Need to write your reps, do our best to gridlock all legislative action and ensure the democratic party's failure.

You are all "A NAME" !!!!!!!!!!!!

See, I called all of you A NAME!!!! Get it?!?!?!?!?!? 

Now I am going to wait for 2A to admonish me.

Seriously though I know some of us (myself included) are very disappointed in the election results. It is not the end of the world but it does mean 4 more years of little to non performance like the first 4 years. The two most important items IMHO are going to be who he appoints to the Supreme Court and what he is going to do when faced with the Financial Cliff situation that seems to be coming. He (and all the democrats) seem to have ignored this.

I also felt the necessity to buy a couple of lowers just in case. I know the prices are going to up soon so I can either re-sell them for a profit or keep them and build a couple of nice AR's. Either way I WIN!!!!

i saw it
if 2ahawaii wants to clean up your post, he should clean up colt808's too
i think we all have enough problems than to have to deal with problems on bulletin boards too

aloha

steve

And what exactly is there to clean up?

Most get the point of what I said. Being of "similar minds", we're all a little disappointed with the results of the election. But inciting panic by saying things that are baseless? That just paints us ALL with a big broad crazy brush.

Be disappointed, but we should save the chicken little "sky is falling" talk for FTF discussion. Remember, it's a public forum.

Time to stock up on the C&R stuffs

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-win-u-backs-u-n-arms-treaty-193445288.html

Just saying...

I hope everybody is an NRA Life member.

Signed up 4 friends and family today. 

Now we wait.............

Nra had a promo going free for military , law enforcement and first responders

Need to write your reps, do our best to gridlock all legislative action and ensure the democratic party's failure.

Really?

From what I understand that strategy hasn't paid off well for the conservative interests over the last 2 years. At least not in election wins across the board yesterday. I'm not saying its right or wrong just that it was a strategic decision that carried some consequences that republican strategists did not expect.

I understand the desire to keep bad stuff from happening but I'd really prefer that our various party leaders would work together to find real solutions instead of plot each others' demise.

With so many trends in other areas in life the populous seem to be moving sharply towards the right, yet the election results move sharply left, one must feel like there is something smelling fishy in the kitchen.

Really?

From what I understand that strategy hasn't paid off well for the conservative interests over the last 2 years. At least not in election wins across the board yesterday. I'm not saying its right or wrong just that it was a strategic decision that carried some consequences that republican strategists did not expect.

I understand the desire to keep bad stuff from happening but I'd really prefer that our various party leaders would work together to find real solutions instead of plot each others' demise.

I dont believe there is a civil way to fix the political division in this country.  Were overdue for a reset.

Well, he didn't seem to waste any time opening the door for the UN arms treaty:

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-day-after-u-n-moves-quickly-on-global-gun-control-debate?cid=db_articles

So much for "under the radar."

The way I understand it, if he signs it, it's effective until the Senate votes it down.  Which may take a significant part of forever to bring to the floor.  I hope I'm wrong.  Tell me I'm wrong.

Please.

Terry, 230RN

Terry, I'm in the unusual position of being delighted to tell you that you are wrong.

At least as i understand it. I looked at the UN treaty, poured over every word of it, and the issues surrounding it very carefully. There are several things wrong with the word on the street about the treaty:

1) It really does have zero affect on the internal affairs of the US and how it handles gun ownership. Current US law (FFL, NFA, background checks, etc.) already MORE than fulfill the small section of the treaty that has to do with internal regulation of firearms sales and ownership. It really is only about exports and accountability for selling arms and hardware to governments and regimes that use them to oppress their people.

2) UN treaties cannot supersede US law. We would have to repeal or redefine US law via due process in order to comply with a treaty that did conflict with US law.

3) Ahem. The US never ratified the treaty that declared that signed treaties are enforceable until brought to the floor for ratification. Oh, the irony.

The actual danger of the treaty is that it is likely to inspire a national conversation about gun control at the federal level. While the treaty itself doesn't mandate that the US do anything differently any conversation about gun control is an opportunity to pass new legislation about it. Including, in my mind, legislation that is PRO GUN. Pro gun activists may be missing an opportunity in politicizing this treaty so fiercely - and as far as I can tell, wrongly.

I don't trust the UN. I don't trust the US government, either. Both need to be watched and controlled - as do all governments. But this treaty is not, as far as I can tell, the gun banning backdoor to bypassing congress horror that it has been made out to be.

Well, he didn't seem to waste any time opening the door for the UN arms treaty:

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-day-after-u-n-moves-quickly-on-global-gun-control-debate?cid=db_articles

So much for "under the radar."

I'm not surprised at this. I'd like to tell the UN where that can shove that treaty.

Terry, I'm in the unusual position of being delighted to tell you that you are wrong.

At least as i understand it. I looked at the UN treaty, poured over every word of it, and the issues surrounding it very carefully. There are several things wrong with the word on the street about the treaty:

1) It really does have zero affect on the internal affairs of the US and how it handles gun ownership. Current US law (FFL, NFA, background checks, etc.) already MORE than fulfill the small section of the treaty that has to do with internal regulation of firearms sales and ownership. It really is only about exports and accountability for selling arms and hardware to governments and regimes that use them to oppress their people.

2) UN treaties cannot supersede US law. We would have to repeal or redefine US law via due process in order to comply with a treaty that did conflict with US law.

3) Ahem. The US never ratified the treaty that declared that signed treaties are enforceable until brought to the floor for ratification. Oh, the irony.

The actual danger of the treaty is that it is likely to inspire a national conversation about gun control at the federal level. While the treaty itself doesn't mandate that the US do anything differently any conversation about gun control is an opportunity to pass new legislation about it. Including, in my mind, legislation that is PRO GUN. Pro gun activists may be missing an opportunity in politicizing this treaty so fiercely - and as far as I can tell, wrongly.

I don't trust the UN. I don't trust the US government, either. Both need to be watched and controlled - as do all governments. But this treaty is not, as far as I can tell, the gun banning backdoor to bypassing congress horror that it has been made out to be.

yes, the only thing it will likely do is choke off a bit of supply of foreign ammo and guns, and drive prices a small bit.  im not worried about it. i think people are just miffed about possibly having an international registry, and i understand, that's pretty ridiculous.

but it isnt a ban or restriction beyond that at all.

The US govt. is the entity that makes it the biggest seller of arms, not us ordinary citizens right? The state dept. is the salesman for our arms and not just small arms. The UN should be mandating two week waiting periods and background checks for countries wanting to buy arms. Mandatory safety courses if they want handguns gun locks, 10 rnd mag cap limit so genocide casualties would be less, due to reloading.

So who wants to pitch in on renting one of those 3d printers?

So who wants to pitch in on renting one of those 3d printers?

hahaha we have one one the way....

So who wants to pitch in on renting one of those 3d printers?

print lower receivers the way the govt. prints money!!!

So what is going to happen with.....

Solyndra scandal?
Fast and furious?
Bengazi?

Or is all this forgotten?  Forward!.........to the cliff!