Obama losing his gun control campaign

[GURPS]

Obama losing his gun control campaign


New polling from Washington Post-ABC News and Pew find that President Obama’s campaign to repress the Second Amendment right “keep and bear arms” is faltering.

On January 22, 2013, Pew released polling results that found the public followed news about Obama’s gun control proposals closely and the reaction is mixed. Only 39 percent think Obama’s proposals are about right, while 31 percent think the proposals go too far. Or, as Politico put it, “39 percent back Obama gun plan.”

Of course there is the usual partisan divide. A 57 percent majority of Republicans say the proposals go too far, and 25 percent say they are about right. A 55 percent majority of Democrats (55%) say the proposals s are about right, and 10 percent say they go too far. Independents are more evenly divided — 36 percent say the proposals are about right, while 33 percent say they go too far.

There is also a gender divide with Men more likely than women to say Obama’s gun control proposals go too far — 36 percent vs. 26 percent.

 

[Larry Gude]

Of course there is the usual partisan divide. A 57 percent majority of Republicans say the proposals go too far, .

That right there is the take away; if the GOP is even remotely pro second amendment, that figure should be 97% with a 3% margin for error.

THAT is terrifying.

 

[GURPS]

THAT is terrifying.

people are brain washed ....... they don't want to seem un-reasonable, just what the media / progressive paint this as


uncaring unfeeling ....... ITS FOR THE CHILDREN ........


you heartless bastard ..........





IMHO - I would rather lose a child, as gut wrenching as that would be, then ask others - selfishly on my part - to give up their RIGHTS

 

[Larry Gude]

people are brain washed ....... they don't want to seem un-reasonable, just what the media / progressive paint this as


uncaring unfeeling ....... ITS FOR THE CHILDREN ........


you heartless bastard ..........





IMHO - I would rather lose a child, as gut wrenching as that would be, then ask others - selfishly on my part - to give up their RIGHTS

For ####s sake!!! Think of what you are saying there!!!!

The right to keep and bear arms is secondary to the FACT that the ONLY thing that could have stopped a bad guy with a gun at Sandy Hook is a good guy with a gun.

I don't want the right to keep and bear arms IF it leads to more kids being murdered. The facts are that it does NOT. I DO want we, the people, to have the right to keep and bear if it increases freedom and liberty and it DOES.

The argument is that you do NOT need to give up a child to protect someone elses right. Protecting their rights, your rights, protects your kid, their kid, the presidents kids, etc, so on and so forth.

Do we even know how to argue anymore??? This same thing happened with Dubbya and his whole 'compassionate conservative' bit. As George Will pointed out, conservatism IS compassionate by it's very nature. it does not need modifiers like 'compassionate' as though we are saying 'good bad'.

 

[Larry Gude]

are you responding to me or Progressives in General


I thought you knew my 2A stance

This;

I would rather lose a child, as gut wrenching as that would be, then ask others - selfishly on my part - to give up their RIGHTS

It is critical, in winning the argument over any issue, to be absolutely clear on WHY, in this case, the right to keep and bear is not only a constitutionally guaranteed RIGHT but, because it is better, much better, and why, than the proposal, the argument against it.

Limits on the second amendment, further limits, imperil MORE kids, not less.

THAT is the argument and THAT is how it is to be won. Not just because it is a right.

Don't mean to be jumping your ass and it's not directed at you per se, other than your above comment but, to me, this is why the GOP is adrift these days; we don't even know what argument we are trying to make let alone why.

 

[GURPS]

The argument is that you do NOT need to give up a child to protect someone else's right. Protecting their rights, your rights, protects your kid, their kid, the presidents kids, etc, so on and so forth.

but the left wants us to give up our rights to protect someone else's child [which is a feeling response to a tragic incident] ...... because they are not willing to admit the real problem ....

Restricting Gun Ownership leads to more criminal action .... Murder, Rape, Robbery ... sure crimes of passion MAY go down, in the short term

DC is a Prime example .....



but in the long run, criminals take over because the people are defenseless


what I was trying to say, IMHO there should be more Concealed Carry and Open Carry ..... the Gov. cannot protect us 24 x 7 x 365 .... we must defend ourselves ... if that means a shoot out between 2 idiots on a college campus in TX so be it ....... survivors should spend a VERY LONG time in Jail for not being able to control themselves

 

[GURPS]

Don't mean to be jumping your ass and it's not directed at you per se, other than your above comment but, to me, this is why the GOP is adrift these days; we don't even know what argument we are trying to make let alone why.

sorry I re did all that


simple put, without Private Gun Ownership, we become subjects, we are not citizens ..... the needs of the many, out way the needs of the few or the one



[Epic Win - I get to quote star trek]

Johnny Got His Gun:

Joe: When it comes my turn, will you want me to go?
Father: For democracy, any man would give his only begotten son.

 

[Larry Gude]

but the left wants us to give up our rights to protect someone else's child [which is a feeling response to a tragic incident] ...... because they are not willing to admit the real problem ....
s

I don't care what THEY are willing to admit or not. What I do care about is that our party is absolutely clear on what we believe and why. That way, the argument is clear, concise and repetitive so that the next time GOP'ers are asked if more gun laws are bad 100% will answer correctly.

What I want people to hear when, say, Feinstein or Biden or the President are up there talking about less guns making our kids safer is that truth; less guns imperil our kids.

More gun control is ANTI public safety. That is factually correct, logically correct and should be repeated, over and over and over by every GOP'er every time it comes up, the exact same way we would ALL say child molesting is bad. Gun control is the same thing; support for harming more kids. Or old people. Or women. Or gays. Or anyone who is weaker than the predators that exist in the world and WILL exist no matter how many laws we pass.

 

[GURPS]

Gun control is the same thing; support for harming more kids. Or old people. Or women. Or gays. Or anyone who is weaker than the predators that exist in the world and WILL exist no matter how many laws we pass.

the GOP should trot out Gays, Women, Blacks and Hispanics ..........

Progun gives a poor inner city mon a chance to protect herself

Gays to protect themselves from Rednecks in pickup trucks

 

[Larry Gude]

the GOP should trot out Gays, Women, Blacks and Hispanics ..........

Progun gives a poor inner city mon a chance to protect herself

Gays to protect themselves from Rednecks in pickup trucks

Pink Pistols, Black Man with a gun, daughters, mothers, wives.

Hell, use Hollywood to illustrate the issue; Think of all the empowerment moves there are; they ALL involve some variation of a weaker person, a woman, an ex slave, overcoming the evil white guy with...

...a gun.

The gun IS civilization.

I repeat; the gun IS civilization.

 

[laynpipe]

The big misunderstanding here is that noone wants to take away your guns or your right to own them. PERIOD ! The desire is to keep military style weapons out of the hands of citizens that dont need them.

It doesnt get any simplier then that. Noone wants to remove the 2nd Amendment from the constitution, delete it, scratch thru it or deny you your right to own a gun.

 

[Gilligan]

The big misunderstanding here is that noone wants to take away your guns or your right to own them. PERIOD ! The desire is to keep military style weapons out of the hands of citizens that dont need them.

.

You just directly contradicted yourself in two adjacent sentences.

Nice job.


I predicted weeks ago that the Big Obama/Feinstein Gun Grab was going to end up as confetti on the floors of Congress.

 

[laynpipe]

No Gil......I didnt. Reasonable regulation is term used by law. That is not a contradiction.

 

[Gilligan]

No Gil......I didnt. Reasonable regulation is term used by law. That is not a contradiction.

Banning certain rifles simply because of their color and the "way they look" is not reasonable - nor based on anything rational - and never has been.

Why aren't much, much higher power rifles with similar magazine capacity on that ban list?

But your response is sadly typical of the anti-gun lobby: We can ban these weapons because we have banned others already.

Superb logic ..that. Somewhat circular in nature, sure...but these are left-wingers we are talking about.

 

[Larry Gude]

The big misunderstanding here is that noone wants to take away your guns or your right to own them. PERIOD ! The desire is to keep military style weapons out of the hands of citizens that dont need them.

It doesnt get any simplier then that. Noone wants to remove the 2nd Amendment from the constitution, delete it, scratch thru it or deny you your right to own a gun.

I am curious if you simply don't know what you are talking about or are intentionally being dishonest?

Here is a SIMPLE test and I ask you to answer it honestly;

If all the 'military style' guns were confiscated today, this year, will that stop mass murder?

If not (sorry, I thought I'd help you with the previous question) and someone kills 18 kids with two revolvers and a shotgun, perhaps a 'hunting' rifle' will there then be calls to also confiscate those arms or will you, and others say "Well, OK. At least they were not murdered with 'military' style arms."

Lastly, after you then call for the confiscation of those arms (sorry, just trying to help) how will you then answer my first question?

 

[Larry Gude]

Banning certain rifles simply because of their color and the "way they look" is not reasonable - nor based on anything rational - and never has been.

Yeah, it is. A journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step. Banning the 'low hanging' fruit is a very reasonable step in abolishing the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

The desire is to keep military style weapons out of the hands of citizens that dont need them.

When was the Bill of Rights ever about "needs"?

You should tell that to these folks.



Boy Uses Dad's AR-15 to Shoot Invader - YouTube



Student Uses AR-15 Semi-Automatic Rifle to Stop Home Invasion - Rochester, New York - YouTube

 

[Gilligan]

Yeah, it is. A journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step. Banning the 'low hanging' fruit is a very reasonable step in abolishing the right to keep and bear arms.

Of course I was looking at it from a pro gun rights perspective. You correctly highlighted the anti-gun pro big government perspective...

 

[PsyOps]

The big misunderstanding here is that noone wants to take away your guns or your right to own them. PERIOD ! The desire is to keep military style weapons out of the hands of citizens that dont need them.

It doesnt get any simplier then that. Noone wants to remove the 2nd Amendment from the constitution, delete it, scratch thru it or deny you your right to own a gun.

In terms of defining the 2nd, WHO decides what I need? If someone breaks into my house with an AR15, should I not at least have equal capability to thwart that criminal? Doesn’t that define my NEED?

Banning of any firearm IS taking away my right own firearms; firearms that I deem necessary for ME; not what the government – or YOU – seem fit to bless me with. Exercise of my rights is not defined by someone else. Right a, plain and simple, just IS.

You seem to forget that when I have to ask permission to exercise a right, it is no longer a right. So, banning certain guns, demanding background checks, applying for permits… all of these things are asking permission from our government to exercise a ‘right’. You do know the difference between a right and a privilege don’t you?

 

[aps45819]

The big misunderstanding here is that noone wants to take away your guns or your right to own them. PERIOD ! The desire is to keep military style weapons out of the hands of citizens that dont need them.

It doesnt get any simplier then that. Noone wants to remove the 2nd Amendment from the constitution, delete it, scratch thru it or deny you your right to own a gun.

WRONG

“The purpose is to dry up the supply of these weapons over time, therefore, there is no sunset on this bill.” Senator Dianne Feinstein

Feinstein: 'Purpose Is To Dry Up The Supply Of These Weapons Over Time'