Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Obama is the worst president ever!

Page 5 of 9 [ 138 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

09 Oct 2014, 9:50 am

Dox47 wrote:
AspE wrote:
No because you still have the right to own guns. You have to draw the line somewhere.


And SCOTUS has, protecting the right to keep and bear arms in common usage, such as the most popular rifle in the country, the AR-15. which, for the 3rd time now, is very seldom used in crime.

Do I further need to point out that one of us is a firearms expert with a degree in the subject and over a decade of study and experience, and that person is not you? That in light of that fact, maybe you ought to try using some actual evidence rather than empty platitudes?


OK if you are such an expert, I guess it would be no problem to cite a case where the Supreme Court struck down an assault weapons ban.



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

09 Oct 2014, 9:51 am

Fogman wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Fogman wrote:
What I've noticed , (and even experienced, first hand) is that criminals will use any type of gun that they can get their hands on, and is easily concealable. --Usually a cheapo Chinese 9mm, or a .380 or the old school .32 or .25 cal 'Saturday Night Specials'.


That's what I'm always trying to get the anti-gun people to realize, that the "assault weapons" that give them the vapors are wildly impractical for the majority of crime that goes on, simply because they're not convenient to carry concealed, but this is not a crowd that's particularly interested in facts or logic.


Of course they're not interested in logic. When a mass shooting takes place, like Columbine, or Connecticut, the anti-gun people are the ones that are listened to because banning guns is a lot more convenient, and much easier to do than to look at what caused said people who went off and shot the people, and work on the underlying issues that caused them to go off the deep end in the first place.

We can do both.



AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

09 Oct 2014, 11:37 am

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94zRy9zcUDI[/youtube]Id say Robama would be the worst president ever!


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

09 Oct 2014, 5:19 pm

AspE wrote:
Fogman wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Fogman wrote:
What I've noticed , (and even experienced, first hand) is that criminals will use any type of gun that they can get their hands on, and is easily concealable. --Usually a cheapo Chinese 9mm, or a .380 or the old school .32 or .25 cal 'Saturday Night Specials'.


That's what I'm always trying to get the anti-gun people to realize, that the "assault weapons" that give them the vapors are wildly impractical for the majority of crime that goes on, simply because they're not convenient to carry concealed, but this is not a crowd that's particularly interested in facts or logic.


Of course they're not interested in logic. When a mass shooting takes place, like Columbine, or Connecticut, the anti-gun people are the ones that are listened to because banning guns is a lot more convenient, and much easier to do than to look at what caused said people who went off and shot the people, and work on the underlying issues that caused them to go off the deep end in the first place.

We can do both.


So other than making your kind think they feel better, adding to the burden of the entire justice system, pissing of voters with long memories, creating a black market, and creating a new class of criminal, what would your pie in the sky assault weapon ban achieve?


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

09 Oct 2014, 5:37 pm

Raptor wrote:

So other than making your kind think they feel better, adding to the burden of the entire justice system, pissing of voters with long memories, creating a black market, and creating a new class of criminal, what would your pie in the sky assault weapon ban achieve?


It's not so pie in the sky. There was a ban in effect until it expired. It would help mitigate the severity of mass shootings and it would tend to give law enforcement an advantage against such crimes.

The fact is "your kind" opposes any sane legislation like mental health checks and closing loopholes. The NRA wants as few restrictions as possible.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

09 Oct 2014, 6:10 pm

AspE wrote:
Raptor wrote:

So other than making your kind think they feel better, adding to the burden of the entire justice system, pissing of voters with long memories, creating a black market, and creating a new class of criminal, what would your pie in the sky assault weapon ban achieve?


It's not so pie in the sky. There was a ban in effect until it expired. It would help mitigate the severity of mass shootings and it would tend to give law enforcement an advantage against such crimes.
The key word there is "was". Since then and especially since '09 there have been a helluva lot more "assault weapons" put in circulation without the streets running red with blood as your kind predicted. During that ban the guns were still available but without retractable stocks on the M4 types, no flash suppressors (ooh, I get skeerd just saying that word :shaking: ), and no magazine over 10 rounds could be sold NEW although tons of used NOS ones available.

Quote:
The fact is "your kind" opposes any sane legislation like mental health checks and closing loopholes. The NRA wants as few restrictions as possible.

What's it going to get us other than to make you think you feel good?
The NRA is a pro-gun lobbying entity. Why would they want restrictions that they exist to fight?


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


wittgenstein
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,522
Location: Trapped inside a hominid skull

09 Oct 2014, 7:06 pm

Raptor wrote:
AspE wrote:
Raptor wrote:



Quote:
The fact is "your kind" opposes any sane legislation like mental health checks and closing loopholes. The NRA wants as few restrictions as possible.

What's it going to get us other than to make you think you feel good?
The NRA is a pro-gun lobbying entity. Why would they want restrictions that they exist to fight?

Because not being an extremist (that says that even insane people have a right to own AK47s)
is a better way to sway public opinion.
The NRA looks paranoid by thinking that ANY restrictions (even reasonable ones like trying to prevent psychopaths from owning AK47s) will lead inevitably to a total ban on guns. Organizations that look paranoid are always unsuccessful in swaying public opinion and achieving their goals.


_________________
YES! This is me!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gtdlR4rUcY
I went up over 50 feet!
I love debate!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtckVng_1a0
My debate style is calm and deadly!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-230v_ecAcM


Last edited by wittgenstein on 09 Oct 2014, 7:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

09 Oct 2014, 7:14 pm

Raptor wrote:
...The key word there is "was". Since then and especially since '09 there have been a helluva lot more "assault weapons" put in circulation without the streets running red with blood as your kind predicted. ...

Half the deadliest shootings in U.S. history happened in past six years

Quote:
What's it going to get us other than to make you think you feel good?

It could be a start to control the gun violence that seems to be uniquely severe in the US.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

09 Oct 2014, 7:23 pm

wittgenstein wrote:
Raptor wrote:
AspE wrote:
Raptor wrote:



Quote:
The fact is "your kind" opposes any sane legislation like mental health checks and closing loopholes. The NRA wants as few restrictions as possible.

What's it going to get us other than to make you think you feel good?
The NRA is a pro-gun lobbying entity. Why would they want restrictions that they exist to fight?

Because not being an extremist (that says that even insane people have a right to own AK47s)
is a better way to sway public opinion.

Just how much of a free hand would you be willing to give the government in determining what defines insane?


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

09 Oct 2014, 7:36 pm

AspE wrote:
Raptor wrote:
...The key word there is "was". Since then and especially since '09 there have been a helluva lot more "assault weapons" put in circulation without the streets running red with blood as your kind predicted. ...

Half the deadliest shootings in U.S. history happened in past six years

Oh look; a chart! It must be true if there exists a chart. For me to refute anything with a graph or chart would be an act of felony trollery. Can it be proven that there is a direct correlation between violent crime and the availability of guns?

Quote:
Quote:
What's it going to get us other than to make you think you feel good?

It could be a start to control the gun violence that seems to be uniquely severe in the US.

It will make you think you feel better
It will piss off voters
It will create a new class of criminal
It will increase the burden on the justice system (investigations, arrests, trials, incarceration, etc) and make this more of a police state

And all this is worth it because you think it could (not will) start to control the gun violence that you seem to think is so severe in the US?


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Last edited by Raptor on 10 Oct 2014, 8:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

09 Oct 2014, 8:54 pm

Ronald Reagan supported an assault weapons ban in 1981.

I don't think such a ban would create a new class of criminal. It would just be a regulation, like having to get a fishing license.

Quote:
And all this is worth it because you think it could (not will) start to control the gun violence that you seem to think is so severe in the US?

Yup. We have to weigh human lives against the desires of gun nuts.

Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work?

Koper concluded by saying that ?a new ban on large capacity magazines and assault weapons would certainly not be a panacea for gun crime, but it may help to prevent further spread of particularly dangerous weaponry and eventually bring small reductions in some of the most serious and costly gun crimes.?

That kind of guarded language may not make for great sound bites for either side in the gun debate, but it more accurately reflects Koper?s findings and conclusion.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

09 Oct 2014, 9:52 pm

AspE wrote:
Ronald Reagan supported an assault weapons ban in 1981.

Which ban would that be and why do I care what he did? Reagan is yesterday's news by three decades. His only value to me is that after all these years he still inflicts butthurt on the liberals.

Quote:
I don't think such a ban would create a new class of criminal. It would just be a regulation, like having to get a fishing license.

Yeah, the war on drugs certainly didn't cause a rise in related crimes. :roll: :roll:
Give me a break.

AspE wrote:
Raptor wrote:
And all this is worth it because you think it could (not will) start to control the gun violence that you seem to think is so severe in the US?

Yup. We have to weigh human lives against the desires of gun nuts.

/\ The mating call of the anti-gunners. Keep repeating that and eventually one of the other antis on this forum will come along and try to mount you.

Quote:
Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work?

Yeah, I'm sure no one died in that 10 years.

Quote:
Koper concluded by saying that ?a new ban on large capacity magazines and assault weapons would certainly not be a panacea for gun crime, but it may help to prevent further spread of particularly dangerous weaponry and eventually bring small reductions in some of the most serious and costly gun crimes.?
That kind of guarded language may not make for great sound bites for either side in the gun debate, but it more accurately reflects Koper?s findings and conclusion.

If all else fails resort to hyperbole.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

09 Oct 2014, 10:06 pm

oh, lookie. yet another thread devolved into a gun battle.



andrethemoogle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,254
Location: Sol System

10 Oct 2014, 12:29 am

So why is Obama hated in a TD;DR form? Here in Canada (at least where I live) we have a pretty positive opinion on him, much more than Bush.

Aside from the NSA crap and the drone strikes (which I disapprove of for the most part), Obama seems like a night and day difference from Bush.



LDM
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 8 Oct 2014
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 27

10 Oct 2014, 1:08 am

LKL wrote:
oh, lookie. yet another thread devolved into a gun battle.

What are the rules on derailment? Do you get to change the topic at will once the thread's lost? Or is the new topic the final topic?

andrethemoogle wrote:
So why is Obama hated in a TD;DR form? Here in Canada (at least where I live) we have a pretty positive opinion on him, much more than Bush.

Aside from the NSA crap and the drone strikes (which I disapprove of for the most part), Obama seems like a night and day difference from Bush.

Sometimes it's because he's not an overlord and can't unilaterally change the country with his hands. Sometimes it because he's an overlord, forcing tyranny(democracy) down the throats of the oppressed.


_________________
From risk comes progress.
To Hell with boundaries.
The future will contain more than the present.
Rule number 10.


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

10 Oct 2014, 1:23 am

LKL wrote:
oh, lookie. yet another thread devolved into a gun battle.


Any yet again, I can barely participate without feeling like I'm clubbing baby seals, since that elusive anti-gun person who knows what they're talking about has yet to appear. This one can't even follow basic logic and precedent, let alone present a real argument.

Edit-

Also, devolved? Look at OP, it's not like the thread started out as an advanced discussion and fell into poo flinging, he even mentioned the gun thing right there in post #1. I only got involved when one ignorant comment too many caught my attention.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson