• 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!

Advice to President Obama [W:253]

Status
Not open for further replies.

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,531
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I get paid to give advice to politicians. Writing speeches, op-eds for the newspapers, newsletter material, policy statements, press releases - the whole gamut. I have some free advice for the President to further his gun initiatives.

1 - Play to the middle and forget about the NRA and its supporters. They oppose the very concept and the details simply do not matter since they will lie, distort and outright pervert what your are advocating for. Play to the great middle of Americans who respect hunting rights, who respect the need for a weapon for self defense, who respect sporting activities with a firearm, and who simply want something done about both the proliferation of guns in our society and the use of them.

2- Go on the road and take this message to the American people. Make it a pro-hunting, pro self defense, pro sporting and pro responsible gun owner pitch. Use local people who have a good gun record like Senator Joe Manchin in West Virginia in making local appearances.

3- Expose some of the more sinister motivations of the gun crowd who are 100% opposed to his initiatives with a clear, no holding back, direct onslaught of language showing them to be potentially dangerous extremists who have precious little in common with the vast majority of Americans. We hear over and over and over how guns are needed in case we need to fight the government. Use that. Use it often. Shout it loudly and shout it often that we will not allow gun policy to be dictated by people who believe that gun laws should always have an eye on providing equal firepower to go up against soldiers of police officers should the day of the right wing revolution come. Use those folks and that sort of extremism to drive a wedge between the responsible hunting and self defense Americans and those who feel they need to build their own armories when they someday have to man the barricades and want to make sure they are packing enough power to kill the soldier boy or police officer from down the street.

4 - Go back and do number 3 again and again and again. Use film clips of the more radical folks through surrogates going on news and talk shows to show "this is what we are up against." Ask the American people - "are you going to let these extremists speak for you and dictate gun policy so they can be armed for revolution?"

5 - Expose the finances of the gun corporations, the NRA, and the entire gun culture. Show that they are in this for a profit and that is their motivation above all else. They are more than happy to see the proliferation of guns in our society because it means money in their pockets. And if more guns means more negative effects from guns, that is a price they accept.

6- Announce a national memorial to be constructed in Washington DC in honor of the innocent victims of gun violence and involve the public by asking for donations to begin planning and building it. I would use the Viet Nam veterans Memorial as the model for the idea and concept. A stark wall with names upon it although I would go for something high and looming overhead rather than the sprawling design of the VN memorial.

7 - Show the connection between right wing politics and gun politics. This should be done by surrogates rather than the President himself. Demonstrate how the right is using the issue to push other issues which are to the detriment of the American people and its all part of a package and agenda.

8 - Try to get commitments from Hollywood and the gaming industry to act more responsibly and tone down the volume on violence they use in their products.

9 - Take the NRA suggestion of more armed guards in the schools and run with it to Congress asking them to support it and fund it. And publicly challenge the NRA to lobby for it with members of Congress who are supportive of their agenda.

10 - Announce a national mental health summit at the White House and bring in state governors and appropriate professionals to shine the spotlight on how much of the mental health care system has been savaged over the last couple of decades in the drive for smaller and cheaper government and we must begin to turn it around on the state level.

But above all else, do not let this moment evaporate. This must be a top priority just like health care was for the first two years of the administration.
 
Last edited:
They oppose the very concept and the details simply do not matter since they will lie, distort and outright pervert what your are advocating for.

What IS he advocating for?
 
Background checks for private sales.

Ban on AR-15s

10 round magazine limit

You support these initiatives by the president?

As I have always stated here, I need to read the details of any piece of legislation before I pledge my support for it and this is no different.

What I do welcome and support 100% are the iniatitives as a springboard to a thorough national discussion on the issue. That has been long overdue.
 
As I have always stated here, I need to read the details of any piece of legislation before I pledge my support for it and this is no different.

What I do welcome and support 100% are the iniatitives as a springboard to a thorough national discussion on the issue. That has been long overdue.

Fair enough. If you have no proposal then I guess there's nothing to discuss here on DP.
 
As I have always stated here, I need to read the details of any piece of legislation before I pledge my support for it and this is no different.

What I do welcome and support 100% are the iniatitives as a springboard to a thorough national discussion on the issue. That has been long overdue.

We've already had a discussion on it, we've already have 2nd amendment rights curtailed.
What you're wanting is to unfairly paint all people, who believe we should be able to own semi auto rifles and 30 round mags as, nut jobs and extremists.

That's morally and ethically detestable.
 
We've already had a discussion on it, we've already have 2nd amendment rights curtailed.
What you're wanting is to unfairly paint all people, who believe we should be able to own semi auto rifles and 30 round mags as, nut jobs and extremists.

That's morally and ethically detestable.

Authoritarians always try to gin up hatred for some "other" group. Gun owners are a convenient target, and one that plays into their desire to disarm the populace.
 
We've already had a discussion on it, we've already have 2nd amendment rights curtailed.
What you're wanting is to unfairly paint all people, who believe we should be able to own semi auto rifles and 30 round mags as, nut jobs and extremists.

That's morally and ethically detestable.

How are using the very words and positions someone takes morally and ethically detestable?
 
How are using the very words and positions someone takes morally and ethically detestable?

"Someone" is not all people.
What kind of character, does a person have, to take the words of some people and use it to paint all people?
That's what you should be asking yourself.
 
"Someone" is not all people.
What kind of character, does a person have, to take the words of some people and use it to paint all people?
That's what you should be asking yourself.

I made it clear that this was not painting ALL PEOPLE.

Part of any public campaign - and that is exactly what this is in many ways - is to do two important things
1- identify who you are
2- identify who your opposition is

I see it over and over and over again on TV, in other media forms, on sites like this, the proposition that we need guns with the power equal to that of the police or army because that is the original purpose of the Amendment - to fight the government if you one day have to do it. Okay. Lets go with that then. Lets employ that to show the motivations behind much of the opposition to gun iniatitives and lets ask the American people an important question that should be central to this discussion:

SHOULD GUN POLICY IN THE USA BE SHAPED BY THE NEED TO PREPARE TO ONE DAY GO TO VIOLENT WAR WITH OUR OWN GOVERNMENT?


Lets ask that question of the American people and see what they say about it.
 
What IS he advocating for?

That is the question that haymarket will not ever answer directly. At best he will supply a link to, carefully selected, words by others and then assert, over and over that they do not say what they actaully say/imply, or that he agrees only in "general principle" with those words of others. Nearly everyone is for "common sense" gun control but, as with any political subject, the devil is in the details (which will never be offered by haymarket). His main rant in the OP is paint those as being against you as obviously evil since they stand to "make money" or "want less gov't power"; never actually defend your proposals on merit simply slam the oppostion as having "evil" intentions.

Recommendations for class/ideaology warfare, hayarket and Obama style. Note the loony call for "private" (NRA?) funded school security; does haymarket advocate for "private", instead of public, funded airport security? Of course not, and he would go nuts if the NRA actually supplied their members as armed school security volunteers. Note the appeal to blaming conservatives for "savaging for decades" gov't funded mental health care, cleverly also excluded from PPACA passed only by the demorats a couple of years ago. PPACA even explicitly forbids using gun ownership questioning during mandated "free" preventive medical care.
 
I made it clear that this was not painting ALL PEOPLE.

Part of any public campaign - and that is exactly what this is in many ways - is to do two important things
1- identify who you are
2- identify who your opposition is

I see it over and over and over again on TV, in other media forms, on sites like this, the proposition that we need guns with the power equal to that of the police or army because that is the original purpose of the Amendment - to fight the government if you one day have to do it. Okay. Lets go with that then. Lets employ that to show the motivations behind much of the opposition to gun iniatitives and lets ask the American people an important question that should be central to this discussion:

SHOULD GUN POLICY IN THE USA BE SHAPED BY THE NEED TO PREPARE TO ONE DAY GO TO VIOLENT WAR WITH OUR OWN GOVERNMENT?


Lets ask that question of the American people and see what they say about it.

How can we have a discussion, were the president wants to ban certain semi auto rifles and 30 round mags and I don't want that to happen.
Yet you want him to label the opposition (people like me) as nut jobs and extremists.

You're painting me, whether you realize it or not.
I don't want these guns, to fight people, I want them because it's part of my hobby and enjoyment.
Now, I'm supposedly a nut job and extremist, because I'm involved with the "gun culture" as if that's bad to begin with.
 
That is the question that haymarket will not ever answer directly. At best he will supply a link to, carefully selected, words by others and then assert, over and over that they do not say what they actaully say/imply, or that he agrees only in "general principle" with those words of others.

Fact: I do NOT speak for President Obama. Nor will I attempt to.
Fact: When asked about his initiatives, I provided that information directly from President Obama. That is known as using the primary source. I realize that some here scorn such things and prefer second and third hand retellings, perversions, and reshaping of the actual words somebody says, but I prefer the old fashioned way of going to the source.

If you have trouble with this approach, that is up to you.
 
As I have always stated here, I need to read the details of any piece of legislation before I pledge my support for it and this is no different.

What details are needed? Are you saying that there are back ground checks on private sales of firearms you wouldn't support? Are you saying that the 10 round magazine limit should only apply to certain weapons or to certain individuals(civilian law enforcement, military, secrete service, and etc)? Do you only support certain AR 15s being illegal instead of all AR15s being illegal or that only certain individuals should be allowed to possess AR15s?

Background checks for private sales, Ban on AR-15s and a 10 round magazine limit are pretty much straight forward. You either support them or you don't.
 
How can we have a discussion, were the president wants to ban certain semi auto rifles and 30 round mags and I don't want that to happen.
Yet you want him to label the opposition (people like me) as nut jobs and extremists.

You're painting me, whether you realize it or not.
I don't want these guns, to fight people, I want them because it's part of my hobby and enjoyment.
Now, I'm supposedly a nut job and extremist, because I'm involved with the "gun culture" as if that's bad to begin with.

Your thoughts and opinions should certainly be part of that national discussion. Voicing your opposition is part of that.

If you are not one of the people who believe that you need to set gun policy based on the need for possible violent upheaval against the government, then you are not being labeled as such and would not be labeled as such.

I made it very clear in my list often items that gun owners should be welcomed as part of the campaign.
 
We've already had a discussion on it, we've already have 2nd amendment rights curtailed.
What you're wanting is to unfairly paint all people, who believe we should be able to own semi auto rifles and 30 round mags as, nut jobs and extremists.

That's morally and ethically detestable.


How have your 2nd amendment rights been curtailed?
 
What details are needed? Are you saying that there are back ground checks on private sales of firearms you wouldn't support? Are you saying that the 10 round magazine limit should only apply to certain weapons or to certain individuals(civilian law enforcement, military, secrete service, and etc)? Do you only support certain AR 15s being illegal instead of all AR15s being illegal or that only certain individuals should be allowed to possess AR15s?

Background checks for private sales, Ban on AR-15s and a 10 round magazine limit are pretty much straight forward. You either support them or you don't.

I can only point out to you when you ask for details that just today we are finding out some of the details in the NY new law and they are troubling to some who did not even know they were there - and that includes people who voted for it.

The devil is ALWAYS in the details. I help write legislation for a living. I analyze legislation written by others. I have seen the most innocent appearing bills which sound like endorsements for apple pie and motherhood contain deep within them details which render them toxic.
 
SHOULD GUN POLICY IN THE USA BE SHAPED BY THE NEED TO PREPARE TO ONE DAY GO TO VIOLENT WAR WITH OUR OWN GOVERNMENT?


Lets ask that question of the American people and see what they say about it.

What if they just use the line that you love to use in order to weasel out of answering questions? Oh I need to read the details of any piece of legislation before I pledge my support for it
 
SHOULD GUN POLICY IN THE USA BE SHAPED BY THE NEED TO PREPARE TO ONE DAY GO TO VIOLENT WAR WITH OUR OWN GOVERNMENT? [/B.


Yes, that is why we have the second amendment. To protect the people from corruption of government which leads to the people becoming subjects of the government.
 
How can we have a discussion, were the president wants to ban certain semi auto rifles and 30 round mags and I don't want that to happen.
Yet you want him to label the opposition (people like me) as nut jobs and extremists.

You're painting me, whether you realize it or not.
I don't want these guns, to fight people, I want them because it's part of my hobby and enjoyment.
Now, I'm supposedly a nut job and extremist, because I'm involved with the "gun culture" as if that's bad to begin with.

Sorry, but sem-automatic weapons, painted as a hobby which I am sure they are to you, are used to one purpose in their manufacturing...war. There should be no military weapons on the streets.
 
What if they just use the line that you love to use in order to weasel out of answering questions? Oh I need to read the details of any piece of legislation before I pledge my support for it

You are badly confusing details of legislation with an over-arching motivation for legislation.
 
Your thoughts and opinions should certainly be part of that national discussion. Voicing your opposition is part of that.

If you are not one of the people who believe that you need to set gun policy based on the need for possible violent upheaval against the government, then you are not being labeled as such and would not be labeled as such.

I made it very clear in my list often items that gun owners should be welcomed as part of the campaign.

You're wanting the president, to go down the bully pulpit and attempt to ban certain firearms and accessories.
Some of which I may or may want to own.

Not only that, but you're wanting him to use language that defines people like me as a crazy and/or extremist.

You know, it's not always Red vs. Blue.
You don't always have to "win", because the blue team supports an issue.
They can be wrong sometimes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom