• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

W.H. Releases Letters from Little Kids Pleading for Gun Control

clownboy said:
But of course your question is a frame, a set up. What you and the fuzzy thinking anti-gun set are proposing is far from "sense".

Of those 900 Americans deaths, how many were as a result of criminals using an illegally possessed weapon? That should indicate to you just how much "sense" your proposals make.
Click to expand...


I note he also doesn't distinguish between victims and victimizers.

(making up numbers here) "57 would-be rapists have been brutally shot by women in the last three months, women who chose to respond to being attacked with of fear and anger rather than through dialogue. When will American women learn that violence is not the answer?"
 
Fiddytree said:
Why is it suddenly liberal to want to protect the President from the harm of whoever seeks to harm him or his family?
Click to expand...

It's not. You will note that those of us who wish to protect the President are making conservative arguments - to wit, the presence of good guys with guns reduces the threat of bad guys with guns.

The populist message adopted by the NRA's recent advertising campaign is too radically liberal and democratic for me.
Click to expand...

:roll: you are smarter than this, fiddy. The NRA isn't saying get rid of the secret service. It is saying that the President is our employee, not our master, and as sovereign citizens we retain the same right to protect our children that he rightfully exercises.
 
cpwill said:
It's not. You will note that those of us who wish to protect the President are making conservative arguments - to wit, the presence of good guys with guns reduces the threat of bad guys with guns.



:roll: you are smarter than this, fiddy. The NRA isn't saying get rid of the secret service. It is saying that the President is our employee, not our master, and as sovereign citizens we retain the same right to protect our children that he rightfully exercises.
Click to expand...

The NRA makes the argument to reduce the protection of the elite because the masses won't be treated to as much, and put it in incredibly democratic terms, acting as if Bush or Obama are in any way in the same position as they are. It's ridiculous democratic trash. I could entirely be critical of gun control efforts, but I wouldn't go so far as to attack the executive branch's deserved level of protection because of it. When Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were having at it in the primaries, both visited this stadium. Now, we have events all the time in there, but never once do I remember going through intense security screenings (or any at all). When they were there, guess what, went through a whole process to gain entrance. What made Obama or Hillary so special that they get this, but the beer festival, no one gives a damn? They aren't the same and should not be treated as such.
 
Last edited:
Manc Skipper said:
900 Americans have died in gun violence in the 4 weeks since Newtown. How long till gun lovers see sense?
Click to expand...

how many of those 900 were unarmed and unable to protect themselves?.... if i had to wager a guess, I would say.... 900.... you?
 
Arbo said:
It's questionable that the kids actually wrote the letters, or wrote them of their own free will.
Click to expand...

probably NEA bots telling them to do so

but what do you expect-these same kids probably wrote santa claus too and couldn't tell the difference
 
Fiddytree said:
The NRA makes the argument to reduce the protection of the elite because the masses won't be treated to as much, and put it in incredibly democratic terms, acting as if Bush or Obama are in any way in the same position as they are.
Click to expand...

That is inaccurate. The NRA makes the argument to increase the protection of the masses. Did you miss the whole kerfluffle where they suggested putting cops in schools, or training school staff to respond to an active shooter?

It's ridiculous democratic trash.
Click to expand...

If that was an accurate depiction, I would argue that you would have a point. As you have wholly misinterpreted their argument, however, it is not.
 
cpwill said:
That is inaccurate. The NRA makes the argument to increase the protection of the masses. Did you miss the whole kerfluffle where they suggested putting cops in schools, or training school staff to respond to an active shooter?



If that was an accurate depiction, I would argue that you would have a point. As you have wholly misinterpreted their argument, however, it is not.
Click to expand...

I understood the whole problem. The issue is bringing up his and his family's security team, which is a wholly separate issue and should not be touched or argued to be diminished. The protection of the masses could have merits, but separate from implication of his own family. Hence why I say, unequivocally, yes, he and his children are of more value than your own. Maybe not to you, but to the operations and well-being of the State and the desires of his enemies, yes, they seem to matter just a tiny bit more.
 
Fiddytree said:
I understood the whole problem. The issue is bringing up his and his family's security team, which is a wholly separate issue and should not be touched or argued to be diminished.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. It demonstrates that the man does not actually believe the argument he is making. If I were a popular market analyst, and I were to argue that the best place for your money was gold and encourage everyone to purchase it, right before selling it myself (taking advantage of the jump in price), I would not only be unethical (and probably liable to suit), I would be a hypocrite. The point they are making here is that Obama is a hypocrite. He tells us that he doesn't believe that trained, armed, first responders in school will make children safe.... but when it comes to his kids, trained, armed, first responders is precisely what he wants.

But at least you have dropped the "they want to reduce the protection around the President" canard. :roll:

The protection of the masses could have merits, but separate from implication of his own family. Hence why I say, unequivocally, yes, he and his children are of more value than your own. Maybe not to you, but to the operations and well-being of the State and the desires of his enemies, yes, they seem to matter just a tiny bit more.
Click to expand...

Which changes the fact that his powers and rights are derivative not one iota.
 
Fiddytree said:
I understood the whole problem. The issue is bringing up his and his family's security team, which is a wholly separate issue and should not be touched or argued to be diminished. The protection of the masses could have merits, but separate from implication of his own family. Hence why I say, unequivocally, yes, he and his children are of more value than your own. Maybe not to you, but to the operations and well-being of the State and the desires of his enemies, yes, they seem to matter just a tiny bit more.
Click to expand...

His kids have protection for being his kids, but his kids school still has armed protection independent of who they are.

An nobody's kids are more important than mine... why do you not want to offer good security for mine, which could one day be president?
 
cpwill said:
No, it's not. It demonstrates that the man does not actually believe the argument he is making.
Click to expand...

Let's be honest, CP. That's going to be applicable to a large majority of public policy decisions, whether or not someone is Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Conservative, Liberal, or whatever. His status makes him unique and conflicting with a great many things regular folks cannot do.

If I were a popular market analyst, and I were to argue that the best place for your money was gold and encourage everyone to purchase it, right before selling it myself (taking advantage of the jump in price), I would not only be unethical (and probably liable to suit), I would be a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

But a popular market analyst isn't nearly universally seen as at the top of the human chain. A market analyst is a member of the career bourgeoisie.


He tells us that he doesn't believe that trained, armed, first responders in school will make children safe.... but when it comes to his kids, trained, armed, first responders is precisely what he wants.
Click to expand...

His kids are high-value targets, ours are not. Furthermore, when you get into that office, you don't exactly have a whole lot of choice in the matter.

But at least you have dropped the "they want to reduce the protection around the President" canard. :roll:
Click to expand...

And the "more than us" rhtetoric's implication should be ignored? If it's good enough for me, it's good enough for you? Come on. We both know it was a cheap political ploy, but let's at least face the music with what they are saying. Furthermore, it's just coincidence that a petition flying around almost exactly the same rhetoric should be ignored?
 
Fiddytree said:
Let's be honest, CP. That's going to be applicable to a large majority of public policy decisions, whether or not someone is Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Conservative, Liberal, or whatever. His status makes him unique and conflicting with a great many things regular folks cannot do.
Click to expand...

I have and the NRA has no problem with them having armed protection at public expense. That is the baseless strawman that you brought in here, and it remains as false now as when you started.

But a popular market analyst isn't nearly universally seen as at the top of the human chain. A market analyst is a member of the career bourgeoisie.
Click to expand...

So? The problem set under discussion here against all of our kids is the same - active armed aggressors. The President thinks that armed men will deal with the active shooters that target his children, but somehow magically the active shooters that may target our children are... well.... different.... and can only be stopped by.... a "Gun Free Zone" sign, perhaps. :roll:

His kids are high-value targets, ours are not.
Click to expand...

No. His kids are high payoff targets. If you are going to talk relative vulnerability assessment to me, we're going to use the correct terminology.

Furthermore, when you get into that office, you don't exactly have a whole lot of choice in the matter.
Click to expand...

Please cite for me a single instance of the NRA or any of the pro-second amendment advocates on this forum actually making the argument that the President and his family should be stripped of Secret Service Protection?

And the "more than us" rhtetoric's implication should be ignored? If it's good enough for me, it's good enough for you? Come on. We both know it was a cheap political ploy, but let's at least face the music with what they are saying. Furthermore, it's just coincidence that a petition flying around almost exactly the same rhetoric should be ignored?
Click to expand...

I couldn't care less about the stupid petitions. I'll put that one right there with building the Death Star. And it's not a "more than us" issue (though that plays into it, we have the same right to protect our children as he does), it's a "lying to us" issue. The man claims that guns are not the answer to active shooters threatening children.... unless those children are his own in which case guns are certainly the answer because he is a parent and naturally wants them protected. Which indicates that his original argument presents a logic that he does not believe. If the presence of armed, trained, first responders actually increased the danger to children he would be trying to get those first responders away from his own.

You are mistaking degree for type.



But do you at least admit now that your original claim that the NRA was calling for the Secret Service detail protecting the President's Children to be reduced is incorrect?
 
Manc Skipper said:
900 Americans have died in gun violence in the 4 weeks since Newtown. How long till gun lovers see sense?
Click to expand...

Well, here's the deal. Where it is illegal for felons to own guns, they obtain them illegally, and yes, they obtain assault weapons too. While I am all for background checks, I cannot in any good conscience demand that honest citizens not to be able to obtain legally what criminals already obtain illegally.
 
Thrilla said:
how many of those 900 were unarmed and unable to protect themselves?.... if i had to wager a guess, I would say.... 900.... you?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't make stupid guesses on something so serious as 30 deaths every day, day in day out from gun violence.
 
In addition to using them as props, Obama should have also gleefully told them about the multitrillion dollars in debt they are going to get stuck with, a dead economy, massive unemployment, completely abandoning inner city violence...and maybe shown a few vacation slide shows.
 
Manc Skipper said:
900 Americans have died in gun violence in the 4 weeks since Newtown. How long till gun lovers see sense?
Click to expand...
How long til anti gun morons are going to actually do something about inner city violence? People aren't dying from 'gun violence' they are dying from gangs and thugs engaged in day to day lifestyles involving drugs and violence.

And BTW...how is the UK doing with its violent crime rate these days?
 
UK guns deaths are less in a year than two days in the US. How's that 2nd Amendment working for ya?
 
Manc Skipper said:
UK guns deaths are less in a year than two days in the US. How's that 2nd Amendment working for ya?
Click to expand...
Quite well considering the incidents of gun deaths per lawful gun owners is running about .00000000125 per gun owner. But hat wasn't the question (which Im sure you know but dodged right away). The question was "how is the UK doing with its violent crime rate these days?" and I am quite sure you know the answer to that question...which is WHY you dodged it right away).
 
cpwill said:
You gotta be friggin kidding me. Really? They are really that crass?




:roll: Yup. They really are.
Click to expand...

That had to be one od the most embarassing photo-ops in WH history and that's saying something.

And then Biden chips in with " if it saves the life of one child, it's worth it" comment . Boy good thing we don't have amoron like Sarah Palin as VP, huh?
 
Jredbaron96 said:
No, but I can buy one from a person selling their private stock.
Click to expand...
You can buy a weapon from ANY private citizen. Now...give me access to a verification service as a private citizen and I would have NO PROBLEM running background checks on anyone that buys a weapon. But maybe people should stop parroting the idiotic 'gun show' rhetoric. The vast majority of vendors at gun shows are FFL holders and require background checks. The occasional private seller is no different than that private citizen down the street that advertises a gun for sale on a bulletin board or in a newspaper.
 
Last edited:
Manc Skipper said:
UK guns deaths are less in a year than two days in the US. How's that 2nd Amendment working for ya?
Click to expand...

He asked about the violent crime rate, and you redirected... so common.
 
VanceMack said:
You can buy a weapon from ANY private citizen. Now...give me access to a verification service as a private citizen and I would have NO PROBLEM running background checks on anyone that buys a weapon. But maybe people should stop parroting the idiotic 'gun show' rhetoric. The vast majority of vendors at gun shows are FFL holders and require background checks. The occasional private seller is no different than that private citizen down the street that advertises a gun for sale on a bulletin board or in a newspaper.
Click to expand...

I'm not parroting 'gun show' rhetoric, I'm simply backing up Dan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom