Obama’s Planned Gun Control Regulations to be Incrementally Imposed After the Holidays

[raykeller]

Obama’s Planned Gun Control Regulations to be Incrementally Imposed After
the Holidays
Dave Hodges – The Common Sense Show


http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2015/12/25/obamas-planned-gun-control-regulations-to-be-incrementally-released-after-the-holidays/


According to my sources, Obama will ultimately implement the following gun
control regulations, mostly through a series of Executive Orders.

1.. Tax ammunition into oblivion and encourage the prosecution of gun
manufacturers and bullet producers for shootings using their products. This
is a given and will be rolled out very early in the form of an Executive
Order.

2.. The Federal government will purchase as much ammunition as possible in
order to create shortages, thus, driving up the price of ammunition.

3.. The prohibition of purchasing a gun in one state and transporting that
same gun across state lines.

4.. New Federal regulations which will permit, without a warrant, any
civil authority to enter a home of a registered gun owner to check for gun
safety when it comes to the “proper” storage of guns. Said gun can be
confiscated and the owner will be subject to arrest and fines if a gun does
not meet governmental storage regulations. The new regulations will be
devised to prevent one from using the gun in a moment’s notice.

5.. There is discussion among DoJ officials about limiting how guns, in
the aggregate, that can be stored in one geographic area. This will amount
to gun rationing.

6.. Gun owners will eventually be required to attend and pass gun safety
courses in the same manner as one renews their drivers license. This will,
again, drive up the cost of owning a gun.

7.. At some point, no doubt following a false flag event, an Executive
Order will be issued to overturn all conceal and carry laws currently in
place in several states.

8.. With regard to Child Protective Services investigations, any
gun-owning parent will receive an negative score when it comes to
investigation of child abuse and welfare cases.

9.. No veteran will be allowed to own a gun for an unspecified period of
time following their discharge from the service. As part of the VA reform
there is serious discussion about mandating outplacement counseling for all
veterans and gun prohibitions will be a part of this. I was told that this
is, in part, why all the Federal attention is being placed on streamlining
the VA process for veteran access.

10.. The scope of gun free zones will be expanded. The IRS will be given
policing powers on new gun control regulations. Bank accounts and homes can
be seized for failure to comply. Further, RICO statutes can be utilized
among the non-compliant. It was stressed to me that examples will be made of
protesters and non-compliant people.

11.. Obama will wait for the next false flag, but will announce a ban on
all assault rifles.


None of the above are in any particular order. These soon-to-be regulations
appeared on a D0J White Paper that leaked

[Pipewrench Peterson]

On 12/29/2015 11:51 AM, raykeller wrote:
> Obama’s Planned Gun Control Regulations to be Incrementally Imposed After
> the Holidays
> Dave Hodges – The Common Sense Show
>
>
> http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2015/12/25/obamas-planned-gun-control-regulations-to-be-incrementally-released-after-the-holidays/
>
>
> According to my sources, Obama will ultimately implement the following gun
> control regulations, mostly through a series of Executive Orders.

> [...]

Likely all bullshit, given that it comes from that gutter-crawling
shitstain Keller.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 11:53:08 -0800, Pipewrench Peterson <p...@ua.org>
wrote:

Ray's not very bright.

But when the President gets the power to tax, I hope he lets us all
know.

[Terry Coombs]

If it is in fact true , this will probably trigger widespread "civil
unrest" . Not a good time to be a gov't employee ...

--
Snag

[First Post]

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 11:53:08 -0800, Pipewrench Peterson <p...@ua.org>
wrote:

The information did not come from Keller. It came from Jen Psaki to
name one.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/gun-control-executive-orders-expected-within-weeks.html
I bet you're one of those that when you see an article that is
reprinted on FoxNews.com from Huffington Post or Salon that your
immediate reaction is to yell "Faux Snooze, gotta be a lie!" without
even looking at the actual source yes?

[First Post]

So because you think keller is an idiot, that in turn means that
whitehouse spokesperson Jen Psaki lied along with the author of the
article?

That's taking it a bit to the extreme isn't it?

[First Post]

Forgot to add, Obama already TOOK the power to tax with Obamacare and
he has already stated emphatically that he will issue an executive
order to increase the tax on offshore profits made by American
companies.
So he's already let you know indirectly through his actions.
And there is no telling where he will stop since he is a lame duck
president.

[Pipewrench Peterson]

More bullshit

[Pipewrench Peterson]

On 12/29/2015 12:05 PM, First Post wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 11:53:08 -0800, Pipewrench Peterson <p...@ua.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/29/2015 11:51 AM, raykeller wrote:
>>> Obama’s Planned Gun Control Regulations to be Incrementally Imposed After
>>> the Holidays
>>> Dave Hodges – The Common Sense Show
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2015/12/25/obamas-planned-gun-control-regulations-to-be-incrementally-released-after-the-holidays/
>>>
>>>
>>> According to my sources, Obama will ultimately implement the following gun
>>> control regulations, mostly through a series of Executive Orders.
>>> [...]
>>
>> Likely all bullshit, given that it comes from that gutter-crawling
>> shitstain Keller.
>
> The information did not come from Keller. It came from Jen Psaki to
> name one.

Keller posted it, and he's a known fuckwit and liar who cites other
liars routinely.

[Pipewrench Peterson]

There's no mention of Psaki in the fuckwitted liar Keller's post, nor in
the tin-hat-paranoia right-wing bullshit page he cited.

[Pipewrench Peterson]

On 12/29/2015 12:05 PM, First Post wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 11:53:08 -0800, Pipewrench Peterson <p...@ua.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/29/2015 11:51 AM, raykeller wrote:
>>> Obama’s Planned Gun Control Regulations to be Incrementally Imposed After
>>> the Holidays
>>> Dave Hodges – The Common Sense Show
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2015/12/25/obamas-planned-gun-control-regulations-to-be-incrementally-released-after-the-holidays/
>>>
>>>
>>> According to my sources, Obama will ultimately implement the following gun
>>> control regulations, mostly through a series of Executive Orders.
>>> [...]
>>
>> Likely all bullshit, given that it comes from that gutter-crawling
>> shitstain Keller.
>
> The information did not come from Keller. It came from Jen Psaki to
> name one.
> http://www.prisonplanet.com/gun-control-executive-orders-expected-within-weeks.html

Another crackpot tin-hat-paranoia right-wing site.

The bullshit that Keller posted did not come from Psaki.

[Rudy Canoza]

Fucking liar. The Supreme Court upheld the ACA because of *Congress's*
power to tax.

You lie every time.

[Terry Coombs]

You hope ...

--
Snag

[raykeller]

"First Post" <Liberalism_...@Leftwing-Cowards.net> wrote in message
news:1lp58b9u210jgi6gc...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 11:53:08 -0800, Pipewrench Peterson <p...@ua.org>
> wrote:
>
>>On 12/29/2015 11:51 AM, raykeller wrote:
>>> Obama's Planned Gun Control Regulations to be Incrementally Imposed
>>> After
>>> the Holidays

>>> Dave Hodges - The Common Sense Show

>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2015/12/25/obamas-planned-gun-control-regulations-to-be-incrementally-released-after-the-holidays/
>>>
>>>
>>> According to my sources, Obama will ultimately implement the following
>>> gun
>>> control regulations, mostly through a series of Executive Orders.
>>> [...]
>>
>>Likely all bullshit, given that it comes from that gutter-crawling
>>shitstain Keller.
>
> The information did not come from Keller. It came from Jen Psaki to
> name one.
> http://www.prisonplanet.com/gun-control-executive-orders-expected-within-weeks.html
> I bet you're one of those that when you see an article that is
> reprinted on FoxNews.com from Huffington Post or Salon that your
> immediate reaction is to yell "Faux Snooze, gotta be a lie!" without
> even looking at the actual source yes?

PP is probably jeftard the disbared lawyer

[Mr. B1ack]

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:51:19 -0700, "raykeller"
<whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>
wrote:

Obama is a president, not a god-emperor. What he may
want and what he can get are gonna be extremely different
things.

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

Pipewrench Peterson <p...@ua.org> wrote in
news:4oCgy.43880$Hz3....@fx43.iad:

That will be enough of you.

--
Notice: This poster is politically incorrect. I say 'Merry Christmas,' 'God
bless America.' I salute our flag and give thanks to our troops, police
officers and firefighters. If this offends you, you are welcome to leave.
In God we trust. All others, fuck off.

[Stormin Mormon]

On 12/29/2015 10:02 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:51:19 -0700, "raykeller"
>>

>> None of the above are in any particular order. These soon-to-be regulations
>> appeared on a D0J White Paper that leaked
>>
>
> Obama is a president, not a god-emperor. What he may
> want and what he can get are gonna be extremely different
> things.
>

I suspect at least a few people will act as if
EO were the law of the land. And that's good
enough for government work.

--
.
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
. www.lds.org
.
.

[First Post]

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 04:13:13 -0000 (UTC), "Cruzing to the White House,
Trumping the Libs" <nuke_them_...@sulaco.com> wrote:

>Pipewrench Peterson <p...@ua.org> wrote in
>news:4oCgy.43880$Hz3....@fx43.iad:
>
>> On 12/29/2015 12:05 PM, First Post wrote:
>>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 11:53:08 -0800, Pipewrench Peterson <p...@ua.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/29/2015 11:51 AM, raykeller wrote:

>>>>> Obama’s Planned Gun Control Regulations to be Incrementally Imposed
>>>>> After the Holidays
>>>>> Dave Hodges – The Common Sense Show

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2015/12/25/obamas-planned-gun-contro
>>>>> l-regulations-to-be-incrementally-released-after-the-holidays/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> According to my sources, Obama will ultimately implement the
>>>>> following gun control regulations, mostly through a series of
>>>>> Executive Orders. [...]
>>>>
>>>> Likely all bullshit, given that it comes from that gutter-crawling
>>>> shitstain Keller.
>>>
>>> The information did not come from Keller. It came from Jen Psaki to
>>> name one.
>>
>> Keller posted it, and he's a known fuckwit and liar who cites other
>> liars routinely.
>>
>>
>
>That will be enough of you.

Well, at least they admit that Jen Psaki is a liar, yes? :-)

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

Pipewrench Peterson <p...@ua.org> wrote in

news:EwBgy.56232$zT1....@fx26.iad:

Fucking retard.

Bloomberg Business: Executive Gun Control Coming ‘Soon After New Year’s
Day’

On December 28 Bloomberg Business explained what form Obama’s executive
action on gun control will take and predicted it will come “soon after New
Year’s Day.”

Breitbart News previously reported that the executive gun control was
expected to be an expansion of background checks to cover gun shows or to
cover more private sales by changing the legal language relating to private
gun owners who sell firearms from their “personal collection,” the way
Americans have been doing since 1791.

Bloomberg Business believes Obama has settled on going around Congress to
expand background checks by changing the way current law covers private gun
owners who sell guns. This approach allows Obama to kill two birds with one
stone by expanding background checks to cover more private sales in a way
that will also expand checks to private sellers at gun shows.

Would such an expansion have stopped high profile shootings like the
Colorado Springs Halloween attack, the Umpqua Community College attack, the
August on-air shooting of a reporter and cameraman in Virginia, or the
Lafayette theater attack? No. Because all the gunmen and alleged gunmen in
these instances passed background checks for their firearms.

Would such an expansion have stopped the San Bernardino terror attack? No.
Because Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik acquired their handguns
legally–i.e., background checks–and their rifles were acquired legally by
Enrique Marquez.

Yet Obama is determined to expand background checks. Bloomberg Business
reports that, “Obama has let it be known from his holiday retreat in
Hawaii, through unidentified advisers, that soon after New Years Day” he
will circumvent Congress via executive action.

Senator Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has introduced legislation to prevent the use
of executive actions for gun control by limiting them to “advisory only.”
This would require executive gun controls to survive a vote in Congress
before taking effect.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/29/bloomberg-business-
executive-gun-control-coming-soon-new-years-day/

The only things libs are good for is land fill, fertilizer and perhaps
thier corpses could be burnt for heating.

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

First Post <Liberalism_...@Leftwing-Cowards.net> wrote in

news:l4n68bpgj2940b023...@4ax.com:

All I heard from that jack ass was insane, stuttering, spittle flecked
nonsense.

[Stormin Mormon]

On 12/29/2015 3:05 PM, Terry Coombs wrote:
>> On 12/29/2015 11:51 AM, raykeller wrote:
>>> Obama’s Planned Gun Control Regulations to be Incrementally Imposed
>>> After the Holidays
>>> Dave Hodges – The Common Sense Show
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2015/12/25/obamas-planned-gun-control-regulations-to-be-incrementally-released-after-the-holidays/
>>>
>>>
>>> According to my sources, Obama will ultimately implement the
>>> following gun control regulations, mostly through a series of
>>> Executive Orders. [...]
>>
>

> If it is in fact true , this will probably trigger widespread "civil
> unrest" . Not a good time to be a gov't employee ...
>

Will just take a few more mass shootings, and the
sheeple will start to accept "reasonable gun control"
which will result in more helpless sheeple.

The same folks who smuggle drugs can easily smuggle
guns in.

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

Stormin Mormon <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:F8Jgy.105193$rj1....@fx27.iad:

Really? Cuz it convinced me to carry a gun all the time, fuck the signs.
What they can't see ain't none of thier business.

[First Post]

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 23:17:07 -0500, Stormin Mormon
<cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 12/29/2015 10:02 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:51:19 -0700, "raykeller"
>>>
>>> None of the above are in any particular order. These soon-to-be regulations
>>> appeared on a D0J White Paper that leaked
>>>
>>
>> Obama is a president, not a god-emperor. What he may
>> want and what he can get are gonna be extremely different
>> things.
>>
>
>I suspect at least a few people will act as if
>EO were the law of the land. And that's good
>enough for government work.

I keep hearing people say that and then no one ever does a damned
thing to stop him.
Hell Obamacare is blatantly unconstitutional but no one has done much
of anything to keep it from being rammed down the entire population's
throat.
And not a single executive order he has made has been declared null
and void yet.
People scream and yell "He can't do that!!!" and then when he does
everyone is like "well shit he did it, now we gotta abide by it".
Dear God it is indeed "Idiocracy" in this once great nation.

If the freaking Jews had the same attitude in Nazi Germany as most
Americans do today then Hitler wouldn't have had to spend near as much
money getting them to the gas chambers. He could have just fucking
executive ordered there asses into them and if they thought they way
Americans today think then they would have been bitching their asses
off as they walked into the gas chamber and closed the door behind
themselves saying something stupid like "sure wish someone would have
stopped him from making that law so I wouldn't have to walk in here to
die".
It has really gotten that ridiculous with 7 years of "he can't do
that" while he continues to do it and get away with it.

Our own congress that was elected specifically to put a leash on him
has literally been in the situation where they are saying "we got him
now and he can't do a thing about it, oh wait, uh oh, he just
executive ordered it so I guess we got to go along with him now". And
then they hang their heads like whipped dogs and concede their loss.

And the bright side is "in another year we won't have to worry about
him anymore, har dee har har". Say what!!??
OK Fine, tell me that this time next year after the Marxist Islamic
sympathizing gun grabbing racist liberal has executive ordered his way
through 2016, if we still have a functioning government and country by
then that is.

[Mr. B1ack]

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 22:42:43 -0600, First Post
<Liberalism_...@Leftwing-Cowards.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 23:17:07 -0500, Stormin Mormon
><cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 12/29/2015 10:02 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:51:19 -0700, "raykeller"
>>>>
>>>> None of the above are in any particular order. These soon-to-be regulations
>>>> appeared on a D0J White Paper that leaked
>>>>
>>>
>>> Obama is a president, not a god-emperor. What he may
>>> want and what he can get are gonna be extremely different
>>> things.
>>>
>>
>>I suspect at least a few people will act as if
>>EO were the law of the land. And that's good
>>enough for government work.
>
>I keep hearing people say that and then no one ever does a damned
>thing to stop him.
>Hell Obamacare is blatantly unconstitutional but no one has done much
>of anything to keep it from being rammed down the entire population's
>throat.

OCare put kickbacks into many pockets. Trying to
nullify the 2nd amendment will put a hell of a lot of
politicians out of a job unless they act to oppose.
In the end, the USSC can't help but rule against
Obama in this one ... it'd be like throwing massive
barriers in the way of free speech or freedom of
religion - you just can't do that.

However some kind of pre-emptive legislation SHOULD
be created before BO can even make a move. Throw
a monkey wrench, or twenty, into the works.

[raykeller]

"Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs"

<nuke_them_...@sulaco.com> wrote in message
news:XnsA57FF09AD509AWe...@213.239.209.88...

> Stormin Mormon <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:F8Jgy.105193$rj1....@fx27.iad:
>
>> On 12/29/2015 3:05 PM, Terry Coombs wrote:
>>>> On 12/29/2015 11:51 AM, raykeller wrote:
>>>>> Obama's Planned Gun Control Regulations to be Incrementally Imposed
>>>>> After the Holidays

>>>>> Dave Hodges - The Common Sense Show

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2015/12/25/obamas-planned-gun-contro
>>>>> l-regulations-to-be-incrementally-released-after-the-holidays/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> According to my sources, Obama will ultimately implement the
>>>>> following gun control regulations, mostly through a series of
>>>>> Executive Orders. [...]
>>>>
>>>
>>> If it is in fact true , this will probably trigger widespread "civil
>>> unrest" . Not a good time to be a gov't employee ...
>>>
>>
>> Will just take a few more mass shootings, and the
>> sheeple will start to accept "reasonable gun control"
>> which will result in more helpless sheeple.
>>
>> The same folks who smuggle drugs can easily smuggle
>> guns in.
>>
>> -
>> .
>> Christopher A. Young
>> learn more about Jesus
>> . www.lds.org
>> .
>> .
>
> Really? Cuz it convinced me to carry a gun all the time, fuck the signs.
> What they can't see ain't none of thier business.

So true
I have been packing in the open and concealed for 40 years

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 14:08:39 -0600, First Post

Keller is an idiot. That's been established.

Are you telling me now that the President has the power to tax?

Really?

What Constitutional amendment did I miss?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 14:11:56 -0600, First Post

You're not really THIS fucking stupid, are you?

Because if you are, you and Ray might have a future together.

You, um, do know that Obama didn't sit down one night and write
Obamacare and make it a law all by himself, right?

You do have a grasp on how the powers of taxation work and how laws
are passed, right?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 15:59:19 -0700, N...@Wussy.com wrote:

>On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 14:05:44 -0600, "Terry Coombs" <snag...@msn.com>
>wrote:

>
>>>> According to my sources, Obama will ultimately implement the
>>>> following gun control regulations, mostly through a series of
>>>> Executive Orders. [...]
>>>
>>> Likely all bullshit, given that it comes from that gutter-crawling
>>> shitstain Keller.
>>
>> If it is in fact true , this will probably trigger widespread "civil
>>unrest" . Not a good time to be a gov't employee ...
>

>Why?
>
>The "govt" is "the people"
>
>Any dumb fuck that actually believes that being pissed at good social
>policy is actionable by insurrection or revolt---is as goofy as the
>dumb assholes that believed slaves were a right to own

You Democrats thought slavery was "good social policy."
You Democrats thought segregation was "good social policy."

Luckily, the GOP kicked your ass and forced you into the 20th century.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 16:00:46 -0700, N...@Wussy.com wrote:

>On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 14:05:51 -0600, First Post
><Liberalism_...@Leftwing-Cowards.net> wrote:
>
>>I bet you're one of those that when you see an article that is
>>reprinted on FoxNews.com from Huffington Post or Salon that your
>>immediate reaction is to yell "Faux Snooze, gotta be a lie!" without
>>even looking at the actual source yes?
>

>I'd bet that any rational person seeing the name Faux snooze on
>anything---immediately dismisses it out of hand
>
>Faux or the rest of the cited rightwing rags, are not required to be
>truthful. They exist because they give you what you want to hear.

Why don't you give us a list of acceptable news sources then, Gary?

Help us all discover the truth.

Name them right here ----->

[Stormin Mormon]

On 12/29/2015 11:25 PM, Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs wrote:
>>> Obama’s Planned Gun Control Regulations to be Incrementally Imposed
>>> After the Holidays
>>> Dave Hodges – The Common Sense Show
>>>

> Yet Obama is determined to expand background checks. Bloomberg Business
> reports that, “Obama has let it be known from his holiday retreat in
> Hawaii, through unidentified advisers, that soon after New Years Day” he
> will circumvent Congress via executive action.
>
>

> http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/29/bloomberg-business-
> executive-gun-control-coming-soon-new-years-day/
>

One consequence of background checks is they will
tell the government where the guns are.

What could possibly go wrong, go wrong, go wrong?

[Stormin Mormon]

On 12/29/2015 11:36 PM, Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs wrote:
>
> Really? Cuz it convinced me to carry a gun all the time, fuck the signs.
> What they can't see ain't none of thier business.
>

Please give some thought ahead of time, when to
draw, shoot, or duck and run. In the excitement
of the moment might be the wrong time to make a
bad decision.

And please research (for your area of the country)
what's the best patter for cops after the shooting,
to reduce your liability.

--

[Stormin Mormon]

On 12/30/2015 1:21 AM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
> Trying to
> nullify the 2nd amendment will put a hell of a lot of
> politicians out of a job unless they act to oppose.
> In the end, the USSC can't help but rule against
> Obama in this one ... it'd be like throwing massive
> barriers in the way of free speech or freedom of
> religion - you just can't do that.
>
> However some kind of pre-emptive legislation SHOULD
> be created before BO can even make a move. Throw
> a monkey wrench, or twenty, into the works.
>

Ideally, that's what the Supreme Court does. Rules if
an action is constitutional or not.

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

Stormin Mormon <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote in

news:LgQgy.44273$8V1....@fx28.iad:

> On 12/29/2015 11:36 PM, Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs
> wrote:
>>
>> Really? Cuz it convinced me to carry a gun all the time, fuck the
>> signs. What they can't see ain't none of thier business.
>>
>
> Please give some thought ahead of time, when to
> draw, shoot, or duck and run. In the excitement
> of the moment might be the wrong time to make a
> bad decision.
>
> And please research (for your area of the country)
> what's the best patter for cops after the shooting,
> to reduce your liability.
>

I have already done so. Otherwise I would not be carrying.

[Stormin Mormon]

On 12/30/2015 7:57 AM, Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs wrote:
> Stormin Mormon wrote in

>> Please give some thought ahead of time, when to
>> draw, shoot, or duck and run. In the excitement
>> of the moment might be the wrong time to make a
>> bad decision.
>>
>> And please research (for your area of the country)
>> what's the best patter for cops after the shooting,
>> to reduce your liability.
>>
>
> I have already done so. Otherwise I would not be carrying.
>

I'd dare to guess that at least one or two CCW
people don't give those questions much thought.

On behalf of all the people who are safer; thank you.

[jane.playne]

On 12/30/2015 7:41 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
> On 12/30/2015 1:21 AM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>> Trying to
>> nullify the 2nd amendment will put a hell of a lot of
>> politicians out of a job unless they act to oppose.
>> In the end, the USSC can't help but rule against
>> Obama in this one ... it'd be like throwing massive
>> barriers in the way of free speech or freedom of
>> religion - you just can't do that.
>>
>> However some kind of pre-emptive legislation SHOULD
>> be created before BO can even make a move. Throw
>> a monkey wrench, or twenty, into the works.
>>
>
> Ideally, that's what the Supreme Court does. Rules if
> an action is constitutional or not.
>

.

Unfortunately, if you take away the word "ideally", your sentence is false.

Our Supreme court ruled that the *interstate commerce* clause can be
used to prevent a farmer from growing wheat on his *own* land to feed
his *own* livestock. There was no *interstate* and there was no *commerce*.

Maryland had a "may issue" statute that requires a demonstration of
"good and substantial reason", such as a clear and immediate threat on
the applicant's life that cannot be mitigated by any means other than
issuance of a concealed carry permit. The Supreme Court won't review a
decision upholding Maryland's strict "may issue" gun law that requires
residents to demonstrate a "good and substantial reason" to get a permit
to carry a handgun outside their own home or business.

The states that have a "may issue" statue are:
California[1], Delaware[2], Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New
York, and Hawaii[3][4]



1. California's law has been struck down, but it is still in force while
awaiting appeals.
2. Delaware has a "may issue" law, but in practice Delaware practices a
"shall issue" process.
3. May-Issue by statute, but in practice, Hawaii is "No-Issue," as
issuing authorities rarely or never approve applications for permits.
4. In March 2014, the 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals has ruled
Hawaii's restrictive concealed carry policy unconstitutional, but the
court has allowed the law to remain in effect while the State of Hawaii
appeals the ruling.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:10:30 -0500, "jane.playne"
<jane....@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 12/30/2015 7:41 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
>> On 12/30/2015 1:21 AM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>> Trying to
>>> nullify the 2nd amendment will put a hell of a lot of
>>> politicians out of a job unless they act to oppose.
>>> In the end, the USSC can't help but rule against
>>> Obama in this one ... it'd be like throwing massive
>>> barriers in the way of free speech or freedom of
>>> religion - you just can't do that.
>>>
>>> However some kind of pre-emptive legislation SHOULD
>>> be created before BO can even make a move. Throw
>>> a monkey wrench, or twenty, into the works.
>>>
>>
>> Ideally, that's what the Supreme Court does. Rules if
>> an action is constitutional or not.
>>
>.
>
>Unfortunately, if you take away the word "ideally", your sentence is false.
>
>Our Supreme court ruled that the *interstate commerce* clause can be
>used to prevent a farmer from growing wheat on his *own* land to feed
>his *own* livestock. There was no *interstate* and there was no *commerce*.

The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the
amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed on the open market, which
is traded nationally (interstate), and is therefore within the purview
of the Commerce Clause.

Wheat is not normally used as cattle feed, so it is obvious that this
un-American war-time profiteer was rightly and justly fined.

<sarcasm off>

[First Post]

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 03:34:49 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude

Forget about Obamacare have you?

And as stated in another post. 7 years and numerous executive orders
that congress has not done one damned thing about.
What makes you think they will suddenly get a wild hair up their asses
and start blocking him now?
From another post in this thread:

[jane.playne]

I am aware of the *excuse* the supreme court used. Filburn was not
involved in commerce. Citing the "*commerce* clause" when there was no
commerce was a poor decision on their part. Unfortunately, that
decision started the wide spread abuse of the commerce clause.

Additionally, That was a time of abuse of power. The Supreme Court
warned FDR that his "New Deal" was not constitutional, so FDR threatened
the Supreme Court with adding enough new Justices to sway the Court. The
Supreme Court caved.

Today, we have a law that very specifically specifies the word "penalty"
and the supreme court ruled that congress meant to use the word "tax".

[QOAhP⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛nYPse]

According to statistics President Obama has used few Executive Orders
than his predecessors did.

Obama was a university "Constitutional Law" Professor, you know.
Apparent he knows what is "constitutional" and what is not.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 08:33:33 -0600, First Post

Oh, right! I forgot! That was the legislation Obama signed into law
without Congress voting and passing it!

[snicker]

Tell us more about the President's power to tax, and where that's
located in the Constitution. It seems to be missing from my copy.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 08:17:59 -0700, N...@Wussy.com wrote:

>On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 03:34:49 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@null.net> wrote:
>
>>Are you telling me now that the President has the power to tax?
>>
>>Really?
>

>Has the power to kick your ass over taxes

Really, Gary? What "power" is that, exactly?

[chuckle]

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 08:29:06 -0700, N...@Wussy.com wrote:

>On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 07:37:50 -0500, Stormin Mormon
><cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>One consequence of background checks is they will
>>tell the government where the guns are.
>>
>>What could possibly go wrong, go wrong, go wrong?
>

>What could--??
>
>a) Prospective gunloons of future mass shootings would be easier to
>catch

Guys like this, you mean?

"Shooting gunloons to make a point is (unfortunately) ....illegal"
-Gary Roselles, Progressive 3/24/2015

"She [Katherine Harris] should be at least shot.
-Gary Roselles, Progressive 07 Feb 2001


If you're REALLY that concerned, why not just turn yourself in now?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 08:19:20 -0700, N...@Wussy.com wrote:

>On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 03:36:49 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@null.net> wrote:
>
>>>Forgot to add, Obama already TOOK the power to tax with Obamacare
>>
>>You're not really THIS fucking stupid, are you?
>>
>>Because if you are, you and Ray might have a future together.
>>
>>You, um, do know that Obama didn't sit down one night and write
>>Obamacare and make it a law all by himself, right?
>
>

>BWHAHAHAHAHA
>
>RIGHT----because the Affordable Care Act was a REPUBLICAN policy,
>shitterpantzen----right out of the Heritage Foundation.

Don't tell me Gary "The Dakota Moonbat" Roselles thinks that Congress
didn't pass Obamacare?

You're THAT ignorant?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 08:20:56 -0700, N...@Wussy.com wrote:

>On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 03:38:34 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@null.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 15:59:19 -0700, N...@Wussy.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 14:05:44 -0600, "Terry Coombs" <snag...@msn.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> According to my sources, Obama will ultimately implement the
>>>>>> following gun control regulations, mostly through a series of
>>>>>> Executive Orders. [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> Likely all bullshit, given that it comes from that gutter-crawling
>>>>> shitstain Keller.
>>>>
>>>> If it is in fact true , this will probably trigger widespread "civil
>>>>unrest" . Not a good time to be a gov't employee ...
>>>
>>>Why?
>>>
>>>The "govt" is "the people"
>>>
>>>Any dumb fuck that actually believes that being pissed at good social
>>>policy is actionable by insurrection or revolt---is as goofy as the
>>>dumb assholes that believed slaves were a right to own
>>
>>You Democrats thought slavery was "good social policy."
>

>Were those "democrats" Conservative or--liberal?

Liberals. I've told you this many times.

The same Democrats we have today.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 08:24:31 -0700, N...@Wussy.com wrote:

>On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 03:42:27 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@null.net> wrote:
>
>>>Faux or the rest of the cited rightwing rags, are not required to be
>>>truthful. They exist because they give you what you want to hear.
>>
>>Why don't you give us a list of acceptable news sources then, Gary?
>>
>>Help us all discover the truth.
>>
>>Name them right here ----->
>
>

>Why "name them", ShitterPantzen? ANY news outlet/corporation or
>organization that's a legitimate news source---(conservative or
>liberal) has a written, accepted, standard of journalism that is
>enforced.

As I predicted, Gary is too afraid to name them. That way, he can
dismiss anything that conflicts with his distorted, drunken view of
the world.

I knew you'd take the coward's way out, Gary.

[chuckle]

[Mike Colangelo]

And you have been a complete asshole for even longer.

[Pipewrench Peterson]

On 12/29/2015 12:08 PM, First Post wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 11:59:30 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude
> <klausscha...@null.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 11:53:08 -0800, Pipewrench Peterson <p...@ua.org>

>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/29/2015 11:51 AM, raykeller wrote:
>>>> Obama’s Planned Gun Control Regulations to be Incrementally Imposed After
>>>> the Holidays

>>>> Dave Hodges – The Common Sense Show

>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2015/12/25/obamas-planned-gun-control-regulations-to-be-incrementally-released-after-the-holidays/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> According to my sources, Obama will ultimately implement the following gun
>>>> control regulations, mostly through a series of Executive Orders.
>>>> [...]
>>>

>>> Likely all bullshit, given that it comes from that gutter-crawling
>>> shitstain Keller.
>>

>> Ray's not very bright.
>>
>> But when the President gets the power to tax, I hope he lets us all
>> know.
>
> So because you think keller is an idiot, that in turn means that
> whitehouse spokesperson Jen Psaki lied along with the author of the
> article?

Psaki didn't say what that cocksucker Keller slopped up in his post, you
fuckwit.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

It was a tax and Obama changed ObamaCare several times without congress
and congress is required and it takes a vote to pass a tax law, not a
simple Executive order.

[""""""Section 7. *All Bills for raising Revenue* shall originate in the
House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with
Amendments as on other Bills."""""""]

Obama has no power delegated to change any tax law and ObamaCare was
declared by the Supreme Court to be a tax law. That makes it Congress
that has to propose and start any change in the law or any new parts to
the law.

>
> [snicker]
>
> Tell us more about the President's power to tax, and where that's
> located in the Constitution. It seems to be missing from my copy.
>

["""""The parliamentary rules of both the Senate and House of
Representatives provide means by which a supermajority vote can be
*required for the passage* of certain measures. These special rules
requiring supermajority votes are most often *applied to legislation*
*dealing with the federal budget or taxation* . """"""]

ObamaCare is taxation....

Of course the Supreme court has no power to create tax laws so they had
no power to legally "declare" ObamaCare a tax and since it failed to be
constitutional as a commerce law they had no option but to declare
ObamaCare unconstitutional.... but instead they violated the
constitution and their OATH of OFFICE and declared ObamaCare a tax and
called it constitutional when we can all see that this was violating the
constitution.



*The ideology of Liberalism is unsustainable*

[Rudy Canoza]

On 12/29/2015 2:59 PM, N...@Wussy.com wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 14:05:44 -0600, "Terry Coombs" <snag...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>

>>>> According to my sources, Obama will ultimately implement the
>>>> following gun control regulations, mostly through a series of
>>>> Executive Orders. [...]
>>>
>>> Likely all bullshit, given that it comes from that gutter-crawling
>>> shitstain Keller.
>>

>> If it is in fact true , this will probably trigger widespread "civil
>> unrest" . Not a good time to be a gov't employee ...
>

> Why?
>
> The "govt" is "the people"

You stupid clueless fuck, Roselles. No "the govt" is not the people.
"The govt" is supposed to represent the people and do the people's
bidding, subject to not violating the Constitution, and when it fails to
do that, people just might possibly revolt.

Everything you believe and write - 100% of it - is bullshit, Roselles.
*You* are bullshit.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 12/29/2015 3:00 PM, N...@Wussy.com wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 14:05:51 -0600, First Post
> <Liberalism_...@Leftwing-Cowards.net> wrote:
>
>> I bet you're one of those that when you see an article that is
>> reprinted on FoxNews.com from Huffington Post or Salon that your
>> immediate reaction is to yell "Faux Snooze, gotta be a lie!" without
>> even looking at the actual source yes?
>
> I'd bet that any rational person seeing the name Faux snooze on
> anything---immediately dismisses it out of hand

You are dismissed immediately out of hand, Roselles, when you write
"Faux snooze" and think it's original and shows your wit. Actually...it
*does* show your wit, Roselles: leaden and sophomoric.

You are bullshit, Roselles, and you know it. You're stupid by choice.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 12/30/2015 7:41 AM, N...@Wussy.com wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:54:33 -0500, "jane.playne"
> <jane....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Additionally, That was a time of abuse of power. The Supreme Court
>> warned FDR that his "New Deal" was not constitutional, so FDR threatened
>> the Supreme Court with adding enough new Justices to sway the Court. The
>> Supreme Court caved.
>

> and BOY---that must piss you wingnuts off---because America became a
> BETTER nation under FDR's policies

No.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 12/30/2015 7:43 AM, N...@Wussy.com wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 08:33:33 -0600, First Post
> <Liberalism_...@Leftwing-Cowards.net> wrote:
>
>>> What Constitutional amendment did I miss?
>>>
>> Forget about Obamacare have you?
>

> Wasn't an amendment, you fuckwit
>
> It was a policy---MOF---a REPUBLICAN formulated and proposed policy

You're hallucinating again, Roselles. "Obamacare" passed without a
single Republican vote for it. Republicans played no role whatever in
writing the law.

Every word you write is a lie, including "it", "a" and "and."

[Rudy Canoza]

On 12/30/2015 7:44 AM, N...@Wussy.com wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 07:08:50 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude
> <klausscha...@null.net> wrote:
>
>>> Forget about Obamacare have you?
>>
>> Oh, right! I forgot! That was the legislation Obama signed into law
>> without Congress voting and passing it!
>

> And now we're BETTER off

No, we're *WORSE* off, you fuckwit. The ACA has raised insurance
prices, raised healthcare prices, and most of us are getting less care
for more money than before.

Every word you write is a lie, Roselles.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

And yet Obama uses those that he does use, to violate the constitution.

> Obama was a university "Constitutional Law" Professor, you know.
> Apparent he knows what is "constitutional" and what is not.

Obama was and is a Community Organizer, a polite euphemism for what he
really is, a communist agitator.

Obama is NO professor or constitutional expert. And Harvard and those
other colleges should have that Obama FAILURE hung around their neck.

[TGmRN⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛sBEZC]

>> According to statistics President Obama has used fewer Executive Orders

>> than his predecessors did.
>
> And yet Obama uses those that he does use, to violate the constitution.

Obama was a Constitutional Law Professor. He knows what he is doing.
Once again, I want to point out, Obama used fewer Executive Orders than
his predecessors did.

>

>> Obama was a university "Constitutional Law" Professor, you know.
>> Apparent he knows what is "constitutional" and what is not.
>
> Obama was and is a Community Organizer, a polite euphemism for what he
> really is, a communist agitator.
>
> Obama is NO professor or constitutional expert. And Harvard and those
> other colleges should have that Obama FAILURE hung around their neck.

Stop lying. University of Chicago says Obama was a Professor there.
<http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media>
//
University of Chicago
Media Inquiries

Statement Regarding Barack Obama
The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama,
especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama
served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to
1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he
taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be
members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors,
although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is
distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status.
Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand
careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching.
Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School,
Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track
position, but he declined.
//

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

All the wrong reasons for making such an obvious unconstitutional
decision in the past.... and the recent ObamaCare decision explained
that the commerce clause does NOT allow for regulating a lack of
commerce or commerce that isn't taking place or forcing individuals into
commerce so that it can then e regulated.... that's why ObamaCare
failed the constitutional test as a commerce law. So essentially that
old Filburn decision was overturned by the NEWER ObamaCare decision.

The government can't regulate NON commerce as commerce. And they can't
force you into commerce so they can then regulate you.

Obama the constitutional genius actually lost ground in his Liberal and
Marxist push to take over 20% of the U.S. economy and Fannie/Freddie and
coal and oil and all that. What he lost was the ability to interfere in
NON commerce using the commerce clause (As Liberal/Marxists have done in
the past) and Obama lost the 1964 civil rights act where it used the
commerce clause to enforce Affirmative Action laws that were deemed as
good for racial equality in commerce but they did it through NON
commerce and lack of commerce or commerce that doesn't happen which is
now unconstitutional to use thanks to Obama and ObamaCare.


"The individual mandate forces individuals into commerce precisely
because they elected to refrain from commercial activity," says Justice
Roberts. "Such a law cannot be sustained under a clause authorizing
Congress to 'regulate Commerce.'"


A Bakery store owner is an individual.... being forced into commerce
precisely because they elected to refrain from commercial activity in
gay products. And that is unconstitutional.

--
That's Karma

[First Post]

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 07:08:50 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude

You obviously don' get it and are also a prime example of "he can't do
that".
I suppose you believe it's just a simple coincidence that the Supreme
court unconstitutionally ruled that Obamacare was a Tax.
THAT ABILITY IS ALSO MISSING FROM THE CONSTITUTION isn't it?

Did that stop them?
NO.

Obama has already issued several executive orders that are highly
questionable and likely unconstitutional and what has anyone done
about it other than whine? No.

So let's just assume for arguments sake that he issues an order that
does create a form of tax. What do you think anyone will actually do
about it and what do you base it on? On congress' past actions over
the last couple of years?
The Republicans just handed him a budget that they swore would never
pass and you really believe that just because he does something
unconstitutional that they'll do anything other than wring their hands
over it?
The Constitution is only as valid as we make it by actually abiding by
it. If no one lives by it and walks the walk then, to coin a
misquoted phrase, the Constitution is then nothing more than a piece
of paper.
It has been demonstrated that the congress is spineless when it comes
to dealing with Obama and the SCOTUS will push his, the liberal,
agenda to the point of changing a law in order to try to make it fit
the Constitution.
And that is my only point and what my rant was over. That we have
presently got a government where the law makers and the law enforcers
are not operating according to the rules. So what do you do when your
elected officials refuse to operate under constitutional guidelines
and in the best interest of the people?
Because if we get either another democrat or an establishment
Republican as president, and nothing changes as far as the way
congress has behaved, then we will likely see much more of the same
crooked manipulations and outright violations. Especially if a
Hillary wins the whitehouse.

So what recourse do the people realistically have when the checks and
balances fail due to all three branches not doing their jobs as
intended?

When you have a president pushing an unAmerican, socialist agenda, a
congress that passes bloated, agenda driven legislation recklessly and
a Supreme Court that instead of interpreting the law decides that it
can just change the law to suit an agenda...How do you fix it?

[Rudy Canoza]

You obviously are stupid and don't understand anything about the
Constitution.

> I suppose you believe it's just a simple coincidence that the Supreme
> court unconstitutionally ruled that Obamacare was a Tax.

Perfect example of your stupidity and lack of understanding. No, the
Supreme Court did *NOT* rule anything "unconstitutionally." And they
did not rule that the ACA "is" a tax - they ruled that Congress had the
power, under its taxing authority, to enact the penalty for not having
insurance.

You never know what you're talking about - not one fucking thing.

> THAT ABILITY IS ALSO MISSING FROM THE CONSTITUTION isn't it?

No.

> Did that stop them?
> NO.

The Court did not rule "unconstitutionally," fuckwit. They might have
ruled badly and illogically, but not "unconstitutionally."

> Obama has already issued several executive orders that are highly
> questionable and likely unconstitutional and what has anyone done
> about it other than whine? No.

Nonetheless, he hasn't levied any taxes that weren't congressionally
mandated.

> So let's just assume for arguments sake that he issues an order that
> does create a form of tax.

No, let's not, because you're too stupid for this.

Wait! Aren't you the same fuckwit who keeps asserting, with no evidence
to support the claim, that it takes "faith" to believe in the fact of
evolution?

[First Post]

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 12:59:13 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty <"Liberalism has
been exposed as a never ending stream of

Thus and so, more and more we are seeing our government operate with
authority not granted by the constitution and without proper due
process.
It appears that we have literally not only allowed the fox to guard
the hen house but have filled the hen house with foxes and are now
trusting them to protect the hens.

[raykeller]

"First Post" <Liberalism_...@Leftwing-Cowards.net> wrote in message
news:l8688b1ka6s9t9sad...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 07:08:50 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude
> <klausscha...@null.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 08:33:33 -0600, First Post
>><Liberalism_...@Leftwing-Cowards.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 03:34:49 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude
>>><klausscha...@null.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 14:08:39 -0600, First Post
>>>><Liberalism_...@Leftwing-Cowards.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 11:59:30 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude
>>>>><klausscha...@null.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 11:53:08 -0800, Pipewrench Peterson <p...@ua.org>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 12/29/2015 11:51 AM, raykeller wrote:
>>>>>>>> Obama's Planned Gun Control Regulations to be Incrementally Imposed
>>>>>>>> After
>>>>>>>> the Holidays

>>>>>>>> Dave Hodges - The Common Sense Show

Gun production has doubled under Obama | TheHill
thehill.com/.../248950-gun-production-has-doubled-under-oba...

The Hill
Jul 23, 2015 - "People have been rushing to buy firearms because they're
afraid that Obama ... The number of guns manufactured increased by 18
percent during the ... The year before President Obama entered office, gun
manufacturers ...

ATF: Gun Production Up '140 Percent' During Obama ...
www.breitbart.com/.../atf-gun-production-up-140-percent-durin...
Breitbart
Jul 27, 2015 - ATF: Gun Production Up '140 Percent' During Obama Presidency.
... Of the millions of guns manufactured and sold each year, handguns ...

Stunning=> Over 100 MILLION Guns Sold in US Since ...
www.thegatewaypundit.com/.../stunning-over-100-million-guns-sold-in-...
Dec 8, 2015 - Stunning=> Over 100 MILLION Guns Sold in US Since Obama Became
President (Video) .... When the gun prohibitionists quote a statistic about
how many ... we see one--thus the record gun sales since Obama took office!

The Number Of Guns Made Has Doubled During Obama's ...
www.forbes.com/.../the-number-of-guns-made-have-doubled-duri...
Forbes
Jul 27, 2015 - ... has more than doubled over the course of the Obama
administration, ... Of Guns Made Has Doubled During Obama's Years In
Office -- Here's ...

[Scout]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in message
news:mcq78b50a0qsu7rkk...@4ax.com...

http://beefmagazine.com/mag/beef_wheat_hay_cattle

:-)

[Scout]

<N...@Wussy.com> wrote in message
news:n2468bdmo7s302jap...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 14:05:51 -0600, First Post
> <Liberalism_...@Leftwing-Cowards.net> wrote:
>
>>I bet you're one of those that when you see an article that is
>>reprinted on FoxNews.com from Huffington Post or Salon that your
>>immediate reaction is to yell "Faux Snooze, gotta be a lie!" without
>>even looking at the actual source yes?
>
> I'd bet that any rational person seeing the name Faux snooze on
> anything---immediately dismisses it out of hand

I see you're as stupid a gambler as you are a historian.

[Scout]

<N...@Wussy.com> wrote in message
news:fiu78b1tbpmd1mhu0...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 06:30:36 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude
> <klausscha...@null.net> wrote:
>
>>Wheat is not normally used as cattle feed, so it is obvious that this
>>un-American war-time profiteer was rightly and justly fined.
>

> Guns are not used to fight a modern army of technologically advanced
> weaponry and ability, shitterpantzen---

I wonder why our soldiers carry all those M16s?

Seems Gary's knowledge of military matters is as poor as that of gambling
and history.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

On 12/30/2015 10:43 AM, N...@Wussy.com wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 08:33:33 -0600, First Post
> <Liberalism_...@Leftwing-Cowards.net> wrote:
>
>>> What Constitutional amendment did I miss?
>>>
>> Forget about Obamacare have you?
>

> Wasn't an amendment, you fuckwit
>
> It was a policy---MOF---a REPUBLICAN formulated and proposed policy

> (heritatge foundation) that Obama got passed by LEGISLATION and upheld
> by the USSC (many times)


Turned into a new constitutional power that was delegated by the Supreme
court.

The power to force people to buy what they don't want or need and doing
in the name of a tax for simply being alive.

Sounds like something a tyrannical King would implement and that his
subjects would fight a revolution over.

--
That's Karma

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

On 12/30/2015 10:37 AM, N...@Wussy.com wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:10:30 -0500, "jane.playne"
> <jane....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, if you take away the word "ideally", your sentence is false.
>>
>> Our Supreme court ruled that the *interstate commerce* clause can be
>> used to prevent a farmer from growing wheat on his *own* land to feed
>> his *own* livestock. There was no *interstate* and there was no *commerce*.
>

> you cannot be required to license a vehicle if you drive in only on
> your property.
>
> That's common sense.
>
> Gunloonery---is a manifestation of silly expansion of WHAT the 2nd
> amendment "means"---because originally--it had nothing to do with fear
> of losing the right to have a gun.

Channeling the founding fathers again....?

I guess all Liberals are delusional.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

They were self described as being the party of the people and for
expansion and progress.... like progressives.

Republicans were for the Wall-Street types and BIG business and the
robber barons.

Were Democrats for the BIG banking type of 1% wealthy and using up
natural resources and helping the rich get richer?

Or were the Democrats the progressives that wanted to expand the Nation
for little guys and the small farmers? Why did Democrats want to kill
the Native Americans and take their land? The Indian lands ended up in
teh hands of the BLM and the Federal Government... so much is still in
the government's hands that you Democrat stole with Manifest Destiny
that the States are losing tax dollars and need that land but Democrats
won't allow it to be used since they stole it.

Maybe Obama should give all the BLM Government land back to the American
Indians!


--
That's Karma

[Mr. B1ack]

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 07:41:24 -0500, Stormin Mormon
<cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 12/30/2015 1:21 AM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>> Trying to
>> nullify the 2nd amendment will put a hell of a lot of
>> politicians out of a job unless they act to oppose.
>> In the end, the USSC can't help but rule against
>> Obama in this one ... it'd be like throwing massive
>> barriers in the way of free speech or freedom of
>> religion - you just can't do that.
>>
>> However some kind of pre-emptive legislation SHOULD
>> be created before BO can even make a move. Throw
>> a monkey wrench, or twenty, into the works.
>>
>
>Ideally, that's what the Supreme Court does. Rules if
>an action is constitutional or not.

Pre-emptive cases should be filed - indeed the
things should have been written up long ago just
in case of emergency.

Also, there's nothing in the constitution that actually
allows for XOs ... presidents have just done it and,
out of politeness, most went unchallenged. Well,
this anti-constitutionalist prez doesn't deserve any
politeness ... so the House should pass resolutions
saying that XOs are not valid and will not be recognized
as law.

Some won't want to do that, hoping that when
somebody from their party gets to be prez he'll use XOs
to wreak vengance on the other party ... but no prez
ever really seems to do that so power unused is power
that can be disposed of.

And if HRC, or Trump, is the next prez then neither ought
to be able to use dictatorial powers or there'll be big BIG
trouble. So, it's time for the XO to be thrown on the historical
rubbish heap - a political WMD too powerful to be trusted to
todays el-crapo brand of "leaders". Presidential powers have
been trimmed before.

So ... whisper to the Republicans that HRC wants to use XOs
to be a dictator - and whisper to the Dems that Trump intends
to do the same. Dictators don't need legislators, meaning their
power and profits would be diminished. Both parties will run
to the chamber and cast their votes :-)

[Mr. B1ack]

I think the situation is called "tyranny" ....

[Mr. B1ack]

90 percent of war-winning is done by soldiers, on foot,
carrying rifles and pistols - taking it directly to the enemy.

Of course if the 2nd amendment is ever really needed here
you don't fight the army and cops ... you need them to be
your friends.

[iAydf⛄⫸Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ⸎ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ⫷⛄ONsmG]

Beam Me Up Scotty wrote on 30/12/2015 19:30:
> On 12/30/2015 10:43 AM, N...@Wussy.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 08:33:33 -0600, First Post
>> <Liberalism_...@Leftwing-Cowards.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> What Constitutional amendment did I miss?
>>>>
>>> Forget about Obamacare have you?
>>
>> Wasn't an amendment, you fuckwit
>>
>> It was a policy---MOF---a REPUBLICAN formulated and proposed policy
>> (heritatge foundation) that Obama got passed by LEGISLATION and upheld
>> by the USSC (many times)
>
>
> Turned into a new constitutional power that was delegated by the Supreme
> court.
>
> The power to force people to buy what they don't want or need and doing
> in the name of a tax for simply being alive.

Everybody can get sick. You don't want to pay for medical insurance
because you want to be a fucking leech like Gummer Arse to get free
heart surgery through Medicaid on public dough. You are a shame to the
society.

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

Stormin Mormon <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:q9Rgy.55231$Jt4.28192
@fx22.iad:

> On 12/30/2015 7:57 AM, Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs
wrote:
>> Stormin Mormon wrote in
>>> Please give some thought ahead of time, when to
>>> draw, shoot, or duck and run. In the excitement
>>> of the moment might be the wrong time to make a
>>> bad decision.
>>>
>>> And please research (for your area of the country)
>>> what's the best patter for cops after the shooting,
>>> to reduce your liability.
>>>
>>
>> I have already done so. Otherwise I would not be carrying.
>>
>
> I'd dare to guess that at least one or two CCW
> people don't give those questions much thought.
>
> On behalf of all the people who are safer; thank you.
>

Hell, before I even bought my first gun, I gave it thought. I think about
it every day when I have it on me. In fact it makes me less likely to
engage with someone being an ass since I have a greater responsibility to
defuse the situation.

--
Notice: This poster is politically incorrect. I say 'Merry Christmas,' 'God
bless America.' I salute our flag and give thanks to our troops, police
officers and firefighters. If this offends you, you are welcome to leave.
In God we trust. All others, fuck off.

[ZQtkZ⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛Cervq]

Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs wrote on 30/12/2015 23:14:
>
>
> Hell, before I even bought my first gun, I gave it thought. I think about
> it every day when I have it on me. In fact it makes me less likely to
> engage with someone being an ass since I have a greater responsibility to
> defuse the situation.

In fact packing a gun makes you more prone to confrontation because you
feel empowered and you think you are invincible just like a big bully.
That's exactly why the lowlife motherfucker Gummer Arse is always
issuing death threats to everyone on the internet.

[PaxPerPoten]

On 12/30/2015 9:20 AM, N...@Wussy.com wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 03:38:34 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude
> <klausscha...@null.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 15:59:19 -0700, N...@Wussy.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 14:05:44 -0600, "Terry Coombs" <snag...@msn.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> According to my sources, Obama will ultimately implement the
>>>>>> following gun control regulations, mostly through a series of
>>>>>> Executive Orders. [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> Likely all bullshit, given that it comes from that gutter-crawling
>>>>> shitstain Keller.
>>>>
>>>> If it is in fact true , this will probably trigger widespread "civil
>>>> unrest" . Not a good time to be a gov't employee ...
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>> The "govt" is "the people"
>>>
>>> Any dumb fuck that actually believes that being pissed at good social
>>> policy is actionable by insurrection or revolt---is as goofy as the
>>> dumb assholes that believed slaves were a right to own
>>
>> You Democrats thought slavery was "good social policy."
>
> Were those "democrats" Conservative or--liberal?

Just like you!!

>
>> You Democrats thought segregation was "good social policy."
>
> Were DIxie Crats (Now republicans) Conservatives or liberals?

Nope..Senator Byrd comes to mind.. Head of the Democratic KKK.

>
>> Luckily, the GOP kicked your ass and forced you into the 20th century.
>
> Luckily, the Republican party was a LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE party
>
> BWHAHAHAHAHA

Typical insane laughter that is the mark of too much inbreeding in Democrats

--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster

[PaxPerPoten]

On 12/30/2015 9:33 AM, N...@Wussy.com wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 08:40:39 -0500, Stormin Mormon
> <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I have already done so. Otherwise I would not be carrying.
>>>
>>
>> I'd dare to guess that at least one or two CCW
>> people don't give those questions much thought.
>>
>> On behalf of all the people who are safer; thank you.
>

> On behalf of the 30,000 dead of gunshot wounds--Men, women, children,
> cops, elderly----you're a nut job.

And you Sir, Are a coward! South Dakota has open carry and mandatory
shall issue CCW. There are more weapons per person in South Dakota then
anywhere else. South Dakota's crime rate is very low..other the dirt
bags like you. South Dakota also has reciprocal carry laws with a large
number of other states. Might I suggest that you hit a Rapid City bar
and shoot your mouth off on this subject? Or better yet, step over to
Wyoming and do the same.
>
>
>
>> ============================================================
>
>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:57:07 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas
>> <nick...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Face it, coward: the American people made a BIG mistake when they
>>> elected this totally unqualified person. Unfortunately for us, his
>>> course has yet many months to run.
>>
>> Well, considering you're stupid enough to make crank
>> calls from your home phone---thinking you'd not get
>> caught----why would anyone consider your opinion worth
>> a shit, Knicklas?
>>
>> Hmmm?

[PaxPerPoten]

On 12/30/2015 10:49 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 12/29/2015 3:00 PM, N...@Wussy.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 14:05:51 -0600, First Post
>> <Liberalism_...@Leftwing-Cowards.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I bet you're one of those that when you see an article that is
>>> reprinted on FoxNews.com from Huffington Post or Salon that your
>>> immediate reaction is to yell "Faux Snooze, gotta be a lie!" without
>>> even looking at the actual source yes?
>>
>> I'd bet that any rational person seeing the name Faux snooze on
>> anything---immediately dismisses it out of hand
>
> You are dismissed immediately out of hand, Roselles, when you write
> "Faux snooze" and think it's original and shows your wit. Actually...it
> *does* show your wit,

Actually its not wit..The Moron just can't spell.

[PaxPerPoten]

On 12/30/2015 6:37 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
> On 12/29/2015 11:25 PM, Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs

> wrote:
>>>> Obama’s Planned Gun Control Regulations to be Incrementally Imposed
>>>> After the Holidays

>>>> Dave Hodges – The Common Sense Show
>>>>
>> Yet Obama is determined to expand background checks. Bloomberg Business
>> reports that, “Obama has let it be known from his holiday retreat in
>> Hawaii, through unidentified advisers, that soon after New Years Day” he
>> will circumvent Congress via executive action.
>>
>>
>> http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/29/bloomberg-business-
>> executive-gun-control-coming-soon-new-years-day/
>>
>
> One consequence of background checks is they will
> tell the government where the guns are.
>
> What could possibly go wrong, go wrong, go wrong?

Actually when they do come to take the guns, you may find that all the
criminals that Obama released have used your ID to buy weapons. Because
as convicted Felons they can neither vote or own firearms. You can bet
that the Democrats/Liberals will have them voting the straight Democrat
ticket ..even if they die. You have noticed that criminals are generally
Democrats and Democrats are generally criminals?
>
> -
> .
> Christopher A. Young
> learn more about Jesus
> . www.lds.org
> .

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

=?UTF-8?B?WlF0a1rimpvihpAg77yt772J772H772I772U772ZIOKVrCDvvLfvvYHvvY4=?= =?
UTF-8?B?772O772B772C772FIOKGkuKam0NlcnZx?= <FX...@aFooe.com> wrote in
news:9D2hy.31756$mK....@fx04.ams1:

No you nutless asshole. It does not. If I'm not wearing body armor than I
am as vulnerable as anyone else. The idea is to avoid at all costs and
shoot only in the gravest extreme.

Because you nutless asshole, I will have to justify my actions to a lot of
people afteward, and even if found to be justified it will cost mt money
and time.

So, you nutless asshole, like all nutless asshole progs, you think you can
look into people's minds and know all about them.

That's fine, nutless asshole, so can I. Your an arrogant asshole who thinks
he knows how 100 million people think.

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

=?UTF-8?B?aUF5ZGbim4Tiq7jvvK3vvYnvvYfvvYjvvZTvvZkg4riOIO+8t++9ge+9jg==?= =?
UTF-8?B?772O772B772C772F4qu34puET05zbUc=?= <ee...@wCGRG.com> wrote in
news:Yo1hy.233657$oS5....@fx12.fr7:

No, but I would like to cause you grievous injury so you would need it.

[PaxPerPoten]

Very obviously it is Tyranny and Americans have every right and duty to
repel this immoral and corrupt administration...With force if necessary.

[PaxPerPoten]

On 12/30/2015 9:39 AM, N...@Wussy.com wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 06:30:36 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude
> <klausscha...@null.net> wrote:
>
>> Wheat is not normally used as cattle feed, so it is obvious that this
>> un-American war-time profiteer was rightly and justly fined.
>

> Guns are not used to fight a modern army of technologically advanced

> weaponry and ability, shitterpantzen---unless you're whacking off to
> the movie "red dawn" and how easy it was to defeat a modern army.

You are an idiot..An example is how our Modern Military with state of
the art weaponry, Intel and Money are getting their asses handed to them
by ME Neanderthals. Of course micromanaging by the Moron in Chief
mitigates this. Not only does our Military not belong there...They
should be guarding our borders with deadly force.

[DoD]

"PaxPerPoten" <P...@USA.org> wrote in message
news:n62ffb$3li$1...@dont-email.me...

> Not only does our Military not belong there...They should be guarding our
> borders with deadly force.

He will find a way around that....

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/12/30/obamas-agency-reveals-plan-give-work-permits-myriad-foreign-college-graduates/

[qAmUy⛄⫸Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ⸎ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ⫷⛄cYmRf]

There is no tyranny. You have free elections. You are just a sore loser
that the other side won. Get over it. Bend over and take it like a man.

[PaxPerPoten]

Now I know why Canada is so screwed up.

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

=?UTF-8?B?cUFtVXnim4Tiq7jvvK3vvYnvvYfvvYjvvZTvvZkg4riOIO+8t++9ge+9jg==?= =?
UTF-8?B?772O772B772C772F4qu34puEY1ltUmY=?= <Eg...@ukQWl.com> wrote in
news:FN3hy.255669$pk5....@fx23.fr7:

Stand up straight so when you drop throough the trap door your neck snaps
clean.

[XdhVo⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛eDYTH]

PaxPerPoten wrote on 31/12/2015 00:36:
>
>
> Actually when they do come to take the guns, you may find that all the
> criminals that Obama released have used your ID to buy weapons. Because
> as convicted Felons they can neither vote or own firearms. You can bet
> that the Democrats/Liberals will have them voting the straight Democrat
> ticket ..even if they die. You have noticed that criminals are generally
> Democrats and Democrats are generally criminals?

No, not really.

Study: 90% of Criminal Corporations Are Republican
<http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/study-90-of-criminal-corporations-are-republican/17764-study-90-of-criminal-corporations-are-republican>

[TBumu⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛UojhR]

No screw up here. Canada is a socialist utopia.

Top 10 Most Socialist Countries in the World
<http://blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/>

[Mr. B1ack]

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:44:06 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty <"Liberalism has

been exposed as a never ending stream of

After being genocided and fucked-over for the last 200+ years,
yea, maybe that'd be the right thing to do.

But it won't be done.

[Mr. B1ack]

Don't bank on THAT lie .....

You get to choose between System-Approved candidate #1
and System-Approved candidate #2. The "choice" is illusory.
Has been for a long time.

Oh, and even majorities can't approve a tyranny or to ignore
inalienable rights. That goes whether you like HRC or Trump.

[benj]

Whoa! That sure sounds like "homegrown terrorism" to me! Say, you
wouldn't happen to be a gun owners, would you?



--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/

[asyCj░ Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ░ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ ░WlQUu]

Ask him if he has been stockpiling chemical fertilizers too.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 08:44:58 -0700, N...@Wussy.com wrote:

>On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 07:08:50 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@null.net> wrote:
>
>>>Forget about Obamacare have you?
>>

>>Oh, right! I forgot! That was the legislation Obama signed into law
>>without Congress voting and passing it!
>
>And now we're BETTER off---unless you had one of those bogus, cheap,
>worthless "feelgood" policies that eventually any illness YOU had
>would be paid for by OTHERS taxes.

Wrong. I had great insurance. Now I can't afford it at all.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 08:39:20 -0700, N...@Wussy.com wrote:

>On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 06:30:36 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@null.net> wrote:
>
>>Wheat is not normally used as cattle feed, so it is obvious that this
>>un-American war-time profiteer was rightly and justly fined.
>

>Guns are not used to fight a modern army of technologically advanced
>weaponry and ability, shitterpantzen-

Really? They're not?

So you're telling us the Army doesn't use guns any more?

FASCINATING, Gary! Tell us more!

ROFLMAO

Good God you're one stupid sonofabitch.

[Mel Schacher]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" wrote in message
news:de4a8bpasuva4vrkf...@4ax.com...

####
Damn. Sorry to hear that Klaus.

The wife and I had a decent (but expensive) insurance policy with Blue
Shield/Blue Cross, that was really eating into our income, well before
Obamacare.
Since then? the wife and I were forced to get a "different policy"... again
with Blue Shield/Blue Cross.

Nothing has changed except the payments, that are now SEVERAL THOUSAND
dollars LESS per year!

Funny thing is, I still get to use the same doctors, and co-pay is only
$40.bucks more.

The doctors, however, do want to stick needles in us more often, stick
things up our junk, and other places.

I hate needles!

[Stormin Mormon]

On 12/30/2015 11:14 PM, Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs wrote:
> Stormin Mormon wrote in news:q9Rgy.55231$Jt4.28192

>>
>> On behalf of all the people who are safer; thank you.
>>
>
> Hell, before I even bought my first gun, I gave it thought. I think about
> it every day when I have it on me. In fact it makes me less likely to
> engage with someone being an ass since I have a greater responsibility to
> defuse the situation.
>

I do appreciate the "less likely to engage" point
of view. Nice to know someone handles a CCW with
responsibility, not trying to be Clint Eastwood.

--

[Stormin Mormon]

On 12/31/2015 12:27 AM, PaxPerPoten wrote:
> On 12/30/2015 9:33 AM, N...@Wussy.com wrote:
>>> I'd dare to guess that at least one or two CCW
>>> people don't give those questions much thought.
>>>
>>> On behalf of all the people who are safer; thank you.
>>
>> On behalf of the 30,000 dead of gunshot wounds--Men, women, children,
>> cops, elderly----you're a nut job.
>
> And you Sir, Are a coward! South Dakota has open carry and mandatory
> shall issue CCW. There are more weapons per person in South Dakota then
> anywhere else. South Dakota's crime rate is very low..other the dirt
> bags like you. South Dakota also has reciprocal carry laws with a large
> number of other states. Might I suggest that you hit a Rapid City bar
> and shoot your mouth off on this subject? Or better yet, step over to
> Wyoming and do the same.

The purpose of guns in the US and the world has changed
over the years. And the societal acceptance, also. In the
2016 era, food is more available at the grocery store, so
hunting is less a part of society. There is a move (like
in colonial USA before the war of independance) to outlaw
guns and rely on government for protection.

[Stormin Mormon]

On 12/31/2015 12:36 AM, PaxPerPoten wrote:
> On 12/30/2015 6:37 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
>> One consequence of background checks is they will
>> tell the government where the guns are.
>>
>> What could possibly go wrong, go wrong, go wrong?
>
> Actually when they do come to take the guns, you may find that all the
> criminals that Obama released have used your ID to buy weapons. Because
> as convicted Felons they can neither vote or own firearms. You can bet
> that the Democrats/Liberals will have them voting the straight Democrat
> ticket ..even if they die. You have noticed that criminals are generally
> Democrats and Democrats are generally criminals?

And so the Fed will be in my face, demanding
for me to hand over the guns that Mugsy, Sluggo,
Rocco, and Thumper bought, using my NICS ID?
That will be an interesting moment. Little old
me, being squeezed by the goons for a couple of
firearms I've never known that I bought?


--

[Stormin Mormon]

On 12/31/2015 12:36 AM, PaxPerPoten wrote:

Sure would be nice if you'd trim the text under your reply,
rather than center posting.

[Stormin Mormon]

Now, we have Diebold electronic voting. You vote, we decide.

Besides, the left has all the dead people in Chicago voting
for lefties.
--

[Stormin Mormon]

King George said the same thing about the colonists.

[First Post]

They don't think they can read minds. They just think that everyone
else is a weak minded wannabe bully like themselves.
Anytime a left wing idiot starts accusing someone with a permit or who
open carries of doing so in order be a "tough guy" they are just
projecting their own feelings as to how they would behave if they
carried a gun.
Most liberals never matured much past a high school level and still
carry those childish attitudes that the rest of us have long outgrown
regarding acting like a big shot and trying to intimidate anyone you
can goes.