Here's where the semanitcs and spin come in !

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Mr_Incredible
Anti-GUN people want ALL the guns. "Assault" rifles are only the current evil weapon of the of the moment. When/if all this dies down, the anti-gun people will ride whatever else presents itself. Their intentions are clear and have been spoken many times...they want to get rid of ALL guns. Fat chance...
That seems to be a rather strawman argument, as even the most liberal of mainstream politicians have never advocated confiscating guns...
Originally Posted By: Gabe
Originally Posted By: OB4x4
Unfortunately the current administration has taken an anti-freedom stance against it's own people.
When you say 'current administration' are you talking about local gun shops?? I have heard they have stopped taking orders on some guns.
I wouldn't be surprised if firearms manufacturers and gun shop owners (secretly) gave millions to the Obama campaign, he's been nothing to an absolute boon to them thus far...
 
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Feinstein said for a fact that if she could have gotten the votes to make " Mr and Mrs America....Turn em all in" she would have done it. It's on tape and you can see it for yourself. Also look at the list of the "1000 guns" on her approved gun list in the bill she is proposing. You will notice that it will basically kill any weapon capable of holding 10 rounds. Even if its tubular or fixed mags. There is also not one semi auto pistol on the list from what I have seen. They are not just pushing to "reinstate" the 94 ban, they are greatly expanding it and hoping that they can lull people into thinking its the 94 bill again.
Where and when did she say this?
 
Originally Posted By: ridgerunner
Originally Posted By: Oldwolf
Problem with the gun related deaths/"murders" is that they always include people who commit suicide. That inflates that number greatly.
No, not they do not include suicides. In fact, one of the criticisms of "gun death" statistics is that they do not often include suicides by gun. And I'm pretty sure a statistical chart labeled "murder" isn't going to include suicide statistics...
 
Originally Posted By: Mr_Incredible
And, lastly: Assault Medical Procedures? Planned Parenthood admits to 333,964 ab0rti0ns in 2011. Where ever you stand on that, it's still a lot of little lives. If the liberal argument was simply about the number of lives taken by guns, this would kind of blunt their argument. Don't you think?
I think "Planned Parenthood" doesn't perform abortions...
 
Quote:
In order to become the master, the politician poses as the servant.
Charles de Gaulle
Quote:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
C.S. Lewis
 
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Feinstein said for a fact that if she could have gotten the votes to make " Mr and Mrs America....Turn em all in" she would have done it. It's on tape and you can see it for yourself. Also look at the list of the "1000 guns" on her approved gun list in the bill she is proposing. You will notice that it will basically kill any weapon capable of holding 10 rounds. Even if its tubular or fixed mags. There is also not one semi auto pistol on the list from what I have seen. They are not just pushing to "reinstate" the 94 ban, they are greatly expanding it and hoping that they can lull people into thinking its the 94 bill again.
Where and when did she say this?
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Dianne_Feinstein Note 26 links to here: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7380236n Unfortunately, my computer is stating something about missing something, so I think what is linked is a video of some sort. Can't watch youtube at work but the links come up just the same: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&ved=0CE8QtwIwBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DF5H8vqZxVHs&ei=GCDvUJ70H8aw0AHX7QE&usg=AFQjCNHvoBBnU9skwcn5SndONEu_Gx-7tQ&bvm=bv.1357700187,d.dmQ I skipped the links to NRA/etc that might be easily dismissed. Unforutnately I'm at work so I can't do much further--but I'd be interested in verifying this statement also.
 
Originally Posted By: Gabe
Originally Posted By: OB4x4
Unfortunately the current administration has taken an anti-freedom stance against it's own people.
When you say 'current administration' are you talking about local gun shops?? I have heard they have stopped taking orders on some guns.
No.? "current administration" refers to the Obama administration. Not sure how you could come up with gun shops. They are only not taking orders because there are some models of guns which are completely sold out nationwide and on backorder from the factories.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
They are only not taking orders because there are some models of guns which are completely sold out nationwide and on backorder from the factories.
My Dad went to a local gun shop and he said they were trying to order new stock but were unable due to shortages.
 
Originally Posted By: supton
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Feinstein said for a fact that if she could have gotten the votes to make " Mr and Mrs America....Turn em all in" she would have done it. It's on tape and you can see it for yourself. Also look at the list of the "1000 guns" on her approved gun list in the bill she is proposing. You will notice that it will basically kill any weapon capable of holding 10 rounds. Even if its tubular or fixed mags. There is also not one semi auto pistol on the list from what I have seen. They are not just pushing to "reinstate" the 94 ban, they are greatly expanding it and hoping that they can lull people into thinking its the 94 bill again.
Where and when did she say this?
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Dianne_Feinstein ... I skipped the links to NRA/etc that might be easily dismissed. Unforutnately I'm at work so I can't do much further--but I'd be interested in verifying this statement also.
She said it, but it's the typical out-of-context red herring (or at least poorly explained in this case) as she was talking about only assault rifles in 1994, not ALL guns. And she is also acknowledging that an actual ban on all guns is politically impossible. I'm not arguing that she isn't a bit ignorant on guns. But I think the NRA-leadership like LaPierre are also ignorant on matters of good public policy and many of their lobbying efforts actually contradict their public statements as well as the actual opinion on most members of the NRA and of gun owners in general. His effort to blame everything but the ease of access of guns in this country (i.e. for those suffering from mental illness, the fact that 40% of all gun purchases involve no background checks via a private purchaser loophole, the ATF has seemingly less authority to police gunstores in illegal purchases of firearms than local police have in policing convenience stores in illegal purchases of tobacco and alcohol by minors, etc.) leads to the exacerbation of these sorts of events...
 
Quote:
I wouldn't be surprised if firearms manufacturers and gun shop owners (secretly) gave millions to the Obama campaign, he's been nothing to an absolute boon to them thus far...
And I wouldn't be suprized if the Brady Bunch gave thousands to the Obama campaign, along with other socialist organizations. [quote] the fact that 40% of all gun purchases involve no background checks via a private purchaser loophole [quote] And this would have stopped the Newtown shooting how? Senator Ted Cruze said it best, "I don't think the Federal Goverment has any business having a list of Law Abiding Citizens who choose to exercise their right to keep and bear arms."
 
Last edited:
Feinstein is a joke of a politician. I am more concerned with the Attorney General's stance on the 2nd Amendment. He very publicly sided with DC in the Heller vs D.C. case and was quoted as to saying we need to shame gun owners into giving up their guns. Not to mention our current commander in chief was quoted in 1997 as saying that he believes that no private citizen should be able to own guns to a fellow professor John Lott. That makes the comment from the vice president that executive orders could be used to bypass congress very frightening. That would set a dangerous precedent in this nation.
 
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
executive orders could be used to bypass congress very frightening. That would set a dangerous precedent in this nation.
So much fear mongering. They can be overturned by Congress by a 2/3rds majority. The US Supreme Court can as well. (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) determined that they can. Oh, and the next President can overturn them too by issuing a new EO. Like this: http://chronicle.com/article/Obama-Overturns-Bush-Order-on/42277 Truman's EO to take federal control of all steel mills was overturned by Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer 343 US 579 (1952). No boundary or rules set up regarding how far the president can go with an executive order until then. Since then, Presidents have been careful to cite the specific laws they are acting under. Setting a precedent? Since 1789, Presidents have issued them. The introduction of an executive orders were not always made known to the people. As a matter of fact, they were pretty much kept a secret until the early 1900’s and were only announced to the specific officer or agency that was authorized to act on it. Here's an incomplete list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders Here too: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: Mr_Incredible
And, lastly: Assault Medical Procedures? Planned Parenthood admits to 333,964 ab0rti0ns in 2011. Where ever you stand on that, it's still a lot of little lives. If the liberal argument was simply about the number of lives taken by guns, this would kind of blunt their argument. Don't you think?
I think "Planned Parenthood" doesn't perform abortions...
Doesn't really matter. It's a false statement since abortions are legal.
 
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
executive orders could be used to bypass congress very frightening. That would set a dangerous precedent in this nation.
So much fear mongering. They can be overturned by Congress by a 2/3rds majority. The US Supreme Court can as well. (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) determined that they can. Oh, and the next President can overturn them too by issuing a new EO. Like this: http://chronicle.com/article/Obama-Overturns-Bush-Order-on/42277 Truman's EO to take federal control of all steel mills was overturned by Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer 343 US 579 (1952). No boundary or rules set up regarding how far the president can go with an executive order until then. Since then, Presidents have been careful to cite the specific laws they are acting under. Setting a precedent? Since 1789, Presidents have issued them. The introduction of an executive orders were not always made known to the people. As a matter of fact, they were pretty much kept a secret until the early 1900’s and were only announced to the specific officer or agency that was authorized to act on it. Here's an incomplete list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders Here too: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html
And in a political climate like this where it is highly polarized....when is the last time we had a 2/3rd majority on any major issue? And I know they can be overturned by congress and the courts.....but some of the worst ones never were. Executive order 9066 for instance, the one where we put Japanese-Americans into "detainment". It only took till 1990 for us to make it right after finally killing the order officially in the 70's. You want that kind of power put into one persons hands regarding the bill of rights? Cause I am pretty sure that executive order shot to hades parts of the fourth amendment. Not to mention parts of outside the Bill of Rights, especially the fourteenth and from I have read the Fifteenth. Executive orders have their place and usefulness. However, when it comes to issues regarding basic and fundamental rights of citizens....its a bad thing to do.
 
Question: if an unconstitutional executive order was issued, and then overturned by 2/3's of Congress, what about the time between the order and the overturning? [I'm not seeing an EO coming down the pike here. If anything, I'm starting to think this is Obama's covert attempt to bolster the economy. He knows he stimulated it once, and by letting this mess continue, he knows it's getting a second boost. It's a win-win for him, he can look like he's doing something when he's not. Eventually it'll all blow over, and everyone can go back to doing, well, everything else. And I don't say that as an Obama hater, mind you, just that I suspect he'd, along with a lot of people, wish this issue would go away so that we could focus on other issues.]
 
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: Mr_Incredible
And, lastly: Assault Medical Procedures? Planned Parenthood admits to 333,964 ab0rti0ns in 2011. Where ever you stand on that, it's still a lot of little lives. If the liberal argument was simply about the number of lives taken by guns, this would kind of blunt their argument. Don't you think?
I think "Planned Parenthood" doesn't perform abortions...
Doesn't really matter. It's a false statement since abortions are legal.
As they should be. But many of us DO NOT like paying for them!
 
Over all of the morning news in Oz todays is that the gun buyback seems to have failed... Apparently there are now more guns in Australia than there were before Port Arthur,indicating the the buyback and the laws were a failure. Same buyback and same laws that they: * tout have reduced gun related fatalities (stats skewed by reduction in firearm suicides, not overall death rate); * haven't had another Port Arthur since we had the first one. Interestingly, Rupert Murdoch, our Foreign Minister, and our Prime Minister have offered that the Oz system was the solution to America's problems. So you can spin the same argument both ways and still be credible ????
 
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
And I wouldn't be suprized if the Brady Bunch gave thousands to the Obama campaign, along with other socialist organizations.
Oh God! NOOOOOOO! I guess that's why Stalin "replaced" the original family... frown
Quote:
And this would have stopped the Newtown shooting how?
It wouldn't have. It might have stopped the Columbine one though, the school that had an armed guard that didn't stop the shooting...
Quote:
Senator Ted Cruze said it best, "I don't think the Federal Goverment has any business having a list of Law Abiding Citizens who choose to exercise their right to keep and bear arms."
Only ones that pay taxes, I guess...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
executive orders could be used to bypass congress very frightening. That would set a dangerous precedent in this nation.
So much fear mongering. They can be overturned by Congress by a 2/3rds majority. The US Supreme Court can as well. (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) determined that they can. Oh, and the next President can overturn them too by issuing a new EO. Like this: http://chronicle.com/article/Obama-Overturns-Bush-Order-on/42277 Truman's EO to take federal control of all steel mills was overturned by Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer 343 US 579 (1952). No boundary or rules set up regarding how far the president can go with an executive order until then. Since then, Presidents have been careful to cite the specific laws they are acting under. Setting a precedent? Since 1789, Presidents have issued them. The introduction of an executive orders were not always made known to the people. As a matter of fact, they were pretty much kept a secret until the early 1900’s and were only announced to the specific officer or agency that was authorized to act on it. Here's an incomplete list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders Here too: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html
And in a political climate like this where it is highly polarized....when is the last time we had a 2/3rd majority on any major issue? And I know they can be overturned by congress and the courts.....but some of the worst ones never were. Executive order 9066 for instance, the one where we put Japanese-Americans into "detainment". It only took till 1990 for us to make it right after finally killing the order officially in the 70's. You want that kind of power put into one persons hands regarding the bill of rights? Cause I am pretty sure that executive order shot to hades parts of the fourth amendment. Not to mention parts of outside the Bill of Rights, especially the fourteenth and from I have read the Fifteenth. Executive orders have their place and usefulness. However, when it comes to issues regarding basic and fundamental rights of citizens....its a bad thing to do.
Um, I think the internment thing, while pretty awful and ultimately nothing but a racist ploy to steal peoples' property, happened during a declared war and existential national emergency. Kind of like the Patriot Act...
 
And we are still in a perpetual war on terror....war on drugs...war on (insert word here). And I can see the commander in chief or others arguing that the general welfare clause of the constitution will give them the justification to do these things. And I am not fear mongering. I believe that nothing is more patriotic than holding our leaders feet to the fire with eternal vigilance. I am not saying the government is always coming to get you...but there have been times it has. If you don't think that there are plenty of Japanese, Native Americans, and other minority groups who can tell you that in the last century they have not exactly enjoyed the full benefit of the Bill of Rights or equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the 14th amendment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
A letter from my congressman. An interesting read.
2
Replies
26
Views
7K
JHZR2
Top