Whats 1st on Obama's list?

[Ram Rod]

Are they still using Windows 95 and AOL or something?

Oh...I think it's worse off than that by the looks of it. Archaic actually.....I could actually see the concern. My bad.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Scott]

You really want to know? New up-to-date computers and network for the White House. I read that on Yahoo two days ago! Yep, that's his first concern to deal with. Hope you're not disappointed.

It's because the Bush staffers took all the 'O' keys off the keyboards. Oh wait, no they didn't, that was the Clinton staffers taking 'W's off the keyboards.

Being as the White House is part of the government they don't necessarily get the latest and greatest computer stuff. Several reasons for that a big one of which is security. Our new President wants his BB and to do that you must have a BB server on the network and a chunk of software installed as well. That has to be "approved" by the security folks before it can happen. Same issues with hardware as that all has to be tested extensively and approved. So in that area they will always be behind.

Another thing that the President has done is added a blog. Blog

As for firearms related items on the agenda, I'm glad to get reassurances that there aren't any firearms items on the democrat's agenda. Now I can ignore this administration, and the Congress, and get back to important things, like creating empty brass cases and shotgun hulls.

[zdnb02]

Question concerning President Obama’s Proposed
Child Safety Lock for handguns.

If President Obama wants to mandate that all pistols have a Child Safety Lock, how is President Obama going to guarantee all the bad guys have Child Safety Locks on their weapons?

Will it be something like this?

Bad Guy goes into a convenience store to rob it.
BG “All right mister clerk! Get ready to be robbed just as soon as I get this Child Safety thing off my gun!”

BG “Hang on a minute. I can’t get this blasted thing to turn loose! Clerk! When I get this thing off YOU’RE A DEAD MAN!”

Clerk pulls out his pistol, points it at the BG and says “OK Buster! Drop that pistol and put your hands up!”

BG “Now wait a minute! Wait a minute! Did you have one of those Child Safety thingys on your pistol?”

Clerk “No! Quit messing with that pistol and drop it! Now be still and don’t move while I call 911.”

Officers arrive.

BG “Officer, Officer – That clerk pointed his pistol at me and it did not have a Child Safety Lock on it!”

Officer to Clerk “Is that true Sir? You did not have a Child Safety Lock on your weapon?”

Clerk “That is true Officer. I am licensed to carry concealed and I keep my weapon ready to use just in case some low life scum bag like this one tries to kill me and rob my store!”

Officer “I’m sorry Sir, but President Obama’s New Child Safety Lock Law requires you to have a Child Safety Lock on your pistol at all times.”

Clerk “But what about this guy? He said he was going to kill me!”

Officer “Well Sir, it looks as though the Child Safety Lock is still on his pistol. Sir, you are under arrest for violating President Obama’s New Child Safety Lock Law.”

BG “Right-On Officer! Arrest that dude for pointing a Non Child Safety Locked pistol at me. And you Mister Clerk, when my lawyer gets through with you we are going to sue you and your store for 6 million dollars!!! For pointing a Non Child Safety Locked pistol at me! I could’a been hurt! Or Killt even!!”

[AllAmerican]

Pay attention. While they have you focusing on what they are gonna do with your gun rights they'll be passing all kinds of other legislation that will infringe on everything else.

Then at the end of the first or beginning of the second (God forbid) term we'll see them actually come after us.

[socal2310]

Pay attention. While they have you focusing on what they are gonna do with your gun rights they'll be passing all kinds of other legislation that will infringe on everything else.

Then at the end of the first or beginning of the second (God forbid) term we'll see them actually come after us.

+1 If only pro gun politicians were as devious. We got what, two concessions from Bush? (which I count as one since I subtract one for the Justice Department Amicus brief against Heller ).

Ryan

[Thanis]

Pay attention. While they have you focusing on what they are gonna do with your gun rights they'll be passing all kinds of other legislation that will infringe on everything else...

+1

Sounds right to me.

[torgo1968]

Its not about lowering crime or being safe nor has it ever been. It's about control.

For some perhaps. But if you've been around enough people, it quickly becomes apparent that the real issue is ignorance and the fear that goes with it.

When you understand that its not about logic or reasoning, then you will begin to see what gun control is all about.

Obama's goal is to bring the United States into line with the ideals of the United Nations.

You started off so sensible and then the tinfoil came out.

So far, the U.S. has for the most part been somewhat resistant to many of its ideas, such as a World Court,control of the oceans,mandated standards to reduce "global warming",

Global warming is the U.N.'s idea? Wow, they have more power than I thought. To have brainwashed virtually every climate scientist on the planet, scary stuff.

Exactly. We elected a man who, IMO, has the most dirty history of any Pres. that I know of, and no one seemed to mind.

So how many presidents do you know of? Obama the dirtiest? Are you freaking kidding? I'm not even a big fan of the guy, but he's not even in the running in that category.

"Obama replied in a friendly but firm way that an election had been held in November, "and I won. I will trump you on that", according to several people who had been briefed by participants who took notes".<--from Newsmax

For the love of John Browning, please get your news from non-lunatic sources.

Sorry about the rant, but just thinking of where we might be in a year or two makes me ill.

Just out of curiosity, how did you feel during the last eight years when you had a president who raped the Constitution in ways that Obama is only dreaming of, while at the same time doing next to nothing for gun owners?

You really want to know? New up-to-date computers and network for the White House. I read that on Yahoo two days ago! Yep, that's his first concern to deal with. Hope you're not disappointed.

WTH. Did you not hear about the boatload of executive signings he did? Jeez people, come on. It's not like this guy has no legitimate faults, I could go at him all day with things I don't like. But you don't help the discourse any when you say crap like this.

It's because the Bush staffers took all the 'O' keys off the keyboards. Oh wait, no they didn't, that was the Clinton staffers taking 'W's off the keyboards.

Oh wait, that didn't actually happen.

[cdwolf]

It would appear so. As evidenced by many of the posts on this forum, especially with the younger crowd, it would appear that lots of folks, even some of the hard core second amendment types that swear"they'll take my gun from my cold dead hands" aren't looking at the big picture and seeing what has happened on the world scene. Its no accident that few countries left in this world actually allow private owership of weapons. Those that do have so many restrictions and registration requirements or they have made the process so exepensive that the threat of an armed rebellion is pretty much non existant.

We are pretty much the only ones left that have basically an unhindered relationship with firearms. We can own them, shoot them, make them, and carry them...for the most part. Even here we have some states that will not allow their citizens to carry, Illinois and Wisconsin. Illinois registers the firearms and the people that use them. They require a firearms owners I.D. just to buy ammo. Other states restrict the ownership of firearms or make it very difficult just to purchase one.

We see posts here on that, how so and so spent the better part of a year getting "approved" to buy a handgun and getting the proper permits so that he can take it home.

And that amazes me. I can drive to any gun store,buy a gun and walk out in about 5 minutes. Yet, in another state a person might have to have permission from a police chieft, apply to a judge, get a signed statement saying that he can own a gun so that he can buy it,then register it and then he is allowed to take it home. And yet this person thinks that it is "normal" to do all of this.



It should. They go along with it because they dont know any different.

I've made it this far and agree with HotGuns, Almost scared to finish reading.

[oldogy]

Maybe I am at fault for inserting logic in this debate, but I still have no clue how they (you know who) think baning guns will lower crime. ESPECIALLY the man from Chicago!

There have been many, many examples of crime rising when honest citizens are disarmed.

If I am at fault for using reason and logic, please forgive me.

I.

IMO, the only way that we can fight this liberal gun take over or control agenda is to document the known statistics on crime in areas where guns are available verses where they are not. We all must have a working knowledge of these stats and be articulate enough to state them accurately. When the liberal cry starts we need to present facts. When legislation is being discussed our representatives need to know the facts. NRA or GOA need to take up the project of compiling these stats and presenting them to members for distribution and education.
Yeah, I know, liberal polititions do not pay any attention to facts or history.
oldogy

[Guardian]

IMO, the only way that we can fight this liberal gun take over or control agenda is to document the known statistics on crime in areas where guns are available verses where they are not. We all must have a working knowledge of these stats and be articulate enough to state them accurately. When the liberal cry starts we need to present facts. When legislation is being discussed our representatives need to know the facts. NRA or GOA need to take up the project of compiling these stats and presenting them to members for distribution and education.
Yeah, I know, liberal polititions do not pay any attention to facts or history.oldogy

The one point they do pay attention to is the votes my friend. You live in a pro-gun district, that representative will pay attention to the voting public for sure.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Scott View Post
It's because the Bush staffers took all the 'O' keys off the keyboards. Oh wait, no they didn't, that was the Clinton staffers taking 'W's off the keyboards.

Oh wait, that didn't actually happen.

It was a bit of a joke. My bad, but since you brought it up the reality is they just flat out took the keyboards among other things.

The final, official report from the Government Accounting Office was released on June 11, 2002. The 220 page document says there was damage, although not as much as some of the early reports had suggested. The GAO says the damage included 62 missing computer keyboards, 26 cell phones, two cameras, ten antique doorknobs and several presidential medallions and office signs. The damage estimate was about $20,000.

[HotGuns]

Global warming is the U.N.'s idea? Wow, they have more power than I thought. To have brainwashed virtually every climate scientist on the planet, scary stuff.

I know 3 people that do it for a living that would strongly disagree with you. And to assume that virtually every climate scientist on the planet believes in "global warming" is quite frankly, ridiculous.

[LongRider]

You started off so sensible and then the tinfoil came out.

This snide crack shows a complete lack of knowledge about who the what your president is about. His whole agenda is to unite the United States with the whole socialist ideology of the UN.

[torgo1968]

It was a bit of a joke. My bad, but since you brought it up the reality is they just flat out took the keyboards among other things.

Actually, I owe you an apology. They did take the W's, not the whole keyboards, so you were right the first time. The reporting on the entire affair was abysmal and confusing, and my very flawed memory took the truth (that there was very little actual damage and the story was wildly blown out of proportion) and changed it to nothing happening. Mea culpa.

[torgo1968]

I know 3 people that do it for a living that would strongly disagree with you. And to assume that virtually every climate scientist on the planet believes in "global warming" is quite frankly, ridiculous.

There are 20,000 climatologists world wide. If only one percent disagreed with the scientific consensus, you'd still have two hundred so called, "skeptics." And if that percentage was correct, I'd feel fine saying "virtually every..." If one gun "expert" out of a hundred said that John Browning was a bad gun designer, I'd feel pretty comfortable saying that "virtually every" expert in that group thinks Browning was a brilliant designer.

More....

That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Your three friends are also in disagreement with the National Academy of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and The American Meteorological Society.

And forgive this long quote, but I think it puts everything into perspective: BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear.

"Virtually all" may or may not be an exaggeration on my part. If we could come to a precise definition or rate of disagreement among the relevant scientists, I'll answer accordingly. But the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is clear.