# Respond to this Anti-Obama Gun Freak **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 14, 2008, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respond-to-this-anti-obama-gun-freak/472687 "2008-11-14T09:05:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respond-to-this-anti-obama-gun-freak/472687/81 "2008-11-17T19:51:47Z")
> [@jimigorilla](#): > > "“To those of us who defend gun rights as we defend any other fundamental human right, that’s how you sound.” > To call gun rights a fundamental human right is stretching probability a little for anybody who’s not from the USA or some rather uneducated and uncivilized part of the world. Most civilized people would say a multitude of guns in the hands of private citizens is begging for disaster. We tend to point to the USA as a case in point. Of course you all could care less what the rest of the world thinks. Even if the cultural export of this gun addiciton is starting to cause problems in other places. It is never your problem, is it? In quite a large number of nations, they think similar about the USA’s ideas of religous freedom, and even freedom of expression. ---
**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respond-to-this-anti-obama-gun-freak/472687/82 "2008-11-19T17:22:35Z")
> [@furt](#): > > That’s what you think I said? Really. Do explain. I felt that you were advocating, basically, “If you’re such an intellectual lightweight that you can’t debate the concept yourself, you don’t deserve to be here.” I have a hard time seeing how your comment was a warm fuzzy welcome and an invitation to self-improvement. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respond-to-this-anti-obama-gun-freak/472687/83 "2008-11-19T18:28:51Z")
If I could press a magic button and make all guns vanish, I would do so without hesitation. But the guns are here to stay… the toothpaste is already out of the tube. Banning “Assault Weapons” isn’t going to prevent any deaths. It might give some Democrats a warm fuzzy feeling, but it won’t actually have any real world benefits, and it’s just going to piss a bunch of potential democratic voters off. I thought we were the “reality based community”, so I think we should stay true to that value. If the Democrats have any desire to hold on to power, they won’t pursue gun control legislation. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respond-to-this-anti-obama-gun-freak/472687/84 "2008-11-19T22:10:32Z")
> [@furt](#): > > [T]he way you presented to yourself in here was not that you are humbly struggling to learn, that there were arguments presented to you that you wanted to hear further discussion of. You said rather that you had been talking to a “gun freak” and you wanted to “hand him his lunch.” Those are angry, intolerant words that suggest to me that you do not understand the real purpose of argument as an intellectual process, and instead just want to “win” over your “enemy.” Further, your OP raised the possibility that you were going to take what other people said here and repeat them over there as if they were your own ideas. I’m with you this far. In fact, if this is where you’d stopped, and allowed the OP to answer the implicit question of if she attributed the debate points she used in the other conversation, I wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow. > [@furt](#): > > In a way, I can’t blame you too much; one gets the “automatic gainsaying” model thrust in one’s face all the time on TV, etc., that most people can’t even grasp the goal of debating while still having an open mind; but it is an ideal worth pursuing. > > I would prefer that you stay in GD, advancing your arguments firmly but graciously and thereby helping others and yourself learn. But if you can’t do that – if all you can do every time someone says something you don’t like or asks a tough question is act wounded and make a frowny face smiley – well, in that case, yeah, it’s probably better you not hang out in GD. Or any other place adults have serious discussions. Oh, and I’d prefer you didn’t vote, either. This, especially the last two sentences, was unnecessary and condescending. Adopting an argument, both with and without attribution, is common in virtually all debates. I’d put good money on a wager that in any protracted discussion on gun rights on the Internet, someone is going to copy-paste from the NRA and probably not attribute it. This does not make them bad people or disqualify their contribution. It is possible to be an intellectually active and useful participant and yet to simply concur, or join with opinions instead of developing your own. The Justices of the Supreme Court do it all the time(although the rigor of the form they observe demands attribution). Surely they should be allowed to vote, and I’m pretty sure they could hold their own in GD. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respond-to-this-anti-obama-gun-freak/472687/85 "2008-11-19T22:34:00Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > It might give some Democrats a warm fuzzy feeling, but it won’t actually have any real world benefits, and it’s just going to piss a bunch of potential democratic voters off. I thought we were the “reality based community”, so I think we should stay true to that value. > > If the Democrats have any desire to hold on to power, they won’t pursue gun control legislation. “Mild” Gun Control legistalation, like the AW ban, does not seem to cost many votes. In general, there’s voters who are scared of all guns, voters who fear "assault weapons’ and those that don’t really care much. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respond-to-this-anti-obama-gun-freak/472687/86 "2008-11-20T00:27:58Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > “Mild” Gun Control legistalation, like the AW ban, does not seem to cost many votes. Really? No less than President Bill Clinton himself said during his 1995 State of the Union Address that the Assault Weapons Ban cost the Democrats both sides of Congress. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respond-to-this-anti-obama-gun-freak/472687/87 "2008-11-20T00:43:16Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > “Mild” Gun Control legistalation, like the AW ban, does not seem to cost many votes. There’s one way for you to find out. Pass another one and watch what happens. You’d think that the lesson of 1994 would have been enough. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respond-to-this-anti-obama-gun-freak/472687/88 "2008-11-20T01:30:53Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > There’s one way for you to find out. Pass another one and watch what happens. > > You’d think that the lesson of 1994 would have been enough. What’s the definition of insanity? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respond-to-this-anti-obama-gun-freak/472687/89 "2008-11-20T02:26:01Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > “Mild” Gun Control legistalation, like the AW ban, does not seem to cost many votes. In general, there’s voters who are scared of all guns, voters who fear "assault weapons’ and those that don’t really care much. I’d ask Jim Zumbo how many people care about AW’s. ---
**Author:** ![cerberus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/71e660/32.png) [@cerberus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cerberus)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respond-to-this-anti-obama-gun-freak/472687/90 "2008-11-20T03:08:14Z")
It’s rather disingenuous to ignore the obvious fact that a Chicago-based Democrat is going to be, given the opportunity, enthusiastic about any activity that disarms private citizens. It isn’t about race, it isn’t about outmoded notions of legitimacy, It’s about the general trend of urban Democrats favoring the disarmament of private citizens and other forms of gun control. Having said that, the guy’s an ass-hat fuck-wit, and self-respecting citizens in favor of being armed don’t need this guy on their side. Painting every member of the pro-Second Amendment movement as such is not valid. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respond-to-this-anti-obama-gun-freak/472687/91 "2008-11-20T10:56:28Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > “Mild” Gun Control legistalation, like the AW ban, does not seem to cost many votes. In general, there’s voters who are scared of all guns, voters who fear "assault weapons’ and those that don’t really care much. Even if this is true, if the government is going to ban something they should require a better excuse than irrational fear. It’s not like the Assault Weapons ban was introduced to halt a spree of bayonet-stabbings and rifle-grenade-shootings, is it? ---
**Author:** ![control-z](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/eada6e/32.png) [@control-z](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/control-z)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respond-to-this-anti-obama-gun-freak/472687/92 "2008-11-20T16:04:20Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Even if this is true, if the government is going to ban something they should require a better excuse than irrational fear. It’s not like the Assault Weapons ban was introduced to halt a spree of bayonet-stabbings and rifle-grenade-shootings, is it? I’ve asked that in many different forums and never got a good answer from the anti-gun crowd. The ban specifics were just stupid and made no sense, and to see that Obama wants to renew it really makes me think he’s just ignorant about guns. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respond-to-this-anti-obama-gun-freak/472687/93 "2008-11-20T17:47:19Z")
President-Elect Obama is almost certainly ignorant about guns. Ignorance can be cured. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respond-to-this-anti-obama-gun-freak/472687/94 "2008-11-20T18:51:41Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Even if this is true, if the government is going to ban something they should require a better excuse than irrational fear. It’s not like the Assault Weapons ban was introduced to halt a spree of bayonet-stabbings and rifle-grenade-shootings, is it? Look, I agree that AW bans do nothing, and it’s catering to the “will of the masses”, and _likely_ that “will” is caused by ignorance and/or a irrational fear. BUT, we live in a representational Democracy thus I can’t blame too harshly any Politico that does what his constituents want, no matter why they want it. In the modern world, I can no longer be a “single-issue voter”. I don’t think Obama will push any anti-gun bills. But I don’t doubt he’ll sign them. And, given that 51% of the elected Representatives would then want such a bill, why should he go out of his way to veto them? ---
**Author:** ![The-Dixie-Flatline](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@The-Dixie-Flatline](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The-Dixie-Flatline)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respond-to-this-anti-obama-gun-freak/472687/95 "2008-11-21T22:30:30Z")
Being a Brit, I’m an outsider to this, but in the bill of rights it says “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” That is, fire-arms were made legal for civil defence reasons, not home defence or sport. I’m not saying that a document written in 1791 should be the only guiding principle, but being able to quote it might just take the wind out of the sails of folks who believe they have a constitutional right to use an automatic machine gun firing lord knows how many rounds per second for “personal defence.” ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respond-to-this-anti-obama-gun-freak/472687/96 "2008-11-21T22:40:52Z")
> [@The-Dixie-Flatline](#): > > Being a Brit, I’m an outsider to this, but in the bill of rights it says “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” That is, fire-arms were made legal for civil defence reasons, not home defence or sport. [The-Dixie-Flatline, meet Heller. Heller, meet The-Dixie-Flatline.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller) ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2008, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respond-to-this-anti-obama-gun-freak/472687/97 "2008-11-22T00:31:28Z")
> [@The-Dixie-Flatline](#): > > B"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." That is, fire-arms were made legal for civil defence reasons, not home defence or sport. We have an organization called the Supreme Court whose function is to argue about this sort of thing as vehemently as Rabbis arguing whether walking by a Synagogue and hearing the shofar qualifies as the commandment to hear one at Yom Kippur…but I digress. How did you come by your user name? ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2008, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respond-to-this-anti-obama-gun-freak/472687/98 "2008-11-22T00:41:43Z")
> [@The-Dixie-Flatline](#): > > I’m not saying that a document written in 1791 should be the only guiding principle, but being able to quote it might just take the wind out of the sails of folks who believe they have a constitutional right to use an automatic machine gun firing lord knows how many rounds per second for “personal defence.” [When you get done reading all about Heller, I’d like to introduce you to The Strawman. You may already know him as “Aunt Sally.”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2008, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respond-to-this-anti-obama-gun-freak/472687/99 "2008-11-22T07:06:15Z")
> [@The-Dixie-Flatline](#): > > Being a Brit, I’m an outsider to this, but in the bill of rights it says “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” That is, fire-arms were made legal for civil defence reasons, not home defence or sport. > > I’m not saying that a document written in 1791 should be the only guiding principle, but being able to quote it might just take the wind out of the sails of folks who believe they have a constitutional right to use an automatic machine gun firing lord knows how many rounds per second for “personal defence.” Thank you for stating this common contradictory nonsense in such an efficient way. You say the 2nd amendment is about civil defense (and hence militarily useful weapons) and in the next statement say it’s ridiculous that Americans think the 2nd amendment is about civil defense (and hence militarily useful weapons). It’s remarkable to me that you can state these things so closely together and yet feel no cognitive dissonance. In any case, you’re wrong - it’s not common for Americans to own “automatic machine guns” - it was always difficult since 1934 subject to rigorous requirements, and production/introduction to the market of new “machine guns” was banned in 1986. Whatever it is that you think are “machine guns” are not. ---
**Author:** ![Stealth\_Potato](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Stealth\_Potato](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stealth_Potato)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2008, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respond-to-this-anti-obama-gun-freak/472687/100 "2008-11-22T09:10:37Z")
Furthermore, I think it is worth pointing out that the Second Amendment did not “make” firearms legal; it merely asserted an explicit limitation of the government’s power to restrict them. Of course, it is also a limitation of powers which were never granted in the first place, making the idea that the Second Amendment rendered firearms lawful doubly ridiculous. The poisonous notion that the Amendments in the Bill of Rights are merely abridgements of the innate authority of government was a danger that the Federalists foresaw at the time of the framing of our Constitution, and it has imperiled _all_ our rights in recent years, not only our right to bear arms. Hamilton said it best: “…why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respond-to-this-anti-obama-gun-freak/472687.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respond-to-this-anti-obama-gun-freak/472687.md?page=6)