Even DUmmies Oppose Obama Gun Ban Plan
Followers of the DUmmie FUnnies have long known that, surprisingly to many, the DUmmies are generally opposed to gun ban plans. The reason? Because when Republicans were in power they thought they would need weapons to overthrow the EVIL Bush Regime. They still fear that they will someday need weapons. Therefore they are now opposed to Obama's new proposed ban on assault weapons as you can see in this THREAD, "Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban." As we shall see, the DUmmies rightly see this move as a political disaster in future elections. So let us now watch the DUmmies tremble at the prospects of huge political losses due to the Obama gun ban plan in Bolshevik Red while the commentary of your humble correspondent, noting that the DUmmies are for once right for the wrong reasons, is in the [barackets]:
Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban
[And unnecessarily blowing tons of political capital. Hee! Hee!]
Source: ABC News
The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.
"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.
Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.
"I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum." Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S.
[And if Mexico didn't exist the Obamites would figure out another excuse to bring back that gun ban. Now to hear from the nervous DUmmies...]
Dumb.
[Declared the DUmbie.]
In fact, the worst idea in the long, sad history of bad ideas. And who will define the term "assault weapon?" The Brady Campaign, of course.
[Hide your .22 pistol "assault weapon."]
This is the worst, most expensive use of political capital that they could have come up with.
[Blow it all away on that assault weapon ban.]
It shouldn't even be a part of the agenda
[Too bad it will cost Democrats bigtime at the 2010 polls.]
Newt Gingrich skillfully played DLC Dems into passing the first "assault weapon" fraud in '94. Looks like gullible Dems clueless enough to push a ban on the MOST POPULAR CIVILIAN RIFLES IN AMERICA are still around.
[LOL! Who are you going to blame this time? Karl Rove?]
Yep. dumb, dumb, dumb. I'm sure Rahm's behind this agenda, too. It's like he wants us to lose power as soon as possible.
[He's going to Rahm a gun ban down your throats.]
Yes Mr Emaul is thinking with his ass again
[The DUmmies are being Emauled by Rahm.]
Ban weapons based on ergonomic design and other cosmetic conciderations... effin insane and political suicide.
[Just consider Eric Holder to be the Dr. Kervorkian of the Democrat party.]
Most people target shoot with them. Bye,bye to the Dem congress in 2010.
[Sayonara, baby!]
This confirms that Holder's head's up his ass. Legislating restrictions on US citizens to help nationals of another country. And, of course, they can always get them elsewhere. What a disappointed tool Holder is turning out to be.
[Yeah, their justification is stupid. We lose the right to own guns because of what is happening in ANOTHER COUNTRY.]
Holder was always a tool. Another individual with no understanding of the common person in my neck of the woods. I'm sure Chuck Scummer has his hand in this too
[Anyone ever see that photo of Chuckie firing a semi? The look on his face was one of erotic joy? Weird. VERY WEIRD.]
The Dems shouldn't be touching the gun issue even with a ten-foot pole. I grew up in a rural area and I know a lot of people there who would be loyal Dem voters were in not for the gun issue.
[Eric Holder: Say hello to your colon.]
I don't own a gun and I know it's bad politics. They say we want to take peoples guns away, and what do we do? Take peoples guns away. Dumb
[Declared the DUmbie.]
Talk of banning something is the surest way to increase sales. Even discussing an AW "ban" is going to result in MORE firearms of all types being sold, often to people who have not been properly trained in firearm safety.
[Attendance at gun shows is BOOMing.]
Hopefully the Democrats in Congress will be smart enough not to cut their own throats over this this time.
[But they will. They already started attacking New York's new senator for (gasp!) owning guns.]
Say hello to a Republican majority for the next 20 years! This is political suicide -- a dumb move.
[Thank you, Eric Holder, for making your head and colon meet each other.]
On this one Holder does have his head up his butt and what the hell are cop-killer bullets? Another false canard from the Brady bunch! Screw this - Holder is proving that the people out there buying up guns and ammo cause they are afraid of an Obama ban correct. This Dem and gun owner for one will be writing the WH, Holder, and my represenatives tomorrow telling them how I feel. Just when we get a Dem majority Holder wants to take us back to 1994!
[Back to the future, McFly!]
I highly doubt assault weapons have killed thousands of Americans unless deer gained citizenship when I wasn't looking.
[LOL! Dat vas a good vun!]
Terrible idea at the wrong time. And our new President was on such a roll. Eric Holder is a closet Republican. He is undermining our President at every f*cking turn.
[Eric Holder is Karl Rove's sock puppet.]
I am NOT a gun owner, but is Obama F*CKING STUPID????
Seriously. After he was elected I knew some "gun nuts" who were warning that Obama would "ban assault weapons, just like Clinton did".
I said, "No way - he's never going to do that - he's TOO SMART."
Well, guess who looks like the idiot now.
It was fun while it lasted. Obama is a f*cking idiot in my eyes now, seriously. The last thing he should do right now is ban assault weapons.
Again, I am NOT a gun owner - I couldn't give a shit about guns. This is about not feeding fuel to the fire.
[Thank you, Barack, for feeding fuel to the Democrat funeral pyre.]
The gun community has been saying that they would do this, and I was saying "wait and see"... and there it is. All this does is cost the dems votes. I really don't understand why they pursue it.
[Because Eric Holder wants it.]
Political suicide. And political fratricide. This will hurt many on the left in 2010 & 2012.
[Thanx for showing us the political upside to the proposed gun ban.]
Obama & Holder are sowing the seeds of the soon-to-be Republican Revolution of 2010. Expect to lose control of both Congress and the Senate if the Prez & Atty General are successful.
[It's going to be FUn to watch DUmmie anger at Barack and Eric following the 2010 election.]
Debating this issue does nothing but help the Repukes.
[Keep debating!]
I cannot BELIEVE Obama is this stupid.
[I can.]
posted by PJ-Comix at 8:00 AM
32 Comments:
I am shocked the DU'ers are so with it on this issue.
They actually sound politically saavy.
-Mikey NTH
Yeah, it's almost surreal, ain't it?
Must be a different click in DU writing this. A very small one at that.
Max Biallystock - "Let's hear what the majority thinks."
It's merly DUmmie realpolitik: Avoid talk about gun bans because it might aid the Repukes, let it rest until BO achieves total power.
Within the last two weeks I've picked up a Walther PPS .40 for conceal carry and a Springfield Armory M1A SOCOM 16. Went into the gun shop I shoot at most weekends and I had to wait 45 minutes for a lane to open. That was a surprise. And they were low on ammunition as well. My buddy who voted for Obambi helped me find the M1A...and tried to talk me into a Bulgarian AK-47. Ha!
Can anyone tell me about the bill being introduced that will ban guns?
Hmmm?
Can anyone point to any gun control legislation coming down the pike?
Let me just say it - this is a non-issue to everyone but you paranoid jack-offs. This has all the relevance of the Fairness Doctrine snit-fit you all had a week ago. Or the Obama birth certificate thing. Or the Denver convention riots, homos are out to kill us, atheists are out to kill us, sex education will kill us all, the list is endless. WMD's. Mushroom clouds. And now Obama's gonna take away your guns.
You make things up with one qualifier ("THEY'RE GOING TO KILL US ALL!!!"), and then react as if they're true. It's a fucking phenomenon. Or some sort of brain worm.
I'm sincerely interested to know - since taking office, has Obama or the administration made any statements about gun control?
Hey. Did you hear about some study that found conservative states consume more porn than, well, anybody else in the US? It was an epiphany for me, troglaman. My inner homo went completely fucking NUTS. It was all I could do to keep the little bastard in the kennel.
"Expect to lose control of both Congress and the Senate if the Prez & Atty General are successful."-Some Moonbat@DU
Sounds like this wittle DUmmie agrees with Rush; and hopes 0's agenda fails. The only difference is Rush hopes he fails for America's sake; the moonbat for his party's sake.
I'm sincerely interested to know - since taking office, has Obama or the administration made any statements about gun control?
Is this good enough for you........
"The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today. "
-
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1
And here's Rahm.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an8Moh3xuUs&feature=channel_page
and it is funny how ole' Rahm is for the Patriot Act....
Unfortunately, while veteran Republicans such as Ohio's Mike Oxley and Alaska's Don Young could bring themselves to vote against reauthorization, some of the key Democrats in the House could not. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, voted "no," but Assistant Minority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Rahm Emanuel, D-Illinois, sided with the White House.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/67446
When it allows him to take away rights, like using the no fly list to ban gun ownership, and that's a'OK by you.....
....sorry the last line should read
since in his twisted world he will find a way to take away gun rights, by using the no fly list to ban gun ownership..... weather or not you should be on the list..... since we know mistakes never happen.
Nice try Trog, but with Chuck-the-Schmuck, Fat Teddy, Rahmbo, Barney Fwank, San Fran Nan, Holder, and all the other haters of the Second Amendment driving the train, none of the gunowners feel like Obambi's words, or yours, have the ring of truth on this topic.
Anon and Corona, most of them are not objecting to the ban because they oppose gun control regulations (Many appear to support such regulations, in fact). They're objecting to the ban because they know that the form it will currently take will anger the majority of Americans, and give the Republicans something to use against them in 2010 and possibly 2012.
Oh, and Trog, to answer one of your statements you made (I don't have time right now to address others), the reason why we talked about potential riots in Denver during the DNC was because groups like Recreate '68 and Unconventional Action made it pretty clear in their websites and other communiques in the months leading up to the convention that they wanted to engage in riots and other forms of civil disobedience, and the Denver city government initially didn't seem to be doing too much in advance to discourage them against such things. However, they (The Denver city government) ended up ultimately bringing in a significant police presence into Denver which managed to prevent any big riots from happening. Conservative Internet photojournalist Zombie's website, Zombietime, has among many reports of various happenings at the DNC, a detailed firsthand report of a mob of anarchists who intended to start riots at the DNC fundraisers, but their efforts were derailed by the strong police force. Were it not for the police's presence there, riots would have definitely started.
Others have already said it but it's worth repeating: the DUmmies opposition to gun restrictions is strictly pragmatic. They don't want to give the Republicans ammuntion (no pun intended) to use against the Donks in 2010.
Nothing in my long, grim, reading of many DUmmie threads leads me to believe otherwise. Given the right conditions and the opportunity, DUmmies would joyously support a complete gun ban (if only because it would enrage freepers).
"Let me just say it - this is a non-issue to everyone but you paranoid jack-offs."
Poor Troggy, you don't seem to have the ability to read.
Dumb.
In fact, the worst idea in the long, sad history of bad ideas.
Yep. dumb, dumb, dumb.
Ban weapons based on ergonomic design and other cosmetic conciderations... effin insane and political suicide.
The Dems shouldn't be touching the gun issue even with a ten-foot pole.
Hopefully the Democrats in Congress will be smart enough not to cut their own throats over this this time.
Say hello to a Republican majority for the next 20 years! This is political suicide -- a dumb move.
Terrible idea at the wrong time. And our new President was on such a roll.
These are just a few of the responsive in the DU to their thread "Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban ", a demonstrably non-conservative site. So, you assertion that this is non-issue to everyone but is is obviously false. Care to try again? Or are you just going to profane everyone again?
"So, you assertion that this is non-issue to everyone but is is obviously false. Care to try again? Or are you just going to profane everyone again?" ray
No ray, just you. Fuck your mother.
Holder wants to crack down on assault rifles. Thank God he hasn't set his sights on grenade launchers and 50 cab machine guns.
What responsible politician wouldn't want assault rifles off the market? Where do you draw the line?
Really. Let's think this out. Do you, ray, want assault rifles available to anyone who wants one? Like food stamps?
I think you do.
Why doesn't the right to bear arms include tanks, B1 bombers, and nuclear weapons?
I'd actually be interested in the answer to that question. Because you're going to tell me there has to be a line drawn somewhere. Holder is suggesting the line being drawn at assault weapons.
Where should it be drawn, ray?
And isn't there just a little irony that you who shout and cry about the next terrorist attack are all about providing assault weapons to any fucking whack-job who wants one?
"Is this good enough for you........" Thomas
Yes. Thanks, Mister Crabby Pants. The attribute was good. It's what I asked for. And you were right. So cheer the fuck up you bloodless vampire whiny co-dependent sycophantic suicidal narcissistic succulent.
Call me stupid but don't both parties suck up to the NRA?
...of a mob of anarchists who intended to start riots at the DNC fundraisers... - adam
Hey! Don't give anarchists a bad rep. just because of a few nihilists!
Anarchy: n
1.) A theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
2.) Absence of any form of political authority.
Sounds good to me!
What most people associate with anarchy and anarchists is disorder and chaos. While there is certainly seeming disorder (i.e., lack of government control), anarchy is truly a state of complete individual freedom and the only state of affairs where all social and economic interaction is voluntary and mutually beneficial.
What's good for individuals is good for society.
Why doesn't the right to bear arms include tanks, B1 bombers, and nuclear weapons? - strawtrog
Yet another strawman. If your statement is true, how is it that one private individual in Arizona (?) amassed the largest collection of restored tanks on the planet? How is it that the Confederate Airforce built, maintains, and flies the largest private collection of private war planes on the planet? How is it that any private citizen with a Federal Firearms License can purchase any firearm he has sufficient money for, including fully-automatic firearms?
Nuclear seems to be the only type of weapon that "seems" to be off limits, although I'm curious if AQ Khan had any private US Citizens as customers. We'll probably never know the answer to that question.
You're being a tool, Trog, not real unusual, I grant you. What exactly is an "Assault weapon?" Since autoloading firearms were invented, there have been ways devised, home-brewed or factory-produced, of increasing their magazine capacity, which is true of virtually all so-called 'Sporting' semi-automatics. NOTHING except ammunition capacity distinguishes so-called "Sporting" semiautomatic weapons from so-called "Assault" weapons in actual capability, the additional characteristic like pistol grips, bayonet lugs, or military appearance in general do not make the weapons shoot faster, or hit harder, or fly. Drive-by bayonettings may be seen as a serious problem by Chuck Schumer, but not by sane people. Of course even for the "Sporting" weapons, large-capacuity magazines can be made or bought.
In the last decade, gun control freaks have expanded their scope of weapons that 'Should not be in civilian hands' from handguns and high-capacity semi-autos to include 'Precision long distance sniper rifles,' a term which potentially includes any scoped centerfire rifle capable of minute-of-angle accuracy.
And you can own a tank, depending on your State law. If you want the cannon to function, that's a whole different ball of wax involving large taxes and ATFE paperwork, and further State law issues, but though onerous legally, far from impossible. Combat aircraft of various sorts, especially MiGs, are also available for civilian purchase, but most of them are made in rather low numbers and pretty used-up by the time the original owner finishes with them. They are of course extremely expensive to operate and require advanced certifications, so they are quite uncommon.
Oh Troggy,
Why all of the angry projection?
Could it be that, deep down in your heart you are nothing but a coward, you pout and stomp your feet and whine about all us scary "assault weapons" (used in less than 1% of gun crimes) owners, and our terrifying arsenals but if push ever come to shove you will be hiding behind the government brownshirts expecting them to do the confiscation......
While shouting, "look at me!!!!, look at me!!!!, I am an intellectual, I never got my hands dirty."
And by the way you are not stupid, You are a coward and a fool, you obviously have an extensive vocabulary, but what do politicians listening to lobbyists attempting to protect your constitutional rights have to do with anything, I bet it would not bother you if it were Greenpeace lobbying for forest conservation, it is the system that we have had for 232 years......
And while we're at it Troggy,
Can you show me where gun laws anywhere worldwide, have been successful in any way shape or form in stopping criminals from getting their hands on guns.
Guys Guys Guys
There is NO SUCH THING as an "assault weapon". This is a term made up by Democrats in 1992-3.
There are assault RIFLES.
"Yet another strawman." classic
bullshit. There is a line drawn as to what weapons people can buy, you ignorant slut.
Why is it illegal for you or me to buy Claymores? Grenades. Ground-to-Air missiles, etc. There is a line.
Instead of just offering up your inverse strawman, why not say where you think the line should be drawn. Spell it out. What weapons should and shouldn't be illegal? Start with assault rifles.
"And while we're at it Troggy, can you show me where gun laws anywhere worldwide, have been successful in any way shape or form in stopping criminals from getting their hands on guns." Blind Thomas
How original!! Makes a good bumper-sticker.
"How original!! Makes a good bumper-sticker."...... and yet, Sir Troglman ran away........
Well troggy, where has taking away gun disarmed criminals?
And when the time comes are you going to be on the front lines kicking down doors to take them?
Why is it illegal for you or me to buy Claymores? Grenades. Ground-to-Air missiles, etc. There is a line. -trog
I don't know why that is illegal. It shouldn't be. It would be a lot safer for everybody if people could purchase such things rather than forcing them to fabricate their own or creating black markets for them. :)
There is some logic to prohibiting citizens to buy (if they have the resources) weapons systems that are current or cutting-edge in the military arsenal (e.g., F-22s, B-2s, communications gear) if only for the reason of preventing them getting into the hands of adversaries who would use them or reverse-engineer them to gain advantage over our military. That never seems to work very well though as we always find out that spies and traitors have sold plans, specifications, and systems to adversaries (again a government-created black market).
BTW tanker, getting or restoring fully-functional artillery is not a problem, it is getting ammo that is a problem. That can be overcome easily enough by someone who has a well-equipped machine shop and certain chemistry knowledge though.
Classic liberal, I call them "Anarchists" because they ARE Anarchists, by their own admission. Not saying that all Anarchists are as psychotic and violence- prone as them, but the fact remains that they are Anarchists, so I refer to them as such. Plus, call me shallow, but those would- be rioters at the DNC tended to be dressed in the exact style that rabid Anarchist protestors usually dress for their riots, excuse me, I meant their "Direct Actions" (Mostly black, with jackets and baseball caps, many with trendy sunglasses and/ or their trademark stupid bandanas to cover their faces).
But those are not true anarchists, Adam. The fact they call themselves anarchists only proves they do not understand the meaning or purpose of anarchy.
They are irrational nihilists. All they wish is chaos and disorder as an end in itself. They "feel" the destruction and violence is a release for the psychic distress that results from their rejection of reason and reality.
True anarchists have individual freedom and completely voluntary social order based on rational egoism as their goal and purpose.
"But those are not true anarchists, Adam. The fact they call themselves anarchists only proves they do not understand the meaning or purpose of anarchy. They are irrational nihilists." The Great Lebowski
See?
Like I've said forever, keep on keepin on.
Fuck it man! Lets go bowling. :)
Hey. Did you hear about some study that found conservative states consume more porn than, well, anybody else in the US?
*********************************
No.
Did you see the study that says all liberals are bitchy fairies?
"Did you see the study that says all liberals are bitchy fairies?" He-must-not-be-named
No.
"Those states that do consume the most porn tend to be more conservative and religious than states with lower levels of consumption, the study finds."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16680-porn-in-the-usa-conservatives-are-biggest-consumers.html
I always knew I liked you guys for some reason. Rock on.
Post a Comment
<< Home