For all you real Obama supporters (and Pabster)

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Nebor
Completely and totally unacceptable. If he wants to play Lincoln that way, we can go ahead and have another civil war. :thumbsdown:

what you are not taking into consideration are Obama's magical powers as a "uniter"... if he wins the Presidency, you will actually WANT to give up your guns.

 

[First]

Unrealistic and has the potential for creating a black market. But he's the only candidate a Dem should vote for.

 

[Moonbeam]

In areas where people are being killed by guns there is an urge to ban them. Were guns serve as effective protection people what to preserve them. Is there war or peace on your streets?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
:roll:

Excellent response to someone wanting to outlaw billions of dollars worth of american property, criminalize millions of Americans, and cross out a piece of the bill of rights.

The only thing I can figure is that growing up in inner city Chicago warped his brain into actually believing guns were bad.

He grew up in Hawaii dumbass.

I'm all for protecting the 2nd but if you're going to attack someone at least know SOMETHING about him.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Very few democrats support individual gun rights in a meaningful way...to expect otherwise is to be out of touch with the party. That being said, for all their lip-service the republicans haven't managed to prevent the erosion of rights that's been occurring, including gun rights.

There are really three levels of safety for our gun rights.

First, public support. The public overwhelmingly supports the right to own guns, the right to carry guns, etc. So long as that's the case very few politicians will push very hard for actual bans or infringements which would affect us in a significant way.

Second, the supreme court. While it's made bad decisions in the past there have been some good trends lately in this area. With the current makeup of the court I think we'd be protected against any heinous abuses.

Finally, we already have the guns, and everything needed for successful armed revolution. Any serious threats to our way of life would result in all out war. No one in their right mind would risk that.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Very few democrats support individual gun rights in a meaningful way...to expect otherwise is to be out of touch with the party. That being said, for all their lip-service the republicans haven't managed to prevent the erosion of rights that's been occurring, including gun rights.

There are really three levels of safety for our gun rights.

First, public support. The public overwhelmingly supports the right to own guns, the right to carry guns, etc. So long as that's the case very few politicians will push very hard for actual bans or infringements which would affect us in a significant way.

Second, the supreme court. While it's made bad decisions in the past there have been some good trends lately in this area. With the current makeup of the court I think we'd be protected against any heinous abuses.

Finally, we already have the guns, and everything needed for successful armed revolution. Any serious threats to our way of life would result in all out war. No one in their right mind would risk that.

Nobody would risk it, not even you? Then what good is your threat? Oh yes, you're not in your right mind.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Nebor
http://www.ontheissues.org/Dom...bama_Gun_Control.htm#1

Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.

That is out and out rediculous. You're talking about banning approximately 70% of the firearms in the US. Virtually all handguns. Assault rifles. Shotguns. Hunting rifles. Ruger 10\22s.

Completely and totally unacceptable. If he wants to play Lincoln that way, we can go ahead and have another civil war. :thumbsdown:

I think the second amendment has something to say about that...

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: Nebor
http://www.ontheissues.org/Dom...bama_Gun_Control.htm#1

Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.

That is out and out rediculous. You're talking about banning approximately 70% of the firearms in the US. Virtually all handguns. Assault rifles. Shotguns. Hunting rifles. Ruger 10\22s.

Completely and totally unacceptable. If he wants to play Lincoln that way, we can go ahead and have another civil war. :thumbsdown:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

All it says is that you have the right to arm bears!

I thought it was the right to bear arms?

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: Nebor
http://www.ontheissues.org/Dom...bama_Gun_Control.htm#1

Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.

That is out and out rediculous. You're talking about banning approximately 70% of the firearms in the US. Virtually all handguns. Assault rifles. Shotguns. Hunting rifles. Ruger 10\22s.

Completely and totally unacceptable. If he wants to play Lincoln that way, we can go ahead and have another civil war. :thumbsdown:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

All it says is that you have the right to arm bears!

I thought it was the right to bear arms?

just say no to grizzlies with AK47's.

how can we defend our picnic baskets against that?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: Nebor
http://www.ontheissues.org/Dom...bama_Gun_Control.htm#1

Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.

That is out and out rediculous. You're talking about banning approximately 70% of the firearms in the US. Virtually all handguns. Assault rifles. Shotguns. Hunting rifles. Ruger 10\22s.

Completely and totally unacceptable. If he wants to play Lincoln that way, we can go ahead and have another civil war. :thumbsdown:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

All it says is that you have the right to arm bears!

I thought it was the right to bear arms?

Hehehehehe

 

[RightIsWrong]

I guess it's very fortunate for the US that the majority of us are not "One issue" voters like you are Nebor. I honestly believe that you would support, promote and vote for Hitler as long as he told you that you could have any weapon that you wanted.

You are as bad as the Pro-life idiots that believe that as long as a person claims to support that one issue, he can run the country into the ground. Hence, you get incompetent idiots like Bush and then wonder what went wrong.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I guess it's very fortunate for the US that the majority of us are not "One issue" voters like you are Nebor. I honestly believe that you would support, promote and vote for Hitler as long as he told you that you could have any weapon that you wanted.

You are as bad as the Pro-life idiots that believe that as long as a person claims to support that one issue, he can run the country into the ground. Hence, you get incompetent idiots like Bush and then wonder what went wrong.

It's not really fair to treat the one-issue abortion opponents as 'idiots' for that position. If one candidate was in favor of having a second holocaust where all the Jews in the US are burned alive in ovens, would you be a one-issue voter to oppose that, regardless of his positions on the economy and flag-burning amendments?

Given that the pro-life people often view abortion as murder, and hence the legal abortion in the US as being the murder of tens of millions of people, more than in the original holocaust, it's logical and rational for them to put that issue ahead of lesser ones - and many critics make the mistake of not considering how they see abortion, applying their own view of it as just one of many issues to consider in judging the pro-life voters.

Focus on the real issue - the difference on abortion - and don't make the mistake of criticizing them for the heavy weight given to the issue that makes sense given their views.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Valid points Craig.

For clarity....I wasn't calling them idiots for their views on abortion but for not taking the rest of the candidate's positions into consideration also.

You make a good counter argument (albeit incredibly slippery-slope-to-the-extreme). I put a little more faith in the majority of US citizens though in believing that anyone with views that radical would be laughed at more than taken seriously. In talking about guns and/or abortion however, people seem a little less likely to look at the big picture when someone supports their position on those topics.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Very few democrats support individual gun rights in a meaningful way...to expect otherwise is to be out of touch with the party. That being said, for all their lip-service the republicans haven't managed to prevent the erosion of rights that's been occurring, including gun rights.

There are really three levels of safety for our gun rights.

First, public support. The public overwhelmingly supports the right to own guns, the right to carry guns, etc. So long as that's the case very few politicians will push very hard for actual bans or infringements which would affect us in a significant way.

Second, the supreme court. While it's made bad decisions in the past there have been some good trends lately in this area. With the current makeup of the court I think we'd be protected against any heinous abuses.

Finally, we already have the guns, and everything needed for successful armed revolution. Any serious threats to our way of life would result in all out war. No one in their right mind would risk that.

Public support is not exactly overwhelming, and it fluctuates.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onde...4/poll_no_change_.html

Nevertheless, I have never seen a poll with the question "If the government implemented a total handgun ban, would you join a nut-job 'revolution'?"

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Very few democrats support individual gun rights in a meaningful way...to expect otherwise is to be out of touch with the party. That being said, for all their lip-service the republicans haven't managed to prevent the erosion of rights that's been occurring, including gun rights.

There are really three levels of safety for our gun rights.

First, public support. The public overwhelmingly supports the right to own guns, the right to carry guns, etc. So long as that's the case very few politicians will push very hard for actual bans or infringements which would affect us in a significant way.

Second, the supreme court. While it's made bad decisions in the past there have been some good trends lately in this area. With the current makeup of the court I think we'd be protected against any heinous abuses.

Finally, we already have the guns, and everything needed for successful armed revolution. Any serious threats to our way of life would result in all out war. No one in their right mind would risk that.

Nobody would risk it, not even you? Then what good is your threat? Oh yes, you're not in your right mind.

What the hell are you talking about??? I've tried for half an hour to decipher this and still have no idea what you're saying?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Very few democrats support individual gun rights in a meaningful way...to expect otherwise is to be out of touch with the party. That being said, for all their lip-service the republicans haven't managed to prevent the erosion of rights that's been occurring, including gun rights.

There are really three levels of safety for our gun rights.

First, public support. The public overwhelmingly supports the right to own guns, the right to carry guns, etc. So long as that's the case very few politicians will push very hard for actual bans or infringements which would affect us in a significant way.

Second, the supreme court. While it's made bad decisions in the past there have been some good trends lately in this area. With the current makeup of the court I think we'd be protected against any heinous abuses.

Finally, we already have the guns, and everything needed for successful armed revolution. Any serious threats to our way of life would result in all out war. No one in their right mind would risk that.

Public support is not exactly overwhelming, and it fluctuates.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onde...4/poll_no_change_.html

Nevertheless, I have never seen a poll with the question "If the government implemented a total handgun ban, would you join a nut-job 'revolution'?"

I dont' see the issue...even in the poll you link 55% wouldn't even ban handgun sales. If you look at other polls from Gallup, Pew, etc you'll find the average is between 65 and 80% of people agree that people have the right to own firearms in general. It's only when you get into trickier questions (should handguns have high capacity magazines, should there be better gun control, etc) that the percentages drop. I'd say that qualifies as overwhelmingly, especially when taken together with historic precedent.

If anyone asked the question the way you did, they'd lose their job as a pollster. I would hazard that if you asked the question correctly you'd get between 40 and 60% agreement that revolution was warranted, and between 20% and 40% willing to participate. In fact, just out of curiosity I'll post such a poll here (though I expect the numbers to be about half due to the number of extreme liberals, and the number of upper financial earners (both demographics against revolutionary actions).

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Very few democrats support individual gun rights in a meaningful way...to expect otherwise is to be out of touch with the party. That being said, for all their lip-service the republicans haven't managed to prevent the erosion of rights that's been occurring, including gun rights.

There are really three levels of safety for our gun rights.

First, public support. The public overwhelmingly supports the right to own guns, the right to carry guns, etc. So long as that's the case very few politicians will push very hard for actual bans or infringements which would affect us in a significant way.

Second, the supreme court. While it's made bad decisions in the past there have been some good trends lately in this area. With the current makeup of the court I think we'd be protected against any heinous abuses.

Finally, we already have the guns, and everything needed for successful armed revolution. Any serious threats to our way of life would result in all out war. No one in their right mind would risk that.

george w bush?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Nebor
Completely and totally unacceptable. If he wants to play Lincoln that way, we can go ahead and have another civil war. :thumbsdown:

what you are not taking into consideration are Obama's magical powers as a "uniter"... if he wins the Presidency, you will actually WANT to give up your guns.

No... it's that we can trust that Obama will actually rely on the public democratic opinion on the issue as opposed to trying to force his own personal ideology on the rest of the country just because he's President. The same trust cannot be given to his Democratic opponent.
That's what being a "uniter" is all about. They don't try to run roughshod over everyone just because 50.1% voted for them. This is an inherent feature of democracy that I don't expect radicals like yourself or Craig to understand though, given that your well-known opinion of democracy is that a single 50.1% vote is a sufficient mandate enough to create a dictatorship.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Finally, we already have the guns, and everything needed for successful armed revolution. Any serious threats to our way of life would result in all out war. No one in their right mind would risk that.

If the army decides it wants to take out your town, good luck with your assault rifles.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Very few democrats support individual gun rights in a meaningful way...to expect otherwise is to be out of touch with the party. That being said, for all their lip-service the republicans haven't managed to prevent the erosion of rights that's been occurring, including gun rights.

There are really three levels of safety for our gun rights.

First, public support. The public overwhelmingly supports the right to own guns, the right to carry guns, etc. So long as that's the case very few politicians will push very hard for actual bans or infringements which would affect us in a significant way.

Second, the supreme court. While it's made bad decisions in the past there have been some good trends lately in this area. With the current makeup of the court I think we'd be protected against any heinous abuses.

Finally, we already have the guns, and everything needed for successful armed revolution. Any serious threats to our way of life would result in all out war. No one in their right mind would risk that.

george w bush?

I was SORELY tempted, believe me.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Finally, we already have the guns, and everything needed for successful armed revolution. Any serious threats to our way of life would result in all out war. No one in their right mind would risk that.

If the army decides it wants to take out your town, good luck with your assault rifles.

Not an issue at all. In such a situation victory against the military is pretty much guaranteed.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Finally, we already have the guns, and everything needed for successful armed revolution. Any serious threats to our way of life would result in all out war. No one in their right mind would risk that.

If the army decides it wants to take out your town, good luck with your assault rifles.

I've destroyed this stupid childish argument a million times over, and I'm really not in a mood to do it again.
Suffice to say, the ability of the citizens to mount any kind of armed resistance -- at all -- provides sufficient deterrent to keep a military from attacking its own people.
Armies don't come from nowhere. They have to be fed, armed, and manned. In fact, the unofficial slogan of the US military is "Overwhelming firepower supported by overwhelming logistics." To argue that the US military could attack its own people, even in the face of armed resistance, is to presume that it could do so without logistical support.
Good luck with that.

OTOH, without the ability of the people to mount some kind of armed resistance (even a disorganized one), a military can come in the middle of the night and sweep the people up one by one and quietly. This has occurred so many times in history, it is no laughing matter whatsoever.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Nebor
http://www.ontheissues.org/Dom...bama_Gun_Control.htm#1

Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.

That is out and out rediculous. You're talking about banning approximately 70% of the firearms in the US. Virtually all handguns. Assault rifles. Shotguns. Hunting rifles. Ruger 10\22s.

Completely and totally unacceptable. If he wants to play Lincoln that way, we can go ahead and have another civil war. :thumbsdown:

Looking to make an issue out of a non issue....typical Nebor SOP!!

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Very few democrats support individual gun rights in a meaningful way...to expect otherwise is to be out of touch with the party. That being said, for all their lip-service the republicans haven't managed to prevent the erosion of rights that's been occurring, including gun rights.

There are really three levels of safety for our gun rights.

First, public support. The public overwhelmingly supports the right to own guns, the right to carry guns, etc. So long as that's the case very few politicians will push very hard for actual bans or infringements which would affect us in a significant way.

Second, the supreme court. While it's made bad decisions in the past there have been some good trends lately in this area. With the current makeup of the court I think we'd be protected against any heinous abuses.

Finally, we already have the guns, and everything needed for successful armed revolution. Any serious threats to our way of life would result in all out war. No one in their right mind would risk that.

Public support is not exactly overwhelming, and it fluctuates.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onde...4/poll_no_change_.html

Nevertheless, I have never seen a poll with the question "If the government implemented a total handgun ban, would you join a nut-job 'revolution'?"

I dont' see the issue...even in the poll you link 55% wouldn't even ban handgun sales. If you look at other polls from Gallup, Pew, etc you'll find the average is between 65 and 80% of people agree that people have the right to own firearms in general. It's only when you get into trickier questions (should handguns have high capacity magazines, should there be better gun control, etc) that the percentages drop. I'd say that qualifies as overwhelmingly, especially when taken together with historic precedent.

If anyone asked the question the way you did, they'd lose their job as a pollster. I would hazard that if you asked the question correctly you'd get between 40 and 60% agreement that revolution was warranted, and between 20% and 40% willing to participate. In fact, just out of curiosity I'll post such a poll here (though I expect the numbers to be about half due to the number of extreme liberals, and the number of upper financial earners (both demographics against revolutionary actions).

Keeping in mind if even 1% of the armed population openly revolted, it would cause a total loss of law and order.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Finally, we already have the guns, and everything needed for successful armed revolution. Any serious threats to our way of life would result in all out war. No one in their right mind would risk that.

If the army decides it wants to take out your town, good luck with your assault rifles.

As I'm sure you've been told a thousand times, the army can't work if it kills massive quantities of civilians. It and the government lose all support.