At 1/18/13 09:38 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 1/18/13 09:38 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Really Feoric? Aren't you the one usually going on about fascists controlling this country?

LeanLifter?

Eh I think you are right, I was probably just recalling islamofascist or something I dunno

At 1/18/13 09:36 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Sorry, the president's life, nor the life of his children, are more important than any other Americans. He's not a king, he's a public servant, and any life is just as valuable as his.

Not to a psychopath or a terrorist, the kinds of people that would target him and/or his kids. Are you against the Secret Service? Armored motorcades? Bodyguards?

At 1/18/13 09:12 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: the NRA protects the rights of gun owners from being infringed upon how do you think after the clinton administration congress shifted to republican control? dems got outted because they voted for AWB and 9/11 happened,

Hmmm, it's almost as if the NRA is a political organization!

plus Lapierre has a point instead of blaming gun owners and guns themselves why not look into the Social issues (Poverty, the Economy, Education, I hate to say this because i'm a hypocrite violent media. Obama should look into that instead of infringing rights when

No, he doesn't have a point, because he's not talking about the things you mention. He's copping out with the same old bullshit excuse that violent video games and violent movies have a direct correlation with crime to make this a discussion about something other than what makes the NRA uncomfortable. You'd ask me to show me evidence if I claimed unregulated guns were directly linked with higher gun crime rates, so I'm going to ask you to do the same.

he gets a cushy security detail for the rest of his fucking life.

Like every President?

At 1/18/13 09:38 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Really Feoric? Aren't you the one usually going on about fascists controlling this country?

Confusing me with leanlifter is the most insulting thing you can do to me.

At 1/18/13 11:13 PM, Feoric wrote: Are you against the Secret Service? Armored motorcades? Bodyguards?

Of course not. That's why I think we should all be able to protect ourselves. Not just a select few who can afford too

At 1/18/13 07:04 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Using legal gun owners as scapegoats for newtown and violating gun owners rights

I don't think anyone who thinks they can do it is. All they're arguing for is reduction of clip size, which I don't see the problem with. If you're on a shooting range or if you're hunting it'll probably be a minor inconvenience which if it worked would be worth it. Only Diane Feinstein has proposed anything to that nature, but it had no reasonable chance of passing.

But again the problem I have is that the NRA is simply ruining this country, politically it is heavily divided to the point that if you have a (D) next to your name people won't vote for you for anything in some parts of the country and if you have an (R) next to your name same thing. By comparison look at Reagan's landslide elections, he successfully appealed to nearly every corner of the nation, at this point Clinton's electoral achievements were a freaking landslide. With ads like these they're polarizing people more, on the one side the gun rights people get more and more delusional and lose legitimacy as a respectable group especially with these kinds of ads, on the other hand people are disgusted by such ads and their ability to agree with guns rights people goes down thereby making a compromise even harder (hmm sound familiar?).

owning a gun will be a crime
hiring some one to hold a gun for you will not.

At 1/18/13 11:52 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Of course not. That's why I think we should all be able to protect ourselves. Not just a select few who can afford too

Okay, but certainly you can see why Sasha and Malia are at much higher risk than, say, Susie and Johnny, right? It's worth mentioning that the Secret Service is required by law to protect not just the President, but other people who make up the line of succession and their immediate families, and children of former Presidents until they're 16.

Oh, and this was put into law after McKinley was assassinated. In 1901.

At 1/18/13 04:46 AM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote: Maybe the NRA can answer why terrorists and drug cartels are allowed to buy weapons in the US due to the gun show loop hole among others.

Drug cartels dont buy guns from gun shows... you're dumb if you actually believe that, they get them from the governemtn in their country, if you mean American cartels....well they get them from the other cartels

At 1/19/13 12:56 AM, 919CDS wrote:

At 1/18/13 04:46 AM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote: Maybe the NRA can answer why terrorists and drug cartels are allowed to buy weapons in the US due to the gun show loop hole among others.

Drug cartels dont buy guns from gun shows... you're dumb if you actually believe that, they get them from the governemtn in their country, if you mean American cartels....well they get them from the other cartels

There's no one source. Tons of weapons seized have been traced to various countries like China and South Korea, and even old Soviet-era weapons. But you're sorely mistaken if you think criminal elements linked to cartels haven't taken advantage gun shows where you can easily obtain weapons and ammo without any background check via a private sale. Not all states regulate them the same, which is a problem.

At 1/18/13 11:54 PM, Warforger wrote: I don't think anyone who thinks they can do it is. All they're arguing for is reduction of clip size, which I don't see the problem with.

You should, as it does nothing to fix the problem or reduce danger whatsoever

At 1/19/13 12:10 AM, Feoric wrote: Okay, but certainly you can see why Sasha and Malia are at much higher risk than, say, Susie and Johnny, right?

I see why they're at higher risk, but I don't see why they deserve extra protection.

At 1/19/13 01:32 AM, LemonCrush wrote: I see why they're at higher risk, but I don't see why they deserve extra protection.

It doesn't matter whether or not they "deserve" it. If you recognize the risk and are also aware of the law, then what's left to discuss? This isn't something unique only to Obama, they've been doing this for decades without protest. It's pretty funny to me that this is suddenly now an issue when it's convenient.

At 1/19/13 01:42 AM, Feoric wrote: It doesn't matter whether or not they "deserve" it. If you recognize the risk and are also aware of the law, then what's left to discuss? This isn't something unique only to Obama, they've been doing this for decades without protest. It's pretty funny to me that this is suddenly now an issue when it's convenient.

I know The president's life is not more important than any other citizen's. The reason it's an issue with Obama, is because he's trying to ban some guns while A) being surrounded by and relying on guns himself and B) Selling them to mexican drug lords

And as long as we're talking about the law, I'm pretty sure there's a law saying the government can prevent or impede people buying or owning guns.

At 1/19/13 02:14 AM, RacistBassist wrote: Don't you peasants know your life isn't worth protecting but the upper classes are?

Hyperbole is not your strong suit.

Sasha and Malia have protection as they are extremely high value targets for anyone wishing to extort the United States. Because of this, they are in a constantly higher risk of danger than 99.999% of the kids in the US. The vast majority of kids are EXTREMELY safe (except from those who should be caring for them the most), and thus don't warrant the same level of protection.

And, mind you, a 6 shot revolver protects a family just as well as an AR-15 does.

At 1/19/13 02:13 AM, LemonCrush wrote: I know The president's life is not more important than any other citizen's.

For extremely obvious homeland security reasons, yes, the life of the Commander in Cheif is absolutely more important than an ordinary citizen, no matter who that may be. Bush, Kerry, Obama, Romney, Palin, it doesn't matter.

The reason it's an issue with Obama, is because he's trying to ban some guns while A) being surrounded by and relying on guns himself and B) Selling them to mexican drug lords

None of his executive orders or proposals entail banning any firearm other than the proposal to reinstate the AWB. He's leaving that to Congress to decide. It's obviously not happening, and he knows this.

And as long as we're talking about the law, I'm pretty sure there's a law saying the government can prevent or impede people buying or owning guns.

The government is absolutely allowed to "impede" citizens buying or owning guns via regulation. Every state has them.

I think it is faux, manufactured outrage. The ad did not go after Obama's kids, nor did it threaten him. It was like any other political ad...designed to deliver an emotional message. And it comes from both sides.

Check this video out.

I haven't read every post here yet, so someone may have beat me to it. But this gun control group selectively edits out that the S&W his grandfather used...was used to stop lynchings! Then they interpose clips of news reports and kids to elicit an emotional response.

The difference is Obama and these guys are dipping their shirts in the blood of these kids...to advance agendas and laws that will not effect school shootings or save lives. Obama's use of kids and these groups using those pictures in their ads is disgusting.

What I would like to see is an ad that presents the facts that contradict Obama's polished and reasonable sounding speech. For example:

* There is a wide body of scientific research that shows that gun control would not effect gun crime, that the causal factors of gun crime (along with all crime) are not related to the availability of guns.

* There is a wide body of scientific research into the last AWB that proves that it did not work and had no appreciable or statistically significant effect on gun crime. In fact I've seen some studies that suggest that there is a stronger relationship between school reforms that started under Clinton and continued under Bush the Younger than there is gun availability...specifically assault rifle availability.

* Where the last two points are routed in the social (or soft) sciences and exist in peer-reviewed academic journals and books...the next is routed in a hard science: physics. Obama made the claim that military style weapons were designed to deliver 'maximum damage'. This is factually untrue...this is not a matter of opinion that is changed by any emotional argument. The reality is standard military ammo is pretty much the least lethal and does the least damage to flesh. Even if you use hollow points or soft lead core bullets (rounds commonly used for hunting and self-defense) the .223 round (used in AR-15/M-16s) is moving too fast for these rounds to be effective. If you look at mass shootings, the ones with the higher body count don't use military style assault rifles.

* With the Aurora shooting he focused on the 100rd drum mag for allowing him to hit 70 people. And yet the drum failed (as they are prone to do) after only 30 rds causing him to switch to more deadly firearms: his shotgun and pistols. High capacity magazines actually encourages the type of behavior you want in a mass shooter...spray and pray...which means less people get hit. (Don't get me wrong...no one wants a mass shooting to occur. But if one happens, don't you want it to do the least harm?)

So in the end...is Obama uninformed or just a liar?

At 1/19/13 09:26 AM, TheMason wrote: So in the end...is Obama uninformed or just a liar?

Actually Obama's a political genius.

The nature of his election victory was a crushing defeat for the Republicans, yet the Republicans still played their vagina games with the fiscal cliff. The election didn't make the lightbulb turn on in the GOP's collective heads that when a compromise is offered, the good of the country should come first, so Obama is doing the only other option, setting out to completely steamroll the GOP and break their back.

He's forcing the GOP to take unpopular stances (yes unfettered gun ownership is NOT a popular stance, don't confuse the high volume of the pro-gun people as the product of a high number) and trying to get them to willingly lose as much public support as possible. So far, the GOP is gladly obliging.

It's definitely a gambit, as it could backfire on him, but what's he got to lose, it's his second term.

This ad is a misdirection on the issues of gun violence. It doesn't address the public health and safety concerns with gun violence, all it does is make people envious and want to buy a gun for themselves. And since there is a proven correlation between gun ownership and homicides, all it does is increase the level of violence and increase public health risk.

There are a number of ways people misuse guns. Good intentioned people who use it to intimidate others if say an argument isn't going their way. What about those Lazy Louies who are negligent with their guns. There are some real bad teachers out there, would you like them to have a gun at their disposal as well?

People aren't really split into good guys and bad guys. Seung-Hui Cho and James Holmes weren't bad people before they went on their rampages after legally purchasing their weapons. The young man that killed those kids at Sandy Hook may have been mentally disturbed but he didn't show any indication of what he might do before he took his mom's legally owned guns. What about those Postal workers in the 80s/90s? How do you arm the good guys without arming the bad guys or the good guys that will go bad?

And the argument that we need guns to protect ourselves from the government is completely stupid. Under such a scenario where the government turns on it's people, there will be detractors up the command structure in the military, should that happen. Seriously, these people, that believe in this interpretation of the 2nd amendment, are not a threat to the government at all, and are more a threat to the people around them. They even need to have a gun, like that Timothy McVeigh fellow.

At 1/19/13 03:16 AM, Feoric wrote: For extremely obvious homeland security reasons, yes, the life of the Commander in Cheif is absolutely more important than an ordinary citizen, no matter who that may be. Bush, Kerry, Obama, Romney, Palin, it doesn't matter.

No. There is nothing that gives the president the right to protect himself, and other cannot.

None of his executive orders or proposals entail banning any firearm other than the proposal to reinstate the AWB.

Exactly

The government is absolutely allowed to "impede" citizens buying or owning guns via regulation. Every state has them.

Not according to the Bill of Rights, and State laws are not federal laws.

At 1/18/13 04:22 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 1/18/13 02:47 PM, Fim wrote:

His security needs are not different from anyone's. He wants his kids to not die. So does everyone else. Just because he's got a high profile family, does not permit him to special privileges, especially when he's trying to take those same privileges away from others.

LOLOOLOLOLololol

"His security needs are not different from anyone's" :3

you twonk.

Political geniuses win more then half the popular vote..

The problem with the ad is that it doesn't make clear the security they are talking about are guards employed by the school and have nothing to do with the Secret Service.

But apparently, the NRA screwed up and never actually checked if the security guards actually carried guns. According to a top school official at Sidwell Friends, they don't, and at most there are one or two guards at the school at any time.

So way to make everyone who supports the 2nd amendment look like a retard, NRA.

It doesn't matter since the SS does carry weapons and guess who actually watches Obama'a children?

At 1/19/13 02:25 PM, adrshepard wrote: So way to make everyone who supports the 2nd amendment look like a retard, NRA.

You've found them out!

At 1/19/13 02:05 PM, Fim wrote: "His security needs are not different from anyone's" :3

What's different?

At 1/19/13 08:03 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 1/19/13 02:05 PM, Fim wrote: "His security needs are not different from anyone's" :3

What's different?

Sooo.. you're asking me what's the difference in the security risk between the most powerful man in the world and ordinary citizens?.. Reeeally? You stupid fuck. I really don't have the time to spell it out to someone as suborn in their opinions as you.

At 1/19/13 12:46 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/19/13 09:26 AM, TheMason wrote: So in the end...is Obama uninformed or just a liar?

Actually Obama's a political genius.

But on this topic, he's a public policy moron. He is going after an agenda, and does not have the best interest of people in mind.

The nature of his election victory was a crushing defeat for the Republicans, ...

Obama's re-election is only a crushing defeat for the Republicans because they have weak leadership. Obama comes into his second term with less of a mandate than any other president since pre-Civil War. That's how far you have to go back to find a president who won re-election by a popular vote less than they won in the first election.

At 1/20/13 12:34 PM, TheMason wrote: But on this topic, he's a public policy moron. He is going after an agenda, and does not have my personal interests in mind.

*fixd ;)

Obama's re-election is only a crushing defeat for the Republicans because they have weak leadership.

Perhaps is Republicans had run with Ron Paul instead they may have stood a better chance at the polls. He was one of the few political characters I would have preferred over Obama.

What I fail to understand is how guns are really going to solve the issue of these school shootings. Almost all of these shooters kill themselves, and even those who aren't are more commonly detained than shot. Someone else providing return fire has rarely, if ever, stopped a shooter, and I sincerely doubt it's a deterrent.

I guess it just boils down to deterrence theory; if we put armed guards in our school, we would be sending several messages to our kids. Some of them might be good, some might not be.

"Our school has things under control."
"Our school is protected by guns."
"Our school protects us with guns."
"Our school is empowered by guns."
"Guns empower people."
"Hey... I wouldn't mind being empowered."

Uh oh. Maybe we're sending the wrong message.

If we want to find the culprit for these shootings, we need to consider what's really causing them in the first place. How many schools in America have had shootings? One in a thousand? One in ten thousand? Not many. What we have now - schools without armed guards - is working pretty well. Also consider how rare these shootings are in other countries, and I don't think many first world countries have their school systems protected by armed guards.

Evidently there's something different about the United States. One theory is that drugs are an issue. Despite the US population being about 300 million out of 7 billion people in the world (4% of the world population), over NINETY percent of the world's pharmaceutical medication is consumed here. That's a huge concentration, and a lot of these are psychoactive medications as well. Additionally, because drug patents only last 20 years, companies continuously come up with new formulas to peddle the patented medication.

I can't draw a direct line between school shootings and psychoactive medication, but there are definitely trends between medication and violent or unusual behavior. A common pattern I see is, "Kid is put on anti-depressants, they work for two years, they stop working, three weeks later the kid hangs himself."

Another issue that's predominantly American is our attitude. Road rage is a lot less common in other countries than in the US. What causes this I can't be sure, but I would definitely argue that it has something to do with our overall attitude.

At 1/20/13 12:04 AM, Fim wrote: Sooo.. you're asking me what's the difference in the security risk between the most powerful man in the world and ordinary citizens?.. Reeeally? You stupid fuck. I really don't have the time to spell it out to someone as suborn in their opinions as you.

No, I'm asking what is different about his security needs.

No one wants to be killed or wants their children to die. Why should he be the only one who can do something about it, cunt?

At 1/20/13 02:43 PM, Kwing wrote: What I fail to understand is how guns are really going to solve the issue of these school shootings. Almost all of these shooters kill themselves, and even those who aren't are more commonly detained than shot. Someone else providing return fire has rarely, if ever, stopped a shooter, and I sincerely doubt it's a deterrent.

I guess it just boils down to deterrence theory; if we put armed guards in our school, we would be sending several messages to our kids. Some of them might be good, some might not be.

No one is asking for TSA agents or metal detectors at our schools. My schools, in middle and high school had 2-3 cops on campus, and no one was afraid of school or anything. It didn't change anyone's mindset about the school at all.