• 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!

White House to Push Gun Control

StillBallin75 said:
Does creating a watered-down, weak-ass healthcare bill that never considered a single-payer system (a socialist's fantasy) or that gave up on the public option (a liberals' wet dream), and mandates people to buy insurance from PRIVATE insurers sound liberal to you?
Does creating a weak-ass financial regulation bill that barely does anything to prevent a repeat of what happened in 2008 sound liberal to you?
Does continuing the War in Afghanistan sound liberal to you?
Does having conservatives like Robert Gates as your defense secretary sound liberal to you? (Actually I rather like Gates he's doing a fine job given the steaming pile of **** he was handed)
Does keeping Guantanamo bay open sound liberal to you?
Does continuing the use of torture and maintaining the Bush policy of extraordinary rendition sound liberal to you?
Does not supporting gay marriage sound liberal to you?
Does not taking the lead on the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and instead letting Congress do the heavy lifting sound liberal to you?
Does keeping the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy sound liberal to you?

Obama might be a liberal at heart but he has been anything but a liberal President. The thought of him being a socialist is even more laughable.
Click to expand...

So Obama is incompetent and can't even pass his own socialist agenda with a super majority in congress. I would not call it moderate but a failure to hold his liberal party together. As for Gates I do not see any conservatism in him since he became buddies with Obama. He sounds more like an Obama mouthpiece
 
would you call cramming a radical redrawing of 1/6 of the us economy via SENATE RECONCILIATION moderate?
 
ptif219 said:
Wiki you got to be kidding. How about a government source
Click to expand...

So, now Wiki is not reliable?

How about clicking on the source and reviewing the info for yourself.

Too time consuming? Too taxing?
 
hazlnut said:
So, now Wiki is not reliable?

How about clicking on the source and reviewing the info for yourself.

Too time consuming? Too taxing?
Click to expand...

what's this have to do with Obama scheming about gun rights
 
hazlnut said:
So, now Wiki is not reliable?

How about clicking on the source and reviewing the info for yourself.

Too time consuming? Too taxing?
Click to expand...

How about a credible source that shows they are seving under Obama
 
ptif219 said:
Here we go Obama playing politics and using a tragedy to forward his agenda

This will cause more disdain toward Obama from conservatives.

Gun-Control Effort Coming Soon From White House - Newsweek

At the beginning of his State of the Union address, President Obama tipped his hat to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who’s now recuperating in a Houston medical facility. But throughout the hourlong speech, he never addressed the issue at the core of the Giffords tragedy—gun control—and what lawmakers would, or should, do to reform American firearm-access laws.

That was intentional, according to the White House. An administration official says Obama didn’t mention guns in his speech because of the omnipresent controversy surrounding the Second Amendment and gun control. Tuesday’s speech was designed to be more about the economy and how, as Obama repeated nine times, the U.S. could “win the future.”

But in the next two weeks, the White House will unveil a new gun-control effort in which it will urge Congress to strengthen current laws, which now allow some mentally unstable people, such as alleged Arizona shooter Jared Loughner, to obtain certain assault weapons, in some cases without even a background check.
Click to expand...

1. This is another "never waste a crisis" moment.

2. Obama has always been an ardent gun control freak.

3. John Lott tried to engage Obama when at Harvard, but recalled his being narrow. No intellectual curiosity. I recall this story (below) from Lott during the campaign, and added to it he then turned and walked away after Obama made his statement. Lott made the case that the profs at Harvard debate each other on friendly terms, but Obama would have none of it. Obama was a guest lecturer they normally would not hire, and many did not want hired except everyone knew he would be off to politics. You would think a guest lecturer would engage others... but nope, not Obama.

"I knew Obama during the mid-1990s. The first time I introduced myself to
him he said

'Oh, you are the gun guy.' I responded 'Yes, I guess so.' He simply
responded, 'I don't believe that people should be able to own guns."'

--Professor John Lott, PhD, author of More Guns, Less Crime

.
 
Last edited:
26 pages in, do we even know what the new 'push' is and why it's good or bad?
 
hazlnut said:
26 pages in, do we even know what the new 'push' is and why it's good or bad?
Click to expand...

A valid question.

Much of the angst on the Right, and I think I'm correct on this is... Obama is a liberal, he's a big Gov't liberal. We don't trust his past record on guns, and don't trust him moving forward. But you are correct, until we see what he actually proposes, in writing, it's speculation.
 
MSgt said:
Well, they would all just pull out and kill the offender. This gun craze is tiring. Protect the flag..."To Abort or Not to Abort".....isn't there an economy issue to deal with?
Click to expand...

Bread and circuses, bro. Bread and circuses.
 
MrVicchio said:
A valid question.

Much of the angst on the Right, and I think I'm correct on this is... Obama is a liberal, he's a big Gov't liberal. We don't trust his past record on guns, and don't trust him moving forward. But you are correct, until we see what he actually proposes, in writing, it's speculation.
Click to expand...

Maybe we'll just have to pass the bill to find out what's in it, eh? ;)
 
MrVicchio said:
A valid question.

Much of the angst on the Right, and I think I'm correct on this is... Obama is a liberal, he's a big Gov't liberal. We don't trust his past record on guns, and don't trust him moving forward. But you are correct, until we see what he actually proposes, in writing, it's speculation.
Click to expand...

Distrust is too often found on both sides. But, that shouldn't rule us too much.

Moving forward, I will say this. I have no emotional attachment or fear of guns. They are tool and nothing more. The reasons for the 2nd amendment, as I understand it, had more to do with the need of a citizen army and the need to have them armed, not to mention that having one was much more important to everyday life than it is today. So, if done unemotionally, which I doubt can be done, a serious discussion as to what role weapons play today would be a valid issue to undertake.

We won't mind you. it would be tough, difficult and, sadly, emotional. So we won't.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Answer a question with a question...hmmm. Anyway, it is against the laws for "nuts" to own guns, but the only way to tell is if they check the I am crazy box on the application. Thus if we need new laws there Tex, I am all for it. I realize many right wingers are afraid of this for some of their zeal maybe misinterpreted as crazy.;)
Click to expand...

You kid but there is an element of truth to that. It is common for liberals and others who generally oppose conservatives to elevate their behavior to the level of crazy, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc., etc., when it is not. The hate speech mantra is ever present in liberal discourse. So yeah, at some level the right wingers are afraid about who will be doing the interpreting.
 
Boo Radley said:
Distrust is too often found on both sides. But, that shouldn't rule us too much.

Moving forward, I will say this. I have no emotional attachment or fear of guns. They are tool and nothing more. The reasons for the 2nd amendment, as I understand it, had more to do with the need of a citizen army and the need to have them armed, not to mention that having one was much more important to everyday life than it is today. So, if done unemotionally, which I doubt can be done, a serious discussion as to what role weapons play today would be a valid issue to undertake.
Click to expand...

Before such a discussion could be undertaken, many liberals (and others) would have to educate themselves on the subject of where guns come from, and how criminals get access to them. The issue is not having too many guns in the U.S. Most of those guns are in the hands of people who are responsible with them and store them properly. The issue is having too many ILLEGAL guns in the U.S.

I've found that a lot of liberals have an almost visceral reaction to the sight of a gun on someone's person. I've run gang training for years, and I've had people attending a conference I planned become very offended because police officers in attendance were visible armed with sidearms. Many jurisdictions have rules about carrying sidearms. Cops don't carry guns like this to offend people from schools and social services. They are required to do so, and they are required to do so in specific ways.

I would say that, in general, conservatives understand the relevant issues in the topic of gun control better than the average liberal, because it's a matter of significant importance to them and they've researched the issue. Sportsmen, hunters, cops, military personnel, people who regularly handle guns are much more likely to be conservative than liberal, and they have reasons for their positions.

I'm not a liberal or a conservative really, I go back and forth depending on the issue. But, based on my exposure to guns/crime/criminals, and based upon the training I've received, I'm very conservative on the 2nd amendment. It's hard to debate and discuss a topic with people who don't have the same basic level of understanding of the subject.

I don't say that to be dismissive, it's just something that often occurs on these boards. Not all opinions are created equal.
 
Having said all of the above, though, I've found the pantywaisted and over the top responses to this thread by conservatives to be pretty hilarious.

NO ONE has the clout, at present, to get further gun control legislation through congress. Such measures, in spite of what happened to Congresswoman Gifford, do not have sufficient support from both parties. They're widely dismissed by conservatives and even many liberals won't vote for them.

So, the hand-wringing, at this point in time, is pretty heavy-handed and ham-fisted. It sort of resembles the response of hardcore pro-abortionists to anything that might even potentially (no matter how tiny that potential is) undermine abortion rights.
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
Before such a discussion could be undertaken, many liberals (and others) would have to educate themselves on the subject of where guns come from, and how criminals get access to them. The issue is not having too many guns in the U.S. Most of those guns are in the hands of people who are responsible with them and store them properly. The issue is having too many ILLEGAL guns in the U.S.

I've found that a lot of liberals have an almost visceral reaction to the sight of a gun on someone's person. I've run gang training for years, and I've had people attending a conference I planned become very offended because police officers in attendance were visible armed with sidearms. Many jurisdictions have rules about carrying sidearms. Cops don't carry guns like this to offend people from schools and social services. They are required to do so, and they are required to do so in specific ways.

I would say that, in general, conservatives understand the relevant issues in the topic of gun control better than the average liberal, because it's a matter of significant importance to them and they've researched the issue. Sportsmen, hunters, cops, military personnel, people who regularly handle guns are much more likely to be conservative than liberal, and they have reasons for their positions.

I'm not a liberal or a conservative really, I go back and forth depending on the issue. But, based on my exposure to guns/crime/criminals, and based upon the training I've received, I'm very conservative on the 2nd amendment. It's hard to debate and discuss a topic with people who don't have the same basic level of understanding of the subject.

I don't say that to be dismissive, it's just something that often occurs on these boards. Not all opinions are created equal.
Click to expand...

As I've said, I have no emotional reaction to guns at all, unless your pointing one at me. It is a tool, nothing more and nothing less.

That said, I've seen irrational and uneducated views on both sides of the issue. SOme who oppose any reform treat guns as if they had some supermystical prowers.

However, times have changed, so a real and honest discussion would help us. But only if we could have such a discussion, minus the emotion.
 
tlmorg02 said:
So you think it is bad to stop mentally imbalanced people from obtaining assault rifles?
Click to expand...

Not at all, Arizona has such a system in place mandated by federal law, the Brady Act. So what happened? The guy had made threats before, why wasn't he in the system?
 
ptif219 said:
Here we go Obama playing politics and using a tragedy to forward his agenda
Click to expand...

So I take it you had equal outrage when the previous administration used 9/11 as a cover to attack Iraq?



ptif219 said:
This will cause more disdain toward Obama from conservatives.
Click to expand...

I doubt this particular issue will change natural events one way or another. Conservative distain for Obama grows each time he wakes up.

Sorry, but had the asualt weapon ban been continued, the shooter would not have been able to obtain the extended ammo clip. If he did not have that clip, he would have done less than half the damage he did. There is no rational reason for those clips to exist. It is reasonable to restrict them. Even Dick Cheney agrees with that.

We all believe in gun control, we just disagree about where the control line should be drawn.
 
upsideguy said:
So I take it you had equal outrage when the previous administration used 9/11 as a cover to attack Iraq?





I doubt this particular issue will change natural events one way or another. Conservative distain for Obama grows each time he wakes up.

Sorry, but had the asualt weapon ban been continued, the shooter would not have been able to obtain the extended ammo clip. If he did not have that clip, he would have done less than half the damage he did. There is no rational reason for those clips to exist. It is reasonable to restrict them. Even Dick Cheney agrees with that.

We all believe in gun control, we just disagree about where the control line should be drawn.
Click to expand...

what moronic nonsense--thousands of those magazines were made before the ban and were available

cocaine is banned for how many decades and this country is full of it

if there is no rational reason for such magazines to exist why do so many police departments have such magazines in various weapons/

the problem with you gun banners is you want to ban a 30 round magazine today-a 20 round magazine tomorrow and a 10 round magazine next week

ANYTHING CIVILIAN POLICE DEPARTMENTS USE HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE USEFUL FOR CIVILIANS TO USE IN SELF DEFENSE

THUS OTHER CIVILIANS OUGHT TO HAVE ACCESS TO THOSE THINGS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom