Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

That first video (obama clueless supporters) is pretty bad. I only saw two people who looked like they had no clue what day it was. The rest looked just like -- me and you --- thats telling. I honestly cannot believe these people actually went to the polls and voted without a clue. And, at least half of those folks were black. Not saying that as a racial slur, but it does make one wonder how many voted for him based merely on the color of his skin. Its interesting how much negative stuff they pinned on Palin.

The MSM must be proud of themselves. I wonder if anyone ever took the film maker up on his offer?

gatlingun6 wrote:By Gunderwood: This administration only has problems calling Muslims terrorists.

Huh? Either you misspoke or I misunderstood your intent. OK, on second thought, there's no way you meant almost 1.5 billion people are terrorists. I'm guessing you meant they have a problem calling some people terrorists profess to be Muslim? Why should I care what they call them as long as they are apprehended before they act and punished accordingly?
What is this preoccupation with the word "terrorist"? What in the heck am I missing?

Respectfully Jim
We (I) Don't Do Fear

one thing you are "missing" jim, is that muslims, as a matter of fact think of you as an infidel, unless you profess your intentions to convert to islam or have actually done so. By considering you as an infidel, they think of you as an enemy of themselves and their God. Fair enough. Thats their perogative I suppose. Something else I believe you are missing is that we shouldn't really be apprehending and punishing accordingly, we should be killing them.(terrorists,not 1.5 billion muslims) I say live and let live. If the 1.5 billion muslims hate me because I am not one of them, I suggest they stay in their own lands, I don't need any new friends esecially ones that want me dead. As for the ones already here , I am all for using deportation or internment camps for them, their choice. I don't do fear either.

WildBill44 wrote:I have an observation on the pictures of Comrade Obama incorrectly placing his hand on the right side instead of the correct left side. Notice in the first picture that not only is the wedding bands on the hands placed over the chest, but the had is on the side OPPOSITE of the lapel pin. In the second picture, the hand is BENEATH the lapel pin, where it should be. Therefore I submit that the first picture had not be altered, or "mirror imaged" but that it is a real shot of the event. I further submit that when the event started someone saw the error taking place and corrected the Obamas, and the second pictures was taken. Since the MSM is so enamored with the Obama regime it would not have made the news. If any conservative president had done this it would have been on CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC and all the other outlets!

WildBill: You really tempt me to write something that I'm sure would be 100% correct about you the messenger. But I won't, that's why I never do an immediate reply to any post. So you say it's conspiracy and the second photo showing the President & MIchelle correctly placing their RIGHT hands over their heart is a fake.

You go on to state that the MSM was behind the conspriracy. Please list your proof of anything about the MSM faking the real photo. Before you do that, go back and look at the blurry image of the Marine White House guard in the first photo. Question: His decorations are pinned on which side of his chest?

Last questions: What are your credentials in the use of Photo Shop CS4, or an earlier version? Are you self taught? Or did you learn Photo Shop forensics in an academic setting?

Respectfully, Jim
In the 21st Century seeing is not believing

graybeard321 wrote:I believe we are in for a long hard fight, The socialist democrats and their giveaway programs are buying the votes of the poor and uneducated and now they are also trying to grant amnesty to illegal’s. just another way to buy votes and make sure they stay in power.

yep.

GS78 wrote:

gatlingun6 wrote:By Gunderwood: This administration only has problems calling Muslims terrorists.

Huh? Either you misspoke or I misunderstood your intent. OK, on second thought, there's no way you meant almost 1.5 billion people are terrorists. I'm guessing you meant they have a problem calling some people terrorists profess to be Muslim? Why should I care what they call them as long as they are apprehended before they act and punished accordingly?
What is this preoccupation with the word "terrorist"? What in the heck am I missing?

Respectfully Jim
We (I) Don't Do Fear

one thing you are "missing" jim, is that muslims, as a matter of fact think of you as an infidel, unless you profess your intentions to convert to islam or have actually done so. By considering you as an infidel, they think of you as an enemy of themselves and their God. Fair enough. Thats their perogative I suppose. Something else I believe you are missing is that we shouldn't really be apprehending and punishing accordingly, we should be killing them.(terrorists,not 1.5 billion muslims) I say live and let live. If the 1.5 billion muslims hate me because I am not one of them, I suggest they stay in their own lands, I don't need any new friends esecially ones that want me dead. As for the ones already here , I am all for using deportation or internment camps for them, their choice. I don't do fear either.

GS78 Thanks for the clarification. Unfortunately your reply begs more questions. Since I have been accused of reading into what people write, I resolved to be exceptionally careful about that.
Now: 1. Since you unequivocally wrote that you no longer believe in the Constitution of the United States what is your substitute document?
2. The majority of the prisoners at Gitmo were not captured on any battlefield by U.S. Forces, they were instead handed over to us in return for payment of bounty. How do we determine they are a terrorist? Do we have any obligation to prove that allegation? When captured on the battlefield should we just execute them on the spot?
3. Page 864 of The New Oxford American Dictionary Second Edition, defines the word infidel as: a person who does not believe in religion, or who adheres to a religion other than one's own. The etymology of the word is archaic from 15th Century French. Question: Are you now saying that the only accepted usage of this word is when one's religion is other than Muslim?
4. Does your deportation of Muslims include American citizens? If so, American citizens born in the U.S. would be deported to where?
5. Since the U.S. Government does not record any citizen's religion how will you determine who is and is not a Muslim for Deportation or interment?
6. Are you recommending that the U.S. immediately require all religious institutions to identify their members, or would you limit that order to Mosque's membership rolls?
7. Alternatively are you recommending we institute a national ID with our religion listed as one data element?
8. You used the phrase "Stay in their own lands". So a person born on American soil who is a Muslim, or who converts from Christianity to Islam, this is not their land?
9. Are followers of Islam the only ones you would not permit to live on American soil?
10. Are there any Muslims majority countries where non-Muslims, or as you call them enemies, are allowed to worship in peace?
With just a few answers I can give a reasoned reply to your post.
Respectfully, Jim

... how about we move this back to "guns" or something gun-related; as this IS the Va. GUN Owners Forum.... right now, this is finding circles within circles.... and the only circles that I am in the mood for are on paper targets.

zephyp wrote:

ksanftleben wrote: Kurt, I agree that there should be no "rules" regarding conformity to any belief to be a member of this group. Plain and simple, we are all here because we share the same love for guns and the belief we should have the freedom to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights. Having said that, IMO one of the things we do here on the VGOF forum is debate issues. Certain aspects of this thread (and others where certain parties post) have transcended debate and dribbled over into "you're wrong and stupid - I'm right and smart." IMHO that raises suspicions about whether or not aforementioned "certain parties" are here for debate or here merely to drop a few grenades and then bid their farewell so we can argue amongst ourselves as some of us now appear to be doing. Please note I'm not pinning that rose on you. Just pointing out what could be a reality and capitalizing on the point you made in response to WildBill.

I would hope we collectively restrain ourselves from doing just that and get back to a true debate of issues - whatever they might be - along with sharing information...

And, IMHO that places that/those party/parties into a group where they do not conform to standard etiquette which you could also term a belief, albeit not a political but one of common courtesy. But I digress.

Regarding the oath, I am glad that under my current oath as a civil servant I am bound only to protect and defend the Constitution. There is not a clause regarding obedience to the president nor to any officer appointed over me. And for that, I am grateful having been previously bound by the oath you mentioned as an enlisted man.

Mr Z.
Another odd post. I'm curious. Do you wait at least 24 or some number of hrs before you submit a reply to a post? When you politiclly label a poster or the President a liberal, a commie, socialist, Marxist, etc. what is your intent? What's the point? In your opinion is that a positive, neutral, or negative label? Are you referring to the messenger or the message? Are you aware that your political labeling of the same person often includes ideologies that are diametrically opposed? Is throwing around political labels your idea of debating the issues? Is it impossible for a smart man to write something stupid or ignorant? If an otherwise intelligent person writes something demonstrably ignorant should the messenger be given the benefit of the doubt? What if that person consistently write ignorant stuff must one accord the statement a degree of seriousness it does not deserve? Is it possible for the messenger to make themselves the message?

Back to your favorite topic the Constitution. Maybe I'm the only one, after reviewing all your posts I have no idea what you mean when you write "The Constitution". So, the Constitution of the United Stated has a short Preamble, 7 Articles, and 27 Amendments. When you write Constitution is that what you mean, every word and every Amendment unless you otherwise qualify the statement? What did you mean when you wrote several times: "We should go back to the Constitution".

As a civil servant of course you are always free to quit or resign for whatever reason. However, nothing in that oath implies that you have any authority to interpret the Constitution. Point of fact, you don't. I hope you are feeling better.
Respectfully, Jim
Btw Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution is about what? Why did you write that the 13th Amendment was unnecessary? Was the 14th necessary?

Since you unequivocally wrote that you no longer believe in the Constitution of the United States what is your substitute document?

There's a distinct difference between not believing in a thing and not believing in those who are sworn to uphold it's ability to honourably and honestly mete out its provisions.

I believe in the Constitution. I just don't believe that the current regime has any intention of obeying or honouring it.

Page 864 of The New Oxford American Dictionary Second Edition, defines the word infidel as: a person who does not believe in religion, or who adheres to a religion other than one's own. The etymology of the word is archaic from 15th Century French. Question: Are you now saying that the only accepted usage of this word is when one's religion is other than Muslim?

Moslems don't refer to the Oxford English Dictionary when they consider the term "infidel". They use the Qur'an. The Qur'an instructs them to wage holy war on all non-believers.

That would be us.

No other religion in the known world has openly sworn jihad against all of the other religions of the world since the crusades. Now, that may sound a little hypocritical, but the limited scope and duration of the Crusades, as opposed to the continuous moslem attacks throughout all time can hardly be compared as much more than apples to oranges.

And perhaps it is our religious tolerance that has permitted such turmoil. If this country was as intolerant of moslems as they are of us, they would not even be permitted to board planes bound for this land.

You're trying to pick a fight with this board for no more reason than your own morbid amusement, methinks.

CCFAN:
Are you kidding, you want a leadership example? Out smarting the Chicago Democratic machine to oust a longtime Democratic politician is nothing? Organizing, managing, running and winning the Presidency from the primaries on is nothing? Working the backroom among the Democratic Leadership and developing a strategy to break all records for campaign contributions is nothing? Btw can you name any other politician who went from being a keynote speaker as an obscure State Senator to President of the United States in 4 years? I'm guessing you don't want anyone to take your posts seriously.

Btw if the President has done nothing why are you so angry with him? Political scientists, historians, commentators, newspapers across the land, etc all concede that the President ran a brilliant campaign with few missteps. But to you that's nothing, they are just all biased.

I'm sorry CCFAN as much as you want to, as much as you detest the President there is nothing you can do about it. He is now and will always be the 44th President of the United States. I do wonder the source of your and a few others personal animosity against the President. It's as if he has personally offended you. Some of you are so filled with venom you can't even bring yourself to write the phrase "President Obama". Why? When otherwise intelligent people seemed to have lost all sense of reason and logic what do you call that condition? What does it say about them? Have they made themselves the message?

You posted a what? 30 second clip of an Obama supporter expressing exuberance and saying something that's silly. What was your point CCFAN? If it was that this person said something silly, fine. But no you decided to take a leap of logic. Do you know anything at all about the woman? Do you know if she said anything else and that was not posted? Could she have caught herself and said now I know he's not going to do that but I'm so happy I just couldn't contain myself. Could that part have been cut off the clip? Do you actually feel good about going on to conclude that she's a dummy based on 30 secs? It's just amazing how deep the hate streak runs!

Have you ever said anything ignorant, silly, or just plain stupid CCFAN? I guess not. Logic and reason would say I observe some phenomenon, and from that I make certain deductions. I go from the specific to the general. So what were you concluding, and would those conclusions be universal to any political campaign?

Respectfully, Jim
The arrogance is stunning!

Gatlingun6,

What exactly is your intent here? The only thread you've posted in that wasn't political was your welcome thread.

I'm with the others when I say this forum is about guns foremost, and for you it's been about politics, foremost.

Now I can't very well tell you what to invest your time posting about, but it would be nice to see you participating in other gun-related threads where the hostility would understandably be absent from your posts since it was a common ground issue.

That would at least allow me to gain respect for you on another plane, that might take away the sour taste I have from reading all the rhetorical items you post here.

But then, that's just me.

Respectfully, Dustin
Some people just enjoy muddying the waters!

Btw can you name any other politician who went from being a keynote speaker as an obscure State Senator to President of the United States in 4 years?

Lincoln.

And we all know how that turned out. In fact, it is part and parcel to the abortion known to this country as "government" today.

He is now and will always be the 44th President of the United States.

And, at the risk of starting a firestorm... hopefully the last.

Jim, I confess I've had trouble getting all the way through several of these posts but I think I must agree with what "Username" said or implied very early. The further I got into what you wrote, the word(s), "Blah, blah, blah" came to my mind.

Most of what I've seen this afternoon is created by those who don't understand (IMO) the basis of American government and what are the finest principles under which it can function. It would be foolish of me to attempt to present a list, but watever it is it isn't gun ownership and it isn't helping others get up out of the mud.

Its valid propose is to manage and protect a sysem of operating a nation that doesn't restrain an individual's or group's efforts to attain the highest goals without interfering unfairly with the rights of others to do the same. That's about it: No guided democracy; no ordered liberty. It's people who are left alone to seek to attain their dreams so long as they don't prevent others from doing so.

It has nothing to with individuals or groups "liking" each other or being polite, or not using nomenclature offensive to others. It has to do with one citizen's or one group's impinging harmfully on another. And even that isn't a function of the national government. Our Constitution provides a framework within which all these things can happen, a definition of what level of government is responsible or is authorized to assume responsibilty, and limits to which any level can constrain another or the citizens.

After that, it's our game. Have a gun; don't have a gun. Don't want to work; better find a sublevel whose citizens ar inclined to support you.

It's ours; not theirs. And our primary right is to be left alone.

Flavet wrote:Jim, I confess I've had trouble getting all the way through several of these posts but I think I must agree with what "Username" said or implied very early. The further I got into what you wrote, the word(s), "Blah, blah, blah" came to my mind.

Precisely...+1

gatlingun6 wrote: Mr Z.
Another odd post. I'm curious. Do you wait at least 24 or some number of hrs before you submit a reply to a post? When you politiclly label a poster or the President a liberal, a commie, socialist, Marxist, etc. what is your intent? What's the point? In your opinion is that a positive, neutral, or negative label? Are you referring to the messenger or the message? Are you aware that your political labeling of the same person often includes ideologies that are diametrically opposed? Is throwing around political labels your idea of debating the issues? Is it impossible for a smart man to write something stupid or ignorant? If an otherwise intelligent person writes something demonstrably ignorant should the messenger be given the benefit of the doubt? What if that person consistently write ignorant stuff must one accord the statement a degree of seriousness it does not deserve? Is it possible for the messenger to make themselves the message?

Back to your favorite topic the Constitution. Maybe I'm the only one, after reviewing all your posts I have no idea what you mean when you write "The Constitution". So, the Constitution of the United Stated has a short Preamble, 7 Articles, and 27 Amendments. When you write Constitution is that what you mean, every word and every Amendment unless you otherwise qualify the statement? What did you mean when you wrote several times: "We should go back to the Constitution".

As a civil servant of course you are always free to quit or resign for whatever reason. However, nothing in that oath implies that you have any authority to interpret the Constitution. Point of fact, you don't. I hope you are feeling better.
Respectfully, Jim
Btw Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution is about what? Why did you write that the 13th Amendment was unnecessary? Was the 14th necessary?

Dear Jim,

I'm smart enough to know that punctuation at the end of a sentence goes inside the quotes by American standards. Are you British?

Warmest regards,
DK

gatlingun6 wrote:CCFAN:
Are you kidding, you want a leadership example? Out smarting the Chicago Democratic machine to oust a longtime Democratic politician is nothing? Organizing, managing, running and winning the Presidency from the primaries on is nothing? Working the backroom among the Democratic Leadership and developing a strategy to break all records for campaign contributions is nothing? Btw can you name any other politician who went from being a keynote speaker as an obscure State Senator to President of the United States in 4 years? I'm guessing you don't want anyone to take your posts seriously.

Funny how Sarah Palin did exactly the same thing in Alaska by defeating the incumbents, and yet you consider it a great leadership example when he did it but not her. Typical hypocrisy! As for organizing/managing/running/winning - did you actually watch the other 2 videos? the MSM is responsible for most of that due to the woefully inadequacy of the public to differentiate fact from hype. Sure seems funny, *your* posts are the ones constantly refuted, so who's posts are being taken seriously?

gatlingun6 wrote: Btw if the President has done nothing why are you so angry with him? Political scientists, historians, commentators, newspapers across the land, etc all concede that the President ran a brilliant campaign with few missteps. But to you that's nothing, they are just all biased.

ha ha At least you admit he's a lame duck President already! You're beginning to see the light! (And scientists all said it was gonna be 100+ in winter due to the impending global warming emergency, commentators *are* biased, newspapers are folding, and there's a reason Fox News is #1. I'll grant he ran a brilliant campaign, you could have put Gumby on a poster with "Change" and Gumby would be in office...) I'm angry at the power grabbing going on, and the continued efforts of the Democratic party to spread my wealth.

gatlingun6 wrote: I'm sorry CCFAN as much as you want to, as much as you detest the President there is nothing you can do about it. He is now and will always be the 44th President of the United States. I do wonder the source of your and a few others personal animosity against the President. It's as if he has personally offended you. Some of you are so filled with venom you can't even bring yourself to write the phrase "President Obama". Why? When otherwise intelligent people seemed to have lost all sense of reason and logic what do you call that condition? What does it say about them? Have they made themselves the message?

I'm not personally offended, but I refuse to suck up and shuffle along and not fight for what I believe in. When healthcare has the potential to screw most people, congress (Democratically controlled) isn't listening to what the majority of people want, and we're afraid to call terrorists "terrorists" - I'm not sure I'm the one who's lost the ability to reason and apply logic.

gatlingun6 wrote: You posted a what? 30 second clip of an Obama supporter expressing exuberance and saying something that's silly. What was your point CCFAN? If it was that this person said something silly, fine. But no you decided to take a leap of logic. Do you know anything at all about the woman? Do you know if she said anything else and that was not posted? Could she have caught herself and said now I know he's not going to do that but I'm so happy I just couldn't contain myself. Could that part have been cut off the clip? Do you actually feel good about going on to conclude that she's a dummy based on 30 secs? It's just amazing how deep the hate streak runs!

I've posted numerous videos (funny how you haven't mentioned the other two) and if I'm not mistaken, actual links to real facts and figures with regarding the spending of our federal government and the social programs that are bankrupting our country. I'm sorry if you can't take the time to educate yourself and do some actual research. In fact, I think that's my point - people like you who can't post anything factually to back up their opinions (you know what they say about those, they're just like ....) are just like the people in some of the other videos - you can espouse this high and mighty attitude and attack the people here for their opinions, but if it's not your opinion, it's hate. I don't hate, I despise the direction our country is headed in. When the President claims all this new transparency, I'm beginning to think the only thing that's transparent is the X-Ray when he walks through because he seems to lack a spine for the security of our country, yet he caters to the rest of the world, apologizing for the US. That clear enough for you?

gatlingun6 wrote: Have you ever said anything ignorant, silly, or just plain stupid CCFAN? I guess not. Logic and reason would say I observe some phenomenon, and from that I make certain deductions. I go from the specific to the general. So what were you concluding, and would those conclusions be universal to any political campaign?

Respectfully, Jim
The arrogance is stunning!

Sure have, and I'm sure I do it on a frequent basis. That's one reason I linked the other two videos that you seem to have ignored, the ones that were presenting the Obama voters who were polled on a scientifically correct basis. My "conclusion" is that the person who did the poll and the video is smarter than you or I, and if you think otherwise, he's welcoming anyone to try the other angle.

You only continuing to argue with others here on their posts. I've on numerous occasions refuted your claims or otherwise pointed out the hypocrisy in your claims but all you can do is continue to argue. So who's arrogance is stunning? Contribute to one of the other forums for once, if you have anything of value to add that isn't picking an argument with the other folks here.

Jason
- Ignorance must truly be bliss.

I was re-reading some of the posts in this topic and several (including this one of Jim's) made me think of Major Randolph's famous poem/song.

gatlingun6 wrote:Can anyone tell me why most of the people who even think about insurrection seem to originate in the South? They lost before and sure as hell would lose again!

The Unreconstructed Rebel (I’m a Good Old Rebel)
By Innes Randolph, former Major, CSA. Supplemented by others.

Oh, I'm a good old Rebel,
Now that's just what I am.
For this fair land of "freedom"
I do not give a damn.
I'm glad I fit against it;
I only wish we'd won.
I ain’t asked any pardon
For anything I've done.

I hates the Constitution,
This "great" republic too;
I hates the Freedmen's Buro,
In uniforms of blue.
I hates the nasty eagle,
With all his brag and fuss;
But the lyin', thievin' Yankees
I hates' em wuss and wuss.

I hates this Yankee nation
And everything they do.
I hates their Declaration
Of Independence too.
I hates their "glorious" union;
‘Tis drippin’ with our blood.
I hates that striped banner,
I fit it all I could.

I followed old Marse Robert
For four years, there about;
Got wounded in four places;
Damn near starved at Point Lookout.
I catched the roomatism
A’campin in the snow,
But I killed a chance of Yankees,
And I’d like to kill some mo’!

Three hundred thousand Yankees
Lie stiff in Southern dust.
We got three hundred thousand
Befo' they conquered us.
They died of Southern fever
And Southern steel and shot;
I wisht it was three million
Instead of what we got.

I can't take up my musket
And fight' em now no mo',
But I ain't a-gonna love' em,
Now that’s for certain sure;
And I don't want no pardon
For what I was and am;
And I won't be reconstructed,
And I do not give a damn.

To hear a sample of the tune (it's the same as Johnny Horton's Sink the Bismarck, if you're old enough to remember it) go to this link and click on the “Preview” button.

R/Kurt

OakRidgeStars wrote:

With a liberal? This is way too much fun....and besides there is no comprise here. Jim has made that clear. Its either his way or no way. We are all wrong and only he is right.

zephyp wrote:
With a liberal? This is way too much fun....and besides there is no comprise here. Jim has made that clear. Its either his way or no way. We are all wrong and only he is right.

You know DK, I feel like that's what bothers me most as well. A little bit of give goes a long way in a discussion like this, I'm willing to freely admit I'm no expert and most of us are here in this forum in the spirit of learning / garnering more knowledge anyway!

Perhaps our politically argumentative member known as "gatlingun6" is in fact an agent of Obama's Federal government at some level....perhaps reporting to Butch Napolitano, or that upstanding minion of the left, Cass Sunstein. After seeing his positions and postings I think it is a distinct possibility....what do the rest of you think?