Defend your right to own a car.

[bu villain]

I comment more so based on what is to come. If you and the others honestly think i'm worried for no reason, well.... we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Obama is anti-gun. Him not standing up for the 2nd amendment while his democratic friends are seeking to burn it is good enough for me to count him guilty by association. As far as me commenting specifically on the exec orders that have happened so far...

My problem is that you are painting with such a broad brush. People are not exclusively pro-gun or anti-gun. There are many shades of grey. I agree Obama is against automatic weapons and high capacity magazines but not against all guns. Action speaks louder than words (or theories) and as blank.cd pointed out, he has passed pro-gun bills. Furthermore, not all democrats are like Feinstein and I have seen Obama clearly support the second amendment on multiple occassions.

I do not like the connection with healthcare and gun control.

Even the NRA will tell you that it is important to ensure mentally disturbed people do not get access to guns so how can you divorce healthcare and gun control?

Obama doesnt come through the front door with his policies, he sneaks in the back. You cant take him at face value, you have to dig for the hidden gems and expect surprises.

I don't see how the gun control legislation under discussion in congress is sneaking through the back door. This is the appropriate political process. His executive orders such as "appoint an ATF director" and "allow more studies" do not strike me as anything inappropriate either.

why are you guys acting like its some big secret that liberals are anti-gun?

Are all democrats liberals? Does supporting any regulation of guns whatsoever make someone anti-gun? It's these overgeneralizations and us/them rhetoric that gets you push back.

[Sinfix_15]

My problem is that you are painting with such a broad brush. People are not exclusively pro-gun or anti-gun. There are many shades of grey. I agree Obama is against automatic weapons and high capacity magazines but not against all guns. Action speaks louder than words (or theories) and as blank.cd pointed out, he has passed pro-gun bills. Furthermore, not all democrats are like Feinstein and I have seen Obama clearly support the second amendment on multiple occassions.



Even the NRA will tell you that it is important to ensure mentally disturbed people do not get access to guns so how can you divorce healthcare and gun control?



I don't see how the gun control legislation under discussion in congress is sneaking through the back door. This is the appropriate political process. His executive orders such as "appoint an ATF director" and "allow more studies" do not strike me as anything inappropriate either.



Are all democrats liberals? Does supporting any regulation of guns whatsoever make someone anti-gun? It's these overgeneralizations and us/them rhetoric that gets you push back.

If you're stupid enough to be talked into supporting an assault weapons ban, i put you in the anti-gun group. I dont care if you support shotguns.. handguns.. or crossbows.... if you're willing to give in to an assault weapon ban, then you are part of the problem. Rifles kill less people a year than table saws.... it is the absolute LEAST used gun in criminal activity. So if you're willing to swallow that stat and still be ok with a ban, you are part of the problem. If you support AR and clip bans, you're anti-gun.

UN arms treaty was sneaking it in the back door. They put together these big massive bills and they bury little tidbits inside of it so that you wont notice. It's always something politely packaged like "free candy for children bill" so you'll agree with it, but then on page 867 it gets into the details they actually wanted to slip through. Just like the gun control debate.... the only reason ARs are targeted is because it's agreeable..... but theyre going to get as many guns as they can.

[bu villain]

If you're stupid enough to be talked into supporting an assault weapons ban, i put you in the anti-gun group.

Wow, so now being stupid is equivalent to being anti-gun even if you otherwise support many kinds of guns. I don't think it's possible to have a rational debate with you. I completely agree with you that there is no point to banning assault weapons and yet we still can't avoid a debate because you only see the world in black and white terms. Your tone and perspective don't make you look like a principled debater cutting through the bullshit, it makes you look fanatical and simple minded.

UN arms treaty was sneaking it in the back door.

How has any UN treaty affected your ability to own guns? Specifically.

[Sinfix_15]

Wow, so now being stupid is equivalent to being anti-gun even if you otherwise support many kinds of guns. I don't think it's possible to have a rational debate with you. I completely agree with you that there is no point to banning assault weapons and yet we still can't avoid a debate because you only see the world in black and white terms. Your tone and perspective don't make you look like a principled debater cutting through the bullshit, it makes you look fanatical and simple minded.



How has any UN treaty affected your ability to own guns? Specifically.

When i say people are "stupid" for being ok with an AR ban, i say it in terms of them not realizing that it's a first step and that it serves no purpose. If you're just a guy who says "hey, i dont see why anyone needs an AR, i dont want one... yada yada" that's your opinion. My viewpoint is, an attack on anyone's freedom is an attack on everyone's freedom. I feel most people are guilty of thinking "they want to ban something i didnt care to own, i dont care then"....

And yes, that's stupid of them.



I dont want the UN having anything to do with my healthcare or liberties as an american citizen. Why do we need to globalize this issue when the rest of the world doesnt share our belief system? where do you think this path leads?

[bu villain]

When i say people are "stupid" for being ok with an AR ban, i say it in terms of them not realizing that it's a first step and that it serves no purpose. If you're just a guy who says "hey, i dont see why anyone needs an AR, i dont want one... yada yada" that's your opinion. My viewpoint is, an attack on anyone's freedom is an attack on everyone's freedom. I feel most people are guilty of thinking "they want to ban something i didnt care to own, i dont care then"....

And yes, that's stupid of them.

My issue was more with the description of anyone who is for ANY gun regulation being called anti-gun. I still wouldn't call those for such a ban stupid even though I definitely disagree that it will have an impact on gun violence.

I dont want the UN having anything to do with my healthcare or liberties as an american citizen. Why do we need to globalize this issue when the rest of the world doesnt share our belief system? where do you think this path leads?

I honestly don't think the UN is affecting your healthcare or liberties in a significant way.

[Sinfix_15]

My issue was more with the description of anyone who is for ANY gun regulation being called anti-gun. I still wouldn't call those for such a ban stupid even though I definitely disagree that it will have an impact on gun violence.



I honestly don't think the UN is affecting your healthcare or liberties in a significant way.

An attack on anyone's freedom is an attack on everyone's freedom. Assault rifles are not a problem in america, theyre used in crime significantly less than any other weapon. They are being targeted strictly on perception by politicians who are inevitably seeking full gun control.


Explain the purpose of the UN connection then.

[bu villain]

An attack on anyone's freedom is an attack on everyone's freedom. Assault rifles are not a problem in america, theyre used in crime significantly less than any other weapon. They are being targeted strictly on perception by politicians who are inevitably seeking full gun control.

I already stated I agree with you that assault rifles are not a major problem so I'm not sure what response you are looking for here.

Explain the purpose of the UN connection then.

First you will have to show me the UN treaty you are talking about and then explain to me how it is infringing your rights. My comment was based on the general fact that UN treaties do not supercede the laws passed by our congress.