Ohh Esox moves from serious to sarcastic. Always a dignified way to end a losing debate. Good show.
It’s good to see that you recognize the difference finally. And congratulations on your self-declared win. Good show.
You must have a perfect record.
Does this mean our duel is off?
You got anything to dispute Obama’s prowess in gun sales?
Oh for fuck’s sake, will you please leave off that silly rhetorical device?
Unless you are prepared to argue that the President is actively proposing (extremely minor and largely inconsequential) restrictions on gun laws in order to increase firearms sales, or that the President has a side business working gun shows, just please fucking stop.
President Obama is not a gun salesman.
Look, we get it. Attempts to put in place even the most basic of commonsense restrictions on firearm purchasing or ownership result in some people buying more guns, therefore any such attempts are counterproductive and deserving of your mockery. You can certainly argue that point all you wish without clinging to that silly “teh Prez is selling guns!!!1!!” crap.
Manchin-Toomey was NOT Obama’s original proposal or desired result. It was the result of extensive negotiations between Senate Republicans and Democrats attempting to find something that was politically feasible. It was not what the gun control advocates first sought, or initially thought they might be able to pass, or even what Obama wanted. It was the little bit they thought they could get through the Senate and pressure the House to pass.
And just in case anyone really doubts that Obama is currently supporting efforts to ban assault weapons, it’s right there on whitehouse.gov for anyone to read:
It’s no longer his “top priority” after Congress shot it down, but I think it’s disingenuous to claim he didn’t make a major push for it early this year. It was probably the most aggressive gun control effort of the last 15 years.
I understand all that. At the time of my post, I didn’t know about Obama’s wish to ban assault weapons, but Kable kindly and generously provided links to show that he did, and now I know. And I didn’t mean to imply that Manchin-Toomey was Obama’s work, if you took it that way.
Since you were kind enough to teach me about analogies, I’ve got one for you. You see, debating is like hunting; there are different kinds of “guns”, if you will, in a debater’s golf bag, like serious and sarcastic, as you were quick to observe. He can try them out to see what works best, but if none of them works at all, he might as well give up the hunt and go play golf.
Adios, amigo. I’m off to shoot a round.
Yeah and if you switch back and forth you can pretend you were right when you were wrong.
Good choice.
Now that you mention it, someone should invent something like a golf bag for guns. The gun cases I’ve seen all accomodate one maybe two guns. What happens if I see a rabbit, a duck and a deer all on the same day?
To the best of my knowledge, the wabbit and duck argue over which season it is and the deer gets off scot free.
That’s what the fully-automatic “hunting” rifles with 30 round clips are for, duh!
Also in case the deer tries to rob you.
I think I’m going to go with “His very existence made the paranoid crazy gun-nuts go cuckoo and throw tons of cash at the gun makers.”
Certainly you would agree that once Obama went from a guy gun owners thought would ban guns to a guy who actually tried to ban guns, there was a considerable increase in gun sales.
And of course that vindicated of all those who thought he would ban guns before he tried, proving they weren’t really that paranoid.
Your deliberate and repeated disregard for the schooling on the timeline here that was given you several pages ago seems to point to a decidedly non-GD motivation for this thread.
Gun sales began to take off in 2005, a good 3 years before Obama was ever considered a serious possibility of becoming president. Those gun sales have risen a whopping 1% over the rate increase that occurred in the last 3 years of the Bush administration. Your entire premise appears to be false.
Here’s a refresher for you:
They didn’t really increase much in 2005. Rates started to rise in 2006, I think due to a combination of the recent AWB expiration and GWB being very unpopular, such that most gun advocates figured we were going to get another anti-gun democrat such that they better buy their guns while they could. And of course they were right.
Why are you only counting the last 3 years of the Bush presidency. Don’t graphs like this…
…say anything to you? I mean imagine how many more guns would have been sold if demand hadn’t outstripped supply.
No it don’t.
I know we’re not supposed to speak of the “dead,” and I’m certainly not accusing Kable of being a sock or anything, but I just want to say that, at times, reading this debate makes me feel like he’s channeling Diogenes.
This weapon’s got you covered.
Or if you insist on carrying multiple weapons, take some friends to lighten the load.
And if you ever lose your guns, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwfIf1WMhgc
I just saw some more updated info on homicide rates. So with guns up 15 percent, homicides are down 15%:
I think the symmetry is interesting. So Obama might not be doing that good a job on healthcare and the economy, and he’s pretty weak on gay marriage but he seems to be doing a lot of good with regards to crime, even though it’s now exactly how he planned it would go.
The symmetry is meaningless, and there’s not really any correlation between crime rate and gun sales, much less causality. The part of that paragraph which surprises me is: You actually think the President planned to increase the crime rate? Please tell me how I’m parsing that sentence wrong, because my interpretation seems rather incredible.