Gun Companies Refuse to Sell to Government Agencies

[emmitt01]

The "make gun ownership illegal" part is firmly in place in the cities of Chicago and New York, both dominated by leftist politicians. There was a bill proposed in the New York legislature to ban all guns state wide and go door to door to retrieve said guns. Put your head under a rock if you choose, but the only reason Pres. Obama hasn't proposed the banning of all guns is because he smartly knows that it would never become a reality in the current USA. He is proposing what he thinks he can get away with and justify to the American people.

And hooray to the gun companies that chose to make a statement by not selling arms to the federal government.

As far as prayer in school (wherever that came from), that's not the issue that we are discussing. Talk about straw men.

So we framing the debate in "what ifs". Cool, I'll know better than to try to have an intelligent discourse against "boogey man" politics. You can't point to a single time the POTUS has suggested the disarming of all citizens...thanks, let's move on.

And school prayer, a favorite talking point of the "far right", is very much relevant as it is illustrative of how a "slippery slope" argument is equally ridiculous on either sode of the fence.

Feel free to shoot off a rebuttal based on whatever CONJECTURE you'd like. I'm sure the peanut gallery will be glad to +1 it reflexively.

[Mean Green 93-98]

You can't point to a single time the POTUS has suggested the disarming of all citizens.

“Do you support state legislation to … ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?” asked one of the three dozen questions.

“Yes,” was Obama’s entire answer.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7312.html

[UNT90]

So we framing the debate in "what ifs". Cool, I'll know better than to try to have an intelligent discourse against "boogey man" politics. You can't point to a single time the POTUS has suggested the disarming of all citizens...thanks, let's move on.

And school prayer, a favorite talking point of the "far right", is very much relevant as it is illustrative of how a "slippery slope" argument is equally ridiculous on either sode of the fence.

Feel free to shoot off a rebuttal based on whatever CONJECTURE you'd like. I'm sure the peanut gallery will be glad to +1 it reflexively.

Ya, cause slippery slopes never happen, right?

Oh, and Chicago is extremely relevant, considering that is where Pres. Obama cut his political teeth. I would gladly read ANY article or watch ANY interview where Senator Obama, State Rep Obama, or community activist Obama declared how wrong it was for the City of Chicago to violate the 2nd amendment. Or anything not even that strongly worded.

Please, do share, cause it ain't there.

That tells me Pres. Obama is perfectly happy with Chicago's ordinance banning gun ownership during Pres. Obama's entire career as an Illinois politician.

Oh, and even the NY times can see the failure:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/us/strict-chicago-gun-laws-cant-stem-fatal-shots.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Keep that head in the sand all you want, but the agenda is to abolish gun ownership completely.

[UNT90]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/30/Obama-Makes-It-Clear-Chicago-The-Blueprint-For-Gun-Laws-Nationally

In the NY Tines article, it states that Chicago went to the most restrictive gun laws in the nation once the Supreme Court declared their ban unconstitutional.

And this is what Pres. Obama wants to emulate?

Just nevermind that it doesn't work.

[UNT90]

And yes, there is pretty good evidence that he supported both the Chicago and Washington D.C. gun ban. You know, like his own words:

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

Very telling is his answer about licensing and registering handguns: "I don't think we can get that done."

If he thought it could be done, he would do it.

Edited February 26, 2013 by UNT90

[emmitt01]

And yes, there is pretty good evidence that he supported both the Chicago and Washington D.C. gun ban. You know, like his own words:http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/barack_obama_Gun_Control.htm

Very telling is his answer about licensing and registering handguns: "I don't think we can get that done."

If he thought it could be done, he would do it.

You give the POTUS a hell of a lot of credit. You honestly believe that the President can pass a FEDERAL ban on all guns...regardless of that whole congressional approval and 2/3 of states thing? Man, that dude's a damn magician.

Cite Chicago all you want, a city ordinance or law doesn't bind anything nationally. So, even IF Obama wished to ban all guns, you'd have to assume him either 1)Dumb enough not to know how the constitution works or 2)brilliant enough to sell overturning the 2nd amendment. Either way, all the talk of his "attacks" on the 2nd amendment are moot until he actually has the sway to do a thing about it. I live in Dallas where there is a CITY ban on smoking in public places. If I get elected President will I have to field questions about my ambition to ban smoking nationwide (regardless of the feasibility of actually making it happen)?

I seem to remember David Duke running for President. Had he been elected should I have spread irrational fear that the 14th and 15th amendments were soon to be Executive Ordered away? I mean, cuz I ASSUME that would be his aim.

Again, until he proposes that constitutional amendment that you so fervently assert he secretly harbors ambitions for, you have conjecture. Right now you have the functional equivalent of "All the fat kids WANT to take the cheerleaders to prom and then bang them afterwards".

Edited February 26, 2013 by emmitt01

[UNT90]

You give the POTUS a hell of a lot of credit. You honestly believe that the President can pass a FEDERAL ban on all guns...regardless of that whole congressional approval and 2/3 of states thing? Man, that dude's a damn magician.

Cite Chicago all you want, a city ordinance or law doesn't bind anything nationally. So, even IF Obama wished to ban all guns, you'd have to assume him either 1)Dumb enough not to know how the constitution works or 2)brilliant enough to sell overturning the 2nd amendment. Either way, all the talk of his "attacks" on the 2nd amendment are moot until he actually has the sway to do a thing about it. I live in Dallas where there is a CITY ban on smoking in public places. If I get elected President will I have to field questions about my ambition to ban smoking nationwide (regardless of the feasibility of actually making it happen)?

I seem to remember David Duke running for President. Had he been elected should I have spread irrational fear that the 14th and 15th amendments were soon to be Executive Ordered away? I mean, cuz I ASSUME that would be his aim.

Again, until he proposes that constitutional amendment that you so fervently assert he secretly harbors ambitions for, you have conjecture. Right now you have the functional equivalent of "All the fat kids WANT to take the cheerleaders to prom and then bang them afterwards".

So you say"show me where he said that," we do, and then you rant that he could never do what he obviously wants to do? Something I have been saying all along?

Funny.

Watched the morning show on CBS several weeks ago. There was a Harvard professor on there advocating that we just ignore the constitution and ban guns. Not that we amend it, that we ignore it. If you don't think that is an orchestrated position presented to the Sunday morning news watching public, well, go ahead and stick your head back under that rock.

Pres. Obama was the most liberal member of the senate, as demonstrated by his voting record, in his 4 years there. He has core beliefs. One of them is banning guns.

[emmitt01]

So you say"show me where he said that," we do, and then you rant that he could never do what he obviously wants to do? Something I have been saying all along?

Funny.

Watched the morning show on CBS several weeks ago. There was a Harvard professor on there advocating that we just ignore the constitution and ban guns. Not that we amend it, that we ignore it. If you don't think that is an orchestrated position presented to the Sunday morning news watching public, well, go ahead and stick your head back under that rock.

Pres. Obama was the most liberal member of the senate, as demonstrated by his voting record, in his 4 years there. He has core beliefs. One of them is banning guns.

Watch out for that sky!!

[emmitt01]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7312.html

I note that in both the article and your reference to it the entire question that was put forth to Obama is not spelled out. Interesting for an article with a slant.

Also, I guess this portion of the article just didn't suit your agenda as comfortably?

"For instance, Obama says he supports the death penalty in limited circumstances, such as an especially heinous crime. The campaign says Obama has consistently supported the death penalty “in principle” and opposed it “in practice.”

On handguns, his campaign said he has consistently been for “common-sense limits, but not banning” throughout his 11-year political career."

[UNT90]

I note that in both the article and your reference to it the entire question that was put forth to Obama is not spelled out. Interesting for an article with a slant.

Also, I guess this portion of the article just didn't suit your agenda as comfortably?

"For instance, Obama says he supports the death penalty in limited circumstances, such as an especially heinous crime. The campaign says Obama has consistently supported the death penalty in principle and opposed it in practice.

On handguns, his campaign said he has consistently been for common-sense limits, but not banning throughout his 11-year political career."

Supporting "in principle" and opposing "in practice" means he supports it in campaign speeches when he has to, but votes every single time to oppose it.

Where was Solicitor General Elena Kagan's brief supporting the 2nd amendment in 2010 when the Chicago ban was before the Supreme Court.

It was non-existent.

Pres. Obama says a lot of things. He is a democrat, so the media rarely bothers to determine if they are true or not.

So Pres. Obama says the Chicago gun ban "works for Chicago" as a state senator, yet you could never see him saying that a gun ban "works for America" as President? Really? I know you are not that naive.

And you don't always have to declare you are against something for it to be obviously apparent. Pres. Obama grew up politically in Chicago and Illinois, yet never once mentioned one concern over the Chicago hand gun ban. Should tell you all you need to know.

Edited February 27, 2013 by UNT90

[KRAM1]

And raving about the misallocation of lottery funds that were intended for education (a promise started under a Republican Governer) or the way that U.S. kids lag behind (a product of "no child left behind" and other such standardized testing failures...which were, again, right wing ideas) isn't the best way to bolster your militant "left wing" conspiracy theories.

.

But, raving about a basketball coach is the best way to bolster your case, right? Just don't rave about politics as that doesn't matter or help bolster one's theories...keep it to basketball coaches and all is good.

You know, I think I see what you mean now. One is OK for a message board for ranting and raving and the other isn't. Got it...thanks.

90...just stick to negative coach comments and you are fine...anything else...not so much.

[emmitt01]

But, raving about a basketball coach is the best way to bolster your case, right? Just don't rave about politics as that doesn't matter or help bolster one's theories...keep it to basketball coaches and all is good.

You know, I think I see what you mean now. One is OK for a message board for ranting and raving and the other isn't. Got it...thanks.

90...just stick to negative coach comments and you are fine...anything else...not so much.

I've go this pair of Air Jordans that don't fit anymore, but I paid a lot of money for them.

Can I borrow your shoe horn?

[Quoner]

But, raving about a basketball coach is the best way to bolster your case, right? Just don't rave about politics as that doesn't matter or help bolster one's theories...keep it to basketball coaches and all is good.

You know, I think I see what you mean now. One is OK for a message board for ranting and raving and the other isn't. Got it...thanks.

90...just stick to negative coach comments and you are fine...anything else...not so much.

Congrats on being the white whale* du jour, Emmitt!

*It's funny because you're black.

[GreenMachine]

Fine, then re-open the old government owned Springfield Armory. Re-tool it to produce weapons for the needs of law enforcement agencies across the country as well as the military, and let those ass-hole gun company owners lose all that business.

And while we're at it, instead of having a tax free day for people to buy guns, DOUBLE THE SALES TAXES ON THE SALE OF GUNS AND PUT THE EXTRA TAXES IN THE EDUCATION FUND.

I'm not a religious person (not organized anyway), but.....Jesus Christ people.

To re-open it they would have to get the money from somewhere. As a nation, we are broke, how is it going to be financed? Also, the gov't doesn't run anything efficiently or effectively, why would we expect this to be any different. Less gov't is better gov't.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

--- No one is trying to ban all guns. [ some try to picture it that way ] Just selling guns that can shoot 20 people in 20 seconds. We already have some gun control... if you think not ... go try to buy a bazooka, BAR, or machine gun. ( be honest... you will have more credibility )

[Mean Green 93-98]

I note that in both the article and your reference to it the entire question that was put forth to Obama is not spelled out. Interesting for an article with a slant.

Also, I guess this portion of the article just didn't suit your agenda as comfortably?

"For instance, Obama says he supports the death penalty in limited circumstances, such as an especially heinous crime. The campaign says Obama has consistently supported the death penalty “in principle” and opposed it “in practice.”

On handguns, his campaign said he has consistently been for “common-sense limits, but not banning” throughout his 11-year political career."

What a disingenous and manipulative post. The article itself was not my point, and you know it. You had said

You can't point to a single time the POTUS has suggested the disarming of all citizens.

So I pointed to a single time the POTUS has suggested the disarming of all citizens.

But instead of saying, "Okay, I was wrong about this part, but I still disagree with your argument because . . .", you try to deflect attention elsewhere.

I never said that Obama has always openly advocated the disarming of all citizens. But he certainly suggested the disarming of all citizens by his answer to that questionnaire--that was a single time that has been pointed to.

I don't own a single handgun or semi-automatic (or automatic) weapon. So I don't know why you think I'm the one with an agenda. I suppose it's either to disguise the fact that you're the one with an agenda or the fact that you're too proud to admit when you were wrong.

[emmitt01]

What a disingenous and manipulative post. The article itself was not my point, and you know it. You had said

So I pointed to a single time the POTUS has suggested the disarming of all citizens.

But instead of saying, "Okay, I was wrong about this part, but I still disagree with your argument because . . .", you try to deflect attention elsewhere.

I never said that Obama has always openly advocated the disarming of all citizens. But he certainly suggested the disarming of all citizens by his answer to that questionnaire--that was a single time that has been pointed to.

I don't own a single handgun or semi-automatic (or automatic) weapon. So I don't know why you think I'm the one with an agenda. I suppose it's either to disguise the fact that you're the one with an agenda or the fact that you're too proud to admit when you were wrong.

Did you miss the part where I pointed out that the very questionnaire you quoted, in the article itself, has a nice little "...." right in the middle of it? What was in that "..."?

If I ask you "Do you like to play with small children, while you're both naked, and see them smile" is that the same as "Do you like to play with small children...and see them smile?"? I certainly don't think so, do you? And I guess in your zeal to "point out a single time he said it" the quotes that directly dispute the meaning you ascribe to your incomplete questionnaire that was cited are magically immaterial as well?

And if you are without agenda as you so claim, why start this thread and, more importantly, why go to the trouble of seeking out rebuttal material to respond to my post? There are a multitude of threads on this board that go without response...not once have I seen someone take the time to research a retort if they didn't take a side. Disingenuous you say?

Edited February 27, 2013 by emmitt01

[Mean Green 93-98]

Did you miss the part where I pointed out that the very questionnaire you quoted, in the article itself, has a nice little "...." right in the middle of it? What was in that "..."?

If I ask you "Do you like to play with small children, while you're both naked, and see them smile" is that the same as "Do you like to play with small children...and see them smile?"? I certainly don't think so, do you? And I guess in your zeal to "point out a single time he said it" the quotes that directly dispute the meaning you ascribe to your incomplete questionnaire that was cited are magically immaterial as well?

And if you are without agenda as you so claim, why start this thread and, more importantly, why go to the trouble of seeking out rebuttal material to respond to my post? There are a multitude of threads on this board that go without response...not once have I seen someone take the time to research a retort if they didn't take a side. Disingenuous you say?

The quote you provided changes nothing regarding the answer Obama gave on that questionnaire. Again, I never said that Obama has always openly advocated the disarming of all citizens.

But keep twisting things around and playing word games in your deceitful way.

Very reassuring as to the character of today's law enforcement officers.

[Mean Green 93-98]

And if you are without agenda as you so claim, why start this thread and, more importantly, why go to the trouble of seeking out rebuttal material to respond to my post?

I found it an interesting story. I don't really agree with the gun companies refusing to sell to law enforcement, but I understand their general point.

I went to all the agonizing trouble of doing a 10-second Google seaarch because I didn't think what you had said was correct. And it wasn't. And you are still in denial.

[emmitt01]

The quote you provided changes nothing regarding the answer Obama gave on that questionnaire. Again, I never said that Obama has always openly advocated the disarming of all citizens.

But keep twisting things around and playing word games in your deceitful way.

Very reassuring as to the character of today's law enforcement officers.

So, portions of a question being omitted doesn't bother you when judging the validity of the answer given? Great. I'll know not to expect whole truth to be a pre-requisite to your positions. I'll stick to "deceitful" things like logic and cogent thought. I no longer expect you to follow.

As to "the character of law enforcement" you are cordially invited to "...my ass".

Edited February 27, 2013 by emmitt01

[Mean Green 93-98]

So, portions of a question being omitted doesn't bother you when judging the validity of the answer given? Great. I'll know not to expect whole truth to be a pre-requisite to your positions. I'll stick to "deceitful" things like logic and cogent thought. I no longer expect you to follow.

The AP/USA Today did not interpret Obama's answer any differently than the "slanted" article.

That 1996 questionnaire asked whether he supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. The campaign's answer was straightforward: "Yes."

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-12-22-2414012588_x.htm

The article also mentions,

Eight years later, he said on another questionnaire that "a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable"

Not really indicating a change of conviction, but a change of view regarding expediency. Regardless, a "a single time the POTUS has suggested the disarming of all citizens" has been pointed out to you. But you'll deny it, because denial is apparently where you live.

[UNT90]

So the fact that the man spent his entire pre-presidential career representing Chicago, never said one bad thing about the ban, never lifted a finger to help citizens lawfully own guns and is quoted as saying "this law works for Chicago", and also did not allow his solicitor general to file a brief before the supreme court support the 2nd amendment when the Chicago gun ban was before the court mean nothing to you?

Pretty funny.

It just amazes me the links people who voted for Pres. Obama will go to defend him and make excuses for him. It's like he is more of a cult figure than a president to many of his supporters.

It's sad that they just can't get it through their heads that Pres. Obama, like most politicians, will do whatever he thinks will benefit Pres. Obama.

Either way, beer in Hot Springs.

Edited February 27, 2013 by UNT90

[emmitt01]

The AP/USA Today did not interpret Obama's answer any differently than the "slanted" article.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-12-22-2414012588_x.htm

The article also mentions,

Not really indicating a change of conviction, but a change of view regarding expediency. Regardless, a "a single time the POTUS has suggested the disarming of all citizens" has been pointed out to you. But you'll deny it, because denial is apparently where you live.

I live in Lake Highlands.

And, yes, after reading the USA today article which doesn't have omissions I'll agree this is a time he suggested disarming Illinois citizens. It was, after all before he was POTUS. I would, just for my edification, like to see the actual text of the question.

Question though. Since his "politically practicable" quote was from 2006...before he was President...do you think it's fair to assume his views are identical with regard to the entire population of the U.S.? (Yes UNT90, we know your angle already) I just wonder since a nationwide ban would require a Constitutional amendment and not just overcoming the political winds of a single state. Is it fair to assume to assume that what a senator thinks is best for his state is good for the nation at large? For instance, Rick Perry and the governors I can recall have seen the death penalty as ok for Texas. Do you think, if elected, Perry would push for the death penalty in all states? I'm just asking, no pre-conceived answer in mind.

[emmitt01]

"So the fact that the man spent his entire pre-presidential career representing Chicago, never said one bad thing about the ban, never lifted a finger to help citizens lawfully own guns and is quoted as saying "this law works for Chicago" mean nothing to you?"

As far as it pertains to him AS PRESIDENT, in a word, no.

And hs is far from a "cult hero" to me. I think several of his policies are misguided. I just enjoy providing the counter point from time to time because I've never seen a President (who won in such convincing fashion) attacked for his every mistake, both real and perceived, with such fervor. It's almost as if many on the "right" are far less interested in offering a alternative...just in picking at anything the man puts forth. My Facebook feed (since we accep Facebook as a news source apparently) is a shining example of this.

Edited February 27, 2013 by emmitt01

[UNT90]

"So the fact that the man spent his entire pre-presidential career representing Chicago, never said one bad thing about the ban, never lifted a finger to help citizens lawfully own guns and is quoted as saying "this law works for Chicago" mean nothing to you?"

As far as it pertains to him AS PRESIDENT, in a word, no.

So when the law was before the Supreme Court and he failed to order his solicitor general to file a brief in support of the 2 nd amendment?

Again, we are talking about what he would do if he could. That was the premise for this entire conversation and its pretty clear that he would ban firearms completely IF HE COULD.

That doesn't bother you at all?

And a man who lies about a core belief is someone you want to lead this nation? Someone who does what is politically expedient even if it goes against his core belief?

Edited February 27, 2013 by UNT90