I’m Not Going To Take Your Rifle Away

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to I’m Not Going To Take Your Rifle Away

  1. DedaEda says:

    BO’s BS

  2. Gamecock says:

    Yep, he told the truth. I’ve still got my rifles.

    Just no ammo.

    Thanks, Obama!

  3. redc1c4 says:

    he’s actually right about this, but not because he wouldn’t try if he thought he could.

  4. philjourdan says:

    he wont – his Agencies will.

  5. I’m always perversely attracted to watching the gallery of morons behind him.

    • philjourdan says:

      It definitely is the only thing worth watching.

      • I’m always fighting the urge to look at them. It feels like voyeurism—secretly watching people doing something embarrassing and humiliating they should never do in public. Like some of these reality TV shows I’m reading about. Actually, that’s what it is, no?

        • philjourdan says:

          I figure if they want their 15 minutes of fame, who am I to deny them it? And yea, kind of like the reality shows. (I stay away from the staged ones, but do enjoy Deadliest Catch).

  6. The Iconoclast says:

    He started to say “assault rifle,” I think, and thought better of it. Turns out he’s been the most successful gun salesman of all time. It’s still hard to find .22 rounds around here, but the shortages seem to be easing.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Yes, As soon as O-Bummer was elected the DEMOCRATS raced out and bought guns.

      Every move made against gun ownership sees Democrats buying more guns. Left-Wing Seizes on Gun Control Issue, While Democrats Rush to Buy Guns

      …essentially voting with their wallets, right after voting in national elections.

      Banking establishments and big retailers like Wal-mart are getting in on the act to cool the marketplace for guns, which was most chillingly displayed by Bank of America’ recent freeze of a gun seller’s accounts. This is an aspect of rampant crony corporatism.

      This may come as a shock to some readers, but some activist news outlets are probably not being entirely forthright to their readers about gun statistics and ownership. One hates to quibble with statistical wunderkind Nate Silver, but the New York Times is using conspicuously old data when it suggests in December 2012 that there is a huge gap in gun ownership by party affiliation. While the Times relied on 2008 exit poll data, and General Social Survey (GSS) data up to 2010, the reliable polling firm Gallup asked respondents in late 2011 about gun ownership by Party ID.

      The results show that Democrats have been the fastest growing purchasers of firearms, closing the gap to 40%-55% by household ownership compared to Republicans. The New York Times article cited above implies that Democrat ownership by household is no more than 31% and falling…..

      More than statistical nitpicking, these gun control issues are high stakes politics. They ultimately determine the relationship of the citizenry and its government. If people are meant to be passive subjects, accepting whatever politicians and bureaucrats dictate to them, then severely restricting and even confiscating their weapons makes perfect sense. On the other hand, if people intend to retain any sense of autonomy or even a shred of representative government, they must insist that their right to self-defense is inviolable.

      Not surprising that The New York Times has been caught lying through its teeth again.

    • Gail Combs says:

      ‘High risk’ label from feds puts gun sellers in banks’ crosshairs, hurts business
      Obama plan pressures financial institutions

      Gun retailers say the Obama administration is trying to put them out of business with regulations and investigations that bypass Congress and choke off their lines of credit, freeze their assets and prohibit online sales.

      Since 2011, regulators have increased scrutiny on banks’ customers. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. in 2011 urged banks to better manage the risks of their merchant customers who employ payment processors, such as PayPal, for credit card transactions. The FDIC listed gun retailers as “high risk” along with porn stores and drug paraphernalia shops.

      Meanwhile, the Justice Department has launched Operation Choke Point, a credit card fraud probe focusing on banks and payment processors. The threat of enforcement has prompted some banks to cut ties with online gun retailers, even if those companies have valid licenses and good credit histories.

      “This administration has very clearly told the banking industry which customers they feel represent ‘reputational risk’ to do business with,” said Peter Weinstock, a lawyer at Hunton & Williams LLP. “So financial institutions are reacting to this extraordinary enforcement arsenal by being ultra-conservative in who they do business with: Any companies that engage in any margin of risk as defined by this administration are being dropped.”…..

      Gun sellers are not the only group targeted: Obama administration extends attacks on farmers by confiscating bank accounts

      Over the past few years, agencies under the Obama administration have been commencing full scale raids on individual farmers, as well as on family farms, under the auspices of non-legislative regulation created by the ATF, EPA, and FDA. …..

      On April 23rd however, the stakes got much higher for the individual farmer as the FDA is now using the terrorist based “Bank Secrecy Act” as justification to invade, investigate, and even confiscate the bank accounts of Americans in the agricultural business.

      “Now, Obama has the Dept. of Justice going after small farmers under the post-911 “Bank Secrecy Act” which makes it a crime to deposit less than $10,000 when you earned more than that.

      “The level we deposited was what it was and it was about the same every week,” Randy Sowers told Frederick News….

      Admittedly, when the Sowers earned over $10,000 in February, and learned they’d have to fill out paperwork at the bank for such large deposits, they simply rolled the deposits over to keep them below the none-of-your ****-business amount, rather than waste time on bureaucratic red tape aimed at flagging terrorism or other illegal activities.

      “Structuring,” explains Overlawyered.com, “is the federal criminal offense of splitting up bank deposits so as to keep them under a threshold such as $10,000 above which banks have to report transactions to the government.”

      While being questioned, the Sowers were finally presented with a seizure order and advised that the feds had already emptied their bank account of $70,000. The Dept. of Justice has since sued to keep $63,000 of the Sowers’ money, though they committed no crime other than maintaining their privacy.

      Without funds, they will be unable to make purchases for the spring planting.

      When a similar action was taken against Taylor’s Produce Stand last year, the feds seized $90,000, dropped the charges, and kept $45,000 of Taylor’s money. – foodfreedomgroup.com

      The Bank Secrecy Act that came out of the events of 9/11, which has been expanded during the decade long war on terror, is now being used to criminally attack farmers who choose not to use banks as their sole or primary source for monetary transactions. This is especially relevant after the credit crisis of 2008, where many American began withdrawing money from banks after bank solvency came into question.

      This banking law, which allows for the unwarranted confiscation and seizure of funds based solely on perceived impropriety, is one of many new policies created under the Bush and Obama administrations to control the public, and the flow of money in the United States…..

      Isn’t it nice to know that you are found guilty and fined BEFORE you even go to trial and the US government strips you of the assets you need to hire a lawyer so you have to beg for a GOVERNMENT paid lawyer? link

  7. _Jim says:

    He won’t, his minions will, however.

    Many on both sides of the debate do not seem to appreciate how this works, how Obama seems to look quite un-involved on thee (and other) matters, and he may even seem to be ‘opposed’ to things like this when they ‘accidentally’ happen out of the blue.

    Well, it is on account of the application of “The Limbaugh Theorem” by Barack Hussein Obama, which is to say that Obama has mastered the ability to always be seen as “opposing everything that’s happening, even the things he is causing to happen. He is on a perpetual campaign.”

    A variation of the Limbaugh Theorem can be seen in the unfolding scandals now buffeting the administration. According to Rush, “[Obama] gets away with everything precisely by appearing to have no involvement with it … He gets away with not being tied to [the IRS scandal] like he’s not tied to the jobs numbers, he’s not tied to the debt, he’s not tied to the economy. He’s not tied to anything going wrong.”

    It would behoove those perceiving themselves to be ‘politically astute’ to understand this concept.

    h/t for quotes

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s