United States Presidential Election 2008 - Official Discussion Thread

Originally posted by KidRock
Well we should determine that then, but since we arent routinely invaded by tanks or have our self security threatened by an F-16 there wouldn't be a need for RPG's or an Anti-Air turret in my backyard. But the threat of someone attacking us with a gun or a knife is most definitely there, and we should be able to prepare ourselves for that situation..such as having a gun of our own.

You routinely get attacked by armed thugs while in your own home? Dude, it's time to ****ing move.

Back to the Obama infantcide scandal, while it was said by many that Obama opposed the bills in 2001, 2002, and 2003 at the state senate level because of the attempt to give all non-viable fetuses rights of protections as human, this is not the case according to factcheck.org.

The 2003 version, contained the same language as the federal "Born Alive" bill that Obama says he would support.

Specificallly,: "Amendment 001 was adopted in committee and added the following text: "Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this Section." That wording matches exactly the comparable provision in the federal law."

The 2003 version with the wording Obama wanted never got to the state senate, however.

It never made it to the floor; it was voted down by the Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired.

Obama’s campaign now has a different explanation for his vote against the 2003 Illinois bill. Even with the same wording as the federal law, the Obama camp says, the state bill would have a different effect than the BAIPA would have at the federal level. It's state law, not federal law, that actually regulates the practice of abortion. So a bill defining a pre-viable fetus born as the result of abortion as a human could directly affect the practice of abortion at the state level, but not at the federal level, the campaign argues.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

Factcheck goes out of the way to say that whether or not this is infantcide is up to interpretation (do you consider a pre-viable fetus that needs to be supported an infant?), but it's pretty clear:

Obama was never for the bill, and when the 3rd version of it was changed with the same wording as the federal bill he says he would've supported, he killed it before it got to the senate.

And then changed his position on why he didn't support it. (it wasn't the wording, it was because it was a state bill.)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You routinely get attacked by armed thugs while in your own home? Dude, it's time to ****ing move.

Do I really have to post the number of homicides from knifes and guns to compare it to the amount of deaths per year caused by tanks and fighter jets in America?

Originally posted by KidRock
Do I really have to post the number of homicides from knifes and guns to compare it to the amount of deaths per year caused by tanks and fighter jets in America?

Are they a constant presence in your home as you seem to be claiming? As for the tank and fighter jet problem, I want my bazookas, anthrax spores and SAMs to protect me from when they do attack.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Are they a constant presence in your home as you seem to be claiming?

From the thousands of deaths per year that occur from gun and knife violence then yeah the constant threat is always there..unlike the threat of tanks or fighter jets attacking my home or property which is what the argument originally was.

Originally posted by KidRock
From the thousands of deaths per year that occur from gun and knife violence then yeah the constant threat is always there..unlike the threat of tanks or fighter jets attacking my home or property which is what the argument originally was.

So you admit I do need my bazookas, anthrax spores and SAMs to protect me from the possibility?

Originally posted by KidRock
Do I really have to post the number of homicides from knifes and guns to compare it to the amount of deaths per year caused by tanks and fighter jets in America?

Originally posted by chithappens

What I'm getting at is that the massive amount of gun violence is a result of a lot of other issues, not just random nutjobs.

Citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan have certainly earned the right to have such weapons, it seems.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So you admit I do need my bazookas, anthrax spores and SAMs to protect me from the possibility?

Sure, if you can find me proof that we are attacked hundreds or thousands of times per year by tanks and fighter jets then it would be required to have those things..now feel free to posts your statistics.

Originally posted by KidRock
Sure, if you can find me proof that we are attacked hundreds or thousands of times per year by tanks and fighter jets then it would be required to have those things..now feel free to posts your statistics.

Just because it doesn't happen all the time doesn't mean we aren't under constant threat from it. I deserve heavy artillery, just like the Constitution says.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Just because it doesn't happen all the time doesn't mean we aren't under constant threat from it. I deserve heavy artillery, just like the Constitution says.

Still waiting for your statistics on the amount of Tank Violence per year.

Originally posted by KidRock
Still waiting for your statistics on the amount of Tank Violence per year.

So you're saying we should wait until they start killing us to defend ourselves?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So you're saying we should wait until they start killing us to defend ourselves?

I want proof in the way of statistics proving there is an actual threat out there of me walking out of my house and getting mugged by a man in a tank.

I have proof that there is a viable chance that at some point I could be shot or stabbed someday..now present your proof of the same or admit you were backed into a corner and are wrong and we can move on.

Originally posted by KidRock
I want proof in the way of statistics proving there is an actual threat out there of me walking out of my house and getting mugged by a man in a tank.

No one would mug you in a tank 🙄 They can still kill you though.

Originally posted by KidRock
I have proof that there is a viable chance that at some point I could be shot or stabbed someday..now present your proof of the same or admit you were backed into a corner and are wrong and we can move on.

There's a US armory about ten miles from my home. I happen to know for a fact that they have tanks there. Those aren't impossible to steal, I want my safety no matter how many people it puts in danger.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Just because it doesn't happen all the time doesn't mean we aren't under constant threat from it. I deserve heavy artillery, just like the Constitution says.

That's why you find a safe and happy medium, as the Constitution written of yesterday may not be up to spec with the times of today.

You allow your citizens to keep arms like handguns (home protection), shotguns (sporting) and hunting rifles and you outlaw fully automatic machine guns and .50 caliber rifles capable of shooting through a car's engine.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No one would mug you in a tank 🙄 They can still kill you though.

There's a US armory about ten miles from my home. I happen to know for a fact that they have tanks there. Those aren't impossible to steal, I want my safety no matter how many people it puts in danger.

Now if you posted proof that the Armory had been robbed three times in the last month and 10 people were killed by tanks..you would have an argument. But since you cannot post that proof, since it doesn't exist, you're clearly wrong and digging the hole deeper.

No, there is still the threat of it happening. As long as there is a threat, defense is logical, however seemingly irrational that threat may be.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Back to the Obama infantcide scandal,

Are you claiming Obama is a baby killer? If not, what then?

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
No, there is still the threat of it happening. As long as there is a threat, defense is logical, however seemingly irrational that threat may be.

Originally posted by Robtard
That's why you find a safe and happy medium, as the Constitution written of yesterday may not be up to spec with the times of today.

Originally posted by Robtard

Which is the point that is made by arguing from the extreme of the "I need guns to be safe" position.