For me, without derailing the thread too far, the issue isn’t whether I “need” a BMG .50 or other “assault weapon**” (I don’t, I’m happy with my .22 single shot rifle, my two 12-gauge shotguns and my .357 Magnum revolver, all used for recreational target shooting/plinking), but the whole idea of the “slippery slope” argument
(yes, i know all about the lack of veracity of Wiki cites and the fact that the Slippery Slope argument is in and of itself a fallacy)
basically, I don’t trust the government, I see no reason to ever trust them, and I’m not going to give them any chance to confiscate my legally owned and operated firearms just because some hysterical “tree hugger” decides that my possession of a firearm offends them
I’ve grown up around firearms my whole life, and have had the importance of firearm safety pounded into me since the day I first picked up my first BB gun, to me the firearm is a tool, a dangerous tool, one that requires respect and maturity in it’s operation, I have never raised any weapon of any sort in anger against anyone, nor will I ever, to me, it’s inconcievable (and yes, the word does mean what I think it does)
I’ll end this here before derailing the thread any further
**"Assault Weapon is PC-ese for a firearm that “looks scary” or “ugly” typified by either a black composite stock or an AK-47esqe profile, functionally they are no different than a “Sporting” firearm, but since Sporting Arms look like grandpa’s old field gun they get a pass as they don’t look “scary”
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Here’s how it was reported in the NYT, included the exact quote of what she said:
So, we’re going to slip backwards if she doesn’t get the nomination? Like I said, fuck that. She works so hard to make American better? What a crock-- she’s a power hungry politician, and she’s working hard so she can become president. That’s why she turns a lot of people off.
But I don’t dislike her. I said I’d vote for her. She’s not the only power-hungry pol out there, just the one who happened to be hypocritical about it the other day on national TV.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I re-watched the clip just before I posted so I didn’t really need the quote or the NYT’s note that just maybe she was referring to Obama when she said “some of us are ready and some of us are not”. I do find it quite amusing that they decided to crop the line where she said
Which was right in between “We have to reverse it.” and “It’s about our country” Gee, I guess that quote would have been awkward in an article about whether she moved up or moved down with that little speech. lol.
I simply have trouble getting worked up or tagging it as hypocritical when a politician thinks they are the best or possibly only decent choice for the job. People with small egos generally don’t become career politicians.
[QUOTE=Stealth Potato]
Well, given the recent trends towards executives attempting to grab more and more autocratic authority, not to mention the incredible inflation of the scope of federal power, I think that one might justifiably become concerned.
But more than that, it shows me that a candidate does not respect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and is therefore unfit to fill the Presidential office.
[/QUOTE]
Besides the whole semi-auto thing, this is a pretty comprehensive overview of his stance on gun control. No where in there does it say he wants to get rid of guns, he mostly wants stricter enforcement on already established laws. I seriously doubt Obama would try to bring about the ban of semi-autos, because he knows it won’t work. As he states, when a gangbanger hits some passerby instead of their intended target, “we need to acknowledge that there’s a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair.”
Basically, I’m saying that, between a choice of a former constitutional law professor and a group of people that support torture, who would you choose? Personally, I’m more afraid of torture.
[QUOTE=Stealth Potato]
Well, given the recent trends towards executives attempting to grab more and more autocratic authority, not to mention the incredible inflation of the scope of federal power, I think that one might justifiably become concerned.
But more than that, it shows me that a candidate does not respect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and is therefore unfit to fill the Presidential office.
[/QUOTE]
Can you give me an example of how a president could abuse his power and affect your ability to own a gun? The stuff Bush does that people complain about is mostly secret stuff or things that happen outside the US. Are you afraid he’ll start collecting a list of all gun owners? I could maybe see where you’d have something to worry about if the governor of your state was hard line anti-gun, but the president? I just can’t see it.
And what was it that Obama said that makes you think he doesn’t respect the Constitution?
[QUOTE=alphaboi867]
Isn’t Clinton leading in superdelegates? She has at least 2 for certain (Bill & herself) while Obama only has his one vote.
[/QUOTE]
Looking at the total sum from all the states, Clinton has more than everyone else combined. Of course, it’s kind of misleading to look at the superdelegates alone, since I believe they’re only a seventh of the total number of delegates.
[QUOTE=Barack Obama]
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
[/quote]
So, theoretically, everything from the Ruger Mark II semiauto .22 pistol and 10/22 rifle .22 caliber plinkers all the way up to the big-boys like the Desert Eagle .50AE and Wildey .475, bit of a large gillnet dontcha think?
[QUOTE=Barack Obama]
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
[/quote]
How about enforcing the laws already on the books instead of drafting new ones?
[QUOTE=Barack Obama]
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
[/quote]
this one I have no problem with
I don’t want to derail the thread any further, feel free to open another topic on this issue if you want, this’ll be my last post in this thread on Obama’s 2nd Amendment stance
One of my college freinds actually got her roommate (a “From-Awayer” to believe that when learning to drive in Mass, Mass residents are given both the standard driving instruction manual (most pages are blank) and a special "Masshole* manual that tought you the fine-points of driving like a Mass. native )
[/QUOTE]
You mean Wild In The Streets? Yeh, that’s required reading before you can pass your driving test here.
ETA: I actually love New England. Maybe it’s someone from away talking, but I like Vermont, NH, and Maine a lot. I even like Boston. I just don’t like driving there.
[QUOTE=Captain Carrot]
Looking at the total sum from all the states, Clinton has more than everyone else combined. Of course, it’s kind of misleading to look at the superdelegates alone, since I believe they’re only a seventh of the total number of delegates.
[/QUOTE]
Er, I misread CNN’s numbers. SDs are 20% of the total group.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
My reaction to the “tearing up” moment was disgust. What is she trying to tell us-- that only she can run the country? Fuck that. She was upset because she wants to be prez and it looked like the voters were rejecting her for another candidate. Well, tough shit, Hill. The election is about us, not you. Deeply personal, my ass! It’s “deeply personal” for all of us, and a lot of us want Obama instead of you. Get the fuck over it. Or, rather, get the fuck over yourself.
[/QUOTE]
And a very secular Amen to that!
I’ll just add that I’m amazed they only showed that clip of her full response…for she went into an angry and rather irrational, attack-Obama mode right after what was shown nationwide.
[QUOTE=Squink]
Wow, I can actually, really, for sure, feel your pain here.
It sucks to be you today!
[/QUOTE]
Yeppers, it does. I still think she’s a socialist through and through, but that edisode was no act. Acting is a skill, and she hasn’t studied it. Politicians are the equivalent of TV commercial actors, and even talk like them. The timbre of her voice. The stops and their timing. The facial nuances. She is incapable of managing all that. It was real.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
I can’t believe this, but I’m going to defend Hillary. I don’t know whether the question was planted or the answer rehearsed or any of that, but I do know that for the first time ever, she struck me as sincere. I wouldn’t even describe it as tears. She wasn’t crying. She didn’t choke up. She was contemplative, and seemed to open up. Compared to what a steel trap George W. Bush is, her candor was refreshing to me. It is not a weakness for a leader to show human feelings; it is a weakness for a leader to suppress them.
[/QUOTE]
For what it’s worth (prolly not much ) I agree with you.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Oh, it’s worth a great deal. I’m really surprised at all the hostility towards her over this.
[/QUOTE]
I know times have changed but there’s a certain unspoken unfairness to it all. Fifty years ago, a good candidate lost his bid for the presidency by crying. Today, Hillary “Pulls a Muskie” and leverages sympathy (deservedly or undeservedly) to win in an unspoken double-standard.
[QUOTE=Count Blucher]
I know times have changed but there’s a certain unspoken unfairness to it all. Fifty years ago, a good candidate lost his bid for the presidency by crying. Today, Hillary “Pulls a Muskie” and leverages sympathy (deservedly or undeservedly) to win in an unspoken double-standard.
[/QUOTE]
Sure, if you assume that’s why she won (tied). I’ve seen no evidence that this is so. Also, I don’t know that it’s possible to apply the term “double standards” over periods of half a century, but if it is, there are certainly much more egregious examples than that (and not in favor of the 50s/early 60s, either). But if you want to believe everything was so much better back then, I can’t stop you. I can point and laugh (or shake my head in pity, as the case may be), though.
)