"Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent." - Found on inauguration day at http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/urban_policy/
One of the restrictions of the "Assault Weapons Ban" was on magazines with a greater than 10-round capacity. It is my intention to purchase a 9mm handgun with a standard capacity of 15 rounds per magazine, and as many magazines for it as I can reasonably afford.
Also, isn't the fact that Obama is more like President Bush (re: terrorism) than previously thought a good thing for you folks?
That depends on whether you think he really means it! ;)
Also, isn't the fact that Obama is more like President Bush (re: terrorism) than previously thought a good thing for you folks?
Markadelphia | Email | Homepage | 01.24.09 - 8:54 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats if you think we liked all that president Bush did. More important is how you react to president Obama. Are you folks going to keep up the rabid hate toward the new president, as you did the old one? If he doesn't do as you demand? I didn't read to many people giving Bush a pass on things. Your turn.
Has it ever occurred to you that the gun industry is playing up these fears through their various information outlets to make more money?
Think about this logically...President Obama would have to spend millions of dollars to get anti gun legislation passed in a time when there are MANY more important things to worry about. Politically, it makes no sense to tackle the gun issue for years if at all.
Even the pundits and hopefully some so-called “reporters” are beginning to recognize that everything Obama has said, is saying, or might say must be taken with a large container of Morton’s. Morton’s motto seems particularly appropriate; “When it rains, it pours”. Consider that if what Obama has already said is / has been proven to be false, then anything coming from the same container is almost certainly also false.
Has it ever occurred to you that the gun industry is playing up these fears through their various information outlets to make more money?
Uh, Mark? You seem to be (again) misinterpreting cause and effect. The gun industry is taking advantage of a trend that they did nothing to start.
The Obamessiah's ascension spurred the glut of sales. His support for "closing the gun-show 'loophole'," repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, "child-proof" guns, and reinstatement - permanently - of the ban-that-didn't-really-ban-anything (only this time with teeth), was the only impetus needed to convince a lot of people that such legislation was coming. And a lot of them are first-time gun owners.
Think about this logically...President Obama would have to spend millions of dollars to get anti gun legislation passed in a time when there are MANY more important things to worry about.
As Reagan so often said, "There you go again . . ." You're thinking logically about something political.
Has it ever occurred to you that the gun industry is playing up these fears through their various information outlets to make more money?
Think about this logically...President Obama would have to spend millions of dollars to get anti gun legislation passed in a time when there are MANY more important things to worry about. Politically, it makes no sense to tackle the gun issue for years if at all.
Markadelphia | Email | Homepage | 01.24.09 - 1:46 pm | #
------------------------You mean a gun industry news outlet like, say, Obama's web site? The one that says permenate AWB, child proof guns.etc.,etc.. Is that what your talking about? Maybe comments like."folks clinging to their guns & Bibles?". Or maybe it's the public circle jerk/pre-ejectulation on the part of the,"Brady Bunch" and friends,that make Obama "Gun salesman of the year"? Logic? Logically? The only logic i've seen in Obama is his ability to play politics. Since when has communism ever been logical? Money? he'll print more.And like i asked,You going to hold his feet to the fire?
"Politically, it makes no sense to tackle the gun issue for years if at all."
Logically, it has never made sense.
The gun banners (whether driven by their own phobias or a desire for control of others)have never let logic, common sense or reality stand in the way of advancing their totalitarian, unconstitutional and anti-American political agenda.
My brother just became a first-time gun owner. He did not do so because he was reading "Guns and Ammo." He did so because we can read the handwriting on the wall as well as anybody, and the next decade or two looks like a very bad time to be a Jew without weapons.
The Obama stuff was a bonus. The forces of tyranny are slowly oozing their way out into the open, regardless of whose face is on the posters.
The forces of tyranny are slowly oozing their way out into the open, regardless of whose face is on the posters.
The more I look at it the more prescient I think Donald Sensing was in 2003:
"I predict that the Bush administration will be seen by freedom-wishing Americans a generation or two hence as the hinge on the cell door locking up our freedom. When my children are my age, they will not be free in any recognizably traditional American meaning of the word. I'd tell them to emigrate, but there's nowhere left to go. I am left with nauseating near-conviction that I am a member of the last generation in the history of the world that is minimally truly free."
The Bush 43 administration was the hinges, the Obama administration will provide the cell bars, and the next - whoever it is - will install the lock.
Maybe not so much prescient, as simply more observant.
We can see the symptoms in another form, Kevin. The Messiah proposes to spend a TRILLION dollars which the gubmint doesn't have and the general publik responds with, "Um, well, oh, how 'bout them Dodgers, eh?" We are witnessing the combination of ignorance and the refusal to think on a scale never before seen.
Oh, and Mark, it's quite heartening to see you at least attempt to think logically. Your logic was correct and your point is well taken, but Kevin's comments about yours are correct and to the point.
The best gauge of what a politician might do is what he has done or said in the past, not what he has said he will do in the future. Obama has demonstrated utter contempt for the Second Amendment. LOTS of people are waking up to that fact and are becoming first time gun owners in the process. It is not surprising, and it IS logical.
Mark assumes that the gun-banners think about things logically. He's wrong. They'll jump on any opportunity to ram their agenda down our throats. I mean seriously, does anyone consider folks like Pelosi, McCarthy, or Schumer logical thinkers?
Obama has shown through his words AND actions outright contempt for my 2nd Amendment rights. The passage Kevin quotes from his WH website contains things I know to be flat out lies.
He's shown himself to be someone who will eschew all facts and rational thought in order to adhere to an ideology. I see no reason whatsoever to trust such a man until his actions sufficiently sway me. Right now I'll judge him by the body of evidence we have from his past, and it shows me he'll be openly hostile to my rights.
There's nothing in his record that demonstrates anything but hostility towards the 2nd Amendment.
Mark: isn't the fact that Obama is more like President Bush (re: terrorism) than previously thought a good thing for you folks?
Who claimed he would be?
Wasn't you. You've been here for a year telling us that he was serious. We're the ones who told you he was just promising campaign fluff.
You might want to be a LOT more circumspect when you're eating crow, Mark.
(And let's not forget you're a liar. And yes, when you try and argue politics and use your credibility as a talking point, that will come back up until you deal with it.)
Who claimed that Obama was going to immediately "go after Osama" and deal with Pakistan? You did. And so Obama claimed when he wasn't in that pay grade. Now that he is, however.... (And notice, no credit needs to go to the guy who's been doing exactly that for the last 6 years, mind you. )
But you sure missed that call. Badly.
Now you're going to tell us that you're accurately predicting his stance on guns?
How about pointing to a prediction you've been right about?
Has it ever occurred to you that the gun industry is playing up these fears through their various information outlets to make more money?
No, and this proves your dumbassery in a way that I thank you for.
What "outlets" can you point to? HARD EXAMPLES.
They're too busy running the production lines on the AR's to bother.
Stag arms is 40,000 orders back on AR receivers. Prior to 11/5/08, they'd made and shipped 20k. Since 2003 when they started. 20k over 5 years. Twice that in orders in 8 weeks. It's almost like we had an election or something! Or people are a lot less trusting of you of a man who's been dishonest for many years...
Same deal with magazine manufacturers - tens of thousands of backorders by that Friday. What information got out between then? I expect hard proof not wild handwaving, Vizzini.
His own bloody WEBSITE has the promise on there that you're insisting he's not going to do.
Think about this logically
Ok, you just DQ'ed yourself from the discussion.
...President Obama would have to spend millions of dollars to get anti gun legislation passed in a time when there are MANY more important things to worry about. Politically, it makes no sense to tackle the gun issue for years if at all.
"If at all"? Innnnnteresting choice of words there.
It's not "the gun issue". It's banning guns, Mark. Use the correct terminology. Waving your hands and saying "It doesn't make sense" to us is ignorant when Obama is meeting with Rebecca Peters of the UN Criminal Protection Division.
My take: Obama's backtracking on everything he promised on the campaign trail that his supporters ate up uncritically. He's going to have to do *something* to prove his "Liberal Cred"... Which is pretty much, banning guns to ensure that criminals are safer.
Sideshow Bob: I'll be back. You can't keep the Democrats out of the White House forever. And when they get in, I'm back on the streets, with all my criminal buddies!
[laughs maniacally]
If you take their motives at face value, i.e. public "safety" and "security," these people seem illogical, because their arguments can be refuted very easily. The most practical thing to do for public safety and security would be to encourage people to arm themselves responsibly and enforce the laws already on the books. Since that's not what these people are doing, you know one of two things: a) they're morons or b) they're not actually interested in public safety. The latter is much more likely. They have their useful idiots, but it's a grave mistake to believe that the official gun-grabbers believe their own propaganda.
As Kevin pointed out, it's about control. A disarmed populace is easy to cow and control, which is necessary if we're to have our Utopia. So, how to do this? The gun-grabbers understand that people in general are limited by two things -- perspective and emotion -- so they capitalize on both by scaring and lying to people. This is precisely why they're going after scary-looking black rifles first. My God, what civilian needs an "assault weapon"?? They're used for warfare! Gangs use them! They have high-capacity magazines for mowing down hundreds of innocent people!! This is enough to scare Joe and Jane Schmo, who won't investigate the facts and discover that "assault weapons" aren't a public menace.
There's a ruthless sort of logic being applied here that's not apparent. Its success depends only on whether the gun-grabbers have underestimated the American people. I don't know exactly what the logic is, but here's one possibility. 1) Use a campaign of fear and platitudes to enact a permanent ban on scary black rifles. 2) After a suitable amount of time, come to the "realization" that hunting rifles are even more powerful and deadly than those scary military-style weapons we all agreed to ban for public safety. 3a) Fabricate stuff that sounds plausible, like the scarcity of assault weapons (yay, ban!) is forcing gangs and other criminals to resort to using common hunting rifles more and more. 3b) They must therefore be severely restricted. If that sort of legislation gets through, then they know Americans are demoralized to the point where they can 4) Effect a sweeping ban that includes everything else. And then it's all over.
Emotion will get things going and will be helped along by limited perspective and the general weakening of the average American person. As people get physically and emotionally mushier, the desire for the feeling of security gets stronger, and this is underscored by an unprecedented level of dependency on the government for everything -- which President Obama will do nothing to discourage. People are already demoralized to the point where many are convinced that the less they're able to defend themselves, the safer they are. Their perspective is so shallow that they're unaware that every totalitarian regime and genocide started with mass disarmament. And emotion dictates that they don't measure success based on actual outcome, which is why nobody cares what's going on in the UK.
If you want to fight the gun-grabbers, you have to understand their real motive, not the apparent one, and figure out the strategy. Sun Tzu, folks.
Thanks for the demonstration. Mark still won't *get it*.
That's logically analyzing behavior and deriving likely future actions.
Mark: Notice the difference there, and say, with the Obama criticism you want us to retract. You can't analyze like Sarah just did.
Obama was making (obviously ludicrous) claims and promises on the campaign trail. That were obviously either disasters, or he knew he wasn't serious.
We said that at the time, while you touted his stance-at-the-moment... That he's more like President Bush (re: terrorism) than previously thought is what we said he'd have to do if he was raised to the pay grade.
Because we could analyze logically. You couldn't, you could just parrot the line.
Now you're still parroting his "I'm not going after your guns" line, even as his own website disputes that. They're well aware of what it says, it's been taken down and moved 3 times on Change.org, and now to the official website.
So which is it, Mark?
Use logical thinking and tell us which is more likely the truth and why. Honestly, no lies this time.
In my opinion, his site is not anti gun. In yours, it is. On this matter we will just have to agree to disagree.
President Obama has a lot of political capital right now. Do all of you honestly think that he will spend some of it on the gun issue? Not only will it cost millions to get any sort of new regulation passed, it will cost millions more to get them instituted. His eyes are set on the stimulus package, Israel-Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan, climate change, and health care for children..in that order.
"The most practical thing to do for public safety and security would be to encourage people to arm themselves responsibly and enforce the laws already on the books."
I think President Obama supports people arming themselves responsibly. His view is that some weapons are not responsible and that's where the disagreement begins.
"What "outlets" can you point to? HARD EXAMPLES."
Question asked.
"The Bush 43 administration was the hinges, the Obama administration will provide the cell bars, and the next - whoever it is - will install the lock."
Question answered.
[Nazzo fast, Guido. - Kevin here, and for the first time I find it necessary to interject into a comment rather than to simply respond to it. Markadelphia, you said: "Has it ever occurred to you that the gun industry is playing up these fears through their various information outlets to make more money?" There is no implication here, you are stating that "the gun industry" is doing something. Then you quote ME on a political quote and present it as evidence of such. Therefore you are making a clear statement that I am a paid employee of "the gun industry" working to "make (them) more money."
Not to be too blunt, but fuck you and the horse you rode in on. I'm still waiting for my wheelbarrows full of cash from the NRA, now you tell me I should expect them from the gun manufacturers too?
To requote Tam, "Poor lefties, they've been playing on astroturf for so long they don't even recognize real grassroots when they're hit in the mouth with a divot."
Original drivel resumes . . .]
Let's assume for a minute that President Obama does do everything he says he wants to do on his web site regarding gun laws. Will all of you still have guns with which to defend yourselves? This IS a yes or no question.
Something happens...and I'm not quite sure what it is...but a giant leap is taken from AWB to all guns and people rounded up and sent to camps. Think hard about the hows and whys that lead you to take that step and show me the logic in it.
"He did so because we can read the handwriting on the wall as well as anybody, and the next decade or two looks like a very bad time to be a Jew without weapons."
Sadly, it's always a bad time to be a Jew without a weapon. What kind of a gun did he buy and will he still be able to keep it if Obama loses all common sense (not likely) and passes his desired laws?
"Obama has demonstrated utter contempt for the Second Amendment."
Wow. That is just so...wrong.
"The gun industry is taking advantage of a trend that they did nothing to start."
I disagree. The gun industry knows its clientele very well. President Obama has been their messiah. Not only does "support sensible gun laws" (codeword for they's a comin'), he's also black which, you have to admit, does stir up a certain segment of this country.
In fact, all industries in this country know that fear combined with ignorance means more profit. Our entire culture is geared towards making everyone afraid and then telling them that they need to buy this NOW so they will be protected. It's terribly sad.
Finally, I find it even more sad that someone like myself, who supports the right to bear arms, is told there is no other way to do it but this way...YOUR way. Isn't that just a little rigid? If I support the AWB, then I am a gun banner and there is absolutely no question or wavering of this point? [Yes. You are. We've been through this and you stated at one point that I'd changed your mind. Not so much? - Ed.]
You've set a new high water mark for assinity. You've surpassed even yourself!
In my opinion, his site is not anti gun. In yours, it is. On this matter we will just have to agree to disagree.
In your opinion (let's not forget you're a proven out-and-out liar), it's not. Because.. it's .. NOT. It's not an opinion issue, Mark.
IT SAYS RIGHT THERE ASSAULT WEAPON BAN. Ban. Ban. B. A. N. Bee Ah En.
BAN: prohibition: a decree that prohibits something
But in your opinion, he's not talking about banning guns.
Can I ridicule the worth of your opinion anywhere as effectively as you can, merely by continuing to talk? I can't! You're self-ridiculing!
You've demonstrated (again, but even better than you ever have, what your opinion is worth. In my opinion, his site is not anti gun. When he specifically talks about banning guns.
Guns hardly ever used in crime. (Long guns as a whole are used in under 2% of all violent crime.) But all that is just facts to your opinion bulldozer, because you don't think a site calling for a ban is "anti-gun".
Do all of you honestly think that he will spend some of it on the gun issue? Not only will it cost millions to get any sort of new regulation passed, it will cost millions more to get them instituted. His eyes are set on the stimulus package, Israel-Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan, climate change, and health care for children..in that order.
We've established the worth of your opinion - and your ability to actually gauge Obama's choices. I note you're ignoring all the ranting and raving from the past year that you've done here about Osama and Pakistan... Where Obama has, now that the election is over, turned back on all his campaign and debate promises and rhetoric and continued... With the same path Bush blazed.
McSame, all right.
Yes, he's going to spend political capital. Why not? Hell, you're still insisting that when he says he'll ban guns he's not trying to ban guns!
"What "outlets" can you point to? HARD EXAMPLES."
Question asked.
"The Bush 43 administration was the hinges, the Obama administration will provide the cell bars, and the next - whoever it is - will install the lock."
Question answered.
Mark, you do know Schedule I drugs are still illegal, right?
What in the HELL was THAT?
I asked for hard examples, and you... got drunk? That's not a hard example of anything, much less proof the "Horrible Big Industry Of Guns" has 'outlets', or that they're in any way behind the huge outgrowth in gun and accessory purchases. (From people who apparently know what the word "Ban" means.)
If I support the AWB, then I am a gun banner and there is absolutely no question or wavering of this point?
If you support the "Assault Weapon" BAN, then yes, you're a GUN BANNER.
Really, Mark, that ought to be obvious even to you.
Not only does "support sensible gun laws" (codeword for they's a comin')
Yes, it is. Codeword for "We're going to ban your guns and prevent you from having them."
Otherwise, name me one "sensible" law that's yet to be passed. I can name you hundreds of nonsensical.
Think hard about the hows and whys that lead you to take that step and show me the logic in it.
How about I just show you all of the instances where mass disarmament has preceded dictatorship and mass slaughter? Except that you're immune to facts.
... he's also black which, you have to admit, does stir up a certain segment of this country.
Yes, Democrats. Let's not forget that the KKK was essentially started as the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party and not a single Democrat voted for the 14th amendment. Can we count on you to keep a close eye on your buddies, Mark?
Me:"Obama has demonstrated utter contempt for the Second Amendment."
Markadoofus:"Wow. That is just so...wrong."
Well, lessee now ...
What has Ol' Barry said about it in the past, what has he proposed, and how has he voted on the matter?
Once again, pay attention to what he has done and said in the past, not what he says he will do in the future. He's a politician, remember?
He has: 1) been very supportive of a Chicago city ordinance that includes a complete ban on handgun ownership; 2) as an Illinois State Senator, voted against legislation which would prevent Chicago from prosecuting city residents who used handguns to defend themselves in their own homes, arguing that the city had a right to impose these restrictions for the public good; 3) as an Illinois State Senator, repeatedly voted for bills that would limit gun rights and against bills that supported the Second Amendment; 4) as an Illinois State Senator, proposed legislation that would make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home; 5) as an Illinois State Senator, proposed legislation that would have prevented federally licensed firearm dealers from owning shops within five miles of a school or park, which would have shut down damned nearly every gun shop in the country; 6) defended as being constitutional the D.C. gun ban that was overturned by the Supreme Court in the Heller decision; 7) after the Heller decision, stated that he "... believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws ...", which is political doubletalk for: "local communities can enact laws in defiance of the Constitution"; 8 ) responded, on the 1998 Illinois State Legislature Political Awareness Test, that he supported bans on the manufacture, sale, or possession of handguns and assault weapons (yeah, he disputed this, but his handwriting is on the form with those answers); and, 9) stated this little gem of a quote: "I would support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons and limiting the sale of ammunition for handguns."
Now, just how is it wrong, Liar Boy? Go ahead, make a case that such a person respects the Second Amendment. Don't just tell us he does, MAKE THE CASE, Liar Boy.
I am amused by this statement of Clayton Cramer, which he stated in Shotgun News on 08/01/08, pp 20-21:
"Barack Obama is that most remarkable of Democrats: someone so far to the left that Hillary Clinton has been attacking him for his support of gun control and naïve understanding of foreign policy."
"I am not in favor of concealed weapons," Obama said. "I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."
A statement NOT supported by actual experience in any state since Florida started the Shall Issue movement in 1987 (IIRC)
"“I continue to support a ban on concealed carry laws.”
Multiple sources found in Google, but here's a link with audio:
And yes, before you ask, as far as I am concerned, opposing CCW for private citizens is an indication that you do NOT support the right to self defense.
Just about everyone on his statements, including the ones currently on the White House site, show that his statements that he supports Second Amendment rights show he's so stupid/ignorant he doesn't understand what that means (which I don't believe), or he's lying when he says it (much more likely).
Markadelphia sputters If I support the AWB, then I am a gun banner and there is absolutely no question or wavering of this point?
Say there M, just what does the "B" in "AWB" stand for? If it is ban, then by golly you ARE a gun banner. If you think you know which guns are appropriate for me to own and which are not - you're a fucking arrogant prick as well.
>>Isn't that just a little rigid? If I support the AWB, then I am a gun banner and there is absolutely no question or wavering of this point?
(I lay aside the self-refuting matter of someone who subscribes to a ban as somehow not being a gun banner)
Nope, there cannot be any question.
We're not going to grant someone who espouses that belief (Which I generously presume to be a rhetorical statement, rather than a statement of position.) an exemption because they magnanimously allow that we have the right to *some* arms that *they* find acceptable for civilian use. There will be none of this, "as long as we let you have 100+ year old designs your RKBA can be considered intact."
We WILL NOT CONCEDE the right to arms of at least minimal military credibility. (In todays terms: mag fed autoloading rifles and handguns of robust design, moderate cost and military pedigree)
We choose not to concede these arms for ourselves, and, knowing that we must answer to history and every American/freedom loving sentient being who will *ever* live anywhere in this universe we have no right to make that concession.
Anyone who does will soundly deserve to have their names be cursed by such Americans/freedom loving sentients who, in a hopefully far flung future and distant place, find themselves in dire straights without them.
"Barack Obama is that most remarkable of Democrats: someone so far to the left that Hillary Clinton has been attacking him for his support of gun control and naïve understanding of foreign policy."
Hoo boy. My new officemate doesn't like Obama because he thinks O's too far to the right.
Kevin: I'd add some more style, be it blockquote or something to distinguish your comment above.
I also didn't notice he was quoting you in his deranged ramble... because there was no citation at'tall.
Don't they still teach citation in school, Mark? Lemme guess, you do that in your classes?
(Even a link to where you were talking about would have made it make a little more sense. It's still not an answer to my question, or even proof, or a source... but it would have made marginally more sense.)
Kevin, first of all, I think interjecting as you did above facilitates a conversation and direct debate in a much more effective way. It would be cool if we could all do it rather than cutting and pasting.
Second, notice I said "information outlets." Your blog is a self proclaimed gun rights blog which makes it an information outlet for gun rights supporters like the NRA. If I implied that you were a paid employee of the NRA, then I was in error with my wording. In fact, you should get a wheel barrel full of cash from them and then you wouldn't have to work at your job so much thus clearing the way to blog more:)
Third, you did change my mind about gun owners. For the longest time (suffering from outgroup bias) I had the belief that they were all psychotic Nazis. I no longer think that and have seen plenty of posts from you that were highly critical of people like that. I think people should arm themselves for self defense and know that there would be a lot less violence against women in this country if all of them had a gun.
Where you lose me is when you take that giant leap from assault weapons to all guns...like here.
"How about I just show you all of the instances where mass disarmament has preceded dictatorship and mass slaughter? Except that you're immune to facts."
Sarah, you don't have to because an assault weapons ban and Obama's desired gun laws (most of which, if not all, will never happen) will not take away ALL guns. Tell you what...everyone here knows more about guns than I do. Make a list of all the guns that will NOT be affected by Obama's proposed laws. Then tell me if you can still defend yourselves and if we are talking about mass disarmament.
How about before we prove anything to you (which is an exercise in futility), you go back to your question:
If I support the AWB["Assault Weapons" BAN], then I am a gun banner ... ?
No handwaving and leaving that behind. Deal with it. Did you actually have to ask us if you're a banner if you ban things?
You answer that (Which as you'll note you received many answers from us). Bonus points: define "Assault Weapons">.
You've still not addressed where the "gun industry outlets" are. No, this doesn't count. It's not an outlet, it's a hobby.
So where are their outlets? Or what "sensible gun laws" haven't been passed. Or why we're not addressing the nonsensical ones.
if we are talking about mass disarmament.
Yes, we are. Once you go back and deal with your "Assault Weapons" Ban question, then we'll progress forward with that proof.
"Make a list of all the guns that will NOT be affected by Obama's proposed laws. Then tell me if you can still defend yourselves and if we are talking about mass disarmament."
I offer a self-evident truth: When those who oppose gun control compromise with those who favor gun control, then those who oppose gun control lose something and those who favor gun control gain something. When such compromises happen over and over again, then those who oppose gun control lose everything.
Bullshit, you (ahem) think? Despite tens of thousands of gun laws being tested over decades all across the country, those who favor gun control call every new gun control law a "good first step". They are NOT to be trusted, and Obama has demonstrated that he is not to be trusted. We don't go down that road because we don't want to go where that road goes.
Now, back to the challenge, lying teacher boy. MAKE THE CASE that Obama respects the Second Amendment.
Mark: "I think people should arm themselves for self defense and know that there would be a lot less violence against women in this country if all of them had a gun."
If you really believe this, then answer me one question...
Most if not all police here in Southern California carry a 12ga shotgun and an M-16/M4 carbine in their cruisers. If the police need assault weapons (presumably for use against criminals), then why shouldn't the citizenry have access to the same protections?
"MAKE THE CASE that Obama respects the Second Amendment."
Well, I already have and both of you refused to accept it. He supported the Vitter Amendment and he supported conceal and carry for retired policeman in Illinois. He also has said, ad nauseum, that he supports American's right to bear arms and has introduced no legislation to ban rifles, shotguns, hand guns etc...But that's not enough is it? As geek said above, it's all or nothing.
Sorry, that type of thinking is too black and white for me and it's the main reason why I can never be a conservative. Even though I have a great deal of empathy, respect, and even agree with the right's views on several issues, it's the "my way or the highway" bullshit that is a giant turn off. It reminds me of a quote left in comments on my blog recently.
"Obama has said time and again that if someone has a better idea, he wants to hear it. Bush never talked like that -- he always insisted he was right about everything, that he got his marching orders from God. To this day he still can't admit any real mistakes -- he's still carping that everything bad that happened was someone else's fault."
I think the same way as our new president. If you have a better idea, let's hear it. And I also think that it's possible (albeit not likely) that there could be an increased effort on part of the anti gun crowd to ban more weapons. But is it possible that I'm right?
Nah, no way. People on the right can't admit when they are wrong. It would mean the End Times.
"Once you go back and deal with your "Assault Weapons" Ban question, then we'll progress forward with that proof."
In your mind, someone that supports an assault weapons ban is a banner of ALL guns. Not in my mind and I'm not entirely sure I would support it if it came up again but that's mostly because we have many more important things to deal with in this country.
I understand why the gun control folks are trying to get semi autos banned and that they aren't even "assault" weapons because you still have to pull the trigger every time you fire. They just look scary to the anti gun crowd and that's why they want them banned.
But I submit to you that their motivation for wanting these guns banned may not be because, ultimately, they want ALL guns banned. Maybe they just see these particular guns as being more destructive. Maybe many of them own guns themselves...did you ever think of that?
Again, I see a leap of logic here that is quite troubling. AWB=All Weapons Banned...not simply Assault Weapons Banned. It's a knee jerk reaction to an issue that is not as black and white as some of you are making it out to be. Mass disarmament? President Obama would lose so much support if he even remotely tried to push something like this. He would even lose it if he tried to get his ideas on his web site passed with all the problems we have now.
"then why shouldn't the citizenry have access to the same protections?"
This one went up just as I was posting my last comment. If the citizenry wants to go through all of the training that police do and if the state in which they live passes a law to allow it, I don't think I have a right to question that.
The problem I have with this one is not the guns...it's Americans. While I'm sure everyone here would be responsible, I think that is, most assuredly, a minority. I think we can all agree that people in this country are woefully ignorant.
And then I think of General Clark's quote.
"If ordinary citizens want to carry assault weapons, then they can come and see me. I have a job for them."
"Well, I already have and both of you refused to accept it. He supported the Vitter Amendment and he supported conceal and carry for retired policeman in Illinois. He also has said, ad nauseum, that he supports American's right to bear arms and has introduced no legislation to ban rifles, shotguns, hand guns etc...But that's not enough is it? As geek said above, it's all or nothing."
He says such things NOW. I have shown you, ad nauseam, what he has DONE that shows a complete lack of respect for the Second Amendment. Actions in the past can't be undone, but rhetoric toward the future has the purpose of snaring the gullible. Yet again, you demonstrate just how gullible you are. You simply project on him what you want him to be.
"In your mind, someone that supports an assault weapons ban is a banner of ALL guns."
No, someone who supports an assault weapons ban is a banner of assault weapons, but not necessarily a banner of all guns. Still can think well, can you?
"If ordinary citizens want to carry assault weapons, then they can come and see me. I have a job for them."
What about wheelchair bound "ordinary citizens"? Asthmatic, diabetic or any other medically challenged "ordinary citizens". Gay "ordinary citizens" that weren't asked but told, and thus were not allowed to enlist or were discharged.
I myself have a foot deformity that would probably keep me out and have already been told that I am too old to meet enlistment requirements.
What I'm saying here is, why must an ordinary citizen be in the military to be allowed access to the best/most appropriate tools for self-protection?
And if my state did offer the same training as law enforcement as a prerequisite to assault rifle ownership, do you really believe that The Brady Campaign would stop their efforts to enact more useless bans? In an effort to garner public favor those very same people call assault weapons "the criminals choice" despite evidence showing otherwise. ie: They lie.
Mark:
You're running away from so much here it's not funny. You asked if you were a banner if you banned things. Without any apparent understanding of what "ban" meant.
This is the base problem with trying to explain things to you, or discuss with you. You don't understand. The major secondary problem is you're dishonest. You move goalposts, make false claims, and demand respect without any reason.
Well, I already have and both of you refused to accept it.
Then you didn't MAKE THE CASE. You argued a point.
Once having said something, discussion was over, because you didn't understand. But you just were dishonest about your level of knowledge. You don't even note the objections raised, or the refutations of your points. Making the case means you deal with those and factually rebut them.
He supported the Vitter Amendment and he supported conceal and carry for retired policeman in Illinois.
We've taken both of those apart. One's about "Only Ones", and the other passed with a 90-2 vote. Hardly groundbreaking stuff. And then you ignored the arguments against you, just painting us as "unreasonable". Black and white?
We've pointed you to his promises to outlaw concealed carry by citizens. His time on the Joyce Foundation when they bought out law journals to publish lies and pabulum to try and swing judges.
Those, to any reasonable person, more than outweigh a pro-forma vote that meant little, and support for a special class.
You made an argument, not the case. But you can't understand the difference. Hell! You can't even understand what a verb means. If you ban, then you're a banner. If you swim, then you're a swimmer. If you teach, then you're a ... Well, maybe you have a point there.
He also has said, ad nauseam, that he supports American's right to bear arms
(It's been pointed out to you, ad nauseam, you refused to judge Bush based on his words. (Even when they were backed by actions.))
I don't care what Obama claims, ESPECIALLY when those claims are SELF REFUTED by his OTHER campaign promises! And you ignore those!
and has introduced no legislation to ban rifles, shotguns, hand guns etc..
Just promised to. But that's not enough for you, is it? After all, you know what's in his heart, right? We should TRUST YOU, after all, you were right about Paki.. whoops.
People on the right can't admit when they are wrong. It would mean the End Times.
Obviously, you share an understanding of "Irony" with Alanis.
In your mind, someone that supports an assault weapons ban is a banner of ALL guns.
Show me one who isn't.
Yes, that's in my mind. After all, I've proven my ability to analyze and predict. I base this on the proof and the pudding. After the "Assault Weapons" ban was enacted, the people who pushed that started talking about destructive devices. Pocket rockets (small pistols sized down to the required 10 max limit). "Sniper rifles". Obama! joined the board of the Joyce Foundation after the "AW"B was enacted, and proceeded to try and legislate away the 2nd Amendment. There's never "enough" to a prohibitionist.
Not in my mind and I'm not entirely sure I would support it if it came up again
Yes, you would. But that's because despite our best efforts, you remain a dishonest emotion-driven ditto-bot.
But I submit to you that their motivation for wanting these guns banned may not be because, ultimately, they want ALL guns banned.
Not according to them. Not according to their actions. Their words.
Maybe many of them own guns themselves...did you ever think of that?
MOST of them own guns themselves. The people who want the other people disarmed almost always do. It's for the "little people" not *me*. THEY (and presumably their "Only One" Police Protection will be QUITE WELL ARMED. Again, this has been seen worldwide time and time again.)
AWB=All Weapons Banned...not simply Assault Weapons Banned. It's a knee jerk reaction to an issue that is not as black and white as some of you are making it out to be.
Yes, it is black and white. Outlawing guns based on their LOOKS? Not their function, but based on their looks.
On a game plan well documented - by the gunbanners - to divide, mislabel, and discredit gun owners.
But you can't even understand that, no, you've got to try and be "superior" to us and see the "nuance".
All you're doing, Mark, is demonstrating and reinforcing your lack of understanding and fundamental dishonesty.
Now, about those "outlets" of the "gun industry"... (Or your lies to DJ's quiz..) ....
I'm reminded why we have civilian control of the military.
When Mark can't understand that promoting banning guns makes him by defintion a gun-banner, those bigger and more complex concepts are WELL beyond him.
"But I submit to you that their motivation for wanting these guns banned may not be because, ultimately, they want ALL guns banned."
Here's the problem as I see it with this statement:
As someone (I think Sarah) perfectly stated above, "it's not about the guns, it's about the control".
If they want these types of guns banned because they view them as "more dangerous" or "more deadly" or "more used by criminals" then these can be easily refuted with readily available facts. Are they avoiding the facts out of ignorance?
The flip side of that coin is they already know the facts but choose to avoid, deny or disregard. If this is the case, then why would any gun owner believe they will stop at one type of gun? They clearly lie related to the reasons, what else do they lie about?
"If ordinary citizens want to carry assault weapons, then they can come and see me. I have a job for them."
I'll see your Genl. Clark quote, and raise you three:
---------------------
They {Obama and Biden} also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
-Whitehouse.gov
--------------
There is no right to have access to the weapons of war in the streets of America.
For those who want to wield those weapons, we have a place for them. It is the U.S. military. And we welcome them.
-John Kerry, Senate Floor, 3/5/2004
-----------
And Finally:
-----------
"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA -- ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the state."
-- Heinrich Himmler, WWII
---But here's the big whopper quote of them all:
Quote:
---------- The problem I have with this one is not the guns...it's Americans.
But I loaded this thread and thought I saw a comment that was brilliant in it's annoyin-ness (by spotting so bloody obvious, but shrouded by Mark's handwaving) by geekwitha45 who noted this gem of Mark's...
The problem I have with this one is not the guns...it's Americans.
Yeah.
There's why Mark really can't be a "conservative". (his terms, not mine.)
Yep. Right there, there's the problem.
Geek, I dunno where your comment went, or maybe I hallucinated it while I fought with #(*$()@#()#@ tape backup today....
Now that we've thoroughly beaten that horse dead, let's take a different tack.
Mark,
It has been demonstrated here and elsewhere that the AWB will have zero practical effect on crime or anything else, since it bans cosmetic features for the most part, and there are far more powerful weapons (hunting rifles) available.
The only effect the ban will have will be to inconvenience (at least) the innocent. The additional red tape alone will cost firearms retailers a good chunk of cash, I imagine.
So—completely setting aside issues of principle—why is the AWB a good idea?
If the citizenry wants to go through all of the training that police do and if the state in which they live passes a law to allow it, I don't think I have a right to question that.
It doesn't take any more special training to operate a 12ga shotgun or an M-16 carbine than it does to operate any other firearm.
Besides, didn't Kevin or someone point out a while back that CHL holders spend more time at the range than police officers?
I passed BRM in Army basic.... which is more rifle training than most police EVER go through. Fine, by that standard, gimme my M-16. Of btw, I'm qualified with an M-60 an d M-203, can i have those too? and some hand grenades... and an AN/TSC-85A while we're at it.
Curious...the logic of those who believe in 'gun crime' is: Someone has just committed a 'gun crime'. Therefore, we must pass new laws impacting the rights of all those who own 'guns' and who did not commit a 'gun crime'. Let's start with the scary looking ones. Then the ones with too many bullets. Then the ones with a lot of bullets. Then the ones with particular handles in front. Then the ones with sharp things connected to them. The the ones firing hi powered bullets. Then the ones that are too big. The the ones that are too small. Then the ones people are using after a hurricane. Then the ones...
The new D.C rules for registering a firearm forbid "assault rifles". What would happen if someone registered a standard Ruger .22, and then later returned with the same rifle all 'assault tricked out'? (Interestingly enough, there is also in those regs a requirement that anyone firing a firearm in D.C. must have a special permit to do so issued by the chief of police.)
"Has it ever occurred to you that the gun industry is playing up these fears through their various information outlets to make more money?"
My first thought when I was this ridiculous claim was this:
"Wow. The gun lobby is soooo powerful that they even forced Obama to claim that he wants to ban guns just so they could make more money! Those corporate fiends!"
It's absolutely amazing to me that Marky simply cannot comprehend that the primary source for the claim that Obama wants to violate the 2nd Amendment by banning guns is Obama's own statements.
"It's absolutely amazing to me that Marky simply cannot comprehend that the primary source for the claim that Obama wants to violate the 2nd Amendment by banning guns is Obama's own statements."
Bingo, Ed.
And what is even more clinching is that many such statments were back when he was a State Senator trying to actually get anti-gun measures adopted. The point is that those words of his were backed by actions, not simply campaign lies designed to sway the gullible.
One must always keep in mind that Obama is two things: 1) a lawyer; and, 2) a politician. A lawyer is trained to lie, to deny, to obfuscate, to conceal, and to defend the indefensible. A politician is trained to induce the suspension of disbelief, to induce the listener to hear what he wants to hear, and to communicate in verbal mush whose meaning is a solid as quicksand. Obama is both. He is not even as trustworthy as Slick Willie Clinton.
Also, has anyone pointed out to Mark that an "assault weapon" is a rifle? Just a rifle, nothing more. An AR-15 might look scary but it's no more deadly than any other .223 rifle.
(OTOH, my Dad's 1930's bolt-action Remington .22 squirrel gun is an "assault weapon" in NJ, because its tubular magazine holds 15 rounds -- and there's where your "AWB" leads, Mark).
Poor Mark. He really tries. He doesn't seem like a bad fellow. He doesn't scream and shout. He tries to support what his heart feels with benign but faulty logic.
But he, alone, gamely wades in here among the antagonized and consistently gets gang raped.
Please don't chase him away forever. We all need a semblance of a sounding board.
But you see, now you're depending on facts, and as you can see, Mark's worried about feelings.
(But, according to him, we're factless robot repeating devices. Despite our attempts and successes at refuting him with facts.)
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/01/when-obama-says-this-stuff-i-dont-think.html (56 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Gives new validation to the old charges of Bush Derangement Syndrome, doesn't it?
And why exactly are you buying another gun?
Also, isn't the fact that Obama is more like President Bush (re: terrorism) than previously thought a good thing for you folks?
And why exactly are you buying another gun?
Because of this:
"Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent." - Found on inauguration day at http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/urban_policy/
One of the restrictions of the "Assault Weapons Ban" was on magazines with a greater than 10-round capacity. It is my intention to purchase a 9mm handgun with a standard capacity of 15 rounds per magazine, and as many magazines for it as I can reasonably afford.
Also, isn't the fact that Obama is more like President Bush (re: terrorism) than previously thought a good thing for you folks?
That depends on whether you think he really means it! ;)
Also, isn't the fact that Obama is more like President Bush (re: terrorism) than previously thought a good thing for you folks?
Markadelphia | Email | Homepage | 01.24.09 - 8:54 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats if you think we liked all that president Bush did. More important is how you react to president Obama. Are you folks going to keep up the rabid hate toward the new president, as you did the old one? If he doesn't do as you demand? I didn't read to many people giving Bush a pass on things. Your turn.
Has it ever occurred to you that the gun industry is playing up these fears through their various information outlets to make more money?
Think about this logically...President Obama would have to spend millions of dollars to get anti gun legislation passed in a time when there are MANY more important things to worry about. Politically, it makes no sense to tackle the gun issue for years if at all.
Hmmm...Bush, Bush Lite and Bush Dark??
Even the pundits and hopefully some so-called “reporters” are beginning to recognize that everything Obama has said, is saying, or might say must be taken with a large container of Morton’s. Morton’s motto seems particularly appropriate; “When it rains, it pours”. Consider that if what Obama has already said is / has been proven to be false, then anything coming from the same container is almost certainly also false.
Has it ever occurred to you that the gun industry is playing up these fears through their various information outlets to make more money?
Uh, Mark? You seem to be (again) misinterpreting cause and effect. The gun industry is taking advantage of a trend that they did nothing to start.
The Obamessiah's ascension spurred the glut of sales. His support for "closing the gun-show 'loophole'," repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, "child-proof" guns, and reinstatement - permanently - of the ban-that-didn't-really-ban-anything (only this time with teeth), was the only impetus needed to convince a lot of people that such legislation was coming. And a lot of them are first-time gun owners.
Think about this logically...President Obama would have to spend millions of dollars to get anti gun legislation passed in a time when there are MANY more important things to worry about.
As Reagan so often said, "There you go again . . ." You're thinking logically about something political.
It's not about guns. It's about control.
Has it ever occurred to you that the gun industry is playing up these fears through their various information outlets to make more money?
Think about this logically...President Obama would have to spend millions of dollars to get anti gun legislation passed in a time when there are MANY more important things to worry about. Politically, it makes no sense to tackle the gun issue for years if at all.
Markadelphia | Email | Homepage | 01.24.09 - 1:46 pm | #
------------------------You mean a gun industry news outlet like, say, Obama's web site? The one that says permenate AWB, child proof guns.etc.,etc.. Is that what your talking about? Maybe comments like."folks clinging to their guns & Bibles?". Or maybe it's the public circle jerk/pre-ejectulation on the part of the,"Brady Bunch" and friends,that make Obama "Gun salesman of the year"? Logic? Logically? The only logic i've seen in Obama is his ability to play politics. Since when has communism ever been logical? Money? he'll print more.And like i asked,You going to hold his feet to the fire?
"Politically, it makes no sense to tackle the gun issue for years if at all."
Logically, it has never made sense.
The gun banners (whether driven by their own phobias or a desire for control of others)have never let logic, common sense or reality stand in the way of advancing their totalitarian, unconstitutional and anti-American political agenda.
Mark,
My brother just became a first-time gun owner. He did not do so because he was reading "Guns and Ammo." He did so because we can read the handwriting on the wall as well as anybody, and the next decade or two looks like a very bad time to be a Jew without weapons.
The Obama stuff was a bonus. The forces of tyranny are slowly oozing their way out into the open, regardless of whose face is on the posters.
The forces of tyranny are slowly oozing their way out into the open, regardless of whose face is on the posters.
The more I look at it the more prescient I think Donald Sensing was in 2003:
"I predict that the Bush administration will be seen by freedom-wishing Americans a generation or two hence as the hinge on the cell door locking up our freedom. When my children are my age, they will not be free in any recognizably traditional American meaning of the word. I'd tell them to emigrate, but there's nowhere left to go. I am left with nauseating near-conviction that I am a member of the last generation in the history of the world that is minimally truly free."
The Bush 43 administration was the hinges, the Obama administration will provide the cell bars, and the next - whoever it is - will install the lock.
Maybe not so much prescient, as simply more observant.
We can see the symptoms in another form, Kevin. The Messiah proposes to spend a TRILLION dollars which the gubmint doesn't have and the general publik responds with, "Um, well, oh, how 'bout them Dodgers, eh?" We are witnessing the combination of ignorance and the refusal to think on a scale never before seen.
Oh, and Mark, it's quite heartening to see you at least attempt to think logically. Your logic was correct and your point is well taken, but Kevin's comments about yours are correct and to the point.
The best gauge of what a politician might do is what he has done or said in the past, not what he has said he will do in the future. Obama has demonstrated utter contempt for the Second Amendment. LOTS of people are waking up to that fact and are becoming first time gun owners in the process. It is not surprising, and it IS logical.
"Think about this logically."
Mark assumes that the gun-banners think about things logically. He's wrong. They'll jump on any opportunity to ram their agenda down our throats. I mean seriously, does anyone consider folks like Pelosi, McCarthy, or Schumer logical thinkers?
Obama has shown through his words AND actions outright contempt for my 2nd Amendment rights. The passage Kevin quotes from his WH website contains things I know to be flat out lies.
He's shown himself to be someone who will eschew all facts and rational thought in order to adhere to an ideology. I see no reason whatsoever to trust such a man until his actions sufficiently sway me. Right now I'll judge him by the body of evidence we have from his past, and it shows me he'll be openly hostile to my rights.
There's nothing in his record that demonstrates anything but hostility towards the 2nd Amendment.
Mark:
isn't the fact that Obama is more like President Bush (re: terrorism) than previously thought a good thing for you folks?
Who claimed he would be?
Wasn't you. You've been here for a year telling us that he was serious. We're the ones who told you he was just promising campaign fluff.
You might want to be a LOT more circumspect when you're eating crow, Mark.
(And let's not forget you're a liar. And yes, when you try and argue politics and use your credibility as a talking point, that will come back up until you deal with it.)
Who claimed that Obama was going to immediately "go after Osama" and deal with Pakistan? You did. And so Obama claimed when he wasn't in that pay grade.
Now that he is, however.... (And notice, no credit needs to go to the guy who's been doing exactly that for the last 6 years, mind you. )
But you sure missed that call. Badly.
Now you're going to tell us that you're accurately predicting his stance on guns?
How about pointing to a prediction you've been right about?
Has it ever occurred to you that the gun industry is playing up these fears through their various information outlets to make more money?
No, and this proves your dumbassery in a way that I thank you for.
What "outlets" can you point to? HARD EXAMPLES.
They're too busy running the production lines on the AR's to bother.
Stag arms is 40,000 orders back on AR receivers. Prior to 11/5/08, they'd made and shipped 20k. Since 2003 when they started. 20k over 5 years. Twice that in orders in 8 weeks. It's almost like we had an election or something! Or people are a lot less trusting of you of a man who's been dishonest for many years...
Same deal with magazine manufacturers - tens of thousands of backorders by that Friday. What information got out between then? I expect hard proof not wild handwaving, Vizzini.
His own bloody WEBSITE has the promise on there that you're insisting he's not going to do.
Think about this logically
Ok, you just DQ'ed yourself from the discussion.
...President Obama would have to spend millions of dollars to get anti gun legislation passed in a time when there are MANY more important things to worry about. Politically, it makes no sense to tackle the gun issue for years if at all.
"If at all"? Innnnnteresting choice of words there.
It's not "the gun issue". It's banning guns, Mark. Use the correct terminology. Waving your hands and saying "It doesn't make sense" to us is ignorant when Obama is meeting with Rebecca Peters of the UN Criminal Protection Division.
My take: Obama's backtracking on everything he promised on the campaign trail that his supporters ate up uncritically. He's going to have to do *something* to prove his "Liberal Cred"... Which is pretty much, banning guns to ensure that criminals are safer.
Sideshow Bob: I'll be back. You can't keep the Democrats out of the White House forever. And when they get in, I'm back on the streets, with all my criminal buddies!
[laughs maniacally]
Oh, but the gun-banners do think logically.
If you take their motives at face value, i.e. public "safety" and "security," these people seem illogical, because their arguments can be refuted very easily. The most practical thing to do for public safety and security would be to encourage people to arm themselves responsibly and enforce the laws already on the books. Since that's not what these people are doing, you know one of two things: a) they're morons or b) they're not actually interested in public safety. The latter is much more likely. They have their useful idiots, but it's a grave mistake to believe that the official gun-grabbers believe their own propaganda.
As Kevin pointed out, it's about control. A disarmed populace is easy to cow and control, which is necessary if we're to have our Utopia. So, how to do this? The gun-grabbers understand that people in general are limited by two things -- perspective and emotion -- so they capitalize on both by scaring and lying to people. This is precisely why they're going after scary-looking black rifles first. My God, what civilian needs an "assault weapon"?? They're used for warfare! Gangs use them! They have high-capacity magazines for mowing down hundreds of innocent people!! This is enough to scare Joe and Jane Schmo, who won't investigate the facts and discover that "assault weapons" aren't a public menace.
There's a ruthless sort of logic being applied here that's not apparent. Its success depends only on whether the gun-grabbers have underestimated the American people. I don't know exactly what the logic is, but here's one possibility. 1) Use a campaign of fear and platitudes to enact a permanent ban on scary black rifles. 2) After a suitable amount of time, come to the "realization" that hunting rifles are even more powerful and deadly than those scary military-style weapons we all agreed to ban for public safety. 3a) Fabricate stuff that sounds plausible, like the scarcity of assault weapons (yay, ban!) is forcing gangs and other criminals to resort to using common hunting rifles more and more. 3b) They must therefore be severely restricted. If that sort of legislation gets through, then they know Americans are demoralized to the point where they can 4) Effect a sweeping ban that includes everything else. And then it's all over.
Emotion will get things going and will be helped along by limited perspective and the general weakening of the average American person. As people get physically and emotionally mushier, the desire for the feeling of security gets stronger, and this is underscored by an unprecedented level of dependency on the government for everything -- which President Obama will do nothing to discourage. People are already demoralized to the point where many are convinced that the less they're able to defend themselves, the safer they are. Their perspective is so shallow that they're unaware that every totalitarian regime and genocide started with mass disarmament. And emotion dictates that they don't measure success based on actual outcome, which is why nobody cares what's going on in the UK.
If you want to fight the gun-grabbers, you have to understand their real motive, not the apparent one, and figure out the strategy. Sun Tzu, folks.
Just FYI, that was me.
Sarah:
Thanks for the demonstration. Mark still won't *get it*.
That's logically analyzing behavior and deriving likely future actions.
Mark: Notice the difference there, and say, with the Obama criticism you want us to retract. You can't analyze like Sarah just did.
Obama was making (obviously ludicrous) claims and promises on the campaign trail. That were obviously either disasters, or he knew he wasn't serious.
We said that at the time, while you touted his stance-at-the-moment... That he's more like President Bush (re: terrorism) than previously thought is what we said he'd have to do if he was raised to the pay grade.
Because we could analyze logically. You couldn't, you could just parrot the line.
Now you're still parroting his "I'm not going after your guns" line, even as his own website disputes that. They're well aware of what it says, it's been taken down and moved 3 times on Change.org, and now to the official website.
So which is it, Mark?
Use logical thinking and tell us which is more likely the truth and why. Honestly, no lies this time.
I strongly recommend against holding your breath . . .
Working backwards...
"So which is it, Mark?"
In my opinion, his site is not anti gun. In yours, it is. On this matter we will just have to agree to disagree.
President Obama has a lot of political capital right now. Do all of you honestly think that he will spend some of it on the gun issue? Not only will it cost millions to get any sort of new regulation passed, it will cost millions more to get them instituted. His eyes are set on the stimulus package, Israel-Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan, climate change, and health care for children..in that order.
"The most practical thing to do for public safety and security would be to encourage people to arm themselves responsibly and enforce the laws already on the books."
I think President Obama supports people arming themselves responsibly. His view is that some weapons are not responsible and that's where the disagreement begins.
"What "outlets" can you point to? HARD EXAMPLES."
Question asked.
"The Bush 43 administration was the hinges, the Obama administration will provide the cell bars, and the next - whoever it is - will install the lock."
Question answered.
[Nazzo fast, Guido. - Kevin here, and for the first time I find it necessary to interject into a comment rather than to simply respond to it. Markadelphia, you said: "Has it ever occurred to you that the gun industry is playing up these fears through their various information outlets to make more money?" There is no implication here, you are stating that "the gun industry" is doing something. Then you quote ME on a political quote and present it as evidence of such. Therefore you are making a clear statement that I am a paid employee of "the gun industry" working to "make (them) more money."
Not to be too blunt, but fuck you and the horse you rode in on. I'm still waiting for my wheelbarrows full of cash from the NRA, now you tell me I should expect them from the gun manufacturers too?
To requote Tam, "Poor lefties, they've been playing on astroturf for so long they don't even recognize real grassroots when they're hit in the mouth with a divot."
Original drivel resumes . . .]
Let's assume for a minute that President Obama does do everything he says he wants to do on his web site regarding gun laws. Will all of you still have guns with which to defend yourselves? This IS a yes or no question.
Something happens...and I'm not quite sure what it is...but a giant leap is taken from AWB to all guns and people rounded up and sent to camps. Think hard about the hows and whys that lead you to take that step and show me the logic in it.
"He did so because we can read the handwriting on the wall as well as anybody, and the next decade or two looks like a very bad time to be a Jew without weapons."
Sadly, it's always a bad time to be a Jew without a weapon. What kind of a gun did he buy and will he still be able to keep it if Obama loses all common sense (not likely) and passes his desired laws?
"Obama has demonstrated utter contempt for the Second Amendment."
Wow. That is just so...wrong.
"The gun industry is taking advantage of a trend that they did nothing to start."
I disagree. The gun industry knows its clientele very well. President Obama has been their messiah. Not only does "support sensible gun laws" (codeword for they's a comin'), he's also black which, you have to admit, does stir up a certain segment of this country.
In fact, all industries in this country know that fear combined with ignorance means more profit. Our entire culture is geared towards making everyone afraid and then telling them that they need to buy this NOW so they will be protected. It's terribly sad.
Finally, I find it even more sad that someone like myself, who supports the right to bear arms, is told there is no other way to do it but this way...YOUR way. Isn't that just a little rigid? If I support the AWB, then I am a gun banner and there is absolutely no question or wavering of this point? [Yes. You are. We've been through this and you stated at one point that I'd changed your mind. Not so much? - Ed.]
Mark:
Wow.
You've set a new high water mark for assinity. You've surpassed even yourself!
In my opinion, his site is not anti gun. In yours, it is. On this matter we will just have to agree to disagree.
In your opinion (let's not forget you're a proven out-and-out liar), it's not. Because.. it's .. NOT. It's not an opinion issue, Mark.
IT SAYS RIGHT THERE ASSAULT WEAPON BAN. Ban. Ban. B. A. N. Bee Ah En.
BAN: prohibition: a decree that prohibits something
But in your opinion, he's not talking about banning guns.
Can I ridicule the worth of your opinion anywhere as effectively as you can, merely by continuing to talk? I can't! You're self-ridiculing!
You've demonstrated (again, but even better than you ever have, what your opinion is worth. In my opinion, his site is not anti gun. When he specifically talks about banning guns.
Guns hardly ever used in crime. (Long guns as a whole are used in under 2% of all violent crime.) But all that is just facts to your opinion bulldozer, because you don't think a site calling for a ban is "anti-gun".
Do all of you honestly think that he will spend some of it on the gun issue? Not only will it cost millions to get any sort of new regulation passed, it will cost millions more to get them instituted. His eyes are set on the stimulus package, Israel-Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan, climate change, and health care for children..in that order.
We've established the worth of your opinion - and your ability to actually gauge Obama's choices. I note you're ignoring all the ranting and raving from the past year that you've done here about Osama and Pakistan... Where Obama has, now that the election is over, turned back on all his campaign and debate promises and rhetoric and continued... With the same path Bush blazed.
McSame, all right.
Yes, he's going to spend political capital. Why not? Hell, you're still insisting that when he says he'll ban guns he's not trying to ban guns!
"What "outlets" can you point to? HARD EXAMPLES."
Question asked.
"The Bush 43 administration was the hinges, the Obama administration will provide the cell bars, and the next - whoever it is - will install the lock."
Question answered.
Mark, you do know Schedule I drugs are still illegal, right?
What in the HELL was THAT?
I asked for hard examples, and you... got drunk? That's not a hard example of anything, much less proof the "Horrible Big Industry Of Guns" has 'outlets', or that they're in any way behind the huge outgrowth in gun and accessory purchases. (From people who apparently know what the word "Ban" means.)
If I support the AWB, then I am a gun banner and there is absolutely no question or wavering of this point?
If you support the "Assault Weapon" BAN, then yes, you're a GUN BANNER.
Really, Mark, that ought to be obvious even to you.
Not only does "support sensible gun laws" (codeword for they's a comin')
Yes, it is. Codeword for "We're going to ban your guns and prevent you from having them."
Otherwise, name me one "sensible" law that's yet to be passed. I can name you hundreds of nonsensical.
Think hard about the hows and whys that lead you to take that step and show me the logic in it.
How about I just show you all of the instances where mass disarmament has preceded dictatorship and mass slaughter? Except that you're immune to facts.
... he's also black which, you have to admit, does stir up a certain segment of this country.
Yes, Democrats. Let's not forget that the KKK was essentially started as the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party and not a single Democrat voted for the 14th amendment. Can we count on you to keep a close eye on your buddies, Mark?
Me: "Obama has demonstrated utter contempt for the Second Amendment."
Markadoofus: "Wow. That is just so...wrong."
Well, lessee now ...
What has Ol' Barry said about it in the past, what has he proposed, and how has he voted on the matter?
Once again, pay attention to what he has done and said in the past, not what he says he will do in the future. He's a politician, remember?
He has: 1) been very supportive of a Chicago city ordinance that includes a complete ban on handgun ownership; 2) as an Illinois State Senator, voted against legislation which would prevent Chicago from prosecuting city residents who used handguns to defend themselves in their own homes, arguing that the city had a right to impose these restrictions for the public good; 3) as an Illinois State Senator, repeatedly voted for bills that would limit gun rights and against bills that supported the Second Amendment; 4) as an Illinois State Senator, proposed legislation that would make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home; 5) as an Illinois State Senator, proposed legislation that would have prevented federally licensed firearm dealers from owning shops within five miles of a school or park, which would have shut down damned nearly every gun shop in the country; 6) defended as being constitutional the D.C. gun ban that was overturned by the Supreme Court in the Heller decision; 7) after the Heller decision, stated that he "... believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws ...", which is political doubletalk for: "local communities can enact laws in defiance of the Constitution"; 8 ) responded, on the 1998 Illinois State Legislature Political Awareness Test, that he supported bans on the manufacture, sale, or possession of handguns and assault weapons (yeah, he disputed this, but his handwriting is on the form with those answers); and, 9) stated this little gem of a quote: "I would support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons and limiting the sale of ammunition for handguns."
Now, just how is it wrong, Liar Boy? Go ahead, make a case that such a person respects the Second Amendment. Don't just tell us he does, MAKE THE CASE, Liar Boy.
I am amused by this statement of Clayton Cramer, which he stated in Shotgun News on 08/01/08, pp 20-21:
"Barack Obama is that most remarkable of Democrats: someone so far to the left that Hillary Clinton has been attacking him for his support of gun control and naïve understanding of foreign policy."
That bullseye shoulda hurt.
"I think President Obama supports people arming themselves responsibly"
On what basis?
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_560181.htm
"I am not in favor of concealed weapons," Obama said. "I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."
A statement NOT supported by actual experience in any state since Florida started the Shall Issue movement in 1987 (IIRC)
"“I continue to support a ban on concealed carry laws.”
Multiple sources found in Google, but here's a link with audio:
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/10/30/obama-audio-i-want-to-ban-concealed-weapons-permits/
And yes, before you ask, as far as I am concerned, opposing CCW for private citizens is an indication that you do NOT support the right to self defense.
Just about everyone on his statements, including the ones currently on the White House site, show that his statements that he supports Second Amendment rights show he's so stupid/ignorant he doesn't understand what that means (which I don't believe), or he's lying when he says it (much more likely).
Markadelphia sputters If I support the AWB, then I am a gun banner and there is absolutely no question or wavering of this point?
Say there M, just what does the "B" in "AWB" stand for? If it is ban, then by golly you ARE a gun banner. If you think you know which guns are appropriate for me to own and which are not - you're a fucking arrogant prick as well.
>>Isn't that just a little rigid? If I support the AWB, then I am a gun banner and there is absolutely no question or wavering of this point?
(I lay aside the self-refuting matter of someone who subscribes to a ban as somehow not being a gun banner)
Nope, there cannot be any question.
We're not going to grant someone who espouses that belief (Which I generously presume to be a rhetorical statement, rather than a statement of position.) an exemption because they magnanimously allow that we have the right to *some* arms that *they* find acceptable for civilian use. There will be none of this, "as long as we let you have 100+ year old designs your RKBA can be considered intact."
We WILL NOT CONCEDE the right to arms of at least minimal military credibility. (In todays terms: mag fed autoloading rifles and handguns of robust design, moderate cost and military pedigree)
We choose not to concede these arms for ourselves, and, knowing that we must answer to history and every American/freedom loving sentient being who will *ever* live anywhere in this universe we have no right to make that concession.
Anyone who does will soundly deserve to have their names be cursed by such Americans/freedom loving sentients who, in a hopefully far flung future and distant place, find themselves in dire straights without them.
It's not gonna happen on our watch.
"Barack Obama is that most remarkable of Democrats: someone so far to the left that Hillary Clinton has been attacking him for his support of gun control and naïve understanding of foreign policy."
Hoo boy. My new officemate doesn't like Obama because he thinks O's too far to the right.
BTW, nicely put, geek.
Kevin: I'd add some more style, be it blockquote or something to distinguish your comment above.
I also didn't notice he was quoting you in his deranged ramble... because there was no citation at'tall.
Don't they still teach citation in school, Mark? Lemme guess, you do that in your classes?
(Even a link to where you were talking about would have made it make a little more sense. It's still not an answer to my question, or even proof, or a source... but it would have made marginally more sense.)
Kevin, first of all, I think interjecting as you did above facilitates a conversation and direct debate in a much more effective way. It would be cool if we could all do it rather than cutting and pasting.
Second, notice I said "information outlets." Your blog is a self proclaimed gun rights blog which makes it an information outlet for gun rights supporters like the NRA. If I implied that you were a paid employee of the NRA, then I was in error with my wording. In fact, you should get a wheel barrel full of cash from them and then you wouldn't have to work at your job so much thus clearing the way to blog more:)
Third, you did change my mind about gun owners. For the longest time (suffering from outgroup bias) I had the belief that they were all psychotic Nazis. I no longer think that and have seen plenty of posts from you that were highly critical of people like that. I think people should arm themselves for self defense and know that there would be a lot less violence against women in this country if all of them had a gun.
Where you lose me is when you take that giant leap from assault weapons to all guns...like here.
"How about I just show you all of the instances where mass disarmament has preceded dictatorship and mass slaughter? Except that you're immune to facts."
Sarah, you don't have to because an assault weapons ban and Obama's desired gun laws (most of which, if not all, will never happen) will not take away ALL guns. Tell you what...everyone here knows more about guns than I do. Make a list of all the guns that will NOT be affected by Obama's proposed laws. Then tell me if you can still defend yourselves and if we are talking about mass disarmament.
Mark:
How about before we prove anything to you (which is an exercise in futility), you go back to your question:
If I support the AWB["Assault Weapons" BAN], then I am a gun banner ... ?
No handwaving and leaving that behind. Deal with it. Did you actually have to ask us if you're a banner if you ban things?
You answer that (Which as you'll note you received many answers from us). Bonus points: define "Assault Weapons">.
You've still not addressed where the "gun industry outlets" are. No, this doesn't count. It's not an outlet, it's a hobby.
So where are their outlets? Or what "sensible gun laws" haven't been passed. Or why we're not addressing the nonsensical ones.
if we are talking about mass disarmament.
Yes, we are. Once you go back and deal with your "Assault Weapons" Ban question, then we'll progress forward with that proof.
Your blog is a self proclaimed gun rights blog which makes it an information outlet for gun rights supporters like the NRA.
How many calories does moving the goalposts burn, by the way?
Previous goalpost:
Has it ever occurred to you that the gun industry is playing up these fears through their various information outlets
"Make a list of all the guns that will NOT be affected by Obama's proposed laws. Then tell me if you can still defend yourselves and if we are talking about mass disarmament."
I offer a self-evident truth: When those who oppose gun control compromise with those who favor gun control, then those who oppose gun control lose something and those who favor gun control gain something. When such compromises happen over and over again, then those who oppose gun control lose everything.
Bullshit, you (ahem) think? Despite tens of thousands of gun laws being tested over decades all across the country, those who favor gun control call every new gun control law a "good first step". They are NOT to be trusted, and Obama has demonstrated that he is not to be trusted. We don't go down that road because we don't want to go where that road goes.
Now, back to the challenge, lying teacher boy. MAKE THE CASE that Obama respects the Second Amendment.
Mark: "I think people should arm themselves for self defense and know that there would be a lot less violence against women in this country if all of them had a gun."
If you really believe this, then answer me one question...
Most if not all police here in Southern California carry a 12ga shotgun and an M-16/M4 carbine in their cruisers. If the police need assault weapons (presumably for use against criminals), then why shouldn't the citizenry have access to the same protections?
"MAKE THE CASE that Obama respects the Second Amendment."
Well, I already have and both of you refused to accept it. He supported the Vitter Amendment and he supported conceal and carry for retired policeman in Illinois. He also has said, ad nauseum, that he supports American's right to bear arms and has introduced no legislation to ban rifles, shotguns, hand guns etc...But that's not enough is it? As geek said above, it's all or nothing.
Sorry, that type of thinking is too black and white for me and it's the main reason why I can never be a conservative. Even though I have a great deal of empathy, respect, and even agree with the right's views on several issues, it's the "my way or the highway" bullshit that is a giant turn off. It reminds me of a quote left in comments on my blog recently.
"Obama has said time and again that if someone has a better idea, he wants to hear it. Bush never talked like that -- he always insisted he was right about everything, that he got his marching orders from God. To this day he still can't admit any real mistakes -- he's still carping that everything bad that happened was someone else's fault."
I think the same way as our new president. If you have a better idea, let's hear it. And I also think that it's possible (albeit not likely) that there could be an increased effort on part of the anti gun crowd to ban more weapons. But is it possible that I'm right?
Nah, no way. People on the right can't admit when they are wrong. It would mean the End Times.
"Once you go back and deal with your "Assault Weapons" Ban question, then we'll progress forward with that proof."
In your mind, someone that supports an assault weapons ban is a banner of ALL guns. Not in my mind and I'm not entirely sure I would support it if it came up again but that's mostly because we have many more important things to deal with in this country.
I understand why the gun control folks are trying to get semi autos banned and that they aren't even "assault" weapons because you still have to pull the trigger every time you fire. They just look scary to the anti gun crowd and that's why they want them banned.
But I submit to you that their motivation for wanting these guns banned may not be because, ultimately, they want ALL guns banned. Maybe they just see these particular guns as being more destructive. Maybe many of them own guns themselves...did you ever think of that?
Again, I see a leap of logic here that is quite troubling. AWB=All Weapons Banned...not simply Assault Weapons Banned. It's a knee jerk reaction to an issue that is not as black and white as some of you are making it out to be. Mass disarmament? President Obama would lose so much support if he even remotely tried to push something like this. He would even lose it if he tried to get his ideas on his web site passed with all the problems we have now.
"then why shouldn't the citizenry have access to the same protections?"
This one went up just as I was posting my last comment. If the citizenry wants to go through all of the training that police do and if the state in which they live passes a law to allow it, I don't think I have a right to question that.
The problem I have with this one is not the guns...it's Americans. While I'm sure everyone here would be responsible, I think that is, most assuredly, a minority. I think we can all agree that people in this country are woefully ignorant.
And then I think of General Clark's quote.
"If ordinary citizens want to carry assault weapons, then they can come and see me. I have a job for them."
"Well, I already have and both of you refused to accept it. He supported the Vitter Amendment and he supported conceal and carry for retired policeman in Illinois. He also has said, ad nauseum, that he supports American's right to bear arms and has introduced no legislation to ban rifles, shotguns, hand guns etc...But that's not enough is it? As geek said above, it's all or nothing."
He says such things NOW. I have shown you, ad nauseam, what he has DONE that shows a complete lack of respect for the Second Amendment. Actions in the past can't be undone, but rhetoric toward the future has the purpose of snaring the gullible. Yet again, you demonstrate just how gullible you are. You simply project on him what you want him to be.
"In your mind, someone that supports an assault weapons ban is a banner of ALL guns."
No, someone who supports an assault weapons ban is a banner of assault weapons, but not necessarily a banner of all guns. Still can think well, can you?
"If ordinary citizens want to carry assault weapons, then they can come and see me. I have a job for them."
What about wheelchair bound "ordinary citizens"? Asthmatic, diabetic or any other medically challenged "ordinary citizens". Gay "ordinary citizens" that weren't asked but told, and thus were not allowed to enlist or were discharged.
I myself have a foot deformity that would probably keep me out and have already been told that I am too old to meet enlistment requirements.
What I'm saying here is, why must an ordinary citizen be in the military to be allowed access to the best/most appropriate tools for self-protection?
And if my state did offer the same training as law enforcement as a prerequisite to assault rifle ownership, do you really believe that The Brady Campaign would stop their efforts to enact more useless bans? In an effort to garner public favor those very same people call assault weapons "the criminals choice" despite evidence showing otherwise. ie: They lie.
Mark:
You're running away from so much here it's not funny. You asked if you were a banner if you banned things. Without any apparent understanding of what "ban" meant.
This is the base problem with trying to explain things to you, or discuss with you. You don't understand. The major secondary problem is you're dishonest. You move goalposts, make false claims, and demand respect without any reason.
Well, I already have and both of you refused to accept it.
Then you didn't MAKE THE CASE. You argued a point.
Once having said something, discussion was over, because you didn't understand. But you just were dishonest about your level of knowledge. You don't even note the objections raised, or the refutations of your points. Making the case means you deal with those and factually rebut them.
He supported the Vitter Amendment and he supported conceal and carry for retired policeman in Illinois.
We've taken both of those apart. One's about "Only Ones", and the other passed with a 90-2 vote. Hardly groundbreaking stuff. And then you ignored the arguments against you, just painting us as "unreasonable". Black and white?
We've pointed you to his promises to outlaw concealed carry by citizens. His time on the Joyce Foundation when they bought out law journals to publish lies and pabulum to try and swing judges.
Those, to any reasonable person, more than outweigh a pro-forma vote that meant little, and support for a special class.
You made an argument, not the case. But you can't understand the difference. Hell! You can't even understand what a verb means. If you ban, then you're a banner. If you swim, then you're a swimmer. If you teach, then you're a ... Well, maybe you have a point there.
He also has said, ad nauseam, that he supports American's right to bear arms
(It's been pointed out to you, ad nauseam, you refused to judge Bush based on his words. (Even when they were backed by actions.))
I don't care what Obama claims, ESPECIALLY when those claims are SELF REFUTED by his OTHER campaign promises! And you ignore those!
and has introduced no legislation to ban rifles, shotguns, hand guns etc..
Just promised to. But that's not enough for you, is it? After all, you know what's in his heart, right? We should TRUST YOU, after all, you were right about Paki.. whoops.
People on the right can't admit when they are wrong. It would mean the End Times.
Obviously, you share an understanding of "Irony" with Alanis.
In your mind, someone that supports an assault weapons ban is a banner of ALL guns.
Show me one who isn't.
Yes, that's in my mind. After all, I've proven my ability to analyze and predict. I base this on the proof and the pudding. After the "Assault Weapons" ban was enacted, the people who pushed that started talking about destructive devices. Pocket rockets (small pistols sized down to the required 10 max limit). "Sniper rifles". Obama! joined the board of the Joyce Foundation after the "AW"B was enacted, and proceeded to try and legislate away the 2nd Amendment. There's never "enough" to a prohibitionist.
Not in my mind and I'm not entirely sure I would support it if it came up again
Yes, you would. But that's because despite our best efforts, you remain a dishonest emotion-driven ditto-bot.
But I submit to you that their motivation for wanting these guns banned may not be because, ultimately, they want ALL guns banned.
Not according to them. Not according to their actions. Their words.
Maybe many of them own guns themselves...did you ever think of that?
MOST of them own guns themselves. The people who want the other people disarmed almost always do. It's for the "little people" not *me*. THEY (and presumably their "Only One" Police Protection will be QUITE WELL ARMED. Again, this has been seen worldwide time and time again.)
AWB=All Weapons Banned...not simply Assault Weapons Banned. It's a knee jerk reaction to an issue that is not as black and white as some of you are making it out to be.
Yes, it is black and white. Outlawing guns based on their LOOKS? Not their function, but based on their looks.
On a game plan well documented - by the gunbanners - to divide, mislabel, and discredit gun owners.
But you can't even understand that, no, you've got to try and be "superior" to us and see the "nuance".
All you're doing, Mark, is demonstrating and reinforcing your lack of understanding and fundamental dishonesty.
Now, about those "outlets" of the "gun industry"... (Or your lies to DJ's quiz..) ....
And then I think of General Clark's quote.
I'm reminded why we have civilian control of the military.
When Mark can't understand that promoting banning guns makes him by defintion a gun-banner, those bigger and more complex concepts are WELL beyond him.
"But I submit to you that their motivation for wanting these guns banned may not be because, ultimately, they want ALL guns banned."
Here's the problem as I see it with this statement:
As someone (I think Sarah) perfectly stated above, "it's not about the guns, it's about the control".
If they want these types of guns banned because they view them as "more dangerous" or "more deadly" or "more used by criminals" then these can be easily refuted with readily available facts. Are they avoiding the facts out of ignorance?
The flip side of that coin is they already know the facts but choose to avoid, deny or disregard. If this is the case, then why would any gun owner believe they will stop at one type of gun? They clearly lie related to the reasons, what else do they lie about?
>>And then I think of General Clark's quote.
"If ordinary citizens want to carry assault weapons, then they can come and see me. I have a job for them."
I'll see your Genl. Clark quote, and raise you three:
---------------------
They {Obama and Biden} also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
-Whitehouse.gov
--------------
There is no right to have access to the weapons of war in the streets of America.
For those who want to wield those weapons, we have a place for them. It is the U.S. military. And we welcome them.
-John Kerry, Senate Floor, 3/5/2004
-----------
And Finally:
-----------
"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA -- ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the state."
-- Heinrich Himmler, WWII
---But here's the big whopper quote of them all:
Quote:
----------
The problem I have with this one is not the guns...it's Americans.
Markadelphia
-----------
Apparently Haloscan is b0rk3d again.
But I loaded this thread and thought I saw a comment that was brilliant in it's annoyin-ness (by spotting so bloody obvious, but shrouded by Mark's handwaving) by geekwitha45 who noted this gem of Mark's...
The problem I have with this one is not the guns...it's Americans.
Yeah.
There's why Mark really can't be a "conservative". (his terms, not mine.)
Yep. Right there, there's the problem.
Geek, I dunno where your comment went, or maybe I hallucinated it while I fought with #(*$()@#()#@ tape backup today....
(And now it loads.)
Hey! Geek! I fixed your comment! :)
They just look scary to the anti gun crowd and that's why they want them banned.
Yup. That's about it M.
And my right to own one should be constrained because someone else is going to wet his or her pants about it "looking scary"?
That is NO justification for infringing on MY rights.
Now that we've thoroughly beaten that horse dead, let's take a different tack.
Mark,
It has been demonstrated here and elsewhere that the AWB will have zero practical effect on crime or anything else, since it bans cosmetic features for the most part, and there are far more powerful weapons (hunting rifles) available.
The only effect the ban will have will be to inconvenience (at least) the innocent. The additional red tape alone will cost firearms retailers a good chunk of cash, I imagine.
So—completely setting aside issues of principle—why is the AWB a good idea?
If the citizenry wants to go through all of the training that police do and if the state in which they live passes a law to allow it, I don't think I have a right to question that.
It doesn't take any more special training to operate a 12ga shotgun or an M-16 carbine than it does to operate any other firearm.
Besides, didn't Kevin or someone point out a while back that CHL holders spend more time at the range than police officers?
I passed BRM in Army basic.... which is more rifle training than most police EVER go through. Fine, by that standard, gimme my M-16. Of btw, I'm qualified with an M-60 an d M-203, can i have those too? and some hand grenades... and an AN/TSC-85A while we're at it.
If I support the AWB, then I am a gun banner and there is absolutely no question or wavering of this point?
Yes, if you support a gun BAN then you are a gun banner. What's so hard to understand about that?
Curious...the logic of those who believe in 'gun crime' is: Someone has just committed a 'gun crime'. Therefore, we must pass new laws impacting the rights of all those who own 'guns' and who did not commit a 'gun crime'. Let's start with the scary looking ones. Then the ones with too many bullets. Then the ones with a lot of bullets. Then the ones with particular handles in front. Then the ones with sharp things connected to them. The the ones firing hi powered bullets. Then the ones that are too big. The the ones that are too small. Then the ones people are using after a hurricane. Then the ones...
The new D.C rules for registering a firearm forbid "assault rifles". What would happen if someone registered a standard Ruger .22, and then later returned with the same rifle all 'assault tricked out'? (Interestingly enough, there is also in those regs a requirement that anyone firing a firearm in D.C. must have a special permit to do so issued by the chief of police.)
If one person kills another, is he not a killer if he didn't want to kill everyone?
Marky boy, you just can't dig yourself a deep enough hole, can you?
"Has it ever occurred to you that the gun industry is playing up these fears through their various information outlets to make more money?"
My first thought when I was this ridiculous claim was this:
"Wow. The gun lobby is soooo powerful that they even forced Obama to claim that he wants to ban guns just so they could make more money! Those corporate fiends!"
It's absolutely amazing to me that Marky simply cannot comprehend that the primary source for the claim that Obama wants to violate the 2nd Amendment by banning guns is Obama's own statements.
"It's absolutely amazing to me that Marky simply cannot comprehend that the primary source for the claim that Obama wants to violate the 2nd Amendment by banning guns is Obama's own statements."
Bingo, Ed.
And what is even more clinching is that many such statments were back when he was a State Senator trying to actually get anti-gun measures adopted. The point is that those words of his were backed by actions, not simply campaign lies designed to sway the gullible.
One must always keep in mind that Obama is two things: 1) a lawyer; and, 2) a politician. A lawyer is trained to lie, to deny, to obfuscate, to conceal, and to defend the indefensible. A politician is trained to induce the suspension of disbelief, to induce the listener to hear what he wants to hear, and to communicate in verbal mush whose meaning is a solid as quicksand. Obama is both. He is not even as trustworthy as Slick Willie Clinton.
Also, has anyone pointed out to Mark that an "assault weapon" is a rifle? Just a rifle, nothing more. An AR-15 might look scary but it's no more deadly than any other .223 rifle.
(OTOH, my Dad's 1930's bolt-action Remington .22 squirrel gun is an "assault weapon" in NJ, because its tubular magazine holds 15 rounds -- and there's where your "AWB" leads, Mark).
Poor Mark. He really tries. He doesn't seem like a bad fellow. He doesn't scream and shout. He tries to support what his heart feels with benign but faulty logic.
But he, alone, gamely wades in here among the antagonized and consistently gets gang raped.
Please don't chase him away forever. We all need a semblance of a sounding board.
Roberta:
Yes. Many times.
But you see, now you're depending on facts, and as you can see, Mark's worried about feelings.
(But, according to him, we're factless robot repeating devices. Despite our attempts and successes at refuting him with facts.)
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>