"Just not true" that Obama/Clinton want to take guns

As much as it would be awesome if he said this, snopes says no. His actual list is spot-on with how modern liberals engage, especially the "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." They employ that against gun rights advocates ("gun nuts") all the time.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/alinsky.asp

Katie-B said:
It must be Saul Alinsky and he died in 1972!

There are 8 levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state. The first is the most important.
1) Healthcare
Control healthcare and you control the people
2) Poverty
Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.
3) Debt
Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.
4) Gun Control
Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.
5) Welfare
Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income)
6) Education
Take control of what people read and listen to take control of what children learn in school.
7) Religion
Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools
8) Class Warfare
Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.
Click to expand...
 
Then why, why, WHY do they keep fu(king talking about Australia and England and holding up those examples as the STANDARD?!?!

The Clintons and Obamas are serial liars, plain and simple. Anyone that doesn't see this, simply doesn't want to see this!
 
Capecod1 said:
From a yahoo news article, Obama was challenged by a gun sore owner about him and Clinton confiscating guns and Obama replied that "it was just not true" that neither he nor Clinton were after our guns.........for what it's worth.......
Click to expand...

who are you trolling here? the guy has a 7 year track record of lying.

keep your doctor
it's not a tax
it was about a video
I won't raise your taxes
it was a gun TRACKING program
it was workplace violence
illegals won't get that benefit
the iran deal is good for the US

are you expecting anyone to believe anything he says?

Troll or 'tard - which one?
 
The Clintons will always have lots of money and armed protection no matter what.

They just don't want you to have it.
 
I remember hearing an interview she gave, about ten or more years ago (when she was either running for office or before) where she basically said that there was no good reason that people should be allowed to have handguns. I'd like to look that up, I heard it on NPR I think.
 
FYI: states have greatly expanded gun rights over the last thirty years. We've gone from a majority of states being may-issue at best, to virtually all being shall-issue and ten (and growing) have constitutional carry. Gun sales are hitting record after record. Crime is falling, by the way. Many states passed laws nullifying federal gun control. The federal AWB has been gone for 12 years. Suppressors have a hope of leave the NFA list. The Supreme Court has upheld gun rights on numerous occasions and it would take a lot to reverse that.

Honestly, we are destroying gun control. This is especially true at the state level but even federally Obama's ideas have failed miserably. Personally, I think the only way this winning trend is reversed is if Hillary wins, appoints anti, leftist Justices, and sneaks some anti-gun BS into some bill that the Republicans will swallow. That would have the potential to result in massive nationwide civil disobedience (remember, even in liberal states like CT and NY relatively mild registration requirements couldn't hit double-digit percentage compliance rates). This would probably enrage Killary and she'll try to force her will and things will not be pretty after that - use your imagination. That's the worst thing about Hillary, I think - she has the greatest potential to spark Civil War v2.0
 
3/09/13 | by Chris Callahan

Venerable gun rights columnist and economist John Lott Jr. states in his new book On the Brink, that back when both he and Barack Obama were at the University of Chicago in the 1990’s they had a conversation where Obama told Lott “I don’t believe people should to be able to own guns.” This was during a run-in where Lott tried to set up a lunch date with Obama to further talk on the subject of firearms.

President Obama has stated multiple times that he believes in the second amendment, but Lott claims that Obama’s views on guns are politically motivated and not his true feelings.
Interesting article on Obama's made up gun "facts".
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/16/making-up-facts-about-guns.html

 
(FYI: states have greatly expanded gun rights over the last thirty years. We've gone from a majority of states being may-issue at best, to virtually all being shall-issue and ten (and growing) have constitutional carry. Gun sales are hitting record after record. Crime is falling, by the way. Many states passed laws nullifying federal gun control. The federal AWB has been gone for 12 years. Suppressors have a hope of leave the NFA list. The Supreme Court has upheld gun rights on numerous occasions and it would take a lot to reverse that.

Honestly, we are destroying gun control. This is especially true at the state level but even federally Obama's ideas have failed miserably. Personally, I think the only way this winning trend is reversed is if Hillary wins, appoints anti, leftist Justices, and sneaks some anti-gun BS into some bill that the Republicans will swallow. That would have the potential to result in massive nationwide civil disobedience (remember, even in liberal states like CT and NY relatively mild registration requirements couldn't hit double-digit percentage compliance rates). This would probably enrage Killary and she'll try to force her will and things will not be pretty after that - use your imagination. That's the worst thing about Hillary, I think - she has the greatest potential to spark Civil War v2.0[/QUOTE]

Everything you say is true but this coming election could change everything. The Senate and House have been run by the GOP for years and the Supreme Court has been 5-4 conservative for many years. Three things can very well happen in November that will change the dynamics. Hillary wins, the Senate goes Democrat, and Hillary eventually appoints a far left judge to replace the seat held by Scalia which will be rubber stamped by the Democrat held Senate led by the anti-gun champion, Chuck Schumer. I hope and pray none of the three things I mentioned happen because I think Hillary has bigger cojones than Obama ever had and is more dangerous than Obama, especially if the Democrats gain the Senate and the left gains the Supreme Court.
 
Last edited:
robjax said:
why wouldn't she try to take guns. She doesn't believe gun possession and ownership are constitutional rights.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...al-right-bear-arms-if-it-constitutional-right
Click to expand...

I believe she will attempt confiscation. We will all find out if the Second Amendment works as intended then. I can only hope that the military will act to depose her and her criminal administration, rather then face the prospect of an all out civil war fought with modern weapons.
 
That's not the first lie we have heard from them, but I can tell what the last one will be...

"What are you afraid of, they're only showers. Look, shower heads. Now everyone in..."
 
Say, hypothetically speaking, that she gets elected president, and nominates two or three liberal judges.

How then, would they attempt to reverse Heller? How exactly does that work?? Who would be the 'plaintiff' and how would they bring action?

Phuck I hate her just for making me think up this question.
 
Gak44 said:
I believe she will attempt confiscation. We will all find out if the Second Amendment works as intended then. I can only hope that the military will act to depose her and her criminal administration, rather then face the prospect of an all out civil war fought with modern weapons.
Click to expand...

The gap between states like NJ, NY, MA, CT, and CA laws and states like Wyoming, Missouri, Arizona, etc., Constitutional Carry states that have passed laws prohibiting the enforcement of federal gun laws is as big a divide in a fundamental Constitutional issue as there has been since the Compromise of 1850. As a Nation, we are in a Constitutional Crisis about the Second Amendment.

That's why I think they will continue to push at the local level, to avoid Civil War, and when the local stuff continues to not work there, they will continue to blame the rest of the Nation, to try to build support.
 
Oblammy was a very well practiced liar long before he was president.
Hitlery is just plain F*cking scary.
Think she wouldn't Waco every one of our asses in a heartbeat at your own risk.
 
Katie-B said:
It must be Saul Alinsky and he died in 1972!

There are 8 levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state. The first is the most important.
1) Healthcare
Control healthcare and you control the people
2) Poverty
Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.
3) Debt
Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.
4) Gun Control
Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.
5) Welfare
Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income)
6) Education
Take control of what people read and listen to take control of what children learn in school.
7) Religion
Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools
8) Class Warfare
Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.
Click to expand...

Saul likely assumed because this works everywhere else it would work in America. The fatal flaw to his plan is #4. Patriots will NEVER give up their means to defend themselves. EVER
 
The way I see it is that the only kind of gun control that actually could make a dent in the statistics would be full-scale confiscation, which also requires effective border and import security, not to mention a repeal, or at least a radical reinterpretation, of the 2nd Amendment. Everything else is just screwing with law-abiding citizens to no immediate purpose. So why do they do exactly that? Perhaps some gun control activists, the foot soldiers, only want this thing or that thing, but I think any of them who are smart enough to think ahead 3 moves in a chess game know that their real objective has to be confiscation of virtually all defensive/tactical firearms. They must chip away at the status quo until it becomes "thinkable". It's not "thinkable" yet, which is why they deny it. But it's either that, or they're just daft. I would rather overestimate my opponent than underestimate him, so my operating assumption is that confiscation is what they really want.
 
Last edited:
JayMcB said:
who are you trolling here? the guy has a 7 year track record of lying.

keep your doctor
it's not a tax
it was about a video
I won't raise your taxes
it was a gun TRACKING program
it was workplace violence
illegals won't get that benefit
the iran deal is good for the US

are you expecting anyone to believe anything he says?

Troll or 'tard - which one?
Click to expand...

Islam is the religion of peace and not involved in these terrorist attacks.
 

Similar threads

What not to do with your new gun.
2
Replies
42
Views
1K
Coyote33
Coyote33
If you want more proof that we need good guys with guns, go ask the Fort Worth highway driver who—along with his children—is alive today
Replies
3
Views
247
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Correct way to get guns back from police?
Replies
16
Views
713
appraiser
appraiser
I can't seem to win with my guns lately
Replies
9
Views
500
kingson
kingson
Want to know who has a monopoly of force in America?
2 3 4
Replies
111
Views
2K
fencer
fencer
Back
Top Bottom