headkicker_girl wrote:

phreddy wrote:

Headkicker wrote:

Trying to hold Obama to something that he said as academic discourse in 1991 is patently ridiculous, especially when you disregard McCain's shifting opinions.

This was a 2001 interview.

My bad.  The point remains the same, though.  It was said as academic discourse.  He was still a lecturer at U of Chicago Law School at the time, which is known for being theory-oriented.

He was also a state senator with aspirations.  The fact is he believes that the Supreme Court should be allowed to decide cases based on "social justice".  This would mean take money from those the Court feels have too much and give it to those in need.  Or, as Karl Marx said, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

phreddy wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

phreddy wrote:

This was a 2001 interview.

My bad.  The point remains the same, though.  It was said as academic discourse.  He was still a lecturer at U of Chicago Law School at the time, which is known for being theory-oriented.

He was also a state senator with aspirations.  The fact is he believes that the Supreme Court should be allowed to decide cases based on "social justice".  This would mean take money from those the Court feels have too much and give it to those in need.  Or, as Karl Marx said, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

I have to say if that was actually true (protip: you can't make it true by saying it a lot), I'd still prefer that to the GOP slogan of "FUCK YOU".

headkicker_girl wrote:

I wish I was one of those chicks that completely ignored politics.  I'd probably be a lot happier.

Become the non-Obama-related change you wish to be.

I heard an Obama commercial yesterday where some inbred guy is talking about how he is a card-carrying member of the NRA and Obama has NEVER voted on a bill to take away any gun rights....

Then I read somewhere where Obama sponsored a bill in Illinois that would outlaw all guns, including muzzle-loaders, give you 60 days to turn in your guns and then send the cops out to collect them if you didn't turn them in. Of course, the law never got passed but, umm, if that ain't the BIGGEST anti-gun rights bill I've ever heard of, I don't know what is.

And here I never thought they outright lied on their commercials. Of course, this is Indiana so the lie has to be based on the fears of the local voting populace (you know, folks who cling to their bibles and guns in times of trouble).

lol

It wouldn't surprise me. Ptah-baby murders logic and language with equal facility - why not a few dozen of his inbred progeny, as well?

Johnny_Rotten wrote:

Even arch conservatives don't think he intends to take your guns away. Plus the SC has recently spoken precident in the washington handgun case. Clarifying  limits of such regulation .

That's true. He can't take them away. That's for Nancy Pelosi and the fillibuster proof Senate to do. Then the Obamasiah will sign it and the appeals court judges that he will nominate and Pelosi will finally allow to be confirmed will uphold the law. And he doesn't mean ALL your guns, just the ones the good ones. You can keep your antique 30-30 lever action and your 22lr and your single shot break open shotgun. But the rest they will take.

ptah13 wrote:

I heard an Obama commercial yesterday where some inbred guy is talking about how he is a card-carrying member of the NRA and Obama has NEVER voted on a bill to take away any gun rights....

Then I read somewhere where Obama sponsored a bill in Illinois that would outlaw all guns, including muzzle-loaders, give you 60 days to turn in your guns and then send the cops out to collect them if you didn't turn them in. Of course, the law never got passed but, umm, if that ain't the BIGGEST anti-gun rights bill I've ever heard of, I don't know what is.

And here I never thought they outright lied on their commercials. Of course, this is Indiana so the lie has to be based on the fears of the local voting populace (you know, folks who cling to their bibles and guns in times of trouble).

lol

I would love to see the source for that alleged bill.  I would think that would have made the news here in Chicago.  Of course the Chicago gun ban has been all over the news, but I can't recall any bill involving all guns in Illinois.

"age of paranoia"

headkicker_girl wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

I heard an Obama commercial yesterday where some inbred guy is talking about how he is a card-carrying member of the NRA and Obama has NEVER voted on a bill to take away any gun rights....

Then I read somewhere where Obama sponsored a bill in Illinois that would outlaw all guns, including muzzle-loaders, give you 60 days to turn in your guns and then send the cops out to collect them if you didn't turn them in. Of course, the law never got passed but, umm, if that ain't the BIGGEST anti-gun rights bill I've ever heard of, I don't know what is.

And here I never thought they outright lied on their commercials. Of course, this is Indiana so the lie has to be based on the fears of the local voting populace (you know, folks who cling to their bibles and guns in times of trouble).

lol

I would love to see the source for that alleged bill.  I would think that would have made the news here in Chicago.  Of course the Chicago gun ban has been all over the news, but I can't recall any bill involving all guns in Illinois.

Man, it's going to be a pleasure "showing up" so many of you at one time.

Especially GO, her bastard offspring, Wilbur (who she sired with "horse", explains the mix grammar-Nazism and meaningless rants), and HKG.

Remember, Obama NEVER voted for any gun bans, according to his commercials! lol...

He is such a liar.


Obama voted for this bill in 2003- it did not pass!

*Full Text of Bill*

*
093_SB1195
*

                                    LRB093 10905 LRD 11424 b

1        AN ACT in relation to criminal law.

2        Be  it  enacted  by  the People of the State of Illinois,
3    represented in the General Assembly:

4        Section 5.  The Criminal  Code  of  1961  is  amended  by
5    adding Section 24-1.7 as follows:

6        (720 ILCS 5/24-1.7 new)
7        _Sec.  24-1.7.  Manufacture,  *possession*,  and delivery of_
8    _semiautomatic  assault  weapons,  large  capacity  ammunition_
9    _feeding devices, and assault weapon attachments._
10        _(a)  The General Assembly finds that  the  high  rate  of_
11    _fire  and  capacity  for  firepower  of semiautomatic assault_
12    _weapons,  assault  weapon  attachments,  and  large  capacity_
13    _ammunition feeding devices pose a significant threat  to  the_
14    _health,  safety,  and  welfare of the citizens of this State,_
15    _that the use of these weapons, devices,  or  attachments  for_
16    _sport or recreation is substantially outweighed by the danger_
17    _these  weapons  or  devices  present  to human life, and that_
18    _restrictions should therefore be placed on  the  manufacture,_
19    _delivery,  and  possession  of  these  weapons,  devices, and_
20    _attachments._
21        _(b)  Definitions. In this Section:_
22            _(1)  "Semi-automatic assault weapon" means:_
23                  _(A)  any of the firearms or types, replicas, or_
24            _duplicates in any caliber of the firearms, known as:_
25                      _(i)  Norinco,    Mitchell,    and    Poly_
26                  _Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);_
27                      _(ii)  Action    Arms    Israeli  Military_
28                  _Industries UZI and Galil;_
29                      _(iii)  Beretta AR-70 (SC-70);_
30                      _(iv)  Colt AR-15;_
31                      _(v)  Fabrique  Nationale  FN/FAL,  FN/LAR,_

                          -2-      LRB093 10905 LRD 11424 b
1                  _and FNC;_
2                      _(vi)  SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;_
3                      _(vii)  Steyr AUG;_
4                      _(viii)  INTRATEC  TEC-9,  TEC-DC9    and_
5                  _TEC-22; and_
6                      _(ix)  any  shotgun  which  contains  its_
7                  _ammunition in a  revolving  cylinder,  such  as_
8                  _(but  not  limited  to)  the Street Sweeper and_
9                  _Striker 12;_
10                      _(x)  any firearm having a caliber of 50 or_
11                  _greater;_
12            _(B)  a semiautomatic rifle that has  an  ability  to_
13        _accept  a  detachable  magazine  and  has  any  of  the_
14        _following:_
15                  _(i)  a folding or telescoping stock;_
16                  _(ii)  a    pistol    grip    that    protrudes_
17            _conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;_
18                  _(iii)  a bayonet mount;_
19                  _(iv)  a  flash  suppressor  or  barrel having a_
20            _threaded muzzle; or_
21                  _(v)  a grenade launcher; or_
22            _(C)  a semi-automatic pistol that has an ability  to_
23        _accept  a  detachable  magazine  and  has  any  of  the_
24        _following:_
25                  _(i)  an ammunition magazine  that  attaches  to_
26            _the pistol outside of the pistol grip;_
27                  _(ii)  a barrel having a threaded muzzle;_
28                  _(iii)  a  shroud  that  is  attached  to,  or_
29            _partially or completely encircles  the  barrel,  and_
30            _that  permits  the  shooter to hold the firearm with_
31            _the non-trigger hand without being burned;_
32                  _(iv)  a manufactured weight  of  50  ounces  or_
33            _more when the pistol is unloaded; or_
34                  _(v)  a  semiautomatic  version  of an automatic_

                          -3-      LRB093 10905 LRD 11424 b
1            _firearm; or_
2            _(D)  a semiautomatic shotgun that  has  any  of  the_
3        _following:_
4                  _(i)  a folding or telescoping stock;_
5                  _(ii)  a    pistol    grip    that    protrudes_
6            _conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;_
7                  _(iii)  a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5_
8            _rounds; or_
9                  _(iv)  an  ability  to  accept  a  detachable_
10            _magazine._
11        _"Semiautomatic assault weapon" does not include:_
12            _(A)  any firearm that:_
13                  _(i)  is  manually operated by bolt, pump, lever_
14            _or slide action;_
15                  _(ii)  is an "unserviceable firearm" or has been_
16            _made permanently inoperable; or_
17                  _(iii)  is an antique firearm; or_
18            _(B)  any semiautomatic rifle that  cannot  accept  a_
19        _detachable  magazine  that  holds  more  than 5 rounds of_
20        _ammunition; or_
21            _(C)  any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more_
22        _than 5 rounds of ammunition  in  a  fixed  or  detachable_
23        _magazine._
24        _(2)(A)  "Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means:_
25                  _(i)  a  magazine,  belt,  drum,  feed strip, or_
26            _similar device that has a capacity of, or  that  can_
27            _be  readily  restored  or  converted to accept, more_
28            _than 10 rounds of ammunition; or_
29                  _(ii)  any combination of  parts  from  which  a_
30            _device  described  in  subparagraph  (i)  can  be_
31            _assembled._
32            _(B)  "Large capacity ammunition feeding device" does_
33        _not  include  an  attached  tubular  device  designed  to_
34        _accept, and capable of operating only with,  .22  caliber_

                          -4-      LRB093 10905 LRD 11424 b
1        _rimfire  ammunition  or  any  device  that  has been made_
2        _permanently inoperable._
3        _(3)  "Assault weapon attachment" means any device capable_
4    _of being attached to a firearm that is specifically  designed_
5    _for  making  or converting a firearm into any of the firearms_
6    _listed in paragraph (1) of subsection (b) of this Section._
7        _(4)  "Antique firearm" means:_
8            _(A)  any  firearm,  including  any  firearm  with  a_
9        _matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type  of_
10        _ignition system, manufactured in or before 1898, or_
11            _(B)  any  replica  of  any  firearm  described  in_
12        _subparagraph (A) if the replica:_
13                  _(i)  is not designed or  redesigned  for  using_
14            _rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition;_
15            _or_
16                  _(ii)  uses  rimfire  or conventional centerfire_
17            _ammunition that is no  longer  manufactured  in  the_
18            _United  States  and that is not readily available in_
19            _the ordinary channels of commercial trade; or_
20            _(C)  any firearm (other than a machine gun),  which,_
21        _although  designed  as  a weapon, the Department of State_
22        _Police finds by reason of the date  of  its  manufacture,_
23        _value,  design,  and other characteristics is primarily a_
24        _collector's item and is  not  likely  to  be  used  as  a_
25        _weapon._
26        _(c)  Except  as provided in subsection (e), 90 days after_
27    _the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 93rd General_
28    _Assembly, it is unlawful for any person within this State, to_
29    _knowingly manufacture, deliver, or possess  or  cause  to  be_
30    _manufactured,  delivered,  or  possessed,  a  semiautomatic_
31    _assault weapon, a large capacity ammunition  feeding  device,_
32    _or an assault weapon attachment._
33        _(d)  Any  person  who knowingly possesses a semiautomatic_
34    _assault weapon, large capacity ammunition feeding device,  or_

                          -5-      LRB093 10905 LRD 11424 b
1    _assault  weapon  attachment  must,  within  90 days after the_
2    _effective date of this amendatory Act  of  the  93rd  General_
3    _Assembly, destroy the weapon or device, render it permanently_
4    _inoperable,  relinquish  it  to  a law enforcement agency, or_
5    _remove it from this State._
6        _(e)  A person has an affirmative defense  to  an  alleged_
7    _violation  of  subsection  (c)  of  this Section if he or she_
8    _lawfully possessed or  delivered  the  semiautomatic  assault_
9    _weapon,  large capacity ammunition feeding device, or assault_
10    _weapon attachment while in the  performance  of  his  or  her_
11    _official  duties as a peace officer, correctional institution_
12    _employee or official, or member  of  the  Armed  Services  or_
13    _Reserve  Forces  of  the  United  States,  or of the Illinois_
14    _National Guard._
15        _(f)  Sentence._
16            _(1)  A  person  who  manufactures,  possesses,  or_
17        _delivers  a  semiautomatic assault weapon in violation of_
18        _this Section  commits  a  Class  3  felony  for  a  first_
19        _violation and a Class 2 felony for a second or subsequent_
20        _violation  or for the possession or delivery of 2 or more_
21        _of these weapons at the same time._
22            _(2)  A person who possesses or delivers in violation_
23        _of this  Section  a  large  capacity  ammunition  feeding_
24        _device  capable  of  holding  more  than  17  rounds  of_
25        _ammunition commits a Class 3 felony for a first violation_
26        _and a Class 2 felony for a second or subsequent violation_
27        _or for possession or delivery  of  2  or  more  of  these_
28        _devices at the same time._
29            _(3)  A person who possesses or delivers in violation_
30        _of  this  Section  a  large  capacity  ammunition feeding_
31        _device capable of holding more than  10  rounds  but  not_
32        _more  than  17  rounds  of  ammunition  commits a Class 4_
33        _felony for a first violation and a Class 3 felony  for  a_
34        _second  or  subsequent  violation  or  for  possession or_

                          -6-      LRB093 10905 LRD 11424 b
1        _delivery of more than one of these devices  at  the  same_
2        _time._
3            _(4)  A person who possesses or delivers in violation_
4        _of  this  Section  an assault weapon attachment commits a_
5        _Class 4 felony for a first violation and a Class 3 felony_
6        _for a second or subsequent violation._

Last edited by ptah13 (2008-10-28 13:05:54)

tojo2000 wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

I would love to see the source for that alleged bill.  I would think that would have made the news here in Chicago.  Of course the Chicago gun ban has been all over the news, but I can't recall any bill involving all guns in Illinois.

Man, it's going to be a pleasure "showing up" so many of you at one time.

Especially GO, her bastard offspring, Wilbur (who she sired with "horse", explains the mix grammar-Nazism and meaningless rants), and HKG.

Remember, Obama NEVER voted for any gun bans, according to his commercials! lol...

He is such a liar.


Obama voted for this bill in 2003- it did not pass!

*Full Text of Bill*

This is an assault weapon ban, you dolt.

My point is that when he claims to have never voted for any anti-gun legislation, and votes for this, then he lied.

Sorry.... :)

ptah13 wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

Man, it's going to be a pleasure "showing up" so many of you at one time.

Especially GO, her bastard offspring, Wilbur (who she sired with "horse", explains the mix grammar-Nazism and meaningless rants), and HKG.

Remember, Obama NEVER voted for any gun bans, according to his commercials! lol...

He is such a liar.


Obama voted for this bill in 2003- it did not pass!

*Full Text of Bill*

This is an assault weapon ban, you dolt.

My point is that when he claims to have never voted for any anti-gun legislation, and votes for this, then he lied.

Sorry.... :)

Poopcorn strikes again! Another whipped apology from the man with the 150 IQ. I don't need to insult you, Ptah-Ptahs, I'll just let you talk. It's far more efficient to stand back and watch you make a fool of yourself. You're a funny little guy - in fact, I'm growing rather fond of you. You're my new Plurker!

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

This is an assault weapon ban, you dolt.

My point is that when he claims to have never voted for any anti-gun legislation, and votes for this, then he lied.

Sorry.... :)

Poopcorn strikes again! Another whipped apology from the man with the 150 IQ. I don't need to insult you, Ptah-Ptahs, I'll just let you talk. It's far more efficient to stand back and watch you make a fool of yourself. You're a funny little guy - in fact, I'm growing rather fond of you. You're my new Plurker!

Until you say something meaningful, this is going to have to be the last of my responses to you.

You're obviously obsessed with me. I'm sure it was your sudden realization that you are the closest thing to horse left on the board. Even if some like you more than they did he, you are still the same hand, different puppet.

Again, you aren't qualified to "troll" me. Perhaps you think little letters on a screen can hurt me as much as I've obviously hurt you, but the difference is I'm long past worrying what e-folks think or care about me.

Your attempts at validation fail. Therefore you = fail...  As you said to horse, shortly before his banning, "I'm done with you".  Nice try, though.

Last edited by ptah13 (2008-10-28 15:05:51)

ptah13 wrote:

Ok, I misread the part about what was included, but banning assault rifles are guns, too.

Great communication skills, dumb-dumb! How about another apology?

ptah13 wrote:

Yes, I take full credit for the major misread and I "misspoke" when I said, "ban all guns including muskets". I will  agree that I didn't completely "show  up" anyone,"

No kidding. You couldn't show up a turd. You isn't got the smarts, Poopcorn.
How about some poo-poo jokes now, followed by an unclear transition (typical of fuzzy thinkers) and some servile fawning:

ptah13 wrote:

I will note, however, that my licker is still besmirched with the mark of poo....For all intents and purposes, George is a gem of an asset to this board. ... I still hold some degree of respect for her

Lemme stop you there, Poopcorn - NOBODY craves your respect, which is worth less than the drool on a retard's chin.

ptah13 wrote:

He claims prima donna BECAUSE he is the grammar queen?

You express yourself so poorly that it's often hard to get the joke. Try writing in simpler sentences. You'll make slightly less of an ass of yourself. It will also make it easier to review your own thoughts, and you'll spend less time apologizing to more intelligent people.

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

headkicker_girl wrote:

Anyway, back to the topic.  Yes, it was an assault weapon ban; no it was not a total ban.  Even the Supreme Court held in its recent "landmark" second amendment case that states have the right to put restrictions on gun ownership, so what Obama voted for was certainly no radical restriction on second amendment freedoms.

Are you talking about the case over the DC handgun ban? I thought that ban got overturned.

ah297900 wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

Anyway, back to the topic.  Yes, it was an assault weapon ban; no it was not a total ban.  Even the Supreme Court held in its recent "landmark" second amendment case that states have the right to put restrictions on gun ownership, so what Obama voted for was certainly no radical restriction on second amendment freedoms.

Are you talking about the case over the DC handgun ban? I thought that ban got overturned.

Yes, it did get overturned.  You can't have a total ban, but the states can still restrict guns, the extent of which has yet to be tested by the courts.

Emmeran wrote:

Just for the record, this is was a ban on weapons of war to prevent them from being used in a crime; everyone except the extremist (right wing/islamic/lesbian/whatever) catoregizes these as different from sport guns.

See Em, here is where I think you, and the anti gun liberals, have jumped the rails.  The whole basis for the second amendment not to protect our right to keep sporting weapons, it is precisely there to allow the citizenry to be armed with weapons of war.  The founding fathers could never even imagine that the government would take away hunting weapons.  A large percentage of the population fed their families with them.  They knew that one man, one vote means nothing unless it can be backed up by armed rebellion if the group in charge of the government decides to go against the will of the people.  This is the European system they were fighting against.

phreddy wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

Just for the record, this is was a ban on weapons of war to prevent them from being used in a crime; everyone except the extremist (right wing/islamic/lesbian/whatever) catoregizes these as different from sport guns.

See Em, here is where I think you, and the anti gun liberals, have jumped the rails.  The whole basis for the second amendment not to protect our right to keep sporting weapons, it is precisely there to allow the citizenry to be armed with weapons of war.  The founding fathers could never even imagine that the government would take away hunting weapons.  A large percentage of the population fed their families with them.  They knew that one man, one vote means nothing unless it can be backed up by armed rebellion if the group in charge of the government decides to go against the will of the people.  This is the European system they were fighting against.

Um... well actually, the popular conception now is that they did, but in fact it probably isn't true.  A few years ago Emory University historian Michael Bellesiles wrote a book on  the matter ("ARMING AMERICA: The Origins of a National Gun Culture") which showed that from the colonial era right up through the start of the Civil War the vast majority of Americans did not have guns at home.  The country's manufacturing base was too rudimentary to mass produce weapons, so what guns people did have were hand made and often of poor to unusable quality.

Here is a link to a review of the book:
http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews/0375402101.asp

Here is an excerpt from the review:

"In the Colonial era, the weapon of choice was the musket, which cost a skilled worker the equivalent of two month's pay. It required constant attention to maintain and was not efficient for either self-defense or hunting. It was difficult to reload and was not accurate beyond a few hundred feet. Most American farmers chose to raise and consume domestic animals, such as chickens and pigs, rather than hunt with a weapon that was of little value. The few homicides that occurred during the Colonial era were committed with knives; guns were simply not a weapon of value to most Americans at the time of the Nation's birth."

It's more like warfare, my point.

Go to the questionarre, please.

phreddy wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

Just for the record, this is was a ban on weapons of war to prevent them from being used in a crime; everyone except the extremist (right wing/islamic/lesbian/whatever) catoregizes these as different from sport guns.

See Em, here is where I think you, and the anti gun liberals, have jumped the rails.  The whole basis for the second amendment not to protect our right to keep sporting weapons, it is precisely there to allow the citizenry to be armed with weapons of war.  The founding fathers could never even imagine that the government would take away hunting weapons.  A large percentage of the population fed their families with them.  They knew that one man, one vote means nothing unless it can be backed up by armed rebellion if the group in charge of the government decides to go against the will of the people.  This is the European system they were fighting against.

See Phre,  This is where I think you and the Christo/Islamic Fundamentalists have jumped the rails.  The basis for the second amendment didn't specify, which is good, but also didn't factor in main battle tanks and laser-guided rap-rounds.  Under your assertion I have as much right to a Whiskey Cobra as I do a 30.06 bolt-action. 

If you've ever been on the wrong side of a M1A1 you'll understand that your assault rifle won't help you in the case of an armed rebellion (in case you are confused, the wrong side of a MBT would be the "outside").

Now I know you're going to argue that it's a different concept but it isn't; even including WMD's these are all weapons of war.  We all know a line must be drawn some where, the question is only where.

So unless your plan is to go out in a blaze of glory futilely emptying your magazine into the armour of an LAV-25 - pray tell: Why else would you possibly need to possess one of these?

Em... your hurting Phwedd's brain.  Why shouldn't he have a shoulder fired nuke, why?

tojo2000 wrote:

phreddy wrote:

So you contend that the founding fathers intended the well-armed militia that the citizens were to form in case of a threat were only going to be allowed to use hunting weapons?

Seriously, if you want to know a pretty detailed account of the history of the second amendment, read the majority and dissenting opinions in Heller vs. DC.  Scalia's a dick, but he's also pretty thorough in his opinion.

I agree. I'm not a fan of Scalia, but I agreed with him on this opinion.  It was actually well-reasoned, for once.

Emmeran wrote:

Now I know you're going to argue that it's a different concept but it isn't; even including WMD's these are all weapons of war.  We all know a line must be drawn some where, the question is only where.

What say we draw the line exactly where it was when the founders wrote the second amendment?  They obviously were speaking of military style small arms that one could "keep and bear".  They weren't talking about artillery, or they would have said so.

phreddy wrote:

The founding fathers could never even imagine that the government would take away hunting weapons.

Valid, but it's also valid that the fathers could have never even imagined what modern weapons of war would be. Back then, hunting guns and people-killing guns were about the same thing, right? The third amendment tells us how they thought wars and insurrections would look:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Besides, even if we all had automatic weapons, the government still has nuclear weapons and invisible planes. Up against that, we might as well just have muskets.

ptah13 wrote:

As far as the "where did Obama say he wasn't going to touch our guns" goes, well, they obviously aren't playing the same radio commercials in each state.

I doubt they play the "pro NRA" ads in California.

Your argument is that Obama is a liar because he voted against assault rifles, but he said he'd never touch guns. OK, last time: where did Obama say he wasn't going to touch our guns? Can you conceive of how an NRA attack ad is different from a statement by Obama?

ptah13 wrote:

What's wrong with assault weapons, by the way?

They're expressly designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. But god forbid, we should lessen the enjoyment of your hobby.