Did you even read the damn interview?

"B.O.: Finally, we've got to deal with the underlying social issues that are causing this gun violence as well. You've got gangs of young men who are lost, who are involved in the drug trade. Starting early with early childhood education, improving our K-through-12 education, having after-school programs or summer-school programs so we are providing pathways for young people to move in the right direction.

As president, we've got to be able to help local communities put those programs in place.

S-T: In Gary [Ind.,] and in Beaumont, Texas, you talked about parents doing a better job parenting. Is that applicable here?

B.O.: Absolutely. That's what I refer to when I say we've got to get to the underlying problems here. Children have to be taught right and wrong and violence isn't a way to resolve problems. Kids have to be kept off the streets at night. Transmitting those values is important. A lot of these kids unfortunately they might not have parents at home who are helping to give them guidance. Their communities themselves are wracked with violence. They're seeing it every day going down the streets. The role of the community, the churches, other institutions, instilling a different sensibility in our young people -- that's got to be part of the solution as well."

Sounds like he's talking about community solutions to a community problem. You know, personal responsibility, lifting themselves up by their bootstraps. EXACTLY the kind of stuff conservatives have been screaming for years. Is there a reason you don't like it when Obama promotes it?

Everything I read about Obama makes me like him more and more.

GG mods. Subby submits a headline that describes the exact opposite of the article, and you decide to post it anyway ust to ignite a flamewar.

It's not (Fox) News, it's Fark.com.

submitter: Obama wants to prevent crime in Chicago by making it more illegaler

Actual headline: Laws alone can't stop violence: Obama

It's not FARK, it's Dumbass.com

Maybe subby used sarcasm.

randomizetimer: Maybe subby used sarcasm.

Maybe subby should explore the art form a bit more before going out on the high wire.

That headline bears no resemblance to the content of the article. Another Fark first.

Obama said elected officials can help by restoring federal funding to put more police on the street and passing more gun-control legislation, such as better background checks for gun purchasers. But laws alone can't change things -- some parents have to get more involved in their children's lives, he said.

"Children have to be taught right and wrong, and violence isn't a way to resolve problems," Obama said. "Kids have to be kept off the streets at night. A lot of these kids, unfortunately, they might not have parents at home who are helping to give them guidance."

Obama, who had trouble with gun owners in Pennsylvania and other states, said he has never supported a blanket ban on handguns but favors letting local officials enact gun regulation appropriate for their areas. Banning guns has not always proven effective, he said.

Headline the opposite of the story- It's not news, it's hurrrrrrrr.

Let's just all agree to disagree with the subby...

/peace...

Obama said elected officials can help by restoring federal funding to put more police on the street and passing more gun-control legislation, such as better background checks for gun purchasers......

Obama:.....We've got to tighten up our gun laws. I've said before we should have a much tougher background check system, one that's much more effective and make sure there aren't loopholes out there like the gun show loophole. [Or] The Tiahart Amendment [requiring destruction of gun-purchase records.]

OK, Obama has absolutely no frigin clue what the hell he is talking about.

For the last time you political elitists, there is NO GUNSHOW LOOPHOLE. It only exists in your hoplophobic minds.

Gun Show Loophole:

The "Gun show loophole" is a term coined to describe the legal sale of firearms between private individuals at gun shows in states where this is legal. When these sales take place at a gun show, some perceive a "loophole" in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), although these laws have never applied to individual-to-individual sales of personal firearms.

As for the "Tiahart Amendment". That has nothing to do with the "requiring destruction of gun-purchase records". (Though there are rules on the books against compiling records into a gun owner database.) The Tiahart Amendment keeps lawsuit happy, authoritarian thugs like Michael Bloomberg from using the ATFs data for the purpose of filing frivolous lawsuits against FFL holders.

Obama:...Here's an example of something common-sense: The ATF [federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms] should be able to share info with local communities about where guns are coming from, tracing guns that are used in criminal activity. It's been blocked consistently in Congress. As president, I'm gong to make sure we know if guns are being sold by unscrupulous gun dealers not abiding by existing laws. We should know about that.

Mr. Obama you are lying and everyone familiar with the law knows it. Police conducting LEGITIMATE police investigations have always had access to the ATF data and that access was not impeded under the Tiahart Amendment. It is people like Mayor Daley, Bloomberg, and others who have had access cut off from this data. That is why they are whining so hard. They are upset that someone dared tell them, "No, you can't do that."

Mr Obama, you have again cemented yourself as a traitor to the constitution by voicing that you would willingly gut the second amendment were you to be elected. If you cannot be trusted with one part of the constitution, you cannot be trusted with the rest. Call us bitter or whatever, there are many gun owners like myself who judge candidates on the 2nd amendment very heavily. Hell, you don't have to even be pro-gun, be gun -neutral and that would be enough for most people. But no, you have to empty the magazine into your foot parroting the same banter and lies that we have all heard before.

We found out the hard way what people like you mean by "passing more gun-control legislation". We legal gun owners (All 80 million of us) had to live with the useless and draconian AWB from 1994-2004. The Democrats lost both the House and the Senate the following midterm elections and only after it expired did you get back into the majority. Even Bill Clinton himself credited the passing of the AWB as costing the Democrats over 20 seats.

We already have reasonable gun control Mr. Obama. We need to enforce what we have now and not pile on more bureaucratic busywork. Hopefully DC vs Heller will be worded so as to put a stop to the victim-disarmament that you so openly preach.

Gun owning democrats have tried extremely hard to get rid of the, "Dems will take your guns" stereotype. You and other top dems continue to destroy such hard work by continuing to reinforce that stereotype.

A Good read: Dems and the Gun Issue--Now What? (new window)

/Hate to be so angry. But these lies need to be called out as soon as they are spoken, otherwise they grow like a cancer.

Crosshair: For the last time you political elitists, there is NO GUNSHOW LOOPHOLE.

It is so amusing when someone comes into a thread claiming to know more than everybody else, yet refers to them as "elitist."

bender127: Let's just all agree to disagree with the subby...

/peace...

Oh no, the Obama haters will just LOVE this headline and not bother at all to read the article. Pretty standard for Fark these days. When did this place turn into troll central? I know stuff gets greened for humor, but could be maybe have less trollerific headlines from both sides?

Lionel Mandrake: It is so amusing when someone comes into a thread claiming to know more than everybody else, yet refers to them as "elitist."

I don't think you and I are using the same definition of "elitist". When I am referring to an "elitist", I am referring to someone who believes themselves to be superior in a snobbish manner. Someone who thinks that they know what is best and that everyone else is wrong. Someone who tries to impose their view on how the world SHOULD be onto other people.

I don't know more than everyone else, I never claimed that. What I am better at than Mr. Obama is fact checking. 5 minutes of research got me the info for my above post.

Crosshair: I don't think you and I are using the same definition of "elitist". When I am referring to an "elitist", I am referring to someone who believes themselves to be superior in a snobbish manner. Someone who thinks that they know what is best and that everyone else is wrong. Someone who tries to impose their view on how the world SHOULD be onto other people.

I don't know more than everyone else, I never claimed that. What I am better at than Mr. Obama is fact checking. 5 minutes of research got me the info for my above post.

Nice job providing that research. Though I suspect you'll find a link to add now. And how are you not fitting your own definition of an elitist? You seem to be trying damn hard to impose your world view on me with your definition of elitist, which is also a massive truckload of irony that I'm not sure you see.

GAT_00: Nice job providing that research. Though I suspect you'll find a link to add now.

Ok, I fail at not seeing your link above me. But the rest of the post stands. Though I strongly disagree that we have enough gun control.

Crosshair: I don't think you and I are using the same definition of "elitist".

I think they're pretty close, actually.

When I am referring to an "elitist", I am referring to someone who believes themselves to be superior in a snobbish manner.

I'm cool with that definition. I see it among "the left" and "the right" in pretty much equal abundance. And I see it in you. Of course that probably makes me an "elitist," too.

Someone who thinks that they know what is best and that everyone else is wrong. Someone who tries to impose their view on how the world SHOULD be onto other people.

Like you just did?

This whole fad of calling people "elitist" is just more divisive BS. Someone declares "I believe X," then someone else comes along and says "You are such an elitist...the truth is obviously not X." What's the diff? What is accomplished?

It's a meaningless fkn buzzword that does no one any good, stifles discourse, broadens the divide among differing and (often) equally valid OPINIONS held be sincere people. It's simplistic, childish name calling, and about as useful and mature as a group of 8 year-olds yelling back and forth "Nuh uh," "yeah, huh!" "well, you're a doody-head!" "NO! YOU'RE a doody-head!"

Childish bullshiat meaningless name calling.

Lionel Mandrake: Like you just did?

How in the flying hell am I trying to impose my view on everyone? Am I going around holding people at gunpoint conforming to my world view? Am I building a mind control ray? Am I running for president? No. I am stating my opinion that their view is not only wrong, but counterproductive.

My world view is basically, "Do whatever you want as long as you arn't directly harming me or someone else." I like firearms. I know people who like powerful cars. I know people who like to go get drunk off their ass every Friday night. We all leave each other alone and everyone is happy.

I am rather sure that I am correct in calling someone who wants to disarm me and continue to enjoy the protection of armed bodyguards not only an elitist, but a hypocrite as well.

Crosshair: For the last time you political elitists, there is NO GUNSHOW LOOPHOLE. It only exists in your hoplophobic minds.

Gun Show Loophole:

The "Gun show loophole" is a term coined to describe the legal sale of firearms between private individuals at gun shows in states where this is legal. When these sales take place at a gun show, some perceive a "loophole" in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), although these laws have never applied to individual-to-individual sales of personal firearms.

So many things wrong with this.
1: This has nothing to do with "elitism". Your use of this term makes it obvious you're just participating in the usual smearing of Obama as such.
2. The stuff you just quoted actually specifies that some people view it as a loophole.
3. The loophole doesn't deal with individual-to-individual sales of firearms, it has to do with the fact that it's an organized event. Don't pretend that companies don't sell their guns at gun shows. No sir, it's ONLY individuals. Sure. I believe you. No, really.

Crosshair: How in the flying hell am I trying to impose my view on everyone? Am I going around holding people at gunpoint conforming to my world view? Am I building a mind control ray? Am I running for president? No. I am stating my opinion that their view is not only wrong, but counterproductive.

Good point - you got me there.

The rest of my post stands. You're parroting a bullshiat talking point about "elitism." By your definition, every person running for public office is an elitist. And in my non-elitist opinion, anyone who thinks Obama is somehow more so than the others is a grade-A moran.

It's a bullshiat, childish, counterproductive buzzword that the GOP is pinning on Obama in particular, and Dems in general, as if the son and grandson of Admirals, or a man of mediocre (at best) intelligence who attended Harvard and Yale (and avoided fighting in his gereration's bullshiat war) thanks to family connections AREN'T "elitist."

I'll take Obama's elitism over warmongering jackasses who SO FKN ELITIST that they throw away American lives like they're playing a game of Risk, and joke (HA HA HA!) about bombing Iran.

If you want to be a mindless fkn tool spreading nonsense buzzwords, by all means, knock yourself out.

As a gun owner in Illinois, 30 minutes from Chicago, it really saddens me to see all the violence in this city.

However this state does not have any form of Concealed Carry. This is unfortunate because when I travel to higher crime neighborhoods I cannot defend myself. I can't even imagine law abiding citizens in these areas not able to legally defend themselves.

I believe that Illinois, with its current laws, places less value on my life as a human being because I am not allow to utilize the best and quickest defense to threats.

I know some of you don't like firearms and I respect that. I just ask that I am allowed to legally carry what the criminals who intend me harm carry anyway!

we're all elitists. now stfu and get a new derogatory slanderous ter m to sling around. screaming elitist just makes you sound like a whiny little biatch.

SlappyKincaid: However this state does not have any form of Concealed Carry. This is unfortunate because when I travel to higher crime neighborhoods I cannot defend myself.

carry it in the open. on your hip like a cowboy if you like.

I love how the GOP labels all Dem candidates as elitist.
They wear their anti intellectualism like a badge of honor and blindly follow their hayseed leaders into the abyss rejecting science and reality for that sweet ,sweet kool aid.

Considering that he's a liberal drug addict, I can't see how he can protect our precious children.

Hobodeluxe:

carry it in the open. on your hip like a cowboy if you like.



Unfortunately I can't do that. First off, I do obey the laws, even though I have issues them and second, I would get into real trouble for that!!!

SlappyKincaid: Unfortunately I can't do that. First off, I do obey the laws, even though I have issues them and second, I would get into real trouble for that!!!

all is see for Illinois is a ban on carrying a concealed weapon.
if you have a FOID you should be able to carry one. you just can't conceal it. Or am I wrong?

Yea! another thread with a bunch of pussies whining that they can't take their guns everywhere they go because WHAT IF THEY HAD TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST A ROBBER/MURDER.

Obama said ... passing more gun-control legislation, such as better background checks for gun purchasers.

That's lowering the speed limit from 65 to 60 in hopes of stopping speeders.

Idiot.

USP .45: Obama said ... passing more gun-control legislation, such as better background checks for gun purchasers.

That's lowering the speed limit from 65 to 60 in hopes of stopping speeders.

Idiot.

And where, exactly, is your name on the ballot, smartypants? All you know how to do is pull a trigger, a monkey can literally do that.

USP .45: Obama said ... passing more gun-control legislation, such as better background checks for gun purchasers.

That's lowering the speed limit from 65 to 60 in hopes of stopping speeders.

Idiot.

Hey, I support this singular idea... assuming there's such thing as a "better background check". What trumps FBI background checks?

Mr. Anon: Yea! another thread with a bunch of pussies whining that they can't take their guns everywhere they go because WHAT IF THEY HAD TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST A ROBBER/MURDER.

Totally. I'm a female living in Chicago in a not-super-great neighborhood and yet, I'm still less frightened of rapists/murderers leaping out at me at every turn than these guys are. Being terrified all the time has got to absolutely suck.

Gun nuts, don't worry about it! Even if he's elected, there's no way Obama or anyone else is going to take away your precious metal penis surrogates. Politicians on both sides need to jump through hoops to prove their party cred. Republicans have to promise to arm babies immediately upon being born (but only white babies); Democrats have to promise that they'll take away all your toys and then have you re-educated into salad-eating pacifists. In both cases it's just pandering to people too stupid to pay attention to how the real world actually works.

For all you elitist out there; I'm way better than you.

metztli: ...there's no way Obama or anyone else is going to take away your precious metal penis surrogates...

Y'know, for someone who implies that RKBA defenders have some sort of sexual dysfunction, you sure do fixate on penis.

Occam's Chainsaw: metztli: ...there's no way Obama or anyone else is going to take away your precious metal penis surrogates...

Y'know, for someone who implies that RKBA defenders have some sort of sexual dysfunction, you sure do fixate on penis.

I know! I mentioned it one time in a throwaway snark line - CLEARLY I am obsessed. Love the cock. LOVE IT.

Why, there's all kinds of things you can do with cock! You can barbecue it, boil it, broil it, bake it, sautee it. There's uh, cock-kabobs, cock creole, cock gumbo. Pan fried, deep fried, stir-fried. There's pineapple cock, lemon cock, coconut cock, pepper cock, cock soup, cock stew, cock salad, cock and potatoes, cock burger, cock sandwich. That- that's about it.

metztli: ...CLEARLY I am obsessed. Love the cock. LOVE IT.

...aaaaand quoted. God, you don't even have to bait the hooks around here.

It was said in a semblance of jest. It's part of the gun thread call-and-response around here. You claim gun = penis substitute, I call you out on penile fixation, allemande left, bow to your partner.

Crosshair: For the last time you political elitists, there is NO GUNSHOW LOOPHOLE.

How cute, the gun elitists are mad. So when are you going to stand up for people's rights to buy butterfly knives or mortars? Oh, that's right, you only care about guns.

USP .45: That's lowering the speed limit from 65 to 60 in hopes of stopping speeders.

So you oppose any and all background checks, then? Do you believe that there is any law that may be applied to the sale of guns?

lolmao666: This will piss off good citizens who just want a gun for protection for the biggest enemy of a free people, the government.

What about people who want a knife for protection against the government, or a rocket propelled grenade? Do your support their rights, or are you just a gun elitist who only supports laws that protect the types of weapons that you think are "cool"?

TheCid: Crosshair: For the last time you political elitists, there is NO GUNSHOW LOOPHOLE. It only exists in your hoplophobic minds.

Gun Show Loophole:

The "Gun show loophole" is a term coined to describe the legal sale of firearms between private individuals at gun shows in states where this is legal. When these sales take place at a gun show, some perceive a "loophole" in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), although these laws have never applied to individual-to-individual sales of personal firearms.

So many things wrong with this.

3. The loophole doesn't deal with individual-to-individual sales of firearms, it has to do with the fact that it's an organized event. Don't pretend that companies don't sell their guns at gun shows. No sir, it's ONLY individuals. Sure. I believe you. No, really.

You're an idiot and you don't know what you're talking about. The laws that apply to federally-licensed firearms dealers still apply at a gun show; the venue does not matter. The laws that apply in individual-to-individual gun sales still apply at a gun show. And in Illinois, law-abiding gun owners can only sell their guns to individuals who possess a valid, state-issued Firearm Owner's ID card.


1: This has nothing to do with "elitism". Your use of this term makes it obvious you're just participating in the usual smearing of Obama as such.

I don't think a guy who labels any Farker more conservative than Hillary Clinton (myself included) a troll, brags that he has blocked them all and urges others to do so has any place criticizing others for their use of the word "elitism".

When they call you or your phony savior an "elitest", it's just a nice way of saying "condescending ignorant asshole", anyway.

The War on Poverty: a shining example of democratic social welfare and income redistribution.

LocalCynic: lolmao666: This will piss off good citizens who just want a gun for protection for the biggest enemy of a free people, the government.

What about people who want a knife for protection against the government, or a rocket propelled grenade? Do your support their rights, or are you just a gun elitist who only supports laws that protect the types of weapons that you think are "cool"?

Here we go again with the the bait and switch argument.

Occam's Chainsaw: metztli: ...CLEARLY I am obsessed. Love the cock. LOVE IT.

...aaaaand quoted. God, you don't even have to bait the hooks around here.

It was said in a semblance of jest. It's part of the gun thread call-and-response around here. You claim gun = penis substitute, I call you out on penile fixation, allemande left, bow to your partner.

I kinda assumed my response would likewise be taken as over-amped jokery there. I conflate gun ownership w/penises you do a joshing reply and then I'm supposed to feign indignance. Are we now doing that other common thing where each of us says "oh, I was trolling too!" and then we have a good laugh at the dumbasses who, despite our acknowledging it openly, fall for our trolls?

LocalCynic: The lawyers in Parker argued to the Supreme Court that the second amendment applies to guns and only guns. It's not a bait and switch. I'm disturbed that gun elitists are seeking to re-write the Constitution.

Do you think I've forgotten that you have a collective rights interpretation of the 2nd Amendment?

USP .45: Do you think I've forgotten that you have a collective rights interpretation of the 2nd Amendment?

I don't know what you're talking about. I think that the purpose of the second amendment was to promote the common defense, but that's not your grandfather's "collective rights interpretation."

Thanks, submitter.

LocalCynic: I don't know what you're talking about. I think that the purpose of the second amendment was to promote the common defense, but that's not your grandfather's "collective rights interpretation."

Right so you're going to start with the quasi-non sequitur argument about owning mortars, cannons, etc, then add a little yatta yatta logic, a little blah blah blah Swiss model, and basically end up at the National Guard, trapping any "gun elitist" that was dumb enough to take the bait. Right? Right.

USP .45: Right so you're going to start with the quasi-non sequitur argument about owning mortars, cannons, etc

The American government didn't own cannons during some of the nation's most crucial wars. Privateers did. It's perfectly topical to point out that the silly "arms versus ordinance" distinction that gun elitists created was designed to reduce people's second amendment rights. The gun elitists use this strategy so that they seem "mainstream." They're willing to throw some people's rights under the bus to protect the weapons that they like.

LocalCynic: The American government didn't own cannons during some of the nation's most crucial wars. Privateers did. It's perfectly topical to point out that the silly "arms versus ordinance" distinction that gun elitists created was designed to reduce people's second amendment rights. The gun elitists use this strategy so that they seem "mainstream." They're willing to throw some people's rights under the bus to protect the weapons that they like.

Right, so let's get this over with.

Me: "I think we should restore those rights. Mortars, cannons, tanks, etc."

You: "Historical jive --->Swiss model--->National Guard" *Quaker HAHA*

LocalCynic: USP .45: Right so you're going to start with the quasi-non sequitur argument about owning mortars, cannons, etc

The American government didn't own cannons during some of the nation's most crucial wars. Privateers did. It's perfectly topical to point out that the silly "arms versus ordinance" distinction that gun elitists created was designed to reduce people's second amendment rights. The gun elitists use this strategy so that they seem "mainstream." They're willing to throw some people's rights under the bus to protect the weapons that they like.

Hells yea! I want my USB rocket launcher to fire rockets with real ordinance. I'll protect people from the government from the comfort of my home office!

USP .45: Right, so let's get this over with.

Me: "I think we should restore those rights. Mortars, cannons, tanks, etc." Anyone who disagrees with my re-written interpretation of the Constitution is a collectivist! You hate America!

You: "Historical jive --->Swiss model--->National Guard" *Quaker HAHA* The original interpretation of the Constitution had things right.

Fixed that for you.