File 132898118297.jpg - (401.66KB , 734x1002 , NOPE.jpg )

>>13849

this picture is fake...FDR is standing up

I still don't understand what he's talking about with this.

I'm an NRA member and since october IIRC I have been getting petition after petition and letter after letter saying that Obama will ban guns yet I see no evidence.

Rom Emanuel, two justices, and that's about it. Any more factoids about this so called "conspiracy"?

Would a little gun control really hurt that much, do you REALLY want that every lunatic and ex-inmate can buy guns? Then there is the whole thing about full-autos, what does your every day citizen need full-autos for? The whole militia thing? If US. citizens can't trust their government to protect them I'd say you have problems that are far more pressing than your right to buy a pre-1986 minigun.

its no secret that the Republican party and the NRA have extremely close ties, so i don't think it would be far fetched that maybe the GOP asked them to say something to support them and steer potential voters away from Obama - a crowd has the collective intelligence of a 5 year old, let alone the ability of the critical thinking

Stop trolling. Nobody should believe this shit. If you truly think there is any merit to this WP article, then you really need your head checked.

This is what it says:

"Even though Obama has never said he will, and has never done a single thing to show he would, he will strip away your freedom to bear arms because he is a Liberal. His entire first Term was an act to convince you that he didn't want to do this, so you should know he will do it this time BECAUSE he has not said anything about it and has not done it yet."

Sooo. yeah. That makes sense.

File 132926843955.jpg - (197.79KB , 1600x998 , 1313776710158.jpg )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2rMnov4Ae8

Not to mention,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnBqbECzcpo

File 132926855045.jpg - (75.24KB , 578x600 , BUTTON.jpg )

>>13849
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=9Lsfsk6BQKY

MMk.

>NRA

Not even once

does he even need gun control with the ndaa provisions?

hmm... are handguns able to shoot down helicopter gunships or predator drones?

>>13896

Yes, but only if the pilot was retarded.

>>13910
and what are the odds of getting a retard pilot?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejorQVy3m8E

Wow, people who are that stupid can't be trusted with guns.

figures its women chief justices that are against gun control...

maybe they just have problems with hard rigid items that expel smaller items at higher velocities... er

Just try to make the issue black and white. Good job arguing for your side of the issue.

er... i wasn't arguing

Oh brother.

It wasn't true the first time you said it 4 years ago, when you said it 3 years ago, or when you said it 2 years ago. It's as if you really think there's nothing more pressing going on in the world for the president of the united states to be involved in.

Grow up.

yep, our prez is way too busy with important stuff; like raising energy prices, apologizing to the muslims, algae, making sure more illegals can vote for him, blaming everyone else for his failures, apologizing for America, passing executive orders, castrating congress (with their assent), pandering to his supporters, arming and militarizing federal agencies

yep, WAY too busy to be concerned with any average citizen's freedoms or liberties...

Yea, because the president raises and lowers the energy prices... take even a basic econ class you ignorant fool.

Not an Obama fan, but you're a retard.

File 133291904389.jpg - (15.09KB , 400x292 , obama_grinning.jpg )

>>13968

"and i have a bridge to sell ya"

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/02/obama-ill-make-energy-prices-skyrocket/

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/45555

because REGULATIONS never affect market prices

>>13968

Dude, come off it already. There are thousands of more critical variables that dictate petrol prices than the amount of regulation the oil biz has to contend with, the foremost being the prices set by the fucking Saudis that we as mindless consumers are still willing to pay. If ioilweren't subsidized by your gov your gov, you'd be paying the actual cost of it at the pump, many times what it is now.

i wouldn't say thousands - and i wasn't talking about oil industry regulation alone, but a wider anti-energy bias based on his ideology - and if we were paying the 'actual' costs, it would be even cheaper... monopoly price gouging, dude

"Would a little gun control really hurt that much, do you REALLY want that every lunatic and ex-inmate can buy guns? Then there is the whole thing about full-autos, what does your every day citizen need full-autos for? The whole militia thing? If US. citizens can't trust their government to protect them I'd say you have problems that are far more pressing than your right to buy a pre-1986 minigun."
Lunatics don't follow laws, so this would only hurt law abiding citizens. most big shootings happen in malls and schools. These a Gun Free Zones, do you really think the people that commit these crimes care about that?
they will buy them throw shady means and use them. also the biggest attacks of this sort haven't been with guns, they have been done with home made bombs, look up some facts.

And as for the trust thing, the founding fathers made the second amendment to give the citizens a means to defend themselves from tyranny. This is one of the more revolutionary thought behind the birth of the Nation.

Noone cares what a bunch of idiots thought was good for the world 200 years ago. Times have changed, its not easier to kill more, and retards don't have self control.

>>13998
>it's NOW easier to kill more

>Noone cares what a bunch of idiots thought was good for the world 200 years ago

hope you like tyranny, sport

>Times have changed, and retards don't have self control.

you really want a police state ?

You've got it all wrong. Obama wants to correct the constitution. You have a right to own the arm of a bear. You guys have the wrong end of the stick. Let your glorious communist dictator tell you what to do.

Your whole country has gone to shit.

>>13995
>>And as for the trust thing, the founding fathers made the second amendment to give the citizens a means to defend themselves from tyranny.

Then why don't they?

Nothing funnier than gun nuts out of their minds with rage and fear and paranoia, from paratrooping ruskies to masked bandits to the big bad gubmint restricting their rights to play with their toys. As if having more access to little peashooters had any relevance at all.

You're dreaming if you think you're going to defend your freedom with your personal gun collection. Even if there were no gun laws on the books whatsoever, if we wanted to oppress you by force, no weapon you could get your hands on would slow us for one second. Your firearms are mere toys, and their only practical application is for killing other civilians.

The sense of power your gun gives you is entirely imagined. Enjoy your little sporting hobby, because that's all it is.

>>14009

Umm the afgan's have been doing a pretty good job of putting up a resistance with "pea shooters" and shit you can use as explosives that you find in a normal household.

+2 crabman.
When I was in afgahn two guys with old .303 enfields could easily smoke a guy(always the corpsman or ARG) then put out enough suppressive fire to escape into the hills. They surely weren't slackers, first shot hit and slinking away like mice but they lived to fight another day every time, two freaking farmers essentially outgunned a marine infantry squad. Air assets don't do any good against tiny targets like that and armor can't navigate the terrain. And that story is not unique, an armed person that knows how and when to use a gun will always make the government sweat more then some youtube scholar that protests on his collage campus.

The stupid error people make when they imagine a "tyrannical government" scenario, is that they don't realise who they have to shoot. Think about how all the big issues in America tend to split the nation into two polarised groups. Odds are, if a tyrannical government were to somehow take over, it would be with the support of a huge portion of the population.

With that in mind, the "resistance" will inevitably have to spend most of their time fighting civilian loyalists, who want to protect America from those branded as "insurgents" or "terrorists". It isn't just gubmint vs. joe public. It is Joe Public vs. Joe Public + government. Who is really going to win that fight?

>>14043

Odds are that most of the gun owning population would support whatever "anti-terrorism" measures the government is likely to take. As long as the government claims to represent the "Real America" in a fight against socialism/terrorism most gun owners will become just another obstacle to any party that wants to initiate armed resistance.

>>14017
>>14020

Are you seriously comparing a backwards shithole like Afghanistan where people don't even have surnames most of the time, with hardly any law enforcement to speak of, with terrain MADE for guerrila warfare, to USA?

Christ, even the single fact that Afghanistan is on the other side of the world so you can use a fraction of force you could on a home front makes the comparison completely meaningless.

Ron Paul? Ron Paul.

>>13848
Hint: the NRA uses scare tactics to drum up funds

The dem's will never try to do a ban whole sale like they did in the 90's. Way too many dem politicians lost there job's when they voted it in. They learned their lesson. They will end up taxing the shit out of ammo making it next to impossible to just get up and go shooting. And yes the NRA does whatever they can to get funds.

>>14051
Your lack of knowledge on the subject of Afghanistan is astounding.

Just another paranoid white guy thread. It's amazing how worked up people get over Obama. I've never heard so many incorrect assumptions and baseless accusations during any other president's term. Bush Dubya included.

>>14100
Easy there buddy. My stance on Obama is one thing, stance on gun control another. I don't like the current president, but as I stated before I highly doubt that he would ever take such a direct root against gun ownership. He and the other Dems are too smart for that.

Why I feel the right to gun ownership is important for a paranoid reason only. I want the ability if the government becomes too corrupt or oppressive I want the people of America to be able to stage a revolt. Cannot remember who exactly said the quote but "A government should be afraid of it's people, not the other way around." The 2nd amendment allows the people the opportunity of open resistance against all dangers to the constitution both foreign AND DOMESTIC.

Are their people who get ahold of guns that shouldnt? Of course, same can be said with cars, kids, alcohol, and everything else. That doesn't mean the majority of the populace is going to make horrible decisions with firearms, they may make bad decisions. Just not horrible.

I wish you wouldn't look at this as just a white mans thread or a Obama bashing thing or a Republican vs Democrat debate. If you see it as such so be it.

>>13852
Pull your head out of your ass. http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm#Gun_Control

http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

It's obvious. Plus take a look at the executive order Obama passed banning the importation of CMP rifles.

>>14202
Combine his record with what he's already told the Russian "president" about the missile defense and you have exactly why he didn't want to jeopardize his re-election by passing gun-control during his first term.

/Tin Foil Hat On
No worries though because now the "threat of domestic terror" is much greater than we feared and the gubbmint needs to ban firearms to protect us. Because after all, if they ban guns then we can't resist their tyranny when they rise up against us.

/Tin-Foil Hat Off

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/frank-lautenberg-gun-control_n_1725467.html

>>13852

Are you new to the game of politics, troll?

Presidents want to be re-elected (ALWAYS). In order to get re-elected they can't royally piss of too many people. Gun-control during the first term would be the death sentence for Obama.

http://politicker.com/2012/07/mccarthy-lautenberg-slam-nra-say-that-obama-really-favors-gun-control/
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-guns-romney-assault-weapons-ban-aurora-shooting-2012-7

why is roosevelt and roosevelt considered bad guys, why is raygun and nixon considered good guys in this?

they're the ones who fought big business corporatism that funds the shit that's pulled today

as for regulations, in canada we know they almost always have an effect on prices

it's why we *use* them in the first place, but unlike americans we recognize it's not all good or all bad and judge individual cases for ourselves


america's problems come from it being 50% a backwater hick country, and 40% a metropolitan socialist's club and 10% a "YES, OPPRESSION FOR THE MASSES" nation

I haven't seen too much of the gun owning population speak out against the behaviour of the government, rather the opposite