FishUSA.com Forums
Forums Home Search Photo Gallery Calendar Policies Logout Old Boards FishUSA.com Tackle Shop My Profile My Forums My Subscriptions My Address Book My Inbox Member List RSS News Feed

Log In      

Now their starting the "He Wants to take Our guns" campaign

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Pennsylvania Boards] >> Off Topic Discussions - Pennsylvania >> Now their starting the "He Wants to take Our guns" campaign Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Now their starting the "He Wants to take Our guns&... - 10/22/2008 10:28:41 PM   
nightowl207

 

Posts: 453
Status: offline 		Its that time of year again the republican party puts out that word that has got their party into the whitehouse the last 2 terms. Ive heard several people say this now and 2 of them have been on the news. Are people this dumb or just strictly closed-minded republican and use this to try to trick all the gun owners to vote republican so "their guns dont get taken away". Besides the fact that this "plan" was never made or even commented on by the Obama campaign, the government will never be able to control guns to the extent of removing them from citizens possession. The gun owners of america are a lot like the bike owners and how long does a law against there beliefs last. Helmet law was in and out as soon as all the bikers came out and fought it. It would be the same with the gun owners besides the fact that the gun owners and the NRA members are a lot more plentiful in this country and the law would never be made. Rediculous! You best find another approach in desparation to get your party into the white house this go round. By the way I am not affiliated with any party, this post is just my observations.   

< Message edited by nightowl207 -- 10/22/2008 10:32:28 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Now their starting the "He Wants to take Our g... - 10/22/2008 10:34:04 PM   
kyler16


Posts: 1772
Joined: 5/21/2006
From: formally johnstown currently Salix
Status: offline 		republican they are good for only 2 things

starting wars and jacking votes.


_____________________________

My biggest worry is that my wife (when I'm dead) will sell my
fishing gear for what I told her I paid for it.
- Koos Brandt


(in reply to nightowl207)
Post #: 2
RE: Now their starting the "He Wants to take Our g... - 10/23/2008 4:31:02 AM   
plnoldrick

 

Posts: 387
Joined: 9/3/2006
Status: offline 		They use it as a scare tactic because people do not seem to understand that even if the democrats increase thier control of the house and senate there will still be enough republicans and moderate democrats to table or kill any legislation on gun control.  Also since the supreme court has upheld the second amendment (very recently) i do not see a 3/4 majority of the house and senate voting to repeal the second amendment nor the president (either party) commiting political suicide signing it.

AND

should someone manage to craft a bill and get it signed into law the current supreme court IS conservative biased with roberts, alito, scalia, thomas and kennedy going to strike it down in a 5-4 vote. Also i want to add that no conservative judges are expected to retire from the bench in the next 8 years, only liberal leaning judges.


dont worry, your guns are safe for the long term despite what the nra tells you. there have been plenty of times when liberals have been in control of the executive and legislativ branches of the government at the same time since the inception of the second amendment and it still exists.

< Message edited by plnoldrick -- 10/23/2008 4:55:09 AM >

(in reply to kyler16)
Post #: 3
RE: Now their starting the "He Wants to take Our g... - 10/23/2008 5:40:21 AM   
S-10

 

Posts: 1713
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: online 		Plnoldrick wrote=They use it as a scare tactic because people do not seem to understand that even if the democrats increase thier control of the house and senate there will still be enough republicans and moderate democrats to table or kill any legislation on gun control. 


And you know this how?

The NRA does not care if you are Repub or Dem, they only care about your position on guns.

You have no way of knowing if the next supreme court vacancy will be liberal or conserative and are quite follish if you are willing to take that gamble when one vote away from losing.

Even now Washington, DC and Chicago are ignoring or slipping around the original decision and it will take millions of dollars to stop them. How much are you going to pony up?

The NRA is coming out solidly against Obama and has all the votes he made in the Illinois congress and all his speaches against private ownership of guns or ammo. They also have listed all the info you need to see that what they say is true.

Don't know if you are a TROLL, ANTI GUN yourself,  or just in the dark about how slim the margin is between us and Great Britain and Austrailia. Read up on them, they said it would never happen there too. 

The Repubs are going to lose a lot of seats in  congress regardless of who wins the White House and many of the seats in danger (not all)are to democrats who ARE anti gun.

(in reply to plnoldrick)
Post #: 4
RE: Now their starting the "He Wants to take Our g... - 10/23/2008 6:00:49 AM   
S-10

 

Posts: 1713
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: online 		The Mayor, Attorney General and Chief emphasized that the Supreme Court’s ruling is limited and leaves intact various other laws that apply to private citizens who would purchase handguns or other firearms for home possession.  First, all firearms must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department’s Firearms Registration Section before they may be lawfully possessed.  Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered.  Third, the Supreme Court’s ruling is limited to handguns in the home and does not entitle anyone to carry firearms outside his or her own home.  In addition, although the Court struck the safe storage provision on the ground that it was too broadly written, firearms at home should be kept either unloaded and disassembled or else locked except for use in self-defense in emergencies.

(in reply to S-10)
Post #: 5
RE: Now their starting the "He Wants to take Our g... - 10/23/2008 6:10:12 AM   
S-10

 

Posts: 1713
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: online 		But the landmark ruling, which placed bitter divisions on the Court on full display, is likely to mark the beginning, not the end, of litigation over Second Amendment rights as gun owners and local governments test the contours of the right enunciated by the Court.
Scalia wrote that the right he was announcing, as with other constitutional rights, "is not unlimited." The ruling should not "cast doubt," he added, on restrictions such as barring possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill or forbidding carrying arms near schools or in government buildings. He also indicated that the use of certain types of weapons could be restricted without running afoul of the Second Amendment.
But the majority did not define a standard of review for judging which restrictions are or are not constitutional, and it did not specifically rule that the Second Amendment applies to the states -- a step that the Court has taken in the past to ensure that other parts of the Bill of Rights limit state as well as federal restrictions on individuals.
Both omissions from the ruling virtually guarantee a wave, if not a generation, of legal battles. Scalia suggested as much in his 64-page opinion when he wrote, almost defensively, "Since this case represents this court's first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field."

(in reply to S-10)
Post #: 6
RE: Now their starting the "He Wants to take Our g... - 10/23/2008 7:20:00 AM   
treedaddy

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 11/30/2000
Status: online 		thank you s-10 ,

(in reply to S-10)
Post #: 7
RE: Now their starting the "He Wants to take Our g... - 10/23/2008 7:59:50 AM   
waDerboy

 

Posts: 1982
Joined: 10/1/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: S-10

The Mayor, Attorney General and Chief emphasized that the Supreme Court’s ruling is limited and leaves intact various other laws that apply to private citizens who would purchase handguns or other firearms for home possession.  First, all firearms must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department’s Firearms Registration Section before they may be lawfully possessed.  Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered.  Third, the Supreme Court’s ruling is limited to handguns in the home and does not entitle anyone to carry firearms outside his or her own home.  In addition, although the Court struck the safe storage provision on the ground that it was too broadly written, firearms at home should be kept either unloaded and disassembled or else locked except for use in self-defense in emergencies.



Are you for automatic weapons?

(in reply to S-10)
Post #: 8
RE: Now their starting the "He Wants to take Our g... - 10/23/2008 8:49:32 AM   
Ax


Posts: 559
Joined: 10/22/2004
Status: offline 		Guns will never be taken away from US citizens thanks to the constitution. It is our second amendment right. So if you are voting for a republican just because they won't take your guns away then you really need to educate yourself more.

I don't care who anyone votes for but please at least make an educated decision not one just based on propaganda and hear say.

(in reply to waDerboy)
Post #: 9
RE: Now their starting the "He Wants to take Our g... - 10/23/2008 9:12:11 AM   
pensfan1

 

Posts: 475
Joined: 1/13/2004
Status: offline 		The only reason is this is their(McBush and the Republicans) last ditch effort. With Obama leading in the polls more and more everyday they have to do a bait and switch. Nevermind about the state of the union and the abyss that is our economy, "He wants to take our guns!" ....very sad. What's even sadder is the one that vote solely on that issue. Obama doesn't want to take away your guns in rural america. He does want to keep the AKs out of the inner cities. Surely we can agree on that?

(in reply to Ax)
Post #: 10
RE: Now their starting the "He Wants to take Our g... - 10/23/2008 9:15:16 AM   
pensfan1

 

Posts: 475
Joined: 1/13/2004
Status: offline 		BTW S-10, the NRA has always been part of the GOP. Whether you want to admit that or not. Millions and even billions have been "denoted" to elect a republican or keep one in the whitehouse.


(in reply to pensfan1)
Post #: 11
RE: Now their starting the "He Wants to take Our g... - 10/23/2008 9:47:40 AM   
S-10

 

Posts: 1713
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: online 		The reason for that is in order for a Democrat to get past the primaries he has to be anti gun in order to pass muster with the left wing radicals who do most of the early voting. The Repubs have the same problem with the right wing only not with guns. Quite a few democratic congressmen are endorsed by the NRA and quite a few Repubs are not. As for being for or against automatic weapons, under many of the laws they have tried to pass both my Winchester 1400 and Remington 1100 would be illegal. The details are always in the fine print. That's it for a few days.

(in reply to pensfan1)
Post #: 12
RE: Now their starting the "He Wants to take Our g... - 10/23/2008 10:31:53 AM   
pensfan1

 

Posts: 475
Joined: 1/13/2004
Status: offline 		Not sure, actually have no idea, what those two guns are. Are they semi-auto shotguns?

(in reply to S-10)
Post #: 13
RE: Now their starting the "He Wants to take Our g... - 10/23/2008 11:03:51 AM   
bulldog1


Posts: 372
Joined: 6/5/2008
Status: offline 		This could get interesting.

"dont worry, your guns are safe for the long term despite what the nra tells you."

And Hitler will never round up all the Jews, that's Europe's war we'll never get involved, and abortion will never be legal, oh and the income tax is only temporary. If you look at his short record of public service, you'll find that he is absolutely the most anti-gun candidate to ever seek the highest office in the land.

"He does want to keep the AKs out of the inner cities. Surely we can agree on that?"

Outlaw AKs and the only place you'll find them is the inner cities in the hands of criminals. Laws mean nothing to anyone other than law abiding citizens. The answer is enforcing laws that are already in place! The average price of taking a human life is 7 years. DON'T ever assume that anything can or can't be done, fairness doctrine ring a bell?

Why would anyone need an automatic rifle? Same reason they need a car or motorcycle that goes 200mph, or anything else that's more than the bare necessities, because they want one. There really is no more reason necessary than that. Now, if you want the government to determine what you should have, don't be surprised when they do.

If you check into the motorcycle helmet law far enough, the insurance companies were also championing the repeal of PA's helmet law, it's cheaper for them if someone dies rather than being severly injured. I'm still trying to figure out how government makes sense out of repealing the helmet law while at the same time forcing citizens to wear seatbelts.

I would like to see them have to remove an old law from the books for each new one that they want to add.



(in reply to S-10)
Post #: 14
RE: Now their starting the "He Wants to take Our g... - 10/23/2008 11:35:54 AM   
Carpet Bagger

 

Posts: 2058
Joined: 4/18/2001
From: Greenville, PA
Status: offline 		<~Gun owner for Obama...

Gun control is about the only thing i dont agree with Obama on.  Criminals dont have registered guns and certainly dont buy them for $500 off a firearms dealer...so why make the system any harder on me to own or buy one legally.

You can say outlaw this gun or that, but its all bs.  A browning BAR in 222 or 243 is about the same gun and same caliber as an AR15 maybe not as smooth, but i dont think you can tell what gun it came outa if you got shot.  There are plenty of sporting guns that are out there based off of military specd guns, they might not be as advanced or as compact, but deadly in the wrong hands none the less as is any type of weapon.  Any gun can be used for sporting or fun shooting in a responsible manner, just as any gun can be used for murder or crime.

< Message edited by Carpet Bagger -- 10/23/2008 11:41:46 AM >

_____________________________

CB

(in reply to bulldog1)
Post #: 15
RE: Now their starting the "He Wants to take Our g... - 10/23/2008 1:23:05 PM   
Over the Hill


Posts: 618
Joined: 3/28/2007
Status: offline 		More laws will only affect the law obiding gun owners. Can anyone honestly tell me how putting more laws on the books and more restrictions are going to prevent crimes when the laws are not being enforced now?




< Message edited by Over the Hill -- 10/23/2008 1:34:30 PM >

_____________________________

OVER THE HILL

Some people are like slinky's; not really good for anything, but, they bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs...

(in reply to Carpet Bagger)
Post #: 16
RE: Now their starting the "He Wants to take Our g... - 10/23/2008 2:57:06 PM   
plnoldrick

 

Posts: 387
Joined: 9/3/2006
Status: offline 		oh yeah i am very much a troll. it just gets me off to come in here and pick a fight with all the gun nuts. im a member on this forum, i have posted before as is evidenced by my post count. so yeah you know, total deffinition of a troll. although i must say it makes me laugh to see single issue voters put so much into thier argument. and by single issue voter, i mean a voter who will decide regardless of any other issues they may have to vote for one person because of thier stance on one solitary issue.

anyway..

it's really a very weak argument on the NRA's part. the only 2 arguments i have heard here are based on a foreign coutries laws which are non applicable and set no precident for US action. States rights laws which are applicable to us and do set in course a precident. And last a rediculous reference to hitler.

firstly hitler (because it's funny) if you believe the guy (obama) is hitler then i really do feel sorry for you. people like to use hitler way to much and while "taking away your guns" maybe a very strong issue for you the man is not going to set up concentration camps and kills millions of people. so shame on you for making a reference to hitler concerning anyone short of a genocidal maniac.

next
quote:

But the landmark ruling, which placed bitter divisions on the Court on full display, is likely to mark the beginning, not the end, of litigation over Second Amendment rights as gun owners and local governments test the contours of the right enunciated by the Court.
Scalia wrote that the right he was announcing, as with other constitutional rights, "is not unlimited." The ruling should not "cast doubt," he added, on restrictions such as barring possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill or forbidding carrying arms near schools or in government buildings. He also indicated that the use of certain types of weapons could be restricted without running afoul of the Second Amendment.
But the majority did not define a standard of review for judging which restrictions are or are not constitutional, and it did not specifically rule that the Second Amendment applies to the states -- a step that the Court has taken in the past to ensure that other parts of the Bill of Rights limit state as well as federal restrictions on individuals.
Both omissions from the ruling virtually guarantee a wave, if not a generation, of legal battles. Scalia suggested as much in his 64-page opinion when he wrote, almost defensively, "Since this case represents this court's first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field."


and the problem with that summary is? it is not within the scope of the supreme court to write new law. it is within thier scope to interprit the laws that are written based on constitutionality. the entire constitution and bill of rights were written vague on purpose. by writting something so vague you leave discussion open that allows current factors a merit to determing if an issue is contitutional or not. read it, you only get a few general rights out of those documents and a whole lot of what if's. the second amendment is no different in any respect. its vague architechure gives you the right to bear arms but there is no place that spells out you can conceal carry or deer hunt with uzi's or take your barrett for target shooting with little timmy. what you have is a dynamic document that can be molded to fit the time it lives in.

the whole gun argument is based on what if's that have existed since the inception of the 2nd. what really tickles me about it is you can list every senator and congressmans voting record you want, or the intention of the next president and just like it has been since virgina lastly ratified the bill of rights on 12/15/1791 your guns still remain. have there been bumps in the road for gun control? yes.. there have also been plenty more bumps in the road for other sections of the bill of rights. but in the end what do you see in that 217 years? guns, still here.

you can scoff me all you want but your not going to loose all of your guns on january 20th like you make it out to be. while all of the pro gun/anti gun establishment would have everyone believe it is so black and white, government is not as polarized on this. the president can do nothing short of declaring martial law to take your guns. and congress, believe it or not has more moderates then either side has extremists. i will admit that it would be easier to get stupid little laws that inconvenience you but your guns are going nowhere. and as has happened throughout time the next party will eventually control everything and you'll see a complete reversion. there is no chisel towards an eventual end.

so if you want to argue about inconvenience then fine be my guest. the black and white issue of obama = no guns and mccain = guns is a myth and has no merit. even with eventual democratic increases in the house and senate the majority does not exist to repeal a constitutional amendment.

the supreme court is a whole different ballgame. right now it leans right on the issue with a 5-4 vote likely in most instances. which one of those 5 have said they plan to retire in the next 8 years? (should obama get elected and hold two terms) which ones will retire under a democratic president or not? dispense with the fact that one may die in office as it cannot be seen. the answer is at the current time the liberal leaning justices are the only crowd who have expressed that they may retire. so what is lost? nothing, the vote remains the same. haven forbid a justice dies in office but if a conservative does such as thomas (he's older) what will happen. do you think they will fast track a hardcore liberal to the bench? you saw what happened when a republican controlled congress and presidency tried to fast track a staunch right winger in harriet myers. sorry but the days of apointing radical wing justices are over with. while some people may think alito and roberts are radicals ther are not. they lean right but are far from radical.

this whole debate on guns is based in massive improbabilites and as far as im concerned the economy, national debt, healthcare, education and a host of other social issues really are much more important that if your going to have to fill out extended paperwork or wait a couple o extra days to build on your arsenal.

oh btw i own a couple guns and i have a ccl, so no, i am not anti gun.

(in reply to Over the Hill)
Post #: 17
RE: Now their starting the "He Wants to take Our g... - 10/23/2008 3:01:05 PM   
plnoldrick

 

Posts: 387
Joined: 9/3/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Over the Hill

More laws will only affect the law obiding gun owners. Can anyone honestly tell me how putting more laws on the books and more restrictions are going to prevent crimes when the laws are not being enforced now?





99 percent of the time i agree with that. there are laws they can make that can help against crime but i havent personally seen anything yet from either side.

my whole argument is this is being made out as a black and white issue of elect obama and loose your guns or vote mccain and keep your guns and its just not that cut and dry.

(in reply to Over the Hill)
Post #: 18
RE: Now their starting the "He Wants to take Our g... - 10/23/2008 7:12:33 PM   
Over the Hill


Posts: 618
Joined: 3/28/2007
Status: offline 		Take a look at their past with references to the 2nd amendment and gun ownership. McCain (In my opinion) is the lesser of two evils. Somethings McCain supported I do not. But there's a lot more that Obama is  for I do not support.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Gun_Control.htm

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm



Gun rights are just one of the reasons I will vote the way I am. <2

Here's an article on how some voted on a pro-gun bill in Sept. 2008.
85 Dems. for it, 7 republicans against it. Did they vote that way because of an election year? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/18/house-democrats-push-through-pro-gun-bill/

Every rep., senator or candidate should be looked at individually, not across party lines.

_____________________________

OVER THE HILL

Some people are like slinky's; not really good for anything, but, they bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs...

(in reply to plnoldrick)
Post #: 19
RE: Now their starting the "He Wants to take Our g... - 10/24/2008 12:52:37 AM   
nightowl207

 

Posts: 453
Status: offline 		How come everyone associates gun control with "taking away the guns". I think there should be some gun control, exspecially with all the irresponsible gun owners, If you are a responsible gun owner you wouldnt have a problem with any gun control. The only proposal Obama made was that you register your guns so theres a way to know who it belongs to, if it becomes stolen or used in a crime, they will have a way to know whos it is and where it came from. And even if it ever got done and passed, what would be wrong with that unless you steal peoples guns or shoot people and want to get away with it. Do you really think the government is going to go house to house searching and taking or registering every gun?
In 1997 McCain said he opposes any ban on assault weapons, then in 1999 he said he is open to making a ban on assault weapons, What makes you think he wont decide to "take our guns".
Yes I am a gun owner, I own more guns than the average citizen and I believe in less government restrictions, but I believe Obama will RESPECT our rights unlike senator McCain and the president we've had the last 8 yrs. Im looking for a intelligent able president for the next 4 yrs not just some who says they have experience. Im in the home restoration field and I hear all the time from contractors who do something wrong that I call them on, "Ive been doing this 20 years" "Ive been doing this 30yrs I know how to do it" and I always reply with telling them to do it wrong another 20-30-40 yrs and see if it ever makes it right. Having experience isnt always what its made out to be.

(in reply to Over the Hill)
Post #: 20
RE: Now their starting the "He Wants to take Our g... - 10/24/2008 3:01:04 AM   
DanesDad

 

Posts: 2193
Joined: 3/21/2005
Status: offline 		Biden is no friend to gun owners either.

Anyone remember what happened to Habeus Corpus?  How about phone taps without a warrant?  Dont tell me that the government wont suspend rights granted under the constitution, we've SEEN IT HAPPEN!  Only a fool willingly gives up freedoms for some perceived added security.

One issue voters bother you?  How about the people out there that are voting for Obama just because he's black?  Or McCain because he has a woman VP?  There are people out there that are voting due to one issue and a lot of times that issue is far sillier than gun control.

(in reply to nightowl207)
Post #: 21
RE: Now their starting the "He Wants to take Our g... - 10/24/2008 3:35:29 AM   
nightowl207

 

Posts: 453
Status: offline 		Im not voting for Obama for any one reason, overall from my research and observations he looks to me to be the best candidate. I know that there is people out there basing there vote only on race, gender, party, etc. Ive heard people out there that say we need a black president any have no clue how the candidate stands on issues and ive heard people say they will never vote for a Ni**er and theyre gonna vote for McCain just in spite of it. I posted this thread because ive been hearing people throw this around about "Obama taking guns away" and its all BS thats gets a lot of half wits a vote agaist him. This happened with Gore, and once again with Kerry. People talked about losing their gun rights, so they voted for Bush and ended up losing a lot more than gun rights.

(in reply to DanesDad)
Post #: 22
RE: Now their starting the "He Wants to take Our g... - 10/24/2008 3:42:11 AM   
Over the Hill


Posts: 618
Joined: 3/28/2007
Status: offline 		Danes, I agree. Biden voted many times against 2nd amendment rights. Press is keeping that quiet though. Pelosi, boxer, fienstien, etc.... with Obama pres. and Biden Vp and pres. of the senate,  gun rights are in a lot of trouble.

_____________________________

OVER THE HILL

Some people are like slinky's; not really good for anything, but, they bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs...

(in reply to DanesDad)
Post #: 23
RE: Now their starting the "He Wants to take Our g... - 10/24/2008 5:39:25 AM   
waDerboy

 

Posts: 1982
Joined: 10/1/2004
Status: offline 		STEN
You didn't answer the question. You made the distinction in your post of automatic and semiautomatic weapons.
You are blurring the issue, as the gun lobby does, by lumping them together. Anyone that has a real intersest in hunting or target shooting knows there is no need for fully automatic weapons on the streets. They are good for only one thing,spraying lots of bullets in a short space of time with very little ability to control where they go. Semiautos on the other hand have a definate place in hunting. They are also good in a self defense situation. Apples and oranges.

(in reply to Over the Hill)
Post #: 24
RE: Now their starting the "He Wants to take Our g... - 10/24/2008 9:43:14 AM   
eyesandgillz


Posts: 736
Joined: 6/18/2003
Status: offline 		With a fillibuster proof majority in Congress, Obama would be able to appoint just about any justice he wanted to, far far left or not....

As far as guns and gun rights go, I have seen Nobamas record from his home state of Illinois and the foundations and groups he associated and worked with.  He is no friend of gun owners.  Nobamas position on gun rights is only one of many issues that I am basing my decision to vote for McCain on.  McCain isn't my first choice from the GOP side but, beggars can't be choosers at this point. 
I am also voting with my pocket book; being a middle class worker, I will eventually see less money in my bi-weekly take home pay if Nobama becomes president.  There are no doubts about that in my honest opinion.  Now, if you are not in that tax bracket, I can see why you would want Nobama in there but I like to keep as much of my pay as possible to support my family and not someone elses!


(in reply to waDerboy)
Post #: 25
RE: Now their starting the "He Wants to take Our g... - 10/24/2008 2:51:28 PM   
rollcaster


Posts: 177
Joined: 9/4/2008
From: portage
Status: offline


Eyesandgills, are you saying you are in the tax bracket above $250,000 , if you are then you can afford to pay a little more taxes. If you are in the middle class in my world and most people in this area then you are well under that number. Do you really think McCain is going to help the middle class? No he has no idea what middle class really is.



(in reply to eyesandgillz)
Post #: 26
RE: Now their starting the "He Wants to take Our g... - 10/24/2008 5:55:45 PM   
plnoldrick

 

Posts: 387
Joined: 9/3/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesandgillz

With a fillibuster proof majority in Congress, Obama would be able to appoint just about any justice he wanted to, far far left or not....

As far as guns and gun rights go, I have seen Nobamas record from his home state of Illinois and the foundations and groups he associated and worked with.  He is no friend of gun owners.  Nobamas position on gun rights is only one of many issues that I am basing my decision to vote for McCain on.  McCain isn't my first choice from the GOP side but, beggars can't be choosers at this point. 
I am also voting with my pocket book; being a middle class worker, I will eventually see less money in my bi-weekly take home pay if Nobama becomes president.  There are no doubts about that in my honest opinion.  Now, if you are not in that tax bracket, I can see why you would want Nobama in there but I like to keep as much of my pay as possible to support my family and not someone elses!




a cloture on a fillibuster requires 60 senators to vote for it. the current senate is 49 dems 49 repubs and 2 indys who caucus with the dems. assuming the independants who caucus with the dems vote thier way 100% of the time (which they do not) the democrats would need to pick up at the very least 9 seats in the senate and have every single one of those people vote to crush the fillibuster.

slim chance may be a gross understatement.

regardless with only currently liberal justices needing retirement a 5-4 conservative vote would still stand for at least the next 4 years.


oh and if you are middle class (i am too) and assume obama gets his tax plan passed completely unchanged (which niether of them will ever do) how are your taxes going up? according to the specifics of his plan the only way your taxes will go up is if you make more than 250,000. do you make more than 250,000? if so i hate to break it to you but you are not middle class.

(in reply to eyesandgillz)
Post #: 27
RE: Now their starting the "He Wants to take Our g... - 10/25/2008 9:01:57 AM   
harry1

 

Posts: 62
Joined: 3/16/2008
Status: offline 		our founding fathers guarenteed us the right to bear arms.  their idea of a gun was not what a gun is today.  they guarenteed us the right to bear a mussle loader, not an uzi. 


(in reply to plnoldrick)
Post #: 28
RE: Now their starting the "He Wants to take Our g... - 10/25/2008 2:33:24 PM   
Deadbolt401


Posts: 1616
Joined: 11/6/2007
Status: offline 		Dey tuk our jurbs/!

_____________________________

"You Know your a redneck when your gun rack has a gun rack!"

(in reply to harry1)
Post #: 29
RE: Now their starting the "He Wants to take Our g... - 10/25/2008 3:41:43 PM   
mak7464


Posts: 338
Joined: 9/28/2005
From: Mercer County, PA
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: rollcaster




Eyesandgills, are you saying you are in the tax bracket above $250,000 , if you are then you can afford to pay a little more taxes. If you are in the middle class in my world and most people in this area then you are well under that number. Do you really think McCain is going to help the middle class? No he has no idea what middle class really is.





Once again another one who just does not get it,  If taxes are raised on Businesses, do you think they are just gonna pay it and be happy.  so lets see, Mcdonalds pays more taxes, your big mac just went up in price, the corner market pays more taxes, your soda just went up in price...You can tax who you want, the rich, the corporations, etc., but taxes are always paid for, in the end, by the poor and middle class. Because we are the ones who buy the items from the businesses.

Why has Obama not clarified if that $250,000 number for small businesses is "Gross" or "Net",  I know alot of small business owners, auto shops, stores, etc that gross very close to 7 figures and still only bring home under $100,000 for themselves.  Remember this country was founded on the dream that of you work hard, and take a risk, you may get ahead.  most small business owners I know work 70 to 90 hours a week to make thier money.

Bottom line is this, your going to vote what is important to you.

1.  Gun Control
2.  Abortion
3.  the war
4.  Taxes
5.  the economy
6.  social security
7.  foreign relations
8.  social programs
9.  the deficit

If your thinking "they will never take our guns" you just saying that something else on that list is more important than gun rights, maybe the economy,maybe abortion.  That OK its what makes our country what it is.  But dont believe for a minute that "It Cant Happen".  This is the country that banned booze for a few years, yea it didnt work and was repealed, but it can happen again just the same.

Personally, I'm voting for the canidate that I think will let me keep my guns, not raise my taxes (directly or indirectly) and finish what was started (right or wrong) in iraq.  Talk to the vietnam vets, they will tell you what a shame it was to loose all that life and to not to be allowed finish the mission that was started.  I for one do not want to pull out of Iraq early and have the lives that were given by many American Heros be for nothing.

Hell, even the Iranians want obama, I read an article yesterday on MSN that says the Iranian government will not come out and endorse him becasue they are worried that it would cause more people to vote against him.






_____________________________

.....You know, like nunchuck skills, bowhunting skills, computer hacking skills.....girls only want boyfriends who have great skills....

(in reply to rollcaster)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Pennsylvania Boards] >> Off Topic Discussions - Pennsylvania >> Now their starting the "He Wants to take Our guns" campaign Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to: