Thread: Obama Administration's War Against The Second Amendment...

Originally Posted by Danct

Pity you would turn to deception and name-calling. Look you have admitted that there is no direct link or fact that shows the President or Holder had any direct involvement in any crime or cover-up of any crime. You have repeatedly stated that one needs to put together the widely disparate circumstances to arrive at your conclusion.

Unfortunately for you, you've now gone so far to say that your conclusion is based on "facts". Facts you cannot and have not provided. It's one thing to say that you have connected some dots, or read between the lines to arrive at a position. It's another thing entirely to say you have facts that support your position, and this is what you have now done.

This really shouldn't need to be explained to you as you should know this.

This thread is about Obama and the Second Amendment, not Fast & Furious.

Originally Posted by XonXoff

Originally Posted by Danct

First, you assume that the Attn Gen is speaking for the President, which is debatable

*) Holder's words are in direct quotes -- you do understand what that means when a news outlet uses them?

Yes.

Originally Posted by XonXoff

And what are Holder's exact words, per CBS News? As follows: "...as President Obama indicated during the campaign..."

Right. Thank you. In other words he was relaying the President's intentions as he understood them. He was simply stating what he believed the President had already said during the campaign, hence the words: "...as President Obama indicated during the campaign..."
He was NOT speaking for the President as you misstated.

Glad we could sort that out.

Originally Posted by XonXoff

*) Not only is Holder snickering at your naivete, everyone inside the Beltway is starting to laugh.

'Appeal to Ridicule' fallacy.

Surely you can do better.

Originally Posted by XonXoff

The President and his admin do indeed write laws: why do you think it's called Obamacare?

Because some Right wingers put that derisive term to it that's why. The law is actually called "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act". You probably missed this somehow.

Originally Posted by XonXoff

Does Reaganomics ring a bell?

Yes, it does.

It was first coined by a radio host named Paul Harvey. I don't believe he used it flatteringly, but that's not the point. The point is that the term was not a legislative term.

Originally Posted by XonXoff

Bush-43's tax cuts? Clinton's legislative agenda? You think those legislative packages were put together by Senators and Representatives? All of Washington, DC may be ROTFLTAO at you! Your homework assignment is to figure out how the President and his admin create and get these entire packages of laws onto the floor of the two chambers and how he gets what is so commonly referred to as 'the President's legislation' that it occasionally even bears his name, through Congress.

sigh,.......Pity you can't see the subtleties of the political process for what they are. You appear to be taking an absolutist stance in that all a President has to do is command it and the Legislature will make it so. You are partially correct in that some legislation is sometimes prompted by and helped along by a President, but to assume that any President can write, pass and then sign into law new gun control laws is beyond naive. It's sad, because it shows how fearful rhetoric, such as what you have laid out here, will find a receptive ear in those so inclined to fall for it. It's silly and hysterical, and has no place in a rational discussion about gun control.

Originally Posted by XonXoff

*) Sixty-five Democratic legislators are *not* the Obama administration. They also aren't a majority on Capitol Hill -- but even if they were, *their actions* would *not* give a clue as to the Obama admin's anti-gun objectives, legislative or otherwise.

Seriously? You don't think that those sixty-five legislators would have any effect on that legislation? Need I remind you that the Republicans have a majority in the House and Obama would naturally need every one of those Democratic votes? There would not be the votes in the Senate either, even without the filibuster.

Do you have ANY evidence that would show that a new Assault Weapons Ban would pass Congress?

Originally Posted by onalandline

...and still, the Obama Administration is anti-gun.

I understand your need to demonize him, but he has gone on record stating otherwise. He is not "anti-gun". Few people are, actually. This is a term you and others have coined in order to paint those with whom you disagree with in a radical and disagreeable light. The fact remains that the President's views are actually mainstream as to gun control.

Originally Posted by onalandline

You justify all of this by saying that many legislators are against a gun ban, etc.

I'm not "justifying" anything, friend. I don't know where you got that from. The other member had stated that the President had the inclination, and more importantly the ability to institute an assault weapons ban. I merely showed him the naivete of his stance.

Originally Posted by onalandline

Thankfully, there will be a huge opposition to the Obama Administration on the gun issue.

That's what politics is all about, no?

Originally Posted by onalandline

This thread is about Obama and the Second Amendment, not Fast & Furious.

And you claimed to have "facts" to support your statement that our current Administration is pursuing "measures to achieve their gun-free, or at least severely restricted utopia". We know how that went for ya, eh? Not too well as I recall.

The Obama administration hasn't made the slightest move in the direction of gun control.

Naturally, this proves the conspiracy. If you can't see the administration doing it, then it proves they must be doing it secretly.

At least that's what the NRA says. Don't worry, your donation to the NRA can foil the evil librul plot.

@'Danct'

I'll cut to the chase on this since you so clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

The OP said -- I'll post it yet again -- "As evidenced by what? I have not seen the administration do anything at all that would indicate they have the slightest interests in gun laws."

The evidence has clearly been presented: the Obama administration has inadvertently through Attorney General Eric Holder, made their intentions clear. Your arguments have tried every method of redirection and dissembling. But again, the fact is, as the Admin's AG made clear, "...President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons..."

Holder leaves no doubt in the listener's mind about the Obama admin's intentions: they want to impose more gun control, using whatever means they can. How Congress feels about that is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Those are the facts... you'll have to live with them as best you can no matter how uncomfortable they make you.

Originally Posted by XonXoff

@'Danct'

I'll cut to the chase on this since you so clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

The OP said -- I'll post it yet again -- "As evidenced by what? I have not seen the administration do anything at all that would indicate they have the slightest interests in gun laws."

The evidence has clearly been presented: the Obama administration has inadvertently through Attorney General Eric Holder, made their intentions clear. Your arguments have tried every method of redirection and dissembling. But again, the fact is, as the Admin's AG made clear, "...President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons..."

Holder leaves no doubt in the listener's mind about the Obama admin's intentions: they want to impose more gun control, using whatever means they can. How Congress feels about that is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Those are the facts... you'll have to live with them as best you can no matter how uncomfortable they make you.

Ayuh,... 'n Obo has never seen a gun control measure he didn't like, or vote for, in his entire short political history...

Originally Posted by Bondo

Ayuh,... 'n Obo has never seen a gun control measure he didn't like, or vote for, in his entire short political history...

Yeah... all admins have some anti-gunners but this one seems rife with anti-gunners who think U.S. Citizens, armed with guns or words or the internet (not to mention -- all three!), are too dangerous and only government agents should be armed. Which, when you contemplate who has been demonstrated to be the greater danger to the republic, its citizens and their freedom -- especially over the past two decades -- should double us all up with laughter. Except 'Danct' of course...

As the OP said, it's not just President Obama -- it's the Obama administration. Their contempt for the Second Amendment seems matched only by their contempt for the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. To be fair, the Bush-43 admin was probably just as dangerous. But they're historical reference at this point. The evidence is overwhelming on the current White House occupants. For example:

CNN (taken from issues2000.org), June 2, 2000:

[[
Hillary Rodham Clinton offered her support for a legislative proposal to license hand guns. The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), would require anyone who wants to purchase a gun to obtain a state-issued photo gun license. “I stand in support of this common sense legislation to license everyone who wishes to purchase a gun,” Clinton said. “I also believe that every new handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry, such as Chuck is proposing."
]]

Does anyone believe Hillary has changed her views on "licensing guns", mandating "state-issued photo gun licenses" and a "national registry"? I don't. (Here comes 'Danct' to tell us the Secretary of State has no bearing on gun control in the United States... in 4... 3... 2 seconds...)

Correction: "licensing guns" should have been "licensing everyone who wishes to purchase a gun".