Pro Gun President? The media wants you to believe that!

[allingeneral]

This article was written by Alan Korwin, "The Uninvited Ombudsman" http://gunlaws.com


The lamestream media told you:

President Obama hasn't turned out to be nearly as bad on firearms as gun owners and the powerful gun lobby feared. This proves once again that these paranoid gun toters are full of baloney and afraid of their shadows. In fact, Mr. Obama has signed some pro-gun bills and basically left the Second Amendment alone, to the chagrin of huge swaths of his supporters.


The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Obama's record on gun-rights is atrocious, as a simple look at the facts shows. While some issues sit in near-permanent limbo, like interstate recognition of permits or rights restoration, the current occupant of the White House has allowed his administration to attack gun ownership in subtle and low visibility ways. Sarah Brady, as you probably already know, said he told her this was his "under the radar" approach. Why would he lie to someone like her?

-- A million or more fine M1 Korean-era carbines are available for shipment to collectors and enthusiasts in the United States. These are in Cold-War stockpiles in Korea, which would like to unload the valuable merchandise. The White House and State Dept. have stonewalled the effort.

-- Congress just passed an omnibus bill that prohibits spending money on lobbying for gun control and funding gun-control studies through the National Institute of Health. The president, in a signing statement, basically said these provisions do not apply to him. ("I have advised the Congress that I will not construe these provisions as preventing me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibility to recommend to the Congress’s consideration such measures as I shall judge necessary and expedient" (referring to himself four times in one sentence).

-- He moved to ban target practice on huge tracts of deserted public land, where outdoor marksmanship had been practiced safely for as long as anyone can remember. He was rebuffed only by enormous and swift public outcry, showing that your voice does matter when it's used quickly and loudly enough. The fact that he "didn't" ban shooting does not make him pro rights on the issue.

-- Obama and Hillary (watch out for people who prefer not to use their full names) were both vigorously promoting the need for more gun-control laws, because of the "iron river" of guns causing mayhem in Mexico. Then just by coincidence, after it turned out that 90% of the drug cartel hardware did not come from the U.S., thoroughly undermining the claim, the Justice Department began a campaign of supplying guns to the cartels, which helped "improve" the numbers (from the administration's twisted standpoint). Caught red handed, the administration has circled the wagons and refused to let real information seep out (but that didn't work real well, it's now a matter of time to see who is taken down by GunSmuggleGate). The next congressional interrogation of AG Eric Holder is set for Feb. 2.

-- When fury over Fast and Furious grew large enough to float a vote of no confidence in Congress with 90 co-sponsors, Holder declared it's because he and his boss are black, refusing to acknowledge the crimes that led to the ongoing reprimand.

-- Hillary, with full support from the White House, is pursuing a massive gun-rights grab by the UN, being drafted in secret (because people will enjoy it so). This is not what you call standing up for your rights, even if the "news" media tells you it is. We have people working on the inside scoop, will hopefully have news on this before the draft is released. Expect the scat to hit the air circulator when it does.

-- The newly named nominee for the BATFE is a long time gun-control advocate, Andrew Traver.

-- Two Supreme Court nominees, now confirmed for life to the Bench, are ardent advocates of gun control. One of them, Sonia Sotomayor, signed on to the dissent in McDonald v. Chicago that basically says you have no right to keep and bear arms for self defense.

-- According to FOX News, "Administration officials say they are working to develop the gun-safety measures promised" after a maniac killed people at a Tucson political rally. No one knows what these might be, and the administration isn't saying.

The Uninvited Ombudsman remains skeptical, when the lamestream media repeats its mantra that the man in the White House is moderate on guns. He's a moderate all right, but only if "yes" means "no." And since turning meaning upside down is a tactic of the international communists, who we already defeated, it can't be so.

The head of communist Korea, communist China, communist Cuba, the four countries in South America led by avowed communists, the avowed communists working with the current administration who did not undergo FBI background checks before getting their positions, and the 1.5 billion people currently living under socialism around the globe could not be reached for comment.

Thanks to scholar and author John Lott for so many leads for this story. Get on his FOX News blog for some of the most intelligent news and commentary you are likely to find.
http://www.foxnews.com/archive/author/j ... index.html

[VBshooter]

Believe it or not we still have Gun folks in this country who haven;t seen the light yet. I travel the country working and in some places the lack of knowledge is downright frightening.... Seems to a lot of them there folks think Ol' Obama got a raw deal from Goeorge Bush, what with him leaving the country in such an untidy state of affairs...Scarier even more so is how these uneducated drones have a one track mind and they can;t see the forest for the trees and think that Obama is OK.(What read a paper or look online??) too much effort for them/)..We have our work cut out for us this year plain and simple... Get as many people on board as possible and put this administration to rest once and for all

[Kreutz]

Believe it or not we still have Gun folks in this country who haven;t seen the light yet. I travel the country working and in some places the lack of knowledge is downright frightening.... Seems to a lot of them there folks think Ol' Obama got a raw deal from Goeorge Bush, what with him leaving the country in such an untidy state of affairs...Scarier even more so is how these uneducated drones have a one track mind and they can;t see the forest for the trees and think that Obama is OK.(What read a paper or look online??) too much effort for them/)..We have our work cut out for us this year plain and simple... Get as many people on board as possible and put this administration to rest once and for all

Not everyone who owns a gun is a single issue voter. I make less than 250k/year, ergo Obama gets my vote since I expect him to better represent my interests since he will likely push for a tax code, medical insurance reforms, etc that are more middle class friendly than Mitt, who will be his opponent.

If I made over 250k/year I'd vote for Mitt accordingly since the Republican party platform overwhelmingly favors the rich.

Oh yeah, Mitt is also all about "common sense" gun laws. So, good luck there.

Dismissing people as "uneducated drones" because they disagree with you is shortsighted. Again, not everyone has a one track mind. I am consciously voting for Obama for the reasons above. IE, I ain't rich.

[dorminWS]

Kreutz,
The flaw in your logic is that it is not only people who make $250,000-plus who will get shafted. If you make $75,000-$100,000, he will screw you, too. There ain't enough $250,000-plus earners in the country to bail Obama out and keep him in money to burn.

[dorminWS]

Kreutz,
The flaw in your logic is that it is not only people who make $250,000-plus who will get shafted. If you make $75,000-$100,000, he will screw you, too. There ain't enough $250,000-plus earners in the country to bail Obama out and keep him in money to burn.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You kind of remind me of what Fred Thompson said at the 2008 republican convention. Something like that the democrats were telling folks they weren't going to take any water out of THEIR side of the bucket - -only the OTHER GUY's side of the bucket.

[Kreutz]

You kind of remind me of what Fred Thompson said at the 2008 republican convention. Something like that the democrats were telling folks they weren't going to take any water out of THEIR side of the bucket - -only the OTHER GUY's side of the bucket.

If someones gotta lose some water, may as well be those with the bigger buckets.

And I'm married filing joint with a spouse who is a homemaker, I aint scared of Obama, its the Republicans who keep trying to kill the tax credits and deductions that help me, not the Democrats. The child tax credit, the social security payroll reduction; these benefit middle class and lower people, so, they try and void them. Yet they'll fight to the death to keep rich folks taxes from going back up.

Again, till I hit 250k(and I never will lol) I know who has my back.

[allingeneral]

You kind of remind me of what Fred Thompson said at the 2008 republican convention. Something like that the democrats were telling folks they weren't going to take any water out of THEIR side of the bucket - -only the OTHER GUY's side of the bucket.

If someones gotta lose some water, may as well be those with the bigger buckets.

And I'm married filing joint with a spouse who is a homemaker, I aint scared of Obama, its the Republicans who keep trying to kill the tax credits and deductions that help me, not the Democrats. The child tax credit, the social security payroll reduction; these benefit middle class and lower people, so, they try and void them. Yet they'll fight to the death to keep rich folks taxes from going back up.

Again, till I hit 250k(and I never will lol) I know who has my back.

Kreutz - I'm really disappointed. I was hoping that we had gotten through to you.

Seriously though... Obama is killing this country in so many ways...and I would beg you to reconsider the fact that a tax break to you means more debt for our country. The Republicans aren't going to raise taxes...and they have done just as much to help out the middle class as Obummer has. Don't fall into the trap of Government Swaddling! Do what you can with what you've got, and help keep the government out of our lives!

[Kreutz]

Kreutz - I'm really disappointed. I was hoping that we had gotten through to you.

Seriously though... Obama is killing this country in so many ways...and I would beg you to reconsider the fact that a tax break to you means more debt for our country

Wasn't it some conservative who said, "People vote with their wallets"?

And how would you get me to vote against my own interests? Thats as silly as someone making under 250k voting Republican, did they suffer head trauma?

Its stunning how much Republicans give a damn about the Nat'l Debt when its about middle class and lower class people paying more.

Want to help the debt? Let those Bush tax cuts expire on the rich. Raise the capital gains tax. Stop allowing companies that outsource jobs keep the profits tax free.

Oh yah, Republicans blocked all that stuff. It was nice of them to hold my lower tax rate hostage so the rich dint get an increase. Remember that? I do.

The Republicans aren't going to raise taxes..

On the rich.

Every Republican budget proposal, from Rand Paul to The Cain Train balanced the budget on the backs of lower and middle class, veterans, and retired seniors.

Our net worth has increased, what was it, 19% since 1970 something? The top 1% saw their net worth increase to the tune of about 400% was it? Clearly one side needs some help there, and the other can afford to pay more for the system that has obviously benefited them.

.and they have done just as much to help out the middle class as Obummer has. Don't fall into the trap of Government Swaddling!

How so? My taxes went up $800 in one shot thanks to them blocking a renewal of the Making Work Pay tax credit, which Obama sought to extend. Instead I have a much crappier payroll tax cut that I didn't even ask for thanks to the Republican party.

Do what you can with what you've got, and help keep the government out of our lives!

Do tell how President Romney would go about doing that?

Oh yeah, shouldn't you all be voting for Obama?

"The government that governs least governs best", right? Given the makeup of the House and Senate an Obama reelection would guarantee gridlock and nothing getting done for at least two, possibly 4 years if the midterms went Republican.

Which is what you want if I surmise correctly.

Something to consider.

[MNMGoneShooting]

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

[Kreutz]

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

I'm far from poor, yet rich is always out of my grasp.

I could not care less about "sharing wealth:, an asinine concept when you have fiat currency.

My beef is, in a two party system, you must look at your whopping two choices, and decide who's looking to screw you less. Now, if you're rich, you go R. If you're not rich, you go D.

It's a bit of an oversimplification, but I think it covers a wide base.

Now, I know they're really two sides of the same coin, and I don't like it, but that's the way it is.

In 2012 it will be Obama vs Romney, our votes matter not a bit, and both get most of their contributions from Goldman Sachs. So just hold your nose and vote for whoever you think will let you keep more of the worthless paper things and even more worthless electronic data you earn.

For me, thats Obama, even if he shows up to a debate snacking on a live puppy I still trust him more to screw me less.

[SHMIV]

My beef is, in a two party system, you must look at your whopping two choices, and decide who's looking to screw you less.

Now, if you're rich, you go R. If you're not rich, you go D.

It really doesn't matter how many parties there are. We could have 10 parties, but as long as we keep on electing career politicians and lawyers, we shall have more of the same.

I have never made more than 30K a year. Since I have started working, I've had two D's and one R in the White House. Financially speaking, I was better off under Bush than I am under Obama or was under Clinton. Just from my personal experience, I can't see why I would want to vote for a D.

Voting with " your wallet", which I read to mean "voting for who ever gives away the most stuff", is probably part of what got us into this whole financial crisis, anyway. As was previously noted, when the government is giving stuff away, they must first take away from another party.

[Kreutz]

Voting with " your wallet", which I read to mean "voting for who ever gives away the most stuff", is probably part of what got us into this whole financial crisis, anyway. As was previously noted, when the government is giving stuff away, they must first take away from another party.

Once the pinata is cracked open, you grab what you can or you get nothing, and the big kids always seem to get the most candy.

Turns out a treasury works the same way.

Edit: i just noticed something, you and Rick seem....to well, be trying to get me to go against self-interest. Adam Smith (not the real one who actually favored government regulation, but the highly abridged Reaganomics one) would be weeping in his Scotch over that. Communists the lot of ya.

I AM HOMO (shut up) ECONOMICUS!

[dorminWS]

“Stop allowing companies that outsource jobs keep the profits tax free.” ?

Kreutz, just how would you go about doing that? Companies outsource jobs to reduce costs. In this global economy, they must compete with foreign companies whose employees are also offshore and therefore less costly. So what will you do? Prohibit US companies from exporting jobs? How will they compete? You won’t have to worry about them “keeping their profits”, because they won’t make any. And rather than go broke, some will just quit producing the product or service in question. Others will probably be acquired by their foreign competitors. But without a chance to make those old nasty profits you complain of, they'll have no incentive to employ their capital to produce goods and services. End result? Jobs are offshore anyway, only now they’re with a foreign company and there is NO return of wealth to this country; AND there will be a constant drain of wealth offshore to purchase the goods and services (think CHINA). Or would you just put a punitive tax on companies that export jobs? Guess what: Same result. If US companies are prevented from exporting jobs or punished for doing so, they will either terminate operations or sell out to a foreign company that CAN do so.

You have fallen prey to the politics of envy, Kreutz. You are NOT homo economicus; you are homo invidium. TURN ON FOX NEWS NOW! YOUR ONLY HOPE IS A QUICK EXCORCISM!

[dorminWS]

Speaking of incomes and who will get the shaft and who will do the shafting, I had a session with our insurance folks yesterday; and the subject eventually came around to employee benefits. I was told two things that shed some light on this.

First, the payroll tax relief extension that Obama was so insistent be passed contains a provision that anyone who earned $18,350 in the first 60 days of 2012 will have to pay a 2% tax on his taxable wages for that first 60 days of 2012. The tax will be due in addition to your other income taxes payable when you file your 2012 income taxes.
$18,350 per 60 days is $110,100 per year. So you can see already that Obummer’s assurances that he’s only after those who make $250,000/year is just another in a long string of baldfaced lies proffered in the course of waging class warfare and practicing the politics of envy. It’s just like I’ve been telling you all along: Obama will get into the pockets of the middle class, too; and it won’t take him long.

Second, if you have any life insurance coverage paid for by your company as a group employee benefit that exceeds $60,000 in coverage, the premiums on all coverage in excess of $60,000 are taxable to you as income at the rate per $1,000 for coverage applicable to you.

Now, in recognition of the job market that awaits the unemployed among us, I’ll ask this question: You want fries with that crap sandwich?

[Kreutz]

“Stop allowing companies that outsource jobs keep the profits tax free.” ?

Kreutz, just how would you go about doing that? Companies outsource jobs to reduce costs. In this global economy, they must compete with foreign companies whose employees are also offshore and therefore less costly. So what will you do? Prohibit US companies from exporting jobs? How will they compete? You won’t have to worry about them “keeping their profits”, because they won’t make any. And rather than go broke, some will just quit producing the product or service in question. Others will probably be acquired by their foreign competitors. But without a chance to make those old nasty profits you complain of, they'll have no incentive to employ their capital to produce goods and services. End result? Jobs are offshore anyway, only now they’re with a foreign company and there is NO return of wealth to this country; AND there will be a constant drain of wealth offshore to purchase the goods and services (think CHINA). Or would you just put a punitive tax on companies that export jobs? Guess what: Same result. If US companies are prevented from exporting jobs or punished for doing so, they will either terminate operations or sell out to a foreign company that CAN do so.

When did I even imply profits are "old nasty"? I stated they shouldnt be allowed to not pay taxes on those profits. Two reasons:

1) If they wish to enjoy the protections and benefits of US....I guess, uh "citizenship" since they're people now, they should not be able to outsource and then avoid paying into the system they benefit from (contrary to Republican orthodoxy the US has one of the lowest effective tax rates on Earth). It also affords serious legal protections they will not find if they headquarter overseas, such as not being nationalized by Hugo Chavez or any of his clones around the world.

2) Since they are legally people, under US law any US citizen must report and pay tax on income generated overseas. I suspect this will be enforced soon as Citizens United will change alot of things in the coming years, count on it. I suspect their will be some serious unintended consequences for corporations and unions.

If paying a fair share of taxes results in the doomsday scenario you have painted (it won't), they must not have been economically viable anyway to operate without externalizing all of their costs onto the US taxpayer.

You have fallen prey to the politics of envy, Kreutz. You are NOT homo economicus; you are homo invidium.

Now, I will confess truth in that. I am envious I cannot pay a negative tax rate, like GE...and do so while outsourcing thousands of jobs.

I am envious my productive work is taxed at a rate double that of those rich enough to live off investments.

WIll any of this change? Nope. Wealth seems just collapse on itself like a black hole...it doesn't trickle up or down anymore (according to Time magazine you have more upward mobility as a poor person in Europe or China), it just seems to hang around one particular income level.

Is force able wealth redistribution the answer? No. Is at least making sure they pay at least as much a % of their income in tax as their maid? Yeah, its a start to helping reduce the deficit and maybe making some improvements around here.

TURN ON FOX NEWS NOW! YOUR ONLY HOPE IS A QUICK EXCORCISM

Of what, my brain cells?