Be a Supporter!

The Nra's Anti-obama Ad

  • 4,062 Views
  • 238 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-27 16:23:34 Reply

what the NRA is getting at is Obama gets protection from the SS (Secret Service) armed for the rest of his life, while he he restricts gun ownership to regular citizens which would hamper their own ability to. The NRA is tryng to point out how is that fair?

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-27 18:24:21 Reply

Military aircraft (Well, what we're talking about anyone) are almost exclusively offensive in nature. When they escort, they are for seeking out and exterminating threats. Armed security is more defensive.

Well actually fighters traditional goal is to protect bombers from other fighters.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-27 18:38:06 Reply

At 1/27/13 04:23 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: what the NRA is getting at is Obama gets protection from the SS (Secret Service) armed for the rest of his life, while he he restricts gun ownership to regular citizens which would hamper their own ability to. The NRA is tryng to point out how is that fair?

The problem here is that it's a complete logical fallacy which is constantly used i.e. ad hominem. This doesn't argue anything it's just a slew of personal attacks, which is what I say is the bigger problem. Making the comparison with protecting the President and protecting the average family is retarded, like it or not if the President dies the country is in chaos and alot more is lost than if a family is killed, not to mention if the Presidents daughters are kidnapped alot more can be blackmailed from him The problem is that stuff like this doesn't even paint the whole picture, as is the case in nearly everything gun control is a small part of Biden's bill (since the VP is the President of the Senate after all), most of it is stuff most NRA members have actually said they support, such as increased funding to mental health institutions. It's just there's a thing there about AR-15's which has everyones panties in a bunch.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-27 19:00:28 Reply

At 1/27/13 06:24 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Well actually fighters traditional goal is to protect bombers from other fighters.

That sentence actually proves itself wrong.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-27 19:01:55 Reply

At 1/27/13 06:38 PM, Warforger wrote: The problem here is that it's a complete logical fallacy which is constantly used i.e. ad hominem. This doesn't argue anything it's just a slew of personal attacks, which is what I say is the bigger problem.

It's not a personal attack, it's a legitimate question.

It makes no sense for the president to rely on ACTUAL military weapons for safety, but try to ban "military style" weapons

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-27 19:06:29 Reply

At 1/27/13 07:01 PM, LemonCrush wrote: It's not a personal attack, it's a legitimate question.

It makes no sense for the president to rely on ACTUAL military weapons for safety, but try to ban "military style" weapons

Yes it is, nowhere in that ad did they address any arguments about gun control they just made personal attacks at Obama. It is exactly what is wrong with American politics.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-27 19:14:07 Reply

At 1/27/13 07:06 PM, Warforger wrote: Yes it is, nowhere in that ad did they address any arguments about gun control they just made personal attacks at Obama.

Like what? Refresh my memory?

Fim
Fim
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 47
Audiophile
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-27 20:30:42 Reply

At 1/27/13 04:23 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: what the NRA is getting at is Obama gets protection from the SS (Secret Service) armed for the rest of his life, while he he restricts gun ownership to regular citizens which would hamper their own ability to. The NRA is tryng to point out how is that fair?

1. Obama's getting exactly the same treatment that every republican/democrat president has got, it's not because he's better than anyone else, or because he's a hypocrite, its the obvious fact that he is an influential, high profile figure of power with very unique security needs. It's completely justifiable considering the world we live in of violent racists and active terrorism. As I've also stated, there have been 4 assassination attempts on his life already. Its a completely moot point that he has security.

Instead of asking "Are the presidentâEUTMs kids more important than yours?" the advert should really have just phrased it "Are the presiden't kids more likely to be attacked than yours?" Because there is a big difference.

2. There isn't even armed security at the school where his kids go to. The security follow them around where ever they are, and if they aren't in school then the building is not protected.

3. To answer what you said "while he restricts gun ownership to regular citizens", I don't know where you got that idea from. As far as I can tell, he's implementing very timid measures that are long overdue, these measures still make it very feasible for someone to defend themselves and their family. And who seriously thinks they need to walk around with an assault weapon for self defense anyway?

4. The reasons why the NRA have made the ad this way is completely transparent and childish, they are pushing their own political agenda against Obama, they call him "An Elitist hypocrite" because they themselves can not answer the hard questions on gun policy.

- Reasons why the NRA's idea is absolutely fucking terrible and stupid -

Frankly, it is a desperate, bad idea.

There are roughly 100,000 schools in America, and to arm every single one with security, who would all require extensive background checks, equipment, training, benefits, wages and pensions, would be enormously expensive. In the current financial climate this would be money down the drain that we don't have.

More importantly though, it is an often ignored fact by the NRA that out of the 60+ mass shootings that have happened over the past 30 years, none of them have ever been stopped by armed security. The armed security at Columbine and Virginia Tech proved incapable of stopping those mass shooting. In fact shooting rampages have rarely if ever been stopped this way.*

The NRA are deluded, and they haven't thought the problem out well enough, it would no doubt be a terribly expensive and unpopular decision with the majority of Americans.*

*sic *sic


BBS Signature
Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-27 20:55:46 Reply

At 1/27/13 07:00 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 1/27/13 06:24 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Well actually fighters traditional goal is to protect bombers from other fighters.
That sentence actually proves itself wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_aircraft

No it doesn't, establishing your superiority of the sky is a defensive measure It ensures the safety of ground strike capable aircraft, as well as defending your side from theirs. You don't have capitals to capture, factories to destroy or bridges to blow in the air.

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-27 23:22:37 Reply

At 1/27/13 03:48 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 1/27/13 02:47 PM, Korriken wrote: Just having a token person once a week/month/year at the school is useless and pointless.
That token counselor is still likely to help some students at some time, and it's a 1 in 1 quintillion chance that those assault rifles will do anything, let alone help someone. The horiffically inadequate counselor is still more helpful that the guns.

1 in 1 quintillion? your ass must be mighty sore because thats a huge statistic you just pulled out of it.

also, 1 guy once a week in a school of 1000+ children is like trying to wash the side of a skyscraper with a super soaker. it's pointless. I was raised in a small town and out school had over 500 children. it's true that not every child is going to need to visit the counselor. but kids aren't going to have problems on the counselor's schedule.

3 days a week would be sufficient really. or perhaps give the school principal and vice principal training and make them the school counselors. 2 birds, 1 stone.

still, a school counselor would not have prevented Sandy hook. Many of the other shootings? maybe! some of them could have easily been avoided if the school picked up on the bullying and put an end to it before it got out of hand.

I was bullied as a kid. the thought of shooting up the school never crossed my mind, thankfully. Though I did have thoughts of revenge against my bullies and actually pulled off a few plots, which usually involved catching them at bad times, like when they're using the toilet and beating the shit out of them when they couldn't run away.

Still, I do understand the plight of bullied children, and someone needs to lead them away from doing something really really stupid. of course, it would help if the school system handled bullies in a more effective manner. problem is, the effective manner is politically incorrect and therefore cannot be done.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-28 00:55:12 Reply

At 1/27/13 08:30 PM, Fim wrote: Instead of asking "Are the presidentâEUTMs kids more important than yours?" the advert should really have just phrased it "Are the presiden't kids more likely to be attacked than yours?" Because there is a big difference.

And there's also a big difference between saying you can protect yourself, you just have to come up with the methods to do so, and saying that you aren't allowed the protection at all.

3. To answer what you said "while he restricts gun ownership to regular citizens", I don't know where you got that idea from. As far as I can tell, he's implementing very timid measures that are long overdue, these measures still make it very feasible for someone to defend themselves and their family. And who seriously thinks they need to walk around with an assault weapon for self defense anyway?

Assault weapon is nothing but a term used to drum up fear. Need is not an issue. I don't need to have access to the internet. I don't need to be allowed to wear jeans. I don't need to have anything to drink besides water. That does not all of a sudden make it justified to restrict things.

There are roughly 100,000 schools in America, and to arm every single one with security, who would all require extensive background checks, equipment, training, benefits, wages and pensions, would be enormously expensive. In the current financial climate this would be money down the drain that we don't have.

Or we could just let those with valid CPLs be allowed to conceal carry, or have it be a part of the local police forces duties. Many place already do that second part, and there has been no issue with it.

The NRA are deluded, and they haven't thought the problem out well enough, it would no doubt be a terribly expensive and unpopular decision with the majority of Americans.*

Mass shootings get stopped in their tracks if there's someone armed. Almost every single mass shooting ends the moment people start meeting the assailant/s with force. Columbine had a rent a cop (In the sense of no idea how to respond) at distances outside of a handguns effective range responding with a handgun.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-28 02:40:09 Reply

At 1/27/13 08:30 PM, Fim wrote:
At 1/27/13 04:23 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: what the NRA is getting at is Obama gets protection from the SS (Secret Service) armed for the rest of his life, while he he restricts gun ownership to regular citizens which would hamper their own ability to. The NRA is tryng to point out how is that fair?
1. Obama's getting exactly the same treatment that every republican/democrat president has got, it's not because he's better than anyone else, or because he's a hypocrite, its the obvious fact that he is an influential, high profile figure of power with very unique security needs. It's completely justifiable considering the world we live in of violent racists and active terrorism. As I've also stated, there have been 4 assassination attempts on his life already. Its a completely moot point that he has security.

So wait, who says his secrurity needs don't exist? It seems to me people are simply stating we all have security needs.

Iportant than yours?" the advert should really have just phrased it "Are the presiden't kids more likely to be attacked than yours?" Because there is a big difference.

No the president's children are not more likely to be attacked then the average citizen. It is called the secret service. Ever hear about child abduction stats? Now look at past president's child abduction stat.


2. There isn't even armed security at the school where his kids go to. The security follow them around where ever they are, and if they aren't in school then the building is not protected.

It is called the secret service, you don't need the school to be armed when you have personal body guards.


3. To answer what you said "while he restricts gun ownership to regular citizens", I don't know where you got that idea from. As far as I can tell, he's implementing very timid measures that are long overdue, these measures still make it very feasible for someone to defend themselves and their family. And who seriously thinks they need to walk around with an assault weapon for self defense anyway?

Can you define assault weapon? Can you actually describe the difference between semi automatic and automatic? Do you know the difference between a clip and a mag? Assault weapons are classified as assault weapons entirely by looks.


4. The reasons why the NRA have made the ad this way is completely transparent and childish, they are pushing their own political agenda against Obama, they call him "An Elitist hypocrite" because they themselves can not answer the hard questions on gun policy.

What hard questions? Historically there has been no connection to decreased gun violence with tighter gun control.


- Reasons why the NRA's idea is absolutely fucking terrible and stupid -

Frankly, it is a desperate, bad idea.

There are roughly 100,000 schools in America, and to arm every single one with security, who would all require extensive background checks, equipment, training, benefits, wages and pensions, would be enormously expensive. In the current financial climate this would be money down the drain that we don't have.

Have you ever heard of police officers? A lot of schools have them already, you see most people have local police and can have an officer come in for part of his shirt.


More importantly though, it is an often ignored fact by the NRA that out of the 60+ mass shootings that have happened over the past 30 years, none of them have ever been stopped by armed security. The armed security at Columbine and Virginia Tech proved incapable of stopping those mass shooting. In fact shooting rampages have rarely if ever been stopped this way.*

More importantly you are clearly incapable of analyzing the crap you just spewed. Of course secruity officers haven't stopped X many mass shootings, cause they happened. What you don't fucking know is how many times a shooter has been stopped from committing a mass shooting. (Cause you can't fucking tell if the situation resolves itself before a mass shooting)


The NRA are deluded, and they haven't thought the problem out well enough, it would no doubt be a terribly expensive and unpopular decision with the majority of Americans.*

Unpopular? Really cause the majority of Americans support the NRA.


*sic *sic
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-28 12:59:32 Reply

At 1/27/13 11:22 PM, Korriken wrote: also, 1 guy once a week in a school of 1000+ children is like trying to wash the side of a skyscraper with a super soaker.

Again, you're focusing on the wrong part. I have admitted that the counselor is going to be largely inneffective, but that never was my point. So instead of repeating what I and others have said numerous times, how's about you address the point: The assault weapons will NEVER be touched, let alone used in a manner that helps students. The schools in Fontana would likely (and I mean so extremely likely that any deviation is statisically negligible) NEVER have even come close to needing it at all, so there is no deterrent value (think mining the Norther Mississippi river to protect against a nuclear sub sailing up to Minneapolis).

In short that guns were a fancy way to throw away $14,000, whereas even a horiffically underpaid, overstrecthed, and ineffective counselor, still would have a good chance of helping at least one student sometime or another.

Another tidbit I find quite ironic about this is that those who seem to support this waste of $14K are also those who complain about government throwing away money...

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-28 15:56:56 Reply


In short that guns were a fancy way to throw away $14,000, whereas even a horiffically underpaid, overstrecthed, and ineffective counselor, still would have a good chance of helping at least one student sometime or another.

Unlikely, 40k students for 1 person who would see them for less then a couple minutes.


Another tidbit I find quite ironic about this is that those who seem to support this waste of $14K are also those who complain about government throwing away money...

How is it being thrown away? Just because you feel it is wasteful you keep saying it is.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-28 16:22:53 Reply

At 1/28/13 03:56 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Unlikely, 40k students for 1 person who would see them for less then a couple minutes.

But it is way more likely that some child will get some tangible benefit from 2 minutes of an open ear than ANY school in the US will get from an assault rifle, let alone $14K worth of them. How is this so hard to understand?

How is it being thrown away? Just because you feel it is wasteful you keep saying it is.

OK, so let's break this down.

What use does an assault rifle have on a campus?

To go to war - yeah, NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
To stop a school shooting - the school shooting is so remote a possibility
To deter a school shooting - Again, the school shooting is so remote a possibility

In other words, the only practical uses are so unlikely to happen that the school wasted money. Think of it like a school in Philadelphia spending $14K o a plan to prevent harm in the case of a subduction earthquake and ensuing tsunami. Sure, the possibility is scary, and it'd be nice for everyone to be prepared, but the liklihood of such an event happening is so incredibly low that the money is essentially being wasted. The chances are extremely high in favor that such an event will NEVER happen at the location, let alone happen within 3 generations of anyone who is alive today.

Sound like money wasted? Yeah, pretty much.

Fim
Fim
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 47
Audiophile
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-28 18:07:23 Reply

At 1/28/13 12:55 AM, RacistBassist wrote:
At 1/27/13 08:30 PM, Fim wrote:
And there's also a big difference between saying you can protect yourself, you just have to come up with the methods to do so, and saying that you aren't allowed the protection at all.

The policy's Obama has put forward still allow people to protect themselves to whatever extent that they want to. Just because he's not hot on putting guns in schools doesn't make him anti 2nd amendment.

Assault weapon is nothing but a term used to drum up fear. Need is not an issue. I don't need to have access to the internet. I don't need to be allowed to wear jeans. I don't need to have anything to drink besides water. That does not all of a sudden make it justified to restrict things.

The internet isn't designed to kill people, and so far I haven't heard of somebody killing a bunch of kids wielding a modem and an ethernet cable. The assault weapons ban may be illy defined I'll give you that, but the premise of making it harder to access more powerful weapons is good, and it was supported by Bush and even O'Reilly so I don't know why the NRA are trying to make this out to be a blue/red issue. There are a bunch of countries where they rate guns on a scale of restriction depending on how destructive they are.

Or we could just let those with valid CPLs be allowed to conceal carry, or have it be a part of the local police forces duties. Many place already do that second part, and there has been no issue with it.

That's a fine idea, but it's not what the NRA have said. They want a armed guard in every school, which as I've just outlined is unfeasible and doesn't even have the evidence to support it that it actually stops mass shooters.

Mass shootings get stopped in their tracks if there's someone armed. Almost every single mass shooting ends the moment people start meeting the assailant/s with force. Columbine had a rent a cop (In the sense of no idea how to respond) at distances outside of a handguns effective range responding with a handgun.

They do eventually, but like I said the armed security at Columbine and Virginia Tech proved incapable of stopping those mass shooting. So I don't think rolling out an extensive 1/8th of the entire police force of the US and posting them in schools is a smart idea, the NRA need to go back to the drawing board on this one.


BBS Signature
RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-28 18:28:55 Reply

At 1/28/13 06:07 PM, Fim wrote: The policy's Obama has put forward still allow people to protect themselves to whatever extent that they want to. Just because he's not hot on putting guns in schools doesn't make him anti 2nd amendment.

He's not allowing the kids to be protected while they are at school though. He's also stated he would support an AWB, which is pretty anti-2nd Amendment if you know anything about firearms. Sure, sawed off shotguns and the like you can make the argument for only having a nefarious purpose, but semi-automatic weapons that mirror the aesthetic and nothing more of military weapons being put on the chopping block is an unwarranted infringement.

The internet isn't designed to kill people, and so far I haven't heard of somebody killing a bunch of kids wielding a modem and an ethernet cable. The assault weapons ban may be illy defined I'll give you that, but the premise of making it harder to access more powerful weapons is good, and it was supported by Bush and even O'Reilly so I don't know why the NRA are trying to make this out to be a blue/red issue. There are a bunch of countries where they rate guns on a scale of restriction depending on how destructive they are.

I also can't defend myself with any of those things, nor can I supply my own food. So I guess it seems that I have more of a need for an AR like weapon than we both do for any of those things. More powerful weapons? True assault rifles by definition are not high powered. Any hunting weapon used for larger game is by far more powerful than any AR-15 (Well, unless you have one fitted for the chambers required, but most come in .223/5.56/.22)

That's a fine idea, but it's not what the NRA have said. They want a armed guard in every school, which as I've just outlined is unfeasible and doesn't even have the evidence to support it that it actually stops mass shooters.

Except for one occurrence, every single mass shooting has been against a soft target. They end the moment somebody has responded with firearms, except for Columbine, which had somebody far outside of his weapons effective range try to engage them, and even then, at least two peoples lives were directly saved.

They do eventually, but like I said the armed security at Columbine and Virginia Tech proved incapable of stopping those mass shooting. So I don't think rolling out an extensive 1/8th of the entire police force of the US and posting them in schools is a smart idea, the NRA need to go back to the drawing board on this one.

Columbine was a matter of layout and the weapon the guard had equipped. Virginia Tech happened on an extremely short time scale. The responders arrived within three minutes and were inside the building within five. Having someone on hand armed is a lot better than having somebody close by.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-28 19:34:03 Reply

Obama: "I go shooting all the time"

what a ass even if its just to get approval from gun owners (which he won't).

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-28 19:35:07 Reply

Don't even argue with people who bring up how armed security hasn't stopped mass shootings from being what they became. It is a logical fallacy.

Armed security sometimes present with some mass shootings, they still happened, so armed security must not work.

But the real issue is we simply don't know how many times a mass shootings never became a mass shooting because of security.

We don't call these events "attempted mass shootings" We usually just hear about how much ammo and crap the guy had before he got caught. Or how someone was stopped after opening fire on someone else. Nor do we know how often mass shootings haven't occurred because of the presence of armed security personnel.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-28 22:12:19 Reply

At 1/28/13 06:07 PM, Fim wrote: The assault weapons ban may be illy defined I'll give you that, but the premise of making it harder to access more powerful weapons is good, ... There are a bunch of countries where they rate guns on a scale of restriction depending on how destructive they are.

If this is their goal...then they have things backwards. As I have repeatedly shown: assault rifles are not that powerful. This is not a political subjective based upon nationality, ideology, or being part of a particular subculture. This is physics. As we have seen time and time again...the most destructive firearms out there are handguns followed by shotguns at the close ranges where most crime takes place.


Or we could just let those with valid CPLs be allowed to conceal carry, or have it be a part of the local police forces duties. Many place already do that second part, and there has been no issue with it.
They do eventually, but like I said the armed security at Columbine and Virginia Tech proved incapable of stopping those mass shooting. So I don't think rolling out an extensive 1/8th of the entire police force of the US and posting them in schools is a smart idea, the NRA need to go back to the drawing board on this one.

On this I actually agree with you. In many cases armed guards tend to get taken out first in a surprise attack. This gives the shooter another firearm as well as more ammo. Furthermore, when police do arrive...it is the culmination of their suicide ritual therefore the bullets really start flying. However, in a few cases when a CCW holder is present and the sacrificial lambs can fight back...the massacre ends sooner with the shooter putting a bullet in their own brain instead of others.

In my teacher's union we've been having some spirited discussion about arming teachers. Suprising...more and more teachers are wanting the right to have CCW in their classrooms.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-28 23:39:39 Reply

At 1/28/13 07:34 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Obama: "I go shooting all the time"

what a ass even if its just to get approval from gun owners (which he won't).

I saw this and the NRA response and was laughing, seriously? Obama is actually trying to appeal to gun owners and be more positive, how does this make him an asshole? He's just trying to play nice. The real asshole is the NRA and their ad.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-28 23:51:34 Reply

I saw this and the NRA response and was laughing, seriously? Obama is actually trying to appeal to gun owners and be more positive, how does this make him an asshole? He's just trying to play nice. The real asshole is the NRA and their ad.

Not stating the true purpose of the 2nd is douchey.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-29 00:57:55 Reply

At 1/28/13 11:39 PM, Warforger wrote: I saw this and the NRA response and was laughing, seriously? Obama is actually trying to appeal to gun owners and be more positive, how does this make him an asshole?

Because he's PANDERING to them (patronizing them) while trying to take their guns.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-29 02:36:24 Reply

Oh my god! A POLITICIAN is PANDERING?!!? And he's taking their guns?? A statement which has yet to be demonstrated and is in itself a regurgitation of pro-NRA pandering?! Aaaahhhh oh this country really has gone to hell.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-29 10:05:58 Reply

At 1/29/13 02:36 AM, Feoric wrote: Oh my god! A POLITICIAN is PANDERING?!!? And he's taking their guns?? A statement which has yet to be demonstrated and is in itself a regurgitation of pro-NRA pandering?! Aaaahhhh oh this country really has gone to hell.

Do you feel banning weapons based on looks is stupid and ineffective policy?

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-29 11:05:52 Reply

At 1/29/13 10:05 AM, Ceratisa wrote: Do you feel banning weapons based on looks is stupid and ineffective policy?

Yep.

Do you feel that the AWB has any possibility of passing Congress? Do you feel Obama actually wants it to pass? Do you feel it's not simply a bargaining chip for negotiations?

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-29 11:28:42 Reply

At 1/29/13 11:05 AM, Feoric wrote:

Yep.

So you do not support the AWB?


Do you feel that the AWB has any possibility of passing Congress? Do you feel Obama actually wants it to pass? Do you feel it's not simply a bargaining chip for negotiations?

I give it a 50/50 shot. Pro-gun control groups are more vocal and better funded now than in 1994. There also seems to be a slight public opinion advantage in their favor. Plus emotion is on their side which is a better sale than mathematical models and fact which are more on the pro-gun side.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-29 11:48:03 Reply

At 1/28/13 11:51 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Not stating the true purpose of the 2nd is douchey.

You mean to form a militia and not to give every idiot, person with an anger problem, person with mental illness, criminal a free supply of guns (largely stolen from honest but stupider than fuck people who can't put their gun in a safe place)?

Sounds like you're missing the prpose of the 2nd Amendment.

At 1/29/13 12:57 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Because he's PANDERING to them (patronizing them) while trying to take their guns.

Yet you support the NRA's commercial which is pandering to the NRA people whilst supporting overtly anti-American sentiments? Go to China you communist.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-29 12:24:44 Reply

At 1/29/13 11:28 AM, TheMason wrote: So you do not support the AWB?

Nope. I do not support the AWB.

I give it a 50/50 shot. Pro-gun control groups are more vocal and better funded now than in 1994. There also seems to be a slight public opinion advantage in their favor. Plus emotion is on their side which is a better sale than mathematical models and fact which are more on the pro-gun side.

It's not getting through the House. There's zero chance. It's nothing more than a bargaining chip.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-29 13:43:44 Reply

At 1/29/13 02:36 AM, Feoric wrote: Oh my god! A POLITICIAN is PANDERING?!!? And he's taking their guns?? A statement which has yet to be demonstrated and is in itself a regurgitation of pro-NRA pandering?! Aaaahhhh oh this country really has gone to hell.

The NRA isn't pandering, they're bringing up a legitimate point

The President says he needs military style weapons to protect himself.
But average Americans? No, you can't even have something that even looks military

I mean, if the president is relying on these weapons for safety, why can I not have them for the same purpose

FWIW, I don't support politicians who pander to people. Sorry.