Closing the "Obama and Guns" thread is

[Trlsmn]

Professionals are often asked to make decisions regarding the need for further evaluation on similar small amounts of evidence. You are speaking out of turn on this one.

That has the effect of making my point more than yours

No, you are asking people to make assumptions based on out of context statements and past deeds and not on current platforms or actions.

Not so much, it's the same platform as before just the amount of power of the people making those relevant past statements and who have fought to take our gun rights has increased exponentially.

An object in motion tends to stay in motion.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

That has the effect of making my point more than yours

Really? And just how do you support that idea?

An object in motion tends to stay in motion.

You are mistaking physics with human behavior. One is constant and one extremely fluid and opportunistic.

 

[Trlsmn]

Even if he were attacking a 'concern', 'thought', or 'idea', that's perfectly acceptable. The only thing we don't allow is attacking the person who holds that belief.

Exactly!

I have always felt that malicious personal attacks are as good as an admission of defeat. I do on the other hand appreciate a good snarky smartass barb either given or taken, it just makes for a more enjoyable discussion.

 

[Trlsmn]

Really? And just how do you support that idea?

Because it admits that the conclusion can't be reached and shouldn't be reached without further study.. IE.. need more than a 5 second video clip to pass judgment.

You are mistaking physics with human behavior. One is constant and one extremely fluid and opportunistic.

Now see you made a judgment of what I meant based on a one liner cliche but missed or ignored the intended point, sound familiar?

Sorry I kind of set you up with that one

And you again proved my point that though Psychology is based on statistics it is still fluid and opportunistic so the judgment of the 5 second Mr. "my baby" video can't be reliable in the eyes of a professional let alone Obidan

 

[coctailer]

Exactly!

I have always felt that malicious personal attacks are as good as an admission of defeat. I do on the other hand appreciate a good snarky smartass barb either given or taken, it just makes for a more enjoyable discussion.

Bite me.

 

[Trlsmn]

Bite me.

I thought that was the point of the OP?

 

[aflineman]

Yeah, and what he said was anyone that cannot distinguish between a gun being their "baby" and being a tool might not be mentally capable of owning an "assault" rifle. Then spoke how the mentally unstable, who cannot comprehend the severity of using a firearm on another person, need to be prevented from owning firearms. I agree with that completely.

My own professional opinion of the person showing his firearm would be one of questioning his competence too based on his words and actions. He was a little too anxious to brandish his tricked out semi-automatic rifle and a little too emotionally "involved" with his tool.

Ever been to a car show lately? By those standards, everyone there has mental problems. Same can be said for coin collectors, motorcycle riders, beanie baby collectors, bicycle owners........
What scares people about firearms owners is their hobby provides its own way to protect that hobby.

 

[claypigeon]

Someone would have to be very defensive and unsure of their position to see that as an attack. It appears to me he is just saying isn't it better to be vigilant than to continuously cry wolf.

What we need to be vigilant about is making sure Obama is not taking action against the 2A, not sitting back and saying "hey look he hasn't done anything yet". We know his track record.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Because it admits that the conclusion can't be reached and shouldn't be reached without further study.. IE.. need more than a 5 second video clip to pass judgment

Actually you are wrong. He called into question the man's competency. That is within his right and that is what I, as a mental health professional, would have also done based on what I saw. He was not in a position to enforce any restrictions upon the man. He was simply saying that what he heard and saw set off warning bells in his mind. I share that same opinion.

Now see you made a judgment of what I meant based on a one liner cliche but missed or ignored the intended point, sound familiar?

No, you stated they have the same platform and just cannot enforce it. I am saying their platform has altered to reflect public opinion. I am giving them the benefit of the doubt (trusting but verifying) whereas you are contradicting their public stance with no evidence beyond a "leopard does not change it's spots" argument which is just not true when dealing with human beings.

 

[claypigeon]

Even if he were attacking a 'concern', 'thought', or 'idea', that's perfectly acceptable. The only thing we don't allow is attacking the person who holds that belief.

Point taken, but an attack on someones religious beliefs could be taken as a VERY personal attack. So I can see people taking an attack on something they believe in very strongly as a personal attack as well.

 

[claypigeon]

Ever been to a car show lately? By those standards, everyone there has mental problems. Same can be said for coin collectors, motorcycle riders, beanie baby collectors, bicycle owners........
What scares people about firearms owners is their hobby provides its own way to protect that hobby.

True, true. If calling something you own your "baby" means you are of questionable mental stability, I think the majority of the US population is in that category.

 

[Trlsmn]

Actually you are wrong. He called into question the man's competency. That is within his right and that is what I, as a mental health professional, would have also done based on what I saw. He was not in a position to enforce any restrictions upon the man. He was simply saying that what he heard and saw set off warning bells in his mind. I share that same opinion.

Wait a sec you're a mental health professional too?

The point is Obiden took the low road and made the guy look the buffoon instead of addressing his and our gun rights and that is the the norm for gun banners.

No, you stated they have the same platform and just cannot enforce it. I am saying their platform has altered to reflect public opinion.

I didn't say they cannot enforce their platform. I am saying they have not succeded as far as they would like to go. In my "opinion" past deeds lead me to strongly believe they will when the time is right, for example if Obama was elected for a second term and a Republican was to win the next election that would be a key time with no consequences to ram gun control home, you heard it here first.

I am giving them the benefit of the doubt (trusting but verifying) whereas you are contradicting their public stance with no evidence beyond a "leopard does not change it's spots" argument which is just not true when dealing with human beings.

I in contrast will never give any gun banner the slightest benefit of the doubt nor give into, or concede anything to them, in short I've drawn my line in the sand, it's not a Dem/Rep line, it's a gun rights vs gun banners line and once it has be crossed they will always be the enemy and will never be trusted.



This guy and his "baby" is played out, I think we both can concede that it is just arguing the minutia of the irrelevant anyway.

 

[claypigeon]

I in contrast will never give any gun banner the slightest benefit of the doubt nor give into, or concede anything to them, in short I've drawn my line in the sand, it's not a Dem/Rep line, it's a gun rights vs gun banners line and once it has be crossed they will always be the enemy and will never be trusted.

 

[ob1]

This thread is a perfect example of why not to close that thread. The sparring will just migrate to another location. It reminds me of the Portland anti-hooker sweeps. They chase them out of one neighborhood and they just show up in another one !

Perhaps you should ask yourself, would'nt you rather have it concentrated in one thread, rather than creeping up all over the site ?

The the perception that Bama is anti-gun will continue, and I dont think anything that is said by those who rush to his defense will change that. This site is a logical venue to express those concerns. The action of closing civil discussion on the topic will carry the stench of censorship with it, regardless of it's intent

 

[Trlsmn]

This thread is a perfect example of why not to close that thread. The sparring will just migrate to another location. It reminds me of the Portland anti-hooker sweeps. They chase them out of one neighborhood and they just show up in another one !

Craigslist fixed that.

Perhaps you should ask yourself, would'nt you rather have it concentrated in one thread, rather than creeping up all over the site ?

The the perception that Bama is anti-gun will continue, and I dont think anything that is said by those who rush to his defense will change that. This site is a logical venue to express those concerns. The action of closing civil discussion on the topic will carry the stench of censorship with it, regardless of it's intent

Unfortunately sometimes all that can be done is point things out after the fact and say I told you so, I hope this is never one of them.

 

[Jamie6.5]

But they can back, support, endorse, promote, etc. There are no such examples.

BHO signed the CIFTA treaty and has promised to push for Senate ratification as soon as health-care and cap & tax is through.

Maybe you think we need licenses to reload and/or install a scope or a bi-pod.

I don't.

Maybe you think all gun owner/reloader data should be shared with other countries to the south.

I don't.

 

[tionico]

I had brought out that BHO had spoken in favour of the CIFTA treaty, as Jamie 6.5 has mentioned. No one actively committed to preserving what remains of our Second Ammendment rights could support that treaty and its terms. Further, no one who supports the concept of utter sovereignty of the United States as a nation could support that treaty. I had not heard that he actually SIGNED the thing.... only that he favoured it and intended to bind the US to it, subjecting our own sovereignty to that of other nations. Now I learn he's SIGNED it, and will push the Senate to ratify it?

And some here are still questioning whether he remains committed to restricting our gun rights? If we are bound to this treaty by the Senate we will have been sold down the river and stripped of many of our present remaining rights and freedoms. And you heard about that treaty from Obama's lips first.....

 

[Jamie6.5]

Clinton signed it too, but the Republican Senate let ratification die in committee. Harry Reid has told BHO that he doesn't believe ratification can be passed, but BHO is pushing for it anyway. The supermajority they have now will make it easy if BHO gets his way.
This treaty allows for another country to subpoena/arrest you from afar, and require your extradition. As a member of said treaty the US would have to comply,...
Why on earth would any President of the US, given his oath of office, sign this treaty? How does he defend US citizens and the Constitution once he is obligated to comply with it?

The liberal bloggers are certainly all for it:
<broken link removed>

Read this one to the end. It explains how it can over rule the 2ndA:
http://www.gunlaws.com/GunLawUpdate5-CIFTA.htm

Then we have Mr Hoh, the new legal adviser to the DOD. The one who believes international law should take precedent over our Constitution.

Anyone who believes BHO isn't on the side of citizen disarmament just hasn't done their research about him or flat out isn't paying attention to (deliberately ignoring) what he's done.

Deeds, not words reveal a man's intent. Whether or not he tells the truth about them reveals his character.

 

[coctailer]

This thread is a perfect example of why not to close that thread. The sparring will just migrate to another location. It reminds me of the Portland anti-hooker sweeps. They chase them out of one neighborhood and they just show up in another one !

Perhaps you should ask yourself, would'nt you rather have it concentrated in one thread, rather than creeping up all over the site ?

The the perception that Bama is anti-gun will continue, and I dont think anything that is said by those who rush to his defense will change that. This site is a logical venue to express those concerns. The action of closing civil discussion on the topic will carry the stench of censorship with it, regardless of it's intent

The thread was closed because the conversation was over.

There was just talk of threats, racism, and nothing about the topic on the last page.

I don't think I was wrong or a hypocrite. I don't even know how that word is involved:huh:

It sure did get the subject back on topic.

 

[tionico]

It sure did get the subject back on topic.

Yes, it certainly did. This past few posts do more to establish the original premise than six pages of the last thread did. NOW we're getting into some real meat. Reading the info on Gunlaws.com was a real eye opener.

I certainly hope Mr. Reid is correct, in that it won't fly this time either. Seems he tninks there are bigger fish to fry these days. He is correct, and I hope he can convince enough others. Even if the "fish" to fry aren't "bigger", perhaps the Senators will be induced to pay attention to "other" fish anyway. This CIFTA treaty is beyond scary. One reason is: if Mexico's government are so incompetent and corrupt as to have allowed their present state of war to arise, we already know how well they will uphold their end of this treaty, and how likely they would be to misuse the terms and powers of that treaty to OUR great disadvantage. Remember, there is a rather large faction in Mexico that desires to take back territory formerly held (and ceded by lawful treaty) to the United States. One of the easiest ways to accomplish that is to disarm the residents thereof. Remember, too, the single reason the Japanese raised for their choice to not invade the United States was they believed every American owned a gun, had it at home, and was skilled in its use. Not quite true, but hey, the perception was close enough to reality they feared speedy defeat in the attempt. Perhaps Mexico hesitates to forcibly retake those territories for much the same reason.... thus the desire to disarm us.