You can see the confusion. There's basically been a Republican dictator in charge for the last eight years.

 

You totally stole the general idea of what my reply was going to be. I like yours better though, so I won't bother.

 

In regards to gun control, I really just stay out of it typically. My thoughts are simply this: if there were no guns on this planet, that would be great. But there ARE guns, and lots of them, so people might as well do their best to be responsible with them.

 

But I wonder what the politicians stances on sword-control is.

You totally stole the general idea of what my reply was going to be. I like yours better though, so I won't bother.

 

In regards to gun control, I really just stay out of it typically. My thoughts are simply this: if there were no guns on this planet, that would be great. But there ARE guns, and lots of them, so people might as well do their best to be responsible with them.

 

But I wonder what the politicians stances on sword-control is.

 

I am more concerned with their positions on animal control. My neighbor doesn't like my labrador. :lol: (Used this little guy just for you, RTS!)

Too much finger-pointing and name-calling here. Knock it off.

Pay a little attention to my posts and you'll learn that Obama's views on each of the above issues are largely irrelevant because he's not running for the office of dictator. Unless he can convince Congress to pass laws supporting his left-leaning gun control positions (and Congress is inherently reluctant to make sweeping changes without strong public popular demand), nothing will change. You're trying to stir up an issue where one doesn't exist.

 

Just in case you didn't read mine , as president he can put Supreme Court Judges in place to find a different meaning for a law that is already on the books......to include Constitution , without Congressional control ,or public opinion.:thumb:

Obama's gun control makes me shiver. Then again I may just be frustrated and clinging to my guns and religion to make myself feel better.

 

 

Is that you Obama?

What do you guys not understand that he could possibly put 3-4 Supreme Court Justices in a seat during his tenure?

 

 

Once again if you vote for Obama you will absolutely tee-totally deserve everything that happens to you, your rights, and your family's if he gets elected.

 

The man talks about how strong his faith is, then turns around in a town meeting and says -

 

“t’s not surprising, then, that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

 

 

Explain supporters, explain................................

What do you guys not understand that he could possibly put 3-4 Supreme Court Justices in a seat during his tenure?

 

 

Once again if you vote for Obama you will absolutely tee-totally deserve everything that happens to you, your rights, and your family's if he gets elected.

 

The man talks about how strong his faith is, then turns around in a town meeting and says -

 

“t’s not surprising, then, that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

 

 

Explain supporters, explain................................

 

 

Ummm....we already have a thread on that.

 

It didn't start out that way, but ended up that way.

 

http://www.bluegrasspreps.com/showthread.php?p=2775979#post2775979

If the NRA were omnipotent there would be no gun control legislation in place now. To ignore that fact and argue that an anti-gun president like Barack Obama, backed by a Congress controlled by his own party, would be unable to further restrict Second Amendment rights is preposterous.

 

Now come on Aces, you are looking at this issue way too practically. H and the others trying to diffuse Sen. Obama's opposition to gun ownership can't really debate such opposition, so they have to argue: "so what, he won't be able to effectuate any change anyway". Now there's some fine rationalization for supporting a candidate. What are they admitting: that Sen. Obama will not be able to bring about any change on a tough issue for which there is not already enough support in Congress to make it happen? Wow, I guess he'll just throw in the towel on health insurance, tax reform and other tough issues too.

 

Sorry guys, you can't have it both ways on this issue. Either Obama is worthy voting for because of his ability to bring change to America (assuming you want change of course, because he sure as heck isn't bringing much experience running anything) or he isn't worth voting for because he will not be able to bring change. You are saying he will not be effective enough to bring change on an issue that is vitally important to a lot of the inner city liberals. And make no doubt about it, depending on the out come of the SupCt vote, gun control legislation may become a very critical issue for the next President.

 

Furthermore, you attempt to diffuse this issue is best analogous to saying its okay to vote for a member of the Klan for President because he wouldn't be able to bring slavery back because Congress wouldn't support it. Well, I don't care what he may or may not be able to convince Congress to do. I don't want a Klan member as President and I don't want a control control advocate as one either.

I read this post as one more attempt to get a niche special interest group (this time, the gun lobby) all lathered with a custom-manufactured wedge issue that isn't really an issue. People who are moved by claims such as these display their ignorance of the way our government works. There is zero chance of a President directly changing the legal structure of gun ownership. The President cannot change or write gun legislation. Congress isn't going to completely re-write the laws governing gun ownership--it simply won't happen. Congressional inertia is not overcome without a groundswell of public support. And there simply isn't a groundswell of public support for significant restrictions on gun ownership. And even if a law were passed, it would never survive 2nd Amendment legal challenges. This is a bogus issue.

 

Your post is clearly a scare tactic (like the trumped-up gay marriage issue invented in 2004) intended to take focus off of the important issues that are facing the country.

 

 

 

Excellent insight. Unfortunately these scare tactics do work against the uneducated and uninformed.

Just in case you didn't read mine , as president he can put Supreme Court Judges in place to find a different meaning for a law that is already on the books......to include Constitution , without Congressional control ,or public opinion.:thumb:

Some don't want to pay attention to your posts or mine, they just want you to pay attention to theirs and claim they know how things work and the rest of us don't. That's fine, making useless rants about Bush and Conservatives in general has nothing to do with this thread and their ignoring the facts speak volumes.

Now come on Aces, you are looking at this issue way too practically. H and the others trying to diffuse Sen. Obama's opposition to gun ownership can't really debate such opposition, so they have to argue: "so what, he won't be able to effectuate any change anyway". Now there's some fine rationalization for supporting a candidate. What are they admitting: that Sen. Obama will not be able to bring about any change on a tough issue for which there is not already enough support in Congress to make it happen? Wow, I guess he'll just throw in the towel on health insurance, tax reform and other tough issues too.

 

Sorry guys, you can't have it both ways on this issue. Either Obama is worthy voting for because of his ability to bring change to America (assuming you want change of course, because he sure as heck isn't bringing much experience running anything) or he isn't worth voting for because he will not be able to bring change. You are saying he will not be effective enough to bring change on an issue that is vitally important to a lot of the inner city liberals. And make no doubt about it, depending on the out come of the SupCt vote, gun control legislation may become a very critical issue for the next President.

 

Furthermore, you attempt to diffuse this issue is best analogous to saying its okay to vote for a member of the Klan for President because he wouldn't be able to bring slavery back because Congress wouldn't support it. Well, I don't care what he may or may not be able to convince Congress to do. I don't want a Klan member as President and I don't want a control control advocate as one either.

Excellent post! :thumb:

Excellent insight. Unfortunately these scare tactics do work against the uneducated and uninformed.

Wow, so because those of us that know if he can get liberal judges in the Supreme Court he can get changes made, we're uneducated and uninformed? Quite the myopic view, Math.

Obama's gun control makes me shiver. Then again I may just be frustrated and clinging to my guns and religion to make myself feel better.

 

Join the rest of us in the "bitter" group.

He does not choose his words wisely neither does his wife. He is not what I that he was. But again McCain is my man. I really don't understand how he CAN get elected.

 

I don't understand how McCain can get elected either

My guess is that the DC case is one that the justices won't like ruling on. What are the possible decisions? They could decide that the second amendment is an individual right, without restriction. That would throw out all gun laws, as well as all prohibitions on owning arms. Anybody want a small little nuke for squirrel hunting? They could decide that the second amendment refers only to the militia and there would be no individual protection. The NRA would love that decision. They could run all over the country screaming about those evil doers seizing their guns. They could also decide that the second amendment is an individual right, but that "reasonable" restrictions are okay. Then, in order to find against the DC law, they will have to substitute their judgement of "reasonable" for the judgement of the elected legislative body. That sounds like the definition of an activist judge. Can't wait to see if Thomas and Scalia will try to finess that one. My guess is that they will try to find a way to throw out the DC law on very narrow grounds and not give a broad decision.