Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

by **Chingon** » Tue, 20 Mar 2012 20:03:23

Oh hell no!!!

by **OakRidgeStars** » Tue, 20 Mar 2012 20:19:43

Why do I get the feeling that this won't apply to the Occupy (whatever) crowd?

Why don't they just call it the Anti-Tea Party & Bitter Clinger law?

by **Kreutz** » Tue, 20 Mar 2012 21:17:45

OakRidgeStars wrote:Why do I get the feeling that this won't apply to the Occupy (whatever) crowd?

Why don't they just call it the Anti-Tea Party & Bitter Clinger law?

http://iowastatedaily.com/opinion/artic ... 963f4.html

Just in case you weren't familiar with the latest piece of legislation that destroys our First Amendment rights, H.R. 347 was approved unanimously by the Senate, the House by 388-3 — only Ron Paul and two other Republicans objected — and signed into law Thursday by President Barack Obama.

Unanimous? In this day and age? Even routine transportation bills die in gridlock.

snip

The next bit of news you might know: George Clooney was arrested Friday morning while protesting outside the Sudan Embassy, along with his father Nick Clooney; Martin Luther King III; NAACP President Ben Jealous; comedian Dick Gregory; Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass.; Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va.; Rep. John Olver,D-Mass.; Rep. Al Green, D-Texas; and former Rep. Tom Andrews, D-Mass.

Those are all libs. The OWS will be clamped down on when (and I doubt it will happen since they're as defunct as the tea party) they become a nuisance to the powers that be.

Sounds to me like the D is working hand in glove with the R to destroy the Constitution.

This is why I am amused by people saying if Obama is reelected it will mean the death of freedom.

Would Romney really have been with those three lonely dissenting votes were he a federal legislator?

NOPE! It simply doesn't matter! Chocolate or vanilla both are gonna turn to **** in the end of it all anyway :coffee:

by **mamabearCali** » Tue, 20 Mar 2012 23:17:22

!^%}%^! Every darn day there is a new assault on our freedom. Has it always been like this or is it ramping up?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

by **XSNOWMANx** » Wed, 21 Mar 2012 00:28:13

I had a feeling something like this would happen in America. I never thought I'd see it however.

by **VBshooter** » Wed, 21 Mar 2012 06:08:02

just another reason we need to unseat Obama and his butthole supporters in Congress and rescind all the garbage he has signed into law behind our backs

by **tursiops** » Wed, 21 Mar 2012 07:06:20

I note that the ACLU is watching it carefully, too....

by **DW44VH** » Wed, 21 Mar 2012 08:07:05

More proof Obama can't run a 2nd term. Now we need to get the GOP candidates on board about getting this one revoked.
It again, amazes me how congress and the President can "overide" our constitution.

They make or adjust the rules they sit fit regardless of the Constitution.

by **VBshooter** » Wed, 21 Mar 2012 08:45:10

Heere is a link to the vote in case you want to drop your representative a little Thank You note..http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2011/h149

by **DW44VH** » Wed, 21 Mar 2012 14:35:51

Remember to stop the UN Gun Ban!

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/intern ... an-treaty/

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7080

http://theantiliberalzone.blogspot.com/ ... reaty.html

by **Kreutz** » Wed, 21 Mar 2012 14:54:36

VBshooter wrote:just another reason we need to unseat Obama and his butthole supporters in Congress and rescind all the garbage he has signed into law behind our backs

Takes more than three legislators regardless of who rests in the White House.

This is endemic and a change in faces will not result in this going away. It will continue regardless of who wins this year, the wording will be slightly different, but thats all.

by **VBshooter** » Wed, 21 Mar 2012 17:00:23

Well unless you have first hand knowledge or know a guy or whatever the F*&^k else you believe I'll stick to the thought that we may just be able to bring about a change by getting off our lazy asses and making it happen by actually doing the work needed to get it done or at least started in the right direction.. I know work seems like the hard way to go but what ya gonna do ?

by **Kreutz** » Wed, 21 Mar 2012 18:28:06

VBshooter wrote:Well unless you have first hand knowledge or know a guy or whatever the F*&^k else you believe I'll stick to the thought that we may just be able to bring about a change by getting off our lazy asses and making it happen by actually doing the work needed to get it done or at least started in the right direction.. I know work seems like the hard way to go but what ya gonna do ?

I dunno about you, but I can't feed my family from jail. Even protesting this law can get you sent there should a Man in Black stroll by. Ironic!

by **tursiops** » Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:19:15

Kreutz, read the stupid law. It only applies to those places where the SS is protecting someone. Just don't protest at the President's inauguration!

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

by **VBshooter** » Thu, 22 Mar 2012 02:34:23

Jail may not be a pleasant thought but us allowing the President and the Congress to pass this kind of garbage and then just accepting it is not right under any circumstances. Once a precedent is set they will continue to chip away at our rights for one stupid reason after another until they become a thing of the past ans people look around and ask.."What Happened"

by **dorminWS** » Thu, 22 Mar 2012 08:12:49

tursiops wrote:Kreutz, read the stupid law. It only applies to those places where the SS is protecting someone. Just don't protest at the President's inauguration!

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

(A) Even if it is only in the presence of Secret Service-protected officials (by the way, the thing reads that the Pres can DESIGNATE who he pleases to be included in this "protection"), It is still a greivious interference with First Amendment rights. And to prohibit the expression of opposing views within sight/hearing/(gunshot, even - assumedly) of these people and their ever-present press coverage is to effectively prohibit public dissent. No matter how hard you may apolologize for this, it is unpardonable and grotesque by the standards of our culture; or at least it would be if abused even a little bit. And experience dictates that abuse is inevitable; and sure to escalate over time.
(B) The EO is NOT the LAW.

by **tursiops** » Thu, 22 Mar 2012 08:16:51

dorminWS wrote:(B) The EO is NOT the LAW.

We are talking about HR347, not some EO.
The EO discussion is a different thread/topic.
Have some more coffee, Dormouse.

by **dorminWS** » Thu, 22 Mar 2012 08:22:47

tursiops wrote:
dorminWS wrote:(B) The EO is NOT the LAW.

We are talking about HR347, not some EO.
The EO discussion is a different thread/topic.
Have some more coffee, Dormouse.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

OK, good enough. The rest still applies; only more so.