Obama Town Hall: Obama Rips Gun Control Fiction

a reply to: ANNED

Somalia?

a reply to: Vector99

Saddam should have been gotten rid of years before he was... what was screwed up was everything after the fact.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Spider879

The NRA also supported gun control in California when Reagan was Governor, especially w/the California legislature's attempts to disarm the Black Panther Party.

Reaching back a half-century to try and make a point for today?

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Vector99

Saddam should have been gotten rid of years before he was... what was screwed up was everything after the fact.

It was the US that put him in power...

- Thread Headliner:
"Obama Town Hall: Obama Rips Gun Control Fiction"

Now for just one moment, let's... call it, pretend, that Obama IS actually out to destroy the 2nd Amendment and disarm the citizens of this nation.

There yet? Good!

Next up, imagine him actually confessing to such a desire on prime-time TV.

Hmmm... that's an ouch and a half.

Time for more coffee... have a nice day

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Spider879

The NRA also supported gun control in California when Reagan was Governor, especially w/the California legislature's attempts to disarm the Black Panther Party.

Reaching back a half-century to try and make a point for today?

Why not?? it's called learning from history.

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Spider879

The NRA also supported gun control in California when Reagan was Governor, especially w/the California legislature's attempts to disarm the Black Panther Party.

Yeah so it all depends on the political climate, I don't want to get into a "racial" angle here but I can see that urban Black folks who are pro gun control ,look around their respective communities that is being devastated and think there are way too many weapons of small destruction both legal and illegal on the streets, while suburban and rural white folks with an anti gun control bent think in terms of black helicopters and blue helmets marching down main street..it's not as simplistic as that but that's the vibes I am getting.

This is what I am talking about..btw saw it not bad and done with humor.

Ironically, I'm pro-gun in many ways lol. Actually, I hate the existence of guns because it allows anyone to kill anyone with the pull of finger. But since they exist, I believe most people should have access to them just in case. As an example, I proudly encourage women to learn self defense & the use of weapons, including getting concealed weapon permits. As long as society won't protect them, they should at least be able to protect themselves. (Though my ultimate goal would be to reduce crime and the mindset that leads to it, so women won't have to do this.)

But I do have a problem with many pro-gun laws because they don't make sense, like allowing guns in schools & in bars. Way too many fights happen in bars/clubs, and 1 of my good friends & fellow musicians is doing 50+ years in prison because he shot & killed someone in a club parking lot. Why would we want to enable more incidences like that? And I've been in a lot of factories & buildings that had security guards, metal detectors, and other defense measures like that. Simple security measures like that in our schools could drastically reduce or eliminate school & college shootings.

In other words, why don't we treat our citizens as precious commodities & protect them the way we secure our banks, factories, and the such? We can still own guns for the home, for hunting, and for recreational use. But the "more guns everywhere" push is madness to me. I mean, I even worked in a literal sweatshop for a few weeks. And even that place had biometric sensors, metal detectors in a small tunnel (to stop more than 1 person from going through & to stop the movement of large packages), automated doors, and armed security guards checking us.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Spider879

The NRA also supported gun control in California when Reagan was Governor, especially w/the California legislature's attempts to disarm the Black Panther Party.

Reaching back a half-century to try and make a point for today?

LOL The post I replied to had a video clip from the NRA's leader in 1999, where they supported unconditional background checks. I added that the NRA was in favor of gun control even before then. In other words, I was showing that the NRA had an established history of supporting some forms of gun control, which supported the point from the person I was replying too.

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Spider879

The NRA also supported gun control in California when Reagan was Governor, especially w/the California legislature's attempts to disarm the Black Panther Party.

Reaching back a half-century to try and make a point for today?

Why not?? it's called learning from history.

What are you learning? That gun bans are bad ideas no matter who proposes them?

a reply to: enlightenedservant

LOL

I was replying to you.

LOL

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Spider879

The NRA also supported gun control in California when Reagan was Governor, especially w/the California legislature's attempts to disarm the Black Panther Party.

Reaching back a half-century to try and make a point for today?

Why not?? it's called learning from history.

What are you learning? That gun bans are bad ideas no matter who proposes them?

Banning guns naaw not proposing that, but sensible gun control???.why yes I am very much in favor that, I see no reason that one can simply skirt the law of their home state that have tough gun control laws by going to the state next door that lacked such toughness..subverting the very purpose of those laws.

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Vector99

Saddam should have been gotten rid of years before he was... what was screwed up was everything after the fact.

It was the US that put him in power...

No they didn't. He came to power when he pulled a coup.

a reply to: Vector99

Doesnt matter, he was a pox on the people of iraq he tried for decades to exterminate the Kurds, he was brutally repressive on his people. He needed to go period, there is no good argument for leaving him in power..

There is a laundry list of issues you can have about how things were handled after he was removed(and I would agree with many or even most of them), that have contributed to the current mess... but removing him was not a bad choice.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Vector99

Saddam should have been gotten rid of years before he was... what was screwed up was everything after the fact.

It was the US that put him in power...

No they didn't. He came to power when he pulled a coup.

Are you really that unfamiliar with history? Saddam was the leader of Iraq's military before the US funded him to go to war with Iran and set his destiny

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Vector99

Doesnt matter, he was a pox on the people of iraq he tried for decades to exterminate the Kurds, he was brutally repressive on his people. He needed to go period, there is no good argument for leaving him in power..

Because the region is much more stable with him gone right?

The US hasn't killed as many if not more in a 13 year period of invasion then Saddam did in his 20+ years...there isn't depleted uranium littering Iraq, there isn't exceptionally high birth abnormalities from it, ISIS doesn't exist, and the ME is unicorns and rainbows...

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Because criminals, by their very nature, don't comply with the law. You pass a law that says no fire arms on school property, no fire arms in a mall, a theater, a sports arena, ensures an environment where someone wanting to do harm can with a least amount of resistance.

A common misconception is law enforcement exists to protect the individual and its the farthest from the truth. Law enforcement's purpose, at least in the US, is to protect society as a whole. When a crime occurs the first people on scene are -

* - The criminal(s)
* - The Victim
* - The witnesses

The police are usually the last to know what happened even though we are the first ones called. We are restricted in what we can do when no law violation occurs, and rightfully so. Absent an active investigation any person i make voluntary contact with can tell me to screw off and walk away and there is nothing I can do about it.

The goal is to make it harder for criminals to obtain firearms. Absent that magic fix we must ensure the law abiding people have the ability to protect themselves from criminals, which includes the right to carry a firearm to protect themselves and other 3rd parties.

Current gun control laws fail because they are directed at people who follow the law. Police cant be everywhere and often times are the last to know a crime is occurring. That leaves the individual with the burden of deciding what action to take given the circumstances and often times its why you see police saying they dont recommend a civilian do certain things because of the danger involved. With that said we are grateful to civilians who do step up and act appropriately. There have been certain incidents where civilians have come to my aid and my gratitude for that is endless.

American society only works when we all take responsibility.

In the words of Ronald Reagan -

a reply to: Vector99

and Hussein seized power in a coup in the 1970's on his own and without US assistance. Prior, as vice president, he created the security apparatus that he used to gain power and terrorize the iraqi people.

The US did not place him in power as you claimed.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Well for one, the coup occurred in 1968...

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Xcathdra

Well for one, the coup occurred in 1968...

Actually it occurred earlier.. The first one he was involved in occurred in 1959, which failed. The next occurred in 1963, followed by another in 1966. The 1968 coup was the successful one and even then he didnt come to power until 1979.



However, my point was he rose to power on his own and wasn't placed by the US as you claimed.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Who's a "criminal"? People who've been caught breaking laws, people who've been convicted of breaking laws, people who've been convicted of breaking laws and served their time, or people who've broken laws without getting caught? Should all people in these categories have limitless access to guns and ammo? No. But should all people in these categories be stripped of the rights to own guns? No. I think everyone would agree there should be limits for them, which is one of the points of gun control.

People like to use the argument that "criminals will break the gun laws regardless", but that's not necessarily true. Otherwise, why don't we have common criminals in America doing missile attacks on rival gangs, unleashing dirty bombs on pursuing patrol cars, flying attack helicopters, shooting anti-aircraft weapons at police helicopters or launching mortars at prisons to aid in prison breaks? Oh that's right, because we have strict arms control on those weapons. And that's a good thing. So it's ridiculous to act like arms control laws can't work for the common good because they clearly can.

And for the record, Reagan also supported gun control as Governor of California. How is using him supposed to refute what I said?