Vote for Barack=Vote Against the Constitution

1219708558-623360-325x325-barack_obama_voted_for_the_patriot_act_t_shirt-p235767085985233834jk33_325.jpg


remember that champion of the rights of the individual.....

 
you got me there, so far the thing about John McCain that tops the list for me is, HE IS NOT BARACK (or is a barry?) OBAMA!

other than that well it gets to be a tough one...

i would be willing to bet that drew and i can actually agree on quite a few issues, maybe not 100% agree but i bet there is a bunch of common ground....

want to start a third party? just one thing, i call being on top of the ticket;) but take heart drew, that would put your one heart beat away from the presidency....
 
See, that's how I think about it.

You all are correct in saying that implementing this would be political suicide, but Obama believes that we should not have guns in a private home for self-defense/protection purposes at all. He may not reveal that he believes this until he's already president because of the fact that it would like handing the elections to McCain.

I'd rather have Obama in the white house than McCain, I just don't want to vote for either one because I feel like if either one gets in Office, they will not bring the type of changes we need to be seeing right now to continue living on this earth, not to mention this country. Gun control is one small example of this. The way we are living off of the earth instead of with the earth is another example. The way we live needs to drastically change very soon or else we will be facing a lot of shit soon.
 
im down, on one condition, you let me treat you to a week of hunting with Cheney after we win...

given a week i wouldnt like your odds:) muhahaha
 
so youre a mind reader as well as an incredibly astute observer of american politics?

show me some sources showing me thats what he believes...oh wait, you can't.
 
I didnt read any of this thread, because i know from past experience.. most of you are pretty slow when it comes to american government.

The 2nd amendment will not be taken away, any faster than the first amendment.

That would have to be passed by all 3 branches of government.. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, buddy...

People really need to start understanding how our government works... it doesnt do ANYTHING, people... and it certainly doesnt take away amendments... (unless alcohol is involved, of course)
 
It's pathetic when people aren't even able to defend themselves and have to use a firearm to do it for them.

Learn to fight! You're a human being for god's sake! not some flaccid blob that only has enough strength to pull a trigger.
 
I wonder if i'm the only liberal here, that fully supports the 2nd amendment.

PEOPLE WITH GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE.

UNEDUCATED, RETARDS, THAT ARE TOTALLY FUCKING NUTS, WITH GUNS, KILL PEOPLE...

So... lets educate people about guns, educate them period, so they dont join gangs, which kill people, and get those totally fucking nuts people off the street so they dont become highway snipers and shit...
 
Dude.. would it matter if we did?

HES NOT GOING TO GET IT TAKEN AWAY FOLKS..

you guys need to understand what it would take to do that.. and it doesnt start with Obama being president...

It took a lot of shit to get Alcohol back, in the 1920's or whatever... imagine what it would take for guns to be taken away...

that shit is never going to be amended. stop tripping, guys.
 
ahhhh he doesnt need to completely abolish the 2nd to make in irrelevant... DC hand gun ban anyone? there are ways around the constitution....
 
DC isnt even a state, buddy... thats why that thing was even able to happen.

To take away guns.. there has to be a 2/3rds general concensus that GUNS ARE BAD, AND SHOULD BE ABOLISHED.

No way will that work out...

(and i support the DC handgun ban... look at the murder rate with guns in that area, and you'll understand my reason...)

Hell... they even changed the name of the Washington Bullets basketball team to the Washington Wizards BECAUSE of all the death by handguns going on...
 
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_hom_wit_fir-crime-gun-violence-homicides-firearms

Now look at those stats, the USA is number 7 in homicides by firearm? Right in the middle of vioent, despot controlled countries the likes of Zimbabwe? I wonder, how is it that the rest of the "developed" world is able to keep off these charts? Where's China? Where my EU countries at? And none of this 25 BS, the OG 15. I guess there's Germany and Spain, but otherwise, nations with millenia of warfare are somehow able to keep their populations from killing each other with the easiest and least involved method of ending another person's life...

Maybe NOT letting the masses feel entitled to possess something that deadly helped, or maybe people don't see a need to escalate violent situations with excessive force, or maybe there isn't a penis measuring contest with weapons, or some idea that the right to kill other people is god-breathed and divine.

This isn't the 1790s people, suburbia doesnt have bears, wolves and mountain lions around killing live stock and the new born child of the ranching family, nor is anyone in this country remotely motivated enough to get up off their ass as part of an organized militia to overthrow the government (we had 8 years for pete's sake), nor is the average gun totting blonde able to make an argument with enough logic to grant her Angel of Death credentials over all civilians within range... It's hard to imagine the USA having as much violent crime as it does if there weren't so many guns floating around.

It's harder to murder someone when you have to look in their eyes while you strangle them or fight them with a knife... It's also harder to hit innocents with stray blades, though if you're a clumsy ninja i suppose that could be a risk...

If all guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns... giving the Police a much easier target.

 
I did get what you were aiming for.

oh, and you keep naming huge metropolises with extremely large gang problems (and a large majority who are aganst guns to begin with)

I dont see guns being outlawed in Dallas anytime soon lol.
 
i think many parts of the constitution, including the 2nd amendment, are very outdated. The thing was written in the late 1700's, the world has changed. We dont need malitias anymore because we have police and the army, and they can also get where we need them faster. the only people that are crazy about the 2nd amendment are gun toting rednecks *caugh* aspendukes *caugh* YEEEHAW IM GONNA GO KILL ME SOME COONS. shut the fuck up you NRA assholes
 
obama has also been talking about getting rid of our army and just making a civilian army bahahaha that shit is a joke.
 
Speak for yourself. I grew up in a cow town where there are indeed bears, coyotes, and mountain lions that kill things ranging from kittens to full grown humans. Might I add that ungulate populations are alarmingly high in Colorado and the government is now paying people with guns to practice culling in selected areas. Not all of us live in suburbia Patty.

That statistic seems flawed as well. What are the stats for homicides overall, not just for guns? You don't need a gun to kill someone. Is it not also possible that this statistic is solely based on reported homicides rather than the actual number of gun related deaths? That would strike me as being particularly prevalent in under-developed countries. Not to mention that the US population is far more complex and diverse than any single European country.
 
i live in the towers got a scope on the heat i could hit you from a hundred feet we dont even have to meet.
 
Then I wasn't speaking directly to your demographic. People who live in the remote areas of the nation probably need guns, if only to protect their livelihood from theft or attack.

People who live in urban areas do not need guns to defend themselves, and if they do, it's only because everyone else potentially has a gun. If there weren't a "right" to own a gun, though, this wouldn't be an issue. Knowing the likes of aspenduke roam the streets with a loaded, concealed weapon is extremely unnerving. I mean, she'll kill anyone who tries to harm her, which will be up to her to decide. Imagine if she were ever to have an error in judgement!

I mean, she is GOD though, weith her gun, but still i'm not reassured.

How many kids living in the country, with guns in the house and a history of hunting, have gone to their school and shot up the place? I can't think of any. What about kids who had easy access in urban centers? I don't think guns in and of themselves are bad, but they shouldn't be as pervasive and available as they are.
 
What do you mean suburbia doesn't have wild animals? Plus, not everybody lives in suburbs or urban areas. I live in a suburban area not 15 minutes from San Francisco and have seen a mountain lion and numerous coyotes trying and often succeeding to kill local cats and small dogs.

Yes, many people are lazy as sloths and will do what they're told because it's easier to do what you're told to do than it is to figure it out for yourself.

Of course all outlaws with guns would be outlaws if guns are outlawed. Think about it. One of my best friends who's one of the most hippie-like, peacefull people you'll ever meet has a gun. He'd never use it on anyone unless they were threatening his life, but he has every right to have it if that situation ever were to happen. Or, like I said above, if a coyote comes by and tries to kill his cat.

Ha. Damn cats.
 
Personally, i keep a loaded shotgun under my pillow so that I can blow away the guy in his SUV who nearly killed my Fluffy the other day. Nobody messes with Fluffy.

By wild animals, i mean animals that will come into your home, yard, general area and kill you, your cattle or your family. Not the blasted racoons, coyote, and bobcats that kill family pets or eat Baxter's kibbles.
 
No they don`t. They don`t need them up here. Why would they need them down there? Northern BC is farther away from civilization than anywhere in the USA, has as much or more "dangerous" wildlife as anywhere in the USA, and no one needs a gun to shoot at cougars. Even in rural areas, it's not fucking Bonanza. There are officials to deal with these things. But this isn't the point... I don't think anyone would care if it was just a question of farmers and ranchers holding onto their hunting rifles. It's more the ones designed to kill people rather than deer. But to be honest, this issue is hugely overblown. It really, really doesn't matter.
 
I did find something wrong with your statement lol.. a coyote is almost NEVER going to want to kill his cat... Coyotes are scavangers, and are basically the hyenas of North America.

That said, I live in the same area, and you dont need lethal weaponry to get rid of a mountain lion. I live in the East Bay, When I was a senior in high school, a mountain lion and her cubs or whatever you call them, moved into this hilly area right next to my high school. They shut the school down, and called animal services. They busted out a bunch of big fucking tranqulilizer sniper rifles or something, and shot the momma down, and gathered up her offspring.

Took them back into the regional park they came from.. let them loose.. and voila... nothing dies, and everyones more or less safe. (though, the mtn lions might have been a bit traumatized..)

On the other hand.. animal patrol DID have guns on hand to kill the puma, if it got by all the tranq's and started attacking...

As far as cats go though... if they are stupid enough to wander the streets and shit... they are stupid enough to get eaten by a bigger, stronger cat. They live in the state of nature, at that point.

Fuck cats haha.
 
The reason US has so many homicides is due to the drug runs and the gang violence.. Other countries dont have the huge drug issues like we do..Now dont say other countries have drugs too, because they do, but the dont have the quantity like america has.
 
yeah, that might have been a poor example for the topic but coyotes definitely kill small dogs and cats. if they have nothing to scavenge, they hunt, especially if "fluffy" is just sitting there in a confined hard. on another note, my cousins who live in aspen have had a brown bear walk into their kitchen. luckily they weren't inside at the time. By the way, I don't even own a gun, I just strongly believe in the right to have one. More laws are not always the best solution to fix a problem. Outlawing guns will not stop crime or homicides.

where in the east bay do you live?
 
Well yeah, anything will do anything they can to survive... but hell, even when I've gone to visit arizona, its not like you hear on the news "coyotes going crazy, and eating everyone animals" or anything of that sort.

I personally own a handgun myself. Mainly because its cool, but also because it serves as some protection if I ever need it for some reason. I dont keep it loaded unless theres an imminent threat.

I believe there are plenty of guns rights laws out there, and that its hard as fuck already to get a gun, and if anything, gun distributers and gun saftey organizations should be more compitent when it comes to keeping tabs on who owns guns.

I do however, believe that in certain areas, such as DC, or Chicago, where there are handgun laws, that those laws are for a reason. Hell, i also believe that in areas like Watts and Inglewood, California, and parts of Oakland and RICHMOND california should have handgun laws as well. They dont have much good in those areas, and are used predominantly for gang related activity. If you need protection in those areas, get a rifle or something lol.
 
your blowing things out of proportion here. they arent eliminating all guns. just handguns ESPECIALLY in areas with massive gun violence. its the right to bear arms not bear whatever arms you want
 
Sorry, I wasn't clear there. I understand we're not talking about getting rid of the 2nd Amendment altogether (and even if someone was, that's not so easily done), I was just saying that changing our drug laws would decrease violent crime more than even that drastic of a measure against guns would.

 
Fell free to compare the population density of Northern BC any place in the US. It's not necessarily about being "as much or more dangerous", but rather how many people inhabit that area. A more densely populated area makes animal encounters more likely. By the way, there is a very good reason people in the Alaskan bush carry a .50 cal on their hip. Better to have it an not need it than to need it and not have it.

In any case, I feel that the Constitution should continue to grant people the right to bear arms, but to let the states regulate it. But I do tend to agree that this is a mundane issue...one I'd thrown in the same bin with gay marriage and abortion. There really are much more important issues the federal government should bother themselves with.
 
My dad owns a handgun for self defense. He's a banker you see, and during the 80's there was a big scare of thugs breaking into bank employees houses and kidnapping/holding their families hostage and/or forcing the employee to unlock a vault at gunpoint.
 
so by the time he realizes hes getting robbed and hes at gunpoint.... what exactly does he plan to do...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top