• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • 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!

Why restrict 'good' gun owners, resident asks President Obama at town hall

Moot

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
40,421
Reaction score
15,331
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Please have the civility and decency to hear the man out before responding, dismissing, calling him names, twisting his words, etc. If you think he's lying about something in the video ...quote him or show the time number and say why you think he's lying. Backing up your claim with links to credible sources without asking would be much appreciated.


When asked why he wants to restrict gun access for all owners, rather than just bad actors, President Barack Obama said, "It's just not true. ...There have been more guns sold since I've been president than just about any time in U.S. history."

He spoke at a town hall in Elkhart, Indiana, on June 1, 2016, hosted by PBS NewsHour co-anchor Gwen Ifill.​




I think he's right.
 

Lutherf

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
41,685
Reaction score
48,126
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
He starts out saying that he never proposed confiscating guns and while that's true it also ignores the issue. He and Hillary and a number of others have consistently and constantly proposed rules which restrict lawful individuals ability to obtain the firearms of their choice. He has, in fact, expressed appreciation for the laws of other nations which HAVE confiscated firearms. He also goes on to talk about the watch list stuff and outright suggests that the 5th Amendment is hindering him from doing what he wants to do.

I would suggest that if ANY elected official believes that it's in the best interests of the nation or of their office to circumvent, obviate or negate one of the most fundamental rights we have in this nation then they are also willing to circumvent, obviate or negate any of the other rights. As we see in the Senate today, the Democrats are a threat to the Constitution and to the people of this nation.
 

QuadpolarNutjob

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 31, 2015
Messages
1,522
Reaction score
582
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
look at leftist societies throughout history, it's very, very clear why they restrict guns.


hqdefault.jpg


the only 'safety' a leftist is interested in is his own safety from those he rules when they figure out what he's up to.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,652
Reaction score
21,952
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
We've already discussed this avenue in a similar thread.

Obama cannot take credit for any increase in gun sales during his term of office.

Such sales are typically a reaction to gun control advocates trying to enact greater gun control measures...often as not after sensationalizing some "incident" like the nightclub shooting as justification for the President and Congress to act.

It is disingenuous to claim "there have been more guns sold..," as direct evidence of his support for gun rights.
 
Last edited:

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
He's lying. Nuff said.
 

Moot

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
40,421
Reaction score
15,331
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
He's lying. Nuff said.

And that's how you exclude yourself from an adult discussion on gun policy. With or without you, the national discussion is trending toward gun regulations, anyway. And if you can't defend your precisous rights rationally through dialogue and communication over policy....then the world will move on without you.

Funny video....

John Oliver learns that it's pointless for America to study the Australian gun control experience because the situations are just too similar....



:lamo
 
Last edited:

Moot

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
40,421
Reaction score
15,331
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
look at leftist societies throughout history, it's very, very clear why they restrict guns.


hqdefault.jpg


the only 'safety' a leftist is interested in is his own safety from those he rules when they figure out what he's up to.

But Trump is a Hitler wannabe....so be careful what you wish for.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
And that's how you exclude yourself from an adult discussion on gun policy. With or without you, the national discussion is trending toward gun regulations, anyway. And if you can't defend your precisous rights rationally through dialogue and communication over policy....then the world will move on without you.

Funny video....

John Oliver learns that it's pointless for America to study the Australian gun control experience because the situations are just too similar....



:lamo

Actually, the national discussion isn't trending toward regulation.

Even if it was, there's still that pesky ol' Constitution that was designed to protect our civil rights from mob rule.
 

Moot

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
40,421
Reaction score
15,331
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Actually, the national discussion isn't trending toward regulation.

Even if it was, there's still that pesky ol' Constitution that was designed to protect our civil rights from mob rule.

Yeah, at 5:41 in the video...the part where the pro gun-rights guy kept holding up his second amendment sign for every question posed to him about gun control was hysterical. :lamo
 
Last edited:

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Yeah, at :39....the part where the pro gun-rights guy kept holding up his second amendment sign for every question posed to him about gun control was hysterical. :lamo

Why was it hysterical? Do you oppose our civil rights?
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
268,687
Reaction score
85,248
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
He starts out saying that he never proposed confiscating guns and while that's true it also ignores the issue. He and Hillary and a number of others have consistently and constantly proposed rules which restrict lawful individuals ability to obtain the firearms of their choice. He has, in fact, expressed appreciation for the laws of other nations which HAVE confiscated firearms. He also goes on to talk about the watch list stuff and outright suggests that the 5th Amendment is hindering him from doing what he wants to do.

I would suggest that if ANY elected official believes that it's in the best interests of the nation or of their office to circumvent, obviate or negate one of the most fundamental rights we have in this nation then they are also willing to circumvent, obviate or negate any of the other rights. As we see in the Senate today, the Democrats are a threat to the Constitution and to the people of this nation.

Obama again is dishonest. Just because he did not have the votes (Dingy Harry didn't want to lose his job as a senator and senate majority leader) does not excuse his anti gun idiocy-idiocy he would have visited upon us if he had the votes

His firs appointee to the USSC has proven to be a gun banner. I am sure Kagan will be too though Kagan admitted that Heller is settled precedent. We shall see.
 

Moot

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
40,421
Reaction score
15,331
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why was it hysterical? Do you oppose our civil rights?

You'd have to watch it to understand. Sorry, it was at 5:47 in the video.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
You'd have to watch it to understand.

I asked why YOU think it's hysterical. Why would you ridicule someone, anyone, who is sticking up for our civil rights?
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
268,687
Reaction score
85,248
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Why was it hysterical? Do you oppose our civil rights?

Moot's history on this board is hostility to gun rights mainly because she sees most gun owners as conservatives. so the answer is-based on my review of her past history-is an undoubted yes
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Moot's history on this board is hostility to gun rights mainly because she sees most gun owners as conservatives. so the answer is-based on my review of her past history-is an undoubted yes

In general, liberals are all for The Constitution, until it no longer suits their agenda.
 

Moot

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
40,421
Reaction score
15,331
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
He starts out saying that he never proposed confiscating guns and while that's true it also ignores the issue. He and Hillary and a number of others have consistently and constantly proposed rules which restrict lawful individuals ability to obtain the firearms of their choice. He has, in fact, expressed appreciation for the laws of other nations which HAVE confiscated firearms. He also goes on to talk about the watch list stuff and outright suggests that the 5th Amendment is hindering him from doing what he wants to do.

I would suggest that if ANY elected official believes that it's in the best interests of the nation or of their office to circumvent, obviate or negate one of the most fundamental rights we have in this nation then they are also willing to circumvent, obviate or negate any of the other rights. As we see in the Senate today, the Democrats are a threat to the Constitution and to the people of this nation.

If he and the Dems consistently proposed such strict gun controls (bg checks, waiting periods, etc)....its probably because after each massacre, more and more people are demanding for their leaders to do more about the gun violence than just a moment of silence and a prayer and hope all will be forgotten. But a small group of wealthy and powerful people have poisoned the well of civil and national dialogue on gun regulation and influenced policy makers to ignore the pleas of the people, But I think the vast majority of people have finally reached a breaking point and are going to start demanding that government do their constitutional duty to protect all the people's rights instead of just the rights of the wealthy few and corporate interests capitalizing the ignorance and fear of a minority to divide the country with.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
268,687
Reaction score
85,248
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
In general, liberals are all for The Constitution, until it no longer suits their agenda.

well 42 years of dealing with ACLU has proven to me that they tend not to care about rights normally exercised by conservatives-like assembly and the second amendment
 

Lutherf

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
41,685
Reaction score
48,126
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If he and the Dems consistently proposed such strict gun controls (bg checks, waiting periods, etc)....its probably because after each massacre, more and more people are demanding for their leaders to do more about the gun violence than just a moment of silence and a prayer and hope all will be forgotten. But a small group of wealthy and powerful people have poisoned the well of civil and national dialogue on gun regulation and influenced policy makers to ignore the pleas of the people, But I think the vast majority of people have finally reached a breaking point and are going to start demanding that government do their constitutional duty to protect all the people's rights instead of just the rights of the wealthy few and corporate interests capitalizing the ignorance and fear of a minority to divide the country with.

de Tocqueville wrote about exactly what you're suggesting 180 years ago -

“It is above all in the present democratic age that the true friends of liberty and human grandeur must remain constantly vigilant and ready to prevent the social power from lightly sacrificing the particular rights of a few individuals to the general execution of its designs. In such times there is no citizen so obscure that it is not very dangerous to allow him to be oppressed, and there are no individual rights so unimportant that they can be sacrificed to arbitrariness with impunity.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville
 

Moot

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
40,421
Reaction score
15,331
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I asked why YOU think it's hysterical. Why would you ridicule someone, anyone, who is sticking up for our civil rights?
What part of "you'd have to watch the video to understand" did you not understand?
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
268,687
Reaction score
85,248
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
What part of "you'd have to watch the video to understand" did you not understand?

what part of I did and I know he's FOS do you not get?
 

matchlight

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2014
Messages
9,869
Reaction score
3,495
Location
Los Angeles area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Obama again is dishonest. Just because he did not have the votes (Dingy Harry didn't want to lose his job as a senator and senate majority leader) does not excuse his anti gun idiocy-idiocy he would have visited upon us if he had the votes

His firs appointee to the USSC has proven to be a gun banner. I am sure Kagan will be too though Kagan admitted that Heller is settled precedent. We shall see.

I don't believe for a minute that she considers Heller settled precedent. Recall that only nine years after the Court had decided National League of Cities v. Usery, it overruled that decision in Garcia v. San Antonio Met. Transp. Authority. It's been eight years since the 5-4 decision in Heller. One more Wise Latina on the Court, and it could adopt the positions Stevens took on his dissent in Heller. Under that view, the individual right to keep and bear arms would barely exist, if at all.

As to Obama's meeting, a couple things. First, his analogy to cars and driver's licenses is silly and false. I expect to hear that sort of thing from the pseudo-liberal know-nothings who infest sites like this one, but coming from a man who graduated from Harvard Law School and claims to understand constitutional law, it's embarrassingly dumb. Nothing in the Constitution guarantees a right to drive, in contrast to the Second Amendment's guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms.

Second, I agree with Obama (sounds odd as hell to hear myself saying that) in that I don't like the idea of letting ISIS sympathizers the FBI has the goods on have access to firearms, even if they are U.S. citizens. They should not be allowed to hide behind their citizenship to make war on our people. We are already in an undeclared war of sorts with these bastards, and I doubt many Americans in 1791 would have thought the right to keep and bear arms extended to U.S. citizens who had clearly shown their willingness to use those arms, if they had them, to kill Americans for the British. I admit that's only my guess.

Also, I think the President still has the power to designate certain jihadists unlawful enemy combatants even if they are citizens, as was done with Jose Padilla. And as such, I doubt they would have any more right to keep and bear arms than a common felon. I think we should consider interning or detaining these people if they have done things that clearly show their allegiance to an enemy of this country. We've done a lot worse than detain people like that before.

In 1942, an American citizen named Herbert Haupt was tried before a military tribunal, convicted, and executed for sabotage and other war crimes, even though the planned sabotage was never carried out. In Ex Parte Quirin, the Supreme Court case on this, the Court said in effect that if you commit a war crime against the U.S., your American citizenship will not protect you from the consequences. The Court ruled that Haupt--who it presumed was an American citizen--had no Fifth Amendment right to a grand jury indictment, and no Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. Straight to the electric chair.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Please have the civility and decency to hear the man out before responding, dismissing, calling him names, twisting his words, etc. If you think he's lying about something in the video ...quote him or show the time number and say why you think he's lying. Backing up your claim with links to credible sources without asking would be much appreciated.


When asked why he wants to restrict gun access for all owners, rather than just bad actors, President Barack Obama said, "It's just not true. ...There have been more guns sold since I've been president than just about any time in U.S. history."

He spoke at a town hall in Elkhart, Indiana, on June 1, 2016, hosted by PBS NewsHour co-anchor Gwen Ifill.​




I think he's right.

1:14: He says that him, Hillary, Democrats are not hell bent on taking folks guns away is not true. That is a lie. Hillary is on record as saying that Scalia got it wrong in the Heller decision. If he had voted against instead of for that would have kept individuals in DC from owning handguns that were made after 1975, and rifles were required to be either disassembled or have a trigger lock on with the bullets placed in a different room than the gun. Diane Feinstein is on record for saying "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban picking up everyone of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in I would have done it." She is still a Senator and still pushes to take guns away from law abiding people.

1:24: Isn't a lie but it is a truth told in a way to disassemble and to hide his true intentions. The reason that more guns have been sold during his Presidency is due to the very fact that he pushed for the AR-15 to be banned. One of the most common types of guns owned in America. The ONLY reason that he did not sign any legislation that banned "assault style weapons" like he wanted was due to the very real fact that such legislation never made it to his desk. Those laws were killed due to the legislative process denying it. Laws that he pushed for, not tried to stop.

1:39: Another disassembling answer. He may not have outright stated that he wants to confiscate any guns, but he does want to ban most "assault style weapons" from being owned. Only reason people would still be able to own them is due to the Grandfather clause...assuming such a clause was put into any law that banned such guns. If it wasn't then yes, people would be required to turn them in, IE: gun confiscation. And if it was put in then when the owners died those guns would have to be turned in as no new permits would be issued for such guns. In other words a back door confiscation.

3:09: Congress will not allow CDC to study gun control. What he doesn't tell you is that according to the CDC, a study that they did at the request of Obama mind you, it is better to allow citizens to own guns. It is also useless to study "gun" violence for the simple fact that guns do not cause violence. PEOPLE do. So what needs to be studied isn't guns, but the reasons that PEOPLE commit crimes, and how to better help those that are mentally disturbed. Studying "gun violence" is nothing more than a red herring.

3:48: Background checks: How did a background check stop any of the last 5 major news worthy mass shootings? Background checks are worthless. Now of course he's talking about UBC's and not just BC's. UBC's is not within the Federal Governments purview. They are not allowed to regulate intrastate commerce, only interstate commerce.

4:23: NRA is responsible for not allowing him to deny guns to people on the No Fly List. Wrong. The Constitution does not allow him to ban people that are on the No Fly List from owning guns. Not the NRA. Amendments 5-7. Read em. Study them and the history of them and the history of why they were proposed and accepted into the Constitution.

4:38: Being a sympathizer with ones enemies is not enough of a reason to deny them their Rights. If that were the case then the Federal Government could take the guns away from every single person that has said a good word about Putin or any other group/person that doesn't hold the US in high esteem.
 

Moot

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
40,421
Reaction score
15,331
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
de Tocqueville wrote about exactly what you're suggesting 180 years ago -

Great quote. I'm just not sure it means what you think it means because we don't have 'tyranny of the majority' in this country thanks to our fore fathers insight to put constitutional limits and separation of powers on the legislative body subject to review by the judiciary....not to mention term limits and a whole slew of other mechanisms to prevent tyranny.

But if I was talking about tyranny it would the tyranny of a minority controlling and poisoning the national dialogue on the subject of gun rights and regulations to the point that the majority has no rights and is no longer safe from getting massacred in their own country and the government is paralyzed from doing anything about it because of the tyranny of the minority.
 

Moot

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
40,421
Reaction score
15,331
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
what part of I did and I know he's FOS do you not get?

Well, it seems you didn't get that I was referring to the John Oliver video or that I wasn't talking to you. So there's really nothing in your post to get.
 

MickeyW

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
14,012
Reaction score
3,439
Location
Southern Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
He starts out saying that he never proposed confiscating guns and while that's true it also ignores the issue. He and Hillary and a number of others have consistently and constantly proposed rules which restrict lawful individuals ability to obtain the firearms of their choice. He has, in fact, expressed appreciation for the laws of other nations which HAVE confiscated firearms. He also goes on to talk about the watch list stuff and outright suggests that the 5th Amendment is hindering him from doing what he wants to do.

I would suggest that if ANY elected official believes that it's in the best interests of the nation or of their office to circumvent, obviate or negate one of the most fundamental rights we have in this nation then they are also willing to circumvent, obviate or negate any of the other rights. As we see in the Senate today, the Democrats are a threat to the Constitution and to the people of this nation.

Spot On!

And that's how you exclude yourself from an adult discussion on gun policy. With or without you, the national discussion is trending toward gun regulations, anyway. And if you can't defend your precisous rights rationally through dialogue and communication over policy....then the world will move on without you.

Funny video....

John Oliver learns that it's pointless for America to study the Australian gun control experience because the situations are just too similar....

:lamo

Nothing you have to share, is funny! More like pathetic.

Why do we need to defend ourselves from this crap in the first place.

Who are you to suggest that we need to? Who are you to make up your own rules?
 
Top Bottom