Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Obama: The worst gun-grabbingest gun-grabber to ever grab your guns   (huffingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, Obama, Washington Navy Yard, guns, ammunition clips, checked baggage, Sen. Tom Coburn, Isla Vista, Vice President Joe Biden  
•       •       •

2001 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 May 2014 at 11:05 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



243 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-29 09:08:28 AM  
Just because you're bad at something, doesn't mean you don't want to do it.

Plus, we've just been taking him at his word:

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/

Just because he's ineffective doesn't mean he doesn't want it.  It just means he's ineffective.
 
2014-05-29 09:12:46 AM  
From the article:

That time he signed a bill allowing concealed loaded firearms in national parks.

The claim is inaccurate.

The law referenced included an amendment authored by Senator Coburn (R-OK) that rendered the existing federal prohibition on the carrying of firearms in national parks unenforceable against persons who were in compliance with any and all relevant local laws related to the carrying of firearms.

This may seem like a "nitpick", but it is in fact an important distinction as the less accurate version of the statement has resulted in false (either through dishonesty or ignorance) claims regarding the law.

Stating that the law "allows" the carrying of firearms in national parks implies that the law effectively overrides existing state controls when a person is in a national park within that state. I have even read claims that the law would allow anyone to carry firearms national parks in Maryland and even in the District of Columbia; I was actually accused of being a "troll" when I questioned a person's claim that the President signed a law allowing people to "carry handguns in DC parks". In reality, because concealed weapons permits are very rarely (if every) issued in Maryland or in the District of Columbia, very few (if any) persons could legally carry firearms within national parks in those locales and thus the claim that any law allows people to "carry handguns in DC parks" is a lie.
 
2014-05-29 09:17:55 AM  
I'm sure Romney would never sign a national gun-control bill.  He already 'got that out of his system' in Massachusetts.
 
2014-05-29 09:22:49 AM  

dittybopper: Just because you're bad at something, doesn't mean you don't want to do it.

Plus, we've just been taking him at his word:

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/

Just because he's ineffective doesn't mean he doesn't want it.  It just means he's ineffective.


While you're considered a fairly bright guy on most topics you go fully insane ideologue on this one. Every single time. Franky it's fascinating.
 
2014-05-29 09:26:16 AM  

Tigger: While you're considered a fairly bright guy on most topics you go fully insane ideologue on this one. Every single time. Franky it's fascinating.


I'm glad I'm not the only one who's noticed that about him.
 
2014-05-29 09:45:55 AM  

Tigger: While you're considered a fairly bright guy on most topics you go fully insane ideologue on this one. Every single time. Franky it's fascinating.


I don't mean to start a flame war here -- I really don't -- but it sounds like your statement is just a coded version of, "We agree on most topics except for this one, and therefore it is a shame you are stupid with regards to this topic."
 
2014-05-29 09:57:43 AM  
Think about it. Who's mostly getting shot up in these killings?

White folks.
 
2014-05-29 09:57:51 AM  

somedude210: Tigger: While you're considered a fairly bright guy on most topics you go fully insane ideologue on this one. Every single time. Franky it's fascinating.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who's noticed that about him.


In this particular case, though, am I wrong?

I pointed you to a link on Change.gov, his official policy platform from 2008.

TFA seems to be arguing that incompetence = gun owners friend, or at least that he's not interested in the issue.

That I find to be an absurd position to take.

And I'm bright enough to have recognized in 2011 that the president wasn't going to act on gun control until after the 2012 election. And I was proven to be right.  Just because he largely failed in his goals because he didn't understand either the issues involved or the opposition doesn't mean that he didn't try.
 
2014-05-29 10:01:28 AM  

TwistedIvory: I don't mean to start a flame war here -- I really don't -- but it sounds like your statement is just a coded version of, "We agree on most topics except for this one, and therefore it is a shame you are stupid with regards to this topic."


It's less that and more "you have very well reasoned and thought out arguments on things we agree and disagree with across the political landscape, but whenever someone brings up guns, you turn into NRA guy and it's just baffling"

at least that's how it is with me. He's an incredibly smart and well-reasoned person on here, but everyone has that one topic that makes them sound....off, I guess?

"Just because you're bad at something, doesn't mean you don't want to do it."

I mean, that's just dripping of "well he hasn't yet...BUT HE WILL!!! JUST YOU WATCH!"
 
2014-05-29 10:05:06 AM  

dittybopper: TFA seems to be arguing that incompetence = gun owners friend, or at least that he's not interested in the issue.


His biggest attempt at regulating guns, (and that is all it is, regulation, not confiscation) was the Manchin-Toomey bill that failed miserably. And he flipped out because of how it failed. It was a bill that included things that most of the country agreed with it.

It was less of "aw man, we can't take your guns now" and more of "wtf guys, this was a bill that included shiat that the people wanted. you are supposed to represent the people, not the companies and you let this fail. Man the fark up and listen to the people you're supposed to represent"
 
2014-05-29 10:33:06 AM  
thepoliticalcarnival.net
 
2014-05-29 11:04:48 AM  

Dimensio: From the article:

That time he signed a bill allowing concealed loaded firearms in national parks.

The claim is inaccurate.

The law referenced included an amendment authored by Senator Coburn (R-OK) that rendered the existing federal prohibition on the carrying of firearms in national parks unenforceable against persons who were in compliance with any and all relevant local laws related to the carrying of firearms.

This may seem like a "nitpick", but it is in fact an important distinction as the less accurate version of the statement has resulted in false (either through dishonesty or ignorance) claims regarding the law.

Stating that the law "allows" the carrying of firearms in national parks implies that the law effectively overrides existing state controls when a person is in a national park within that state. I have even read claims that the law would allow anyone to carry firearms national parks in Maryland and even in the District of Columbia; I was actually accused of being a "troll" when I questioned a person's claim that the President signed a law allowing people to "carry handguns in DC parks". In reality, because concealed weapons permits are very rarely (if every) issued in Maryland or in the District of Columbia, very few (if any) persons could legally carry firearms within national parks in those locales and thus the claim that any law allows people to "carry handguns in DC parks" is a lie.


It is beyond nitpicking.  Calling the bolded statement inaccurate is in fact inaccurate.  To make a "prohibition unenforceable" is the same as allowing something.
 
2014-05-29 11:08:26 AM  
At this point, I'd rather see guns get grabbed just to stop hearing about how it's about to happen every time a democratic leader is elected to any office, state or federal.  It's so boring.

//I also think that once we deal with the 2nd amendment, we should do it as a general good idea, but rule of law first, man.
 
2014-05-29 11:09:09 AM  

dittybopper: Just because you're bad at something, doesn't mean you don't want to do it.

Plus, we've just been taking him at his word:

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/

Just because he's ineffective doesn't mean he doesn't want it.  It just means he's ineffective.


The wheels of the gun confiscation machine are gonna start turning. Any. Day. Now.
 
2014-05-29 11:10:18 AM  

Dimensio: From the article:

That time he signed a bill allowing concealed loaded firearms in national parks.

The claim is inaccurate.


No it isn't, he signed a bill allowing concealed loaded firearms in national parks.
 
2014-05-29 11:12:36 AM  

somedude210: Tigger: While you're considered a fairly bright guy on most topics you go fully insane ideologue on this one. Every single time. Franky it's fascinating.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who's noticed that about him.


It has gotten to a point where it is shocking when he's NOT one of the three posts starting a gun thread.
 
2014-05-29 11:12:53 AM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Think about it. Who's mostly getting shot up in these killings?

White folks.


Your point?
 
2014-05-29 11:13:12 AM  

dittybopper: Just because he's ineffective doesn't mean he doesn't want it. It just means he's ineffective.


So you're using your magic psychic powers to know that OMG HE WANTS TO DO THIS SO SO HARD IT'S HIS NUMBER ONE DESIRE totally, for sure for sure?
 
2014-05-29 11:13:33 AM  
Can't Obama do anything right??
 
2014-05-29 11:13:46 AM  

somedude210: TwistedIvory: I don't mean to start a flame war here -- I really don't -- but it sounds like your statement is just a coded version of, "We agree on most topics except for this one, and therefore it is a shame you are stupid with regards to this topic."

It's less that and more "you have very well reasoned and thought out arguments on things we agree and disagree with across the political landscape, but whenever someone brings up guns, you turn into NRA guy and it's just baffling"

at least that's how it is with me. He's an incredibly smart and well-reasoned person on here, but everyone has that one topic that makes them sound....off, I guess?

"Just because you're bad at something, doesn't mean you don't want to do it."

I mean, that's just dripping of "well he hasn't yet...BUT HE WILL!!! JUST YOU WATCH!"


I will take the compliments, thank you, but I'm truly puzzled about what I might have said about gun control or gun rights that is "NRA guy", which I assume is code-word for "cousin' farkin' mouth-breathin' idiocy".

Just because we may disagree on the issue, doesn't mean my positions aren't rationally thought out.  In point of fact, I actually enjoy the discussions on this topic on Fark when I have someone intelligent arguing the opposite (instead of just name calling, which is all too common), because sometimes it actually makes me reconsider my positions, and go digging for actual *EVIDENCE* to support my positions.  And I've learned a lot in the process (and not all of it 100% to the NRA's benefit).

Based upon that evidence, though, I've come to the conclusion that faith in gun control as a solution to violence is similar to being an anti-vaxxer, a birther, a creationist, or a climate change denier:   Despite the fact that all violent crime, including homicides both with and with out guns is down, and despite the huge advance in "Shall Issue" concealed carry laws, such that most people in the US now live in states where the government must issue you a license to carry if you meet some objective criteria, the majority of the people in the US still think that violent crime and homicides are either worse than they were 20 years ago, or about the same.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/14/rate-of-non-fatal-vi ol ent-crime-falls-since-the-1990s/

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49- si nce-1993-peak-public-unaware/

Consider the implications of that:  The public is so unaware of the actual *FACTS* that 82% of them think that gun crimes have either gone up or stayed the same in the last 20 years, when in fact they've plummeted, even as more and more states have enacted "Shall Issue" laws*, and the number of guns owned by the public has increased markedly.

I'm not claiming that those laws and/or the increase in guns in circulation has caused the drop.  Correlation is not causation.  Lack of correlation, however, does disprove causation:  You can't argue, as many have, that allowing people to carry guns for protection has resulted in "blood in the streets" and gun-fights over fender-benders, and increased accidental deaths, because we haven't seen that.
 
2014-05-29 11:14:07 AM  

NeverDrunk23: somedude210: Tigger: While you're considered a fairly bright guy on most topics you go fully insane ideologue on this one. Every single time. Franky it's fascinating.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who's noticed that about him.

It has gotten to a point where it is shocking when he's NOT one of the three posts starting a gun thread.


He's the one that submits them, has a diatribe ready to paste.
 
2014-05-29 11:14:29 AM  
img.fark.net


here we go again.

Abandon thread, they were here in the Boobiess.
 
2014-05-29 11:14:42 AM  

NeverDrunk23: somedude210: Tigger: While you're considered a fairly bright guy on most topics you go fully insane ideologue on this one. Every single time. Franky it's fascinating.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who's noticed that about him.

It has gotten to a point where it is shocking when he's NOT one of the three posts starting a gun thread.


So he's the Tatsuma of gun threads.
 
2014-05-29 11:15:34 AM  

dittybopper: Just because you're bad at something, doesn't mean you don't want to do it.

Plus, we've just been taking him at his word:

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/

Just because he's ineffective doesn't mean he doesn't want it.  It just means he's ineffective.


So which is it? Is he a diabolical super liberal (possibly the anti-christ born in Kenya securt muslim communist gay) or is he a lousy ineffective president?
 
2014-05-29 11:15:38 AM  

TwistedIvory: Tigger: While you're considered a fairly bright guy on most topics you go fully insane ideologue on this one. Every single time. Franky it's fascinating.

I don't mean to start a flame war here -- I really don't -- but it sounds like your statement is just a coded version of, "We agree on most topics except for this one, and therefore it is a shame you are stupid with regards to this topic."

I'm still stuck on the whole "you're considered a fairly bright guy" thing. By whom exactly?
 
2014-05-29 11:15:41 AM  

dittybopper: Consider the implications of that:  The public is so unaware of the actual *FACTS* that 82% of them think that gun crimes have either gone up or stayed the same in the last 20 years, when in fact they've plummeted, even as more and more states have enacted "Shall Issue" laws*, and the number of guns owned by the public has increased markedly.


You'll find that most people are still unhappy with the frequent massacres.
 
2014-05-29 11:15:51 AM  
Maybe this issue is a little more complicated than "pro gun" versus "anti gun," and deserves a more serious, rational, adult conversation about common-sense regulation of gun ownership.

But whatever.  Lets keep this a completely divisive and polarized political issue.  So far it has worked really well for the NRA and mentally ill people who shouldn't have guns.
 
2014-05-29 11:16:07 AM  

Lord_Baull: Can't Obama do anything right??


Worst tyrant ever!
 
2014-05-29 11:16:38 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: NeverDrunk23: somedude210: Tigger: While you're considered a fairly bright guy on most topics you go fully insane ideologue on this one. Every single time. Franky it's fascinating.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who's noticed that about him.

It has gotten to a point where it is shocking when he's NOT one of the three posts starting a gun thread.

He's the one that submits them, has a diatribe ready to paste.


I've often been suspicious that that was the case. It's just a little TOO often he's the first one.  At the very least one of the first three.
 
2014-05-29 11:18:37 AM  
Hes as successful in grabbing guns as Bush was in grabbing WMDs.

It doesn't mean the two of them didnt have goals.
 
2014-05-29 11:18:57 AM  

Giltric: Hes as successful in grabbing guns as Bush was in grabbing WMDs.

It doesn't mean the two of them didnt have goals.


Oh please.
 
2014-05-29 11:19:06 AM  

mrshowrules: Dimensio: From the article:

That time he signed a bill allowing concealed loaded firearms in national parks.

The claim is inaccurate.

The law referenced included an amendment authored by Senator Coburn (R-OK) that rendered the existing federal prohibition on the carrying of firearms in national parks unenforceable against persons who were in compliance with any and all relevant local laws related to the carrying of firearms.

This may seem like a "nitpick", but it is in fact an important distinction as the less accurate version of the statement has resulted in false (either through dishonesty or ignorance) claims regarding the law.

Stating that the law "allows" the carrying of firearms in national parks implies that the law effectively overrides existing state controls when a person is in a national park within that state. I have even read claims that the law would allow anyone to carry firearms national parks in Maryland and even in the District of Columbia; I was actually accused of being a "troll" when I questioned a person's claim that the President signed a law allowing people to "carry handguns in DC parks". In reality, because concealed weapons permits are very rarely (if every) issued in Maryland or in the District of Columbia, very few (if any) persons could legally carry firearms within national parks in those locales and thus the claim that any law allows people to "carry handguns in DC parks" is a lie.

It is beyond nitpicking.  Calling the bolded statement inaccurate is in fact inaccurate.  To make a "prohibition unenforceable" is the same as allowing something.


As the prohibition is only "unenforceable" when no local laws are also violated, the action is not universally "allowed".

A person who cannot legally carry a firearm in public in a state remains prohibited from carrying a firearm when in a national park in that state.

I have been told that the change in law would allow persons to carry firearms in "DC parks". The law in fact makes no such allowance, and such a claim is based either upon ignorance or dishonesty.
 
2014-05-29 11:19:22 AM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: HotWingConspiracy: NeverDrunk23: somedude210: Tigger: While you're considered a fairly bright guy on most topics you go fully insane ideologue on this one. Every single time. Franky it's fascinating.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who's noticed that about him.

It has gotten to a point where it is shocking when he's NOT one of the three posts starting a gun thread.

He's the one that submits them, has a diatribe ready to paste.

I've often been suspicious that that was the case. It's just a little TOO often he's the first one.  At the very least one of the first three.


He gets to see the articles before you. Pay 5$ and you can be the first one to post ......
 
2014-05-29 11:19:38 AM  

somedude210: dittybopper: TFA seems to be arguing that incompetence = gun owners friend, or at least that he's not interested in the issue.

His biggest attempt at regulating guns, (and that is all it is, regulation, not confiscation) was the Manchin-Toomey bill that failed miserably. And he flipped out because of how it failed. It was a bill that included things that most of the country agreed with it.

It was less of "aw man, we can't take your guns now" and more of "wtf guys, this was a bill that included shiat that the people wanted. you are supposed to represent the people, not the companies and you let this fail. Man the fark up and listen to the people you're supposed to represent"


Except that people *DIDN'T* want it, at least not like the president claimed:

content.gallup.com

Just 9 months after Sandy Hook, 50% of the people wanted the laws to be made either less strict, or kept the way they were.

Even in the *IMMEDIATE* aftermath, in December of 2012, 40% wanted the laws to be less strict or kept the way they were, and just 58% wanted them to be more strict, a far cry from the president's claim that "90% of Americans" wanted more gun control.
 
2014-05-29 11:19:41 AM  

dittybopper: Just because you're bad at something, doesn't mean you don't want to do it.

Plus, we've just been taking him at his word:

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/

Just because he's ineffective doesn't mean he doesn't want it.  It just means he's ineffective.


You should stockpile ammo just to be safe.
 
2014-05-29 11:20:45 AM  

Dimensio: As the prohibition is only "unenforceable" when no local laws are also violated, the action is not universally "allowed".


This makes no sense. Of course the prohibition is unenforceable until laws are broken. That doesn't still mean that statement is incorrect.
 
2014-05-29 11:20:59 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-05-29 11:21:15 AM  

dittybopper: Just because you're bad at something, doesn't mean you don't want to do it.

Plus, we've just been taking him at his word:

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/

Just because he's ineffective doesn't mean he doesn't want it.  It just means he's ineffective.


I missed the part in your quote where they want to grab your guns.
 
2014-05-29 11:21:43 AM  
dittybopper: just 58%

I like how a clear majority is "just" 58%.
 
2014-05-29 11:22:06 AM  

dittybopper: somedude210: TwistedIvory: I don't mean to start a flame war here -- I really don't -- but it sounds like your statement is just a coded version of, "We agree on most topics except for this one, and therefore it is a shame you are stupid with regards to this topic."

It's less that and more "you have very well reasoned and thought out arguments on things we agree and disagree with across the political landscape, but whenever someone brings up guns, you turn into NRA guy and it's just baffling"

at least that's how it is with me. He's an incredibly smart and well-reasoned person on here, but everyone has that one topic that makes them sound....off, I guess?

"Just because you're bad at something, doesn't mean you don't want to do it."

I mean, that's just dripping of "well he hasn't yet...BUT HE WILL!!! JUST YOU WATCH!"

I will take the compliments, thank you, but I'm truly puzzled about what I might have said about gun control or gun rights that is "NRA guy", which I assume is code-word for "cousin' farkin' mouth-breathin' idiocy".

Just because we may disagree on the issue, doesn't mean my positions aren't rationally thought out.  In point of fact, I actually enjoy the discussions on this topic on Fark when I have someone intelligent arguing the opposite (instead of just name calling, which is all too common), because sometimes it actually makes me reconsider my positions, and go digging for actual *EVIDENCE* to support my positions.  And I've learned a lot in the process (and not all of it 100% to the NRA's benefit).

Based upon that evidence, though, I've come to the conclusion that faith in gun control as a solution to violence is similar to being an anti-vaxxer, a birther, a creationist, or a climate change denier:   Despite the fact that all violent crime, including homicides both with and with out guns is down, and despite the huge advance in "Shall Issue" concealed carry laws, such that most people in the US now live in states where the government must issue ...



Yes, you clearly are looking at the evidence in a rational, impartial manner.  I'll just go ahead and leave this here...

www.washingtonpost.com
 
2014-05-29 11:22:07 AM  

Giltric: Satan's Bunny Slippers: HotWingConspiracy: NeverDrunk23: somedude210: Tigger: While you're considered a fairly bright guy on most topics you go fully insane ideologue on this one. Every single time. Franky it's fascinating.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who's noticed that about him.

It has gotten to a point where it is shocking when he's NOT one of the three posts starting a gun thread.

He's the one that submits them, has a diatribe ready to paste.

I've often been suspicious that that was the case. It's just a little TOO often he's the first one.  At the very least one of the first three.

He gets to see the articles before you. Pay 5$ and you can be the first one to post ......


I have never paid for TF.  When I have been TF (just came off about a week or so ago), it was a gift.

Quite frankly, I never saw the draw, unless you want to thread sit and thread shiat.
 
2014-05-29 11:22:09 AM  

Tigger: While you're considered a fairly bright guy on most topics you go fully insane ideologue on this one.


He goes a little bonkers when it comes to science fairs too.
 
2014-05-29 11:22:50 AM  

Tigger: dittybopper: Just because you're bad at something, doesn't mean you don't want to do it.

Plus, we've just been taking him at his word:

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/

Just because he's ineffective doesn't mean he doesn't want it.  It just means he's ineffective.

While you're considered a fairly bright guy on most topics you go fully insane ideologue on this one. Every single time. Franky it's fascinating.


They ARE after his guns, though. Just because mental defectives shouldn't have guns.
 
2014-05-29 11:23:08 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Of course the prohibition is unenforceable until laws are broken.


So are you saying new stricter laws wouldn't prevent anything?
 
2014-05-29 11:24:09 AM  

Frank N Stein: [img.fark.net image 850x637]


Thank goodness somebody's finally standing up for that poor Boston bomber. Had they just politely asked, he would have gone with police, right?
 
2014-05-29 11:24:22 AM  
Has the guns grabbed so far still holding at zero?
 
2014-05-29 11:24:24 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: dittybopper: just 58%

I like how a clear majority is "just" 58%.


Do you advocate for a democratically controlled congress passing laws with a 51 to 49 vote?
 
2014-05-29 11:24:37 AM  

Chummer45: dittybopper: somedude210: TwistedIvory: I don't mean to start a flame war here -- I really don't -- but it sounds like your statement is just a coded version of, "We agree on most topics except for this one, and therefore it is a shame you are stupid with regards to this topic."

It's less that and more "you have very well reasoned and thought out arguments on things we agree and disagree with across the political landscape, but whenever someone brings up guns, you turn into NRA guy and it's just baffling"

at least that's how it is with me. He's an incredibly smart and well-reasoned person on here, but everyone has that one topic that makes them sound....off, I guess?

"Just because you're bad at something, doesn't mean you don't want to do it."

I mean, that's just dripping of "well he hasn't yet...BUT HE WILL!!! JUST YOU WATCH!"

I will take the compliments, thank you, but I'm truly puzzled about what I might have said about gun control or gun rights that is "NRA guy", which I assume is code-word for "cousin' farkin' mouth-breathin' idiocy".

Just because we may disagree on the issue, doesn't mean my positions aren't rationally thought out.  In point of fact, I actually enjoy the discussions on this topic on Fark when I have someone intelligent arguing the opposite (instead of just name calling, which is all too common), because sometimes it actually makes me reconsider my positions, and go digging for actual *EVIDENCE* to support my positions.  And I've learned a lot in the process (and not all of it 100% to the NRA's benefit).

Based upon that evidence, though, I've come to the conclusion that faith in gun control as a solution to violence is similar to being an anti-vaxxer, a birther, a creationist, or a climate change denier:   Despite the fact that all violent crime, including homicides both with and with out guns is down, and despite the huge advance in "Shall Issue" concealed carry laws, such that most people in the US now live in states where the governme ...


Why does that chart exclude Mexico?
 
2014-05-29 11:24:42 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: Hes as successful in grabbing guns as Bush was in grabbing WMDs.

It doesn't mean the two of them didnt have goals.

Oh please.


Don't bother. He's just another example of "people who are most vocal about being gun fetishists are frequently mentally ill."
 
2014-05-29 11:26:28 AM  

dittybopper: somedude210: dittybopper: TFA seems to be arguing that incompetence = gun owners friend, or at least that he's not interested in the issue.

His biggest attempt at regulating guns, (and that is all it is, regulation, not confiscation) was the Manchin-Toomey bill that failed miserably. And he flipped out because of how it failed. It was a bill that included things that most of the country agreed with it.

It was less of "aw man, we can't take your guns now" and more of "wtf guys, this was a bill that included shiat that the people wanted. you are supposed to represent the people, not the companies and you let this fail. Man the fark up and listen to the people you're supposed to represent"

Except that people *DIDN'T* want it, at least not like the president claimed:

[content.gallup.com image 564x304]

Just 9 months after Sandy Hook, 50% of the people wanted the laws to be made either less strict, or kept the way they were.

Even in the *IMMEDIATE* aftermath, in December of 2012, 40% wanted the laws to be less strict or kept the way they were, and just 58% wanted them to be more strict, a far cry from the president's claim that "90% of Americans" wanted more gun control.



The problem is that "gun control" is as meaningless and politically charged a word as "health care reform."

a more meaningful measure is to ask people about specific proposals such as "should gun owners be legally required to register their firearms?"   Or "should universal background checks be required?"

FYI - I think that the 90% statistic Obama is referring to is the question of whether universal background checks should be required.  It completely blow my mind that our politicians are so paralyzed with fear of the NRA that they can' even enact that most basic, common-sense requirement.
 
Displayed 50 of 243 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report