Obama Gun Confiscations, and More

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Funny stuff. You could get a good argument on one of these, but the general thrust and conclusion seem valid.

Obama Gun Confiscation Count: Week #408

Total Guns Confiscated by President Barack Obama (Week #408):
zero
Total Guns Confiscated by President Barack Obama (Entire Presidency):
zero
Total Types of Guns Banned by President Barack Obama:
zero
Total Citizens Carted Off to FEMA Camps by President Barack Obama:
zero
Total Benghazis Covered Up by President Barack Obama:
zero
Total Invasions of Texas by President Barack Obama:
zero
Total Gay Agendas Realized by President Barack Obama:
zero
Total Sharia Laws Instituted by President Barack Obama:
zero
Total Communist Manifestos by President Barack Obama:
zero
Total Economies Tanked by President Barack Obama:
zero
Total Illegal Wars Built on Lies Started by President Barack Obama:
zero
Total Number, Civilians Duped Into Believing This Shit Would Happen Under President Barack Obama’s Watch:
“A f#(king shit load.”

 

[Mattski]

Add just one -
"Number of press conferences held to push gun legislation using still in shock and grief ridden parents of recently murdered children as puppets instead of questioning why an idiot liberal teacher would buy semi auto rifles and piles of ammo for her medicated bat shit crazy son".

Aside from this any suggestion Obama hasn't attempted to push legislative changes to gun ownership is disengenuous at best and you know it. He simply has failed to achieve his stated goals due to a lack of support from the majority of congress.

 

[TravisG5000]

Add just one -
"Number of press conferences held to push gun legislation using still in shock and grief ridden parents of recently murdered children as puppets instead of questioning why an idiot liberal teacher would buy semi auto rifles and piles of ammo for her medicated bat shit crazy son".

Aside from this any suggestion Obama hasn't attempted to push legislative changes to gun ownership is disengenuous at best and you know it. He simply has failed to achieve his stated goals due to a lack of support from the majority of congress.

 

[whatsup12579er]

I really do think that Obama would like to do a lot of things the OP listed but that is pretty damn funny!

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Add just one -
"Number of press conferences held to push gun legislation using still in shock and grief ridden parents of recently murdered children as puppets instead of questioning why an idiot liberal teacher would buy semi auto rifles and piles of ammo for her medicated bat shit crazy son".

Aside from this any suggestion Obama hasn't attempted to push legislative changes to gun ownership is disengenuous at best and you know it. He simply has failed to achieve his stated goals due to a lack of support from the majority of congress.

So . . . when kids died in crib fires and some legislators used those tragedies to push legislation on flame resistant clothing and blankets for kids, you were similarly outraged?

 

[Aegon_Targaryen]

So . . . when kids died in crib fires and some legislators used those tragedies to push legislation on flame resistant clothing and blankets for kids, you were similarly outraged?

Not the same, at all.

 

[naturalmwa]

Not the same, at all.

Go on.

 

[The_Joker13]

Go on.

2nd amendment.

 

[naturalmwa]

2nd amendment.

How does that apply to the argument at hand that it's out of bounds to advance legislation in the wake of a tragedy?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

2nd amendment.

There must be a word for people like this. Or opinions like this, at the very least.

Boiled down to its simplest form this is like asking "do you think this is a good law" and getting the answer "it's the law."

Yes, it's the law. We know that. That wasn't the question.

We wouldn't accept that "reasoning" anywhere else.

"Is this stone big enough?" "It's a stone."

"Does the spaghetti sauce need more salt?" "It's spaghetti sauce."

Why do people think it makes any more sense when we're talking about guns?

 

[The_Joker13]

There must be a word for people like this. Or opinions like this, at the very least.

Boiled down to its simplest form this is like asking "do you think this is a good law" and getting the answer "it's the law."

Yes, it's the law. We know that. That wasn't the question.

We wouldn't accept that "reasoning" anywhere else.

"Is this stone big enough?" "It's a stone."

"Does the spaghetti sauce need more salt?" "It's spaghetti sauce."

Why do people think it makes any more sense when we're talking about guns?

It was remarked that changing laws for blankets and guns are the same, I threw the 2nd amendment in to show its not the same thing. Imo of course. It's just one of many variables when discussing gun laws and whatnot.

 

[The_Joker13]

How does that apply to the argument at hand that it's out of bounds to advance legislation in the wake of a tragedy?

That's not my argument.

 

[strummingram]

Bowling For Columbine was an interesting film. I like all of Moore's films, actually. But, that one in particular made me really wonder why America has so much gun violence and gun-related crimes. I really don't think it's because of the existence of guns. He even used Canada as a comparison. Canada has an equal number of guns in the public's hands (or so it implied), but the crimes using them are almost non-existent.

 

[The_Joker13]

Bowling For Columbine was an interesting film. I like all of Moore's films, actually. But, that one in particular made me really wonder why America has so much gun violence and gun-related crimes. I really don't think it's because of the existence of guns. He even used Canada as a comparison. Canada has an equal number of guns in the public's hands (or so it implied), but the crimes using them are almost non-existent.

Maybe the fact that they only have 33 million citizens factors into it? I Agree Moores films are interesting and have some value but they are incredibly biased documentaries. He has an agenda.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

It was remarked that changing laws for blankets and guns are the same, I threw the 2nd amendment in to show its not the same thing. Imo of course. It's just one of many variables when discussing gun laws and whatnot.

OK, I can accept that.

What was being suggested in the gun case was that it is somehow improper to leverage a tragedy into taking action to curb or limit similar tragedies in the future.

We already have laws about clothing and fires on the books. Just as we have 2A. Neither preexisting law makes it unreasonable to try to prevent tragedies when those tragedies are fresh in people's minds.

Sure, we should be concerned about the possibility that hot blood can produce bad law. That's an argument for caution - for taking a close look at the proposed law. It's not an argument against taking any action to prevent future tragedies. Yet it is used that way if the subject is guns. 2A limits some of the ways we may think of to address gun violence, but it doesn't bar all possible remedies.

 

[strummingram]

Maybe the fact that they only have 33 million citizens factors into it? I Agree Moores films are interesting and have some value but they are incredibly biased documentaries. He has an agenda.

Of course he has an agenda. And, he's absolutely biased. You just described every human being on the planet. Why aren't those 33 million committing crimes with guns on a relative scale? Their gun-related crime rate is virtually nil. This country has an IMMENSELY disproportionate amount of gun crimes. And "IMMENSELY disproportionate" is me being pretty tame with the use of adjectives.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Maybe the fact that they only have 33 million citizens factors into it? I Agree Moores films are interesting and have some value but they are incredibly biased documentaries. He has an agenda.

Having an agenda is not a bad thing. Plus, he's pretty up front about his agenda.

The recent Cosmos series was "incredibly biased" in favor of science. Is that a reasonable basis for criticizing it?

OTOH, the administration propaganda and the overwhelming majority of MSM reporting was incredibly biased in favor of going to war with Iraq. So certainly we should take a hard look when we see an agenda.

 

[The_Joker13]

Of course he has an agenda. And, he's absolutely biased. You just described every human being on the planet. Why aren't those 33 million committing crimes with guns on a relative scale? Their gun-related crime rate is virtually nil. This country has an IMMENSELY disproportionate amount of gun crimes. And "IMMENSELY disproportionate" is me being pretty tame with the use of adjectives.

Everybody in Canada is mostly the same color? They don't have as serious of wealth separation as this country? It's colder up there? I don't think comparing Canada to America is really fair. They are vastly different countries.

 

[strummingram]

Everybody in Canada is mostly the same color? They don't have as serious of wealth separation as this country? It's colder up there? I don't think comparing Canada to America is really fair. They are vastly different countries.

Clearly!

 

[The_Joker13]

Clearly!

You're cool bro

 

[whatsup12579er]

Take the gun violence in the 5 biggest cities out of the equation in the US and then take a look at the numbers. I bet it would be pretty similar to Canada.

 

[dalynchmob]

Take the gun violence in the 5 biggest cities out of the equation in the US and then take a look at the numbers. I bet it would be pretty similar to Canada.

I linked this article and CDC study previously, but here it is again.

Not 5 cities, but 3 states and D.C. (all of which are "anti-gun"):

Others seized upon the CDC’s finding that, “The U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.” However, as noted by the Las Vegas Guardian Express, if figures are excluded from such anti-gun bastions as Illinois, California, New Jersey and Washington, D.C., “The homicide rate in the United States would be in line with any other country.”


Read more: http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-obama/#ixzz3abjyNUGm

 

[Mattski]

So . . . when kids died in crib fires and some legislators used those tragedies to push legislation on flame resistant clothing and blankets for kids, you were similarly outraged?

Had mom been smoking a cig and dropped it in the crib, then I'd have at least considered blaming the mom and her decision first.
It's a brain dead comparison regardless, not to mention your rebuttal concedes Obama has made efforts to put restrictions on guns...but you already knew that.

 

[Mattski]

Hilarious. How about doing some research and get your head out of the sand before posting next time.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...eb028a-a77c-11e2-b029-8fb7e977ef71_story.html

The fact is Obama tried using Newtown to pass a bunch of gun control measures that had nothing to do with the tragedy there.
Congress, mainly the Democrat controlled Senate, stopped him.

 

[Gimmered]

How does that apply to the argument at hand that it's out of bounds to advance legislation in the wake of a tragedy?

Show me the part of the proposed legislation that would have prevented this tragedy.

 

[naturalmwa]

Show me the part of the proposed legislation that would have prevented this tragedy.

What legislation is even being debated here? Were debating the practice of introducing legislation in the wake of tragedies.

 

[Arbitr8]

Even an imbecile like Obama knows his limitations.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Show me the part of the proposed legislation that would have prevented this tragedy.

What legislation is even being debated here? Were debating the practice of introducing legislation in the wake of tragedies.

I wonder if any studies have been conducted to ascertain whether cons are more likely to exhibit attention deficit disorders than others.

 

[dalynchmob]

I wonder if any studies have been conducted to ascertain whether cons are more likely to exhibit attention deficit disorders than others.

I think he is talking about the legislation that was introduced in the wake of Sandy Hook by Diane Feinstein and 24 Democrat cosponsors, S. 150, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.

It would not have prevented the tragedy that it was in direct response to. Ergo, it is relevant to the discussion of introducing legislation in the wake of tragedies.

 

[Funky Bunch]

Total rounds shot under 90
Zero

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I think he is talking about the legislation that was introduced in the wake of Sandy Hook by Diane Feinstein and 24 Democrat cosponsors, S. 150, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.

It would not have prevented the tragedy that it was in direct response to. Ergo, it is relevant to the discussion of introducing legislation in the wake of tragedies.

So . . . you seem to be saying that it may be OK to introduce legislation in the wake of a tragedy but ONLY if it's legislation that would have prevented that tragedy.

While I agree that would be nice, I don't think it's a logical argument against legislation that does good even if it wouldn't have prevented the triggering tragedy.

Hurricane Sandy wouldn't have been prevented by legislation funding accelerated investment in green energy tech. But going green is still a great idea and if Sandy's harm helps America get on that path, I think that's terrific.

Legislation supporting better protective clothes for doctors and improved epidemiology programs and such wouldn't have prevented the Ebola outbreak, but if that outbreak triggers legislation in support of those things, would you object to that legislation it because it wouldn't have prevented the outbreak?

 

[dalynchmob]

So . . . you seem to be saying that it may be OK to introduce legislation in the wake of a tragedy but ONLY if it's legislation that would have prevented that tragedy.

While I agree that would be nice, I don't think it's a logical argument against legislation that does good even if it wouldn't have prevented the triggering tragedy.

Hurricane Sandy wouldn't have been prevented by legislation funding accelerated investment in green energy tech. But going green is still a great idea and if Sandy's harm helps America get on that path, I think that's terrific.

Legislation supporting better protective clothes for doctors and improved epidemiology programs and such wouldn't have prevented the Ebola outbreak, but if that outbreak triggers legislation in support of those things, would you object to that legislation it because it wouldn't have prevented the outbreak?

What I am saying is, introducing knee jerk legislation that will not do anything other than score political points and continue the erosion of a constitutional right is not smart policy.

The analogies you gave are not rights protected by the constitution, that is a key difference. The bill that was introduced after Sandy Hook would not do anything to prevent future mass shootings, it was used as an opportunity to further restrict the 2nd Amendment.