, support for the 2nd amendment amongst the public is very high, over 75% of the public approves of American's rights to own guns.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> You guys aren't even looking at what I said. Something huge has happened since the last assault weapons ban...there' s been a landmark supreme court case that upheld the 2nd amendment as being applicable to a citizen's rights to own a firearm for self protection.


Who's head is in the sand? Do you remember the slim margin that we won by in the supreme court last time? If you do you understand that only one of those who voted for it needs to be replaced by Obama. Once he does that how long do you think it will take for someone to challenge the second amendment. It will be done within months. You better put the old thinking cap on a little tighter Matt.

We have heard this old statement before that the second amendment after being affirmed by the supreme court protects us. That can change in the blink of an eye, or the stopping of a supreme court justice heart beat.

So Matt, I understand the supreme court ruling and how it affects us, evidently much better than you do.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

Matt, I have found that my elected officials listen to my comments better if I talk to them before a bill is passed. After its passed they could care less. I think they have been getting an ear full lately. :beer:


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

> Their records mean absolutely nothing since the Supreme Court ruling. It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for them to pass an assault weapons ban.


This was introduced January 6, 2009


> H.R.45
> 
> Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009
> To provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes.
> ...


There is already a law that says registering guns in illegal. This is why the ATF is not allowed to computerize their records would basically be registration. Nobody cares and the current administration knows that. They are depending upon people thinking "It wont' affect me" or "They can't do that!" to get things done. That's why they pass a 1100+ page bill to further their socialistic goals and call it a 'stimulus' bill because nobody has time to read it.

Something happened in November '08 to the rules, now that Chicago has taken over, there are no rules.
The supreme court and the Constitution are just little bumps in the road to Reid, Pelosi, R. Emanual, Obama, inc.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Matt,

you may be right, but I wouldn't bet on it. There are a lot of people out there who are viewing this time as a time to try to sneak something through on their liberal agenda. If Obama becomes a weak leader they will have the openings they need. A weak Obama is an Obama that has to follow the agenda of moveon.org. Hello PETA, ALF, brady campaign, and so on.

There have been some positive developments lately. Longshot's post about pelosi and the white house not exactly following Holder's lead, NJ shooting down antigun legislation, and pelosi's comments about enforcing current laws are some examples. There are some negative things out there too. HR 45 is very bothersome to me because I cannot believe that someone would think this could actually fly, the city councilwoman in Pennsylvania who said she doesn't care about the constitution when she spoke about banning guns, and the fact that Holder and Emmanuel are in the white house at the same time are examples of the negative. As illustrated by plainsman and others, we lose one of the justices in the supreme court, none of whom are exactly spring chickens, anti-gun legislation could be fast and brutal. It would take a perfect storm but you can't rule it out.

I have probably been the most outspoken critic of the NRA in recent history on this website. I still don't like the NRA, and I have taken some lumps for voicing my opinions and disdain but I got a 5 year membership the other day because I do not trust this current wave of inner-city leaders. Right now it is cool to be black and liberal and that doesn't bode well for lawful gun owners. It is not racism it is realism.


----------



## bearhunter (Jan 30, 2009)

well said tk33


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Matt Jones said:


> You guys aren't even looking at what I said. Something huge has happened since the last assault weapons ban...there' s been a landmark supreme court case that upheld the 2nd amendment as being applicable to a citizen's rights to own a firearm for self protection
> 
> I'm the ONLY one who is seeing the reality of this. You guys are the ones with your eyes closed...apparently none of you have heard of District of Columbia versus Heller..


By a 5 to 4 decision. ONE VOTE! They BARELY upheld the 2nd amendment! What happens if Obama gets to appoint one or two justices? You really think he'll appoint gun friendly justices? :eyeroll:

This is HORRIBLE in my opinion. I dont want supreme court justices that "interpret" the consitution, I want them to UPHOLD the constitution. Its written in PLAIN ENGLISH, there is no interpreting it. They barely did this in the heller case. And with an Obama apointee or two, they WONT! Plain and simple.



> You guys need to quit being so friggin' paranoid all the time.


You need to open your friggin eyes man!

Im sure glad your not a watch dog for us, everything's daisies and petunias in your world apparently. :eyeroll:

Gun control people have gotten smart. Apparently there are those amongst us who havent caught on, MATT! Its like the Johnny Cash song, "one piece at a time".


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> Gun control people have gotten smart. Apparently there are those amongst us who havent caught on, MATT! Its like the Johnny Cash song, "one piece at a time".


Agreed,

They do an excellent job at manipulating data, twisting society's true stance on gun control and they have found a way to get this in the media at their desire. The anti-gun and anti-hunting groups have all found a home at moveon.org. This is a dangerous group with a lot of poliitcal and PR saavy with a pile of cash at their disposal. moveon.org does not necessarily claim all these groups but they are there, spreading their agenda on the web and all over TV.


----------

