Is Obama really looking down on that culture? Or is it the Strawman-Obama that his opponents keep propping up?
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
I get what Clinton is saying but I still don't necessarily agree about the whole high powered gun thing.
#TeamLegion #UnderEarthofAzerothexpansion plz #Arathor4Alliance #TeamNoBlueHorde
Warrior-Magi
I'd say it doesn't really matter if that's the perception you're giving off on the subject. Like a lot of politics, by appealing to those that already agree with you, you just alienate the other side even more. A lot of the gun issues just demonstrate a lack of understanding about guns and a disregard for the folks that believe in gun rights or enjoy the freedoms of such.
From my perspective, Obama has tried to skirt the issue as much as possible while still appealing to his audience. If he had come out and reigned in Feinstein/McCarthy at once rather than reinforcing what they're saying, it may have come off better.
(I don't want to make this another gun ban thread, but just on how the public reacts to Obama's stance and how he could have handled it better. If Feinstein/McCarthy had said "we need an AWB, a magazine ban, gun show laws!" and he'd said "the AWB didn't work before, lets work on a comprehensive background check system and storage requirements to prevent this in the future", maybe the impact would have worked differently. Instead he fed right into the same old anti-gun organizations as always.)
Like the stupid NRA ad that's already got it's own thread. Obama proposed more incentives for school resource officers. A good response from him to the NRA ad would (IMO) be something like "While we both understand that my children are at more risk, that doesn't mean other children aren't in danger, that's why we're here and that's why I wanted to increase protection in schools. We should work on how to make that work in an era of fiscal trouble."
Agree with them, show what you're doing and take the wind out of their sales and get them on your side.
---------- Post added 2013-01-21 at 02:38 PM ----------
The "clinging to their guns and religion" thing from 08 still resonates.
That's sort of the point of his statement. You may not get it, but there are a lot of folks, spending a lot of money, complying with lots of laws and enjoying things. Instead of a system of anti-gun-fanatics (not you, not Obama, but Feinstein for example) throwing out insults and misinformation that leads people to think a varmint round is somehow more dangerous, or that AR15's or AK47's are the only guns affected by these laws, you have to look at them as folks that are culturally different with many deep held values rather than stupid hicks that are 1 step away from shooting up the post office.
If Clinton was impeached for, I dunno, sanctioning theft and other crimes, I would find that sufficient to remove him, because it's criminal; but honestly, the whole Clinton impeachment was ridiculous and honestly had nothing to do with his competency as president; I find it amazing that Americans were more interested in who blew the president and more people probably know than the people who actually have meaningful knowledge of his politics.
But nothing Obama has said really feels that way. I really think the Rep and NRA have done a good job of putting words in his mouth and ánticipating´ what is coming next. Obama´s plan was actually pretty lame and common sense stuff, like having a mental health alert available for gun-sellers. I am pretty central on this issue, but the only really troubling comments come from the NRA which they are trying to attribute to Obama. ´ He said he wants the police to come into our homes and take all our guns´.. and they say it so often, that their supporters believe them.. but where was it that Obama even proposed something like that. The only change he has even proposed is allowing gun-sellers faster access to the no-sell list, and a lot of money to help educate gun-sellers about the services that are already available.
People need to stop taking every quote as gospel. Try to find the original source and not believe something just because someone told you a hundred times it is true.
April 11, 2008, there's audio out there also;
" You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
The Underlined portion is why gun owners are pissed as it is essentially telling us that the amendment put in place to protect us only offers of the protection of inferior firearms.
Now I know if I owned a business in a city where mass rioting/looting was occurring I would want that assault rifle.
If I were to rebel against my Government, I would want that assault rifle.
If I live in an area where my life is in jeopardy due to gang violence or organized crime, I want an assault rifle.
If The economy collapses and people try to loot my house, I want an assault rifle.
On top of that I want the biggest dam ammo clip I can carry.
And I really want gun manufacturers to start creating guns with an electric safety system that will prevent the gun from firing if certain conditions are not met, Like Fingerprint recognition that allows only the registered owner to fire the weapon (hell even voice recognition would work)
God forbid it be something as simple as a a 3 digit bush button security code though because hey you might at some point be dumb enough to give that information out or even worse yet write it on the gun so you don't forget yourself.
Or hell put the 3 button security code on it and just make it law that if your firearm is ever used in a crime that you will be held accountable so that security code should never ever be given out (even your spouse should be using their own firearm)
In any case we would still need to ban the import/sale of guns that do not meet our required safety standards.
I mean see I just gave several intellegent options that would reduce gun related crime one hell of a lot more than simply making it illegal to own them.
Last edited by skrump; 2013-01-21 at 07:50 PM.
Just because I dont get it does not make it wrong? No.
we take moral stands on many issues, we have to decide as a society what is right and what is wrong. In this case the overwhelming majority of Americans support gun control to some extent. So the vocal minority of the NRA needs to bow down to the majority and accept it. Otherwise what the hell kind of "democracy" are you living in?
That would definitely reduce stolen gun murders. Then again the whole fingerprint recognition and voice recogniton would likely have more effect on other things unrelated to Gun control. Even then I think Guns or rather murders and all that stuff would still be a issue.And I really want gun manufacturers to start creating guns with an electric safety system that will prevent the gun from firing if certain conditions are not met, Like Fingerprint recognition that allows only the registered owner to fire the weapon (hell even voice recognition would work)
That's a dark path to walk on.Just because I dont get it does not make it wrong? No.
we take moral stands on many issues, we have to decide as a society what is right and what is wrong. In this case the overwhelming majority of Americans support gun control to some extent. So the vocal minority of the NRA needs to bow down to the majority and accept it. Otherwise what the hell kind of "democracy" are you living in?
#TeamLegion #UnderEarthofAzerothexpansion plz #Arathor4Alliance #TeamNoBlueHorde
Warrior-Magi
I'll disagree and agree at once, since this is the internet.
They're taking words from some of the democratic party, and assigning the same motives to the democratic president. On his end, Obama is doing nothing to distance himself from those "liberal ideals". That's sort of the point of all the partisan bickering. Two sides that see each other as opposite sides, rather than looking at individuals and issues on a case by case basis. Obama is as guilty of the partisan crap as anyone, so even though some stuff he didn't say, it'l still come back to him since he's sort of "endorsing it by not denying it". As an example, the Repub's have no shortage of idiots, but when they've had some really really stupid guys, they've come out and distanced themselves from it.
Similar to the Obama/ Israel situations during the elections, his stance and his parties stance didn't coincide 100%, so he said what he said, but he never really said "I disagree with others in my party".
No need to give Obama a hard time, I support most of his decisions ...
After all Obama took over a sinking ship(cough*Bush*cough) and republicans are doing a lot to stop Obama from actully doing something.
That's actually kind of the entire point of this. To focus on enforcing gun control that most people can agree on without going "why do these stupid redneck fuckwits want guns anyway?" The problem is, when you start painting anyone who owns guns as some backwards, inbred fool you suddenly lose the support of even the gun owners that agree with more gun control because you're turning it into us vs. them rather than focusing on the issue itself.