Tulsi Gabbard sounds like a libertarian-leaning Democrat (Ron likes her!)

[MindlessPaulBot]

Hi LibertyPeeps,

Just wondering if you have been keeping up with what Tulsi Gabbard has
been saying:

https://YouTu.be/hUL8oaGWyEw

https://YouTu.be/hUL8oaGWyEw

Ron thinks she's the best on foreign policy:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Ron+Paul+Tulsi+Gabbard


She needs a ton of $3 dollar donations to get in the debates and keep
talking about ending regime-change wars:

https://secure.actblue.com/donate/tulsi2020


Whirled-Peas!!!!:handpeace:

[Swordsmyth]

Her voting record is terrible on everything including the wars she speaks against.

It would be nice if she got the Demoncrat nomination because of her rhetoric but she would be an absolute disaster if she became POTUS.

[dannno]

Ron thinks she's the best on foreign policy:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Ron+Paul+Tulsi+Gabbard


He said she is the best of the Democrats. She is. Unfortunately her voting record on foreign policy and certain issues she champions, she has been shown to vote the opposite on many occasions.

[Origanalist]

She's a gun grabber. Nuff said.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

OP has 4 posts, three of which fell by the wayside or he wanted deleted. Other thread was a post about seeking activists from here to Timbuktu. OP has a donations link for Tulsi in his thread here. Appears to me like he joined under the guise of feigning Rand support just to drum up support for his Dem candidate.



I listened to the speech. Just another typical Democrat with all the catch phrases:


"...rich and powerful..."
"...putting people ahead of profits..."
"...medicare for all..."
"I'll tackle climate change by ushering in a green century."



I could see somebody picking her as secretary of state. But for president? No way.

[juleswin]

He said she is the best of the Democrats. She is. Unfortunately her voting record on foreign policy and certain issues she champions, she has been shown to vote the opposite on many occasions.

Don't you think its more likely that it is her way of playing the deep state until she can attain the power level to oppose them. I think we should give her the benefit of the doubt. Just think what they would have done to her if she started showing her anti establishment bona fides with her votes? they would have primaried her out of a job.

[James_Madison_Lives]

For banning "assault weapons" and high capacity mags.

I don't know of any Dem candidate who doesn't hold same position. Maybe Buttigieg.

Sanders used to have a more nuanced position but he sold out too.

This is the litmus test. Disarm the people, no vote.

[Swordsmyth]

https://www.thenewamerican.com/freedom-index

Name: Tulsi Gabbard
Congress: Hawaii, District: 2, Democrat
Cumulative Freedom Index Score: 30%
Status: Active Member of the House

Score Breakdown:
30% (115th Congress: 2017-2018); 22% (114th Congress: 2015-2016); 35% (113th Congress: 2013-2014)


https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=G000571

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I say scrap the endless stream of hippos they put on Sports Illustrated. Vote for her next cover issue.



https://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ScreenHunter-1478-696x752.jpg

[Swordsmyth]

I say scrap the endless stream of hippos they put on Sports Illustrated. Vote for her next cover issue.



https://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ScreenHunter-1478-696x752.jpg

She certainly looks better than the typical SJW chick.

[specsaregood]

She certainly looks better than the typical SJW chick.

That's not Tulsi Gabbard.

[nikcers]

OP has 4 posts, three of which fell by the wayside or he wanted deleted. Other thread was a post about seeking activists from here to Timbuktu. OP has a donations link for Tulsi in his thread here. Appears to me like he joined under the guise of feigning Rand support just to drum up support for his Dem candidate.



I listened to the speech. Just another typical Democrat with all the catch phrases:


"...rich and powerful..."
"...putting people ahead of profits..."
"...medicare for all..."
"I'll tackle climate change by ushering in a green century."



I could see somebody picking her as secretary of state. But for president? No way.
Don't you know there is magic technology that can save the climate but the oil lobbyists are stopping it from coming out because they don't want to lose profit. Our strategic competitors that would love to destroy our economy don't use it against us because they are too stupid.

[Working Poor]

I might send her a $3 donation in hopes of her making the debates but I hold no illusion that the dems will allow her to say much or allow her to win the nomination.

[juleswin]

Hope and change 2.0?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlmitY0POL8

You see this every 4 years where candidates pretend to be anti war just to get elected and once they get into office, they flip and just become as pro war as the president they replaced. We saw this with Bush, Obama and now Trump.

[nikcers]

Hope and change 2.0?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlmitY0POL8

You see this every 4 years where candidates pretend to be anti war just to get elected and once they get into office, they flip and just become as pro war as the president they replaced. We saw this with Bush, Obama and now Trump.


Woodrow Wilson, re-elected in 1916 on the slogan “He kept us out of war (https://youtu.be/wsbM6mzraBI?t=1496)”



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsbM6mzraBI

[Superfluous Man]

There must be a Tulsi Gabbard forum out there or Meetup group (or whatever the 2019 version of a Meetup group is) where they're talking one another into reaching out to Ron Paul supporters with lines like the OP. This isn't the first of these here.

I hope Gabbard does well in the Dem primaries. But I won't be voting in those. And if she miraculously gets their nomination, which I'd love to see, I wouldn't vote for her in the general election either.

[oyarde]

She's a gun grabber. Nuff said.

Gun grabbing commie .

[oyarde]

He said she is the best of the Democrats. She is. Unfortunately her voting record on foreign policy and certain issues she champions, she has been shown to vote the opposite on many occasions.

Ya and I think he based that on what she says not what she does which is a mistake . Quite frankly the next election will have no " best of dems" available.

[Anti Globalist]

All Ron said was that shes the best Democrat running. That doesn't mean hes going to vote for her if she somehow gets the nomination.

[Origanalist]

All Ron said was that shes the best Democrat running. That doesn't mean hes going to vote for her if she somehow gets the nomination.

This.

[Todd]

All Ron said was that shes the best Democrat running. That doesn't mean hes going to vote for her if she somehow gets the nomination.

If you watch closely in this thread you can see the logical fallacies and conniption fits start if anyone dares speak to some strong points on candidates in the world of false dichotomy which is Trump land.

"Liberals are the Devil Momma" in the voice of Bobby Boucher

[nikcers]

This reminds me of when the press asked Ron Paul about Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump while Rand was still running and they spun his words into meaning Ron Paul doesn't support his own son for president.

[tfurrh]

OP has 4 posts, three of which fell by the wayside or he wanted deleted. Other thread was a post about seeking activists from here to Timbuktu. OP has a donations link for Tulsi in his thread here. Appears to me like he joined under the guise of feigning Rand support just to drum up support for his Dem candidate.



I listened to the speech. Just another typical Democrat with all the catch phrases:


"...rich and powerful..."
"...putting people ahead of profits..."
"...medicare for all..."
"I'll tackle climate change by ushering in a green century."



I could see somebody picking her as secretary of state. But for president? No way.

But his name is mindlesspaulbot, surely we can trust him.

And I'm not sure your reasoning is correct, I mean there isn't any precedence of that. There weren't any members that joined the forums in 2016... like around April... feigning support for Rand just to drum up support for Trump.

[oyarde]

If you watch closely in this thread you can see the logical fallacies and conniption fits start if anyone dares speak to some strong points on candidates in the world of false dichotomy which is Trump land.

"Liberals are the Devil Momma" in the voice of Bobby Boucher

They are somewhat worse than the spawn of satan . I figure the devil would want a robust economy where people had plenty of money to sin with. No regulation . The Dems will have you huddled around a public building heater eating a cold can of beanie weanies while they spend the rest of your money on stupid things . As an added bonus Dems are the only party in the history of the world that could use Worse than Satan as the 2020 slogan and get 49.9 percent of the vote .

[nikcers]

They are somewhat worse than the spawn of satan . I figure the devil would want a robust economy where people had plenty of money to sin with. No regulation . The Dems will have you huddled around a public building heater eating a cold can of beanie weanies while they spend the rest of your money on stupid things . As an added bonus Dems are the only party in the history of the world that could use Worse than Satan as the 2020 slogan and get 49.9 percent of the vote .

Liberals are people with really bad ideas and good intentions and the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That's why I giggle so much when poeple say muh roads.

[EBounding]

She has great rhetoric on some issues but I don't trust her. Just like another popular politician on here.....

[oyarde]

Hi LibertyPeeps,

Just wondering if you have been keeping up with what Tulsi Gabbard has
been saying:

https://YouTu.be/hUL8oaGWyEw

https://YouTu.be/hUL8oaGWyEw

Ron thinks she's the best on foreign policy:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Ron+Paul+Tulsi+Gabbard


She needs a ton of $3 dollar donations to get in the debates and keep
talking about ending regime-change wars:

https://secure.actblue.com/donate/tulsi2020


Whirled-Peas!!!!:handpeace:

Maybe she can work real hard and turn in a freedom index of 19 percent for 2019 .

[timosman]

They are somewhat worse than the spawn of satan . I figure the devil would want a robust economy where people had plenty of money to sin with. No regulation . The Dems will have you huddled around a public building heater eating a cold can of beanie weanies while they spend the rest of your money on stupid things . As an added bonus Dems are the only party in the history of the world that could use Worse than Satan as the 2020 slogan and get 49.9 percent of the vote .

https://i.vgy.me/UPBZMb.jpg

[Todd]

They are somewhat worse than the spawn of satan . I figure the devil would want a robust economy where people had plenty of money to sin with. No regulation . The Dems will have you huddled around a public building heater eating a cold can of beanie weanies while they spend the rest of your money on stupid things . As an added bonus Dems are the only party in the history of the world that could use Worse than Satan as the 2020 slogan and get 49.9 percent of the vote .

Tell me more about the difference between Democrats and Republicans grandpa.

[Philhelm]

Tell me more about the difference between Democrats and Republicans grandpa.

A Republican wouldn't damage your property or spit in your food for wearing a Rand Paul shirt?

[timosman]

A Republican wouldn't damage your property or spit in your food for wearing a Rand Paul shirt?

Such a difference is insignificant. I was hoping to hear more about Austrian economics. :tears:

[nikcers]

Tell me more about the difference between Democrats and Republicans grandpa.

Liberals for the most part support more self licking icecream solutions that keep them in power longer, nanny states. Not so they can help people out, so they can have an electorate that is enslaved to vote for them. While Republicans like Rand Paul do not.

[Superfluous Man]

Liberals for the most part support more self licking icecream solutions that keep them in power longer, nanny states. Not so they can help people out, so they can have an electorate that is enslaved to vote for them. While Republicans like Rand Paul do not.

But generally, Republicans do that too. Rand is an anomaly.

[nikcers]

But generally, Republicans do that too. Rand is an anomaly.

Thats a non argument you are talking about liberals. You can't ask me to compare apples to oranges and then say well you have a bunch of apples that pretend to be oranges.

[loveshiscountry]

She has great rhetoric on some issues but I don't trust her. Just like another popular politician on here.....

Agreed. Don't do as I say or pay attention to how I vote, just listen to my words.

[nikcers]

But generally, Republicans do that too. Rand is an anomaly.

No generally politicians lie, and pretend to be something they aren't. I'm talking about the electorate. Atleast with a fake apple I can pressure them to do the right thing with an electorate that doesn't like the self licking ice cream cones and slavery.

[nikcers]

Take Trump for example, he is more liberal on military spending than I would prefer but he talks a good game about getting better deals and getting a more powerful military for all the money we spend. He says stuff like this, which is way better than anything the democrats are saying about guns. That we should talk about gun violence to stop it but dont take the guns from the "good people"


Just talk about it. You have to talk about it. But Piers, when somebody has a gun illegally and nobody else has a gun because the laws are that you can't have a gun those people are gone, they have no choice. They have no chance. They have no chance. It's a very tough subject. But the bad guys are not getting rid of their guns, pretty much everybody agrees with that.


The people that obey the laws, if there was a law passed, they get rid -- Those people are sitting ducks. You know the one I think about the most is Paris, where there are so many people killed were that wacky group of people, went into the nightclub and they just boom, boom, boom, and they killed like tremendous numbers of people horribly injured, so many were still in the hospital, I read the other day.

[Brian4Liberty]

I might send her a $3 donation in hopes of her making the debates but I hold no illusion that the dems will allow her to say much or allow her to win the nomination.

That's really the only point here. It would be good to have an anti-war voice in the Democrat debates. Other than that, Gabbard is no libertarian, and her sincerity on anti-war votes is in question.

[Superfluous Man]

Thats a non argument you are talking about liberals. You can't ask me to compare apples to oranges and then say well you have a bunch of apples that pretend to be oranges.

I see the comparison of Republicans and Democrats more as a comparison of two very like things. Or maybe a giant douche to turd sandwich comparison. Not apples and oranges though.

Besides, even apples and oranges can be compared well enough. Both are fruit.

[PAF]

I might send her a $3 donation in hopes of her making the debates but I hold no illusion that the dems will allow her to say much or allow her to win the nomination.

But not Adam Kokesh, who is a libertarian?

[Brian4Liberty]

OP has 4 posts, three of which fell by the wayside or he wanted deleted. Other thread was a post about seeking activists from here to Timbuktu. OP has a donations link for Tulsi in his thread here. Appears to me like he joined under the guise of feigning Rand support just to drum up support for his Dem candidate.



I listened to the speech. Just another typical Democrat with all the catch phrases:


"...rich and powerful..."
"...putting people ahead of profits..."
"...medicare for all..."
"I'll tackle climate change by ushering in a green century."



I could see somebody picking her as secretary of state. But for president? No way.

It is somewhat strange how she emphasized that she wants to be Commander in Chief.

[nikcers]

I see the comparison of Republicans and Democrats more as a comparison of two very like things. Or maybe a giant douche to turd sandwich comparison. Not apples and oranges though.

Besides, even apples and oranges can be compared well enough. Both are fruit.

yeah but Rand isn't a douche or a turd sandwich, but people who pretend like they arent don't deserve any energy. I would support a Ron Paul or a Rand Paul 2020 even if they ran for the Democrat or Republican party, because atleast they would be promoting only good ideas to the electorate. Tulsi Gabbard is a gun grabbing CFR poison pill. Bernie Sanders is a communist that would destroy the whole country. Third party people who run don't deserve any energy because they don't influence the electorate. Our ideas get dilluted when they run third party and get demonized by the republicans and democrats.

[Superfluous Man]

yeah but Rand isn't a douche or a turd sandwich

That's true. And for that reason he's not a good example to mention when discussing how alike and/or different Republicans and Democrats are.

[nikcers]

It is somewhat strange how she emphasized that she wants to be Commander in Chief.

She talked about it on the Joe Rogan podcast. She wants to command the military to stop all the wars that's why she uses those words, she wants be a general and tell the military how to defend the country because its the presidents job to command the military. Its a bit different than some presidents that rely on generals that have experience for ideas. The argument against the president telling the military to stop the wars is it doesn't mean bad people aren't going to ever attack us. So you would have to rely on her ability to defend the country in the face of evil.

[nikcers]

That's true. And for that reason he's not a good example to mention when discussing how alike and/or different Republicans and Democrats are.

No i am not going to discuess liberal and liberal light when discussing this because it is what they want us to do is give up and say that we don't have any ideas because they had a bunch of fakes pretend to be republicans scam us. If we are going to define it, we are going to defend the ideas, I am a Ron Paul republican, no matter how much you demonize the word and say its a liberal word.

[juleswin]

There must be a Tulsi Gabbard forum out there or Meetup group (or whatever the 2019 version of a Meetup group is) where they're taking one another into reaching out to Ron Paul supporters with lines like the OP. This isn't the first of these here.

I hope Gabbard does well in the Dem primaries. But I won't be voting in those. And if she miraculously gets their nomination, which I'd love to see, I wouldn't vote for her in the general election either.

Someone put a gun to your head and says you must pick one person between Trump and Tulsi, who would it be? I would pick Tulsi for the reason that it's hard for me to believe that his method of fighting the deep state would ever work. Tulsi has staked so much of his candidacy on being anti war more than anything else(think gun control) so if she achieves that and that alone, it would be a win for the US and the world.

She just like Obama wouldn't be able to do shyte about the 2nd amendment without congress. Trump banned bump stock via executive order but I don't think she would be any more extreme than Trump when it comes to 2nd amendment.

[juleswin]

But not Adam Kokesh, who is a libertarian?

Kokesh has less than a small balls chance in hell of getting into any debates. This is why only people with very deep pockets and love for liberty will donate to him.

[nikcers]

Someone put a gun to your head and says you must pick one person between Trump and Tulsi, who would it be? I would pick Tulsi for the reason that it's hard for me to believe that his method of fighting the deep state would ever work. Tulsi has staked so much of his candidacy on being anti war more than anything else(think gun control) so if she achieves that and that alone, it would be a win for the US and the world.

She just like Obama wouldn't be able to do shyte about the 2nd amendment without congress. Trump banned bump stock via executive order but I don't think she would be any more extreme than Trump when it comes to 2nd amendment.

This is a bullshit argument the dems already have the house and they would win the Senate if they won the whitehouse.

[nikcers]

Kokesh has less than a small balls chance in hell of getting into any debates. This is why only people with very deep pockets and love for liberty will donate to him.

deep pocket people support third party candidates so they can take away support from the candidate running against the candidate they want to win. I stand with Ron and Rand Paul, and that means influencing the republican party to be better.

[juleswin]

This is a bull$#@! argument the dems already have the house and they would win the Senate if they won the whitehouse.

Not necessarily, she would still need both houses to make any meaningful gun control regs and I don't see that happening. Regardless, I would still take the gamble with her.

[nikcers]

Not necessarily, she would still need both houses to make any meaningful gun control regs and I don't see that happening. Regardless, I would still take the gamble with her.

That's a shit gamble, you don't even know if you can trust her. Atleast with Trump he hasn't taken the guns, with her its a complete gamble she would most likely take the guns and get pushed into wars. Plus she runs too much as a pacifist and fear always wins, so she would lose anyways against Trump. The only benefit is the debates would be something our country needs to have in regards to foreign policy. So that means it would be good only to support her in the primaries anything else is a gamble against the second amendment. If they do take our guns, they will take everything else with it, thats how it always starts. Plus medicare for all would be the worst. Get rid of medicare, dont give it to all so that it will never go away.

[Todd]

That's a shit gamble, you don't even know if you can trust her.

If trust is one of your main concerns, then you might as well throw out 99% of everyone who's ever run for POTUS. And it's laugh out loud'able to hear anyone use the term do not trust and then negate it with "At least Trump" :rolleyes:

[Ender]

If trust is one of your main concerns, then you might as well throw out 99% of everyone who's ever run for POTUS. And it's laugh out loud'able to hear anyone use the term do not trust and then negate it with "At least Trump" :rolleyes:

LOL- ya think? :speaknoevil:

[nikcers]

If trust is one of your main concerns, then you might as well throw out 99% of everyone who's ever run for POTUS. And it's laugh out loud'able to hear anyone use the term do not trust and then negate it with "At least Trump" :rolleyes:

If he tried to take the guns his whole party would be against it, if she tried to take the guns her whole party would rally to win the Senate. Medicare for all is even dumber, most of us under 50 probably won't even see a cent from medicare or social security. Why would you support that scam?

[nikcers]

LOL- ya think? :speaknoevil:

Please tell me how any democrat is better on guns. Please tell me how you can defend yourself from a tyranical government without guns.


Just talk about it. You have to talk about it. But Piers, when somebody has a gun illegally and nobody else has a gun because the laws are that you can't have a gun those people are gone, they have no choice. They have no chance. They have no chance. It's a very tough subject. But the bad guys are not getting rid of their guns, pretty much everybody agrees with that.


The people that obey the laws, if there was a law passed, they get rid -- Those people are sitting ducks. You know the one I think about the most is Paris, where there are so many people killed were that wacky group of people, went into the nightclub and they just boom, boom, boom, and they killed like tremendous numbers of people horribly injured, so many were still in the hospital, I read the other day.

[juleswin]

That's a $#@! gamble, you don't even know if you can trust her. Atleast with Trump he hasn't taken the guns, with her its a complete gamble she would most likely take the guns and get pushed into wars. Plus she runs too much as a pacifist and fear always wins, so she would lose anyways against Trump. The only benefit is the debates would be something our country needs to have in regards to foreign policy. So that means it would be good only to support her in the primaries anything else is a gamble against the second amendment. If they do take our guns, they will take everything else with it, thats how it always starts. Plus medicare for all would be the worst. Get rid of medicare, dont give it to all so that it will never go away.

Obama didn't take the guns even though he had senate and house for 2 years. It is a low risky gamble when it comes to guns. She is running as a non interventionist not a pacifist. The same strategy that won Bush, Obama and Trump the presidency.

[nikcers]

Obama didn't take the guns even though he had senate and house for 2 years. It is a low risky gamble when it comes to guns. She is running as a non interventionist not a pacifist. The same strategy that won Bush, Obama and Trump the presidency.

Please show me a candidate Obama that campaigned for it. Your only argument with Tulsi Gabbard is I hope she is lying.

[Ender]

Please tell me how any democrat is better on guns. Please tell me how you can defend yourself from a tyranical government without guns.

I never mentioned guns- I am agreeing with Todd about the stupidity of trusting most any gov official.

[nikcers]

I never mentioned guns- I am agreeing with Todd about the stupidity of trusting most any gov official.

The president is only as powerful as the people who give him power. If all the Trump supporters decided today to stop supporting him, they could impeach him, the democrats would happily help.

[juleswin]

Please show me a candidate Obama that campaigned for it. Your only argument with Tulsi Gabbard is I hope she is lying.

I think she would try and fail to implement any meaningful gun control. Obama also tried to do gun control but failed.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m6Ep9LucTk

[nikcers]

I think she would try and fail to implement any meaningful gun control. Obama also tried to do gun control but failed.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m6Ep9LucTk

Only because the fucking tea party, which they have destroyed. We would have no opposition from the fake people there now. I agree though, if we had a tea party movement a liberal president wouldn't be able to do anything they wanted.

[Todd]

Please tell me how any democrat is better on guns. Please tell me how you can defend yourself from a tyranical government without guns.

“America is at that awkward stage; it's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.” -


I'm as pro gun as they come, but let's not deceive ourselves about it. Most American's truly believe we are still at the stage the quote supposes.

I think most people are all talk if it really came down to spilling any blood. I still believe a man has the right to defend himself, and yes that means by a gun.
I just don't advocate for violence. I think that would truly be the end of America if that ever comes to pass.

[oyarde]

Tell me more about the difference between Democrats and Republicans grandpa.

All these liberals claim to just be moderate socialists . Not true , if that was the case they could vote for establishment GOP candidates . They are rabid communists . Both will suck on foreign policy both will add to the debt so those issues that people try to spell as different are not.

[nikcers]

“America is at that awkward stage; it's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.” -


I'm as pro gun as they come, but let's not deceive ourselves about it. Most American's truly believe we are still at the stage the quote supposes.

I think most people are all talk if it really came down to spilling any blood. I still believe a man has the right to defend himself, and yes that means by a gun.
I just don't advocate for violence. I think that would truly be the end of America if that ever comes to pass.
You just gotta look at history and what comes after they take the guns. Right now most people wouldn't spill blood, but if they were going after the stuff that they will after they take the guns they would spill blood.

[Ender]

The president is only as powerful as the people who give him power. If all the Trump supporters decided today to stop supporting him, they could impeach him, the democrats would happily help.

I believe that Trump has supported more gun control than Obama.

[nikcers]

I believe that Trump has supported more gun control than Obama.

Obama created gun free zones that created the argument Trump is using right now that gun control would take guns from the good people and the bad people wouild still have them. That makes them polar opposites.

[Ender]

Obama created gun free zones that created the argument Trump is using right now that gun control would take guns from the good people and the bad people wouild still have them. That makes them polar opposites.

That was Clinton (Biden), not Obama.

[kcchiefs6465]

Sounds like a communist to me.

[Todd]

I'm not saying I'm voting for Tulsi....I've never voted for a Democrat in my life. I'm probably not voting for anybody. I haven't voted major party in 15 years.

I remember speaking with Democrats and left leaning Socialists voting for Ron Paul in 2008. They told me they were doing so because he got it completely right on Foreign policy and they knew it was the deal breaker for the outcome of this countries survival. They also knew his economics. They understood what was at stake.

I'm suggesting that if Tulsi was right on that issue, then it's completely rational to believe that others may find it of the same importance to vote for her.


Look. I hated Trump before he took office. I remember his horrid business practices in the 80's and how much of a douchebag he was.

Once he won, I gave him a full term to get things right. Well....he hasn't. He's just like everyone else.

The only thing I like about Trump is his ability to troll the Press and DNC and reveal the complete charade and circus they are. Oh, and that he hasn't taken us to another multilateral regional conflict. Not yet anyhow.

That's about it.

So we got either Rabid Communists or Rabid Fascists. All Collectivists. Pretty much the entirety of ever major political office in America. It's a real hoot to watch people try to convince me that Trump is different.

It's analogous to the Ship heading for the waterfall and a few warn the crew that it's inevitable.....and all the crew wants to argue over is how much sleep they get, bargain for a little more food.

Well, If I ever vote in a political election again or support a candidate, it's going to be because he or she sees the Waterfall and want's to right the ship away from it. Screw everything else until that threat is mitigated.

[nikcers]

That was Clinton (Biden), not Obama.

Obama pushed for gun control after every mass shooting in a gun free zone.

[nikcers]

I'm not saying I'm voting for Tulsi....I've never voted for a Democrat in my life. I'm probably not voting for anybody. I haven't voted major party in 15 years.

I remember speaking with Democrats and left leaning Socialists voting for Ron Paul in 2008. They told me they were doing so because he got it completely right on Foreign policy and they knew it was the deal breaker for the outcome of this countries survival. They also knew his economics. They understood what was at stake.

I'm suggesting that if Tulsi was right on that issue, then it's completely rational to believe that others may find it of the same importance to vote for her.


Look. I hated Trump before he took office. I remember his horrid business practices in the 80's and how much of a douchebag he was.

Once he won, I gave him a full term to get things right. Well....he hasn't. He's just like everyone else.

The only thing I like about Trump is his ability to troll the Press and DNC and reveal the complete charade and circus they are. Oh, and that he hasn't taken us to another multilateral regional conflict. Not yet anyhow.

That's about it.

So we got either Rabid Communists or Rabid Fascists. All Collectivists. Pretty much the entirety of ever major political office in America. It's a real hoot to watch people try to convince me that Trump is different.

It's analogous to the Ship heading for the waterfall and a few warn the crew that it's inevitable.....and all the crew wants to argue over is how much sleep they get, bargain for a little more food.

Well, If I ever vote in a political election again or support a candidate, it's going to be because he or she sees the Waterfall and want's to right the ship away from it. Screw everything else until that threat is mitigated.

Ron Paul had credibility because he had a career of not taking any money from lobbyists, not being in the CFR, and advocating for non intervention for 30 years being the only person to vote against stuff.

[juleswin]

Some people say neocons are new age socialists but we still support them when the alternative is worse.

[nikcers]

Trump is willing to fight the chamber of commerce, he is anything but the same as the left.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWVdcuGFmXY

[dannno]

I believe that Trump has supported more gun control than Obama.

Bullshit.

Trump just gave a speech the other day about how Americans need to be armed to be able to protect themselves. If you disarm Americans, the criminals will have the guns and it will be over for the law abiding citizens. He talked about how knife crime is such a huge problem in the UK.

Trump gets it, from a practical standpoint, why we need to be armed.

Trump is not a principled politician, he doesn't do things on principal. He only cares about outcome. He banned bump stocks, which I disagree with, but from what I have heard from gun owners is that they are not very practical. They significantly reduce the accuracy of your shot. On top of that, a 15 cent rubber band works better than a $200 bump stock. Trump didn't ban rubber bands. So from a practical standpoint, it wasn't a big deal. From a principal standpoint, it was a big deal.

But to take that and say that Trump wants more gun control than Obama is completely insane TDS nonsense.

[nikcers]

Some people say neocons are new age socialists but we still support them when the alternative is worse.

I wouldn't support the neocons if they ran on a gun control platform.

[shakey1]

As I recall, Obama talked a good talk (at times), but never backed it up with the walk. Tulsi may be just more of the same?... i dunno. Secretary of State?... perhaps... perhaps.

[juleswin]

I wouldn't support the neocons if they ran on a gun control platform.

That is the problem with politicians, they never run on their true positions. Trump didn't run on banning bump stocks and yet that is what he did.

[Ender]

Bull$#@!.

Trump just gave a speech the other day about how Americans need to be armed to be able to protect themselves. If you disarm Americans, the criminals will have the guns and it will be over for the law abiding citizens. He talked about how knife crime is such a huge problem in the UK.

Trump gets it, from a practical standpoint, why we need to be armed.

Trump is not a principled politician, he doesn't do things on principal. He only cares about outcome. He banned bump stocks, which I disagree with, but from what I have heard from gun owners is that they are not very practical. They significantly reduce the accuracy of your shot. On top of that, a 15 cent rubber band works better than a $200 bump stock. Trump didn't ban rubber bands. So from a practical standpoint, it wasn't a big deal. From a principal standpoint, it was a big deal.

But to take that and say that Trump wants more gun control than Obama is completely insane TDS nonsense.

It's NOT nonsense- look it up.

Or just continue to kiss the ring.

[PAF]

Bull$#@!.

Trump just gave a speech the other day about how Americans need to be armed to be able to protect themselves. If you disarm Americans, the criminals will have the guns and it will be over for the law abiding citizens. He talked about how knife crime is such a huge problem in the UK.

Trump gets it, from a practical standpoint, why we need to be armed.

Trump is not a principled politician, he doesn't do things on principal. He only cares about outcome. He banned bump stocks, which I disagree with, but from what I have heard from gun owners is that they are not very practical. They significantly reduce the accuracy of your shot. On top of that, a 15 cent rubber band works better than a $200 bump stock. Trump didn't ban rubber bands. So from a practical standpoint, it wasn't a big deal. From a principal standpoint, it was a big deal.

But to take that and say that Trump wants more gun control than Obama is completely insane TDS nonsense.


The Don On The Record:


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?477303-Donald-Trump-On-The-Record

[nikcers]

That is the problem with politicians, they never run on their true positions. Trump didn't run on banning bump stocks and yet that is what he did.

So we should ignore what Trump is saying now? Right now Trump is selling the idea that gun control isn't good to the entire Republican party but we should vote for someone selling gun control to their party?

[Ender]

I'm not saying I'm voting for Tulsi....I've never voted for a Democrat in my life. I'm probably not voting for anybody. I haven't voted major party in 15 years.

I remember speaking with Democrats and left leaning Socialists voting for Ron Paul in 2008. They told me they were doing so because he got it completely right on Foreign policy and they knew it was the deal breaker for the outcome of this countries survival. They also knew his economics. They understood what was at stake.

I'm suggesting that if Tulsi was right on that issue, then it's completely rational to believe that others may find it of the same importance to vote for her.


Look. I hated Trump before he took office. I remember his horrid business practices in the 80's and how much of a douchebag he was.

Once he won, I gave him a full term to get things right. Well....he hasn't. He's just like everyone else.

The only thing I like about Trump is his ability to troll the Press and DNC and reveal the complete charade and circus they are. Oh, and that he hasn't taken us to another multilateral regional conflict. Not yet anyhow.

That's about it.

So we got either Rabid Communists or Rabid Fascists. All Collectivists. Pretty much the entirety of ever major political office in America. It's a real hoot to watch people try to convince me that Trump is different.

It's analogous to the Ship heading for the waterfall and a few warn the crew that it's inevitable.....and all the crew wants to argue over is how much sleep they get, bargain for a little more food.

Well, If I ever vote in a political election again or support a candidate, it's going to be because he or she sees the Waterfall and want's to right the ship away from it. Screw everything else until that threat is mitigated.

^^^THIS^^^

[PAF]

^^^THIS^^^

^^ I second this ^^

[Superfluous Man]

So we should ignore what Trump is saying now?

Hasn't Trump given us more than enough reasons to ignore what he says?

If you choose not to ignore what he says now, then what will you do the day after tomorrow when he says the exact opposite?

With respect to gun control, we have actual actions that have proven him to be worse than Obama. So when deciding which half of the things he says not to ignore (if any), it seems to me that the half we should not ignore should be the half that is backed up by his actions.

[nikcers]

Hasn't Trump given us more than enough reasons to ignore what he says?

If you choose not to ignore what he says now, then what will you do the day after tomorrow when he says the exact opposite?

With respect to gun control, we have actual actions that have proven him to be worse than Obama. So when deciding which half of the things he says not to ignore (if any), it seems to me that the half we should not ignore should be the half that is backed up by his actions.

Trump hasn't called for gun control after mass shootings in gun free zones, that is nonsense.

[dannno]

The Don On The Record:


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?477303-Donald-Trump-On-The-Record


Nothing about gun control.

[dannno]

With respect to gun control, we have actual actions that have proven him to be worse than Obama.

No, we haven't.

[Ender]

Trump hasn't called for gun control after mass shootings in gun free zones, that is nonsense.

Trump and Obama? A Tale Of Two Gun Control Proposals




By: TJ Martinell|Published on: Dec 18, 2018|Categories: 2nd Amendment, Current Events

Just as some gun rights groups flip-flop on protecting the right to keep and bear arms from federal encroachment, so has Republican President Donald Trump. Not only has he ramped up federal gun control enforcement, but he has unilaterally implemented new federal gun control in the form of a bump stock ban.

As we’ve pointed before, the effectiveness of this policy is moot: the feds have no constitutional authority to restrict firearms.

It’s important to keep in mind that this isn’t merely something occurring under Trump’s watch but out of his control. The president actively pursued an unconstitutional firearm restriction through an unconstitutional method via agency rulemaking. If the constitution did not delegate authority to the Congress or the president to enact such a rule – and the Second Amendment makes that adamantly clear – then obviously a bureaucracy has no such power, either.

Before Trump supporters turn a blind eye to this or rationalize his actions, they should honestly ask themselves how they would respond if Obama tried to do the same thing.

Oh, wait. He essentially did.

In 2015, President Obama directed the ATF to pursue a possible ban on the M855 cartridge. To do so, they released a proposed agency rule which redefined M855 “green tip” ammunition as “armor piercing” to qualify it for federal prohibition under the 1968 Gun Control Act (GCA).

Ostensibly, the rule was meant to curb police deaths, but many gun rights advocates rightly pointed out that it was likely a thinly-veiled effort to undermine civilian access to AR-15s. The National Rifle Association reports that the “ban was opposed by law enforcement experts, 238 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, 53 U.S. senators, 80,000 Americans who submitted comments to ATF, and the NRA.”

Thankfully, though, the M855 cartridge ban ultimately failed.

When Obama was doing it, unilaterally changing agency rules to ban a certain kind of ammunition was seen as “back-door gun control.” It was an egregious executive overreach. It was a foot in the door that would lead to more and more federal gun control.

People who said this were right.

Now, the Trump administration is using essentially the same process to ban bump stocks, using redefinition of terms and changing agency rules to make the President’s preferred gun control effort fit within current federal law on the books.

In the end, NRA-backed Trump succeeded in a way Obama could not: adding another major violation of our right to keep and bear arms onto the books that is unlikely to ever be repealed.

If you ever needed an example of why we can’t trust anyone in D.C. to protect our gun rights, this is it.

The only way forward is for states to pass anti-commandeering laws that withhold critical state resources and personnel from the feds.
https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/12/trump-and-obama-a-tale-of-two-gun-control-proposals/

[Todd]

^^^THIS^^^

Problem is there is hardly anyone else left on this site that believes this way. It used to be about 60/40 in the heyday. :unamused:

[PAF]

Nothing about gun control.

What is this called:

- Sen. Dianne Feinstein in 2017 introduced legislation to ban the sale and possession of bump-stocks. Her bill went nowhere. As president, Trump stated: Obama Administration legalized bump stocks. BAD IDEA. As I promised, today the Department of Justice will issue the rule banning BUMP STOCKS (March 23, 2018) https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/03/trump-bump-stocks-are-all-obamas-fault/

- As president, Trump publicly backed raising the minimum age to purchase semi-automatic weapons to 21, and now states are doing it:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/politics/guns-donald-trump-sarah-sanders-age-limit/index.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpgk8hecKyc


To me it looks just like - - - yep - - - "gun control".

[juleswin]

Trump hasn't called for gun control after mass shootings in gun free zones, that is nonsense.

This is how gun control happens in the US, its the small incremental cuts that would make it easier and easier to make bigger cuts. The ban on bump stocks will make it easier to limit magazine size etc etc. Its death my a 1000 paper cuts and Trump has also left his mark. Ignore it at your own peril.

[nikcers]

Trump and Obama? A Tale Of Two Gun Control Proposals
[I]


https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/12/trump-and-obama-a-tale-of-two-gun-control-proposals/

I think ideas matter here, Obama for years advocated for gun control after mass shootings in gun free zones, Trump has fought against that idea by saying if you take guns away from people in gun free zones than the bad people will still have guns. Who do you think the bad people are when he says that? When I hear that I think government as the bad people who will still have guns. That's literally the the reason why the second amendment was created.

[Superfluous Man]

Trump hasn't called for gun control after mass shootings in gun free zones, that is nonsense.

He not only called for it, but personally enacted it, unilaterally banning bump stocks by executive order. Obama did absolutely zilch other than boost gun sales.

[nikcers]

This is how gun control happens in the US, its the small incremental cuts that would make it easier and easier to make bigger cuts. The ban on bump stocks will make it easier to limit magazine size etc etc. Its death my a 1000 paper cuts and Trump has also left his mark. Ignore it at your own peril.

No gun control happens by supporting politicians who run campaigns on gun control. Politicans would do anything if it got them elected. If you tell the politicians that they have to run on gun control to get a elected they will.

[nikcers]

He not only called for it, but personally enacted it, unilaterally banning bump stocks by executive order. Obama did absolutely zilch other than boost gun sales.

Fucking bump stocks is not the same as Tulsi Gabbard calling for actual gun control. I can make my own fucking gun modifications.

[PAF]

He unilaterally banned bump stocks by executive order. Obama did nothing other than boost gun sales.

I do not like Obama, but the fact is, he was the greatest gun salesman of any president.

Why? Because they are not principled; "republicans" are always against the opposition, but always give passes to their own party even when it opposes the republican platform.

[Ender]

I think ideas matter here, Obama for years advocated for gun control after mass shootings in gun free zones, Trump has fought against that idea by saying if you take guns away from people in gun free zones than the bad people will still have guns. Who do you think the bad people are when he says that? When I hear that I think government as the bad people who will still have guns. That's literally the the reason why the second amendment was created.

2 Gun Laws Signed by Obama Expanded Rights


During his first term, Obama didn't call for any major new restriction on guns or gun owners. Instead, he urged authorities to enforce the state and federal laws already on the books. In fact, Obama signed only two major laws that address how guns are carried in America, and both actually expand the rights of gun owners.

One of the laws allows gun owners to carry weapons in national parks; that law took effect in February 2012 and replaced President Ronald Reagan's policy of required guns be locked in glove compartments of trunks of cars that enter national parks.

Another gun law signed by Obama allows Amtrak passengers to carry guns in checked baggage, a move that reversed a measure put in place after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

[PAF]

dupe

[PAF]

$#@!ing bump stocks is not the same as Tulsi Gabbard calling for actual gun control. I can make my own $#@!ing gun modifications.

That is a cop out. When is it ANYBODY'S business what can be manufactured, or not, when that it is up to the Free Market to work out.

Not only did he BAN bump stocks, but he also put businesses out of business and workers looking elsewhere by pulling that stunt.

Maybe I do not want a "rubber band". Maybe I wanted to spend MY money on a bump stock. Maybe I had stock in that company, and a relative who worked there.

[Superfluous Man]

I do not like Obama, but the fact is, he was the greatest gun salesman of any president.


Yes he was. And I find the parallels between what Trump is doing for illegal immigration and what Obama did for gun sales notable.

[Superfluous Man]

$#@!ing bump stocks is not the same as Tulsi Gabbard calling for actual gun control. I can make my own $#@!ing gun modifications.

I'm not defending Gabbard at all. I think it's very possible that she would be just as bad as Trump.

[nikcers]

That is a cop out. When is it ANYBODY'S business what can be manufactured, or not, when that it is up to the Free Market to work out.

Not only did he BAN bump stocks, but he also put businesses out of business and workers looking elsewhere by pulling that stunt.

Maybe I do not want a "rubber band". Maybe I wanted to spend MY money on a bump stock. Maybe I had stock in that company, and a relative who worked there.

There was a mass shooting in Vegas with Bump stocks. Yet he didn't advocate for gun control. Obama would of, Tulsi Gabbard would of, any of those leftist bastards would of used the las vegas shooting to take the guns.

[nikcers]

2 Gun Laws Signed by Obama Expanded Rights

Obama had a tea party, it was the literally the only thing that stopped the red line stuff in Syria. Rand fucking went to war against the Obama adminstration with his filabusters that were going viral.

[PAF]

There was a mass shooting in Vegas with Bump stocks. Yet he didn't advocate for gun control. Obama would of, Tulsi Gabbard would of, any of those leftist bastards would of used the las vegas shooting to take the guns.

You have that backward.

Obama didn't, Trump DID.

[PAF]

Yes he was. And I find the parallels between what Trump is doing for illegal immigration and what Obama did for gun sales notable.


Exactly. Why others cannot see that is way beyond me.

+ REP

[nikcers]

Yeah because Trump signed an executive order to give people citizenship,.. You guys are just fucking TDS. I can't argue with that.

[nikcers]

You have that backward.

Obama didn't, Trump DID.

After every mass shooting Obama advocated for gun control, its why its such a popular position in the democrat party.

[PAF]

Yeah because Trump signed an executive order to give people citizenship,.. You guys are just $#@!ing TDS. I can't argue with that.

I am opposed to that as well. Without citizenship, they are not entitled. I feel that nobody is actually entitled, but he made it far worse than before.

[Origanalist]

https://cdn.minds.com/fs/v1/thumbnail/985250038148218880

https://cdn.minds.com/fs/v1/thumbnail/984956707654332416

[PAF]

After every mass shooting Obama advocated for gun control, its why its such a popular position in the democrat party.

I am not certain so I will have to look it up, but I believe Obama was the one who walked back a previous EO on guns.

[nikcers]

I am opposed to that as well. Without citizenship, they are not entitled. I feel that nobody is actually entitled, but he made it far worse than before.

Obama told the whole world to come here, Trump is fucking making people turn around even though the democrats are offering them free healthcare in california.

[nikcers]

I am not certain so I will have to look it up, but I believe Obama was the one who walked back a previous EO on guns.

No he advocated for an EO on gun control after a mass shooting, he had to tiptoe around the tea party, if he ran too hard on this shit Rand Paul would be president right now.

[PAF]

Obama told the whole world to come here, Trump is $#@!ing making people turn around even though the democrats are offering them free healthcare in california.

Trump: Turn around folks! Get in the back and stand in line! No cutting, please! If do you as Uncle Sam TELLS you to do, you will get lots and lots of goodies! LEGALLY!

[juleswin]

Problem is there is hardly anyone else left on this site that believes this way. It used to be about 60/40 in the heyday. :unamused:

I think demographic issues was the deal breaker for many people here. They risk their lives and legacy if something is not done soon enough. So while they may agree with you that Trump is not perfect, they will keep mum while he tries to plug the immigration leak.

If not for immigration and demographic type issues, Trump would be regarded as one of the RINOs. The sad part for them is that Trump doesn't give a F about the issue. He pays lip services to it while making a 1000 excuses why he cannot do anything meaningful to stop immigration.

[Ender]

Obama had a tea party, it was the literally the only thing that stopped the red line stuff in Syria. Rand $#@!ing went to war against the Obama adminstration with his filabusters that were going viral.



President Trump on Saturday blamed Democrats for failing to act to strengthen gun restrictions under the Obama administration, accusing them of using the issue as a political talking point.

"Just like they don’t want to solve the DACA problem, why didn’t the Democrats pass gun control legislation when they had both the House & Senate during the Obama Administration. Because they didn’t want to, and now they just talk!" Trump tweeted.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/374411-trump-dems-could-have-passed-gun-control-under-obama

[nikcers]

Trump: Turn around folks! Get in the back and stand in line! No cutting, please! If do you as Uncle Sam TELLS you to do, you will get lots and lots of goodies! LEGALLY!

Trump is arguing that people can't come here illegally and they can't get free stuff because any stronger argument adds fuel to their fire for them to argue Trump is a racist and get people to vote against him. Its more effective than executive orders and free healthcare, that isn't going to make people stop coming here. Even the cages argument was making people turn around,but that was creating too many democrat voters to vote against him for being racist.

[PAF]

No he advocated for an EO on gun control after a mass shooting, he had to tiptoe around the tea party, if he ran too hard on this $#@! Rand Paul would be president right now.

Found it:

Gun Laws Signed by Obama Expanded Rights

One of the laws allows gun owners to carry weapons in national parks; that law took effect in February 2012 and replaced President Ronald Reagan's policy of required guns be locked in glove compartments of trunks of cars that enter national parks.

Another gun law signed by Obama allows Amtrak passengers to carry guns in checked baggage, a move that reversed a measure put in place after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001

https://www.thoughtco.com/obama-gun-laws-passed-by-congress-3367595

[nikcers]

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/374411-trump-dems-could-have-passed-gun-control-under-obama

He's calling them a hypocrit to demoralize their base. Its like when Rand tears into the republicans that supported ending Obamacare and balanced budgets until republicans won the whitehouse. It demoralizes the supporters of those bastards that are hypocrits.

[Swordsmyth]

Let's just forget about "fast and furious" or getting banks to refuse to do business with gun dealers or buying up all the ammo for government agencies that don't need guns to drive up the price or harassing gun and ammo dealers about their licenses and all the other things O'Bummer did, He was Pro-Gun.:sarcasm:

[PAF]

Trump is arguing that people can't come here illegally and they can't get free stuff because any stronger argument adds fuel to their fire for them to argue Trump is a racist and get people to vote against him. Its more effective than executive orders and free healthcare, that isn't going to make people stop coming here. Even the cages argument was making people turn around,but that was creating too many democrat voters to vote against him for being racist.

I do not subscribe to the whole "illegal" argument. It is a government construct to turn people into slaves. It opposes everything to do with "individualism", freedom, liberty and fiscal responsibility.

[PAF]

Let's just forget about "fast and furious" or getting banks to refuse to do business with gun dealers or buying up all the ammo for government agencies that don't need guns to drive up the price or harassing gun and ammo dealers about their licenses and all the other things O'Bummer did, He was Pro-Gun.:sarcasm:

Nobody said he was "Pro" gun. The fact remains that he expanded a couple of rights as noted above, while trump mucked with a Free Market system by banning bump stocks, along with a call for states to raise the age to 21 which they are doing.

[nikcers]

Found it:

Gun Laws Signed by Obama Expanded Rights

One of the laws allows gun owners to carry weapons in national parks; that law took effect in February 2012 and replaced President Ronald Reagan's policy of required guns be locked in glove compartments of trunks of cars that enter national parks.

Another gun law signed by Obama allows Amtrak passengers to carry guns in checked baggage, a move that reversed a measure put in place after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001

https://www.thoughtco.com/obama-gun-laws-passed-by-congress-3367595

Are you literally ignoring Obama promoting this whole idea that we can't let people sell guns to eachother and buy guns at gun shows without a bunch of regulations?

[nikcers]

I do not subscribe to the whole "illegal" argument. It is a government construct to turn people into slaves. It opposes everything to do with "individualism", freedom, liberty and fiscal responsibility.

You just said that Trump is advocating for people to come here, but its the democrats that caused it before he became president.

[PAF]

You just said that Trump is advocating for people to come here, but its the democrats that caused it before he became president.

It started well before Obama, when the first portion of the wall went up which prevented Circular Flow.

[PAF]

Are you literally ignoring Obama promoting this whole idea that we can't let people sell guns to eachother and buy guns at gun shows without a bunch of regulations?

Make no mistake, obama is on my short sh|t list. Just like other presidents and politicians.

[nikcers]

It started well before Obama, when the first portion of the wall went up which prevented Circular Flow.

Are you really saying that Obamas executive order didn't tell the whole world to come here and we will give you citizenship?

[Swordsmyth]

Nobody said he was "Pro" gun. The fact remains that he expanded a couple of rights as noted above, while trump mucked with a Free Market system by banning bump stocks, along with a call for states to raise the age to 21 which they are doing.
Trump has expanded a few rights as well while undoing many of O'Bummer's anti-gun attacks.
Claiming Trump is worse than O'Bummer is an insult to any intelligent discussion of the subject.

[nikcers]

Make no mistake, obama is on my short sh|t list. Just like other presidents and politicians.

The only reason Obama didn't accomplish anything severe is our oppoosition in the tea party. I don't have thousands of dollars and hours to support tea party candidates if another liberal becomes president.

[PAF]

Are you really saying that Obamas executive order didn't tell the whole world to come here and we will give you citizenship?

I never said that. What I did say in a prior post was that trump is taking over where Obama left off. Obama could not reach "republicans", but it seems that trump is having no problem whatsoever.

[Swordsmyth]

It started well before Obama, when the first portion of the wall went up which prevented Circular Flow.
That's a myth, there is still circular flow and circular flow isn't a good thing, we ended up with 20+ Million invaders with "circular flow" and they are tipping the scales in favor of communism in state after state.

[nikcers]

I never said that. What I did say in a prior post was that trump is taking over where Obama left off. Obama could not reach "republicans", but it seems that trump is having no problem whatsoever.

On Trumps biggest press day of his entire presidency he argued that we should have guns and not take the guns because then only bad people will have guns. We couldn't buy that kind of advertisement against gun control, there is not enough money in our pockets.

[PAF]

Trump has expanded a few rights as well while undoing many of O'Bummer's anti-gun attacks.
Claiming Trump is worse than O'Bummer is an insult to any intelligent discussion of the subject.

Please do not insult my intellect in this and other subject discussions.

Most people "in the know" know that it is a slow spiral down no matter who is president. TPTB ensure that.

[Swordsmyth]

Please do not insult my intellect in this and other subject discussions.

Most people "in the know" know that it is a slow spiral down no matter who is president. TPTB ensure that.
:sleeping:

Don't let the facts get in the way of the narrative?

[PAF]

That's a myth, there is still circular flow and circular flow isn't a good thing, we ended up with 20+ Million invaders with "circular flow" and they are tipping the scales in favor of communism in state after state.

BLEEP. You just insulted my intelligence.

Look it up.

Circular Flow is just about non-existent anymore. And yes, Circular Flow is a very good thing, in a free society.

[PAF]

:sleeping:

Don't let the facts get in the way of the narrative?

Present FACTS and I will be happy to oblige.

Not statist rhetoric though, that bores me to tears ;-)

[Ender]

Are you literally ignoring Obama promoting this whole idea that we can't let people sell guns to eachother and buy guns at gun shows without a bunch of regulations?

Are you literally ignoring the fact that Trump signed an Ex Order against bump stocks & Obama let Congress decide on gun regs?

[Swordsmyth]

BLEEP. You just insulted my intelligence.

Look it up.

Circular Flow is just about non-existent anymore. And yes, Circular Flow is a very good thing, in a free society.
Circular flow is not restricted by the border security we have now, if it has slowed it is because the left does everything it can to get them to stay so they can get their votes and people like you encourage them to come and stay if they want.

They are conquering us with the help of traitors and you want to throw the gates wide open.

[nikcers]

BLEEP. You just insulted my intelligence.

Look it up.

Circular Flow is just about non-existent anymore. And yes, Circular Flow is a very good thing, in a free society.

People come here in seasons when the economy is doing better or worse. Naturally it is a good thing, but its not a natural occurence, our enemies are destabilzing governments in South America. Venezualla has been selling their oil in a black market that is perpeutated Russia and China and is destroying their economy in order to benefit theirs. There is no natural occurence to these things we are at war.

[Swordsmyth]

Present FACTS and I will be happy to oblige.

Not statist rhetoric though, that bores me to tears ;-)
I have presented facts, Trump has undone much of the damage O'Bummer did on guns.

The post I replied to had nothing but empty rhetoric so you asking for more facts in return is silly.

[Ender]

People come here in seasons when the economy is doing better or worse. Naturally it is a good thing, but its not a natural occurence, our enemies are destabilzing governments in South America. Venezualla has been selling their oil in a black market that is perpeutated Russia and China and is destroying their economy in order to benefit theirs. There is no natural occurence to these things we are at war.

And all that destabilizing has been caused by the US of A. Learn a little real history.

[PAF]

Circular flow is not restricted by the border security we have now, if it has slowed it is because the left does everything it can to get them to stay so they can get their votes and people like you encourage them to come and stay if they want.

They are conquering us with the help of traitors and you want to throw the gates wide open.


Please look up "Circular Flow". It is difficult to converse with you when you have no idea what we are discussing.

[nikcers]

Are you literally ignoring the fact that Trump signed an Ex Order against bump stocks & Obama let Congress decide on gun regs?

Yes because Obama was fueiling the tea party movement and they wanted to stop Rand Paul from getting elected in 2016. That's why Obama couldn't do anything that was too much of an "executive overreach"

[nikcers]

And all that destabilizing has been caused by the US of A. Learn a little real history.

What the fuck dude the Venezulans are getting screwed because the Chinese and Russians just stopped a revolution because their corrupt government is pawning their oil to the Russians and Chinese for peanuts.

[PAF]

People come here in seasons when the economy is doing better or worse. Naturally it is a good thing, but its not a natural occurence, our enemies are destabilzing governments in South America. Venezualla has been selling their oil in a black market that is perpeutated Russia and China and is destroying their economy in order to benefit theirs. There is no natural occurence to these things we are at war.

I am sorry that you are "at war".

I myself am not at war, and living as freely and independently as possible, even though this government steals my money in order to redistribute it - to lazy people, people with jets and bombs, people who want to put a magic thingy around the whole earth to prevent "global warming", etc.

[nikcers]

I am sorry that you are "at war".

I myself am not at war, and living as freely and independently as possible, even though this government steals my money in order to redistribute it - to lazy people, people with jets and bombs, people who want to put a magic thingy around the whole earth to prevent "global warming", etc.

You don't pay taxes I guess? My tax money goes to the war against China and Russia, it has for years.

[PAF]

You don't pay taxes I guess? My tax money goes to the war against China and Russia, it has for years.



PAF:

even though this government steals my money


So yes, I pay "taxes".

I am not at war with China or Russia. I am furious that our country does not engage in True Free Market Principles, though.

[nikcers]

So yes, I pay "taxes".

I'm not going to pretend China doesn't steal all of our military technology, their planes are copycats, we don't even make the f-22 because they stole it and know the weaknesses.

[PAF]

I'm not going to pretend China doesn't steal all of our military technology, their planes are copycats, we don't even make the f-22 because they stole it and know the weaknesses.

Stole it? With the technology that we have? NSA, CIA, etc........?

Or perhaps it was "leaked", or bargained with, given as part of a deal?

[nikcers]

Stole it? With the technology that we have? NSA, CIA, etc........?

Or perhaps it was "leaked", or bargained with, given as part of a deal?

Some of it was sold to them by citizens that they turned against us, but for the most part its stolen.

[dannno]

What is this called:

- Sen. Dianne Feinstein in 2017 introduced legislation to ban the sale and possession of bump-stocks. Her bill went nowhere. As president, Trump stated: Obama Administration legalized bump stocks. BAD IDEA. As I promised, today the Department of Justice will issue the rule banning BUMP STOCKS (March 23, 2018) https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/03/trump-bump-stocks-are-all-obamas-fault/

- As president, Trump publicly backed raising the minimum age to purchase semi-automatic weapons to 21, and now states are doing it:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/politics/guns-donald-trump-sarah-sanders-age-limit/index.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpgk8hecKyc


To me it looks just like - - - yep - - - "gun control".

I already discussed the bump stock issue - a rubber band is more effective and costs 1000x less.. if you consider a bump stock effective, then you should buy a rubber band instead. However I've heard anecdotally that bumpstocks are not effective, they cause too many problems with accuracy. I'm not saying it was good on principle, but from a practical standpoint all Trump did was help gun owners save money and shoot straighter.

Overall, he is much better on gun control than any Democrat.

You had a chance to change my mind, and you blew it by re-posting things I already addressed.

[PAF]

I already discussed the bump stock issue - a rubber band is more effective and costs 1000x less.. if you consider a bump stock effective, then you should buy a rubber band instead. However I've heard anecdotally that bumpstocks are not effective, they cause too many problems with accuracy. I'm not saying it was good on principle, but from a practical standpoint all Trump did was help gun owners save money and shoot straighter.

Overall, he is much better on gun control than any Democrat.

You had a chance to change my mind, and you blew it by re-posting things I already addressed.

Sorry, but I do not want or need help by president trump or anybody else from "government" concerning my affairs or how I choose to spend my own money.

;-)

Maybe next go 'round?

What about the states are now doing it part?

[dannno]

Sorry, but I do not want or need help by president trump or anybody else from "government" concerning my affairs or how I choose to spend my own money.

;-)

Maybe next go 'round?

That's not an argument against what I said. At all. Not even close.




What about the states are now doing it part?

The states are Trump? I don't think he had any influence in that, even if he said it one time. The states will state. The legislation came out of the Florida school shooting.

[Working Poor]

But not Adam Kokesh, who is a libertarian?

I have supported Adam in the past. I like Adam but I think he has some growing to do. If he runs libertarian I might send him something. I did get a little out done with him I think he chose some hills to die on that did not do much to advance the cause. He was young and I am sure spending some time in jail probably did make him think about what he was doing. I think Adam is smart and has a big heart but, he needs to clean up his image a lot if he wants to get elected into office. I like John McAfee and have talked to him but his image would never be taken seriously on the national stage. But I loved the video he did on how to uninstall McAfee anti-virus


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKgf5PaBzyg

[Ender]

What the $#@! dude the Venezulans are getting screwed because the Chinese and Russians just stopped a revolution because their corrupt government is pawning their oil to the Russians and Chinese for peanuts.

Are you really supporting the failed Venezuela coup by the US? Do you have ANY idea of why much of S & C America are so messed up?

[nikcers]

Are you really supporting the failed Venezuela coup by the US? Do you have ANY idea of why much of S & C America are so messed up?

So messed up? Let me ask you a question, would you rather live in South Korea or North Korea? I'd never want to live under a regime that is controlled by the Chinese, and that's what that is. Not only that, its basically our fault, because they are using Venezuala as economic warfare against us, they are just stuck in the middle between two psychopathic banking systems that don't give a fuck about them and the regime that is in control right now is being propped up by the Chinese and people are starving and having to eat their pets, not because of socialism but because their corrupt regime is selling their country out for protection from China. The average person has lost like 40 lbs in the last two years and these aren't fat americans or anything like that.

[Philhelm]

But generally, Republicans do that too. Rand is an anomaly.

We all know that the Republican Party sucks, which is why we are here to begin with. However, the typical Republican voter isn't going to attack you, spit on you, dox you, try to get you fired, etc., for supporting Ron and/or Rand Paul or their positions. The current Democrats/leftists are insane and there is very little common ground with them at this point.

[jmdrake]

She's a gun grabber. Nuff said.

So is Trump. Nuff said.

[jmdrake]

Her voting record is terrible on everything including the wars she speaks against.

It would be nice if she got the Demoncrat nomination because of her rhetoric but she would be an absolute disaster if she became POTUS.


He said she is the best of the Democrats. She is. Unfortunately her voting record on foreign policy and certain issues she champions, she has been shown to vote the opposite on many occasions.

Link please.

[Superfluous Man]

We all know that the Republican Party sucks, which is why we are here to begin with.

I'm glad that you agree. My observation lately has been that many here do not know that. You can tell by the way they regurgitate Limbaugh lingo, like when they say someone has TDS, or when they talk about Democrats as if Republicans are much better as a rule.

[jmdrake]

A Republican wouldn't damage your property or spit in your food for wearing a Rand Paul shirt?

Naw. They'd just do it if you were wearing a Ron Paul shirt.

[nikcers]

So is Trump. Nuff said.

Trump said that you shouldn't take the guns after a mass shooting in a gun free zone because the bad guys will still have guns so you shouldn't take guns away.

[PAF]

However, the typical Republican voter isn't going to attack you, spit on you, dox you, try to get you fired, etc., for supporting Ron and/or Rand Paul or their positions.

No, they do worse. Here is absolute proof:

http://thepoliticsforums.com

[PAF]

Trump said that you shouldn't take the guns after a mass shooting in a gun free zone because the bad guys will still have guns so you shouldn't take guns away.


Only if you are 21 or older, and do no have a bump stock.

If you are 20 year old mother and hubby is away on business, you are SOL.

[Superfluous Man]

Trump said that you shouldn't take the guns after a mass shooting in a gun free zone because the bad guys will still have guns so you shouldn't take guns away.

A good experiment would be for Trump to say stuff in one hand and take a dump in the other hand and see which one fills up first.

[nikcers]

Only if you are 21 or older, and do no have a bump stock.

If you are 20 year old mother and hubby is away on business, you are SOL.

The bump stock ban is designed to derail the democrats talking point, its a piece of shit that is not even necessary and not even effective, its designed to shut people up when they cry to him about gun violence.

[PAF]

The bump stock ban is designed to derail the democrats talking point, its a piece of $#@! that is not even necessary and not even effective, its designed to shut people up when they cry to him about gun violence.

Whatever your reasoning, it is wrong.

Not only is the 2nd Amendment violated, that little stunt also mucked with a Free Market system by putting those companies out of business, laying off productive workers, and restricting MY right to purchase/not purchase whatever I want. This is the unintended consequence that slowly deteriorates our rights, when "republicans" give such "passes".

[nikcers]

Whatever your reasoning, it is wrong.

Not only is the 2nd Amendment violated, that little stunt also mucked with a Free Market system by putting those companies out of business, laying off productive workers, and restricting MY right to purchase/not purchase whatever I want. This is the unintended consequence that slowly deteriorates our rights, when "republicans" give such "passes".

Well I guess if the 2nd amendment is violated we might as well go full Tulsi Gabbard and take all the guns :upsidedown:

[PAF]

Well I guess if the 2nd amendment is violated we might as well go full Tulsi Gabbard and take all the guns :upsidedown:

I did not suggest that. I merely pointed out how our rights are vanishing before our very eyes and people after over a hundred years CONTINUE to make "rationalized" excuses for it, and even welcome it.

The 2nd was violated. The Free Market was mucked with. It put employers and employees out of business. My right to own/purchase whatever the widget rests in the hands of government.

[jmdrake]

Trump said that you shouldn't take the guns after a mass shooting in a gun free zone because the bad guys will still have guns so you shouldn't take guns away.

He also said: "I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record." (From Trump's book The America You Deserve.)

He also was the first president ever to ban a gun accessory by executive order.

He also implied that he would support Diane Feinstein's assault weapons ban. (See: https://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-feinstein-reacts-with-glee-after-trump-1519859544-htmlstory.html)

Barack Obama said he wasn't going to try to take away your guns. And, to be honest, he made fewer gun grabbing moves than Trump has. Obama even signed executive orders rescinding gun control measures by Ronald Reagan. (See: https://www.thoughtco.com/obama-gun-laws-passed-by-congress-3367595)

And no, I'm not a fan of Obama. I consider both he and Trump to be gun grabbers. I could care less what a politician says. I care what he does. What kind of guns does Trump support law abiding citizens to have? I was listening to Patriot radio and I heard a Trump supporter call in complaining about Kristen Gillibrandt's recent attack on the second amendment (apparently Kristen is either so stupid as to not know that Trump did the bumpfire stock ban or too dishonest to admit it) and the caller lit into Gillibrandt, but then went on to say that she, the "conservative call" supported "reasonable" gun control like banning assault rifles. (Hmmmm...sounds like Trump.)

Trump's bumpfire stock ban sets a dangerous precedent. A future president could ban other gun accessories by executive order. Consider this. You can bump fire using a belt loop or a rubber band. So how can you really prevent something like the Las Vegas shooting? Why you have to ban high capacity magazines. (That is if you think banning gun accessories is the solution as Trump apparently does). And banning high capacity magazines won't solve the "problem" because they can easily be 3D printed. So you have to ban civilian ownership of guns that can take magazines. There ya go. Assault weapons ban by stealth. Something Trump said he wanted anyway.

[jmdrake]

The bump stock ban is designed to derail the democrats talking point, its a piece of $#@! that is not even necessary and not even effective, its designed to shut people up when they cry to him about gun violence.

The bumpfire ban opens the door for a full assault weapons ban by executive order. Trump said that's what he wanted in 2002 and again in 2018. (Assault weapons ban).

[nikcers]

He also said: "I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record." (From Trump's book The America You Deserve.)

He also was the first president ever to ban a gun accessory by executive order.

He also implied that he would support Diane Feinstein's assault weapons ban. (See: https://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-feinstein-reacts-with-glee-after-trump-1519859544-htmlstory.html)

Barack Obama said he wasn't going to try to take away your guns. And, to be honest, he made fewer gun grabbing moves than Trump has. Obama even signed executive orders rescinding gun control measures by Ronald Reagan. (See: https://www.thoughtco.com/obama-gun-laws-passed-by-congress-3367595)

And no, I'm not a fan of Obama. I consider both he and Trump to be gun grabbers. I could care less what a politician says. I care what he does. What kind of guns does Trump support law abiding citizens to have? I was listening to Patriot radio and I heard a Trump supporter call in complaining about Kristen Gillibrandt's recent attack on the second amendment (apparently Kristen is either so stupid as to not know that Trump did the bumpfire stock ban or too dishonest to admit it) and the caller lit into Gillibrandt, but then went on to say that she, the "conservative call" supported "reasonable" gun control like banning assault rifles. (Hmmmm...sounds like Trump.)

Trump's bumpfire stock ban sets a dangerous precedent. A future president could ban other gun accessories by executive order. Consider this. You can bump fire using a belt loop or a rubber band. So how can you really prevent something like the Las Vegas shooting? Why you have to ban high capacity magazines. (That is if you think banning gun accessories is the solution as Trump apparently does). And banning high capacity magazines won't solve the "problem" because they can easily be 3D printed. So you have to ban civilian ownership of guns that can take magazines. There ya go. Assault weapons ban by stealth. Something Trump said he wanted anyway.

You' are just as bad as the fucking Bernie Sanders people who are calling for socialism for all because corporations get it. Well I guess since we already have socialism we should expand it, well I guess since we already have gun control we should vote for someone who wants to take the guns.

[jmdrake]

Well I guess if the 2nd amendment is violated we might as well go full Tulsi Gabbard and take all the guns :upsidedown:

Link to Tulsi Gabbard saying that she wanted to ban all guns.

[jmdrake]

You' are just as bad as the $#@!ing Bernie Sanders people who are calling for socialism for all because corporations get it. Well I guess since we already have socialism we should expand it, well I guess since we already have gun control we should vote for someone who wants to take the guns.

You are the one being like Bernie Sanders. I am speaking out against gun control. You are giving Trump a pass on it. Shame on you.

[nikcers]

Gun Control Tulsi has a consistent record of advocating for sensible gun control.

Tulsi has a consistent record of advocating for sensible gun control. She has long called for reinstating a federal ban on military-style assault weapons and high capacity magazines, requiring comprehensive pre-purchase background checks, closing the gun-show loophole, and making sure that terrorists are not allowed to buy guns. Tulsi has an F-rating from the NRA, a 0% rating

[jmdrake]

I did not suggest that. I merely pointed out how our rights are vanishing before our very eyes and people after over a hundred years CONTINUE to make "rationalized" excuses for it, and even welcome it.

The 2nd was violated. The Free Market was mucked with. It put employers and employees out of business. My right to own/purchase whatever the widget rests in the hands of government.

This! A THOUSAND times this! Trump has destroyed the liberty movement. You can't even criticize Trump's gun grabbing without some idiots twisting that into you supporting gun control. WTF? Really? What's next? Trump signs an executive order for abortion funding and Trump supporters say "That's just to take away a democratic talking point?" Face scanning cameras at the airport. That's okay cause "them dems are bad." Seriously, why didn't we all just back John McCain and Mitt Romney then?

[nikcers]

You are the one being like Bernie Sanders. I am speaking out against gun control. You are giving Trump a pass on it. Shame on you.

No i am not giving a pass for Trump on guns, I critcized him up until he started saying that he would not take the guns. If anything Trump has moved in my direction I haven't moved in his.

[nikcers]

This! A THOUSAND times this! Trump has destroyed the liberty movement. You can't even criticize Trump's gun grabbing without some idiots twisting that into you supporting gun control. WTF? Really? What's next? Trump signs an executive order for abortion funding and Trump supporters say "That's just to take away a democratic talking point?" Face scanning cameras at the airport. That's okay cause "them dems are bad." Seriously, why didn't we all just back John McCain and Mitt Romney then?

I didn't back anyone who I thought would lose, I didn't even back Trump because I thought he would lose. Whats the point of wasting energy backing someone if they aren't going to win or they aren't advocating for political posistions you hold?

[jmdrake]

Gun Control Tulsi has a consistent record of advocating for sensible gun control.

Tulsi has a consistent record of advocating for sensible gun control. She has long called for reinstating a federal ban on military-style assault weapons and high capacity magazines, requiring comprehensive pre-purchase background checks, closing the gun-show loophole, and making sure that terrorists are not allowed to buy guns. Tulsi has an F-rating from the NRA, a 0% rating

Trump has done everything you say Tulsi has done. And the NRA sucks. They wouldn't stand up for a concealed carry permit holder who was gunned down for no good reason by an out of control cop based on the lame excuse that he smelled weed. That dumbass cop should have known if the driver of the car announces to you that he has a carry permit that most likely means he does NOT intend to shoot you! To hell with the NRA. They are the reason we have background checks and other "reasonable" gun control.

[jmdrake]

No i am not giving a pass for Trump on guns, I critcized him up until he started saying that he would not take the guns. If anything Trump has moved in my direction I haven't moved in his.

Obama said he wouldn't take guns away. Trump has done more to take guns away than Obama.

[nikcers]

I spent all my energy saying that we should put someone up against Hillary because I didn't want her to win to the point where I thought Trump would lose and spent all my energy advocating for a better candidate because I thought backing Trump was the same as backing Hillary if he was going to lose.

[juleswin]

He also said: "I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record." (From Trump's book The America You Deserve.)

He also was the first president ever to ban a gun accessory by executive order.

He also implied that he would support Diane Feinstein's assault weapons ban. (See: https://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-feinstein-reacts-with-glee-after-trump-1519859544-htmlstory.html)

Barack Obama said he wasn't going to try to take away your guns. And, to be honest, he made fewer gun grabbing moves than Trump has. Obama even signed executive orders rescinding gun control measures by Ronald Reagan. (See: https://www.thoughtco.com/obama-gun-laws-passed-by-congress-3367595)

And no, I'm not a fan of Obama. I consider both he and Trump to be gun grabbers. I could care less what a politician says. I care what he does. What kind of guns does Trump support law abiding citizens to have? I was listening to Patriot radio and I heard a Trump supporter call in complaining about Kristen Gillibrandt's recent attack on the second amendment (apparently Kristen is either so stupid as to not know that Trump did the bumpfire stock ban or too dishonest to admit it) and the caller lit into Gillibrandt, but then went on to say that she, the "conservative call" supported "reasonable" gun control like banning assault rifles. (Hmmmm...sounds like Trump.)

Trump's bumpfire stock ban sets a dangerous precedent. A future president could ban other gun accessories by executive order. Consider this. You can bump fire using a belt loop or a rubber band. So how can you really prevent something like the Las Vegas shooting? Why you have to ban high capacity magazines. (That is if you think banning gun accessories is the solution as Trump apparently does). And banning high capacity magazines won't solve the "problem" because they can easily be 3D printed. So you have to ban civilian ownership of guns that can take magazines. There ya go. Assault weapons ban by stealth. Something Trump said he wanted anyway.

Some people say this is Trump trying to save gun owners money by avoiding bump stocks. But more importantly than that, this move will allow future presidents to ban other accessories and the one that comes to mind is the high capacity mags. This is why Tulsi doesn't really scare me. The republicans are just as harmful to the 2nd amendment as the democrats.

[nikcers]

Obama said he wouldn't take guns away. Trump has done more to take guns away than Obama.

Obama couldn't get anything done because he had congress fighting him every step of the way vying for power, checks and balances. We had the tea party in their fighting Obama, that was our saving grace, besides that Obama cried literally CRIED for gun control after every fucking shooting.

[jmdrake]

I spent all my energy saying that we should put someone up against Hillary because I didn't want her to win to the point where I thought Trump would lose and spent all my energy advocating for a better candidate because I thought backing Trump was the same as backing Hillary if he was going to lose.

Good for you. Now will you please refrain from comparing me to Bernie Sanders simply because I take an uncompromising stance against gun control?

[Superfluous Man]

No i am not giving a pass for Trump on guns, I critcized him up until he started saying that he would not take the guns. If anything Trump has moved in my direction I haven't moved in his.

Did you do this for Obama as well when he said, "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away."?

[nikcers]

Obama cheerleads for gun control after every shooting but Trump advocates against gun control and he is worse? This is why we can't win, you guys are don't understand how ideas work.

[jmdrake]

Obama couldn't get anything done because he had congress fighting him every step of the way vying for power, checks and balances. We had the tea party in their fighting Obama, that was our saving grace, besides that Obama cried literally CRIED for gun control after every $#@!ing shooting.

And now Trump has moved the gun control agenda forward because people on the right are afraid to keep his feet to the fire. You just proved my point for me. Thank you.

[nikcers]

Did you do this for Obama as well when he said, "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away."?

No i didn't I backed the fucking tea party so there would be a opposition to growing power, I donated my time and energy to a check against presidential power.

[Superfluous Man]

Obama couldn't get anything done because he had congress fighting him every step of the way vying for power, checks and balances.

Trump had that too. And it didn't stop him. He went beyond what Obama did and enacted by executive order what Obama deferred to Congress on and accepted that if Congress didn't pass it, he wouldn't enact it.

[nikcers]

And now Trump has moved the gun control agenda forward because people on the right are afraid to keep his feet to the fire. You just proved my point for me. Thank you.

No he just fucking had the biggest press day of the year and said no we shouldn't take the guns, piers morgan the biggest advocate for gun control in the media. You don't have a point other than TDS.

[Superfluous Man]

No i didn't I backed the $#@!ing tea party so there would be a opposition to growing power, I donated my time and energy to a check against presidential power.

So then, it's not Trump who moved, it's you. Trump has an R after his name, Obama didn't. That's what matters.

[jmdrake]

Did you do this for Obama as well when he said, "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away."?


Obama cheerleads for gun control after every shooting but Trump advocates against gun control and he is worse? This is why we can't win, you guys are don't understand how ideas work.

Obama signed executive orders that were pro second amendment. He didn't have to do that but he did it anyway. Congress didn't make him do it, but he did in anyway. By contrast Trump signed an anti second amendment executive order. I am no Obama fan. But Trump's record, so far, is worse on gun control than Obama's. That's just a fact. I could care less what a politician says. I care what he does.

[jmdrake]

No he just $#@!ing had the biggest press day of the year and said no we shouldn't take the guns, piers morgan the biggest advocate for gun control in the media. You don't have a point other than TDS.

You are the one with Trump Derangement Syndrome. Worshiping a man and defending everything he does no matter how wrong is a type of derangement.

[Superfluous Man]

No he just $#@!ing had the biggest press day of the year and said no we shouldn't take the guns, piers morgan the biggest advocate for gun control in the media. You don't have a point other than TDS.

You keep making the same lame argument of "Trump said...."

The whole point is that it doesn't matter what Trump says. And Trump has proved that more than enough times. Trump constantly contradicts himself. You're just cherry picking one thing he said when he took your side and setting aside everything he said that was the exact opposite of that. When he said, "Take their guns first, do due process later," that was worse than anything Obama ever said in favor of gun control.

[nikcers]

Trump had that too. And it didn't stop him. He went beyond what Obama did and enacted by executive order what Obama deferred to Congress on and accepted that if Congress didn't pass it, he wouldn't enact it.

You mean when he derailed the democrat talking point because the democrats were using gun violence as a talking point to try to win the house and senate?

[nikcers]

You are the one with Trump Derangement Syndrome. Worshiping a man and defending everything he does no matter how wrong is a type of derangement.

LOL i don't worship Trump I just don't think Tulsi Gabbard is any better, she is not Ron Paul. I don't remember Ron Paul being in the CFR.

[jmdrake]

So then, it's not Trump who moved, it's you. Trump has an R after his name, Obama didn't. That's what matters.
nikers is suffering from a type of Trump Derangement Syndrome. There are those who are deranged because they will oppose Trump no matter what he does. Then there are those who are deranged because they will support Trump no matter what he does. There are things Trump has done that I support such as the First Step Act. I support his inner city community investment initiative and his tax break. I don't support his face scanning cameras, his bumpfire stock ban executive order, or his telling Dianne Feinstein that he would support her assault weapons ban. And for that I am falsely accused of TDS. That's fine with me.

[jmdrake]

LOL i don't worship Trump I just don't think Tulsi Gabbard is any better, she is not Ron Paul. I don't remember Ron Paul being in the CFR.

I never said she was. I just pointed out that Trump is also a gun grabber. That is a fact. Deal with it.

[nikcers]

You keep making the same lame argument of "Trump said...."

The whole point is that it doesn't matter what Trump says. And Trump has proved that more than enough times. Trump constantly contradicts himself. You're just cherry picking one thing he said when he took your side and setting aside everything he said that was the exact opposite of that. When he said, "Take their guns first, do due process later," that was worse than anything Obama ever said in favor of gun control.

ideas fucking matter dude, if he would of agreed with piers morgan we would have Trump supporters who would agree with him because he is Trump and they would be arguing for gun control, thats how populism works.

[Todd]

LOL i don't worship Trump I just don't think Tulsi Gabbard is any better, she is not Ron Paul. I don't remember Ron Paul being in the CFR.

If you think Tulsi is no Ron Paul......I got big news for you about Trump.

[PAF]

Obama said he wouldn't take guns away. Trump has done more to take guns away than Obama.

6503

[jmdrake]

You mean when he derailed the democrat talking point because the democrats were using gun violence as a talking point to try to win the house and senate?

It hasn't been "derailed" at all. But if that's your argument then Trump should just go ahead and grant amnesty to illegal immigrants to "take away a democratic talking point." :rolleyes:

[nikcers]

I never said she was. I just pointed out that Trump is also a gun grabber. That is a fact. Deal with it.

Tulsi Gabbard is just as bad, probably worse, she doesn't have Republican voters that she has to court to get elected, she has voters who want gun control that she has to court in order to get elected.

[nikcers]

It hasn't been "derailed" at all. But if that's your argument then Trump should just go ahead and grant amnesty to illegal immigrants to "take away a democratic talking point." :rolleyes:

Yeah it does, every time I have seen them complain about gun violence and he says well I did this, its an instant kill shot to their talking point because they say "Trump doesn't do anything about gun violence" and he says "yes I did" and you can't argue that he didn't unless you argue that gun control doesn't work, its a double troll.

[PAF]

When he said, "Take their guns first, do due process later," that was worse than anything Obama ever said in favor of gun control.

That about sums it up.

[nikcers]

You' are just as bad as the $#@!ing Bernie Sanders people who are calling for socialism for all because corporations get it. Well I guess since we already have socialism we should expand it, well I guess since we already have gun control we should vote for someone who wants to take the guns.

JM drake neg repping me ,calling me a liar, here is the tweet (https://mobile.twitter.com/berniesanders/status/1138878465858555906).

Bernie Sanders
bernieSanders
Here is the difference between Donald Trump and me.

He believes in corporate socialism for the rich and powerful.

I believe in a #DemocraticSocialism that works for the working families of this country.

[nikcers]

That about sums it up.

Only if you ignore that he recently said the opposite.

[nikcers]

Tulsi Gabbard wants medicare for all when we can't even afford medicare, it would cost 32 trillion dollars over 10 years. She would rack up more debt than Obama.

[jmdrake]

You mean when he derailed the democrat talking point because the democrats were using gun violence as a talking point to try to win the house and senate?

It hasn't been "derailed" at all. But if that's your argument then Trump should just go ahead and grant amnesty to illegal immigrants to "take away a democratic talking point." :rolleyes:

[jmdrake]

JM drake neg repping me ,calling me a liar, here is the tweet (https://mobile.twitter.com/berniesanders/status/1138878465858555906).

Bernie Sanders
bernieSanders
Here is the difference between Donald Trump and me.

He believes in corporate socialism for the rich and powerful.

I believe in a #DemocraticSocialism that works for the working families of this country.

You compared me to Bernie Sanders for opposing Trump's support of gun control. That is a lie. Your "tweet" doesn't make your lie true.

[jmdrake]

Yeah it does, every time I have seen them complain about gun violence and he says well I did this, its an instant kill shot to their talking point because they say "Trump doesn't do anything about gun violence" and he says "yes I did" and you can't argue that he didn't unless you argue that gun control doesn't work, its a double troll.

Has the left stopped pushing gun control? No. So you're full of shyt.

[PAF]

Only if you ignore that he recently said the opposite.

I am a firm believer in "Setting the Tone" with the American sheep.

Trump said "Take their guns first, do due process later" to the American sheep AND to his base. He banned bump stocks which violated all of the above in my prior post. He also said "raise the age to 21" and immediately following that states have begun to move in that direction.

The actions in his case speak as loud as his words.

But, carry on...

[nikcers]

You compared me to Bernie Sanders for opposing Trump's support of gun control. That is a lie. Your "tweet" doesn't make your lie true.

Its the same leap, because Tulsi always has to make her voters happy and democrat voters want gun control. She would be forced to do gun control unless there was a massive movement against it in the congress.

[nikcers]

I am a firm believer in "Setting the Tone" with the American sheep.

Trump said "Take their guns first, do due process later" to the American sheep AND to his base. He banned bump stocks which violated all of the above in my prior post. He also said "raise the age to 21" and immediately following that states have begun to move in that direction.

The actions in his case speak as loud as his words.

But, carry on...
setting the tone like advocating against gun control when he is pressed on it during national television? That talking point he said sounded just like something Rand Paul would say, its almost like he listens to Rand Paul when they go golfing.

[Superfluous Man]

ideas $#@!ing matter dude, if he would of agreed with piers morgan we would have Trump supporters who would agree with him because he is Trump and they would be arguing for gun control, thats how populism works.

Why do they matter when he says contradictory things and his actions don't match his words?

You already said that Obama's words didn't matter. But Trump's do? Why the double-standard?

[Superfluous Man]

setting the tone like advocating against gun control when he is pressed on it during national television? That talking point he said sounded just like something Rand Paul would say, its almost like he listens to Rand Paul when they go golfing.

You keep harping on the same sound byte. Again, why does this one sound byte count for everything for you, and other contradictory statements, and more importantly actual substantive actions, don't?

[nikcers]

You keep harping on the same sound byte. Again, why does this one sound byte count for everything for you, and other contradictory statements, and more importantly actual substantive actions, don't?

Because when I read it I didn't see who said it, it was quoted somewhere and I assumed Rand Paul said it, I could see Rand making the same argument. I hit him hard when he said the other sound byte, but I might as well piss in the wind if I am going to complain about Trump when he is the only thing stopping the democrats from pushing gun control and we don't have any sort of a tea party to stop the left if they win and want to take the guns, they could probably even win the Senate if they won the whitehouse.

[dannno]

Link please.


Not just this post, but several below it also:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?526319-Joe-Rogan-interviews-Tulsi-Gabbard&p=6679666&viewfull=1#post6679666

[jmdrake]

Tulsi Gabbard is just as bad, probably worse, she doesn't have Republican voters that she has to court to get elected, she has voters who want gun control that she has to court in order to get elected.

Please quote where I said Tulsi Gabbard was better than Donald Trump or STFU.

[Ender]

Why do they matter when he says contradictory things and his actions don't match his words?

You already said that Obama's words didn't matter. But Trump's do? Why the double-standard?

Unfortunately that's pretty prevalent around here of late.

[jmdrake]

Its the same leap, because Tulsi always has to make her voters happy and democrat voters want gun control. She would be forced to do gun control unless there was a massive movement against it in the congress.

More lies from you a deranged Trump supporter. It it not at all the same leap liar. I am not championing Tulsi Gabbard. I am saying that Donald Trump is also a gun grabber. And that is because he is. He has twice called for a fvcking assault weapons ban you jackass! Once in 2002 and once in 2018! And he has set the stage for banning assault weapons by executive order. Because you have TSDS (Trump Supporter Derangement Syndrome) you mistake his giving the democrats a taking point with his taking it away. The talking point he gave democrats is "Assault weapons can be banned by executive order!" Kamala Harris has already used that talking point. You are a blathering idiot.

[jmdrake]

setting the tone like advocating against gun control when he is pressed on it during national television? That talking point he said sounded just like something Rand Paul would say, its almost like he listens to Rand Paul when they go golfing.

Rand Paul would have never banned a gun accessory by executive order moron.

[jmdrake]

Tulsi Gabbard wants medicare for all when we can't even afford medicare, it would cost 32 trillion dollars over 10 years. She would rack up more debt than Obama.

True. And Trump is still a gun grabber.

[jmdrake]

Some people say this is Trump trying to save gun owners money by avoiding bump stocks. But more importantly than that, this move will allow future presidents to ban other accessories and the one that comes to mind is the high capacity mags. This is why Tulsi doesn't really scare me. The republicans are just as harmful to the 2nd amendment as the democrats.

https://i.imgur.com/f7FdEdG.jpg

Trump set a disgusting precedent of banning a gun accessory by executive order and Kamala Harris has already picked up the idea of gun bans through executive order as a new talking point.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/harris-vows-to-ban-imports-of-assault-weapons

[Swordsmyth]

Link please.



https://www.thenewamerican.com/freedom-index

Dist.2: Tulsi Gabbard (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=G000571) - 31%





H RES 397: NATO (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hres397)


Vote Date: June 27, 2017
Vote: AYE (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll328.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


This legislation (H. Res. 397) “solemnly reaffirms the commitment of the United States to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s principle of collective defense as enumerated in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.” Under Article 5, the member nations of the NATO military alliance “agree that an armed attack against one or more of them ... shall be considered an attack against them all.”

The House passed H. Res. 397 on June 27, 2017 by a lopsided vote of 423 to 4 (Roll Call 328). We have assigned pluses to the nays not only because the United States should stay clear of entangling alliances such as NATO, but also because the NATO provision that obligates the United States to go to war if any member of NATO is attacked undermines the provision in the U.S. Constitution that assigns to Congress the power to declare war. Moreover, the number of nations that the United States has pledged to defend under NATO has grown from 11 to 28 over the years, as the alliance itself has grown from 12 member nations (including the United States) when NATO was created in 1949 to 29 today. Although NATO was ostensibly formed to counter the threat from the Soviet bloc of nations, some of the nations the United States is now pledged to defend under NATO were once part of that bloc, including Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic (as part of Czechoslovakia), Hungary, Poland, and Romania.










H R 5293: Authorization for Use of Military Force (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2016/h/330)


Vote Date: June 16, 2016
Vote: NAY (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2016/roll330.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


During consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 5293), Representative Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to prohibit the use of funds in the bill for the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Act. Enacted in the wake of 9/11, the AUMF authorized the president to “use all necessary and appropriate force” against the terrorists involved, as well as those who aided or harbored them. It was used as the authorization for U.S. military entry into Afghanistan in 2001, and over the years has also been invoked on other occasions by the executive branch to justify U.S. military intervention abroad.

The House rejected Lee’s amendment on June 16, 2016 by a vote of 146 to 274 (Roll Call 330). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because presidents have been able to claim broad authority to go to war whenever or wherever they choose under the AUMF, despite the fact that the Founding Fathers never intended for one man to make this decision, and under the Constitution only Congress may “declare war.”











H R 4909: Use of Military Force (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2016/h/210)


Vote Date: May 18, 2016
Vote: NAY (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2016/roll210.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


During consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4909), Representative Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that was enacted in 2001 for the purpose of authorizing U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks. Since then, however, the AUMF has been invoked numerous times by the executive branch for U.S. military intervention not only in Afghanistan but elsewhere.

The House rejected Lee’s amendment on May 18, 2016 by a vote of 138 to 285 (Roll Call 210). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because presidents have been able to claim broad authority to go to war whenever or wherever they choose under the AUMF, despite the fact that the Founding Fathers never intended for one man to make this decision, and under the Constitution only Congress may “declare war.”




H RES 162: Calling on the President to provide Ukraine with military assistance to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hres162)


Vote Date: March 23, 2015
Vote: AYE (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll131.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


Ukraine Military Aid.
House Resolution 162, which calls on the president "to provide Ukraine with military assistance to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity," allows President Obama to provide Ukraine with defensive weapons to defend against aggression from Russia.

The House adopted H. Res. 162 on March 23, 2015 by a vote of 348 to 48 (Roll Call 131). We have assigned pluses to the nays not only because foreign aid is unconstitutional but also because this bill would further interject the United States into a foreign conflict. Allowing the U.S. president to provide lethal arms to Ukraine in order to fight Russia is tantamount to waging a proxy war on Russia without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war. The House, by giving such power to the president, is relinquishing one of its constitutional responsibilities.




H R 4870: On Agreeing to the Amendment 51 to H R 4870 (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2014/h/328)


Vote Date: June 19, 2014
Vote: NAY (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll328.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


Weapons to Syrian Rebels.
During consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill, Representative Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) introduced an amendment that would have prohibited any funding in the bill from being used to provide weapons to Syrian rebels. Fortenberry noted on the House floor that "the rebel movement is a battleground of shifting alliances and bloody conflicts between groups that now include multinational terrorist organizations," that "sending our weapons into this chaotic war zone could inadvertently help these extremists," and that "it has already happened." He added: "The naive notion that we can deliver weapons to vetted, moderate opposition groups at war with other rebel militias gives no guarantee that our weaponry won't be seized or diverted."

The House rejected Fortenberry's amendment on June 19, 2014 by a vote of 167 to 244 (Roll Call 328). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because arming "moderate" rebels in a foreign country is tantamount to going to war, which would require a declaration of war by Congress. Also, the United States should follow the Founders' advice not to become involved in foreign quarrels



















H R 4152: To provide for the costs of loan guarantees for Ukraine (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr4152)


Vote Date: April 1, 2014
Vote: AYE (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll149.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


Ukraine Aid.

This bill (H.R. 4152), as amended by the Senate (see Senate vote below), would provide $150 million for direct aid to Ukraine. It would also provide for loan guarantees (meaning that U.S. taxpayers would be stuck holding the bag if the loans are not paid). And it would impose sanctions on Russian and ex-Ukrainian officials deemed responsible for the crisis in the Ukraine.

[ The Senate version of this legislation - offered in the form of a substitute amendment to the House version, H.R. 4152 - would provide $150 million for direct aid to Ukraine. It would also provide for loan guarantees (meaning that the U.S. taxpayers would be stuck holding the bag if the loans are not paid). And it would impose sanctions on Russian and ex-Ukrainian officials deemed responsible for the crisis in the Ukraine. ]

The House voted for this legislation on April 1, 2014 by a vote of 378 to 34 (Roll Call 149). We have assigned pluses to the nays because foreign aid is unconstitutional. The rationale for providing U.S. aid to Ukraine is that the country needs our assistance to resist Russian hegemony and build "democracy." Yet the oligarchs wielding power in Ukraine are hardly "democrats," and (because money is fungible) U.S. assistance could effectively be funneled to Russia in the form of Ukrainian energy and debt payments.

[Swordsmyth]

Obama signed executive orders that were pro second amendment. He didn't have to do that but he did it anyway. Congress didn't make him do it, but he did in anyway. By contrast Trump signed an anti second amendment executive order. I am no Obama fan. But Trump's record, so far, is worse on gun control than Obama's. That's just a fact. I could care less what a politician says. I care what he does.
You are ignoring all of the anti-gun things O'Bummer did, I have been highly critical of Trump's bumpstock ban and other 2ndA related failures but there is no way that O'Bummer was better.

[jmdrake]

You are ignoring all of the anti-gun things O'Bummer did, I have been highly critical of Trump's bumpstock ban and other 2ndA related failures but there is no way that O'Bummer was better.

You mean like Obama signing an executive order allowing reversing Ronald Reagan's ban on guns in national parks? No. I didn't ignore that.

https://www.thoughtco.com/obama-gun-laws-passed-by-congress-3367595

Trump's bumpfire stock ban by freaking executive order is a gun control enthusiast's wet dream. I can't think of any executive order on gun control that is worse. If you have a specific example by Obama or anyone else please post it.

[Swordsmyth]

You mean like Obama signing an executive order allowing reversing Ronald Reagan's ban on guns in national parks? No. I didn't ignore that.

https://www.thoughtco.com/obama-gun-laws-passed-by-congress-3367595

Trump's bumpfire stock ban by freaking executive order is a gun control enthusiast's wet dream. I can't think of any executive order on gun control that is worse. If you have a specific example by Obama or anyone else please post it.
I mean like having every government agency buy up all the ammo to create a shortage and send prices through the roof.
I mean like leaning on banks to refuse to do business with gun companies.
I mean like harassing gun dealers and not renewing their licenses over technicalities.
I mean like operation fast and furious that was intended to create an excuse for sweeping gun control.
There is much more too and Trump stopped most of it when he got in office.

[Zippyjuan]

I mean like having every government agency buy up all the ammo to create a shortage and send prices through the roof.

Fake news. It was panic buying. People afraid Obama was going to take their guns so they ran out buying supplies. Dealers started running low on some ammo so people panicked even more- buying more than they needed in case they couldn't find it in the future. That led to more shortages and panic buying.

https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/08/31/the-22-ammo-shortage-mystery-solved.aspx


National Shooting Sports Foundation public affairs director Mike Bazinet recently related how "there are a lot of wild stories" about the ammunition shortage, with some people even blaming the U.S. government for "buying up all the ammo." But according to Bazinet, that's simply not the case. In fact, "government purchases have gone down over [the] last three years."

He may be right. In 2014, the National Rifle Association, or NRA, helped to debunk the "government conspiracy" thesis for America's .22 ammo shortage. Laying out the facts and figures in a multi-page spread in American Rifleman, the "official journal of the NRA," the NRA described how:

The dollar value of ammunition sales in America doubled between 2007 and 2012. Highlighting the obvious, the NRA noted that sales really "started to climb fast as gun sales began surging" in the run-up to the 2008 Presidential election.

Federal Premium Ammunition -- now a subsidiary of Vista Outdoor (NYSE:VSTO), according to S&P Capital IQ -- attributed ammo shortages to "high demand for our products," and said flat out that the biggest increases in ammunition purchases are coming from "the civilian market." (This means you.)

Olin Corp's (NYSE:OLN) Winchester Ammunition agreed that it is "experiencing an extremely high demand."

And privately held Freedom Group, which manufactures Remington cartridges, said, "it's clear to us that any lack of supply in the marketplace has been from consumer demand."

And then there was the interview with privately held Hornady Manufacturing. There, President Steve Hornady explained to the NRA, "People walk into the store, they don't see as much as they want so they take everything they can get. The next guy who comes in can't get anything, so he panics."

Panic and prudent price-comparison habits rarely go hand-in-hand, of course. This naturally results in higher prices for ammunition.

[jmdrake]

I mean like having every government agency buy up all the ammo to create a shortage and send prices through the roof.
I mean like leaning on banks to refuse to do business with gun companies.
I mean like harassing gun dealers and not renewing their licenses over technicalities.
I mean like operation fast and furious that was intended to create an excuse for sweeping gun control.
There is much more too and Trump stopped most of it when he got in office.

None of that comes close to being as bad as banning a gun accessory by executive order. It's simultaneously a violation of executive power and a violation of the second amendment. Also Bush set the precedent for Fast and Furious with Operation Wide Receiver. Trump alone has set the precedent for a president banning a gun accessory by executive order. Today the bumpfire stock, next president it will be the high capacity magazine.

[PAF]

You mean like Obama signing an executive order allowing reversing Ronald Reagan's ban on guns in national parks? No. I didn't ignore that.

https://www.thoughtco.com/obama-gun-laws-passed-by-congress-3367595

Trump's bumpfire stock ban by freaking executive order is a gun control enthusiast's wet dream. I can't think of any executive order on gun control that is worse. If you have a specific example by Obama or anyone else please post it.



I mean like having every government agency buy up all the ammo to create a shortage and send prices through the roof.
I mean like leaning on banks to refuse to do business with gun companies.
I mean like harassing gun dealers and not renewing their licenses over technicalities.
I mean like operation fast and furious that was intended to create an excuse for sweeping gun control.
There is much more too and Trump stopped most of it when he got in office.

Which proves the point: what one “side” cannot accomplish, the other “side” picks up.

The 2nd, and ALL other Rights are violated every day, every year, EVERY administration.

Picking a “side” does nothing except delays the inevitable. But as long as people have a team it keeps them entertained.

Left, Right, march in lock-step.

[Ender]

You are ignoring all of the anti-gun things O'Bummer did, I have been highly critical of Trump's bumpstock ban and other 2ndA related failures but there is no way that O'Bummer was better.

Nerp.


Few people remember that the only two major gun bills Obama signed into law actually expanded the rights of gun owners. One was a measure that allowed Amtrak passengers to carry firearms in checked baggage, and the other allowed the carry of firearms in national parks, reversing President Reagan’s policy that required guns to be locked in the trunks or glove compartments of vehicles upon entering national parks.

Obama did announce a set of “executive actions” aimed at better enforcement of existing federal gun laws, but even the Charles Koch-founded Cato Institute said of these executive actions that “apoplectic opponents and overjoyed supporters are both probably overreacting.” Despite Obama being largely ineffectual on gun control policy, firearms sales spiked during his second term amid fears that he would enact gun control measures. Conversely, gun sales slumped when Trump was elected, in tandem with a perception among the hardcore gun owners that he would be comparatively lax on gun control and there was therefore no rush to equip oneself with hardware allowing for rapid sprays of bullets to be flung every which way.

The most significant gun control action from Obama was a second-term regulation requiring the Social Security Administration to supplement the federal firearms background check system with information about individuals who received Social Security benefits for mental illnesses. This measure was aimed at prohibiting mentally ill individuals from buying firearms, and approximately 75,000 people would have been impacted by the rule, according to official estimates. Trump quietly nullified the rule early in 2017 before it had fully taken effect.

Trump, though, is sending mixed signals on gun control. While he revoked Obama’s very modest mental health background check measure, he just promulgated a new rule banning bump stocks, the gun accessory used in last year’s Las Vegas massacre to mimic an automatic rate of fire. If you don’t yet know what a bump stock is, basically it’s a replacement butt for an AR-15 (or some other style of semi-automatic weapon) that has a piece partially extending over the trigger; a bump stock then uses the kick of the gun, which agitates the gun frame, to marginally depress the trigger during the recovery from each recoil, resulting in the rapid fire of successive rounds so long as the trigger finger remains held in place. Bump stock owners have 90 days to turn in or destroy their bump stocks (with no compensation) under the new Trump Administration rule.
https://abovethelaw.com/2018/12/second-amendment-news-by-the-numbers-bump-stock-ban-makes-trump-more-of-a-gun-control-president-than-obama-ever-was/

[Swordsmyth]

None of that comes close to being as bad as banning a gun accessory by executive order. It's simultaneously a violation of executive power and a violation of the second amendment. Also Bush set the precedent for Fast and Furious with Operation Wide Receiver. Trump alone has set the precedent for a president banning a gun accessory by executive order. Today the bumpfire stock, next president it will be the high capacity magazine.
I am not defending Trump's bumpfire ban, but it doesn't even come close to signing on to the UN treaty that was going to gut the 2ndA like O'Bummer did and Trump withdrew from.

O'Bummer did lots of other anti-gun things designed to kill the 2ndA by a thousand cuts and the bumpstock ban is likely to be overturned by the pro-gun judges Trump has picked while O'Bummer picked judges that would have gutted the 2ndA, if the Senate hadn't stopped Garland we would be in real trouble.

[Swordsmyth]

Nerp.

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/12/second-amendment-news-by-the-numbers-bump-stock-ban-makes-trump-more-of-a-gun-control-president-than-obama-ever-was/
You and that source are ignoring all of his anti-gun actions just like I said.

[Ender]

You and that source are ignoring all of his anti-gun actions just like I said.

Anti-gun actions that were never made into laws?

[jmdrake]

I am not defending Trump's bumpfire ban, but it doesn't even come close to signing on to the UN treaty that was going to gut the 2ndA like O'Bummer did and Trump withdrew from.

O'Bummer did lots of other anti-gun things designed to kill the 2ndA by a thousand cuts and the bumpstock ban is likely to be overturned by the pro-gun judges Trump has picked while O'Bummer picked judges that would have gutted the 2ndA, if the Senate hadn't stopped Garland we would be in real trouble.

One of your examples turned out to be a conspiracy theory that was debunked by the NRA. The ammo shortage was driven by unjustified fear that Obama was going to ban guns which caused people to panic buy. And we shall see which one of those pro gun judges Trump appointed overturns his bumpfire stock ban. So far it's not looking very good.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-guns-idUSKCN1R9230
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday handed President Donald Trump a victory by rejecting for the second time in three days a bid by gun rights activists to block his new ban on “bump stock” attachments that enable semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly.

[Swordsmyth]

Fake news. It was panic buying. People afraid Obama was going to take their guns so they ran out buying supplies. Dealers started running low on some ammo so people panicked even more- buying more than they needed in case they couldn't find it in the future. That led to more shortages and panic buying.

https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/08/31/the-22-ammo-shortage-mystery-solved.aspx
FAKE NEWS

O'Bummer had government agencies that had no business having guns buying millions of rounds and he was harassing ammo companies to keep them from expanding production.

[Swordsmyth]

One of your examples turned out to be a conspiracy theory that was debunked by the NRA. The ammo shortage was driven by unjustified fear that Obama was going to ban guns which caused people to panic buy. And we shall see which one of those pro gun judges Trump appointed overturns his bumpfire stock ban. So far it's not looking very good.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-guns-idUSKCN1R9230
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday handed President Donald Trump a victory by rejecting for the second time in three days a bid by gun rights activists to block his new ban on “bump stock” attachments that enable semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly.
The NRA can't be trusted and SCOTUS may have refused to issue a preliminary injunction but there is no way the ban will stand up because the ATF itself had already issued an opinion that said they couldn't legally ban bumpstocks.

[jmdrake]

Anti-gun actions that were never made into laws?

And ^that is what makes Trump's executive order so much worse Swordsmyth. Trump did through executive order what no president could have done going through congress. There's no way the bumpfire stock ban would have passed if it was brought up for a vote.

[Zippyjuan]

I am not defending Trump's bumpfire ban, but it doesn't even come close to signing on to the UN treaty that was going to gut the 2ndA like O'Bummer did and Trump withdrew from.

O'Bummer did lots of other anti-gun things designed to kill the 2ndA by a thousand cuts and the bumpstock ban is likely to be overturned by the pro-gun judges Trump has picked while O'Bummer picked judges that would have gutted the 2ndA, if the Senate hadn't stopped Garland we would be in real trouble.

The Small Arms Treaty only covered sales to other countries- not domestic laws. More fake news.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-nra-trump/trump-pulling-u-s-out-of-u-n-arms-treaty-heeding-nra-idUSKCN1S21RD


The NRA has long opposed the treaty, which regulates the $70 billion business in conventional arms and seeks to keep weapons out of the hands of human rights abusers. The lobbying group argues it would undermine domestic gun rights, a view the Obama administration rejected.

The agreement covers weapons exports, ranging from small firearms to tanks, but not domestic sales.

[Swordsmyth]

The Small Arms Treaty only covered sales to other countries- not domestic laws. More fake news.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-nra-trump/trump-pulling-u-s-out-of-u-n-arms-treaty-heeding-nra-idUSKCN1S21RD

FAKE NEWS

[jmdrake]

The NRA can't be trusted and SCOTUS may have refused to issue a preliminary injunction but there is no way the ban will stand up because the ATF itself had already issued an opinion that said they couldn't legally ban bumpstocks.

1) Maybe not, but you haven't given any credible reference to support your conspiracy theory that government ammo purchases caused the shortage. Simple supply and demand economics supports the NRA theory. Gun sales went through the roof and ammo sales, and the predicable shortages, followed.

2) LOL. If overturning the bumpfire stock ban was such a slam dunk the Supreme Court would have issued the injunction.

[Sammy]

She supports gun control,amnesty for illegal immigrants & she supports Bernie's Communist agenda...
OK she is great on opposing regime change wars but that's the only issue she is right..
I stand with Trump..He is is not perfect but he is the best at this point!

[r3volution 3.0]

There must be a Tulsi Gabbard forum out there or Meetup group (or whatever the 2019 version of a Meetup group is) where they're taking one another into reaching out to Ron Paul supporters with lines like the OP. This isn't the first of these here.

I hope Gabbard does well in the Dem primaries. But I won't be voting in those. And if she miraculously gets their nomination, which I'd love to see, I wouldn't vote for her in the general election either.

My thoughts exactly

If she can revive some anti-war sentiment in the Dem Party (even if she's not sincere), great, but that's the extent of my enthusiasm.

[twomp]

FAKE NEWS

Is that it? Do you have some sort of facts/evidence to back this up? Are you just gonna cover up your ears every time you hear something that doesn't match your world view? Perhaps you should turn on some Fox News for comfort...

[Swordsmyth]

Is that it? Do you have some sort of facts/evidence to back this up? Are you just gonna cover up your ears every time you hear something that doesn't match your world view? Perhaps you should turn on some Fox News for comfort...
:sleeping:

It's an old lie that has been dealt with many times before.

Go back to CNN.

[Anti Federalist]

A Republican wouldn't damage your property or spit in your food for wearing a Rand Paul shirt?

Probably wouldn't throw bags of human shit on your business windows either.

[nikcers]

turn on some Fox News for comfort...

Don't do it guys, its a trap


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw3l0vm4CJc

[nikcers]

Don't do it guys, its a trap


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw3l0vm4CJc

I tried changing to a different source because of the discomfort, but this guy looks like a bond villain


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgXd4isqhOc