BrentAllen Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 From his speech Tuesday night: OBAMA: I m proud that we passed a recovery plan free of earmarks. What??? I guess we are back to what the definition of -is- is. ______________________________________________________ On another issue.. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1 The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today. -As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,- Holder told reporters. What Obama actually said during the campaign: -I believe in the Second Amendment, and if you are a law-abiding gun owner you have nothing to fear from an Obama administration,- Obama said. -This has been peddled again and again. Here's what I believe: The Second Amendment is an indvidual right. . . people have the right to bear arms. The good news is this is setting up to be a repeat of 1993. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kahuna Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 >>The good news is this is setting up to be a repeat of 1993 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nike Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Well, he's got that Blackberry... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 "I hope he fails" RL Jan 21st, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeptic Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 You guys are pieces of work; it is just a bit worrisome that you might well be preaching this negative attitude to scouts. It is one thing to disagree; quite another to make blatant statements that verge on asking for the President's failure. Yet, what do you propose in the meantime? I have seen no even remotely alternative plans from the gloom mongers, and certainly almost no effort by the republican side to even attempt to seriously deal with the disintegration of our society. Whether or not the proposals and bills work, they could at least not start digging the holes under them before they are even in affect. Secondarily, while I feel gun ownership is okay, with proper safety precautions and training. But, I have yet to understand how "war weapons", those specifically made only for rapid killing, have a place in personal, home based gun ownership. Other than to say, "Mine is more powerful than yours", or something to that effect, what is the reason for having them? Flame shield up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle77 Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 I'm with skeptic on this one. I am neither Republican or Democrat, I am an American. When I vote I vote for who I like no matter witch party he or she is with. How can you just wish failure on your own country? Oh and the gun thing, come on out to the Phila. area and see american gun control at its best, and enjoy seeing another brave american die at the hands of criminals. Now you would like them to have the power of being able to shoot automatic weapons? I have never had a problem with guns for hunting and protection. These weapons are for destroying other people no ifs ands or butts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrentAllen Posted February 26, 2009 Author Share Posted February 26, 2009 skeptic, Obviously, you have no idea about the National Rifle Matches, and the Service Rifle category. Why is this important? If you study your history, you will know the reason the US was able to field an army so quickly for WWII was because we had so many civilians competent in riflery. These citizens became soldiers and instructors. Go back and read why President Theodore Roosevelt created the National Matches and the NBPRP (National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice). http://www.odcmp.com/Programs/AR/AR03/AR03H&M.pdf Secondly, the "assault weapons" they wish to ban are just semi-automatic rifles. They are not full-auto as they make the public believe (for example, see eagle77 comment above). Thirdly, why should the government tell me which type of rifles I should be able to own, as a law-abiding citizen? Our local police chief said the streets of Atlanta would be filled with bodies and the gutters would run red with blood if the AWB was allowed to expire in 2004. Well, it's been 5 years and no bodies and no blood in the gutters. Finally, if you have no problem with this plan, I guess you will have no problem when the government tells you which cars and trucks you can drive, how you must get to work (car pool or public transportation), which type pocket knife you can carry, which doctor you can see and which treatments you can receive, how much water you can use (same with gas & electricity), the list goes on and on. It's called freedom. Let me repeat - it's called freedom. "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin(This message has been edited by BrentAllen) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal_Crawford Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Well said, Skeptic. Hal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 So Brent, do you think state governments have "rights" to ban guns, tell you what car to drive, what doctor to see? Or do you not mind infringing on states' rights now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 I'm not an Obama fan, but give the guy a chance! He didn't create this financial mess. And if your concern is your right to carry a Uzi, then your concerns are really misplaced. Good post skeptic! If those clowns we voted for actually did their job instead of voting party lines, we would not be in the mess we are! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeptic Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 B.A. said; " Why is this important? If you study your history, you will know the reason the US was able to field an army so quickly for WWII was because we had so many civilians competent in riflery. These citizens became soldiers and instructors." You can achieve this competence without needing automatic or assault rifles. No one has said a thing about having general competence here, only common sense rules. While you may not personally be ready to use the assault or auto weapons for anything but rapid fire target obliteration; there are way too many who would if given an opening. Yes, they often get around the laws anyway; but having NO barriers is just asking for more trouble. The real problem I see today is that there is very little willingness for any type of compromise anymore by fringe groups and ideologues. Common sense seems to have become an out-dated conception. Who do you think is responsible for the majority of the damage by gun fire in our BLM, National, and State Park lands. Unlikely law abiding and sensible people. As far as our societal woes go; Obama certainly did not bring us to this point. He is even less responsible than FDR was when most of his plans began. It seems that you would rather we do "nothing", and let things continue to the path of total disintegration, than even attempt anything. This is the same inept attitude that our republican state representatives in California have; lets refuse to approve any taxes, no matter if the state goes bankrupt. But lets also not make any alternate plans; we can always say we did not vote to raise taxes. Meanwhile, we lay off thousands of teachers, various city utility workers, and so on; but they did not raise taxes, so they can hold their heads high and continue to take their salary as well. What total bunk and ego! I can only hope that the next election we see most of them thrown out, as well as the majority of the idiot democrats who helped get us there in the first place. If even 25% of the efforts work we are better off than we were. You will have your chance to get him out in 4 years or a little less. Hopefully though, by that time, there will be other choices that have brains and are willing to at least try to look beyond their own blindered opinions and political stereotypes. Back to my local Scouting. Maybe I can do something positive there to offset some of this negativity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwd-scouter Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin A very good point, but one that seems to be forgotten by those folks who strongly support the Patriot Act and other government intrusions in the name of protecting the American people - usually the very same folks that vociferously support gun rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrentAllen Posted February 26, 2009 Author Share Posted February 26, 2009 skeptic, No, I don't believe government is the answer to all problems. Especially economic problems. And yes, I would prefer Obama do nothing instead of driving this country into the ground with debt we'll never be able to repay. The private sector creates jobs and drives the economy, not the government (at least, not in a democtratic republic). When those in elected office think they, and only they, can fix the economy and create jobs, we just changed our form of government. Ed, I don't like people lying to me. Say what you mean, mean what you say. Do you really believe Obama when he says there weren't any earmarks in the recovery plan? This is demonstrably false. I didn't like it when Clinton lied about Monica, and I don't care to be played a fool by Obama. Does he think we are all too stupid to know the truth? As we teach the boys, it all comes down to character. What type of character is Obama showing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CA_Scouter Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 What Skeptic said. What Ed said. I have no idea what Merlyn said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal_Crawford Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Brent: Did it bother you when President Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction? Many like to harp about Clinton and Monica but at least he didn't start a war in the process. What about 6 years of budgets that didn't include the war? That was being honest with the American people? No bid contracts, Blackwater, Guantanamo, rendition, waterboarding, Abu Ghraib... the list goes on. In the days after September 11 the entire world was on our side. The entire country was ready to stand with our president and bring the guilty to justice. Bush pissed that all away by abandoning our core values in pursuit of the war on terror and by invading Iraq under false pretenses. I suspect that the war in Iraq has already cost us more than the sum total of all the earmarks that ever passed congress. And where is Osama bin Ladin anyway? But at least Bush didn't get caught cheating on his wife. Hal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now