6 ms·

"Gun grabbers" is not a fair term to use for someone like Obama (at least as far as the campaign he ran on), but it is a very appropriate term for someone who h

by strlen 14y ago

"Gun grabbers" is not a fair term to use for someone like Obama (at least as far as the campaign he ran on), but it is a very appropriate term for someone who has actually endorse confiscating most commonly owned firearms if not all private firearms. You're conflating "this will never happen" with "there aren't people who want this to happen". Calling every single ATF employee a "jack booted Nazi thug" is indeed unfair, wrong, and incendiary. Calling someone who wants to confiscate guns "a gun grabber" is not.

MartinCron 14y ago
Good point. I guess it is OK to call a Nazi a Nazi, even if actual Nazis are extremely rare. I just don't see many Nazis or gun grabbers in mainstream American politics. Obama? Biden? Giffords? Not gun grabbers.
- strlen 14y ago
  Wow, just realized I've inadvertently Godwin'd this thread (when citing someone else, nonetheless, but still...) The problem is that platform being advanced by Obama and Biden has been authored well ahead of time by gun control organizations. Before you call me a conspiracy theorist, I'll state that this is not a conspiracy if they're out working in the open about it; nor is it wrong for a President to call interest groups for policy advice. The real problem is that these interest groups are actively advancing an agenda that goes far beyond "Assault Weapons" or what most Americans would be comfortable with. These organizations don't say "we will go out and confiscate most guns", they say "let's ban dangerous weapons and have mandatory buybacks", but then "British National Party" doesn't call themselves "National Socialist British Worker's Party" (ditto for "Golden Dawn" in Greece, etc..) tl;dr It's right to call this a gun-grabbing agenda, even if the Obama had campaigned on the premise of "I won't take your guns" and said that he thinks that "second amendment recognizes an individual right".
  - hga 14y ago
    Obama had better say the latter after 9 out of 9 Supreme Court justices said it in Heller. That was one massive investment by the Joyce Foundation that went spectacularly bad....
    - strlen 14y ago
      On a side note, I am pleasantly surprised, that most people on this site see the "legislating higher aesthetic critique of semi automatic firearms and hermeneutical analysis on the meaning of ``flash hider''" bills for what they are. Reactions to bringing up any opposition to this most elsewhere was a fusillade of vitriol.
hga 14y ago
You utterly fail when you get to the point of "at least as far as the campaign he ran on". I mean, even ignoring everything else, he's a politician. And he had quite an anti-gun record before the campaign; e.g. being a Joyce Foundation board member is about as hard core as you can get. From what I learned, hard stuff vs. what is claimed he said while at the University of Chicago Law School, I believe he would actually like to confiscate all civilian firearms. But he's not like Clinton, he's not a cultural Baby Boomer, he's actually from Generation Jones like myself. So the culture wars that have consumed the US since the '60s aren't, I believe, a big driver for him, just something he'll use. However, bottom line, if he wants to ban commonly used guns, which "assault weapons" most certainly are, e.g. per Dianne Feinstein prevent transfer so they must be surrendered upon death (and she's quite clear about desiring total confiscations), I can't see how "gun grabber" is seriously incorrect.
- lukifer 14y ago
  How many politicians want to outlaw all abortions unilaterally, whether openly or secretly? A plan to round up all the guns is even less likely. Intents do matter, but let's keep some perspective. Also, I've been hearing about Obama's secret desire to confiscate guns for years. Do you have anything stronger than third-hand hearsay to back this up? (Honest question, no snark intended.)
  - hga 14y ago
    The Joyce Foundation's support of gun control, greater than any other single source (although Bloomberg may exceed them sooner or later) and Obama's board seat on it are matters of public record. I don't have to go any further than that.
    - lukifer 14y ago
      You don't have to, but I'd appreciate it if you did. Being affiliated with a group doesn't mean you are in lock-step with that group or its members on every issue. People are capable of changing or expanding their views as they age. And finally, a cursory glance at the Joyce Foundation describes policies of gun regulation, not a tacit elimination of the 2nd Amendment.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

by strlen 14y ago

MartinCron 14y ago

Good point. I guess it is OK to call a Nazi a Nazi, even if actual Nazis are extremely rare. I just don't see many Nazis or gun grabbers in mainstream American politics. Obama? Biden? Giffords? Not gun grabbers.

strlen 14y ago
Wow, just realized I've inadvertently Godwin'd this thread (when citing someone else, nonetheless, but still...) The problem is that platform being advanced by Obama and Biden has been authored well ahead of time by gun control organizations. Before you call me a conspiracy theorist, I'll state that this is not a conspiracy if they're out working in the open about it; nor is it wrong for a President to call interest groups for policy advice. The real problem is that these interest groups are actively advancing an agenda that goes far beyond "Assault Weapons" or what most Americans would be comfortable with. These organizations don't say "we will go out and confiscate most guns", they say "let's ban dangerous weapons and have mandatory buybacks", but then "British National Party" doesn't call themselves "National Socialist British Worker's Party" (ditto for "Golden Dawn" in Greece, etc..) tl;dr It's right to call this a gun-grabbing agenda, even if the Obama had campaigned on the premise of "I won't take your guns" and said that he thinks that "second amendment recognizes an individual right".
- hga 14y ago
  Obama had better say the latter after 9 out of 9 Supreme Court justices said it in Heller. That was one massive investment by the Joyce Foundation that went spectacularly bad....
  - strlen 14y ago
    On a side note, I am pleasantly surprised, that most people on this site see the "legislating higher aesthetic critique of semi automatic firearms and hermeneutical analysis on the meaning of ``flash hider''" bills for what they are. Reactions to bringing up any opposition to this most elsewhere was a fusillade of vitriol.

hga 14y ago

You utterly fail when you get to the point of "at least as far as the campaign he ran on". I mean, even ignoring everything else, he's a politician. And he had quite an anti-gun record before the campaign; e.g. being a Joyce Foundation board member is about as hard core as you can get. From what I learned, hard stuff vs. what is claimed he said while at the University of Chicago Law School, I believe he would actually like to confiscate all civilian firearms. But he's not like Clinton, he's not a cultural Baby Boomer, he's actually from Generation Jones like myself. So the culture wars that have consumed the US since the '60s aren't, I believe, a big driver for him, just something he'll use. However, bottom line, if he wants to ban commonly used guns, which "assault weapons" most certainly are, e.g. per Dianne Feinstein prevent transfer so they must be surrendered upon death (and she's quite clear about desiring total confiscations), I can't see how "gun grabber" is seriously incorrect.

lukifer 14y ago
How many politicians want to outlaw all abortions unilaterally, whether openly or secretly? A plan to round up all the guns is even less likely. Intents do matter, but let's keep some perspective. Also, I've been hearing about Obama's secret desire to confiscate guns for years. Do you have anything stronger than third-hand hearsay to back this up? (Honest question, no snark intended.)
- hga 14y ago
  The Joyce Foundation's support of gun control, greater than any other single source (although Bloomberg may exceed them sooner or later) and Obama's board seat on it are matters of public record. I don't have to go any further than that.
  - lukifer 14y ago
    You don't have to, but I'd appreciate it if you did. Being affiliated with a group doesn't mean you are in lock-step with that group or its members on every issue. People are capable of changing or expanding their views as they age. And finally, a cursory glance at the Joyce Foundation describes policies of gun regulation, not a tacit elimination of the 2nd Amendment.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]