“You say shit like that, and then people will buy into it.”

[rushmc 18]

And, many of you have.


http://www.infowars.com/video-hillary-delegate-admits-goal-behind-common-sense-gun-measures-is-outright-gun-ban/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,119]

rushmc

And, many of you have.


http://www.infowars.com/video-hillary-delegate-admits-goal-behind-common-sense-gun-measures-is-outright-gun-ban/

Better go buy, buy, buy, Obama.......ehhh, Clinton is going to take all your guns away.

Easy business when your customers keep falling for the same stupidity.

[jakee 1,254]

rushmc

And, many of you have.

Who is Mary Bayer?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[DanG 1]

Quote

Who is Mary Bayer?

She's an alternate delegate to the DNC. VERY high up in the party.

But they also got the former mayor of Poughkeepsie saying something similar, so it must be true.

(For our non-US brothers and sisters, in the US vernacular Poughkeepsie has become synonymous with backwater nowhere, so it's actually pretty funny that all they could get to back up the story was a politician from that particular town)

- Dan G

[jakee 1,254]

Exactly my point. I wonder if she's ever met Clinton?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kelpdiver 2]

SkyDekker

Better go buy, buy, buy, Obama.......ehhh, Clinton is going to take all your guns away.

Easy business when your customers keep falling for the same stupidity.

there's little point to trying to deny the obvious. These sort of statements have been on record for decades now. Unfortunately for them (and you), it results in terrible losses at the polls (see 2000, 1994).

I have no doubt it's what she wants to do, and just as little concern that she actually can.

[rehmwa 2]

kelpdiver

I have no doubt it's what she wants to do, and just as little concern that she actually can.

That's a really good way to put it.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,379]

>These sort of statements have been on record for decades now.

All these are also on record:
=====
Now, I lived in Arkansas and I represented Upstate New York. I know that gun ownership is part of the fabric of a lot of law-abiding communities. But I also know that we can have common sense gun reforms that keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and the violently unstable, while respecting responsible gun owners. What I hope with all of my heart is that we work together to make this debate less polarized, less inflamed by ideology, more informed by evidence, so we can sit down across the table, across the aisle from one another, and find ways to keep our communities safe while protecting constitutional rights.

. . . .

If we can’t figure out how to respect the constitutional rights of responsible gun owners, but keep guns out of people who have felony records, who are fugitives, stalkers, have domestic violence restraining orders against them, are dangerously mentally ill, shame on us.

. . . .

There is a Second Amendment, there are constitutional rights. We aren’t interested in taking away guns of lawful, responsible gun owners.
=======

The "ban all guns" thing is both a way to sell guns and a way to promulgate fear among the populace - and a fearful populace is easier to manipulate.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

I have no doubt it's what she wants to do, and just as little concern that she actually can.

Does she though? Any reason why she would, or any reason to believe she does?

Frankly, with the general consenus being that she's a cynical DC operator who'll only perpetuate the status quo of working for special interest groups and campaign contributors I'm not sure why anyone woud think she has a desire to take a principled stand on any major issue, let alone one as potentially damaging as gun control...

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[SkyDekker 1,119]

kelpdiver

***
Better go buy, buy, buy, Obama.......ehhh, Clinton is going to take all your guns away.

Easy business when your customers keep falling for the same stupidity.

there's little point to trying to deny the obvious. These sort of statements have been on record for decades now. Unfortunately for them (and you), it results in terrible losses at the polls (see 2000, 1994).

I have no doubt it's what she wants to do, and just as little concern that she actually can.

To a non-American it is pretty idiotic that whether you get to walk around with an object is such an important item in an election and has been for decades and decades.

[kelpdiver 2]

SkyDekker

To a non-American it is pretty idiotic that whether you get to walk around with an object is such an important item in an election and has been for decades and decades.

for non Americans, civil rights aren't a given, or even common. For many developed nations, there are still people alive that predate having them. So their appreciation for the importance is notably lacking.

[kelpdiver 2]

billvon

>These sort of statements have been on record for decades now.

All these are also on record:
=====
Now, I lived in Arkansas and I represented Upstate New York. I know that gun ownership is part of the fabric of a lot of law-abiding communities. But I also know that we can have common sense gun reforms that

[blah blah blah]

There is a Second Amendment, there are constitutional rights. We aren’t interested in taking away guns of lawful, responsible gun owners.

This is the standard line taken by a Democrat when running for office.

Likewise, when GOP members talk about how voter ID bills are about preventing (non existent) fraud, do you take that at face value. They said that a million times. A handful of times, insiders admit what we know to be true: "we're doing this to suppress minority voting who favor the other side."

One is a talking point, one is the truth. So when the leaders in gun control own up, those statements outweigh the pandering...like any time you see "common sense" or "support for hunter rights."

Josh Sugarman (lead for VPC, generally credited for inventing the term "assault rifle" in the conversation) has long admitted the objective is not control, but banning of guns.

Diane Feinstein - 60 minutes, 1995: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

In that same time, Andrew Cuomo promised resisters "death by a thousand cuts" and then respectable Eliot Spitzer told Glock to cooperate or "your bankruptcy lawyers will be knocking at your door." The Clinton Administration used Columbine to beat S&W into bankruptcy.

This is why the product liability bill was passed. And this is one (of many) reason why Gore lost the election, and yes, he did lose Florida. It's part of why Newt's gang took over the Senate in 1994 (post AWB). Since then, the Democrats talk about gun control, but do very little. Nor should they - nothing they propose will do anything but hurt citizens. The AWB accomplished nothing. Magazine capacity limits accomplish nothing. It is security theater in a different form, the key difference being they want this half measures to fail.

[billvon 2,379]

>Likewise, when GOP members talk about how voter ID bills are about preventing
>(non existent) fraud, do you take that at face value.

Nope, there is probably more to it than that. It is likely an effort to make it harder for some groups to vote - groups that would tend to vote against the GOP.

But if some left wing nut decided that voter ID bills mean that "the government is going to take away everyone's right to vote" they would be (rightly) mocked as a conspiracy theory nut. Unless, of course, he was selling "vote guarantee" slips - then he would, again rightly, be seen as someone sowing irrational fear in order to make a few quick bucks.

If someone's argument is that democrats want to make it harder to buy guns, then that's quite defensible - since most gun control proposals make it more difficult in some way to purchase, share, transport and use guns.

But if people out there claim that "Obama/Clinton want to grab your guns, so STOCK UP NOW!" -then they are just as nuts (or just as motivated by greed) as the left wing guy above.

[kelpdiver 2]

billvon

>Likewise, when GOP members talk about how voter ID bills are about preventing
>(non existent) fraud, do you take that at face value.

Nope, there is probably more to it than that. It is likely an effort to make it harder for some groups to vote - groups that would tend to vote against the GOP.

The other recent example that is quite analogous is the Texas regulations on abortion clinics, made in the name of women's safety, and the SC declared that to be bullshit.

Many of the 'common sense' proposals around waiting periods, training, or access to ammo are just as dishonest as the Texan government was re: abortion.

Quote

But if people out there claim that "Obama/Clinton want to grab your guns, so STOCK UP NOW!" -then they are just as nuts (or just as motivated by greed) as the left wing guy above.

The response here was to challenge the first part of that statement as false. It is in fact true, but lacks public support, is unconstitutional, and impossible to achieve.

The correct response is the challenge the conclusion. No one needs to stock up on weapons, though in California it now looks like we do need to stock up on ammunition after some truly stupid legislation was passed last month. But if one doesn't have any gun and thinks they might feel a need for *one* in the future, it is prudent to do it sooner than later.

The ability to get one won't (likely) abruptly disappear, but if you wait till the moment of need, you're not giving yourself an opportunity to practice.

The buying choices also continue to shrink, but from a rights perspective, there's not a high likelihood that you're be unable to buy a revolver, semiautomatic pistol, deer (high powered) rifle, or shotgun. This jihad against "assault rifles" (low powered, scary looking rifles) is just silly and pointless, but gun enthusiasts are perhaps the ones ones impacted. Criminals can get whatever they want.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

The response here was to challenge the first part of that statement as false. It is in fact true, but lacks public support, is unconstitutional, and impossible to achieve.

I challenged this already with an explanation but you ignored it.

So this time I'm just going to say that's unsupported bullshit, and you should stop lying if you want people to take you seriously.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,379]

>The other recent example that is quite analogous is the Texas regulations on
>abortion clinics, made in the name of women's safety, and the SC declared that to
>be bullshit.

Because it was.

Look around at what OB/GYN's were saying about the Texas regulation. Almost none of them supported it - and almost no women supported it - because it was pretty clearly bullshit intended to prevent women from getting abortions.

Now look at what gun owners are saying about gun control. Many of them support new regulation. 92% support universal background checks. 87% think that there should be universal background checks for all guns sold by anyone. 84% think that mental illness should bar you from getting a gun. 61% think there should be a federal database of all gun sales. 49% support bans on "assault rifles." 29% think it is more important to control gun ownership than protect gun rights.

So no, I don't think attempts to improve gun regulation are indications that Obama wants to "grab your guns" or are secret plans to disarm America - given that most people (and indeed a large chunk of gun owners) support such laws.

(Unless, of course, you think that gun owners want to "grab your guns" as well - but that wouldn't make much sense.)

>The response here was to challenge the first part of that statement as false. It is in fact true . . .

No, it's not. It is not true anywhere except in gun manufacturer's minds, and they use that misinformation to sell guns. (And of course the NRA uses it to make money and garner power as well.)

[SkyDekker 1,119]

kelpdiver

***
To a non-American it is pretty idiotic that whether you get to walk around with an object is such an important item in an election and has been for decades and decades.

for non Americans, civil rights aren't a given, or even common. For many developed nations, there are still people alive that predate having them. So their appreciation for the importance is notably lacking.

Tying being allowed to walk around with guns to civil rights is idiotic.

Maybe try finding way to provide healthcare without bankrupting people first. Much more of an important civil right in my ever so humble opinion.

But you are right, we are extremely oppressed here in Canada.

[Glitch 0]

Bill, where do you source you stats? I call bullshit on those numbers, especially the 49% supporting a ban an "assault rifles", especially considering the AR15 platform is the most common platform on the market. Nevermind that a semi-automatic is NOT an assault rifle no matter how many scary black items you add to it. Real gun owners disagree with the leftist definition pushed by mainstream media.... its like calling an apple an orange.

Randomly f'n thingies up since before I was born...

[billvon 2,379]

>Bill, where do you source you stats?

Pew Research, from a 2015 poll.

http://www.people-press.org/2015/08/13/continued-bipartisan-support-for-expanded-background-checks-on-gun-sales/

[kelpdiver 2]

jakee

Quote

The response here was to challenge the first part of that statement as false. It is in fact true, but lacks public support, is unconstitutional, and impossible to achieve.

I challenged this already with an explanation but you ignored it.

So this time I'm just going to say that's unsupported bullshit, and you should stop lying if you want people to take you seriously.

3 people said the same (wrong) thing, and I replied to one. The evidence is there...and not countered. But I'm grown out of the need to play the circular game. If you guys want to pretend that statements of intent to take all guns they can get don't count...have fun with it.

The parallel to Texas abortion law or voter ID laws went over Bill's head, or (more likely) wasn't convenient. The point is the same - someone pandering (lying) 100 times doesn't outweigh the 1 or 2 times they admit the truth. And putting up barriers expressively for the purpose of denying use of that right is not constitutional, nor morally defensible.

[billvon 2,379]

>The parallel to Texas abortion law or voter ID laws went over Bill's head, or (more
>likely) wasn't convenient.

I guess you didn't read my reply. Ah well.

[jakee 1,254]

kelpdiver

***

Quote

The response here was to challenge the first part of that statement as false. It is in fact true, but lacks public support, is unconstitutional, and impossible to achieve.

I challenged this already with an explanation but you ignored it.

So this time I'm just going to say that's unsupported bullshit, and you should stop lying if you want people to take you seriously.

3 people said the same (wrong) thing, and I replied to one. The evidence is there...and not countered. But I'm grown out of the need to play the circular game. If you guys want to pretend that statements of intent to take all guns they can get don't count...have fun with it.

Statements of intent from who? Clinton is not Feinstein. Clinton is not Sugarman. Clinton is not Cuomo. I'm going to give you enough credit that I'll assume you are aware of that. (And hey, by the way, Obama isn't any of those people either! Crazy how the world works, right?)

If I took the most outrageous pro-theocracy comments from any random GOP bigwigs and ascribed them to Trump, would you let that slide? Would you agree that they speak to his own personal motives? You wouldn't, and you shouldn't. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think you're probably just about smart enough to know that the same applies here.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[wolfriverjoe 1,339]

Something to remember is that during the 08 campaign, Obama made a number of comments about "sensible gun legislation".

After his election, just about every damned gun and box of ammunition disappeared from store shelves.

He proposed zero bills on guns until the tragedy in Connecticut.

Which, despite the emotional appeal of it (similar incidents led to sweeping bans in Australia, Canada and the UK), the bills failed to reach the floor in the Senate and died.
Nothing serious has been proposed since.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[kelpdiver 2]

wolfriverjoe

Something to remember is that during the 08 campaign, Obama made a number of comments about "sensible gun legislation".

After his election, just about every damned gun and box of ammunition disappeared from store shelves.

He proposed zero bills on guns until the tragedy in Connecticut.

He enjoyed a very brief period of time where he had the 60 senators he needed to pass the ACA. Otherwise, he faced a GOP that openly vowed to block anything and everything. No chance he was going to burn political capital on a loser issue. When he did - it was knowing it was symbolic, though this year it's been mostly about forcing GOP members to vote on the record. (I'm in favor of that, just as they should be forced to vote on the record on Court nominees)

I would hope these Democrats weren't serious about blatantly unconstitutional No Fly No Buy proposals.

[kelpdiver 2]

jakee

Statements of intent from who? Clinton is not Feinstein. Clinton is not Sugarman. Clinton is not Cuomo. I'm going to give you enough credit that I'll assume you are aware of that. (And hey, by the way, Obama isn't any of those people either! Crazy how the world works, right?)

I'm going to go out on a tiny limb and suggest that Hillary and Bill are fairly aligned on policy. The Clinton Administration leaned on S&W. Cuomo represented the Clinton Adminstration (HUD) at the time. And I can't think of any time that she deviated from the New York contingent (Schumer, Spitzer) during her time as a carpetbagger.

H Clinton has been one of the most pandering, even by politician standards, Pretty much since that cookies remarks in 1991.