71 replies [Last post]
SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1817
Hillary wins PA
expatriate wrote:
Wow, SoCo...that's amazing. I specifically said that I was not comparing anyone to Nazis or the Holocaust, but was talking about people being willing to sacrifice others if it doesn't affect them personally. I was worried that you might not be able to grasp the metaphor, so I even explained what it meant. And yet you STILL got it wrong and thought it was about Nazis.

If you can't grasp something so simple, even when it's explained to you in clear and simple terms, then I don't have a ghost of a chance explaining things like the power of congressional committees, long-term effects of judicial appointments, administrative processes in bureaucracy, executive discretion, or the role of precededent in our legal system.
.

Just because you begin your comparison with the caveat 'I'm not comparing you to such and such,' and then go on to make that very comparison doesn't give you a free pass on it. What you are doing is a very insidious tactic. You play the innocent card while every time you talk about those that disagree with your view you bring up 'examples' of some of the worst figures in world history. Hardly grown up or honest debate.

Your other tactic is to present yourself as the end all be all expert on Government, politics, and National defense. You aren't interested in real debate just the opportunity to point out to others your 'expertise' and tell them how wrong they are. Well, that was an easier sale eight years ago. Not so much today, there are far too many people who have been feeling the pain of the last eight years to buy that song and dance anymore.

Well anyway, I wish you well and I am secure in the knowledge you will exercise your right to cast your vote as I will.

Take care!

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Hillary wins PA

SoCo, you haven't debated squat -- because debate requires you to present facts and positions to analyze. You haven't done either.

Politics of fear? Sometimes fear is justified. But the problem I have is when you point out the negatives in a politician's record and he throws rhetoric like "politics of fear" around rather than address the issue raised.

I have a much bigger problem with the politics of ignorance -- those who count on an electorate too shallow to check facts or verify anything. I'm talking about politicians who dodge criticism rather than answer it, or who attack the credibility of someone questioning them rather than speak to the issue.

For the record, here's where your buddy Obama stands on guns:

- He wants to keep guns out of inner cities (that's a ban to you and me), and blames gun dealers for "dumping" guns on communities.

- He favors banning sale or transfer of all forms of semiautomatic weapons, increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms, and require manufacturers to provide child safety locks.

- He voted "No" on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers for damages arising from misuse of their products.

- On July 13, 2006, he was one of only 16 senators to vote against an appropriations bill amendment that would prevent federal agents from confiscating firearms during emergencies. He believes that New Orleans was justified to confiscate firearms from the law abiding in the aftermath of Katrina, leaving them defenseless after police protection collapsed.

- As a state senator, he also supported limiting handgun purchases to one per month.

- He has also stated that he believes the D.C. gun ban to be constitutional.

- When Hale deMar was prosecuted for defending his family in his own home with a handgun in a city that banned handguns, state legislators proposed legislation to protect the right to self-defense for people like deMar -- Obama voted against it.

- He also argued in favor of renewing the Clinton gun ban, and termed it "common sense."

But as I said -- you can't understand a simple metaphor. So I expect such facts to fall on deaf ears or be discounted as some sort of political fearmongering. You know -- "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

If you would care to debate, I challenge you to produce anything from Obama's record that suggests he supports the rights of gun owners or believes the second amendment extends beyond hunters in rural areas.

So will you debate the issue I just threw down, or will you once again dodge it and come up with some reason why you don't have to discuss the matter?

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1817
Hillary wins PA

Expatriate, you win. I don't have the time or energy to go searching for information to counterpoint every thing you stated and then have you counterpoint and then counterpoint again. I will conclude with this, I don't share your view that if he is elected, which he likely will be, that our guns will be taken away. It is my firm belief that I will continue to have the same freedom with my guns that I currently posses. There are also a host of other issues pertinent to this country that rank as high and some even higher that have determined who I will cast my vote for.

I wish you a good day Sir.

bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2973
Hillary wins PA

SoCoKHntr, I agree that there is a lot more to an election and perhaps more pressing issues than gun rights.

However, I would respect your position more if you simply said, gun rights are less important to me than health care, the economy, or whatever else you find intriguing about Obama. That's fine, I can live with that, although I may disagree in some instances.

Where you fall off the rocker is to say "I'm voting for Obama and nothing will happen to my guns". This statement very well may be true, but it will be absolutely no thanks to Obama. Given the right political circumstance he is an avowed gun grabber, past-present-and-future. That's not fear...its fact.

As for the Democrat vs Republican, I look at like this. In 1950 we ran a basically balanced federal budget, basic health care was more widely available and affordable, American agribusiness and manufacturing were stronger. In the intervening 68 years, its been a steady successions of dunderheadedness on both sides of the aisle that has put us where we are.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Hillary wins PA

Well said, Bit. There are liberals out there I have a lot of respect for, because when you engage them you find substance behind their rhetoric -- they've done their homework and can put together substantive arguments to support their position. Moreover, you can discuss politics with them point for point. Unfortunately, what frustrates me today is how that is a rare thing -- where we once used to debate with facts and logic, now it's about emotion, outrage, and embracing victimization.

The following link is a perfect example. Bush goes to Israel and says it's a bad idea to negotiate with terrorists and their backers, which is timely since Jimmy Carter just went over and sipped tea with Hamas. And what does Obama do? Does he clarify his position on the matter? Nope. He starts caterwauling about how he has been viciously attacked with false charges.

What? Senator Obama, not everything's about you; it was Carter over there recently hugging and kissing Hamas. Did you completely miss the concept that Israel might be nervous about American policy after seeing a former president embracing their #1 enemy? The comments were about Carter, you dolt. But if you want to make it about you, how about clarifying your position in favor of dialog with the world's leading terrorist backers and finding out what we can do to address their grievances against us? How about clarifying without all the grandstanding about how you've been victimized? And oh, by the way, why didn't you condemn Carter? And what are you going to do when a foreign power questions your position? Obama would've earned some respect if he would've agreed that it's wrong to negotiate with terrorists, perhaps condemn Carter's trip, and clarify his position. If the point was to try to say he wouldn't negotiate with terrorists (which it seems he was trying to do), that would've been the way to do it. But no -- that would mean breaking the prime directives of never agreeing with Bush and never questioning Carter. Instead, he chose to throw a tirade like a 14 year-old girl on hormone overload.

I'm just sick of politicians throwing fits and claiming dirty politics and vicious attacks simply because a question comes up anywhere near their policies. Grow up, get a spine, and debate like an adult instead of dodging and carrying on like a spoiled teenager. I expect far more from someone who aspires to be President.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/obama-takes-iss.html

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1817
Hillary wins PA
bitmasher wrote:
SoCoKHntr, I agree that there is a lot more to an election and perhaps more pressing issues than gun rights.

However, I would respect your position more if you simply said, gun rights are less important to me than health care, the economy, or whatever else you find intriguing about Obama. That's fine, I can live with that, although I may disagree in some instances.

Where you fall off the rocker is to say "I'm voting for Obama and nothing will happen to my guns". This statement very well may be true, but it will be absolutely no thanks to Obama. Given the right political circumstance he is an avowed gun grabber, past-present-and-future. That's not fear...its fact.

As for the Democrat vs Republican, I look at like this. In 1950 we ran a basically balanced federal budget, basic health care was more widely available and affordable, American agribusiness and manufacturing were stronger. In the intervening 68 years, its been a steady successions of dunderheadedness on both sides of the aisle that has put us where we are.

bitmasher, your points are taken. You are correct in that I can't put my chips in with a candidate who I vehemently oppose on every other issue, but on guns he say's don't worry I got you covered there.

The gun issue is a sticky situation and I can see points on each side. I don't want it to be so easy for a mentally ill person or heat of the moment potential murderer to be able to get a gun. I know, with guns laws criminals will still get guns because, well, their criminals. I don't think gun laws will greatly effect organized crime who will get them anyway.

But, some sensible laws could halt a schizophrenic bent on mass murder from getting a hold of some high capacity killing machines before he is able to carry out his act.

Or it could hinder and stop the guy, who never before cared to own guns, who got fired from his job and goes over the edge deciding to purchase a Glock and take out the office.

It could also hinder the doomsday prophet holed up in a compound sexually violating children who stockpiles machine guns to ward off any interference from Law Enforcement from stopping his predatory orgy.

One one side you have the group who believes it should be a free for all where everyone has the right to have a mini-gun, AK-47, grenades, and what have you. You then have the other extreme which believes so much as a watergun should be banned. Well, I don't fall into either camp. I believe the answer falls somewhere in the middle and as things evolve and change the laws will also have to.

I don't think the camp that wants to completely outlaw guns will ever get their way. Sportsmen and the shooting hunting industry is far to high a moneymaker that our Gov. would ever allow that to happen. The acquisition of the all mighty dollar is after all our countries number one priority.

CVC
CVC's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Kansas
Joined: 03/04/2006
Posts: 3587
Hillary wins PA
Quote:
I don't think the camp that wants to completely outlaw guns will ever get their way. Sportsmen and the shooting hunting industry is far to high a moneymaker that our Gov. would ever allow that to happen. The acquisition of the all mighty dollar is after all our countries number one priority

I am being lazy here - think I'll blame it on getting up at 3 am to go turkey hunting today. See, maybe I could be a liberal, I am already not accepting responsibility for my own laziness Evil!

Anyway, didn't they recently ban guns in Austraila and Canada? I suppose I should look up the details, but .....

Finally, I think this thread is going to last as long as the democrat primary!

Offline
Location: Muskoka Ontario
Joined: 09/04/2007
Posts: 351
Hillary wins PA
CVC wrote:
Quote:
I don't think the camp that wants to completely outlaw guns will ever get their way. Sportsmen and the shooting hunting industry is far to high a moneymaker that our Gov. would ever allow that to happen. The acquisition of the all mighty dollar is after all our countries number one priority

I am being lazy here - think I'll blame it on getting up at 3 am to go turkey hunting today. See, maybe I could be a liberal, I am already not accepting responsibility for my own laziness Evil!

Anyway, didn't they recently ban guns in Austraila and Canada? I suppose I should look up the details, but .....

Finally, I think this thread is going to last as long as the democrat primary!

They didn't ban guns in Canada yet, but let the Liberals in and hand guns simi auto and pumps may go the way like they have in Australia sad
Our hand guns are practicaly baned now, you need to take a course and you are only alowed to travel with your hand gun to the range and back by the shortest posible route. we are not alowed to protect our selves but we are alowed to call 911 dial a prayer after we have been asulted for a cop to come and take a statement after the fact.
Infact in our country if a thug breakes into your house and you have a broken window or a dog and the thug cuts himself or the dog bits him he can come back and sue you sad .
Belive me your second emendment rights are something I envey and something I would fight for if I were you. But thats just my opinion and you know what they say about opinions and a sertain body part.
Regards and sorry for butting into a debate that doesn't envolve me , but just thought you would like to see how things can go.
Fisher King.

CVC
CVC's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Kansas
Joined: 03/04/2006
Posts: 3587
Hillary wins PA

I appreciate you setting the record straight regarding guns in Canada, your insight and input. Thanks.

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1817
Hillary wins PA
Fisher King wrote:
CVC wrote:
Quote:
I don't think the camp that wants to completely outlaw guns will ever get their way. Sportsmen and the shooting hunting industry is far to high a moneymaker that our Gov. would ever allow that to happen. The acquisition of the all mighty dollar is after all our countries number one priority

I am being lazy here - think I'll blame it on getting up at 3 am to go turkey hunting today. See, maybe I could be a liberal, I am already not accepting responsibility for my own laziness Evil!

Anyway, didn't they recently ban guns in Austraila and Canada? I suppose I should look up the details, but .....

Finally, I think this thread is going to last as long as the democrat primary!

They didn't ban guns in Canada yet, but let the Liberals in and hand guns simi auto and pumps may go the way like they have in Australia sad
Our hand guns are practicaly baned now, you need to take a course and you are only alowed to travel with your hand gun to the range and back by the shortest posible route. we are not alowed to protect our selves but we are alowed to call 911 dial a prayer after we have been asulted for a cop to come and take a statement after the fact.
Infact in our country if a thug breakes into your house and you have a broken window or a dog and the thug cuts himself or the dog bits him he can come back and sue you sad .
Belive me your second emendment rights are something I envey and something I would fight for if I were you. But thats just my opinion and you know what they say about opinions and a sertain body part.
Regards and sorry for butting into a debate that doesn't envolve me , but just thought you would like to see how things can go.
Fisher King.

In regard to Australia and Great Britain or any other European country. You can't compare the US to them. Completely different animal. The backbone of the US was built on firearms. The history and sheer numbers of gun owners again, leads to a completely different scenario where it wouldn't be possible to implement laws taking our gun rights. You wouldn't have enough cops to even come close to enforcing this in a million years.

On a side not, I have a good friend who worked in the sporting goods industry during the nineties, the Clinton years, and he said firearms sales were at the highest he or his Boss had ever seen it. Surely much higher then today with the economy the way it is. Just brought that up in regard to how firearms sales were under a Democratic president.

As much as some think under a Democratic administration and a Democratic congress that our guns will be gone I don't share that belief one iota. If Obama is elected and the Democrats control congress I have no doubt my 357 will still be in the drawer on my night stand and the rest of my arms will be in my gun safe. Without me breaking any laws or under threat of them being confiscated.

The bottom line is, as I keep repeating, Obama is likely going to win and Congress may go Dem due to the insanely high disgust and dissatisfaction with the Republican party at this time. Two years will be here before you know it and I will gladly take my serving of crow if the G-men have come and confiscated my arms under Obama. If we are all still posting here we will be able to discuss this. If you guys are still shooting and hunting will you admit it or will it be another story of how if the stars aligned just right for them evil Dems our guns will be gone.

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
Obama lays plans to kill expectations after winning electioncowgal1511/04/2008 19:44 pm
Hillary Clinton's Indian name.halvtaz506/21/2007 11:45 am
2008 Democratic National ConventionWhelland405/06/2008 20:03 pm
Hillary's gun gaffebitmasher705/15/2008 12:05 pm
2004 PredictionElkman509/20/2003 22:51 pm