archer wrote: I am probably as against gun control as much as any of you....I do have a gun, and I do know how to use it, and I do think that is my right. What I don't do is jump at shadows and whine and fuss over things that haven't happened, nor are likely to happen.
The additional ingredient for you is..........you have the hots for Obama. Come on! Get past your hormones.
Gun owners have to have vigilence. Lack of vigilence is what causes young women to get pregnant. Kind of stupid not to be vigilent, don't you think?
archer wrote: I am probably as against gun control as much as any of you....I do have a gun, and I do know how to use it, and I do think that is my right. What I don't do is jump at shadows and whine and fuss over things that haven't happened, nor are likely to happen.
The additional ingredient for you is..........you have the hots for Obama. Come on! Get past your hormones.
Gun owners have to have vigilence. Lack of vigilence is what causes young women to get pregnant. Kind of stupid not to be vigilent, don't you think?
that was a weird post.
..........from my having the "hots" for Obama to women getting pregnant because they are not vigilent.
Ok, you win, there is nothing I can think of to say to that.
The problem with actually waiting for the Democrats to come out into the open is best illustrated by how they managed to saddle us with the 1934 NFA via their seemingly unlimited ability to levy and collect taxes. The 1934 National Firearms Act was clearly an intent to regulate the ability to keep and bear arms in direct violation of the 2nd Amendment. We look at that $200 tax and forget that an equivalent tax would be north of $3200 today. It's also how a cabal of Democrats have managed to saddle us with Social Security, Medicare and, unless Divine providence smiles on us once more, Obamacare.
I'm quite certain the possibilities being examined by Team Obama include allowing the BATF to regulate into existence a tax under the AOW (any other weapon) clause contained in this act, which is only constitutional due to the threatening of the judicial branch that FDR and Congress engaged in that resulted in the court determining it was a revenue law, not a regulation of arms law. Yeah right. After that they made no pretensions in 1986 when they made it illegal for a own a particular form of arm manufactured after a certain date. The last "Assault Weapons Ban" soon followed. We've learned our lesson archer - we won't be caught napping anymore.
...in the meantime the boys in DC quietly erode our rights and shred the Constitution (witness the current renewal process around the so-called 'Patriot Act'). They do most everything of great importance to the people "under the radar", it seems (remember the bailouts?). We are slowly sliding into fascism...
archer wrote: I am probably as against gun control as much as any of you....I do have a gun, and I do know how to use it, and I do think that is my right. What I don't do is jump at shadows and whine and fuss over things that haven't happened, nor are likely to happen.
The additional ingredient for you is..........you have the hots for Obama. Come on! Get past your hormones.
Gun owners have to have vigilence. Lack of vigilence is what causes young women to get pregnant. Kind of stupid not to be vigilent, don't you think?
that was a weird post.
..........from my having the "hots" for Obama to women getting pregnant because they are not vigilent.
Ok, you win, there is nothing I can think of to say to that.