• 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?

  • Yes, it's a fact Obama will take our guns! TO ARMS! TO ARMS!

    Votes: 5 18.5%

  • No, this is a fear based rhetoric of the right to smear the upcoming Obama administration!

    Votes: 7 25.9%

  • Any administration has the potential to violate our 2nd Amendment rights!

    Votes: 9 33.3%

  • I'm not worried but I will be watching.

    Votes: 6 22.2%
  • Total voters
    27
Harshaw said:
Oh?

What's exactly the difference, vis-a-vis what I said? You called what I wrote "fearmongering."
Click to expand...

We've been over this and we disagree. I call your doomsday language fear mongering, you (unsurprisingly) feel it was reasonable. I doubt we will make any progress from rehashing that discussion.
 
Kernel Sanders said:
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
Click to expand...
Sure there is.

But, does the concern that Obama will ban guns qualify as fearmongering?

Thats why I asked you if you thought that, even though he openly supports such things, he won't sign any gun bans into law.

Do you or do you not think that he will sign gun ban(s) into law?

If you DO believe that he will, how then does the concern that he will qualify as 'fearmongering'?

If you do not... we'll, I'd really like to hear your reasoning, especially given that he openly supports them.
 
Kernel Sanders said:
We've been over this and we disagree. I call your doomsday language fear mongering, you (unsurprisingly) feel it was reasonable. I doubt we will make any progress from rehashing that discussion.
Click to expand...

What's "doomsday" about what I said? I described accurately what was done before -- and what is attempting to be done now by the same people. If that's "fearmongering," you must live most of your life peering out nervously from under your bed.
 
Goobieman said:
Sure there is.

But, does the concern that Obama will ban guns qualify as fearmongering?

Thats why I asked you if you thought that, even though he openly supports such things, he won't sign any gun bans into law.

Do you or do you not think that he will sign gun ban(s) into law?

If you DO believe that he will, how then does the concern that he will qualify as 'fearmongering'?

If you do not... we'll, I'd really like to hear your reasoning, especially given that he openly supports them.
Click to expand...

I think we will probably see legislation regarding the expired assault weapons ban. Outside of that, no, I don't think Obama will sign any gun bans into law
 
Kernel Sanders said:
I think we will probably see legislation regarding the expired assault weapons ban. Outside of that, no, I don't think Obama will sign any gun bans into law
Click to expand...
So... you agree that Obama will sign at least one gun ban into law -- that he will ban at least some guns.

How then does the concern that Obama will ban guns qualify as fearmongering?
 
Goobieman said:
So... you agree that Obama will sign at least one gun ban into law -- that he will ban at least some guns.

How then does the concern that Obama will ban guns qualify as fearmongering?
Click to expand...

If people would state their concerns about assault weapons that would be reasonable. Fearmongering starts when people start going on about blanket gun bans, think that Obama will work to negate or reinterpret the 2nd, etc. As I've said many times, there are legitimate second ammendment concerns with an Obama administration. This does not mean that the crap the far right is spewing is accurate or rational. When people are screaming about Obama taking their guns, they aren't referring to their AK
 
Kernel Sanders said:
If people would state their concerns about assault weapons that would be reasonable.
Click to expand...

Which is what I did. I referred to the Brady Act and the Assault Weapons Ban, the AWB already having been re-introduced and was so within weeks of the Democrats taking power in Congress.

Fearmongering starts when people start going on about blanket gun bans, think that Obama will work to negate or reinterpret the 2nd, etc.
Click to expand...

When did I do any of that?

As I've said many times, there are legitimate second ammendment concerns with an Obama administration.
Click to expand...

Yes, there are, and I pointed them out -- but according to you, it was "fearmongering."

This does not mean that the crap the far right is spewing is accurate or rational. When people are screaming about Obama taking their guns, they aren't referring to their AK
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about that. Oh, and some of them in fact are.
 
Kernel Sanders said:
If people would state their concerns about assault weapons that would be reasonable. Fearmongering starts when people start going on about blanket gun bans, think that Obama will work to negate or reinterpret the 2nd, etc.
Click to expand...
Well to be fair -- if you state that "Obama will ban guns", and he only bans one class of guns, your statement is still correct.

Obama will most certainly ban 'assault weapons'. He'll also support federal legislation that backs up minicupal gun handgun bans, and sign any bill to that efefct. He'll support licensing and registration at the federal level and sign any bill to that effect. He'll support a national ban (of some sort) on concealed carry and sign any bill to that effect.

These statements do not qualify as fearmongering as they stem from his own statements.

Given that, the concern from the pro-gun side is well-founded.
 
Goobieman said:
Well to be fair -- if you state that "Obama will ban guns", and he only bans one class of guns, your statement is still correct.
Click to expand...

It comes down to the intention of the speaker. That same sentence can have an implied "some" or "all" depending on the context. Once again, not everybody who states their concerns about the 2nd is fear mongering

Obama will most certainly ban 'assault weapons'. He'll also support federal legislation that backs up minicupal gun handgun bans, and sign any bill to that efefct. He'll support licensing and registration at the federal level and sign any bill to that effect. He'll support a national ban (of some sort) on concealed carry and sign any bill to that effect.

These statements do not qualify as fearmongering as they stem from his own statements.

Given that, the concern from the pro-gun side is well-founded.
Click to expand...

Some of it is, some of it isn't. I'm done repeating myself
 
I'm pretty sure Kernel Sanders read much, much more into what I wrote than what was actually there.

Which, I suppose, might make him a fearmonger about fearmongering. ;)
 
Kernel Sanders said:
It comes down to the intention of the speaker. That same sentence can have an implied "some" or "all" depending on the context. Once again, not everybody who states their concerns about the 2nd is fear mongering



Some of it is, some of it isn't. I'm done repeating myself
Click to expand...

What isn't well founded? Do you understand the concept of precedent. If a gun can be banned merely because of cosmetic features or looks then the precedent has been set to ban guns for almost any reasons. "assault weapons"-meaning military styled rifles-have a very low usage in crime. If they can be banned then clearly the anti-self defense hoplophobes will then say we have to ban more guns since the ban on "assault weapons" did not decrease crime.
 
TurtleDude said:
What isn't well founded? Do you understand the concept of precedent. If a gun can be banned merely because of cosmetic features or looks then the precedent has been set to ban guns for almost any reasons. "assault weapons"-meaning military styled rifles-have a very low usage in crime. If they can be banned then clearly the anti-self defense hoplophobes will then say we have to ban more guns since the ban on "assault weapons" did not decrease crime.
Click to expand...

I'm not buying the slippery slope here. The pro-gun lobby is thankfully strong enough that I don't view that as likely.
 
Kernel Sanders said:
I'm not buying the slippery slope here. The pro-gun lobby is thankfully strong enough that I don't view that as likely.
Click to expand...

Don't buy it. Just look at various examples. Brits were told to register pistols. they did. One nut case shoots a bunch of kids in Dunblane and all legal pistols are banned. Check out "assault weapons" in NJ and Kalifornia.

Once a person has accepted the faith based belief that gun control makes society safer, when some anti gun scheme fails to deter crime, the true believers demand praying more.
 
TurtleDude said:
Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it

Clinton caused

1) the cost of normal capacity magazines to quadruple or more in price


2) By banning the import of the fairly high quality but inexpensive chinese/PLA ammo, he drove up the cost of shooting for those who shoot common arms in 223, 9mm, and 7.62X39

3) by banning the import of foreign made guns he drove up the price of those in the USA


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?
Click to expand...


FN Five-seveN

Standard Capacity - 20+1

Ammunition - 5.7x28

:mrgreen: Don't ban my toys!
 
Kernel Sanders said:
I'm not buying the slippery slope here. The pro-gun lobby is thankfully strong enough that I don't view that as likely.
Click to expand...

People like you got bent over the barrel in England, Kalifornia, New Jersey, Connecticut etc
 
TurtleDude said:
People like you got bent over the barrel in England, Kalifornia, New Jersey, Connecticut etc
Click to expand...

Yeah - places without a strong gun lobby. Were the political makeup of the US identical to California, my views would be different
 
Kernel Sanders said:
Yeah - places without a strong gun lobby. Were the political makeup of the US identical to California, my views would be different
Click to expand...

You don't think the NRA and its affiliates in Kalifornia, NY and Connecticut are strong. So much for the theory that the NRA is a tool of gun makers. Do you know how many major gun makers are in connecticut? Colt, Mossberg, Winchester (NLO) for starters.
 
rsixing said:
Is the most recent 2nd Amendment uproar here at DPF concerning Obama planning on taking our guns more about unsubstantiated fear or reality based on fact?

As I see it this is more of the fear mongering right we have all come to love attempting to smear the upcoming Obama administration via paranoid theorizing before he has even had the chance to be sworn in.

(*edited to correct spelling error)
Click to expand...
-
Cons have been saying that for at least 60 years or more.

So, after all those years why haven't they taken away our guns?
-
Why? Because thats the same BULL **** that the NRA spits out to these dummys to scare them. We all know that these people cannot think for themselves so thats why the NRA can have them ****ting in their pants for such a long time.
It works year after year after year as these dummies rush to send their money to the NRA!!!!
-
MOMMY, MOMMY, Daddy said that those bad Dems are gonna take my gun away.
Don't worry Billy Joe thats the same old BS they have been spitting out for years and Daddy is just another one of those assholes that believes that.
 
Sergeant Stinger1 said:
-
Cons have been saying that for at least 60 years or more.

So, after all those years why haven't they taken away our guns?
-
Why? Because thats the same BULL **** that the NRA spits out to these dummys to scare them. We all know that these people cannot think for themselves so thats why the NRA can have them ****ting in their pants for such a long time.
It works year after year after year as these dummies rush to send their money to the NRA!!!!
-
MOMMY, MOMMY, Daddy said that those bad Dems are gonna take my gun away.
Don't worry Billy Joe thats the same old BS they have been spitting out for years and Daddy is just another one of those assholes that believes that.
Click to expand...

wow that is pretty stupid. I guess you haven't watched what has happened in Kalifornia, NJ, NY, Connecticut, Maryland, Chicago, DC.
 
TurtleDude said:
You don't think the NRA and its affiliates in Kalifornia, NY and Connecticut are strong. So much for the theory that the NRA is a tool of gun makers. Do you know how many major gun makers are in connecticut? Colt, Mossberg, Winchester (NLO) for starters.
Click to expand...

In CA, not as strong as the lefty anti-gun lobby, and not as strong as most other parts of the nation. I can't comment on the CT thing, I know zero about CT.
 
TurtleDude said:
wow that is pretty stupid. I guess you haven't watched what has happened in Kalifornia, NJ, NY, Connecticut, Maryland, Chicago, DC.
Click to expand...

Look at Washington D.C. crime reports after the handgun ban was lifted.

:lol: So much for "less guns are better"
 
Shewter said:
Look at Washington D.C. crime reports after the handgun ban was lifted.

:lol: So much for "less guns are better"
Click to expand...

No one who follows the subject believes that those who push for gun bans do so out of a desire to reduce crime. Sure-people like Schumer and Feinswine say that their schemes are designed to make us safer but that is patent BS. The purpose of banning or controlling guns (in terms of making them harder to buy by law abiding citizens) is to punish law abiding gun owners
 
TurtleDude said:
No one who follows the subject believes that those who push for gun bans do so out of a desire to reduce crime. Sure-people like Schumer and Feinswine say that their schemes are designed to make us safer but that is patent BS. The purpose of banning or controlling guns (in terms of making them harder to buy by law abiding citizens) is to punish law abiding gun owners
Click to expand...

I don't believe that is their direct intention. I just think that they are naive. Well, at first. Then they are nothing but politically dirven with their intentions the second they see the support from others who actually believe that taking guns away from law abiding citizens would reduce crime..

All in all, this issue will never die, and eventually kitchen knives will end up being banned because they are dangerous.
 
TurtleDude said:
wow that is pretty stupid. I guess you haven't watched what has happened in Kalifornia, NJ, NY, Connecticut, Maryland, Chicago, DC.
Click to expand...
-
Speaking of being stupid, California begins with a C, asshole.
-
Now tell me TURD DUDE, have they taken away everyones guns there?
NO!!!
Taking away handguns is much different than taking away everyones weapons.
-
BTW, Assholes, Obamb said that the 2nd amendment will stand!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom