• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

NRA Begins Push To Tarnish Obama On Guns

ReverendHellh0und

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,983
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Obama like to lie and claim he is pro-2nd amendment.

Read his words carefully.


Obama is as dishonest a political double talker as they come.




NRA Begins Push To Tarnish Obama On Guns

NRA Begins Push To Tarnish Obama On Guns , CBSNews.com Reports: As Pro-Gun Group Tries To Make Gun Control Into Wedge Issue, Some Gun Advocates Remain Wary Of McCain - CBS News

"The bottom line is this. If you’ve got a rifle, you’ve got a shotgun, you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it away," Obama said earlier this month in Pennsylvania. "Alright? So they can keep on talking about it, but this is just not true."

(Obama also said at the time that even if he wanted to take hunters' guns away, he "couldn't get it done" since he doesn't "have the votes in Congress" - a statement that
Click to expand...
 
When it comes to the right to keep and bear arms, I wouldn't trust John McCain either. Obama is an Illinois politician, so you know where he's coming from on gun control. Chicago has one of the most oppressive, authoratative laws on the books against gun ownership and carrying. Didn't trust him to start with. McCain hasn't been the best of friends to gun rights either. I think on the whole, both parties would rather see an unarmed America.
 
Biden said:
“I guarantee you, Barack Obama ain't taking my shotguns, so don't buy that malarkey," Biden said in Southern Virginia. "Don't buy that malarkey. They're going to start peddling that to you. I got two, if he tries to fool with my Beretta, he's got a problem."

This is cherry! :rofl
 
I doubt that. McCain has Palin on his back, he would be foolish to touch the 2nd.


Besides danny lets see you go after obama here.
 
Palin would be VP, the VP has no power. There is no way she could stop McCain from his anti-gun tendencies. I don't see why people think that Palin is somehow there to temper McCain. It won't happen, she was nothing more than eye candy, trying to pick up women's votes and that is it. She will make 0 difference, zero difference, on McCain's plans, policies, and platform. In fact, I would say that you're taking an awefully large risk with one of our most important and fundamental rights by pretending to think that Palin will somehow "control" McCain.
 
Ikari said:
Palin would be VP, the VP has no power. There is no way she could stop McCain from his anti-gun tendencies. I don't see why people think that Palin is somehow there to temper McCain. It won't happen, she was nothing more than eye candy, trying to pick up women's votes and that is it. She will make 0 difference, zero difference, on McCain's plans, policies, and platform. In fact, I would say that you're taking an awefully large risk with one of our most important and fundamental rights by pretending to think that Palin will somehow "control" McCain.
Click to expand...




How am I taking the risk?


You will be voting for a guaranteed loser helping Obama take the whitehouse. It is you who is taking the risk, in vain I might add.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
How am I taking the risk?


You will be voting for a guaranteed loser helping Obama take the whitehouse. It is you who is taking the risk, in vain I might add.
Click to expand...

I am doing my duty to the Republic. This system only works if you vote for the one you best think can do the job, not with whom you think can best win. Best win gets us status quo, it gets us McCain vs. Obama. You have quelled your dissent against McCain because of Palin, but the end result is the same regardless. Palin will be powerless to halt McCain, and he'll do as he wanted to do all along. He has a pretty good anti-gun streak himself and Palin can't change or stop that. The risk you're taking is that somehow the powerless Palin, chosen only for campaign purposes and not because of ideology, will change the aspects of a platform you don't like. But it's not going to happen, a vote for Palin is a vote for McCain; and McCain isn't good for the Republic. I may help Obama win? No, I'm not voting for Obama; I shall not help him win. I will vote for the guy I believe in, whom has proven resolve, the one that has the political platform and ideology that lines up with mine. The system does not work if you vote lesser of evils, it breaks under that condition. So who is doing what to help the Republic? To serve it best? Those willing to sell their political souls for a "chance" at winning, or those who stand up with their resolve backing their ideals?
 
I'm pro-gun ownership with some protections. I don't see a problem with having to wait a week to 10 days for a background check to get a gun, banning all fully automatic weapons and banning body-armor-piercing and hydroshock ammo for everyone except law enforcement. However, I believe the NRA is just plain awful because they rarely tell the truth in there material.

FactCheck has already debunked several of the NRA's anti-Obama ads. If they can fight Obama's stance using the truth, then why are they lying? My guess is that they can't fight Obama's stance with the truth because the truth is Obama's ideas on gun control are similar to the majority of Americans' ideas - and telling the truth would actually help instead of hender Obama.
 
Ikari said:
When it comes to the right to keep and bear arms, I wouldn't trust John McCain either.
Click to expand...
I dont trust McCain.
But, I trust Obama less.

I do not think the NRA will endorese McCain - might be wrong on that - but they are certainly correct to oppose Obama.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I doubt that. McCain has Palin on his back, he would be foolish to touch the 2nd.


Besides danny lets see you go after obama here.
Click to expand...

Unless McCain croaks after immediately being sworn into office I do not see Palin making a difference.
 
Ikari said:
I am doing my duty to the Republic. This system only works if you vote for the one you best think can do the job, not with whom you think can best win. Best win gets us status quo, it gets us McCain vs. Obama. You have quelled your dissent against McCain because of Palin, but the end result is the same regardless. Palin will be powerless to halt McCain, and he'll do as he wanted to do all along. He has a pretty good anti-gun streak himself and Palin can't change or stop that. The risk you're taking is that somehow the powerless Palin, chosen only for campaign purposes and not because of ideology, will change the aspects of a platform you don't like. But it's not going to happen, a vote for Palin is a vote for McCain; and McCain isn't good for the Republic. I may help Obama win? No, I'm not voting for Obama; I shall not help him win. I will vote for the guy I believe in, whom has proven resolve, the one that has the political platform and ideology that lines up with mine. The system does not work if you vote lesser of evils, it breaks under that condition. So who is doing what to help the Republic? To serve it best? Those willing to sell their political souls for a "chance" at winning, or those who stand up with their resolve backing their ideals?
Click to expand...




I fully admit I am taking a risk... That risk however is for a better payoff in "Everytime we enact a new law we lose a little bit of our freedom" Palin.




I sir, am doing what is best for the republic.


btw don't tell me you are voting for Barr. that would be a hoot. :lol:
 
American said:
Biden said:
“I guarantee you, Barack Obama ain't taking my shotguns, so don't buy that malarkey," Biden said in Southern Virginia. "Don't buy that malarkey. They're going to start peddling that to you. I got two, if he tries to fool with my Beretta, he's got a problem."
This is cherry! :rofl
Click to expand...
The secret to this:
Biden has a Beretta shotgun.
 
Goobieman said:
I dont trust McCain.
But, I trust Obama less.

I do not think the NRA will endorese McCain - might be wrong on that - but they are certainly correct to oppose Obama.
Click to expand...

Well to be honest, I also don't like the NRA. I think they are too weak in fighting for our innate and inalienable rights to keep and bear arms. They are too willing to accept compromise, and with rights there can be no compromise.

In the end, Obama will not be good for gun rights, but neither will McCain. But do we vote for one over the other because one will do slightly less damage? Or should we demand one who will do no damage, or dare I dream to say one who would heal and return to us the full of our rights? I don't think a valid reason for supporting someone is that they will do less damage than the other. I want one who will at the very least do no damage.
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
I'm pro-gun ownership with some protections. I don't see a problem with having to wait a week to 10 days for a background check to get a gun...
Click to expand...
... because a right delayed really isnt a right denied...

...banning all fully automatic weapons...
Click to expand...
... because legally-owned automatic weapons are used -so- very often in cime...

...and banning body-armor-piercing ammo...
Click to expand...
... which has already been banned...

...and hydroshock ammo...
Click to expand...
...something I cannot really quantify...

...for everyone except law enforcement.
Click to expand...
...because only the police need to shoot bad guys.

FactCheck has already debunked several of the NRA's anti-Obama ads.
Click to expand...
Care to post links to these?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I fully admit I am taking a risk... That risk however is for a better payoff in "Everytime we enact a new law we lose a little bit of our freedom" Palin.
Click to expand...

Forgive my skepticism, but I'm more of a "I'll believe it when I see it" sort of guy. She can say all she wants, I want actual documented proof of doing. And doing in a way specifically designed to benefit the People, not special interest groups.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I sir, am doing what is best for the republic.
Click to expand...

than continue forth. You do what you have to for this Republic, and I'll do what I have to do for this Republic. I can not support a candidate I don't believe in.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
btw don't tell me you are voting for Barr. that would be a hoot. :lol:
Click to expand...

No, I'm still really pissed at the LP for that one.
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
I'm pro-gun ownership with some protections. I don't see a problem with having to wait a week to 10 days for a background check to get a gun, banning all fully automatic weapons and banning body-armor-piercing and hydroshock ammo for everyone except law enforcement. However, I believe the NRA is just plain awful because they rarely tell the truth in there material.

FactCheck has already debunked several of the NRA's anti-Obama ads. If they can fight Obama's stance using the truth, then why are they lying? My guess is that they can't fight Obama's stance with the truth because the truth is Obama's ideas on gun control are similar to the majority of Americans' ideas - and telling the truth would actually help instead of hender Obama.
Click to expand...






What is "hydro-shock" ammo?


And why should the police be allowed to have certain ammo and the civillians are not?



Many common hunting rounds will pierce body armor. So will many handgun rounds.

What class body armor are you talking about?
 
Ikari said:
Forgive my skepticism, but I'm more of a "I'll believe it when I see it" sort of guy. She can say all she wants, I want actual documented proof of doing. And doing in a way specifically designed to benefit the People, not special interest groups.
Click to expand...


I already linked to it a while back. it's there if you want to see it for yourself.

As a Libertarian I would think that would be something worth hunting down.



than continue forth. You do what you have to for this Republic, and I'll do what I have to do for this Republic. I can not support a candidate I don't believe in.
Click to expand...


Who is your canidate then?




No, I'm still really pissed at the LP for that one.
Click to expand...



You and me both,
 
So Democrats are trying to take the NRA's guns away. Well both groups will certainly lose points for originality this election.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I already linked to it a while back. it's there if you want to see it for yourself.

As a Libertarian I would think that would be something worth hunting down.
Click to expand...

I've seen some of it. Problem is first off, I'm not voting for Palin, I'd be voting for McCain as he is the Presidential candidate. And I have major problems with McCain. And secondly because I've already seen who I want in office, the guy with proven record and resolve to do as he says he's going to do. That's who I want, that's who I'll vote for even if I have to write him in.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Who is your canidate then?
Click to expand...

None who are officially in. I like Ron Paul, that was the ideal candidate. And now that I've seen him, that's what I want. He echos my ideology almost exactly, I know what he will do as he has a proven track record of doing what he says he's going to do. He's the man that can help mend the Republic. Baldwin is pretty ok though. Although IIRC, I don't think he likes national forests and parks; but I'm pretty cool with those things. I'll pay tax dollars for it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom