|
|
On October 25 2012 05:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 04:52 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 04:38 TheTenthDoc wrote:Uh, I wasn't really commentating on the reliability of /r/conservative, mostly the intrade odds. I don't do reddit, so I have no idea which is worse regarding facts. Second paragraph of the Reuters article: "However, there was also strong support from respondents for background checks as well as limiting the sale of automatic weapons and keeping guns out of churches, stores and workplaces." And your point? Private businesses should have the right to put up "no concealed carry on premises" signs. And of course, gun owners should have the right to ignore those signs (which they do in Missouri). If the owner doesn't like it, he can ask you to leave, and if you refuse, then he can have you arrested; but the charge would be for trespassing, not for carrying in a store that put up a sign that says otherwise. I'm saying that you shouldn't use an article to show that "most Americans disagree with Obama on gun ownership" when the exact positions he and Romney articulated in the debate are encapsulated in the second paragraph of your article, INCLUDING limiting the sale of automatic weapons.
Really? The links I supported showed that the vast majority of Americans do support concealed carry and are opposed to semi-automatic gun bans. Obama has said he wants to ban concealed carry, handguns, semi-automatic guns, and "scary looking assault guns." He also voted for and/or announced support for various other draconian gun control laws.
|
On October 25 2012 05:09 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 04:59 ZeaL. wrote:On October 25 2012 04:47 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 04:34 ZeaL. wrote:On October 25 2012 04:01 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 03:56 Recognizable wrote:On October 25 2012 03:48 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 03:42 jdsowa wrote:
The American people are naturally conservative. Conservative in the sense of wanting to preserve the status quo.
The average voter is a middle-aged person who just wants to go to and from work, take their kids to soccer practice and come home and fall alseep in front of the TV without any hassles along the way. They don't want government supports taken away, they don't want the concept of marriage as they know it to change overnight, and they don't want to worry that other countries might attack us.
If a politician proposes any policies that would even possibly suggest to threaten that lifestyle with even a very slight hiccup, then the average voter will simply reject that politician.
The two party system completely covers the spectrum of acceptable mainstream politics, and exceeds it in many cases. The fact that it exceeds it at all--that there are Democrats and Republicans that have views that lie far outside of the mainstream--is evidence that a national 3rd party candidate can never truly be viable. You can buy TV time and generate temporary amusement, but a majority will never cast their vote for you.
Since a national politician can't afford to express too many views outside of the status quo, they have to spend a great deal of their time pretending. And since each guy does an equal share of pretending, and because their policies can't diverge too far from the mainstream, the American people make their decision based on which guy is more charismatic while still being adequately presidential. Ultimately, Barack Obama is that guy. That was a pretty interesting and mostly accurate post, but Obama has been pretty radical for someone who "represents the status quo" as you suggested. Universal healthcare, banning guns, amnesty for illegals, and abandoning our long-time allies are pretty radical ideas that are far-removed from the mainstream political discourse. You are so uninformed it hurts my eyes. Obama has been very pro-guns. You should really do some research before you start calling other people "uninformed." Name one single thing that Obama has done to restrict access to guns while president. Here let me answer this one for you: You're going to ignore this post because you have nothing. Just like every other time you've been shown to be completely wrong you just deflect and ignore. He tried to ban concealed carry on government property (including parks): http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/11/16/obama-pushing-shooters-off-public-lands That's it? A draft policy from the Bureau of Land Management that no one has ever heard of and was amended a day later to clarify that they just don't want people going hiking or dog walking to get shot? And that their purpose isn't to ban weapon use on public land but keep it to hunting areas/shooting ranges?n And that this Bureau was created by legislation Bush signed in 2007? Man that Obama is really the most anti-gun president in the history. By the way I think you got your false talking points messed up. There's no mention of concealed carry in that article. You were probably thinking of something you got from a FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:OBAMA BAN CONCEALED CARRY e-mail from 2008. Banning the right to carry a gun on public property IS a ban on the right to carry on public property; both concealed and open. Obama already said that he wants to ban concealed carry. He hasn't spoken out against open carry to my knowledge, but he must likely wants to ban that as well.
Did you even read what's in the article?
This is the crux of the complaint:
+ Show Spoiler +When the authorized officer determines that a site or area on BLM-managed lands used on a regular basis for recreational shooting is creating public disturbance, or is creating risk to other persons on public lands; is contributing to the defacement, removal or destruction of natural features, native plants, cultural resources, historic structures or government and/or private property; is facilitating or creating a condition of littering, refuse accumulation and abandoned personal property is violating existing use restrictions, closure and restriction orders, or supplementary rules notices, and reasonable attempts to reduce or eliminate the violations by the BLM have been unsuccessful, the authorized officer will close the affected area to recreational shooting.
If people shooting their guns off on public lands is ruining that land the BLM would have closed that area down to recreational gun users. Notice no mention of concealed carry, you should probably read the articles you use when you're grasping at straws. And then because even that was too much they backed off a few days later. There's a reason there's like only 3 hits on the internet about this, its an incredible non-issue.
Still waiting for a single concrete thing that Obama has done to limit gun rights while president. Not your crazy speculation.
|
On October 25 2012 05:13 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 05:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 25 2012 04:52 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 04:38 TheTenthDoc wrote:Uh, I wasn't really commentating on the reliability of /r/conservative, mostly the intrade odds. I don't do reddit, so I have no idea which is worse regarding facts. Second paragraph of the Reuters article: "However, there was also strong support from respondents for background checks as well as limiting the sale of automatic weapons and keeping guns out of churches, stores and workplaces." And your point? Private businesses should have the right to put up "no concealed carry on premises" signs. And of course, gun owners should have the right to ignore those signs (which they do in Missouri). If the owner doesn't like it, he can ask you to leave, and if you refuse, then he can have you arrested; but the charge would be for trespassing, not for carrying in a store that put up a sign that says otherwise. I'm saying that you shouldn't use an article to show that "most Americans disagree with Obama on gun ownership" when the exact positions he and Romney articulated in the debate are encapsulated in the second paragraph of your article, INCLUDING limiting the sale of automatic weapons. Really? The links I supported showed that the vast majority of Americans do support concealed carry and are opposed to semi-automatic gun bans. Obama has said he wants to ban concealed carry, handguns, semi-automatic guns, and "scary looking assault guns." He also voted for and/or announced support for various other draconian gun control laws.
Can you show ANY study showing that the majority of American dislike the assault weapons ban besides your article showing a majority believe we should "limit assault weapons"?
|
|
|
On October 25 2012 05:10 Risen wrote:
Is there a company in Solyndra's place that should have gotten that money?
From the article you linked on the autoworkers union. "To avoid a bankruptcy of Chrysler LLC at the end of the week, the Obama administration is trying to push through a deal that gives the automaker’s unions majority ownership"
All I see is him trying to save the company. Am I missing something?
Presidents use executive privilege like that all the time. It's classified just like a ton of other things are classified. Also from your link. "Well, first of all, I think it’s important to understand that the Fast and Furious program was a field-initiated program, begun under the previous administration. When Eric Holder found out about it, he discontinued it. "
Where's the problem?
And the White House was told of claims, but didn't have any proof of said claims according to that final article.
Do you actually back up anything you say, or do you just go based on how you're feeling at any point in time? You're what's wrong with my party. I wish everyone like you were given a course in how to not be misleading fucks. A man can dream...
> The government shouldn't pick winners or losers. Also, all of the reports showed that Solyndra was going to fail, yet Obama gave money to his campaign donor anyway.
> Nationalizing companies and then giving the majority of the shares to his union friends sounds pretty corrupt (and socialist) to me.
> We'll just have to wait and see how Benghazigate plays out for Obama.
|
People like Swazi don't have anything concrete. They're blinded by hate, for unknown reasons. They get so caught up in their tiny world view they can't see anything from any other perspective.
|
On October 25 2012 05:12 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 05:09 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 04:59 ZeaL. wrote:On October 25 2012 04:47 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 04:34 ZeaL. wrote:On October 25 2012 04:01 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 03:56 Recognizable wrote:On October 25 2012 03:48 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 03:42 jdsowa wrote:
The American people are naturally conservative. Conservative in the sense of wanting to preserve the status quo.
The average voter is a middle-aged person who just wants to go to and from work, take their kids to soccer practice and come home and fall alseep in front of the TV without any hassles along the way. They don't want government supports taken away, they don't want the concept of marriage as they know it to change overnight, and they don't want to worry that other countries might attack us.
If a politician proposes any policies that would even possibly suggest to threaten that lifestyle with even a very slight hiccup, then the average voter will simply reject that politician.
The two party system completely covers the spectrum of acceptable mainstream politics, and exceeds it in many cases. The fact that it exceeds it at all--that there are Democrats and Republicans that have views that lie far outside of the mainstream--is evidence that a national 3rd party candidate can never truly be viable. You can buy TV time and generate temporary amusement, but a majority will never cast their vote for you.
Since a national politician can't afford to express too many views outside of the status quo, they have to spend a great deal of their time pretending. And since each guy does an equal share of pretending, and because their policies can't diverge too far from the mainstream, the American people make their decision based on which guy is more charismatic while still being adequately presidential. Ultimately, Barack Obama is that guy. That was a pretty interesting and mostly accurate post, but Obama has been pretty radical for someone who "represents the status quo" as you suggested. Universal healthcare, banning guns, amnesty for illegals, and abandoning our long-time allies are pretty radical ideas that are far-removed from the mainstream political discourse. You are so uninformed it hurts my eyes. Obama has been very pro-guns. You should really do some research before you start calling other people "uninformed." Name one single thing that Obama has done to restrict access to guns while president. Here let me answer this one for you: You're going to ignore this post because you have nothing. Just like every other time you've been shown to be completely wrong you just deflect and ignore. He tried to ban concealed carry on government property (including parks): http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/11/16/obama-pushing-shooters-off-public-lands That's it? A draft policy from the Bureau of Land Management that no one has ever heard of and was amended a day later to clarify that they just don't want people going hiking or dog walking to get shot? And that their purpose isn't to ban weapon use on public land but keep it to hunting areas/shooting ranges?n And that this Bureau was created by legislation Bush signed in 2007? Man that Obama is really the most anti-gun president in the history. By the way I think you got your false talking points messed up. There's no mention of concealed carry in that article. You were probably thinking of something you got from a FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:OBAMA BAN CONCEALED CARRY e-mail from 2008. Banning the right to carry a gun on public property IS a ban on the right to carry on public property; both concealed and open. Obama already said that he wants to ban concealed carry. He hasn't spoken out against open carry to my knowledge, but he must likely wants to ban that as well. Oh hey look, more inane bullshit. You're a perfect representative of fact that people should listen to. Oh wait...
It should be pretty obvious that anyone who wants to ban concealed carry, are most likely also opposed to open carry.
I know people who prefer open carry to concealed carry, but I haven't seen them advocating for banning concealed carry.
|
On October 25 2012 05:16 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 05:09 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 04:59 ZeaL. wrote:On October 25 2012 04:47 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 04:34 ZeaL. wrote:On October 25 2012 04:01 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 03:56 Recognizable wrote:On October 25 2012 03:48 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 03:42 jdsowa wrote:
The American people are naturally conservative. Conservative in the sense of wanting to preserve the status quo.
The average voter is a middle-aged person who just wants to go to and from work, take their kids to soccer practice and come home and fall alseep in front of the TV without any hassles along the way. They don't want government supports taken away, they don't want the concept of marriage as they know it to change overnight, and they don't want to worry that other countries might attack us.
If a politician proposes any policies that would even possibly suggest to threaten that lifestyle with even a very slight hiccup, then the average voter will simply reject that politician.
The two party system completely covers the spectrum of acceptable mainstream politics, and exceeds it in many cases. The fact that it exceeds it at all--that there are Democrats and Republicans that have views that lie far outside of the mainstream--is evidence that a national 3rd party candidate can never truly be viable. You can buy TV time and generate temporary amusement, but a majority will never cast their vote for you.
Since a national politician can't afford to express too many views outside of the status quo, they have to spend a great deal of their time pretending. And since each guy does an equal share of pretending, and because their policies can't diverge too far from the mainstream, the American people make their decision based on which guy is more charismatic while still being adequately presidential. Ultimately, Barack Obama is that guy. That was a pretty interesting and mostly accurate post, but Obama has been pretty radical for someone who "represents the status quo" as you suggested. Universal healthcare, banning guns, amnesty for illegals, and abandoning our long-time allies are pretty radical ideas that are far-removed from the mainstream political discourse. You are so uninformed it hurts my eyes. Obama has been very pro-guns. You should really do some research before you start calling other people "uninformed." Name one single thing that Obama has done to restrict access to guns while president. Here let me answer this one for you: You're going to ignore this post because you have nothing. Just like every other time you've been shown to be completely wrong you just deflect and ignore. He tried to ban concealed carry on government property (including parks): http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/11/16/obama-pushing-shooters-off-public-lands That's it? A draft policy from the Bureau of Land Management that no one has ever heard of and was amended a day later to clarify that they just don't want people going hiking or dog walking to get shot? And that their purpose isn't to ban weapon use on public land but keep it to hunting areas/shooting ranges?n And that this Bureau was created by legislation Bush signed in 2007? Man that Obama is really the most anti-gun president in the history. By the way I think you got your false talking points messed up. There's no mention of concealed carry in that article. You were probably thinking of something you got from a FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:OBAMA BAN CONCEALED CARRY e-mail from 2008. Banning the right to carry a gun on public property IS a ban on the right to carry on public property; both concealed and open. Obama already said that he wants to ban concealed carry. He hasn't spoken out against open carry to my knowledge, but he must likely wants to ban that as well. Did you even read what's in the article? This is the crux of the complaint: + Show Spoiler +When the authorized officer determines that a site or area on BLM-managed lands used on a regular basis for recreational shooting is creating public disturbance, or is creating risk to other persons on public lands; is contributing to the defacement, removal or destruction of natural features, native plants, cultural resources, historic structures or government and/or private property; is facilitating or creating a condition of littering, refuse accumulation and abandoned personal property is violating existing use restrictions, closure and restriction orders, or supplementary rules notices, and reasonable attempts to reduce or eliminate the violations by the BLM have been unsuccessful, the authorized officer will close the affected area to recreational shooting. If people shooting their guns off on public lands is ruining that land the BLM would have closed that area down to recreational gun users. Notice no mention of concealed carry, you should probably read the articles you use when you're grasping at straws. And then because even that was too much they backed off a few days later. There's a reason there's like only 3 hits on the internet about this, its an incredible non-issue. Still waiting for a single concrete thing that Obama has done to limit gun rights while president. Not your crazy speculation.
Why do you keep ignoring his record as both a federal and state senator as if it doesn't matter?
He even stated (as president) that he:
Wants more gun control.
And wants to re-instate the so-called "Federal Assault Weapons Ban."
|
On October 25 2012 05:18 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 05:10 Risen wrote:
Is there a company in Solyndra's place that should have gotten that money?
From the article you linked on the autoworkers union. "To avoid a bankruptcy of Chrysler LLC at the end of the week, the Obama administration is trying to push through a deal that gives the automaker’s unions majority ownership"
All I see is him trying to save the company. Am I missing something?
Presidents use executive privilege like that all the time. It's classified just like a ton of other things are classified. Also from your link. "Well, first of all, I think it’s important to understand that the Fast and Furious program was a field-initiated program, begun under the previous administration. When Eric Holder found out about it, he discontinued it. "
Where's the problem?
And the White House was told of claims, but didn't have any proof of said claims according to that final article.
Do you actually back up anything you say, or do you just go based on how you're feeling at any point in time? You're what's wrong with my party. I wish everyone like you were given a course in how to not be misleading fucks. A man can dream... > The government shouldn't pick winners or losers. Also, all of the reports showed that Solyndra was going to fail, yet Obama gave money to his campaign donor anyway. > Nationalizing companies and then giving the majority of the shares to his union friends sounds pretty corrupt (and socialist) to me. > We'll just have to wait and see how Benghazigate plays out for Obama.
If you want to stop all subsidies say so. As it stands, every president before him and every president after him will give subsidies. So what you're doing right now is saying Obama is doing something no other president has done, which is not true.
Giving control of the company to a union that already works there is preferable to the company straight failing, in my opinion.
Oh so your last point wasn't actually a point b/c you don't have any facts to back it up. More bullshit. Still not surprised.
|
The point isn't what Obama privately believes. I'm sure he privately would support a total gun ban. But he knows that it's not politically viable. So in debates he gives a lot of lip service to the 2nd Amendment. If he were to come out and oppose the 2nd Amendment, he would not be re-elected because that position is outside of the mainstream. The mainstream American political thought is the average political stance of the country. The fact that candidates basically get disqualified if they represent too many radical positions reflects the ultimate authority of mainstream thought. No matter what one guy believes, the mainstream will assert its will.
|
On October 25 2012 05:19 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 05:12 Risen wrote:On October 25 2012 05:09 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 04:59 ZeaL. wrote:On October 25 2012 04:47 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 04:34 ZeaL. wrote:On October 25 2012 04:01 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 03:56 Recognizable wrote:On October 25 2012 03:48 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 03:42 jdsowa wrote:
The American people are naturally conservative. Conservative in the sense of wanting to preserve the status quo.
The average voter is a middle-aged person who just wants to go to and from work, take their kids to soccer practice and come home and fall alseep in front of the TV without any hassles along the way. They don't want government supports taken away, they don't want the concept of marriage as they know it to change overnight, and they don't want to worry that other countries might attack us.
If a politician proposes any policies that would even possibly suggest to threaten that lifestyle with even a very slight hiccup, then the average voter will simply reject that politician.
The two party system completely covers the spectrum of acceptable mainstream politics, and exceeds it in many cases. The fact that it exceeds it at all--that there are Democrats and Republicans that have views that lie far outside of the mainstream--is evidence that a national 3rd party candidate can never truly be viable. You can buy TV time and generate temporary amusement, but a majority will never cast their vote for you.
Since a national politician can't afford to express too many views outside of the status quo, they have to spend a great deal of their time pretending. And since each guy does an equal share of pretending, and because their policies can't diverge too far from the mainstream, the American people make their decision based on which guy is more charismatic while still being adequately presidential. Ultimately, Barack Obama is that guy. That was a pretty interesting and mostly accurate post, but Obama has been pretty radical for someone who "represents the status quo" as you suggested. Universal healthcare, banning guns, amnesty for illegals, and abandoning our long-time allies are pretty radical ideas that are far-removed from the mainstream political discourse. You are so uninformed it hurts my eyes. Obama has been very pro-guns. You should really do some research before you start calling other people "uninformed." Name one single thing that Obama has done to restrict access to guns while president. Here let me answer this one for you: You're going to ignore this post because you have nothing. Just like every other time you've been shown to be completely wrong you just deflect and ignore. He tried to ban concealed carry on government property (including parks): http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/11/16/obama-pushing-shooters-off-public-lands That's it? A draft policy from the Bureau of Land Management that no one has ever heard of and was amended a day later to clarify that they just don't want people going hiking or dog walking to get shot? And that their purpose isn't to ban weapon use on public land but keep it to hunting areas/shooting ranges?n And that this Bureau was created by legislation Bush signed in 2007? Man that Obama is really the most anti-gun president in the history. By the way I think you got your false talking points messed up. There's no mention of concealed carry in that article. You were probably thinking of something you got from a FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:OBAMA BAN CONCEALED CARRY e-mail from 2008. Banning the right to carry a gun on public property IS a ban on the right to carry on public property; both concealed and open. Obama already said that he wants to ban concealed carry. He hasn't spoken out against open carry to my knowledge, but he must likely wants to ban that as well. Oh hey look, more inane bullshit. You're a perfect representative of fact that people should listen to. Oh wait... It should be pretty obvious that anyone who wants to ban concealed carry, are most likely also opposed to open carry.
I know people who prefer open carry to concealed carry, but I haven't seen them advocating for banning concealed carry.
Look at all the anecdotal evidence. Not a single statement backed up by anything. More bullshit.
|
On October 25 2012 05:20 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 05:16 ZeaL. wrote:On October 25 2012 05:09 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 04:59 ZeaL. wrote:On October 25 2012 04:47 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 04:34 ZeaL. wrote:On October 25 2012 04:01 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 03:56 Recognizable wrote:On October 25 2012 03:48 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 03:42 jdsowa wrote:
The American people are naturally conservative. Conservative in the sense of wanting to preserve the status quo.
The average voter is a middle-aged person who just wants to go to and from work, take their kids to soccer practice and come home and fall alseep in front of the TV without any hassles along the way. They don't want government supports taken away, they don't want the concept of marriage as they know it to change overnight, and they don't want to worry that other countries might attack us.
If a politician proposes any policies that would even possibly suggest to threaten that lifestyle with even a very slight hiccup, then the average voter will simply reject that politician.
The two party system completely covers the spectrum of acceptable mainstream politics, and exceeds it in many cases. The fact that it exceeds it at all--that there are Democrats and Republicans that have views that lie far outside of the mainstream--is evidence that a national 3rd party candidate can never truly be viable. You can buy TV time and generate temporary amusement, but a majority will never cast their vote for you.
Since a national politician can't afford to express too many views outside of the status quo, they have to spend a great deal of their time pretending. And since each guy does an equal share of pretending, and because their policies can't diverge too far from the mainstream, the American people make their decision based on which guy is more charismatic while still being adequately presidential. Ultimately, Barack Obama is that guy. That was a pretty interesting and mostly accurate post, but Obama has been pretty radical for someone who "represents the status quo" as you suggested. Universal healthcare, banning guns, amnesty for illegals, and abandoning our long-time allies are pretty radical ideas that are far-removed from the mainstream political discourse. You are so uninformed it hurts my eyes. Obama has been very pro-guns. You should really do some research before you start calling other people "uninformed." Name one single thing that Obama has done to restrict access to guns while president. Here let me answer this one for you: You're going to ignore this post because you have nothing. Just like every other time you've been shown to be completely wrong you just deflect and ignore. He tried to ban concealed carry on government property (including parks): http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/11/16/obama-pushing-shooters-off-public-lands That's it? A draft policy from the Bureau of Land Management that no one has ever heard of and was amended a day later to clarify that they just don't want people going hiking or dog walking to get shot? And that their purpose isn't to ban weapon use on public land but keep it to hunting areas/shooting ranges?n And that this Bureau was created by legislation Bush signed in 2007? Man that Obama is really the most anti-gun president in the history. By the way I think you got your false talking points messed up. There's no mention of concealed carry in that article. You were probably thinking of something you got from a FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:OBAMA BAN CONCEALED CARRY e-mail from 2008. Banning the right to carry a gun on public property IS a ban on the right to carry on public property; both concealed and open. Obama already said that he wants to ban concealed carry. He hasn't spoken out against open carry to my knowledge, but he must likely wants to ban that as well. Did you even read what's in the article? This is the crux of the complaint: + Show Spoiler +When the authorized officer determines that a site or area on BLM-managed lands used on a regular basis for recreational shooting is creating public disturbance, or is creating risk to other persons on public lands; is contributing to the defacement, removal or destruction of natural features, native plants, cultural resources, historic structures or government and/or private property; is facilitating or creating a condition of littering, refuse accumulation and abandoned personal property is violating existing use restrictions, closure and restriction orders, or supplementary rules notices, and reasonable attempts to reduce or eliminate the violations by the BLM have been unsuccessful, the authorized officer will close the affected area to recreational shooting. If people shooting their guns off on public lands is ruining that land the BLM would have closed that area down to recreational gun users. Notice no mention of concealed carry, you should probably read the articles you use when you're grasping at straws. And then because even that was too much they backed off a few days later. There's a reason there's like only 3 hits on the internet about this, its an incredible non-issue. Still waiting for a single concrete thing that Obama has done to limit gun rights while president. Not your crazy speculation. Why do you keep ignoring his record as both a federal and state senator as if it doesn't matter?
Why do you keep ignoring the fact that the articles you're citing as "evidence" don't agree with you whatsoever?
|
On October 25 2012 05:20 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 05:16 ZeaL. wrote:On October 25 2012 05:09 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 04:59 ZeaL. wrote:On October 25 2012 04:47 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 04:34 ZeaL. wrote:On October 25 2012 04:01 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 03:56 Recognizable wrote:On October 25 2012 03:48 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 03:42 jdsowa wrote:
The American people are naturally conservative. Conservative in the sense of wanting to preserve the status quo.
The average voter is a middle-aged person who just wants to go to and from work, take their kids to soccer practice and come home and fall alseep in front of the TV without any hassles along the way. They don't want government supports taken away, they don't want the concept of marriage as they know it to change overnight, and they don't want to worry that other countries might attack us.
If a politician proposes any policies that would even possibly suggest to threaten that lifestyle with even a very slight hiccup, then the average voter will simply reject that politician.
The two party system completely covers the spectrum of acceptable mainstream politics, and exceeds it in many cases. The fact that it exceeds it at all--that there are Democrats and Republicans that have views that lie far outside of the mainstream--is evidence that a national 3rd party candidate can never truly be viable. You can buy TV time and generate temporary amusement, but a majority will never cast their vote for you.
Since a national politician can't afford to express too many views outside of the status quo, they have to spend a great deal of their time pretending. And since each guy does an equal share of pretending, and because their policies can't diverge too far from the mainstream, the American people make their decision based on which guy is more charismatic while still being adequately presidential. Ultimately, Barack Obama is that guy. That was a pretty interesting and mostly accurate post, but Obama has been pretty radical for someone who "represents the status quo" as you suggested. Universal healthcare, banning guns, amnesty for illegals, and abandoning our long-time allies are pretty radical ideas that are far-removed from the mainstream political discourse. You are so uninformed it hurts my eyes. Obama has been very pro-guns. You should really do some research before you start calling other people "uninformed." Name one single thing that Obama has done to restrict access to guns while president. Here let me answer this one for you: You're going to ignore this post because you have nothing. Just like every other time you've been shown to be completely wrong you just deflect and ignore. He tried to ban concealed carry on government property (including parks): http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/11/16/obama-pushing-shooters-off-public-lands That's it? A draft policy from the Bureau of Land Management that no one has ever heard of and was amended a day later to clarify that they just don't want people going hiking or dog walking to get shot? And that their purpose isn't to ban weapon use on public land but keep it to hunting areas/shooting ranges?n And that this Bureau was created by legislation Bush signed in 2007? Man that Obama is really the most anti-gun president in the history. By the way I think you got your false talking points messed up. There's no mention of concealed carry in that article. You were probably thinking of something you got from a FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:OBAMA BAN CONCEALED CARRY e-mail from 2008. Banning the right to carry a gun on public property IS a ban on the right to carry on public property; both concealed and open. Obama already said that he wants to ban concealed carry. He hasn't spoken out against open carry to my knowledge, but he must likely wants to ban that as well. Did you even read what's in the article? This is the crux of the complaint: + Show Spoiler +When the authorized officer determines that a site or area on BLM-managed lands used on a regular basis for recreational shooting is creating public disturbance, or is creating risk to other persons on public lands; is contributing to the defacement, removal or destruction of natural features, native plants, cultural resources, historic structures or government and/or private property; is facilitating or creating a condition of littering, refuse accumulation and abandoned personal property is violating existing use restrictions, closure and restriction orders, or supplementary rules notices, and reasonable attempts to reduce or eliminate the violations by the BLM have been unsuccessful, the authorized officer will close the affected area to recreational shooting. If people shooting their guns off on public lands is ruining that land the BLM would have closed that area down to recreational gun users. Notice no mention of concealed carry, you should probably read the articles you use when you're grasping at straws. And then because even that was too much they backed off a few days later. There's a reason there's like only 3 hits on the internet about this, its an incredible non-issue. Still waiting for a single concrete thing that Obama has done to limit gun rights while president. Not your crazy speculation. Why do you keep ignoring his record as both a federal and state senator as if it doesn't matter?
Because he's not a senator anymore. His constituents are now every citizen of the USA.
BTW thank you for finally admitting he hasn't done anything as President of the United States to restrict access to guns.
|
Swazi does quick google searches to find "sources" for his positions. He doesn't actually read anything or he'd know not to post a lot of this stuff. As I said, he's all feeling and anecdote with no evidence (aka, bullshit)
|
There haven't been any polls conducted on the FAWB one way or the other. Never mind the fact that there is NO SUCH THING as a semi-automatic "assault weapon."
|
On October 25 2012 05:20 jdsowa wrote:
The point isn't what Obama privately believes. I'm sure he privately would support a total gun ban. But he knows that it's not politically viable. So in debates he gives a lot of lip service to the 2nd Amendment. If he were to come out and oppose the 2nd Amendment, he would not be re-elected because that position is outside of the mainstream. The mainstream American political thought is the average political stance of the country. The fact that candidates basically get disqualified if they represent too many radical positions reflects the ultimate authority of mainstream thought. No matter what one guy believes, the mainstream will assert its will.
But once the election is over (assuming Barry wins), he won't have to worry about what the people think anymore.
If someone wants to murder the Jews, but they know it isn't politically viable, that doesn't change the fact that we probably shouldn't vote for him.
|
On October 25 2012 05:21 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 05:19 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 05:12 Risen wrote:On October 25 2012 05:09 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 04:59 ZeaL. wrote:On October 25 2012 04:47 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 04:34 ZeaL. wrote:On October 25 2012 04:01 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 03:56 Recognizable wrote:On October 25 2012 03:48 Swazi Spring wrote:
[quote]
That was a pretty interesting and mostly accurate post, but Obama has been pretty radical for someone who "represents the status quo" as you suggested. Universal healthcare, banning guns, amnesty for illegals, and abandoning our long-time allies are pretty radical ideas that are far-removed from the mainstream political discourse. You are so uninformed it hurts my eyes. Obama has been very pro-guns. You should really do some research before you start calling other people "uninformed." Name one single thing that Obama has done to restrict access to guns while president. Here let me answer this one for you: You're going to ignore this post because you have nothing. Just like every other time you've been shown to be completely wrong you just deflect and ignore. He tried to ban concealed carry on government property (including parks): http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/11/16/obama-pushing-shooters-off-public-lands That's it? A draft policy from the Bureau of Land Management that no one has ever heard of and was amended a day later to clarify that they just don't want people going hiking or dog walking to get shot? And that their purpose isn't to ban weapon use on public land but keep it to hunting areas/shooting ranges?n And that this Bureau was created by legislation Bush signed in 2007? Man that Obama is really the most anti-gun president in the history. By the way I think you got your false talking points messed up. There's no mention of concealed carry in that article. You were probably thinking of something you got from a FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:OBAMA BAN CONCEALED CARRY e-mail from 2008. Banning the right to carry a gun on public property IS a ban on the right to carry on public property; both concealed and open. Obama already said that he wants to ban concealed carry. He hasn't spoken out against open carry to my knowledge, but he must likely wants to ban that as well. Oh hey look, more inane bullshit. You're a perfect representative of fact that people should listen to. Oh wait... It should be pretty obvious that anyone who wants to ban concealed carry, are most likely also opposed to open carry.
I know people who prefer open carry to concealed carry, but I haven't seen them advocating for banning concealed carry. Look at all the anecdotal evidence. Not a single statement backed up by anything. More bullshit.
It's common sense! And a ban on open carry would be consistent with his other anti-gun views.
|
On October 25 2012 05:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 05:20 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 05:16 ZeaL. wrote:On October 25 2012 05:09 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 04:59 ZeaL. wrote:On October 25 2012 04:47 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 04:34 ZeaL. wrote:On October 25 2012 04:01 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 03:56 Recognizable wrote:On October 25 2012 03:48 Swazi Spring wrote:
[quote]
That was a pretty interesting and mostly accurate post, but Obama has been pretty radical for someone who "represents the status quo" as you suggested. Universal healthcare, banning guns, amnesty for illegals, and abandoning our long-time allies are pretty radical ideas that are far-removed from the mainstream political discourse. You are so uninformed it hurts my eyes. Obama has been very pro-guns. You should really do some research before you start calling other people "uninformed." Name one single thing that Obama has done to restrict access to guns while president. Here let me answer this one for you: You're going to ignore this post because you have nothing. Just like every other time you've been shown to be completely wrong you just deflect and ignore. He tried to ban concealed carry on government property (including parks): http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/11/16/obama-pushing-shooters-off-public-lands That's it? A draft policy from the Bureau of Land Management that no one has ever heard of and was amended a day later to clarify that they just don't want people going hiking or dog walking to get shot? And that their purpose isn't to ban weapon use on public land but keep it to hunting areas/shooting ranges?n And that this Bureau was created by legislation Bush signed in 2007? Man that Obama is really the most anti-gun president in the history. By the way I think you got your false talking points messed up. There's no mention of concealed carry in that article. You were probably thinking of something you got from a FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:OBAMA BAN CONCEALED CARRY e-mail from 2008. Banning the right to carry a gun on public property IS a ban on the right to carry on public property; both concealed and open. Obama already said that he wants to ban concealed carry. He hasn't spoken out against open carry to my knowledge, but he must likely wants to ban that as well. Did you even read what's in the article? This is the crux of the complaint: + Show Spoiler +When the authorized officer determines that a site or area on BLM-managed lands used on a regular basis for recreational shooting is creating public disturbance, or is creating risk to other persons on public lands; is contributing to the defacement, removal or destruction of natural features, native plants, cultural resources, historic structures or government and/or private property; is facilitating or creating a condition of littering, refuse accumulation and abandoned personal property is violating existing use restrictions, closure and restriction orders, or supplementary rules notices, and reasonable attempts to reduce or eliminate the violations by the BLM have been unsuccessful, the authorized officer will close the affected area to recreational shooting. If people shooting their guns off on public lands is ruining that land the BLM would have closed that area down to recreational gun users. Notice no mention of concealed carry, you should probably read the articles you use when you're grasping at straws. And then because even that was too much they backed off a few days later. There's a reason there's like only 3 hits on the internet about this, its an incredible non-issue. Still waiting for a single concrete thing that Obama has done to limit gun rights while president. Not your crazy speculation. Why do you keep ignoring his record as both a federal and state senator as if it doesn't matter? Why do you keep ignoring the fact that the articles you're citing as "evidence" don't agree with you whatsoever?
What did I cite that didn't agree with me? Both articles showed that the vast majority of the American people are opposed to gun control and that they are moving in the direction of gun rights.
|
On October 25 2012 05:29 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 05:21 Risen wrote:On October 25 2012 05:19 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 05:12 Risen wrote:On October 25 2012 05:09 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 04:59 ZeaL. wrote:On October 25 2012 04:47 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 04:34 ZeaL. wrote:Name one single thing that Obama has done to restrict access to guns while president. Here let me answer this one for you: You're going to ignore this post because you have nothing. Just like every other time you've been shown to be completely wrong you just deflect and ignore. He tried to ban concealed carry on government property (including parks): http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/11/16/obama-pushing-shooters-off-public-lands That's it? A draft policy from the Bureau of Land Management that no one has ever heard of and was amended a day later to clarify that they just don't want people going hiking or dog walking to get shot? And that their purpose isn't to ban weapon use on public land but keep it to hunting areas/shooting ranges?n And that this Bureau was created by legislation Bush signed in 2007? Man that Obama is really the most anti-gun president in the history. By the way I think you got your false talking points messed up. There's no mention of concealed carry in that article. You were probably thinking of something you got from a FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:OBAMA BAN CONCEALED CARRY e-mail from 2008. Banning the right to carry a gun on public property IS a ban on the right to carry on public property; both concealed and open. Obama already said that he wants to ban concealed carry. He hasn't spoken out against open carry to my knowledge, but he must likely wants to ban that as well. Oh hey look, more inane bullshit. You're a perfect representative of fact that people should listen to. Oh wait... It should be pretty obvious that anyone who wants to ban concealed carry, are most likely also opposed to open carry.
I know people who prefer open carry to concealed carry, but I haven't seen them advocating for banning concealed carry. Look at all the anecdotal evidence. Not a single statement backed up by anything. More bullshit. It's common sense! And a ban on open carry would be consistent with his other anti-gun views.
2+2=5
It's common sense !
|
On October 25 2012 05:29 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 05:21 Risen wrote:On October 25 2012 05:19 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 05:12 Risen wrote:On October 25 2012 05:09 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 04:59 ZeaL. wrote:On October 25 2012 04:47 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 04:34 ZeaL. wrote:Name one single thing that Obama has done to restrict access to guns while president. Here let me answer this one for you: You're going to ignore this post because you have nothing. Just like every other time you've been shown to be completely wrong you just deflect and ignore. He tried to ban concealed carry on government property (including parks): http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/11/16/obama-pushing-shooters-off-public-lands That's it? A draft policy from the Bureau of Land Management that no one has ever heard of and was amended a day later to clarify that they just don't want people going hiking or dog walking to get shot? And that their purpose isn't to ban weapon use on public land but keep it to hunting areas/shooting ranges?n And that this Bureau was created by legislation Bush signed in 2007? Man that Obama is really the most anti-gun president in the history. By the way I think you got your false talking points messed up. There's no mention of concealed carry in that article. You were probably thinking of something you got from a FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:OBAMA BAN CONCEALED CARRY e-mail from 2008. Banning the right to carry a gun on public property IS a ban on the right to carry on public property; both concealed and open. Obama already said that he wants to ban concealed carry. He hasn't spoken out against open carry to my knowledge, but he must likely wants to ban that as well. Oh hey look, more inane bullshit. You're a perfect representative of fact that people should listen to. Oh wait... It should be pretty obvious that anyone who wants to ban concealed carry, are most likely also opposed to open carry.
I know people who prefer open carry to concealed carry, but I haven't seen them advocating for banning concealed carry. Look at all the anecdotal evidence. Not a single statement backed up by anything. More bullshit. It's common sense! And a ban on open carry would be consistent with his other anti-gun views.
Rallying cry of the uninformed. And that isn't consistent at all. As usual, you show a complete disregard for reality in your arguments and refuse to back up anything you say with facts here on Earth. Still not surprised, though. Where is xDaunt to reign this fool in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
