A Burgundy and Gold Obsession
'Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.' - Groucho Marx

Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Disagree Disagree:  0
Post of the Year Post of the Year:  0
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 31
  1. #1
    BGObsessed
    Join Date
    04-01-11
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    4,738
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Blog Entries
    3
    Army

    Default Obama And Gun Control - Is This Just The Beginning?

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...rado-massacre/

    Interesting story coming out now. The President's views on gun control were discussed in the Colorado massacre thread, and a lot of people tried to defend him, saying he isn't pushing for gun control.

    The people arguing that point provided legitimate examples to show why they believe he isn't secretly pushing for gun control. The people arguing that he's secretly pushing for gun control also provided some examples, but they were not really concrete. Fast and Furious being a perfect example. A lot of people truly believe it was all a ruse to push for gun control. I honestly don't know what to believe about it, other than it was a massive cluster ****.

    Now there is this, coming from Obama himself. Is this just the first step? I don't know. I can't speak for anyone who I haven't talked to personally about their views. But it definitely won't help his standing with gun owners, who could view this as the beginning of a plan to disarm them.

    Oh, for those who haven't heard - this absurd newly proposed UN treaty will go a long way to try and strip us of our gun rights.
    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07...at-gun-owners/
    Last edited by Nobody; 07-25-12 at 11:39 PM.
    0 0 0 0
     
     
    It's ok, I don't like you either.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    09-20-11
    Posts
    8,920
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    George Mason

    Default

    1 - as a gun owner and avid gun-rights supporter, i think this nation needs a healthy discussion on how to regulate the ownership and/or purchase of guns with a high rate of fire with large ammo capacities, or whether we should regulate them at all. unfortunately as a 27 year old who's been paying attention for the last 10 years or so, i'm aware that we're not capable of that discussion as a nation. we're not capable of that discussion on this board and this board is a very very small number of people compared to the nation.

    2 - that UN treaty deals with international trade of weapons. it has nothing to do with the day to day activities of a gun owner in the united states. at least, as far as we know. the exact wording hasn't been released except for very basic parts. the idea that this is somehow going to matter to 99.9% of gun owners in the US is a joke. we have to see the paperwork in it's entirety before we can be certain though. that second article is a joke - lots of "could"'s in there with absolutely nothing to back it up. it 'could' impact gun owners? who, and how? it can't say because they don't know, they're just guessing and making wild statements (or, even worse, they do know and they're trying to manipulate people who read the article. it is up to you to make up your own mind on which one you think it is). it 'could' expose gun owners private information? yeah - if they buy/trade/sell weapons internationally it could expose some bare-minimum information about that - but the article doesn't bother to mention that, it just implies that all us gun owners are at risk of being cataloged by the rest of the world. what a pathetic article.


    Quote Originally Posted by Extreme View Post
    I can't speak for anyone who I haven't talked to personally about their views. But it definitely won't help his standing with gun owners, who could view this as the beginning of a plan to disarm them.
    what part of that article supports the idea that he's planning on disarming people?
    the only thing that could come within the same realm of that is the comment about guns like ak-47's, which is anything but a statement that he's coming to get your guns.
    please enlighten me.
    Last edited by tshile; 07-26-12 at 08:04 AM.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  3. #3
    BGObsessed
    Join Date
    07-16-09
    Location
    Germantown, MD
    Posts
    362
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Minnesota

    Default

    "I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms," Obama said.




    Sorry, I couldn't resist. Please carry on with the serious discussion/debate.
    0 0 0 0
     
     
    The challenge ahead of us is never as great as the power behind us.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    07-15-09
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    13,516
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Florida Atlantic

    Default

    Ha! Reminds me of this shirt from Busted Tees:

    0 0 0 0
     
     

  5. #5
    BGObsessed
    Join Date
    04-01-11
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    4,738
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Blog Entries
    3
    Army

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tshile View Post
    what part of that article supports the idea that he's planning on disarming people?
    the only thing that could come within the same realm of that is the comment about guns like ak-47's, which is anything but a statement that he's coming to get your guns.
    please enlighten me.
    Enlighten you I will.

    Not everybody perceives things the same way, especially on hot button issues. While the article doesn't state that he wants to take your guns away, (which, for the record, I never said it did) it does give an excuse to some more over the top gun owners who are just itching for a reason to raise hell about the issue.

    Also, since none of us knows what his intentions or long term plans are, we can't say those people are or aren't correct in their assumptions.
    0 0 0 0
     
     
    It's ok, I don't like you either.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    09-20-11
    Posts
    8,920
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    George Mason

    Default

    edit: nvm i'm an idiot
    Last edited by tshile; 07-26-12 at 12:14 PM.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  7. #7

    Join Date
    09-20-11
    Posts
    8,920
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    George Mason

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Extreme View Post
    Enlighten you I will.

    Not everybody perceives things the same way, especially on hot button issues. While the article doesn't state that he wants to take your guns away, (which, for the record, I never said it did) it does give an excuse to some more over the top gun owners who are just itching for a reason to raise hell about the issue.

    Also, since none of us knows what his intentions or long term plans are, we can't say those people are or aren't correct in their assumptions.
    but what part gives the excuse?

    the part where he suggests even gun owners (not all, but there are some) have different opinions about high rate of fire/high ammo capacity weapons than they do typical hunting weapons?

    because i think he's pretty spot on with that one.

    i can't find another line in that article that suggests gun owners have something to worry about.

    edit: if your argument is that foxnews wrote an intentionally inflammatory piece to rile up the gun nuts then i agree. i was under the assumption that your argument was that there was something legit to get riled up about in the article.
    Last edited by tshile; 07-26-12 at 12:19 PM.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  8. #8
    BGObsessed
    Join Date
    04-01-11
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    4,738
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Blog Entries
    3
    Army

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tshile View Post
    but what part gives the excuse?

    the part where he suggests even gun owners (not all, but there are some) have different opinions about high rate of fire/high ammo capacity weapons than they do typical hunting weapons?

    because i think he's pretty spot on with that one.

    i can't find another line in that article that suggests gun owners have something to worry about.
    You apparently haven't talked to many overzealous gun nuts. They have been saying for years that Obama wants to take their guns, with little to no reason to think so. Now that Obama has opened discussion about a ban on assault rifles, they will need no more reason than that to think the end is near.

    They will literally take and twist any little thing they can to fuel their claims that Obama is trying to take all their guns. And he might be. Like I said, none of us knows what he thinks about it honestly. Obama wants to talk about a ban on assault weapons. On the surface, no big deal. Buuuuut, the people itching for a reason will claim that it's just the first step before he bans shotguns, then all rifles, then handguns, etc.

    It will be viewed as a Pandora's Box.
    0 0 0 0
     
     
    It's ok, I don't like you either.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    09-20-11
    Posts
    8,920
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    George Mason

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Extreme View Post
    You apparently haven't talked to many overzealous gun nuts. They have been saying for years that Obama wants to take their guns, with little to no reason to think so. Now that Obama has opened discussion about a ban on assault rifles, they will need no more reason than that to think the end is near.

    They will literally take and twist any little thing they can to fuel their claims that Obama is trying to take all their guns. And he might be. Like I said, none of us knows what he thinks about it honestly. Obama wants to talk about a ban on assault weapons. On the surface, no big deal. Buuuuut, the people itching for a reason will claim that it's just the first step before he bans shotguns, then all rifles, then handguns, etc.

    It will be viewed as a Pandora's Box.

    Wait... I do know gun nuts. They typically have no idea what they're talking about.

    You said: "Now that Obama has opened discussion about a ban on assault rifles, they will need no more reason than that to think the end is near."

    But he hasn't. He hasn't discussed that at all, at least not openly.

    Thats my question - WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS FROM.

    right now the answer is a bogus piece written by foxnews that is full of conjecture and no facts. please show me where obama has said anything about re-instituting the brady bill or something close to it. if you can, i'll definitely not vote for him in November, so i'm very interested in seeing where he has suggested this.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  10. #10
    BGObsessed
    Join Date
    04-01-11
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    4,738
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Blog Entries
    3
    Army

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tshile View Post
    Wait... I do know gun nuts. They typically have no idea what they're talking about.

    You said: "Now that Obama has opened discussion about a ban on assault rifles, they will need no more reason than that to think the end is near."

    But he hasn't. He hasn't discussed that at all, at least not openly.

    Thats my question - WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS FROM.

    right now the answer is a bogus piece written by foxnews that is full of conjecture and no facts. please show me where obama has said anything about re-instituting the brady bill or something close to it. if you can, i'll definitely not vote for him in November, so i'm very interested in seeing where he has suggested this.
    "I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals — that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities. I believe the majority of gun owners would agree that we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons; that we should check someone’s criminal record before they can check out a gun seller; that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily. These steps shouldn’t be controversial. They should be common sense."
    http://www.businessinsider.com/obama...#ixzz21kMzxpC5

    Peppering it with selective language, like saying it's to keep these guns out of the hands of criminals, does not take away from the message that it will take them out of the hands of everybody.

    Romney thanks you for his support
    0 0 0 0
     
     
    It's ok, I don't like you either.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    09-20-11
    Posts
    8,920
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    George Mason

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Extreme View Post
    http://www.businessinsider.com/obama...#ixzz21kMzxpC5

    Peppering it with selective language, like saying it's to keep these guns out of the hands of criminals, does not take away from the message that it will take them out of the hands of everybody.

    Romney thanks you for his support
    what.

    the quote (you pulled, along with the articles you pulled) specifically says criminals, and he mentioned mentally unstable. so you just make up that it means everyone.

    guess i'm done with this conversation. if we're just going to make **** up using direct quotes then what's the point.

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willful_ignorance
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  12. #12

    Join Date
    07-22-09
    Posts
    7,588
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    ummmm...and how many citizens own AK-47s and mule about killing people! none. it's the GD wackos and criminals. this is all poltical BS.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  13. #13

    Join Date
    07-22-09
    Posts
    7,588
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  14. #14
    BGObsessed
    Join Date
    04-01-11
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    4,738
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Blog Entries
    3
    Army

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tshile View Post
    what.

    the quote (you pulled, along with the articles you pulled) specifically says criminals, and he mentioned mentally unstable. so you just make up that it means everyone.

    guess i'm done with this conversation. if we're just going to make **** up using direct quotes then what's the point.

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willful_ignorance
    I'm not making **** up - you're being blind.

    He said ban them from criminals. Does he mean criminals that have been convicted? I've met plenty of serious criminals in my life that had never been arrested.

    He said mentally unstable, but they estimate the majority of mentally unstable people have never been diagnosed.

    Then he said they should ONLY be on the battlefield. Soooooooooo, that means they would be banned from everyone that isn't on the battlefield. I'm really not sure why you're trying to pretend like I'm making **** up and pulling it out of thin air, when Obama is the one who made the statements.

    Here is the quote again....
    AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals — that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.
    Seriously, break down for me how you believe that means everyone but crazy people and criminals will still be able to have them?

    Willful ignorance?
    0 0 0 0
     
     
    It's ok, I don't like you either.

  15. #15
    BGObsessed
    Join Date
    07-16-09
    Location
    Germantown, MD
    Posts
    362
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Minnesota

    Default

    Soooo, now it's ok to infer what someone really meant?
    0 0 0 0
     
     
    The challenge ahead of us is never as great as the power behind us.

  16. #16
    BGObsessed
    Join Date
    04-01-11
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    4,738
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Blog Entries
    3
    Army

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by renaissance View Post
    Soooo, now it's ok to infer what someone really meant?
    Absolutely not, and this underhanded approach will not work, because just as when the left tried to twist his last speech into something he didn't say, you're trying to do it again. And again, I have the words that actually came out of his mouth to back me up. He said THEY ONLY BELONG ON THE BATTLEFIELD IN THE HANDS OF SOLDIERS. No matter how you try to twist it, that means EVERYBODY WHO ISN'T A SOLDIER ON THE BATTLEFIELD WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE THEM. Since neither you or I are soldiers, guess what that means?

    Am I missing something? Seriously, are you people just that willing to back everything he does, that you ignore the words he actually says?

    Tell me one time where he says we can all have them.

    That being said, there is not a single thing I said that did not come out of his mouth, so once again it is you, not me, who is inferring what he meant. But you want to play these ridiculous games and accuse people of doing what you're doing, so whatever.

    The tactic you are employing, as you did last time, is psychological projection. It doesn't work.
    0 0 0 0
     
     
    It's ok, I don't like you either.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    09-20-11
    Posts
    8,920
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    George Mason

    Default

    It's not about backing everything he does, and I certainly don't do that.

    It's about not flat out lying and making up what the words were that came out of his mouth. I extend the exact same courtesy to Romney.

    The context of his speech and the words that came out of his mouth do not match your claims. You're making stuff up. The best part is I don't have to quote what he said because you already did that. Just go read your own posts.

    And yes, what you are doing is the exact definition of willful ignorance. You know the facts, you've quoted him yourself, yet you're choosing to ignore them in favor of your bias. That's not to be confused with general ignorance or that I'm implying that you're ignorant because I do not believe you are.

    Quote Originally Posted by renaissance View Post
    Soooo, now it's ok to infer what someone really meant?
    Last edited by tshile; 07-26-12 at 08:02 PM.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  18. #18
    BGObsessed
    Join Date
    04-01-11
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    4,738
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Blog Entries
    3
    Army

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tshile View Post
    The context of his speech and the words that came out of his mouth do not match your claims. You're making stuff up. The best part is I don't have to quote what he said because you already did that. Just go read your own posts.
    So he never said that those guns only belong on the battlefield in the hands of soldiers? Please show me which speech you're reading from, because he said those exact words in the one I keep quoting. A lot of you just like to keep glossing over that part and pretending he didn't say it. He said it, you know damn well he said it. If any of you could get past your disdain for my political views long enough to actually read and comprehend what's being said, you would see that I've been agreeing with most of what you've all been saying. I just have a hunch that whenever a non-Liberal talks, you guys don't read a lick of it. You can't possibly, because you haven't been able to provide a single example of where I called any of you a liar, said you were making things up that he didn't say, or evidence that he didn't say exactly what I quoted. The quotes aren't made up, no matter what source you pull them from, they are the same. And it isn't like I'm picking and choosing. For ****'s sake, I quoted the entire paragraph.

    Quote Originally Posted by tshile View Post
    And yes, what you are doing is the exact definition of willful ignorance. You know the facts, you've quoted him yourself, yet you're choosing to ignore them in favor of your bias. That's not to be confused with general ignorance or that I'm implying that you're ignorant because I do not believe you are.
    I'm not ignoring a word of what he said. What part am I ignoring exactly? You guys are saying he wants them out of the hands of criminals and crazies. Since I never said he didn't say that, that would mean I agree with you. What I want to know, is why you all apparently quit reading mid sentence, rather than read the rest of the sentence. You know, the part right after the part about criminals and loons, where he says the guns only belong on the battlefield in the hands of soldiers, and not on the streets of our cities? I know you keep saying I'm making **** up, but I'm not. That's the second half of the sentence you guys all keep bringing up, but pretending that half of the sentence doesn't exist.

    If I agree with what you said, but you say I'm making **** up, how is it me that's being ignorant? I'd love an explanation for this.

    Did he or did he not say he wants the guns off the streets of our cities, and only in the hands of soldiers on the battlefield? Yes or no?

    If he believes the guns should ONLY (HIS words, not mine) be in the hands of soldiers on the battlefield, wouldn't that mean he wants them OUT of the hands of everyone who is not a soldier on the battlefield? Mental, criminal, or otherwise. That is exactly what that means. You can not interpret that any other way unless you go full retard. I'm not taking him out of context, I am not putting words in his mouth. He said ONLY soldiers in the battlefield.
    0 0 0 0
     
     
    It's ok, I don't like you either.

  19. #19

    Join Date
    09-20-11
    Posts
    8,920
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    George Mason

    Default

    Your link:
    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07...at-gun-owners/

    Number of occurrences of the word only: 3
    Number of occurrences of the word only in Obama's speech: 0

    Your link:
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...rado-massacre/

    Number of occurrences of the word only: 0
    Number of occurrences of the word only in Obama's speech: 0

    Your link:
    http://www.businessinsider.com/obama...#ixzz21kMzxpC5

    Number of occurrences of the word only: 0 (unless you want to count the reader comments, which currently the count is 11)
    Number of occurrences of the word only in Obama's speech: 0

    I just did a find on all three pages to get those results. Control-F is the shortcut for most browsers if you're interested in checking my results.

    So no, he didn't say that.

    You put a lot of emphasis on a word that doesn't exist in any of Obama's quotes in those articles.

    The rest of it I've already addressed.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  20. #20
    BGObsessed
    Join Date
    04-01-11
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    4,738
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Blog Entries
    3
    Army

    Default

    Really t? You're really stretching things if you're expecting me to believe that the word only missing from this comment really changes the message....

    they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities
    See, when you use a negative word, you aren't required to over emphasize your thought with another word. Ask a teacher.

    Let me give you an example of what I mean.....

    Women can give birth.
    Only women can give birth.

    Do these not have the exact same meaning?

    If his comment had looked like this.....

    they belong on the battlefield of war, not in the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable
    Then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But that's not what he said.
    0 0 0 0
     
     
    It's ok, I don't like you either.

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-17-12, 12:15 AM
  2. Stun Gun Soccer
    By Elephant in forum The 5 O'Clock Club
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-08-12, 10:17 AM
  3. Obama Ditches Tax Cut Presser, Bill Clinton Takes Control
    By Sarge in forum The 5 O'Clock Club
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 12-14-10, 11:41 PM

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •