received via email - is it true?

[Jess Tolbirt]

The Full Article Here: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015
 
 
U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade
 
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.
 
The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State
Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.
 
On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All
Firearms in the United States. The Obama administration intends to
force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens
through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By
signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nationsand individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms.
 
The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of
gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened. Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment.
 
This is not a joke nor a false warning. As sure as government health
care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary,  so will gun control.
 
Please forward this message to others who may be concerned about the direction in which our country is headed.
 
We are being led like a lamb to the slaughter (Socialism/Dictatorship).

[texaninsouthfl]

[Serk]

Is it true? Well... in the sense that "they" prefer unarmed peasants yes it's true... As far as the "Last Wednesday" referenced in the article... well... that was in 2009... So this isn't really "news" in the "new" sense of the word...

[Chrisj CMA]

What is true is Hilary has been on the rampage to sign us up behind England and Australia to work toword the the day that Americans have no guns. 

You hardly ever hear Obama say anything about gun control, and when he does he lies and says...."I support the second ammendment" (thats so he wont lose votes)

"president" Obama is all for taking guns away (if he could) making ammo impossible to buy and regulating just who can buy own carry shoot any guns. 

IMPEACH OBAMA

[gregc]

 I believe that for the USA to enter a treaty, it still  takes 2/3 of the congress to agree on it. Or both the congress and the senate must pass it by a majority for it to take effect.  Could be wrong, school was a long time ago for me, anybody know for sure?

[Chrisj CMA]

I believe that for the USA to enter a treaty, it still  takes 2/3 of the congress to agree on it. Or both the congress and the senate must pass it by a majority for it to take effect.  Could be wrong, school was a long time ago for me, anybody know for sure?

I dont think this president thinks he needs Congress for anything

[musclehead]

I believe that for the USA to enter a treaty, it still  takes 2/3 of the congress to agree on it. Or both the congress and the senate must pass it by a majority for it to take effect.  Could be wrong, school was a long time ago for me, anybody know for sure?

I dont think this president thinks he needs Congress for anything

that's very ture.

[cookiedough]

Uncle Ted Nugent will get em' taken care of.

[forjj]

Okay, Where to begin???
First, this has been completely debunked by snopes. Here is the link:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

Second, it really doesn't make sense anyway.

Third, I don't understand the "impeach obama" stuff.  Do you really understand what the word "impeach" even means.  You can't impeach an elected official just because you don't agree with his political ideology.  An impeachment is only called for in cases of "high crimes and misdemeanors" Signing a bill drafted by the US Congress doesn't exactly qualify.

Fourth, When will the crazies at FauxNews give up on the whole Soros stuff.  It is really quite silly.

And finally health care.  You do realize that the Mitt Romney Health Care plan in Massachusetts is almost exactly like the plan passed by Congress and signed by President Obama.  Basically, the GOP was in favor of the same type of health care reform until President Obama pushed to have reform passed.  Also, last time I checked, the US is in dire need of HC reform considering that there are approxiamatley 50 million Americans without health insurance.

[Paxton]

I am with forjj on this one.

Jonh, it was not 70%. It was 41.703%

[JohnD]

Read your NRA Rifleman magazine, it speaks of the UN pushing for the Obama admin. to agree to private firearm ownership restrictions ( ban guns) in the USA. It is true and for real. Look who makes up the United Nations  and we are suppose to go along with them? We need our entire government Republican and Democratic to know where we stand as Americans and that no foreign power our coalition has any say what so ever with our laws and government, especially our Bill of Rights. We need to get out of the UN anyway.

[Chrisj CMA]

If the Justice Dep wasnt owned by the Obama camp they could prove him guilty of any of these Impeachable offenses:

Tampering with Governor elections/offering benifits for his enemies to get out ot their races

Supporting Votor fraud and voter registration fraud

Violations of the War Powers Act (Lybia)

Authorizing and covering up the Fast and Furious Gun Scheme

Giving billions of dollars away to his "friends" knowing it was primarily a wealth redistribution scheme, several examples


It would probably be like how Organized Crime bosses get taken down for stupid stuff like tax evasion because its what can be proved.........whichever one they can prove is justified by all the ones they know but cant actually prove.  But I believe it could be done and should be done

[forjj]

Read your NRA Rifleman magazine, it speaks of the UN pushing for the Obama admin. to agree to private firearm ownership restrictions ( ban guns) in the USA. It is true and for real. Look who makes up the United Nations  and we are suppose to go along with them? We need our entire government Republican and Democratic to know where we stand as Americans and that no foreign power our coalition has any say what so ever with our laws and government, especially our Bill of Rights. We need to get out of the UN anyway.

Yeah, [insert sarcasm here]because the NRA is totally not a biased source, and should be considered totally reliable...
Seriously, you are aware of the 2nd amendment, right?  Also, the Supreme Court has ruled that international treaties do NOT change US law, and the US SC has consistently ruled that the 2nd is pretty much rock solid in protecting the rights of gun owners.  Also, just incase the FauxNews crowd has forgotten, the SC is dominated by biased, GOP appointed judges, so I don't foresee them changing their views on guns and gun control.  Of all the things to worry about, gun rights really shouldn't be one of them...
Seriously, did anyone read the snopes link that I posted???

[solo1]

What's with this crap Faux News?  Like all news media FOX news has an axe to grind but I trust them more than all the rest of the media!

The same applies to the NRA.  I'm a Life member of the NRA and , yes, they are biased too but their bias is the same as mine.

By calling FOX news Faux, you show your bias against them. 

However, you are entitled to your bias as I am to mine 

No flame suit necessary as I won't argue because I am biased  but I'm honest.

[forjj]

What's with this crap Faux News?  Like all news media FOX news has an axe to grind but I trust them more than all the rest of the media!

The same applies to the NRA.  I'm a Life member of the NRA and , yes, they are biased too but their bias is the same as mine.

By calling FOX news Faux, you show your bias against them. 

However, you are entitled to your bias as I am to mine 

No flame suit necessary as I won't argue because I am biased  but I'm honest.

The fact that Faux News is biased is a given, My issue is that they consistently claim to be "fair and balanced" when they are in fact biased.  Yes, I am biased against FauxNews, but there is a lot of independent research to support my claim:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200807020002
http://www.journalism.org/node/709
http://talyarkoni.org/papers/Holtzman_et_al_BRM.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies#Studies_of_reporting_bias
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/22/1093953/-Another-study-says-watching-Fox-News-makes-you-dumber
http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/kgarrett/MediaMosqueRumors.pdf

What I can safely take away from these(and other) articles is that FauxNews consistently lies to its viewers under the guise of "fair" reporting. 

Nothing personal, just food for thought.

[solo1]

Yeah, you sure did persuade me...............NOT

[forjj]

Yeah, you sure did persuade me...............NOT

Considering that you took a grand total of 5 Minutes to carefully consider the links, I'm not surprised...Seriously, just take a look at this blog:
http://letterstoconservativeparents.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/sorry-dad-the-media-isnt-liberal-and-fox-news-isnt-reliable/

It is well researched, well written, and makes a couple of pretty good points about Fox, for what its worth...

[solo1]

One last reply.  I really have better things to do.  My Vstrom is chomping at the bit for me to ride before it gets too hot. My favorite river ride is beckoning and I'm outta here.

 I do appreciate posting the arguments against Fox. Thank you.

pS.  I'm still biased

[Chattanooga Mark]

At some point you'll need to put down the Kool Aid forjj.  There are many forces lined up against the US, our basic way of life and our freedoms. You'd do well to listen to someone like Glenn Beck for a week and then actually do your own research to prove the validity of his reporting. Same with FOX News. Sounds like you consume a steady diet of MSNBC as you clearly have no idea of what you post about. I regularly get my news from Fox, The Drudge Report and The Blaze. I also regularly look at the far left wing sites you post so I can see and read both sides of the issues.

Balance is a good thing, try it for a week, open your closed and biased mind and see what happens. It's only a week. What's the harm, affraid of some basic facts, logic and common sense?

I pray for (not against) people like you.

All the best

Mark

[The Anvil]

I'm a member of the NRA and I don't take a word they say without a shaker of salt. They do a lot to protect our 2nd Amendment rights but they say and do whatever it takes which includes whipping up hysteria with reams of bullshit in the form of American Rifleman articles that are slanted and often full of flat-out lies and viral emails and junk snail mail full of the same (often looking for yet MORE of your money in supplemental donations).

The email begins with a quote from Reuters (a respectable news source) and quickly launches into an anti-Obama diatribe. I'm vehemently opposed to the treaty not because of what's in it specifically, but because it sets a scary precedent and yes, as a gun owner Obama scares me.

But know that email you received for what it is; propaganda. Stick to the facts of the story.

[forjj]

At some point you'll need to put down the Kool Aid forjj.  There are many forces lined up against the US, our basic way of life and our freedoms. You'd do well to listen to someone like Glenn Beck for a week and then actually do your own research to prove the validity of his reporting. Same with FOX News. Sounds like you consume a steady diet of MSNBC as you clearly have no idea of what you post about. I regularly get my news from Fox, The Drudge Report and The Blaze. I also regularly look at the far left wing sites you post so I can see and read both sides of the issues.

Balance is a good thing, try it for a week, open your closed and biased mind and see what happens. It's only a week. What's the harm, affraid of some basic facts, logic and common sense?

I pray for (not against) people like you.


All the best

Mark

Mark-
thanks for the prayers.  As far as my "diet", I don't watch FauxNews or MSNBC.  I really don't trust the Mainstream Media in general, and Like you, I try to have an open mind, and look at stories from both sides of the political spectrum.  Personally, I consider myself a moderate, and am terrified by both the far right AND left wing of politics.  I am certainly not afraid of "basic facts, logic and common sense", I just don't see much of that coming from Fox.   I can really relate to the blog link that I posted because My parents are huge fans of FoxNews, so I have done plenty of independent research, every time my father brings up something he saw on Fox. I have just read too many articles that show the bias and mis-reporting of Fox.  I would think that anyone would start to question a source(Fox) that causes its viewers to be more mis-informed than someone who watches NO news program. 

[forjj]

I'm a member of the NRA and I don't take a word they say without a shaker of salt. They do a lot to protect our 2nd Amendment rights but they say and do whatever it takes which includes whipping up hysteria with reams of bullshit in the form of American Rifleman articles that are slanted and often full of flat-out lies and viral emails and junk snail mail full of the same (often looking for yet MORE of your money in supplemental donations).

The email begins with a quote from Reuters (a respectable news source) and quickly launches into an anti-Obama diatribe. I'm vehemently opposed to the treaty not because of what's in it specifically, but because it sets a scary precedent and yes, as a gun owner Obama scares me.

But know that email you received for what it is; propaganda. Stick to the facts of the story.

Anvil--Good point

[The Anvil]

At some point you'll need to put down the Kool Aid forjj.  There are many forces lined up against the US, our basic way of life and our freedoms. You'd do well to listen to someone like Glenn Beck for a week and then actually do your own research to prove the validity of his reporting. Same with FOX News. Sounds like you consume a steady diet of MSNBC as you clearly have no idea of what you post about. I regularly get my news from Fox, The Drudge Report and The Blaze. I also regularly look at the far left wing sites you post so I can see and read both sides of the issues.

Balance is a good thing, try it for a week, open your closed and biased mind and see what happens. It's only a week. What's the harm, affraid of some basic facts, logic and common sense?

I pray for (not against) people like you.

All the best

Mark

I'm sorry Mark, but Glenn Beck is a charlatan. You completely lost me there. It's no coincidence that he went from being the darling of the hard right to irrelevant almost overnight. He's the Bizarro world Keith Olbermann. Somewhere (maybe even on the air) Rush is laughing his ass off.

[Trynt]

American Rifleman articles that are slanted and often full of flat-out lies and viral emails and junk snail mail full of the same (often looking for yet MORE of your money in supplemental donations).

True, the American Rifleman definitely has a point of view. It is hyper-vigilant to perceived anti-gun activity and is constantly trying to bleed more money out of members. But flat-out lies?? Care to provide a few examples?

[Chattanooga Mark]

I chose Glenn Beck (The Blaze) because he's about the opposite of Media Matters and The Daily Kos websites forjj posted. But again, do your own research and prove each of them correct or liars. I'd be suicidal if I had a steady diet of Beck, Media Matters or The Daily Kos.

Very sadly, too many Americans get their 'news' from 5 second sound bites on television or radio that are spun and constructed purely to get their attention. But they don't get most peoples attention because most people's attention span doesn't go over the 140 to 160 characters that the average text allows.

I do like listening to Rush Limbaugh though. Yes, I know he's biased. So am I, I'm a Christian first and a conservative second. In some liberal circles that would nearly make me the anti christ if they even believed in one. But Rush does make me laugh and he's a master at making his point. Besides, it's fun listenting to someone who so clearly enjoys what de does. Listening to people like Keith Oberman, Ed Shultz, Chris Mathews or Rachael Maddow is sad because their hypocracy is so blatently obvious. They only try to destroy those who don't drink their particular brand of Kool Aid. If Bush did just about anything Obama has done in the last 3.5 years the people on MSNBC would have been calling for his lynching for 3.5 years.

But I don't like listening to people like Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly either. I find Hannity unlistenable because he reminds me of a 5 pound dog continually barking. I may agree with Hannity politically but I find his show awful. O'Reilly seems to see himself as a self appointed reporter of the worlds wrongs. He's just a wind bag IMHO. I sometimes watch the first 15 minutes of the O'Reilly show to listen to the guests. Left or Right, I want to hear the guests point of veiw. I really don't give a rip what O'Reilly has to say about anything.

All the best,

Mark

[forjj]

At some point you'll need to put down the Kool Aid forjj.  There are many forces lined up against the US, our basic way of life and our freedoms. You'd do well to listen to someone like Glenn Beck for a week and then actually do your own research to prove the validity of his reporting. Same with FOX News. Sounds like you consume a steady diet of MSNBC as you clearly have no idea of what you post about. I regularly get my news from Fox, The Drudge Report and The Blaze. I also regularly look at the far left wing sites you post so I can see and read both sides of the issues.

Balance is a good thing, try it for a week, open your closed and biased mind and see what happens. It's only a week. What's the harm, affraid of some basic facts, logic and common sense?

I pray for (not against) people like you.

All the best

Mark

I'm sorry Mark, but Glenn Beck is a charlatan. You completely lost me there. It's no coincidence that he went from being the darling of the hard right to irrelevant almost overnight. He's the Bizarro world Keith Olbermann. Somewhere (maybe even on the air) Rush is laughing his ass off.

Another good point Anvil!!!
I might add that I find it ironic that Mark thinks that I am the one drinking the "kool-aid" just because I don't agree with Glenn Beck and the other FauxNews cronies.  

jj

[forjj]

I chose Glenn Beck (The Blaze) because he's about the opposite of Media Matters and The Daily Kos websites forjj posted. But again, do your own research and prove each of them correct or liars.

All the best,

Mark

Mark,
While I agree that media matters, etc are just as biased as FoxNews, etc, my link to media matters showed a screen capture from foxnews, complete with pretty hard evidence that they manipulated a photo to make someone appear less likeable, just to fit with their biased opinion of him.  The same with the other links, the authors all provide links to legitimate sources to support their points.  I wasn't trying to suggest that liberal websites aren't liberal, My point was that FauxNews can't be trusted, as they manipulate the truth to prove their points of view.

jj

[Chattanooga Mark]

Scroll up and read my modified post.

All the best,

Mark

[forjj]

Scroll up and read my modified post.

All the best,

Mark

Good points, Mark.  Nice chatting with you.  Ride safe, my friend!

jj

[Trynt]

What's with this crap Faux News?  Like all news media FOX news has an axe to grind but I trust them more than all the rest of the media!

The same applies to the NRA.  I'm a Life member of the NRA and , yes, they are biased too but their bias is the same as mine.

By calling FOX news Faux, you show your bias against them. 

However, you are entitled to your bias as I am to mine 

No flame suit necessary as I won't argue because I am biased  but I'm honest.

The fact that Faux News is biased is a given, My issue is that they consistently claim to be "fair and balanced" when they are in fact biased.  Yes, I am biased against FauxNews, but there is a lot of independent research to support my claim:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200807020002
http://www.journalism.org/node/709
http://talyarkoni.org/papers/Holtzman_et_al_BRM.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies#Studies_of_reporting_bias
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/22/1093953/-Another-study-says-watching-Fox-News-makes-you-dumber
http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/kgarrett/MediaMosqueRumors.pdf

What I can safely take away from these(and other) articles is that FauxNews consistently lies to its viewers under the guise of "fair" reporting. 

Nothing personal, just food for thought.

You're citing Media Matter and the Daily Kos as sources of objective journalistic criticism? Now that's funny! It's like having the KKK evaluate the NAACP.

[The Anvil]

American Rifleman articles that are slanted and often full of flat-out lies and viral emails and junk snail mail full of the same (often looking for yet MORE of your money in supplemental donations).

True, the American Rifleman definitely has a point of view. It is hyper-vigilant to perceived anti-gun activity and is constantly trying to bleed more money out of members. But flat-out lies?? Care to provide a few examples?

Well there was the mailer they sent out in NH when my mother was running for state rep saying that she was anti-2nd Amendment. She's firmly pro-2nd Amendment and owns guns and has a CCW permit. When pressed for info as to why they blacklisted her the guy told me; "well she has a D next to her name and isn't an NRA member so we assumed she wasn't with us". She won anyway.

Of course this kind of crap is exactly WHY she's not a member and why I'm only a member because it's required to be a member of any gun club in New Hampshire.

They do that crap all the time though. 2nd Amendment causes are not the only ones the directors of the NRA are interested in promoting. They know what they're doing when they pull that kind of crap. They also love to parse comments and taking them out of context to dupe people. It's a core tactic of lobbying concerns, and that's really what the NRA is.

[forjj]

What's with this crap Faux News?  Like all news media FOX news has an axe to grind but I trust them more than all the rest of the media!

The same applies to the NRA.  I'm a Life member of the NRA and , yes, they are biased too but their bias is the same as mine.

By calling FOX news Faux, you show your bias against them. 

However, you are entitled to your bias as I am to mine 

No flame suit necessary as I won't argue because I am biased  but I'm honest.

The fact that Faux News is biased is a given, My issue is that they consistently claim to be "fair and balanced" when they are in fact biased.  Yes, I am biased against FauxNews, but there is a lot of independent research to support my claim:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200807020002
http://www.journalism.org/node/709
http://talyarkoni.org/papers/Holtzman_et_al_BRM.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies#Studies_of_reporting_bias
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/22/1093953/-Another-study-says-watching-Fox-News-makes-you-dumber
http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/kgarrett/MediaMosqueRumors.pdf

What I can safely take away from these(and other) articles is that FauxNews consistently lies to its viewers under the guise of "fair" reporting. 

Nothing personal, just food for thought.

You're citing Media Matter and the Daily Kos as sources of objective journalistic criticism? Now that's funny! It's like having the KKK evaluate the NAACP.

If you read the whole thread, you would see that you totally missed my point.  I wasn't suggesting that media matters is objective, I was using the stories to demonstrate that FauxNews was biased while claiming to be "fair & balanced".  The media matters link shows a screen cap. from Fox where they had manipulated a photo, the daily kos links to independent research showing that FauxNews routinely misleads viewers.  Again, my point wasn't that there isn't liberal bias, but that FauxNews is far from being "fair & balanced"  To borrow from your analogy, what I was attempting to do is use sources provided by the NAACP to prove that the KKK is racist.  Not acknowledging that FauxNews is inherently biased is drinking from the same "kool-aid" that Mark had suggested I was into.  Not trying to be a jerk, I am just tired of hearing about how accurate, fair, balanced, and patriotic Fox is, and anybody that disagrees with anything they say must be a socialist/communist/un-american dirty hippy, etc...

jj

[forjj]

American Rifleman articles that are slanted and often full of flat-out lies and viral emails and junk snail mail full of the same (often looking for yet MORE of your money in supplemental donations).

True, the American Rifleman definitely has a point of view. It is hyper-vigilant to perceived anti-gun activity and is constantly trying to bleed more money out of members. But flat-out lies?? Care to provide a few examples?

Well there was the mailer they sent out in NH when my mother was running for state rep saying that she was anti-2nd Amendment. She's firmly pro-2nd Amendment and owns guns and has a CCW permit. When pressed for info as to why they blacklisted her the guy told me; "well she has a D next to her name and isn't an NRA member so we assumed she wasn't with us". She won anyway.

Of course this kind of crap is exactly WHY she's not a member and why I'm only a member because it's required to be a member of any gun club in New Hampshire.

They do that crap all the time though. 2nd Amendment causes are not the only ones the directors of the NRA are interested in promoting. They know what they're doing when they pull that kind of crap. They also love to parse comments and taking them out of context to dupe people. It's a core tactic of lobbying concerns, and that's really what the NRA is.

Anvil--Totally agree. 
The point I like to make is that the NRA is a business first and foremost.  That is what I think most people miss about the NRA and ALL other lobbyists is $$$$$.  The NRA, FoxNews, lobbyists, etc.  are business, and as such, need to continue to find new sources of revenue, and build their "base"  In the case of the media(not just Fox), news channels need advertisers to pay the bills, and advertisers only pay up if they are getting the exposure that they want.  That is why the media has to be entertaining first(to get you to watch), engaging second(to keep you watching), and less concerned with being truthful(the truth hurts sometimes).  The truth doesn't attract viewers.  I watch Headline news over breakfast most mornings, have you noticed all of the BS about Robin Meade's singing career, etc??  Thats not news, it news-tainment.  Sure I find out the sports highlights, a few major world events, etc, but I also sit through stupid ads for Robins music, and all kinds of other "hidden" advertisements. Its not the best source for news, but Robin sure is entertaining.

[MAD6Gun]

Anvil--Totally agree. 
The point I like to make is that the NRA is a business first and foremost.  That is what I think most people miss about the NRA and ALL other lobbyists is $$$$$.

 You got to be kidding me. Are you serious. You may think of the NRA as a business. I sure as HELL don't. Without dues and donations they would not be able to keep up the fight to keep our guns. Just like the AMA does for us as motorcyclist the NRA does it for gun owners and has been for over 100 years. 

 Without the NRA we would have lost our guns right a LONG time ago. Do you guys remember the Assault wepon ban. In one stroke of a pen Clinton took away our rights to own so called "assualt wepons". You are probable thinking "big deal no one needs those types of gun anyhow". It just starts there.  If you think the government cant do it again you have you head in the sand (or someplace else the sun dont shine). NY Rep Carrolyn McCarthey has been trying for years to get a more restrictive law in place (bill 1022). She has not been able to get it done but its not for lack of trying. She might get it through someday than what do we do huh.?

 So Forjj you keep drinking the coolaid and keep beleve everything the liberal media tells you and I will keep watching FOX news to get the truth as to what this president is doing to our country.

 Oh and Anvil if you dislike the NRA so much than quit. We dont need you anyway.

 Someone once said "If you don't stand with us you stand against us". When it comes to the NRA and gun rights I beleve this wholeheartly........

[Panama]

The only truth I know today, is that it's a beautiful day to take my Valk out for a ride. 

Nothing else matters.

[G-Man]

And finally health care.  You do realize that the Mitt Romney Health Care plan in Massachusetts is almost exactly like the plan passed by Congress and signed by President Obama.  Basically, the GOP was in favor of the same type of health care reform until President Obama pushed to have reform passed.  Also, last time I checked, the US is in dire need of HC reform considering that there are approxiamatley 50 million Americans without health insurance.

Until you read both Healthcare laws, please don't perpetuate the nonsense that the two are similar.  They are very different.  One example, there was no hiring of 16,000 IRS agents in the Mass. plan.  Nor was there the take over of student loans.  Nor where there thousands of exemptions granted, nor did it cut medicare by 500 billion while increasing Medicaid by that same amount, nor was it passed via senatorial bribes, etc. 

[forjj]

Anvil--Totally agree. 
The point I like to make is that the NRA is a business first and foremost.  That is what I think most people miss about the NRA and ALL other lobbyists is $$$$$.

 You got to be kidding me. Are you serious. You may think of the NRA as a business. I sure as HELL don't. Without dues and donations they would not be able to keep up the fight to keep our guns. Just like the AMA does for us as motorcyclist the NRA does it for gun owners and has been for over 100 years. 

 Without the NRA we would have lost our guns right a LONG time ago. Do you guys remember the Assault wepon ban. In one stroke of a pen Clinton took away our rights to own so called "assualt wepons". You are probable thinking "big deal no one needs those types of gun anyhow". It just starts there.  If you think the government cant do it again you have you head in the sand (or someplace else the sun dont shine). NY Rep Carrolyn McCarthey has been trying for years to get a more restrictive law in place (bill 1022). She has not been able to get it done but its not for lack of trying. She might get it through someday than what do we do huh.?

 So Forjj you keep drinking the coolaid and keep beleve everything the liberal media tells you and I will keep watching FOX news to get the truth as to what this president is doing to our country.

 Oh and Anvil if you dislike the NRA so much than quit. We dont need you anyway.

 Someone once said "If you don't stand with us you stand against us". When it comes to the NRA and gun rights I beleve this wholeheartly........

I am sure all of the executives at the NRA don't even take a salary.  I am sure they just do it for the good feeling they get from working at the NRA.  You totally missed my point.  I wasn't trying to suggest that the NRA isn't effective at lobbying for gun rights.  My point was that the NRA, like FauxNews, is a business is the sense that they have a bottom line to contend with.  They have to make a profit to continue to operate, regardless of their overall objectives.  I actually support the NRA, and as I have said, I don't really trust the "liberal" media any more than I trust FauxNews.  The difference is that there have been several studies to show that FauxNews is unreliable, and yet people continue to trust them.  I just don't get it, but to each his own, I guess. 

I don't understand the mentality of telling Anvil he should quit the NRA.  Why can't two members of the NRA disagree on some points, and still support the same overall cause?  "You are either with us or against us"??? That is the biggest problem I have with the FauxNews crowd, you have to reduce everything to absolutes, and life is not that simple.  I don't know where Anvil falls on the political spectrum, but I respect his viewpoint just and much as anybody elses, and would never suggest that he has to agree with every member of the NRA 100% of the time or he should quite.  Thats just plain silly.  Why does it have to come down to absolutes like "for or against"?  Couldn't we agree to disagree on certain points, and still both agree with the overall goals of the NRA?

jj

[MAD6Gun]

I don't understand the mentality of telling Anvil he should quit the NRA.  Why can't two members of the NRA disagree on some points, and still support the same overall cause?  "You are either with us or against us"Huh? That is the biggest problem I have with the FauxNews crowd, you have to reduce everything to absolutes, and life is not that simple.  I don't know where Anvil falls on the political spectrum, but I respect his viewpoint just and much as anybody elses, and would never suggest that he has to agree with every member of the NRA 100% of the time or he should quite.  Thats just plain silly.  Why does it have to come down to absolutes like "for or against"?  Couldn't we agree to disagree on certain points, and still both agree with the overall goals of the NRA?

 When it comes to gun control there is no middle ground.  The reason I say that is that weather you care for one type of gun but not another you might not care if that type is banned. I DO because if you give them an inch they will take a mile. If we let them ban one type of gun they will go after the others in due time. The antigunners want to ban ALL guns, Period. George Soros is the worst. If he succeeds in convincing enough people to go his way if could happen. The NRA is very instrumental in insuring that it does not happen....

 The overall goal of the NRA is to protect our gun rights. Not just the rights to own certain guns but ALL guns.

 So I stand behind what I said. "If you don't stand with us you stand against us".

[Trynt]

What's with this crap Faux News?  Like all news media FOX news has an axe to grind but I trust them more than all the rest of the media!

The same applies to the NRA.  I'm a Life member of the NRA and , yes, they are biased too but their bias is the same as mine.

By calling FOX news Faux, you show your bias against them. 

However, you are entitled to your bias as I am to mine 

No flame suit necessary as I won't argue because I am biased  but I'm honest.

The fact that Faux News is biased is a given, My issue is that they consistently claim to be "fair and balanced" when they are in fact biased.  Yes, I am biased against FauxNews, but there is a lot of independent research to support my claim:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200807020002
http://www.journalism.org/node/709
http://talyarkoni.org/papers/Holtzman_et_al_BRM.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies#Studies_of_reporting_bias
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/22/1093953/-Another-study-says-watching-Fox-News-makes-you-dumber
http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/kgarrett/MediaMosqueRumors.pdf

What I can safely take away from these(and other) articles is that FauxNews consistently lies to its viewers under the guise of "fair" reporting. 

Nothing personal, just food for thought.

You're citing Media Matter and the Daily Kos as sources of objective journalistic criticism? Now that's funny! It's like having the KKK evaluate the NAACP.

If you read the whole thread, you would see that you totally missed my point.  I wasn't suggesting that media matters is objective, I was using the stories to demonstrate that FauxNews was biased while claiming to be "fair & balanced".  The media matters link shows a screen cap. from Fox where they had manipulated a photo, the daily kos links to independent research showing that FauxNews routinely misleads viewers.  Again, my point wasn't that there isn't liberal bias, but that FauxNews is far from being "fair & balanced"  To borrow from your analogy, what I was attempting to do is use sources provided by the NAACP to prove that the KKK is racist.  Not acknowledging that FauxNews is inherently biased is drinking from the same "kool-aid" that Mark had suggested I was into.  Not trying to be a jerk, I am just tired of hearing about how accurate, fair, balanced, and patriotic Fox is, and anybody that disagrees with anything they say must be a socialist/communist/un-american dirty hippy, etc...

jj

Your contention was, " FauxNews consistently lies to its viewers under the guise of "fair" reporting." That statement goes well beyond "inherent bias". And since you claim not to watch it, I would think it difficult to judge its content.

[The Anvil]

Oh and Anvil if you dislike the NRA so much than quit. We dont need you anyway.

Oh you don't huh? Then why are my email and snail mail boxes barraged with NRA junk mail asking me for supplemental donations deemed "critical to protecting our rights"? I'll tell you why; because "you" do need me and my money. You may not like the fact that a brain and voice come along with it, but that's tough crap. If you find it that objectionable then kick me out and give me my money back. I'll go join the GOA instead.

"When it comes to gun control there is no middle ground." So I take this also to mean that "by any means necessary" is an acceptable tactic and this includes lying? YOU may think that's okay, but I do not because I am not a liar and as such, I do not want to be represented by an organization that lies or manipulates information. Let the 2nd Amendment stand on it's own merits. It doesn't need lies.

So I can infer by your attitude that it's also okay for "environmental protection" organizations to lie about the cause of global warming (or climate change or whatever they're calling it these days) because the end justifies the means, right? Or is lying only acceptable when it's something you have a boner for?