Obama to end BIG City gun violence

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vault-D
I just don't see the President addressing the 5th Battalion and saying "OK, time to start seizing guns from everyone in Texas. Let's get to it."


Don't feel bad. The people of Nazi Germany didn't see 'it' coming either.
The propaganda and the brownshirts made it happen virtually overnight.
The Germans voted in their own destruction - with cheers and smiles.
All the while applauding as their rights and liberties were taken away.
All the while adoring their new dear leader.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?!




posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   
It won't be a large siezing all at once. Like I said, it will be in steps or phases. Think "3 steps forward, 2 steps back."

It will happen slowly.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Don't feel bad. The people of Nazi Germany didn't see 'it' coming either.
The propaganda and the brownshirts made it happen virtually overnight.
The Germans voted in their own destruction - with cheers and smiles.
All the while applauding as their rights and liberties were taken away.
All the while adoring their new dear leader.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?!



THe slippery slope fallacy and a Nazi analogy all at once?

OK I'll go along with the analogy...this example is all the more reason education and knowledge are more important than sitting on a homestead arsenal. As you say, the Germans let themselves go along with it. They didn't come take citizens guns away, because they didn't have to. The citizens fell in line. Owning guns wouldn't have changed that. (In fact, you could easily argue that guns become more and more plentiful in Germany between WWI and WWII.)

Would every German owning a gun prevent the lies from taking the country over?



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Douggie

Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Ti
Obama comes from one of the biggest cities in the US. HE has seen what kind of devistation that can be brought about by 15 year old kids carrying assault weapons.

The NRA, is started a smear campaign against Obama that says in no less words that he will take away our guns. This is way out of context of what Obama really wants.
Its unfortunate that the uneducated will listen to smears and possibly divert the country from a path of repair.

Douggie
Surely, you can not be serious ! " Commonsense measures " This is the tag line of all that have a not so hidden agenda. I am not sure what your purpose is in defending
Obama. Your entire post could of been lifted from the Brady website. Good try though,
Kinda.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vault-D

Originally posted by vapedson
All guns should be allowed because they are our right to have. This right is for our protection from tyrannical leaders. They aren't for robbers or any other type of protection, they are for TYRANNY. Here is a good quote from Jefferson:

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson


But there's no room for common sense limitations? If the argument is to defend against the army of tyrannical governments (foreign or domestic) then you need top-of-the-line equipment. They're gonna have tanks and jets, for starters...so you'll need bazookas and anti-aircraft missiles. I wouldn't trust my neighbors to responsibly use that kind of hardware.

That's why we have citizen, volunteer armed services...so you don't need to worry about facing tanks and jets attacking your home.


Except when the army that is atacking you for standing up to a tyrannical government is your own army that was supposed to protect your country.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Vault-D
 

"a gun-control law I'm comfortable with" This is how they start.It's semantics.If I offer you a million bucks for a night with your wife,and you accept the offer.You have put a price on something precious.Then it's only a matter of haggaling the price down.
That's "gun control" raise the heat till you are "comfortable" then keep raising the heat. The gun grabbers won't stop at any measure to get the sheepeople behind them.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Finn1916
Except when the army that is atacking you for standing up to a tyrannical government is your own army that was supposed to protect your country.


Sure, but what I'm saying is that if its come to the point where the army is attacking your house you have already lost the battle.

If a dictator's soldiers are launching wire-guided missiles at your home to flush you out, no amount of stockpiled guns are gonna help much. So you have to hope it doesn't get to that point. Keeping a tyranny from taking hold is the battle, not the army ringing your doorbell.

Just to be clear: I would never support a total ban on guns. I own guns. I believe they're a critical right in terms of personal protection and hunting. But I'm not fooling myself into thinking i'll be fighting off a dictator's army with guns...citizen firearms are just not an effective tool at that level. Hence, I'm not concerned particularly about full-autos, 50cals, and bazookas being illegal.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Way back in the roaring 20s the mobs were using machine guns as their weapons of choice. Too many innocent bystanders were getting gunned down. So the government made machine guns illegal.

Now, most of the violence in the cities is with handguns. I day, make it very hard to purchase a handgun. Make possession of handguns a big crime, unless you have a permit. Make it so bad that not even the gangsters want to carry a handgun.

But still make it possible of non criminals to get a permit to carry and legally purchase a handgun.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Maybe he should have started with his own district, instead of his full time position as running for political office,

What's he gonna run for after he may become president?



There have been more murders and deaths in Obama's own district than in the Iraq during the summer.
cbs2chicago.com...




What Obama did while state senator in Chicago was tie the hands of Chicago Police. He voted to prevent juvenile gang bangers from facing the death penalty for their murders and stopped police from pulling over suspected gang members.


thehive.modbee.com.../9654



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vault-D
I'm not concerned particularly about full-autos, 50cals, and bazookas being illegal.


Full autos are already only available to the super rich thanks to Reagans ban on importation and the federal tax stamp required to transfer them. Bazookas? I believe they fall under the category of explosive ordinance and are already regulated like fireworks and grenades. What's wrong with a 50? You can shoot just as far with a 7mm Mag. Are you afraid of those too? Of course none of this matters to criminals. They're CRIMINALS. Why is that so hard for people to understand? Criminals don't obey laws. Which is not to say that criminals are even now running around with machineguns, 50's or Bazookas because THEY AREN'T.

You support arbitrary banning for arbitrary reasons and that makes you an enemy to liberty. The whole "I don't use it so what do I care if it's banned" bit is horrendously vulgar.

My mystical powers of foresight expect to be hit with "if 7mm mag is just as effective then why not ban 50's because you can still shoot the 7mm's?" line in the near future. THATS NOT THE POINT.

It's always the same 3 or 4 arguments put up by these people and they never hold up to logic. Thats really the most messed up thing of all. Here we have a fundamental right being f-ed with and the people doing the f-ing are just yuking it up because why should they care? They dont use these things. So what if most murders are committed with bare hands and they want to ban the thing that is responsible for less than 3% of murders. They think it's funny. Let's see how many jackasses we can get to buy into our BS stats and outright lies and really screw with these guys because we dont particular care for the thing they care so fondly for.

How many of you actually believe barrel shrouds and bayonet lugs are leading to urban slaughter? How many of you are willing to admit to being so stupid? How many of you don't care one way or the other about the truth because your personal delusions are more important than peoples rights?
How many of you are just towing the party line at the expense of peoples rights? How many are just burning asses with nothing better to do than chuckle at the distress of others?

Then you inevitably come to the conclusion of Vault-D over here who when faced with the truth finally responds "I don't use those things so I don't care if they're banned." Genius man. Really. Genius.

This whole anti-gun segment is absurd. It would be laughable if their ignorance and apparently malice didn't have the potential to be so destructive.

Just for a day I would love to experience what it is like to be so blindly stupid and wildly irrational as the "common sense" gun lobby and the clowns who write their defense.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Obama is going to play the good cop role. He is pretty much going to stay out of the fray. He will let Pelosi and Reid handle this subject. They will pass their bill and Obama will sign it on a Friday when people pay less attention to what is going on. When he is questioned on it he will say police and citizens wanted this ban and that it will help reduce crime. He will then turn to foreign policy to avoid any more criticism until everything dies down. Welcome to Obama's world.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Then you inevitably come to the conclusion of Vault-D over here who when faced with the truth finally responds "I don't use those things so I don't care if they're banned." Genius man. Really. Genius.

This whole anti-gun segment is absurd. It would be laughable if their ignorance and apparently malice didn't have the potential to be so destructive.

Just for a day I would love to experience what it is like to be so blindly stupid and wildly irrational as the "common sense" gun lobby and the clowns who write their defense.


First, you've completely mis-characterized my argument. I in no way said "I don't use those things so i don't care if they're banned." Please, calm down.

I have used full-autos. If they were legal where I am I'd buy one, because they're damn fun...i just wouldn't claim that I bought one in case i need to fight some evil government somewhere, sometime. Or that I needed it to hunt.

What I was arguing against, was the position some take that:

1) "we need the big guns to fight a government army (a homegrown tyrannical one or an invading one)." I said this isn't a reasonable argument because you just can't expect to fight an army from your porch. I argued that if we, as citizens, have allowed a tyrant to take over completely, we've already lost any reasonable battle...guns won't help at that point.

and

2) "if we let X become illegal, then Y and then Z will be illegal." This is the step-wise argument. I know people like to repeat this argument, but it's just not a logically valid one. This isn't just my opinion; it's an example of the slippery slope fallacy. Take it up with logic, not me.

I'm only trying to be reasonable here.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Vault-D
 


THANK you for introducing logic into a thread! I try to do that so much and nobody. ever. listens.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Well most of us agree that our government is evil right now at this time. What makes you think we won't need fully automatic weapons in the near future to overthrow our current government. They took our money and gave it to the rich.

Of course the government has helicopters and such, but think about it. Does our Army have control over Iraq right now? Would the US Military just bomb all of the USA? If so, what would they have left? Don't you think that the military is made up of individuals who belong to the families out there getting bombed?

One of two ways to take over, either a long drawn out guerilla war, wearing down the government or a quick and hostile run in and kick them out. Neither one will work until a huge percentage of the people in this coutnry are awake and decide it's time to rebuild our government. And with the way things are headed, it might not be too far away.

Of course, that's all just romanticizing over a revolution, but in the meantime, I think we need to make sure every good American citizen has some firepower in their homes.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 10:20 PM
link   
First of all, a citizen army mandates that the small calibre weapons up to .50 Cal. be available to the citizen. How else to familiarize oneself with the tools of the trade than to be able to purchase and use at ones leisure?

Because the gang members have a fully auto that in itself is a felony.
They have obtained it illegally. They possess it illegally, And they use it illegally.

Three hundred years ago most citizens knew how to shoot.
They made available to themselves the same weapons that the armed services used in war. So the transition from citizen to soldier was seamless. Most citizens could shoot better than military members. Most citizens can still shoot better than military personnel. So let them fire thirty rounds haphazzardly while one well placed round of .308 will snuff the life from two or three of them at the same instant. Wait for them to get lined up. I have shot, with one round, six prarie dogs (the size of a coke can) at two hundred fifty and three hundred yards.
Fully auto is not what it is cracked up to be. We discovered that in Viet Nam. We fired 100,000 rounds pre wound inflicted on the enemy. So Uncle Sam reverted to a three round burst on the weapon. WWI we only fired 1000 rounds per wound on enemy.
I can carry 1000 rounds around with me. I need a two and a half ton six by six to transport 100,000 rounds around with me.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Douggie
reply to post by Douggie
 


I dont know. Im an avid gun owner. I have a pretty good collection. I dont live in a big city but do see Obamas plan as a commonsense way to curb the Big City violence.

Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them.

Just because they want to curb American violence doesnt mean they want to go house to house and grab your guns.


Wow. Some of you people are just...quite simply...ignorant. Commonsense measures is a term these pr*cks like to throw around to make you think that they give a rats ass about your rights. They'll preach common sense so you don't fight their plan. Then when they get their way, common sense turns into common rape.
Do you not pay attention to the facts when they are right in front of your face or can be easily found? Taking guns away from people in cities will only increase crime. When you disarm people, you invite crime. It's simple logic here. When people are armed, crime goes down. Like the saying goes, "An armed society is a polite society". Yes, it's unfortunate that some people are too stupid to keep their guns away from kids. But that's on them, not the rest of us. Do you think criminals give a sh*t about any of this? Uh, that would be a NO. They will get weapons, no matter what the laws are. Obama Bin Laden wants the AWB band so that the playing field is in their favor. I'm sick and tired of these f#ckers preaching to us how we should live, making up the rules as they go.
If you vote for this *sshole, you get everything you deserve if he's elected. No matter what happens, these pieces of sh*t are not getting my guns. I have relatives that died to give you the rights you're pissing away, and that pisses me off more than anything. I just don't understand how so many people can just not care.

[edit on 16-10-2008 by Oreyeon]



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 02:54 AM
link   
Mr. Barack Hussein Obama: There is a phrase on the internet that sums this up pretty well.

"Ur doin' it wrong".

Its not just this infringement on the 2nd Amendment, its also a majority of your other approaches to our unique American democracy-based society.

France, Britain, Canada, Here we come!



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Oreyeon
 


If you would step outside your bomb shelter once in a while you might see that theres a whole nother world going on outside. Kids are killing anyone they can shoot at. Hell in a little big city not too far away from me theres at least 3 or 4 murders a day.

If youre reasoning for ahving weapons is to fight the government. The only weapon you would be able to use to do so is sniper style. You go runnin at anyone with an automatic they'll take you down...you may get a few but that would be all it ammounted to.

I think most throw more into it then what it really is. A bunch of paranoids hiding in a closet with their guns. Its sad that there are so many that are willling to make something so minor into an event that is going to change history.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vault-D

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Then you inevitably come to the conclusion of Vault-D over here who when faced with the truth finally responds "I don't use those things so I don't care if they're banned." Genius man. Really. Genius.

This whole anti-gun segment is absurd. It would be laughable if their ignorance and apparently malice didn't have the potential to be so destructive.

Just for a day I would love to experience what it is like to be so blindly stupid and wildly irrational as the "common sense" gun lobby and the clowns who write their defense.


First, you've completely mis-characterized my argument. I in no way said "I don't use those things so i don't care if they're banned." Please, calm down.

I have used full-autos. If they were legal where I am I'd buy one, because they're damn fun...i just wouldn't claim that I bought one in case i need to fight some evil government somewhere, sometime. Or that I needed it to hunt.

What I was arguing against, was the position some take that:

1) "we need the big guns to fight a government army (a homegrown tyrannical one or an invading one)." I said this isn't a reasonable argument because you just can't expect to fight an army from your porch. I argued that if we, as citizens, have allowed a tyrant to take over completely, we've already lost any reasonable battle...guns won't help at that point.

and

2) "if we let X become illegal, then Y and then Z will be illegal." This is the step-wise argument. I know people like to repeat this argument, but it's just not a logically valid one. This isn't just my opinion; it's an example of the slippery slope fallacy. Take it up with logic, not me.

I'm only trying to be reasonable here.


Sensible reasoning.
Its too bad others dont see it. My main thing is the economy. Ive been writing about it for years. Our country cannot take another 4 years of Republican dictatorship. Sorry but thats the way I see it. Both Bush and McCain have said they would rather be dictators.
They are setting themselves up for something major. If you enjoy the freedoms of owning a gun. You better hope they never declaire martial law. The Patriot act 2 will restrict everything.

Buried within it is wording that would allow the governemnt to confiscate your house, Relocate the owners or even recruit them into the government. It is the qworse thing Ive ever seen and cant believe it was drawn up by our government.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Douggie
reply to post by Oreyeon
 


If you would step outside your bomb shelter once in a while you might see that theres a whole nother world going on outside. Kids are killing anyone they can shoot at. Hell in a little big city not too far away from me theres at least 3 or 4 murders a day.


And how many of those deaths were caused by Assault Weapons? None? Looks like the situation there won't change.



If youre reasoning for ahving weapons is to fight the government. The only weapon you would be able to use to do so is sniper style. You go runnin at anyone with an automatic they'll take you down...you may get a few but that would be all it ammounted to.


Perhaps you would "go runnin" at the guy with the automatic. I'll use your idiotic move to cover my retreat to the woods with the rest of the milita while we plan strategy... Probably while under the cover of a sniper.



I think most throw more into it then what it really is. A bunch of paranoids hiding in a closet with their guns. Its sad that there are so many that are willling to make something so minor into an event that is going to change history.


Whats sad is people who condone the stripping of rights, and ridicule those who do not wish to have those rights taken away. I am not a paranoid that hides in my closet with guns and I detest you on here making broad generalizations of people with my viewpoint.





top topics
 
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join