Holder on guns

If you are a sportsman of any kind, how can you defend voting for Obama or ANY democrat when this is a pefect example of their agenda? They want all guns banned! And so do you if you vote for these clowns. Not that the republicans are much better, but atleast part of their party platform isn't gun control.
 
I did not hear one word about banning guns. I heard that he want to make it seem less cool to carry a gun. I also felt that the context he was referring to was carry a gun for a crime not to go hunting or target shooting.

Stuff like this is used by some to try to get us to be afraid. For years I have heard that the government is trying to ban guns. Well I can tell you they aren't very good at it. I have never had a problem finding any gun I wanted. I still can't figure out why people are worried about getting there guns taken away, it seems to me that the problem with guns is that they are too accessible to any old dipchit.

I think Holder is a dumbazz and his idea is ridiculous. I think he had good intentions with the idea but not very realistic.
 
I am far more worried about republicans making their assult on public land than I am about guns being banned, guns aren't going to be in the soon to be political struggle. Two of the Republican presidental candidates have already stated their plans for public land (sell to highest bidder)
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-19-12 AT 04:15PM (MST)[p]I think if you're feeling all that secure in gun ownership, then you need to wake up from that make believe dream of yours. The Dems have even stated that if they could force you "to turn them all in", they would do it. It's only because people are fighting the fight that they haven't. If we all get as complacent as you seem to be about it, we will find ourselves looking back at the good old days real fast. They know they can't come right out and push it right now, but if Obama wins another round as Pres., you can bet that they will push for all they are worth. As far as guns not being one of the political points, that is by design.
 
I know plenty of Dems who support the private ownership of firearms and then there are republicans like Rudy Juliani that would ban guns. If you have facts or statements then show them, because your opinions are stupid.
 
Straight from the mouth of Nancy Pelosi. And you are correct. It's not all Dems., but there are many more Dems. that swing that direction.
 
Piper,

Since we are dealing with facts please find the quote of Mitt Romney saying he is going to "sell public lands to the highest bidder"? If you can I will pay your next months premium on your health plan.

Either it is a direct quote or you are a liar.

I have looked high and low and the only thing that Romney has said is that he didn't know why the government owned so much land.

Santorium yes, that is his belief, Romney is not in that camp.

So either deal with facts or quit whining.

Guns are not going away because gun control will kill the demcorats in the West.

Nemont
 
Well we will not see Piper on this thread for awhile since he got caught with his pants down by putting out false information on GOP candidates. He knows if he comes back, he better have the facts or will get called on it again.
I wish Piper would just get a backbone and admit he is a dye in wool Democrat and will never vote out of his party. I could understand that and respect his choice instead of this constant whining and B.S. facts he likes to toss out.

RELH
 
I didnt mention Romney, Santorum and Paul are both on record making statements about selling off public land and unless Im mistaken those are both Republican candidates? Josh Romney told me personally that his dad is a big supporter of state ownership of public lands, so all I know about Romney stance is what his son said.
I will agree with the fact that more Dems would probably support restrictive gun ownership rights, but a blanket statement about the dems having any such platform is wrong.
 
do you mean state ownership of federal land piper???...



JB
497fc2397b939f19.jpg
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-19-12 AT 08:12PM (MST)[p]cornhusker

find where Romney said he wanted to sell public land to the highest bidder. Santorum did but not Romney. He said he didn't know what the government owned so much land. That is a far different statement.

Piper,

Worry when Ron Paul or Santorum are the nominee. Neither can get there so it is a meaningless arguement. I guess blanket statements are fine if they are used against Republicans but not allowed to be used against Democrats. I guarantee guns will be outlawed before Santorum is the Republican nominee.

Nemont
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-19-12 AT 08:29PM (MST)[p]"I am far more worried about republicans making their assult on public land than I am about guns being banned, guns aren't going to be in the soon to be political struggle. Two of the Republican presidental candidates have already stated their plans for public land (sell to highest bidder)" (Piper)

So if you acknowledge that both Paul and Santorum are republican political candidates, explain to me what is incorrect about Pipers originally quote above? It is correct!
 
He inferred the entire republican party was for selling public, I bet there are far more liberal democrats who want to restrict guns than there are republicans that want to sell off public lands.

Blanket statements rarely work.

he was correct but it doesn't much matter as neither of those two will be the nominee.

Piper hates Republicans, no problem there so he doesn't have to support anything they stand for, fine by me, not all of them are evil people like he likes to state.

Nemont
 
I agree that it was an inference that all republicans want to sell public land and that isn't true. However you have to admit Romney with his questioning the purpose of public land also infers that he would just as soon be rid of it. I unlike Piper don't hate all republicans I will vote for one in November. But I would like to see Romney make clearer statements concerning what his public land policy will be.
 
Santorum is not that far from being good enough to be the republican nominee, that said, having two presidental candidates saying they would like to sell public land should cause some ears to perk up.
I did not mean to infer that Romney made any such statements or that its in the republican platform
 
Teddy Roosevelt was the last republican president who didn't have a hurt butt over the amount of public land we have.

Piper may have made a general statement but its not far from the truth. what about Reagan? that's conservative gospel right there. what did god try?




Stay thirsty my friends
 
>
> Teddy Roosevelt was the last
>republican president who didn't have
>a hurt butt over the
>amount of public land we
>have.
>
> Piper may have made a
>general statement but its not
>far from the truth. what
>about Reagan? that's conservative gospel
>right there. what did god
>try?
>
>
>
>
>Stay thirsty my friends

After reading your liberal ranting and claiming racism every 2 minutes, you have really convinced me. I have become a liberal and now support abortion including the one your parents should had have! You don't do anything but hate and spew venom and ignite race like it is a blow torch. You offend every person who doesnt completely march in lock step with your radical veiws. And you are the reason guys like me stop posting here. You support a president with no qualifications except that he was a community organizer (Whatever the hell that is?), and that president is surronded with folks like Holder who are hell bent on changing America into France's little brother. Not to mention this administration hates gun owners, religion, personal responsibility, self seficeintcy, business, energy independence, national defence and ANYTHING that threatens their dictatorship. So when somebody points out your attorney general wants guns banned and kids brainwashed into thinking they are evil and posts this on a HUNTING WEBSITE, you attack public land ownership? How about you tell us all you are not a hypocrite and you disagree with Holder and want the policy changed so that you can keep your guns to hunt. Or better yet, destroy your guns or turn them into the authorities so that you don't lose favor with the president and his minions that you proudly and loudly support! What's it gonna be? Are you a hypocrite and want to keep your guns or are you already cutting them up with a blow torch? Lets us know what you decide about your guns. We already know how you feel about public land.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-20-12 AT 09:45AM (MST)[p]

Truman was the last Democrat who wasn't butt hurt that people were successful and shouldn't be punished for success. So I guess neither party is what is was.

Everyone forgets that any sale has to go through congress. THere are not enough votes even on the Republican side to sell off massive tracts of public lands. Just like there are not enough votes to pass highly restrictive gun laws on the Democrat side. Some extremist at both ends of the spectrum will want to do something stupid but in both cases the middle of the parties won't go along.

Any anti gun legislation dooms western Democrats especially Senators and any push to sell public lands dooms western Republicans especially in states like Nevada and Colorado.

Worry about something that is more likely to happen, like putting another $3 Trillion on the credit card in the next 13 months because there is enough pork to keep both sides happy and Republicans don't want to tax anybody and Democrats don't want to cut anybody.

All the public lands in the country are meaningless if the government doesn't have the money to manage and protect them. Economic ruin will ruin more public lands faster than any cockeyed idea of selling them will.

Nemont
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-20-12 AT 09:40AM (MST)[p] Quite an impressive mouth dump desertrancher. I'm a moderate and you're a wingnut, there is our problem. I don't have justify anything to anyone if you don't like it do as I do to you, ignore it.

I heard all the same crap when Clinton was president, the NRA sent a new donation request every week because my guns were as good as gone otherwise. somehow they beat the evil satan back and I got to keep them. I'm sure the constitution had nothing to do with it.


The liberals would like to take the guns no doubt about it, the republicans would like to sell the public lands and have us pay some capitolist a tresspass fee for a place to shoot those guns. it's who they are accept it and stop acting like it's breaking news.

If your're a wingnut like desertrancher you only see your side and the enemy. why don't you gather up Fred Phelps and Grover Norquist andd start a road show Romney can use your help . I don't need you.





Stay thirsty my friends
 
Nemont I agree with that. Its worth noting that Santorum and Paul spout their views on public land in the media, and Santorum is doing pretty well getting delegates, yet I don't believe you will hear any presidental candidate on either side spouting off about makings gun ownership illegal, that was my orginal point.

I also believe that there is a Grover Norquist strategy to the slashing of taxes and the creation of the massive debt, and the sale of public land is pretty well in that long term strategy, after all public land and the public ownership of wildlife is very much socialism. Most people know that just flat promoting the sale of public land is a non starter politically, but believe me there are many smart influencial people who would love to see that happen. Just the fact that Santorum can say what he does and not create much of a stir should throw up some red flags for those of us the care about such things.

Keep your mouth shut and help create a debt so large that previously undoable things can happen is very much a strategy for some. All it will take is another Reagan in the future and we will have a fight on our hands, and I believe it will happen long before guns are outlawed.
 
deserrancher if it only took 12 posts for Dude to get your panties in a bunch you probably should post at a site where your feelings won't get hurt.
 
If we are broke enough to get the sale of public lands through congress then worrying about your guns will be the last thing you will be concerned about.

Santorum says alot of things. There are alot of rich liberals that would be willing to buy up public lands as well so I highly doubt it is a Republican plank in it's platform to sell of public lands.

How many things has President Obama campaigned on that he later had to eat crow about? Is Gitmo closed or open still? Do renditions still take place? Did he keep unemployment at 8% following his stimulus plan. Why would you really give two $hits what a candidate spouts on the during a campaign? Obama promised to have 10% of U.S. electricity generated by renewal resources by 2012, didn't come close. Campaigning and governing are not the same thing. If Santorum ever sat in the Oval office as President, which ain't going to happen, he would be president no king.

How come you believe that CEO's are only able to look to the next quarter but politicians are able to work for long term goals such as selling off public lands in some conspiracy? Politicians only look to the next election.

Reagan's debt, even GWB's debt is an ant pile compared to a mountain that will be there when Obama leaves office. His own budgets show at least another $6 Trillion in Red ink for as long as CBO can project. That doesn't count the fact that the PPACA bill price tag just doubled and it will double again when the CBO does the true 10 year cost.

Public lands are not going to be sold in your life, guns are not going to be banned in our lifetime, a debt crisis that enslaves our children and grand children is going to happen in our lifetime.

Nemont
 
Nemont, the debt is a bipartisan deal because we the voters want low taxes and lots of free goodies, but believe me Norquist and his ilk are doing well at exploiting that fact, nor does Norquist hold any political office.
If Obama raises taxes he can kiss his re-election goodbye and so can a lot of democrats, this same political game has been going strong since Reagan, with only a small letup during Clintons time. For no other reason than getting votes the federal deficit doesn't need to be nearly this large.
I think the sale of public land will come in smaller increments, maybe 10% forest service and 40% BLM on the first go around, like I said it will take another Reagan to get something done, and I don't see Romney filling that nitch.
 
So if Romney gets elected how many weeks until we have a budget surplus? Obama 6 trillion a term, a republican a half dozen trillion a term. I feel better already.


Desertrancher is all hat and no cattle I'd bet, sounds like one of 202's Texicans he met at a teaparty .







Stay thirsty my friends
 
Romney wants to cut taxes, so Im guessing the debt will stay much like it is, some moderate spending cuts and a slight recover would offset the loss in tax revenue.
 
Maybe you guys need to take a look at Ca. and what has happen here recently.

Due to budget cuts, and no tax increases our state goverment has decided to close down numerous state parks for lack of funds. They are now looking at allowing private run concessions to operate those state parks. Would selling them off be next?

Piper this was done by a Democrat Govenor, Jerry Brown and a Democrat majority in out state legislature. So do not fool yourself that this a GOP thing only.

RELH
 
So it's better to close them than let a private operator keep them open?

Too bad we can't squeeze California and Texas together and give you all back to the mexicans. seems like every train wreck starts in those two states.














Stay thirsty my friends
 
I know RELH, its not a partisian issue, most democrats in places like Texas and the east could care less about public land. With a bad economy the less people travel and the less people care.

The selloff of public land is not that far fetched, and I take my cues from how easily its being talked about. Listen To Don Peay talk about private ownership of wildlife on public land? Even some western politician arent afraid to mention it.
 
Great answer 440! Right back to pulic lands and ignoring the attack on guns! And if you are a moderate that would make me a wingnut. My panties arent in a wad Cornhusker i just think 440 spends all his time skipping around issues while throwing the race card every time he can and spewing hate. Obama is a train wreck as a president. He has destroyed our economy, passed a healthcare plan that most likely gets thrown out by the courts, increased the deficit at a rate never before seen, limited our exploration for energy unless you count the solindra scam, appointed radical judges that will haunt us for generations and HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL WANTS TO BAN GUNS!!! What a great legacy his is leaving our country. Bush was knucklehead but this guy makes him look like Enstein. I am against the wholesale sellout of public land. But i do think the folks in each state should have a bigger say on how they are managed instead of the feds. And i don't trust Holder for a second when it comes to guns. You trust him and see how that works for you?
 
Pipedream said "debt is a bipartisan deal because we the voters want low taxes and lots of free goodies"
well I am a voter and I want no freee anyfriggin thing from the government. I want no free land, no free health care, no free food, no free housing, no free library's no free nothing. I do however demand lower taxes and a hell of a lot less free ##### for free loaders.




"I'll admit it, that's hella funny! Good to see you around 202, I wish you would return on a regular basis there's a lot of bruised low lying fruit on here lately. You should be on here on a regular basis especially since it was your political carpet bombing at the campfire that inspired this forum!"
Thank you Forthewall
 
>I'm a moderate

THIS is the biggest lie ever told in the history of mankind. Period.
 
So let me see if I have this right 202. You don't believe in public land for hunting fishing and recreation? Does that include national parks, monuments etc. What do you suggest we do with people that can't take care of themselves that don't have insurance let them die on the street such as India. No free libraries, I grew up learning in a free public library. That an public land is the absolute only thing I have ever been given from the government. No free food you might find in hard to deny the poor kids that come from dysfunctional families a breakfast in the morning? I'm guessing that would be tough even for you. Where you from Texas, Mexico, El Salvador?
 
The Obama adminstration came very close to getting all black guns banned and curtailing gun shop sales of them. If Fast & furious had not been blown by inside whistle blowers, it's propaganda value would have been tremendous in getting voter apporoval on banning those guns.

As usual, Obama and minons screwed that one up also.

RELH
 

Similar threads

M
Would have been 17 Sunday
Replies
52
Views
2k
jgriffin82
J

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

948D4392-725F-40E3-B3DF-A311E6D5D7F7.jpeg
IMG_0992.png
IMAG0255.jpg
Book Cliffs Survivor 1.jpg
ED360BDD-8915-48CF-B751-E3082F06EA4B.jpeg
61C667D4-C8D0-4870-9E93-11BEA76E7DD8.jpeg
IMG_9169.jpeg
IMG_3283.jpg
B61EAC92-69C9-48EC-9745-010258BA81B8.jpeg
Keeping it simple......
20201003_174123.png
Tripod/Cheater Buck - MonsterMuleys.com
Back
Top Bottom