- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 6,218
- Reaction score
- 1,859
- Location
- DFW, Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
He's already given examples of what you wrote that he considers fearmongering.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057813422-post25.html
Oh?
What's exactly the difference, vis-a-vis what I said? You called what I wrote "fearmongering."
Oh?
What's exactly the difference, vis-a-vis what I said? You called what I wrote "fearmongering."
Sure there is.Take a look at who I was responding to and what I've posted since. There is a difference between concerns over increased gun control and fearmongering
We've been over this and we disagree. I call your doomsday language fear mongering, you (unsurprisingly) feel it was reasonable. I doubt we will make any progress from rehashing that discussion.
Sure there is.
But, does the concern that Obama will ban guns qualify as fearmongering?
Thats why I asked you if you thought that, even though he openly supports such things, he won't sign any gun bans into law.
Do you or do you not think that he will sign gun ban(s) into law?
If you DO believe that he will, how then does the concern that he will qualify as 'fearmongering'?
If you do not... we'll, I'd really like to hear your reasoning, especially given that he openly supports them.
So... you agree that Obama will sign at least one gun ban into law -- that he will ban at least some guns.I think we will probably see legislation regarding the expired assault weapons ban. Outside of that, no, I don't think Obama will sign any gun bans into law
So... you agree that Obama will sign at least one gun ban into law -- that he will ban at least some guns.
How then does the concern that Obama will ban guns qualify as fearmongering?
If people would state their concerns about assault weapons that would be reasonable.
Fearmongering starts when people start going on about blanket gun bans, think that Obama will work to negate or reinterpret the 2nd, etc.
As I've said many times, there are legitimate second ammendment concerns with an Obama administration.
This does not mean that the crap the far right is spewing is accurate or rational. When people are screaming about Obama taking their guns, they aren't referring to their AK
Well to be fair -- if you state that "Obama will ban guns", and he only bans one class of guns, your statement is still correct.If people would state their concerns about assault weapons that would be reasonable. Fearmongering starts when people start going on about blanket gun bans, think that Obama will work to negate or reinterpret the 2nd, etc.
Well to be fair -- if you state that "Obama will ban guns", and he only bans one class of guns, your statement is still correct.
Obama will most certainly ban 'assault weapons'. He'll also support federal legislation that backs up minicupal gun handgun bans, and sign any bill to that efefct. He'll support licensing and registration at the federal level and sign any bill to that effect. He'll support a national ban (of some sort) on concealed carry and sign any bill to that effect.
These statements do not qualify as fearmongering as they stem from his own statements.
Given that, the concern from the pro-gun side is well-founded.
It comes down to the intention of the speaker. That same sentence can have an implied "some" or "all" depending on the context. Once again, not everybody who states their concerns about the 2nd is fear mongering
Some of it is, some of it isn't. I'm done repeating myself
What isn't well founded? Do you understand the concept of precedent. If a gun can be banned merely because of cosmetic features or looks then the precedent has been set to ban guns for almost any reasons. "assault weapons"-meaning military styled rifles-have a very low usage in crime. If they can be banned then clearly the anti-self defense hoplophobes will then say we have to ban more guns since the ban on "assault weapons" did not decrease crime.
I'm not buying the slippery slope here. The pro-gun lobby is thankfully strong enough that I don't view that as likely.
Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it
Clinton caused
1) the cost of normal capacity magazines to quadruple or more in price
2) By banning the import of the fairly high quality but inexpensive chinese/PLA ammo, he drove up the cost of shooting for those who shoot common arms in 223, 9mm, and 7.62X39
3) by banning the import of foreign made guns he drove up the price of those in the USA
can any of you gun haters tell us why there should be a 10 round limit on magazines when civilian police departments issue 15-18 round magazines for self defensive use to their civilian officers?
I'm not buying the slippery slope here. The pro-gun lobby is thankfully strong enough that I don't view that as likely.
People like you got bent over the barrel in England, Kalifornia, New Jersey, Connecticut etc
Yeah - places without a strong gun lobby. Were the political makeup of the US identical to California, my views would be different
-Is the most recent 2nd Amendment uproar here at DPF concerning Obama planning on taking our guns more about unsubstantiated fear or reality based on fact?
As I see it this is more of the fear mongering right we have all come to love attempting to smear the upcoming Obama administration via paranoid theorizing before he has even had the chance to be sworn in.
(*edited to correct spelling error)
-
Cons have been saying that for at least 60 years or more.
So, after all those years why haven't they taken away our guns?
-
Why? Because thats the same BULL **** that the NRA spits out to these dummys to scare them. We all know that these people cannot think for themselves so thats why the NRA can have them ****ting in their pants for such a long time.
It works year after year after year as these dummies rush to send their money to the NRA!!!!
-
MOMMY, MOMMY, Daddy said that those bad Dems are gonna take my gun away.
Don't worry Billy Joe thats the same old BS they have been spitting out for years and Daddy is just another one of those assholes that believes that.
You don't think the NRA and its affiliates in Kalifornia, NY and Connecticut are strong. So much for the theory that the NRA is a tool of gun makers. Do you know how many major gun makers are in connecticut? Colt, Mossberg, Winchester (NLO) for starters.
wow that is pretty stupid. I guess you haven't watched what has happened in Kalifornia, NJ, NY, Connecticut, Maryland, Chicago, DC.
Look at Washington D.C. crime reports after the handgun ban was lifted.
:lol: So much for "less guns are better"
No one who follows the subject believes that those who push for gun bans do so out of a desire to reduce crime. Sure-people like Schumer and Feinswine say that their schemes are designed to make us safer but that is patent BS. The purpose of banning or controlling guns (in terms of making them harder to buy by law abiding citizens) is to punish law abiding gun owners
-wow that is pretty stupid. I guess you haven't watched what has happened in Kalifornia, NJ, NY, Connecticut, Maryland, Chicago, DC.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?