# You guys still think this gun ban isn't real?



## TURTLE

*When more and more poloticians keep popping up in opposition to this treaty, I have to put some beleif behind it happening. If it only has to be ratified by the Liberal Senate, seems to me it can't be stopped. I'm with the guy in the video, I'm not obeying any treaty.*
http://www.nagr.org/UNTreaty_Pledge1.aspx?pid=4b


----------



## WW2

No one. And I mean no one denies the reality of the gun ban treaty. I have never once heard someone say the treaty is not real. Now, stop shaking in fear of the treaty and go read up on your government and the constitution.


----------



## Catchin Hell

WW2 said:


> No one. And I mean no one denies the reality of the gun ban treaty. I have never once heard someone say the treaty is not real. Now, stop shaking in fear of the treaty and go read up on your government and the constitution.


Dan has, he pointed out the treaty has to be ratified by the Senate.


----------



## TURTLE

Catchin Hell said:


> Dan has, he pointed out the treaty has to be ratified by the Senate.


*Is there some reason that anyone thinks this Senate would not ratify it? *

:no:


----------



## FrankwT

the Co shooting may be a sooner threat than the UN..I bought 2 guns this week!


----------



## TURTLE

WW2 said:


> No one. And I mean no one denies the reality of the gun ban treaty. I have never once heard someone say the treaty is not real. Now, stop shaking in fear of the treaty and go read up on your government and the constitution.


*I have read it in full over the last 3.5 years no less then 3 times( Have it on my phone ). My conclusion is this, Obama and most of the admin if not all would just as soon whipe their ass with the Constitution then uphold it. In all their efforts so far they have done all they can to denounce it and write their own. Which resembles Communism on paper but not when you hear them talk about how much better off we will be if we just trust them to do whats best for us.*

*The problem is IMO, that for the most part of the population his policies will help them but for those of us who are not part of the 99% and because we busted our asses to get there ( And yes, I built my business myself thank you douche bag Obama) we will have to pay their share. Thats bullshit. The people that want to have the government take care of them and that are happy being average, move the Hell out of this country to one that beleives in survival of the mediocore. Last I checked this was suppossed to be the best country in the world to actually have your hard work pay off and have the ability to become wealthy.*

*And I'm sorry, if you think that this treaty is not the first step toward dissarming us, I beleive you are wrong. Take a look at the sequence of events of the Countries that have been dissarmed in the recent past. What did the process start with? Yepo thats right, registration, limitation, confiscation, and in at least one case( Germany ) termination ( Of at least one ethnic group ) Not to mention, don't you think the UN along with probably the rest of the world wants us weapon free? No Country would dare attack us on our land as it is now with 300+ Million civilian weapons in our hands, but take that threat away???? We would also be much easier for our own retarded ass government to control if we could not revolt with force as our fore fathers knew. Thats why we have the second amendment. They knew a Democratic Republic has never worked in a long term capacity before and that a day would come when the Government became so currupt that the people were no longer a concern. Hello!!!! That would be today my friend.*


----------



## TURTLE

FrankwT said:


> the Co shooting may be a sooner threat than the UN..I bought 2 guns this week!


*I saw on TV this morning that background checks in CO went up 42% since Friday. Is that in fear of another crazy or the crazies on the Left that can't tell the difference between a semi auto and full auto and what it takes and cost to get a full auto?*


----------



## WW2

Catchin Hell said:


> Dan has, he pointed out the treaty has to be ratified by the Senate.



Now, let's do a count....


----------



## Emerald Ghost

You are spot on Turtle.
100 %


----------



## FrankwT

TURTLE said:


> *I saw on TV this morning that background checks in CO went up 42% since Friday. Is that in fear of another crazy or the crazies on the Left that can't tell the difference between a semi auto and full auto and what it takes and cost to get a full auto?*



The talking heads and reporters have no clue as to what they are talking about, the difference in weapons, that the AR15 comes in any caliber but .223, what a full auto requires or the difference between weapons. The fact my AR is in 6.8 and is used for hunting is beyond them. You would think they would do a bit of research before reporting and making so many mistakes!


----------



## TURTLE

WW2 said:


> No one. And I mean no one denies the reality of the gun ban treaty. I have never once heard someone say the treaty is not real. Now, stop shaking in fear of the treaty and go read up on your government and the constitution.


*Take a look at this thread and tell me no one thinks this is real.*
http://www.pensacolafishingforum.com/f62/obama-complete-us-disarmament-via-un-peace-treaty-125423/


----------



## WW2

TURTLE said:


> *Take a look at this thread and tell me no one thinks this is real.*
> http://www.pensacolafishingforum.com/f62/obama-complete-us-disarmament-via-un-peace-treaty-125423/


Again, everyone knows it's real. Those that know better know that it won't be ratified.....



What does it take to ratify the treaty?....


----------



## WW2

Crickets.....


----------



## helo_hunter

My understanding is that it would take 60 votes in the US Senate to ratify the treaty. A number of Senators, both Republican and Democrats have said they would oppose ratification. I just pray enough of the Senators will vote NOT to ratify this abridgement of the US Consistition and Bill of Rights.
On a slippery slope that could see the current US Consistition being rewritten by the liberals and left wingers like Obama, Clinton, Schumer, Feinstein, Pelosi, Reid, and ultimately Soros.


----------



## WW2

helo_hunter said:


> My understanding is that it would take 60 votes in the US Senate to ratify the treaty. A number of Senators, both Republican and Democrats have said they would oppose ratification. I just pray enough of the Senators will vote NOT to ratify this abridgement of the US Consistition and Bill of Rights.
> On a slippery slope that could see the current US Consistition being rewritten by the liberals and left wingers like Obama, Clinton, Schumer, Feinstein, Pelosi, Reid, and ultimately Soros.



I will say this. If it does get ratified then a WHOLE lot of Republicans better rethink their lesser of two evils voting strategy... The Patriot Act should have been enough, but hey.


----------



## bigrick

people will have guns illegal or not. Kinda pointless when over 90 something % of crimes are done with unregistered or stolen weapon in the first place. Sign me up when the rebellion starts...


----------



## TURTLE

WW2 said:


> Crickets.....


*Sorry , I was waiting for you to tell me why you beleive the Senate would not Ratify it. They don't exactly have a record of giving a shit what the majority of the people want ie, Obamacare. So what makes this different? It's right up their ally, more and larger Government getting even deeper into our business and personal lives. It's a dream come true for a Liberal. Make a treaty that takes away guns from law abiding citizens all the while thinking that criminals are gonna think to them selves " I was gonna rob that liquer store and shoot the cashier but I forgot they passed that law, at least he won't be shooting back, ah ha" *

*And yes, I think that little of the Senate and their agenda. Why should anyone think otherwise? Congress ( Pre 2010 ) passed a bill that was widley known to be unpopular with most Americans. If that doesn't say F U to the people what does?:blink:*


----------



## WW2

TURTLE said:


> *Sorry , I was waiting for you to tell me why you beleive the Senate would not Ratify it. They don't exactly have a record of giving a shit what the majority of the people want ie, Obamacare. So what makes this different? It's right up their ally, more and larger Government getting even deeper into our business and personal lives. It's a dream come true for a Liberal. Make a treaty that takes away guns from law abiding citizens all the while thinking that criminals are gonna think to them selves " I was gonna rob that liquer store and shoot the cashier but I forgot they passed that law, at least he won't be shooting back, ah ha" *
> 
> *And yes, I think that little of the Senate and their agenda. Why should anyone think otherwise? Congress ( Pre 2010 ) passed a bill that was widley known to be unpopular with most Americans. If that doesn't say F U to the people what does?:blink:*



So, you are worried about all of the senate but then blame the liberals?


----------



## FrankwT

The NRA has a list of Senators backing their side and it seems there are enough to stop ratification. 
The liberals would pass it on their own as Hilary and odumbdumb are the ones pushing for the US to partake in the insanity. This election may save the Nation or send it into ruin by re-electing these muslim/liberal/commie supporters, look what odumb did to Poland/Israel recently.


----------



## jim t

Another stumbling block:


The Supreme Court has said that the Constitution supercedes Treaties with other countries.


http://www.4lawnotes.com/constitutional-law-case-briefs/2035-reid-v-covert.html

Jim


----------



## WW2

jim t said:


> Another stumbling block:
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has said that the Constitution supercedes Treaties with other countries.
> 
> 
> http://www.4lawnotes.com/constitutional-law-case-briefs/2035-reid-v-covert.html
> 
> Jim


Which is yet another reason why I said to stop reading the treaty and read up on our government.


----------



## ironman172

just when is Hollywood going to STOP making movies for the nut cases to copy cat....or the video games to teach young kids about killing and guns....there should be tutorials on gun safety..... before they are allowed to play some of the games out there ....where is the outrage for the movie he was coping(and then another just the other day they stopped)....just saying....I know freedom of speech...for them....but screw the right to bare arms for us :whistling:


----------



## jim t

And let's see what the Obama Administration stance is:

From the lead negotiator for the US


Thank you very much, Linc. I’m sure many of you are familiar with the genesis of the Arms Trade Treaty and with the needs that it seeks to address. We have been doing our best to explain to people what is our approach. I’m delighted to have the opportunity to restate it for a larger audience today. And I’m grateful to the Stimson Center for giving us this opportunity.

As Ambassador Bloomfield noted, our bureau, International Security and Nonproliferation, already has a wide range of issues to deal with. Our efforts are concentrated on preventing the spread of nuclear, biological, chemical weapons and long-range missiles. We describe our work usually as keeping the world’s most dangerous weapons out of the hands of the world’s most dangerous people, or, alternatively, the world’s most dangerous toys out of the hands of the world’s most dangerous children.

To do this, we often work multilaterally through treaties such as the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. We work in groups outside a treaty framework through collaborative arrangements like the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, a Russian-American initiative. And this includes also the various nonproliferation regimes, such as the Missile Control Technology Regime, the Australia Group, the Wassenaar Arrangement, and the Nuclear Suppliers Group. And we work bilaterally with states that share our goals of preventing the export of proliferation-sensitive material. Often, our work is then exemplified in a particular international gathering, and I think we’ve seen success, just in the last few months. Here I’d mention the Biological Weapons Review Conference in December, which took important steps forward, as well as, just three weeks ago, the Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, which measured incredible progress by the world community in securing nuclear materials.

Now, a part of my bureau’s portfolio that is generally less well known—although probably known to you here today—is our work to stop the proliferation of conventional weapons—anything from guns, to MANPADs air-to-surface missiles, all the way up to major weapons systems such as tanks, aircraft, missiles, and precision-guided munitions.

Around the world, in the Middle East, in Africa, the Caucasus, today in Syria and Southern Sudan, we see instability and protracted conflict. We see that conflicts can be fueled and prolonged by the continued flow of guns, planes, and other conventional weapons. You don’t have to have a political point of view to be concerned about the situation in Syria, in which old Syrian citizens are today being killed by new, Iranian bullets; to recognize the flow of weapons to areas of conflict is destabilizing for people on the ground and for the international community.

It is an old idea to seek to establish international guidelines for the national control of transfers of weapons that could impede the sale of such conventional weapons, both to outlaw states and to countries in crisis.

Recognizing that these world standards would be a step forward for stability, Secretary of State Clinton announced in October 2009 that the United States would participate in negotiations by consensus for an Arms Trade Treaty that would establish common international standards for the export and transfer of conventional weapons, standards that would help prevent the acquisition of arms by terrorists and criminals and by those who violate human rights or are subject to United Nations arms embargoes.

Now you are experienced enough to recognize the enormous task the Conference has set for itself: in one month, July of this year, to conclude an effective treaty in four short weeks of negotiation with potentially all 193 members of the United Nations. It’s a significant task. And it will involve negotiation and preparation– not just the imposition by any one country or any group of countries to present one document fully baked to be accepted by everyone else. So we have a lot of work in front of us, but we also have an outstanding team in Don Mahley, Ann Ganzer and Bill Malzahn.

What do we see as the objective of these negotiations, and what are the key elements of a successful Treaty? Well, these are the elements that the United States is keeping in mind in our approach:

First, this is not a disarmament negotiation; it is an arms trade regulation negotiation. International transfer of conventional armaments is a legitimate commercial and national security activity. Providing defense equipment to reliable partners in a responsible manner actually enhances security, stability, and promotion of the rule of law. We want any Treaty to make it more difficult and expensive to conduct illicit, illegal and destabilizing transfers of arms. But we do not want something that would make legitimate international arms trade more cumbersome than the hurdles United States exporters already face.

What we want is for other countries, which do not have an adequate level of control to agree to create, or improve effective national systems that will review, and approve or deny arms transfers under their national responsibility. In short, we would want the Treaty to elevate the international standard for export control of armaments to get it as close to the level that we have in the United States as we can get it. This would be a big step forward over the status quo, where many countries have excellent export control standards, but in other countries a rogue arms merchant can operate with impunity from the territory of a state that simply takes no notice of such activity.

Second, let me be clear once more on the question of domestic transfers. The Treaty must not touch on domestic transfers or ownership. The United States has received widespread international support for this oft-repeated position that only international transfers would come within the purview of this Treaty. We will not support outcomes that would in any way infringe on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. We have received, in fact, letters from United States Senators opposing any Treaty restricting the Second Amendment. This has been the position of the Executive Branch since 2009, and it remains our position today. We will not support or agree to any Treaty that would do so. We believe that the international community can draft a Treaty on international arms transfers that would both increase international security and still protect sovereign rights of nations. That is the Treaty that the United States will pursue in July and for which we expect there will be widespread support.

Third, you know that this Administration has been working long and hard to complete an Export Control Reform that will change how a number of armaments-associated items are treated under United States’ export control laws and regulations. Now, that effort is completely independent of our negotiations on the ATT, though we have carefully ensured throughout our deliberations that the two efforts do not conflict with each other. One of the central points of our position in the July Conference is that the Treaty will correspond and be supportive of United States Export Control Reform.

We believe, and will strongly advocate, that implementation of any ATT is strictly a national process. There will not be international organizations, or regulators or regimes responsible for defining, determining, or deciding, what is an appropriate arms transfer for any country. Instead, there must be a senior-level and responsible national decision on any such export. We want the Treaty to tell each State Party what factors it must consider before authorizing a transfer – that is, criteria to keep in mind to review seriously and decide whether the transfer in question is responsible or not. But the Treaty should not tell each State Party how it must evaluate such a transfer—what bureaucratic process it needs to follow. That position is not only sensible for the sovereignty of states, but it is also consistent with the kind of bureaucratic streamlining we are seeking to finalize in our Export Control Reform.

The US has made our position on one other issue very clear in the preliminary discussions with international partners. Many states and organizations –many of them without major armaments industries or significant international arms trade – have sought to include ammunition in the scope of an ATT. The United States, which produces over seven billion rounds of ammunition a year, has resisted those efforts on the grounds that including ammunition is hugely impractical. We have asked our international partners, who proposed this inclusion, to lay out some specific means where such a fungible and consumable commodity could effectively and practically be accounted for and that would result in a degree of real control consistent with the goals of the Treaty. We are skeptical that there is such a proposal on the table or ready to be proposed, but we will remain open-minded in respecting the wishes of international parties and partners in studying such a proposal.

Many of you have already heard these positions of the United States at some earlier time in this process. If you’ve heard them before, you’ve just heard them again. They have not evolved, but I wanted to review them so you know that our national position going into the July Conference is consistent, it’s balanced and it has generated a good deal of understanding and support from key international partners who will also be in New York in July. We believe that these positions are exactly how an effective, practical Treaty can be adopted and can contribute to international security.


http://www.state.gov/t/isn/rls/rm/188002.htm

Jim


----------



## TURTLE

ironman172 said:


> just when is Hollywood going to STOP making movies for the nut cases to copy cat....or the video games to teach young kids about killing and guns....there should be tutorials on gun safety..... before they are allowed to play some of the games out there ....where is the outrage for the movie he was coping(and then another just the other day they stopped)....just saying....I know freedom of speech...for them....but screw the right to bare arms for us :whistling:


*It was on the radio yesterday that one of the victims attorney had filed suits against, first the theater for not having an alarm on the fire exit door that he used, second, Holmes's DR for not monitoring him after prescribing drugs for a mental disorder, third , and wait for it..... Warner Brothers for making the movie????? :blink: Thats were the money is the lawyer said. Thats right he actually said it.*

*It was a very very very isolated terrible crime committed by a very very disturbed young man. No movie or door or theater is to blame, he is CRAZY!!!! I can't stand this blame someone or anyone or thing else, then sue. BS.*


----------



## TURTLE

*Thank you Jim, that actually made me feel better. Now lets just hope this is not just another lie by this Administration.*


----------



## WW2

TURTLE said:


> *It was on the radio yesterday that one of the victims attorney had filed suits against, first the theater for not having an alarm on the fire exit door that he used, second, Holmes's DR for not monitoring him after prescribing drugs for a mental disorder, third , and wait for it..... Warner Brothers for making the movie????? :blink: Thats were the money is the lawyer said. Thats right he actually said it.*
> 
> *It was a very very very isolated terrible crime committed by a very very disturbed young man. No movie or door or theater is to blame, he is CRAZY!!!! I can't stand this blame someone or anyone or thing else, then sue. BS.*



That guy is suing the gun manufacturers as well.


----------



## Plinker

Ain't happen'n.


http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

STILL Obama must be voted out of office.
New Supreme Court Justice's will be appointed under the next administration.
They could possibly re-interpret the 2nd amendment.


----------



## jim t

Plinker said:


> Ain't happen'n.
> 
> 
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp


That was because of a rumor that it had already been signed. 

The UN is presently trying to draw up a treaty. They hope to have a final draft by Friday.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07/25/un-treaty-takes-shape-and-takes-aim-at-gun-owners/

Jim


----------



## WW2

Ok, see you guys in one week when the next UN ban thread starts.....


----------



## phil c

I'm not worried about having my guns confiscated, I dont have any. Nope, not one. Just like most of you guys!


----------



## roadie

ww2 said:


> that guy is suing the gun manufacturers as well.


 that's like me going after at&t for the wreck my kid was in.....(even though she was texting) not at&t fault just stupid decisions !


----------



## dwatts1984

*"guns dont kill people, people kill people"*



ironman172 said:


> just when is Hollywood going to STOP making movies for the nut cases to copy cat....or the video games to teach young kids about killing and guns....there should be tutorials on gun safety..... before they are allowed to play some of the games out there ....where is the outrage for the movie he was coping(and then another just the other day they stopped)....just saying....I know freedom of speech...for them....but screw the right to bare arms for us :whistling:


 I have to disagree, the games and movies didn't kill those innocent people, that spaz did. There needs to be harsher punishment. The fact that a man dressed in full tactical gear including a bullet proof vest and fun down innocent people and kill 12 of them, and never have a single shot fired upon him is appalling to me! The man should have been outright shot, or at the very least sentenced to death and stoned. Criminals today and no fear of civilians or government retaliation. They get put behind bars, maybe plead insanity and get locked up and filled with drugs. People such as this loser who shot up the theater should be immediately put to death. Strike fears into criminals, to help deter them from such acts as this. 
Ask yourself this question, "if the games and movies did influence this loser, do you think he still might have gone through with it if he knew he was going to be publicly stoned, or beheaded, or even lynched" ? I honestly don't think so. He was a smart kid and he knew he would be taken into custody, and not harmed. What a joke. At the bare minimum release him into general population in the prison and let "the people" seek justice. 
Government and people alike are taking advantage of a tragic situation. People were killed, and shot by a psycho. Period. We don't need more guns in the hands of civilians, and we don't need more gun control, we need stiffer penalties. Hell what did we do you Bin Laden after he killed people... oh yea we killed him. Time to hold criminals accountable for their actions. 
Take away guns then what does that leave... Crossbows, compound bows, hatchets, swords, Knives, or even a good old fashioned baseball bat. Fact is if someone has it set in their mind they are going to kill someone chances are they can find a way. Its sad truth is all.


----------



## Emerald Ghost

dwatts1984 said:


> Take away guns then what does that leave... Crossbows, compound bows, hatchets, swords, Knives, or even a good old fashioned baseball bat. Fact is if someone has it set in their mind they are going to kill someone chances are they can find a way. Its sad truth is all.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It never ceases to amaze me that people who are anti-gun never take the time to think .
ANY of the above tools, methods can kill someone. Did you mention automobiles ? poisons ?
tire tools ? etc..
The anti gun people apparently don't have the capacity to use logic in their thinking. Otherwise they would be pushing to outlaw automobiles, knives, baseball bats and tire tools among other weapons.
Duh !


----------



## TURTLE

WW2 said:


> That guy is suing the gun manufacturers as well.


*Seriously? When do you think Rossane Barr and Rossie Odonell are gonna sue the creators of spoons and forks. I mean if the gun makers are responsible for this then spoons and forks had to make them fat and maybe stupid too.:no:*


----------



## WW2

I agree completely. I think it's dumb. I had just heard that several of the people in the theater were cranking up the lawsuits and that several of them were going after the gun manufacturers. It's too bad these crazy assholes don't try to kill people with PETA posters.


----------



## Collard

So the date has passed....is the UN gonna get our guns yet or not


----------



## Plinker

Collard said:


> So the date has passed....is the UN gonna *TRY* *TO* get our guns or not?


 
Fixed!


----------



## jim t

No, They could not reach an agreement. They'll keep negotiating...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...l-arms-trade-treaty-as-us-asks-for-more-time/

Jim


----------



## FrankwT

They will never give up, as they said we will give it another try the next meeting. DEFEAT odumbdumb!


----------



## TURTLE

WW2 said:


> I agree completely. I think it's dumb. I had just heard that several of the people in the theater were cranking up the lawsuits and that several of them were going after the gun manufacturers. It's too bad these crazy assholes don't try to kill people with PETA posters.


*Ah Ha, I wish they would. *

*And no it's not dead just shelved till after the election so if the dahli Bama gets re elected he can rule with impunity. I don't think it will get far. It's the sneaky bills that they try and get gun control laws passed in that scare me. " Cyber Security" for example. Mag size, registration and so forth. Booooooo!!! *


----------



## ZombieKiller

More "worried" about the ban on online ammo sales. Apparently I'm not the only one, either. SGAmmo.com was basically sold out of .223 as of this afternoon.


----------



## Deeplines

You didn't hear?
Hillary somehow made that happen. Just ask Frank T.


----------



## WW2

TURTLE said:


> *Ah Ha, I wish they would. *
> 
> *And no it's not dead just shelved till after the election so if the dahli Bama gets re elected he can rule with impunity. I don't think it will get far. It's the sneaky bills that they try and get gun control laws passed in that scare me. " Cyber Security" for example. Mag size, registration and so forth. Booooooo!!! *


Obama cannot make the decision on this. You have to stop thinking that. It has to get through the 2/3rds vote and there is no way in hell 2/3rds will belong to anti-gun politicians. And then even after that our constitution trumps ANY treaty.


----------



## TURTLE

ZombieKiller said:


> More "worried" about the ban on online ammo sales. Apparently I'm not the only one, either. SGAmmo.com was basically sold out of .223 as of this afternoon.


*Cheaper then Dirt and Cabelas seem to be stocked up and having sales. *


----------



## FrankwT

Hilary is a pure Marxist and did try to get it done to ban weapons in the US, don't believe me, just ask her, she has said so before in her own words. odumbdumb said the same thing when a senator for 2 mos.


----------



## Deeplines

Assault weapons, not guns. I don't know about odumbdumb. 

Same ol, Same ol politics. Goes talking about it then votes the other way.


----------



## Slayerdog




----------



## FrankwT

Deeplines said:


> Assault weapons, not guns. I don't know about odumbdumb.
> 
> Same ol, Same ol politics. Goes talking about it then votes the other way.


Hilary also said semi-auto handguns and odumbdumb would ban all guns...in his own words!


----------



## Deeplines

Yet Susan Rice voted against gun control. I'm sure she didn't do that without President Obama's approval.

Like I said, Say one thing and VOTE the other.


----------



## FrankwT

Bottom line is you want more freedoms lost vote democrat, you want your rights preserved, vote Rep, don't believe me check with the NRA or other gun rights organizations. This may be a life changing election and you vote odumbdumb back in you deserve the destruction of the American way you voted for.


----------



## Deeplines

You should know.. I'm writing in Ron Paul. That's who you vote for if you want your rights and liberties. Not Dem or Rep.


----------



## FrankwT

well that is 1 vote that will allow odumbdumb to win. a vote for any fringe person or group is the same as a vote for more of the same and a likely Dem win. Thank you.


----------



## dwc

This scares me to death. The liberal senate will most certainly approve. Beeing an election year is the only hope which may prevent them from saying ok.


----------



## FrankwT

Talk about commies in our midst!

 *SENATOR YEE AMENDS SB 249 INTO A MASSIVE, UNCONSTITUTIONAL GUN BAN*​  _*CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL KAMALA HARRIS ENDORSES SB 249 REQUIREMENT TO USE DETACHABLE MAGAZINE FIREARMS

http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=812c9186a81db6434329bda16&id=e666b43382&e=785ca8efb4
*_​


----------



## scubapro

Deeplines said:


> You should know.. I'm writing in Ron Paul. That's who you vote for if you want your rights and liberties. Not Dem or Rep.


What will you do if Ron Paul tell his supporters to place their support behind Mitt Romney around the time of the convention? :whistling:


----------



## FrankwT

He will as they have scheduled him to speak and that is a caveat.


----------



## Deeplines

scubapro said:


> What will you do if Ron Paul tell his supporters to place their support behind Mitt Romney around the time of the convention? :whistling:


I can promise you, Mitt nor Obama will get my vote. I will most likely write in Paul anyways. That's who I want to be President so that's who I will vote for. Nobody tells me how I should vote, not even the one I'm voting for.

How's that for an independent voters answer.


----------



## FrankwT

a vote for Paul or other fringe candidates is a vote for odumbdumb, so that is worse than an informed voted voting directly for him.


----------



## Randy M

People are tired of voting for the "lesser of two evils" That's precisely why we've had crap presidents for a very long time now.

I don't know what the answer is but voting for someone you don't like so someone else don't get elected ain't it!


----------



## FrankwT

I know Randy I feel the same way, but if people waste their vote on a fringe candidate that cannot win, they might as well sit at home because they are either way basically voting for the incumbent...I cannot financially stand another 4 years of the current regime, neither can America.


----------



## TURTLE

FrankwT said:


> I know Randy I feel the same way, but if people waste their vote on a fringe candidate that cannot win, they might as well sit at home because they are either way basically voting for the incumbent...I cannot financially stand another 4 years of the current regime, neither can America.


*I can't either. I can't afford for Obamacare to stand. And this is why. He told everyone that you could keep your policy if you were happy with it. He said you can keep your Dr if you liked him/her. Well that may be kinda true but what he does not say is that your Dr does not have to accept your insurance and if it's one of the mandated plans they most likley won't take it because it's regulated like Medicade.*

*You know how if your on Medicade you have a choice of like 1 or 2 Dr's in the tri County area? Thats because Medicade will only pay a certain amount per procedure and most Dr's won't work for that little, and they have the choice if they don't want to take patients coverd by it. So imagine how that gonna work out.*

*I'm with you Frank, any vote for any reason for some one other then Romney is a vote for Obama. If A person can live with contributing to his re-election then why not just become a registered Liberal and straight up vote for Obama, don't act like your making some Moral statement because you know exactly what your doing and who your voting for. Don't hide behind Morality. We are way past that point , just turn on your TV and tell me where you find it in this election.*


----------



## FrankwT

Turtle you are so right, between the healthcare, the gun and ammo regs, no US drilling, no pipeline, money going to bankrupt green companies, no jobs, legalizing illegal aliens, all the reg/ rules not even going to Congress and being enacted anyway, I am done anyway! Romney at least will slow down my demise where I might be able to die naturally before the ruin of America happens.


----------



## duckhunter

Turtle and Frank you are correct!


----------



## TURTLE

FrankwT said:


> Turtle you are so right, between the healthcare, the gun and ammo regs, no US drilling, no pipeline, money going to bankrupt green companies, no jobs, legalizing illegal aliens, all the reg/ rules not even going to Congress and being enacted anyway, I am done anyway! Romney at least will slow down my demise where I might be able to die naturally before the ruin of America happens.


*I was telling my kids last night that I may be lucky enough to live and die before the complete destruction of American values but I have very little faith they will.:thumbdown:*

*I'm glad they are smart enough to actually know and see what I meant.*

*Did you happen to see the Feds finally let Gibson Guitars off the hook from their fabricated customs violations for a mere $300k fine for something they didn't do. Yep Obama is all for American jobs. Thats why 80% of the "Raids" done by the Feds were on All American companies!!!!:thumbdown:*

*But hey, vote for Donald Duck or whoever cause it don't matter right? What a cop out. Just stay home, that would warrant more respect then giving your vote to the most UnAmerican President in history.*


----------



## Deeplines

Hey guys, if Mitt is not electable maybe the RNC shouldn't have pushed him. Saying you had rather suffur slowly then quickly is what's wrong with the US now. I can't believe a REAL Rep. Posted that.

After thinking about it, yes I can. Dem or Rep, it's all the same.

There's more things to vote on then the President in the up coming elections you know. Guess I will not take your advise and keep my butt at home. 

This post had might as well go ahead and be put in the politics section.

Still didn't see what you thought of a independent voter? I saw your remarks about a vote for this is a vote for Obama crap though. If I don't vote for Obama it's not a vote for Obama.


----------



## FrankwT

It is very clear a vote not for Mitt is a vote for Odumbdumb, That is how Perot changed the outcome of an election because of his hatred of the Bush Family. These fringe candidates know they cannot win, so it is a wasted vote #1 and this time it is a clear vote for dumbo! There is nothing independent about that.


----------



## Deeplines

Ok frank.

I love how the sheep listen to the wolf.


----------



## FrankwT

Just telling the truth and how it works in reality.


----------



## Mudigger

Y'all go ahead and "Drink the Koolaid!" and either don't vote at all or vote for Obama. I'm not happy with Romney but I'm furious with Obama. Do you like your American born physician? Well, your next one won't speak English because we [physicians] are getting other occupations. 80% of my income is from administrative work and I employee three nurse practitioners whom see patients. I have not taken Medicaid for over five years and will limit Medicare after the first of the year. Medicine is in a sad state in this country. I don't have the answer to the healthcare crisis but Obamacare isn't it!


----------



## Randy M

Mudigger said:


> Y'all go ahead and "Drink the Koolaid!" and either don't vote at all or vote for Obama. I'm not happy with Romney but I'm furious with Obama............



All you have to do is read responses to this thread or any other political thread here and you soon realize........it's ALL Koolaid, just the flavor is different!


----------



## Tracer

YOU just support the NRA and all will be like drinking a glass of cold milk on a hot summers day!


----------



## vickroid

Mudigger said:


> Do you like your American born physician? Well, your next one won't speak English because we [physicians] are getting other occupations. 80% of my income is from administrative work and I employee three nurse practitioners whom see patients. I have not taken Medicaid for over five years and will limit Medicare after the first of the year. Medicine is in a sad state in this country. I don't have the answer to the healthcare crisis but Obamacare isn't it!


So after reading this whole thread, and it has been interesting, this right here is the post I like the most and honestly IMO should have the most impact. This being said from the "front lines" of a service that EVERY american (and illegal nowdays) will need at some point says alot. I know how I will be voting......:yes:


----------



## Crashcrew

The CO shooting was used by the government to make LEGAL gun sales bad. I have no doubt that the shooter had his idenity bought.


----------

