Mr. T Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 Holder Finally Speaks Truth and Tells Congress Obama Goal to Ban Guns Eric Holder, the top law enforcement officer in the nation has a proven track record of lying to Congress and the American people. Some members of Congress have been debating on whether or not to cite the US Attorney General for contempt of Congress for his testimony, or lack thereof, before them on Operation Fast and Furious. Ever since the botched guns to Mexican drug cartels fiasco was made public, documentation proves that Holder has continuously lied about his knowledge of the operation. Even when presented with irrefutable evidence of his knowledge, he sat before Congress and lied to their faces without batting an eye. I watched part of Holder’s testimony before Congress and his whole mannerism was that of a pathological liar. One of my close family members is a pathological liar who believes their lies to be the truth once they leave their lips and it is virtually impossible to convince them otherwise. I confronted the family member with a tape recording of their lie and they stood there and denied it was them or the tape was real. I saw that same trait in America’s top cop. Yet, most likely without realizing it, Holder actually told the truth for once when he admitted to Congress that Obama wants to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, “This administration has consistently favored the reinstitution of the assault weapons ban. It is something that we think was useful in the past with regard to the reduction that we’ve seen in crime, and certainly would have a positive impact on our relationship and the crime situation in Mexico.” Read more: Holder Finally Speaks Truth and Tells Congress Obama Goal to Ban Guns http://godfatherpolitics.com/3597/holder-finally-speaks-truth-and-tells-congress-obama-goal-to-ban-guns/#ixzz1mNgzCyQ6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 Holder Finally Speaks Truth and Tells Congress Obama Goal to Ban Guns Eric Holder, the top law enforcement officer in the nation has a proven track record of lying to Congress and the American people. Some members of Congress have been debating on whether or not to cite the US Attorney General for contempt of Congress for his testimony, or lack thereof, before them on Operation Fast and Furious. Ever since the botched guns to Mexican drug cartels fiasco was made public, documentation proves that Holder has continuously lied about his knowledge of the operation. Even when presented with irrefutable evidence of his knowledge, he sat before Congress and lied to their faces without batting an eye. I watched part of Holder’s testimony before Congress and his whole mannerism was that of a pathological liar. One of my close family members is a pathological liar who believes their lies to be the truth once they leave their lips and it is virtually impossible to convince them otherwise. I confronted the family member with a tape recording of their lie and they stood there and denied it was them or the tape was real. I saw that same trait in America’s top cop. Yet, most likely without realizing it, Holder actually told the truth for once when he admitted to Congress that Obama wants to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, Read more: Holder Finally Speaks Truth and Tells Congress Obama Goal to Ban Guns http://godfatherpolitics.com/3597/holder-finally-speaks-truth-and-tells-congress-obama-goal-to-ban-guns/#ixzz1mNgzCyQ6 T, what is the definition of assault weapons here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 Why do people need assault weapons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 Most Americans are in favor of an assault weapons ban. (It's close, but...) We've had one in the past. It's already been ruled Constitutional. Your 2nd Amendment right is not a right to own all weapons. That's not how it works. Someone should explain this to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 I do enjoy how much people on the right flipped out when Obama was caught talking about people who "cling to their guns and religion." And what are the people on the right in here posting about these last few days? Buying more guns, wanting all guns to be legal, how Obama secretly wants to take all of your guns, and how the Bible is the word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 Most Americans are in favor of an assault weapons ban. (It's close, but...) We've had one in the past. It's already been ruled Constitutional. Your 2nd Amendment right is not a right to own all weapons. That's not how it works. Someone should explain this to you. I think the assault weapons ban was stupid. It outlawed AR-15's because they look scary, yet Mini 14's were still available and arguably a superior weapon. I think you should be allowed to own a weapon so long as you can selectively kill with it. So yeah, obviously people shouldn't be allowed to own grenades or rocket launchers, but a semi-automatic assault rifle? Give me a good argument for why not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 I don't see why anyone would need a lot of fire power Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 That's because you are a dweeb college kid who doesn't know much about the real world. Still live in a dorm, maybe? A gay dorm? The idea to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, means they get to define what an assualt weapon is. And some of their attempted definitions included .22 rifes with a clip. All pistols. Even two shot semi-automatic shotguns. But who cares when you have a mental disorder and you want everybody else to not have guns either? Bunch of marxist idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted February 14, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 Most Americans are in favor of an assault weapons ban. (It's close, but...) We've had one in the past. It's already been ruled Constitutional. Your 2nd Amendment right is not a right to own all weapons. That's not how it works. Someone should explain this to you. Leave it up to the bucklesss Heck to twist the definition of the second amendment. Should we quote Thomas Jefferson? And Kosar definition of assault style weapons would more than likely fall under the same definitions that were in the Brady law. I don't see why anyone would need a lot of fire power Who's to say? It depends on what you are hunting. A 338 will take down a grizzly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 I'm using the Supreme Court definition, T. There isn't one member of the Supreme Court - not Scalia, not Alito, not Roberts, not Thomas - who believes that the second amendment gives Americans the right to possess any gun. Not one of them. "There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose." That's Justice Scalia. You do not have an unlimited right to own whatever gun you want. That's not what the Constitution says. You have the right to keep and bear arms, and you have the right to armed self-defense. This is basic stuff. Do you accept that your 2nd Amendment right is not unlimited, or is the conservative wing of the Supreme Court not conservative enough for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Why the F do you need to hunt grizzly bears? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Why the F do you need to hunt grizzly bears? You don't. Lets ban everything not vital to life. And tax the shit outta that! WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Hey, some of the best environmentalists in the country are hunters and anglers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 That's obviously not what I meant... Banning assault rifles sounds good to me. Why any person would need that much fire power is beyond me. If you really want to hunt grizzlies, I'm sure something could be worked out regarding rentals or something like that. Regular people don't need that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 That's obviously not what I meant... Banning assault rifles sounds good to me. Why any person would need that much fire power is beyond me. If you really want to hunt grizzlies, I'm sure something could be worked out regarding rentals or something like that. Regular people don't need that You didn't answer my question. If it's on the basis of power, then why should anyone be allowed to own a .50 Desert Eagle or .357 Magnum? Should those be illegal too? This is one topic in which most people on the left seem to be unable to come up with a consistent argument, and it really baffles me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 How would you design an AWB, Vapor? This seems to be an area of interest for you. Or if not a AMB, what type of restrictions would you want to see? It's seems pretty clear that the AWB of the 90s didn't have much effect, and was easily gotten around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 You didn't answer my question. If it's on the basis of power, then why should anyone be allowed to own a .50 Desert Eagle or .357 Magnum? Should those be illegal too? This is one topic in which most people on the left seem to be unable to come up with a consistent argument, and it really baffles me. I didn't realize you asked me a question and I'm not on the left You'll never be able to take guns away from people, because there is always that sense of security thing. I'm obviously not an expert on guns but I would think limiting the killing power to a point where you can reasonably protect yourself from attackers but not enough to easily shoot up a school would be ideal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted February 15, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Why the F do you need to hunt grizzly bears? I need a new rug. Why did Holder LIE to Congress? I bet Heck cannot answer that question, I'm sure he thinks its okay that people died while him and his boss man Obama allowed people to be murdered when they sold those guns to the Drug Cartel. They are the criminals and should go to prison. Imo Anybody who supports any of the activities about the fast and furious are Traitors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted February 15, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 I'm using the Supreme Court definition, T. There isn't one member of the Supreme Court - not Scalia, not Alito, not Roberts, not Thomas - who believes that the second amendment gives Americans the right to possess any gun. Not one of them. "There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose." That's Justice Scalia. You do not have an unlimited right to own whatever gun you want. That's not what the Constitution says. You have the right to keep and bear arms, and you have the right to armed self-defense. This is basic stuff. Do you accept that your 2nd Amendment right is not unlimited, or is the conservative wing of the Supreme Court not conservative enough for you? So Heck, since this was been written we have come along way in the development of firearms. The sole purpose from Thomas Jefferson was to be sure that the militia would be able to make a correction if we ever had a tyranical government. So do you agree that those of us civilians are allowed to own whatever we like or should be allowed to possess anything our military has? Or is it in your opinion we should only be allowed to own a musket loader? You state that this is all basic; then why are you asking Woody how much freedom he would be willing to give up so he would feel safe? Evidence mounts that "Fast and Furious" was a classic "false flag" operation to justify taking away the rights of American citizens. Holder’s department facilitated the illegal sale of thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels. The Mexican government estimates that 150-200 Mexican citizens have been killed by guns. Mostly members of Mexican law enforcement. At least two members of American law enforcement have also been murdered using these guns. Holder has been caught lying, under oath, about his knowledge of the operation. The operations appears to have been widely known in the Obama administration because the administration was claiming that Americans should relinquish their 2nd amendment rights to stop Mexican drug cartels from getting US guns. All while the ATF was ordered to facilitate illegal sales to the very same cartels. This suggests that “Fast and Furious” was actually a “false flag” operation designed to justify taking away the rights of American citizens. More evidence is rapidly emerging. The ATF probably also facilitated the illegal sale of fragmentation grenades. Evidence also suggests that some drug carriers were allowed to deliver drugs into US cities as well. All under the guise that the drug carriers were being monitored for “research.” Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 How would you design an AWB, Vapor? This seems to be an area of interest for you. Or if not a AMB, what type of restrictions would you want to see? It's seems pretty clear that the AWB of the 90s didn't have much effect, and was easily gotten around. I think that if you're going to legislate a weapons ban, it needs to be rational and consistent. Clinton's was neither (see the Mini-14 vs AR-15). I think if you are going to enact a ban, then you should enact a ban on types of ammunition, but even that, I feel, is a slippery slope. You might have an argument for AP rounds, .50 cal, .45 cal as those types of rounds can often go right through the target. But, I think that the legislation should ban all weapons with which you cannot selectively kill (explosives, fully automatic weapons). For example, you are carrying a concealed weapon and going to make a deposit at your bank, and while you're there, the bank gets robbed. This guy is waving a gun around, so you have a chance to shoot him. If you have a higher caliber weapon, even if you hit your mark, there's a chance that it goes through him and hits someone on the other side. Not good. On the flip side, if you ban all those types of ammo, you're left with something like a 9mm which doesn't have great stopping power. You'll never be able to take guns away from people, because there is always that sense of security thing. I'm obviously not an expert on guns but I would think limiting the killing power to a point where you can reasonably protect yourself from attackers but not enough to easily shoot up a school would be ideal. My problem with these types of arguments is that they're often arguments of ignorance. What you say seems like a good idea, but how would you enact it? Where do you draw the line at making it hard to shoot up a school. If a school attack is premeditated, lots of people are going to die unless you ban all guns except flintlocks and muzzle loaded rifles which take forever and a day to reload in between each shot. So, that leaves us with no rational way to keep guns from people. Cho killed and wounded over 50 people with a .22 and a 9mm, relative babies when compared to other ammunition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted February 15, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Apparently Mr T is old enough to have talked to the founders.... or he's been to one too many Tea Party rallies.... Hey woody, should Holder and Obama be held accountable for lying to Congress? Do you believe they are above the law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Well obviously not IF they lied, they should be punished like anyone else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 That's obviously not what I meant... Banning assault rifles sounds good to me. Why any person would need that much fire power is beyond me. If you really want to hunt grizzlies, I'm sure something could be worked out regarding rentals or something like that. Regular people don't need that I don't see how you could mean something different than what you say. and that is that it's okay to take a way a particular right because most people don't choose to exercise it. Someone could certainly shoot up a school or a restaurant or any public place with a couple of handguns. Since they are rarely used for hunting purposes should they not be outlawed? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 That's some solid conversation there about guns. I don't mind not being allowed to have c-4 explosives or machine guns. But back in the day, our Founders said (i'm paraphrasing here...@@) that if a dictator were to emerge, and refuse to leave office for whatever reason after he was voted out, etc etc... I know, ridiculous (but then again... we have Obamao the Terrible)... @@ the American people are to throw off the yoke of tyranny, and fight to reestablish our Constitution, our government. Actually, our military would just arrest him... But the arguing over a seven, or ten shot clip is stupid. so is registration. That leads to intimidation and licensing, which leads to too much cost... elimination of gun ownerhip. I think if civilization falls apart someday, after some national devastating, destructive calamity... I would like to have some serious firepower. Then, and only then, would I want to be allowed to own a bunch of grenade throwers, SAMS, and a moat with alligators around our farm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Actually, Woody, regular people DO need that. Read up on Alaska. That's the most common example. Fishermen have big guns, loaded, with them for protection. The Rangers know it, and know it's fine. And my trusty companion, a .22 9-shot won't help me much if I run into a black bear in early spring looking for food, or one with a couple of cubs.. in our woods. I've accidently seen a huge black bear up way too close, in N. Georgia. Like 20 or so yards away. He let me slowly back away with my hands raised high (to make me look bigger) down the mountainside. So, I'm thinking with a bear, or a mountain lion, I'd need a .45 or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Silencer. That's what I need. So, I could hunt squirrel, shoot one, and not freak out all the rest of the woods ! I want one. Crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 I think that if you're going to legislate a weapons ban, it needs to be rational and consistent. Clinton's was neither (see the Mini-14 vs AR-15). I think if you are going to enact a ban, then you should enact a ban on types of ammunition, but even that, I feel, is a slippery slope. You might have an argument for AP rounds, .50 cal, .45 cal as those types of rounds can often go right through the target. But, I think that the legislation should ban all weapons with which you cannot selectively kill (explosives, fully automatic weapons). For example, you are carrying a concealed weapon and going to make a deposit at your bank, and while you're there, the bank gets robbed. This guy is waving a gun around, so you have a chance to shoot him. If you have a higher caliber weapon, even if you hit your mark, there's a chance that it goes through him and hits someone on the other side. Not good. On the flip side, if you ban all those types of ammo, you're left with something like a 9mm which doesn't have great stopping power. My problem with these types of arguments is that they're often arguments of ignorance. What you say seems like a good idea, but how would you enact it? Where do you draw the line at making it hard to shoot up a school. If a school attack is premeditated, lots of people are going to die unless you ban all guns except flintlocks and muzzle loaded rifles which take forever and a day to reload in between each shot. So, that leaves us with no rational way to keep guns from people. Cho killed and wounded over 50 people with a .22 and a 9mm, relative babies when compared to other ammunition. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted February 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 So does that make you feel all warm and fuzzy now heck. Someone else thinks their should be what you call "reasonable or sensable bans". This writer has gotten part of it right.... In looking at the goal of gun laws, it should be to punish the irresponsible while leaving the responsible people alone.Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 you can buy a fully automatic weapon if you like to, you can also get any weapon with a sound reducer. just buy the fbi stamps and yur good to go. While true, the pricing is ridiculous and it keeps these weapons away from Joe Schmo, if Joe's not in the black market. Question at heck and Woody. What are your thoughts on it? Have you ever considered the questions I've raised? I feel a common argument is "Why does anyone need to kill people?" and I often see similarly argued questions towards things on the other side of the coin that I strongly support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 I'm sure there is a reasonable line somewhere in the middle... Also strict permits and waiting periods and screening and shit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.