Guns At Obama Rally!

reply to post by mnemeth1


That was awesome..That guy handed it to Mathews...

Two words...Ron Paul

Another 4 words. Thank You Ron Paul...

If anyone really believes that owning a gun will not help fight against a government if it comes down to it, I would like to point to a little country called Vietnam.

yes, guns and presidents mix so well. For that matter, who would have a problem if Obama decided to carry a sidearm in a shoulder holster?

I'd love to see the commander-in-chief with a revolver and an old west belt full of rounds.

Originally posted by CrowServo
I think that was a very foolish thing to do, no matter what kind of point he was trying to prove. It is no wonder that representatives of the Obama administration are becoming reluctant to attend these gatherings in person. People are edging closer and closer to violence, and if a man can carry a loaded gun to a Presidential event, whatever his individual intentions, that is a cause for concern.

Full disclosure - I am anti-gun. I think the 2nd Amendment is a relic from a different age and completely futile in our present world. If your government wants to crack down on you, your little firearm will not protect you. The material odds are so stacked against you that you would stand no chance. The best you could do is go down firing. And while that may appeal to some sort of romanticized cowboy ideal, in reality you will just end up dead, with the only consolation being that perhaps you will have taken someone else's life in the process. Is that something of which to be proud?

A far more practical solution would be to break out of the paradigm of violence being met with violence. That may not be a popular view, but it is my two cents.

I had a friend that was staying in a apartment that didn't own a gun, do you want to what the criminal did to him after he robbed him? He shot him. If my friend had a gun to protect himself with he would still be alive.

Originally posted by Unnoan
yes, guns and presidents mix so well. For that matter, who would have a problem if Obama decided to carry a sidearm in a shoulder holster?

I'd love to see the commander-in-chief with a revolver and an old west belt full of rounds.

I think that would be the one cool thing Obama did in his entire life.

His facial structure from the mouth down is eerily similar to that of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Just sayin'

Man, when Chris kept asking why he brought a gun to a Presidential Rally, I was hoping the guy said something like, "Did you not see what happened to protesters in Iran? I don't want to be killed or put in prison just because I don't believe in the HealthCare Program."

Too bad it would have definitely been edited out.

I think we have found Chris Matthews replacement. I mean, this guy is informed and level-headed...you know, the opposite of CM.

Just my 2-cents

Originally posted by Aggie Man
I think we have found Chris Matthews replacement. I mean, this guy is informed and level-headed...you know, the opposite of CM.

Just my 2-cents

Alex Jones

praise Mao

I love Alex. He needs a prime time slot on a major network.

Originally posted by CrowServo
I think that was a very foolish thing to do, no matter what kind of point he was trying to prove. It is no wonder that representatives of the Obama administration are becoming reluctant to attend these gatherings in person. People are edging closer and closer to violence, and if a man can carry a loaded gun to a Presidential event, whatever his individual intentions, that is a cause for concern.

Full disclosure - I am anti-gun. I think the 2nd Amendment is a relic from a different age and completely futile in our present world. If your government wants to crack down on you, your little firearm will not protect you. The material odds are so stacked against you that you would stand no chance. The best you could do is go down firing. And while that may appeal to some sort of romanticized cowboy ideal, in reality you will just end up dead, with the only consolation being that perhaps you will have taken someone else's life in the process. Is that something of which to be proud?

A far more practical solution would be to break out of the paradigm of violence being met with violence. That may not be a popular view, but it is my two cents.

WAKE UP!!! The government has and will use violence against you whenever and wherever it chooses. Remember Ruby Ridge and WACO!?

Many of us "Romanticized cowboys" would much rather die in freedom than live in tyranny - unlike you - apparenlty!

Originally posted by epete22
he should have brought up the fact that they're communists in the whitehouse

I guess people just don't understand what Communism is.

You're on the internet ... look it up!

Nothing Obama has done, or plans to do has anything to do with Communism and if you say it does, you have no idea what you're talking about.

I don't like Obama either, but I sure as hell not going to go around making crap up just to make him look worse than his policies already make him look.

reply to post by tyranny22




Communist State

State Institutions
Communist states share similar institutions, which are organized on the premise that the communist party is a vanguard of the proletariat and represents the long-term interests of the people. The doctrine of democratic centralism, which was developed by Lenin as a set of principles to be used in the internal affairs of the communist party, is extended to society at large. According to democratic centralism, all leaders must be elected by the people and all proposals must be debated openly, but, once a decision has been reached, all people have a duty to obey that decision and all debate should end. When used within a political party, democratic centralism is meant to prevent factionalism and splits. When applied to an entire state, democratic centralism creates a one-party system.[1]

The constitutions of most communist states describe their political system as a form of democracy.[2] Thus, they recognize the sovereignty of the people as embodied in a series of representative parliamentary institutions.

Democratic Centralism

Democratic centralism is the name given to the principles of internal organization used by Leninist political parties, and the term is sometimes used as a synonym for any Leninist policy inside a political party. The democratic aspect of this organizational method describes the freedom of members of the political party to discuss and debate matters of policy and direction, but once the decision of the party is made by majority vote, all members are expected to uphold that decision.

[edit on 12-8-2009 by Paroxysm]

Full disclosure - I am anti-gun. I think the 2nd Amendment is a relic from a different age and completely futile in our present world. If your government wants to crack down on you, your little firearm will not protect you.

Your post echoes my sentiments.

the large majorigy of gun fires are not in self defense, most gun fires are criminal or accidental.

[edit on 12-8-2009 by c3hamby]

reply to post by c3hamby


Would you please back up your claim with statistics?
Or maybe you could read my post about the 2nd amendment following the first for a reason?
post by TheTruthShallFreeYou


edit to add link to post.

[edit on 12-8-2009 by TheTruthShallFreeYou]

Chris Matthews is the Left side's Glenn Beck. Spreading nothing but bullsh*t.

The guy brought his gun because it's natural for him. He didn't mean for it to be a "threat" to the president. Instead, he really spoke up for his freedoms.

So sick of MSM...

Originally posted by c3hamby

the large majorigy of gun fires are not in self defense, most gun fires are criminal or accidental.

Those gun fires can turn serious very quickly. For god sakes, make sure you unplug after use:

reply to post by Paroxysm


Starred. Thanks for doing some research on the subject and not just accepting what someone else says as truth.

Originally posted by c3hamby
Your post echoes my sentiments.

the large majorigy of gun fires are not in self defense, most gun fires are criminal or accidental.

[edit on 12-8-2009 by c3hamby]

Really?

Considering that somebody stubbing their toe with a gun makes national headlines. Considering that most self-defense incidents don't make more than the local newspaper. Considering the anti-gun bias of the main stream media. Considering that most of the statistical studies are created by counting incidents reported by the media, is it any wonder that your statement is biased bull#!

Yeah. Those new age criminals love that new age paradigm.

lol. good stuff. i love the people that most likely live in their nice little suburban neighborhood, where they go to the same shopping center all the time to buy food and clothing, who call places ghetto that are far from it, but they dont know any different anyways, are all like, "guns are bad and this guy is wrong".

now you may argue, thats not me, and im still against guns, and good for you, go live in the woods. wait, you will definitely need a gun there. well, good for you anyways. i mean the fact was already made, that if someone wants to do something crazy, shoot up a school, shoot a politician, etc.., then the laws in place are not going to make him think and stop. ha ha, how is that so hard to understand.

i admit i dont know much about the gun laws and what goes and doesnt go state to state, but if a person wants to walk around with a side arm while he walks his dog in the park, then feel free. i bet 99 percent of the robbers that might be checkin him out that night will be like, nah, he's got a gun, lets find someone else.

i think its just that we're so scared of our own damn shadows that we tell ourselves that we would be very uncomfortable if we walked into a grocery store and saw a man shopping with a gun on his side, or walked down the street and saw a man walking with a gun on his side, or saw a man at the park reading the newspaper with a gun on his side, etc... but in reality, as bad as we might paint each other as human beings, people arent getting mass murdered every day in this country, and there are tens of millions of people with weapons in this country, legally and illegally. if we were all that crazy, then there wouldnt be 300 murders a year in baltimore, there would be 4000. most people are normal, want to protect themselves, and are not that trigger happy.

would i be wrong to say that most gun violence in america comes from thugs who possess their firearm illegally? i mean you got your random joes nowadays going nuts and shooting up gyms, but for the most part the random gun violence is coming from a specific group of individuals who are breaking the #ing law anyways. # them. like someone else said, id rather have a fighting chance regardless if they got the drop on me first or not, because without a weapon im just an easy target. a #ing guy walking around with a big neon bullseye floating over the top of my head.

i dont believe things would go wild wild west again, because well, they havent, and even given the opportunity most people just want the option, and you probably wont see most people going to the movies with a side arm, but if they need to walk to the local 7eleven at 1am, then they should have the right to protect themselves just in case.

Originally posted by c3hamby



Full disclosure - I am anti-gun. I think the 2nd Amendment is a relic from a different age and completely futile in our present world. If your government wants to crack down on you, your little firearm will not protect you.

Your post echoes my sentiments.

the large majorigy of gun fires are not in self defense, most gun fires are criminal or accidental.

[edit on 12-8-2009 by c3hamby]

Hey Dude..

I think you went to public school and never got past a public school indoctrination.

I went to the local gun club last week and shot off three hundred rounds of 7.62X39mm ammunition. How many rounds do you think were fired in this city last week in various activities? I should also tell you that I was not the only one at the gun club.

Please try thinking further than the next sound bite.

Try looking up my previous post about Chris Matthews being a Drama Queen...along with many others.

Here I will link it for you

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Let me give you another one for your warm fuzzy "Feelings."
I handle uranium fuel cells to be installed in nuclear reactors for a living. Both the olde spent cells as well as the new ones to be installed.
Do you feel threatened by me carrying a gun??

Think further than the next sound bite or pubic education standards...or "Feelings."

Alot of the peoples on these forums have worked or still work in occupations where diciplines are standard format/requirements. We do not live for our "feelings" by putting limits on others or guilt.

We live by diciplining ourselves and our feelings. Drama Queens like Chris Matthews and others stand out very quickly to us. I wouldn't trust Chris Matthews and many others to take care of my pets litter box.


Thanks,
Orangetom

[edit on 12-8-2009 by orangetom1999]