PDA

View Full Version : No Way Obama GDG



John Kelder
08-31-2008, 08:28 PM
Kiss your retreiver lifestlye goodbye if you vote for him .For detailed info , please visit
www.nraila.org/Obama
The day the Second Amendment changes is the day you can forget about saying what you think , practicing the religion of your choice ,and the rest of the rights so many of you take for granted every day.
It really is that simple.What other issues can be as important as the basic principles our great nation was founded on ????

NRA LIFE MEMBER . SEMPER FIDELIS . FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS.

Bob Gutermuth
08-31-2008, 08:48 PM
Votin GOP here

Gun_Dog2002
09-06-2008, 01:54 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SODIFZXIPA

Patrick Johndrow
09-06-2008, 05:59 AM
Like I have said before….how bad do you have to hate this country to vote for that guy?

Joe S.
09-06-2008, 06:11 AM
Like I have said before….how bad do you have to hate this country to vote for that guy?

Shouldn't you be sleeping at this hour?

Early Riser Regards,

Joe S.

Patrick Johndrow
09-06-2008, 06:57 AM
Shouldn't you be sleeping at this hour?

Early Riser Regards,

Joe S.

Early to bed and early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise.


more modern version

Late to bed and sleep till noon the liberal left will take care of you. :)

Steve Amrein
09-06-2008, 10:43 AM
John I fully agree with you message. I am really hopeful that Obama loses.

I do think unless you have multiple personalities the comments on the other thread about this being a dog training site are a bit disingenuous.

See your quote :

I know I'm out of date , BUT WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH DOGS ?????

Perhaps many of you need to go to other parts of the web , this is RetreiverTraining.net.BY and for our dogs and associated aspects , like birds , and guns ,places to hunt etc.......

Bob Gutermuth
09-06-2008, 11:16 AM
IF the dims win, then the agenda of many of their fellow travellers, PETA,ALF ,the Brady Bunch ,HSUS etc ad nauseum will be advanced in the congress. THAT can effect dogs, dog games, the right to own firearms and hunting.

Jacob Hawkes
09-06-2008, 11:16 AM
Um, he can't change a gosh damn ammendment by himself people. I hope like hell that John crushes the racist F#$K, but I don't get the concern about losing your rights because Obama would vote to.:confused::confused::confused::confused:

Bob Gutermuth
09-06-2008, 11:22 AM
BOH cannot by himself overturn Heller. He can and will appoint Justices to SCOTUS who would tip the balance. Remember that Heller was a 5-4 decision, as thin a majority as you can get. The dims are also always inventing new wrinkes to get around the 2nd amendment, like microstamping of ammunition, Consumer Product Safety Commission Regulations clamping down on buying ammo etc. They can and will regulate us to death if given the chance.

HuntinDawg
09-06-2008, 12:18 PM
BOH cannot by himself overturn Heller. He can and will appoint Justices to SCOTUS who would tip the balance. Remember that Heller was a 5-4 decision, as thin a majority as you can get. The dims are also always inventing new wrinkes to get around the 2nd amendment, like microstamping of ammunition, Consumer Product Safety Commission Regulations clamping down on buying ammo etc. They can and will regulate us to death if given the chance.

He can also promise (privately of course) to sign any new "gun control" bill that congress can pass. Heller is not nearly so sweeping as to prevent all new "gun control" laws. He would make the climate for passage of new "gun control" much more friendly to the gun banners. As Bob points out though, the greatest danger is what he would be allowed to do to the supreme court with a democrat congress to rubber-stamp whatever socialist-actvist-revisionist judges he appoints.

Gun control means using two hands regards.

Gun_Dog2002
09-06-2008, 12:42 PM
Early to bed and early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise.


more modern version

Late to bed and sleep till noon the liberal left will take care of you. :)

Perhaps you should heed the warning on the label....


In the rare case an erection lasts for more than four hours, seek immediate medical attention.

/Paul

Bob Gutermuth
09-06-2008, 01:07 PM
Another Hint from Obama’s Camp: Tonight, Barack Obama is attending a fundraiser in Newark, New Jersey. I truly hope he uses this opportunity to speak about Bukhari Washington and the tragic lunacy of allowing civilians to possess assault weapons legally…In 2004, George W. Bush and the NRA-influenced Republican congress allowed the federal ban on assault weapons to expire. While the RNC proved that the Republican are looking to identity politics to determine the election, Barack Obama appears admirably set on winning on the issues, and legally restricting assault rifles is an issue on which Democrats have the high ground…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-brown/bring-the-assault-weapons_b_124365.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-brown/bring-the-assault-weapons_b_124365.html)

Huffingtom post is a looney liberal blog almost as bad as the daily kos.

M Remington
09-06-2008, 01:43 PM
I don't put a lot of stock in what the NRA says--they have lost touch with mainstream America. They've become a right-wing fringe group.

Bob Gutermuth
09-06-2008, 01:50 PM
Who but the NRA is protecting your 2nd Amendment rights?

Patrick Johndrow
09-06-2008, 01:54 PM
I don't put a lot of stock in what the NRA says--they have lost touch with mainstream America. They've become a right-wing fringe group.



Between your "double wide" comment and now this... I just have to ask....are you sure you don't live in Austin?

M Remington
09-06-2008, 02:02 PM
Bob, I don't think we've been in any danger of losing our 2nd Amendment rights.

I don't consider background checks an infringement, I don't consider registering guns as an infringement, I don't think banning assault weapons is an infringement, I don't think banning armor piercing ammunition is an infringement. I would call those common sense laws.

And Patrick. . no, I'm not from Austin. I'm an outdoorsman and a gun owner. But, I see no need for uzis and banana clips.

Patrick Johndrow
09-06-2008, 02:18 PM
Bob, I don't think we've been in any danger of losing our 2nd Amendment rights.




The NRA fights for that right everyday and yes it is challenged everyday in someway.

I know I have said it before but my grandfather had a belt buckle that read “From My Cold Dead Hands”

I think Bob PMed me a company that could make me a buckle that read that but I lost it….please send it again Bob.

M Remington
09-06-2008, 02:20 PM
So if we follow your logic, does the ACLU protect basic freedoms, as well?

Bob Gutermuth
09-06-2008, 02:49 PM
The ACLU generally only protects the 'rights' of the loons, like when the KKK wanted to march in Skokie some years ago, or when some jerk files a beef about a manger scene in the town square at Christmas. They will stand up for the rights of moslems and athiests, but generally not for mainstream groups like Christians and Jews. Most of the time they only stand up for free speech that they agree with.

Steve Amrein
09-06-2008, 06:54 PM
Bob, I don't think we've been in any danger of losing our 2nd Amendment rights.

I don't consider background checks an infringement, I don't consider registering guns as an infringement, I don't think banning assault weapons is an infringement, I don't think banning armor piercing ammunition is an infringement. I would call those common sense laws.

And Patrick. . no, I'm not from Austin. I'm an outdoorsman and a gun owner. But, I see no need for uzis and banana clips.


While fully automatic assault style weapons are already under strict control the the jump from assault weapon to my duck gun is going to be next. then my hands guns then long rifles and then what ever is left. Myself, I dont want a semi auto AK-47 but I dont wish any law abiding citizen have the right to legally own one taken away. I would much rather the lowlife thug that use them to harm someone and the liberal judges that let them go free actually get put away for a long time. How about mandatory 25-50 years to any POS that uses a gun while committing a crime. Why punish law abiding responsible folks for the actions of a few.

Bob Gutermuth
09-06-2008, 07:09 PM
During my quarter century as a cop, I NEVER encountered any fully automatic weapons, except those that my and various other agencies had for their SWAT teams. No legally held fully auto weapon has ever been used in a crime. The people who can legally own them are not going to do anything to jeopardize their ownership...They were regulated by the Gun control Act of 1936, so thats a record of long standing. I never encountered an armour piercing bullet on the street either.

IF you read some of the definitions of 'assualt weapons' they can cover my Ruger 10-22 or my 1100. It depends on whether some rabid anti gunner like Charlie Schumer is doing the defining.

Some of the definitions of 'armour piercing' ammo cover any bullet capable of piercing a cops soft body armour. Not only does that include military AP but some loads for my .44 S&W and most ammo for rifles used to hunt whitetails, moose, bears etc.

The use of assault weapons and AP ammo was never an issue or concern with me. I always much more worried about a punk with a .25 or an old single barrel break top popper gun that was sawed off.

I believe that if you can pass the background checks and want to own a bazooka, or machine gun or a Tiger Tank and use it for lawful purposes, thats OK with me. When the Charlie Schumers and Barbara Boxers take those away I am sure they will eventually come for my over and unders.


FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS

john fallon
09-06-2008, 07:58 PM
The same or similar analogies could be applied to most types of government infringement (LAWS) .The laws relating to the operation of a motor vehicle are prime examples.

Driving is a privilege my a$$ regards

john

Steve Amrein
09-06-2008, 09:15 PM
The same or similar analogies could be applied to most types of government infringement (LAWS) .The laws relating to the operation of a motor vehicle are prime examples.

Driving is a privilege my a$$ regards

john

Just waiting for helmet laws for cars. Speed governed to 60 MPH, built in breathalizer. Hands free this regards.

Bob Gutermuth
09-06-2008, 09:20 PM
The 2nd amendment does not cover motor vehicles.

Patrick Johndrow
09-06-2008, 09:24 PM
So if we follow your logic, does the ACLU protect basic freedoms, as well?

I am a white, conservative, Christian, heterosexual and male…not sure the ACLU offers or cares much for me....as a matter of fact I think the ACLU is more about destroying my civil liberties.

So the answer to your question is no...you would have to twist my logic to arrive that conclusion.

Patrick Johndrow
09-06-2008, 09:34 PM
Perhaps you should heed the warning on the label....



/Paul



label of what?

john fallon
09-06-2008, 10:34 PM
The 2nd amendment does not cover motor vehicles. No Bob but the Bill of rights should/does cover it under the unalienable rights of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

john

larrynogaj
09-07-2008, 09:32 AM
Votin' freedom first. Semper Fi regards.

cotts135
09-07-2008, 11:04 AM
Hey Pat answer me this please, why is it that when the Republicans or the Democrats carry on and say they will protect your rights such as the right of free speech you all go crazy and applaud them for being such good civil libertarians but when somebody chooses to exercise that rightlike say to demonstrate at say a National Convention there called extremists or loons. The point is EVERYBODY has those rights, not just the ones you might agree with.

Legacy 6
09-07-2008, 11:12 AM
It's the 2nd that guards the rest. Without that one, the government can take away all the rest, and we'll be unarmed to stop them...

Don't need assault weapons?? Of course we do!! Ever seen a guy standing on his rooftop keeping people away from his house and family safe from a riot? I have on the news... it's not so hard to imagine it either. What if the US were ever invaded by China (with a 1.5 million man standing INFANTRY. That JUST the Infantry, not to mention the Tankers, FA-men, and Support Personnel), or invaded by Russia? Are we as civilians going to wait for the Police to arrive? I'm protecting myself before I trust another to do it for me.

You know the reason our Forefathers put the 2nd in? So, in case the federal government became too strong, the civilian population was arms and could forcefully overthrough the government. If that ever happened... who do you think the civilians would be fighting??

The US Armed Forces... what are we going to fight them with?? Sticks and Rocks?

I AM in the Army, and I should be AT LEAST as well armed as the US Army is... well, maybe not Field Artillery, but you know. Our guns rights aren't so we can go hunting, its to protect ourselves from the government...

SueLab
09-07-2008, 01:27 PM
What scares me most is, if I am correct, that if Barry Obama (as he was called most of his life) is elected, Nancy Pelosi would be third in line for the presidency. Lose either the Pres or the V-Pres and there is Pelosi - as dangerous as or more than Barry...

Patrick Johndrow
09-07-2008, 01:40 PM
What scares me most is, if I am correct, that if Barry Obama (as he was called most of his life) is elected, Nancy Pelosi would be third in line for the presidency. Lose either the Pres or the V-Pres and there is Pelosi - as dangerous as or more than Barry...

Hell she is already third in line...will be no matter who is elected

Nor_Cal_Angler
09-07-2008, 06:59 PM
Hey Pat answer me this please, why is it that when the Republicans or the Democrats carry on and say they will protect your rights such as the right of free speech you all go crazy and applaud them for being such good civil libertarians but when somebody chooses to exercise that rightlike say to demonstrate at say a National Convention there called extremists or loons. The point is EVERYBODY has those rights, not just the ones you might agree with.

because, as far as I have seen, THE LOONS and EXTREMISTS are destructive
did you even see a deminstration, march, or rally outside the DNC. NOPE...but the loons felt it approiate to CAUSE a RIOT, commit acts of VANDALISM and very unprofessionally INTRUPT the KEY SPEAKER the PRESIDENTIAL CANIDATE Sen. John McCain

why is that, why go there? March, protest, speak your PEACE..BUT DO IT PEACEFULLY.

That is the reason people say they are LOONS, and EXTREAMISTS...because things are EXTREAM

NCA

Patrick Johndrow
09-07-2008, 07:36 PM
Hey Pat answer me this please, why is it that when the Republicans or the Democrats carry on and say they will protect your rights such as the right of free speech you all go crazy and applaud them for being such good civil libertarians but when somebody chooses to exercise that rightlike say to demonstrate at say a National Convention there called extremists or loons. The point is EVERYBODY has those rights, not just the ones you might agree with.

Because it’s a private party so to speak…you can believe and say whatever you want but you will not be expressing liberal beliefs at the Johndrow 4th of July BBQ. :)

perrycox
09-07-2008, 08:07 PM
We could have every law conceivable to regulate guns but how many people honestly believe it will stop criminals in any way? Criminals will do whatever it takes. Honest law abiding citizens should be allowed to possess any weapon that the non abiding citizen does. The day we outlaw all guns(like Australia) is the day the criminal jumps for joy. McCain/Palin ...for sure.

M Remington
09-07-2008, 08:10 PM
Certain guns are made to kill people and certain guns are meant for hunting. An assault weapon is made to kill people.

McCain/Palin--she's too stupid to even be on the Sunday talk shows. She's not fit to lead our country. It reminds me of "Ma and Pa Kettle Visit Washington."

DEDEYE
09-07-2008, 08:18 PM
It reminds me of "Ma and Pa Kettle Visit Washington."

Seriously?

M Remington
09-07-2008, 08:24 PM
Seriously, she is such a lightweight that it's scary. I can't wait until they ask her about the capital of Georgia (not the one south of the Mason Dixon) or about the new Pakistani leader. In addition to being far more extreme than the average American, she has no clue about foreign policy. She had to get a passport recently so she could visit the Alaska National Guard troops.

Patrick Johndrow
09-07-2008, 08:36 PM
It's the 2nd that guards the rest. Without that one, the government can take away all the rest, and we'll be unarmed to stop them...

Don't need assault weapons?? Of course we do!! Ever seen a guy standing on his rooftop keeping people away from his house and family safe from a riot? I have on the news... it's not so hard to imagine it either. What if the US were ever invaded by China (with a 1.5 million man standing INFANTRY. That JUST the Infantry, not to mention the Tankers, FA-men, and Support Personnel), or invaded by Russia? Are we as civilians going to wait for the Police to arrive? I'm protecting myself before I trust another to do it for me.

You know the reason our Forefathers put the 2nd in? So, in case the federal government became too strong, the civilian population was arms and could forcefully overthrough the government. If that ever happened... who do you think the civilians would be fighting??

The US Armed Forces... what are we going to fight them with?? Sticks and Rocks?

I AM in the Army, and I should be AT LEAST as well armed as the US Army is... well, maybe not Field Artillery, but you know. Our guns rights aren't so we can go hunting, its to protect ourselves from the government...


You know that is the most insightful thing I have read and gives me hope for the next generation.


I salute you Sir!



Mr. Remington…please read the above comments and become enlightened.

larrynogaj
09-07-2008, 08:38 PM
[QUOTE=M Remington;330933]Certain guns are made to kill people and certain guns are meant for hunting. An assault weapon is made to kill people.


Mark, I'm just guessing that I have a few years on you. I used to have similar thoughts and I did carry one of those "black guns" around for a couple of years courtesy of Uncle Sam. A co-worker of mine has owned one for quite a few years and uses it primarily for woodchucks. He's a level headed regular guy that I respect. I asked him one day why he didn't use a more "traditional" gun. His reply was simple. - "because I enjoy shooting it." Well, that was good enough for me. Just because it looks a little different doesn't mean it does anything differently. Once the antis get those banned, they turn around and say of today's traditional firearms. "these guns are just like assault rifles. They only look different." How do you establish a defense against that statement?

Bob Gutermuth
09-07-2008, 08:40 PM
Any firearm can be used to kill a human, assuming that the person intending to shoot it can shoot straight. If one lives in a rural area, an assault rifle with a large capacity magazine may well keep him alive until the cops can get there.

Gov Palin not fit to lead? I think that shoe fits the apostate islamacist that is the nominee of the dimocraps. He doesn't even know how many states there are in the USA. He recently made referrence to the 57?????states.

Gov Palin is not quite as far to the Right as I am nor as far as many other conservatives are.

JDogger
09-07-2008, 10:47 PM
[quote=Bob Gutermuth;
Gov Palin is not quite as far to the Right as I am nor as far as many other conservatives are.[/quote]

Now there, finally, is a statement on this thread, that is indisputable.


JD

Legacy 6
09-07-2008, 10:50 PM
Mr. Rem...

Please stop refering to yourself as a conservatice from now on... no one is fooled you wolf in sheepskin.

Anyway man, I think you've some reflecting to do. If you ban some types of firearms, the government uses that as a toehold for the next step... Did you know that London is also "firearm free" and since they passed that little law, crime (with a gun) has risen about 300% (IOW TRIPLED!) every freakin year???

Hitler has a great quote that I keep in mind when people bring up disarming laws, etc. "If you want a gun, join the Army." Every major totalitatian (tyrannical) society disarmed it's people before a "hostile" take-over. It's just a matter of time before Australia and London follow suit. When everyone is disarmed, all it takes is a "leader" to come in and decide that destroying a certain cross section of thier society is Just and Right, and there you go... Ethnic Cleansing, Holocaust, etc.

And all the government has to do, is slowly disarm us first. First Automatic weapons because there's no point to them except killing people (NO $H1T Sherlock!). Then Semi automatic guns (including pump action shotguns, semiauto shotguns, and pistols). Then revolvers, then Bolt action... then single action, then all firearms... Each restriction is a step toward the next.

It's the same ideology that BHO has with the energy companies. BHO will take windfall profits (which BTW no one can define WTF a windfall profit actually IS) from the oil companies, and redistribute that profit back to the People so they can spend it on... you guessed it... fuel!!

What's the next step!? What happens when the Gov't decides buildings cost too much and go into the contruction business, take their profits and redistribute that to the People again so they can buy better homes, etc??? They can decide that ANY industry is making too much money and take their profits and give them to someone else...

What if he decides that dogs cost too much???? Or food costs too much??? Is he going to start an extra tax on the farmers??? What happens when the farmers get taxed too much and decide thay can't afford to continue farming? What happens when the construction company decides to stop building? What happens when the shoe company begins to send their manufactoring overseas where $100/month is really good money.

I think you lack perpective... I don't think that I have a total view by any means, but I just think you're a little short-sighted in this matter...

Think about it.

JDogger
09-07-2008, 11:03 PM
Mr. Rem...
Think about it.

Got another one for you Leg6


http://www.rense.com/general21/wara.htm

JD

Paul Johnson
09-08-2008, 01:39 AM
M Remington please stop with the Democrat talking points. Clearly, you do not know anything about Governor Palin. I will repost my comments from a previous thread. Do yourself a favor, read them and then follow up with the articles that I have suggested.

I would like to suggest the following articles:

1. Baracks Obama’s Ten Point Plan to “Change” The Second Amendment. American Rifleman. September 2008 p40

2. In Alaska, a Nuanced Record. The Wall Street Journal. Thursday September 4, 2008. p1

What is clear is that if Obama is president with Pelosi in the House and Reed in the Senate, we will only be able to say bang-bang as the ducks fly away in our hunt tests and field trials. As for Sarah Palins belief in pro-life, there is no evidence that she would attempt to get Roe v. Wade overturned. Then there is the issue of “experience.” I suppose that being governor of Arkansas prepares you to be president while being governor of Alaska does not.

Clearly, the liberals who include lawyers, professors, teachers, the media and pseudo hippies do not like Sarah. They all think that you and I are too stupid to govern ourselves and that we should only vote for the people that they select. As a cancer researcher that worked at a university for almost 30 years I can vouch for the fact that most university professors are ignorant about any subject outside their field of expertise and they are to arrogant to acknowledge their ignorance. This includes politics. Lawyers and the NEA have an ulterior motive for wanting a Democrat: their job security. The media all want to be royalty and they definitely think that you and I are stupid even though most of them cannot read or write above the fourth grade level. As for the pseudo hippies, they are the ones that came after most of us dropped back in and they never got a chance to express themselves.

Given the fact that Pelosi controls the House and Reed controls the Senate, an Obama presidency would mean that our democracy would become a socialist state with government oversight of everything including what you do in the privacy of your own home. You can be sure that it would not be long before they passed a law that would jail you for expressing an opinion that was not politically correct. If you do not believe this is a possibility, just look at our neighbor to the north, Canada. In Canada, if you make any derogatory comment about homosexuality, you can be thrown in jail. So much for free speech.

For those of you that like Barak Obama, maybe you can explain what he is saying. As far as I can tell, he, like all lawyers, is dancing on the head of a pin. In other words, confuse the jury.

Bob Gutermuth
09-08-2008, 08:55 AM
Another old lawyers mantra: If the facts aren't on your side, pound on the law, if the law isn't on your side pound on the facts, if niether is on your side pound on the table. Hussein and Co are just pounding on the table.

John Kelder
11-16-2008, 04:14 PM
Seriously, she is such a lightweight that it's scary. I can't wait until they ask her about the capital of Georgia (not the one south of the Mason Dixon) or about the new Pakistani leader. In addition to being far more extreme than the average American, she has no clue about foreign policy. She had to get a passport recently so she could visit the Alaska National Guard troops.

Just what is an "average American"? Are You ?
I think I am . HS grad , Honorable discharge after 4 years USMC , Divorced , 2 kids ,Gun Safe with a few open spots , work 60 hours a week , I vote , NRA life member ,DU & NWTF donor ,etc .........
Foreign policy - Travel to distant , exotic lands ,meet exciting , unusual people from many cultures . AND kill them .
I do not have a passport. So does this make me an "extremist lightweight" like you describe a successfull married mother ?

Bud Bass
11-16-2008, 09:34 PM
Some poor right winger seems to have lost their way, this thread belongs on the POLITICAL forum. Bud

John Kelder
11-17-2008, 10:31 AM
Some poor right winger seems to have lost their way, this thread belongs on the POLITICAL forum. Bud

Original post was placed b4 Potus Place came about .And your feeble attempt to describe me is duly noted .