• 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!

Obama and gun-ownership...

Is Obama going to take our guns?


  • Total voters
    27
The 2nd Amendment has not been completely defined therefore an imposement of a weapons ban is not an infringement of rights.

I'm sorry you feel you were harassed. Good thing Clinton's bill had a sunset clause huh.

Is the assault weapons ban still in effect? So why would I justify a law that is no longer extant? And where have I stated I supported Clinton's law in the first place? I'll tell you. I haven't.

For me it's the whole "sky is falling" chicken little, right wing, TO ARMS TO ARMS fear mongering going on TD. It's hilarious to me. You guys have really given me much to smile about the last couple of days. Thanks.

You smile over the fact that peoples' rights are going to be violated? Hmmm
 
You smile over the fact that peoples' rights are going to be violated? Hmmm

You yourself have stated you don't know if it's going to happen so....hmmmm yourself.
 
You yourself have stated you don't know if it's going to happen so....hmmmm yourself.

We have to plan for the future based on the past and our experience.

Al Gore and Bill Clinton were not known as gun haters when they were elected. Al Gore had been an A rated Senator by the NRA. Bill Clinton had been a lukewarm gun control advocate. This middle of the road ticket ended up passing the first actual ban (yes I realize the 1934 NFA was a defacto ban) on domestic firearms in federal history.


The current winning ticket includes one of the three most anti gun senators in recent history-a man with a 36 year track record of voting for every restriction that has ever been brought to a vote in the senate and a guy whose record in state legislative office included advocating complete bans on handguns, semi autos and the right to carry a concealed weapon.

Only a moron would argue that it would be foolish not to plan for a ban
 
I believe one of the purposes of the 17th Amendment was to attack the 2nd Amendment by electing senators through popular vote. This way the states have little power over senators who might vote to restrict gun ownership.
 
Gun control will most likely tighten up under Obama. Still, the fear mongering from the right borders on comical
Similar to the fear-mongering on the left regarding abortion, social security, medicare, equal rights, etc.
Right?
 
You smile over the fact that peoples' rights are going to be violated? Hmmm
You -have- noticed that rsi isn't interested in an honest debate, yes?
 
Clinton did the AWB, obama is appointing Clinton todies, lackies and sycophants.....


obama supports the chicago and dc gun bans.


if you think he wont try you are an idiot... (general you)
 
Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it



can any of you gun haters tell us why there should be a 10 round limit on magazines when civilian police departments issue 15-18 round magazines for self defensive use to their civilian officers?
I am not a "gun hater" but will respond..
You gave the answer, then the question....or have you not seen the video of the bank robbers with bullet proof vests and body armor? Cops had to raid gun shops to get high powered rifles to put those guys down..
and police are not heavily armed for self defense as much as they are armed to fight known criminal elements. You will notice that they only carry a pistol, and have a shotgun inside the squad car. Anything else will be in the trunk, as they don't expect to need that kind of firepower all the time.
But when they do need it, they should have it.
There are no restrictions on drug runners and bank robbers, you know...
 
We have to plan for the future based on the past and our experience.

Al Gore and Bill Clinton were not known as gun haters when they were elected. Al Gore had been an A rated Senator by the NRA. Bill Clinton had been a lukewarm gun control advocate. This middle of the road ticket ended up passing the first actual ban (yes I realize the 1934 NFA was a defacto ban) on domestic firearms in federal history.


The current winning ticket includes one of the three most anti gun senators in recent history-a man with a 36 year track record of voting for every restriction that has ever been brought to a vote in the senate and a guy whose record in state legislative office included advocating complete bans on handguns, semi autos and the right to carry a concealed weapon.

Only a moron would argue that it would be foolish not to plan for a ban

In the standard idea of planning? I can't agree more. If you go back and read what I have written you will see I wrote forewarned is forearmed. I think that is viable, even worthwhile. What I read here, though, is over arching fear spreading like wild fire among you conservatives. And my right-wing friend, that ain't planning; that's fear.

And in the interest of open, free dialog, why do you believe I have been dishonest in my debate? I ask since you thanked goobie for his typical snipping ad hom that I don't believe in honest debate?
 
Last edited:
I am not a "gun hater" but will respond..
You gave the answer, then the question....or have you not seen the video of the bank robbers with bullet proof vests and body armor? Cops had to raid gun shops to get high powered rifles to put those guys down..
and police are not heavily armed for self defense as much as they are armed to fight known criminal elements. You will notice that they only carry a pistol, and have a shotgun inside the squad car. Anything else will be in the trunk, as they don't expect to need that kind of firepower all the time.
But when they do need it, they should have it.
There are no restrictions on drug runners and bank robbers, you know...

1) since criminals cannot own any gun legally, how is denying them to honest people going to change that?

2) If cops might need that firepower (and cops have radios, partners, backups, SWAT TEAMS to call on) don't non Police civilians (Remember cops are civilians and their "right" to engage criminals is as restricted as yours when it comes to deadly force) have a right to the same weapons as well?

3) Honest people don't cause problems with some types of guns-why do people believe that people who don't engage in murder with bolt action rifles or semi auto shotguns are suddenly going to be dangerous with a semi auto rifle. If someone INTENDS massacres and the government has somehow made all 15 shot magazines disappear, won't the perpetrator just carry extra magazines or guns?
 
Similar to the fear-mongering on the left regarding abortion, social security, medicare, equal rights, etc.
Right?

I fail to see how this pertains to the topic at hand. I'm assuming this is your attempt at derailing this thread and turning it into "why liberals suck"?
 
Worrying about increased gun control is entirely rational. OMGOBAMA'SGONNATAKEALLOURGUUUUUUUNS! isn't.
So... even though he openly supports such things, he won't sign any gun bans into law?
 
I fail to see how this pertains to the topic at hand. I'm assuming this is your attempt at derailing this thread and turning it into "why liberals suck"?
That's becase you arent paying attention.
 
Let me look into my crystal ball and find out... :roll:

The issue is whether it is rational for gun owners to plan as if he will ban the future sale of some types of guns, ammunition and magazines. Confiscating presently owned guns would cause a blood bath and get alot of people killed.
 
That's becase you arent paying attention.

No, I was paying attention. Sanders made a comment about the right's comical fear of gun banning. That pertains to the topic. You responded by talking about healthcare and abortion, things which have nothing to do with gun control. Maybe you weren't paying attention. Partisan blinders will do that.
 
The issue is whether it is rational for gun owners to plan as if he will ban the future sale of some types of guns, ammunition and magazines. Confiscating presently owned guns would cause a blood bath and get alot of people killed.

Absolutely. Obama's not stupid enough to attempt that. At least let's hope not. ;)
 
No, I was paying attention. Sanders made a comment about the right's comical fear of gun banning. That pertains to the topic. You responded by talking about healthcare and abortion, things which have nothing to do with gun control.
I believe the immediate issue was 'fearmingering', with someone complaining that the pro-gun people were engaging in it. I believe my post pointed out that the anti-people -- predominately liberals -- engage in it as well, so that at best, his comlaint was the pot calling the kettle black.

Partisan blinders will do that.
Ironic, that I -just- mentioned the pot and the kettle...
 
I believe the immediate issue was 'fearmingering', with someone complaining that the pro-gun people were engaging in it. I believe my post pointed out that the anti-people -- predominately liberals -- engage in it as well, so that at best, his comlaint was the pot calling the kettle black.

Fair enough.


Ironic, that I -just- mentioned the pot and the kettle...

Are you implying that I have my partisan(read: Libertarian) blinders on?
 
So... even though he openly supports such things, he won't sign any gun bans into law?

Take a look at who I was responding to and what I've posted since. There is a difference between concerns over increased gun control and fearmongering

I believe the immediate issue was 'fearmingering', with someone complaining that the pro-gun people were engaging in it. I believe my post pointed out that the anti-people -- predominately liberals -- engage in it as well, so that at best, his comlaint was the pot calling the kettle black.


Ironic, that I -just- mentioned the pot and the kettle...

Well, TruthDetector, not everybody who disagrees with you is a liberal. I am against increased gun control. I am also opposed to the over the top fear mongering we've seen recently
 
Take a look at who I was responding to and what I've posted since. There is a difference between concerns over increased gun control and fearmongering

Oh?

What's exactly the difference, vis-a-vis what I said? You called what I wrote "fearmongering."
 
Back
Top Bottom