Obama Spilling His Military Secret's To The Guy He Wants To Attack

[SomeRandomDude]

Done

And Gate Troll's post removed for being offensive. Again.

Sorry, I kind of got into a verbal fist-fight with HawkeseyeSPF. The truth is so offensive it has to be censored. 

Unsubstantiated tabloid smears are so offensive they have to be censored. And even if there's an Obama's Youth organization, calling it Hitler's Youth is definitely offensive.

Remember, not everything you hear on the internet, or yes, even youtube, is necessarily accurate.

[Gate Troll]

Unsubstantiated tabloid smears are so offensive they have to be censored. And even if there's an Obama's Youth organization, calling it Hitler's Youth is definitely offensive.

Remember, not everything you hear on the internet, or yes, even youtube, is necessarily accurate.

NBarden, you have a point. Hawkseye, you and I don't see eye-to-eye politically but I shall try to refrain from
being insulting or offensive. 

[HawkeyeSPF]

As will I, but did you at least read the Rolling Stone article? If you're really going to support a man, you should understand who he is, right?

[Gate Troll]

As will I, but did you at least read the Rolling Stone article? If you're really going to support a man, you should understand who he is, right?

I did look at it before I posted. There are about thirty other people I would have picked before John McCain, but he is the best candidate (in my opinion) and I disagree with Obama on pretty much everything else. I disagree with him about healthcare,  gun rights, the war on terror, abortion, stem cell research, foreign relations, etc...

[sickofpalantirs]

well I can't vote so it really doesn't matter does it
on a totally random tangent, with gun rights I've arrived at a strange hypothesis...
for guns to be effective in preventing crime you have to take it to the extreme...every (over a certain age of course, and who has passed a psyhiatric evaluation) has a gun, is trained by the government how to use it, and carries it. everywhere.  Or noone has guns aside from swat teams and the military. and you enforce it.
those are my 2 cents...the problem with the seconds is hunting and all but oh well...

[MR. Lurtzy]

If the common people cannot get guns, then they cannot protect themselves. Criminals will always find a way to get a gun regardless of if it's legal.

[turin08]

Well thats what you keep telling yourselves but you have no evidence that that its true In fact a 2003 study in the US showed that having a gun in the home increases the risk of someone in the
household being murdered by 41%. In the UK, the gun laws were reformed in 1997. By 2003, the gun homicide rate for men in England and Wales had dropped 33%, while the gun homicide rate for women had fallen by 48%. We don't need guns in our homes to 'protect ourselves' because there are no guns to protect ourselves from. You can preach about your rights all you like to us but how about preaching to the parents of those in the Virginia Tech massacre? Or the freinds and family of those who died at Columbine? Or even just those people who have been innocently gunned down in the street? I admire America's commitment to freedom but on this issue I cannot understand why you are willing to pay such a price.

[sickofpalantirs]

you always talk about how criminals can get guns...how? they don't all have black market connections...

[SomeRandomDude]

Well thats what you keep telling yourselves but you have no evidence that that its true

Washington, DC...

[HawkeyeSPF]

You'll have to expand upon your "explanation" NB - even I'm a little lost on that one. After all, it's not like turin is making up statistics there; those are cold hard facts. If it worked for other countries, I'm sure it can work for the US.

[Gate Troll]

You'll have to expand upon your "explanation" NB - even I'm a little lost on that one. After all, it's not like turin is making up statistics there; those are cold hard facts. If it worked for other countries, I'm sure it can work for the US.

Actually there is plenty of proof:
http://www.davidstuff.com/opinion/guncontrol.htm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42167

And of course there is always: http://www.nra.com/ 

[macheteman]

If it worked for other countries, I'm sure it can work for the US.

i see your point, but i don't completely agree. the UK is a relatively small country, and more isolated because it is an island. comparatively, the USA is HUGE and there is no effective way for keeping weapons from crossing the borders of mexico and canada. not to mention the INSANE number of guns already in circulation. and how entrenched gun rights are in our citizens.

whether or not  "gun control" itself is good or bad, it won't necessarily work here just because it has worked elsewhere.

-mm

[sickofpalantirs]

well again...they were able to get them out in the UK...

Now I have a very smart friend who wrote something about how the second amendment can't serve its purpose, simply because we cannot allow the type of guns necessary to dissuade a possible fascist government to go around.
You can't just hand out muskets and everyones and equal footing...and I don't want to see stingers and TOWs and tanks being handed out...

and then we get to the whole well regulated militia argument...

So a criminals gonna traipse over the border to mexico or canada and buy a gun? and than come back illegally? cause if they are smuggling them in, you've still got the whole how is your average joe gonna get one?

[macheteman]

well again...they were able to get them out in the UK...

yes, but see my reasons why it wouldn't work as well in the USA:
the UK is a relatively small country, and more isolated because it is an island. comparatively, the USA is HUGE and there is no effective way for keeping weapons from crossing the borders of mexico and canada. not to mention the INSANE number of guns already in circulation. and how entrenched gun rights are in our citizens.

So a criminals gonna traipse over the border to mexico or canada and buy a gun? and than come back illegally? cause if they are smuggling them in, you've still got the whole how is your average joe gonna get one?

it would quickly become "firearms trafficking". weapons a criminal won't have to go across the border, guns will be brought over from other countries. and as for how the average joe will get one, it won't be that hard to deal contraband weapons. i can walk down the street, knock on a couple doors, and get weed if i wanted to. it will be different with guns than drugs of course, but it would be hard to eradicate them completely.

-mm

[SomeRandomDude]

After all, it's not like turin is making up statistics there; those are cold hard facts. If it worked for other countries, I'm sure it can work for the US.

Not necessarily. The US has a very unique demographic that is original to only itself. That for one makes it different from other countries. But, allow me to give you the "cold hard facts."

The 7 countries with the most guns had 1.2 murders per 100,000 people.
The 9 countries with the least guns had 4.4 murders per 100,000 people.

DC hit 81 murders per 100,000 during the 80s and 90s, making it number 1 in the nation. This during the gun ban. As of 2000, it still ranked number 3 in the nation.

The National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study. In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns.