Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Seven?Eight?
He's a terrorist, so It doesn't matter. He hates our freedoms. And he's a communist. And a Nazi. And a Freemason. But he is not a christian. So we hate him.
Am I doing this right? This is how to mock an opposing viewpoint, right?
Rather than mocking it, why not just respond to it with an actual fact? I know they tend to give you folks a hard time, but you might just want to try it.
You realize that I'm mocking far Right individuals, who ignore the facts that you just tried to get out of me? To supply a fact would be to formally enter the role of Devil's Advocate, a position I am completely unwilling to assume in this discussion. With KidRock to advocate the other side, I guess I didn't need to mock, so I suppose my remarks were unnecessary. Activate the Sarcasm detector man. I'm the biggest tree hugging liberal 'nutjob' that you will ever meet.
Originally posted by KidRock
Watching liberals confuse each other with their sarcastic elitist comments is great.
Then step up to the plate and answer my question. Whether he's a liberal elitist or not is up for debate, but we all know you aren't a book-learnin' elitist, so you should be able to refute his "sarcasm".
Originally posted by Devil King
Then step up to the plate and answer my question. Whether he's a liberal elitist or not is up for debate, but we all know you aren't a book-learnin' elitist, so you should be able to refute his "sarcasm".
For one thing Obama has supported taking away a citizens second amendment rights.
He says "I will not take away someones guns or right to own guns"
yet he votes to ban them over and over.
But keep blindly following what he says..words speak much louder then actions apparently.
Originally posted by KidRock
For one thing Obama has supported taking away a citizens second amendment rights.He says "I will not take away someones guns or right to own guns"
yet he votes to ban them over and over.
But keep blindly following what he says..words speak much louder then actions apparently.
That's bullshit. He has never said he'd take away guns. He simply doesn't support the notion that owning a gun to protect yourself or to go hunting or to have your handgun to protect your family implies that a person who owns a gun for legitimate reasons also implies that citizen to have a need for automatic weapons. Does it take an AK-47 to shoot a deer? Does protecting your family from a burglar require a sub-automatic or illegally altered shot gun? Take a look at the laws that are already on the books. Laws, I might add, that have been supported by a number of republicans. I honestly don't understand why you think a citizen needs the weapons your party uses as a red herring to make the claim that democrats want to take away your guns. Besides, if your party were to win, what makes you think you'll need the kind of weapons to over throw an uppity government? Tell me, honestly, how often do you use a weapon outside of a fireing range or a hnting trip? You keep peddling fear, paranoia and angst as a reasonable excuse to keep an automatic weapon. Your penis can't be that ****ing small! It just can't be! Who or what can't you kill with a hand gun that you can only overwhelm with an altered automatic weapon?
You have to have some excuse that goes further than that, especially since you agree with the how-ever sarcastic claim that Mr. Obama is trying to take away your rights. You folks seem to have no issue with claiming that this country was founded on christian ideology or American Exceptionalism on one hand, while ignoring that the 2nd amendment was never meant to involve weapons of mass murder that the founding fathers never even considered would exist. They were familiar with christian ideology, but I seriously doubt they were sitting in Philadelphia wondering how to accomodate Charleton Heston not being able to understand their intentions. They knew about muskets and powder kegs as well as the bible. But only one of which they consistantly dismissed. The age of enlightenment seems to be one faulty crux in your ability to understand the constitution that your party has spent the last 8 years pissing all over, except for morals that were not included or weapons that were never imagined by it's writers.
Obama supported banning handguns and Obama also supports banning semi-automatic weapons..whats left? Muskets? A bolt action sniper rifle? Yeah, thats great for home defense and self defense.
You also cant carry around rifles in public, but you can handguns. Yet Obama wants to ban handguns. So do I have my right to bear arms and protect myself in public? No, says Obama.
You have to have some excuse that goes further than that, especially since you agree with the how-ever sarcastic claim that Mr. Obama is trying to take away your rights.
If this is at me, then I have to take offense. I was agreeing, but in a sarcastic manner. By doing so, I was disagreeing with any of his points about removal of freedoms that Obama allegedly supports. I have yet to find a position upon which I would either privately or publically agree with KidRock.
More to the point, I do not know of any specific or general case where Barack would 'take away' individual rights.
Originally posted by KidRock
Obama supported banning handguns and Obama also supports banning semi-automatic weapons..whats left? Muskets? A bolt action sniper rifle? Yeah, thats great for home defense and self defense.You also cant carry around rifles in public, but you can handguns. Yet Obama wants to ban handguns. So do I have my right to bear arms and protect myself in public? No, says Obama.
"He declined, just as the Bush Administration did, to take a position on whether the DC gun ban violates the 2nd Amendment. He said instead that states and cities should have broad latitude to regulate guns—even if the Constitution guarantees an individual right to own them." -end snip
Originally posted by Robtard
Obama & Guns"He declined, just as the Bush Administration did, to take a position on whether the DC gun ban violates the 2nd Amendment. He said instead that states and cities should have broad latitude to regulate guns—even if the Constitution guarantees an individual right to own them." -end snip
so Obama believes a local law can override the federal constitution?
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
If this is at me, then I have to take offense. I was agreeing, but in a sarcastic manner. By doing so, I was disagreeing with any of his points about removal of freedoms that Obama allegedly supports. I have yet to find a position upon which I would either privately or publically agree with KidRock.More to the point, I do not know of any specific or general case where Barack would 'take away' individual rights.
I wasn't talking to you. More about you, but not directly.
Originally posted by Devil King
Is that what he said? Is that what the quote mentioned?
Uh, yes, that is what Obama has said.
Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual's right to bear arms?
A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right.
So in theory..a local or state government can constrain my right to freedom of speech.
Originally posted by Devil King
That is not even close to being what he said. You can't carry a firearm on a plane, do you think the Airline industry is trying to take away your right to own a gun?
LOL thats not even close to what he said?
http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
Or is it that thar bias conservative media?
Originally posted by KidRock
LOL thats not even close to what he said?http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
Or is it that thar bias conservative media?
Right? I don't see anything in that link that says he's trying to toss out the 2nd amendment.
There are 11 headers on that link, none of which imply he's the scary constitution burner you make him out to be. Your party consistantly uses the "states rights" battle cry on any number of issues, saying that the federal government shouldn't get involved in state affairs, and now Obama says that cities and states should have the right to limit the use of weapons on an as needed basis and you're calling him a flag burner? If your town had a problem with gangs and voted at that level to ban the use or possesion of handguns in city limits, then that is your city recognizing the singular circumstances that effect it most.
Originally posted by Devil King
There are 11 headers on that link, none of which imply he's the scary constitution burner you make him out to be.
I would say letting a local government constraint a consitutional fredom is just that.
Originally posted by Devil King
Your party consistantly uses the "states rights" battle cry on any number of issues, saying that the federal government shouldn't get involved in state affairs, and now Obama says that cities and states should have the right to limit the use of weapons on an as needed basis and you're calling him a flag burner?
do you know anything about the government? States can vote and decide on their own issues..but not if it goes against the federal constitution.
So you would support a local government passing a law banning freedom of the press in that town?
Originally posted by Devil King
If your town had a problem with gangs and voted at that level to ban the use or possesion of handguns in city limits, then that is your city recognizing the singular circumstances that effect it most.
Yeah, and since when does this actually help anything? Oh right, it takes guns away from the innocent and law abiding citizens, the criminals still get guns.