The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old March 28, 2013, 04:21 PM   #1
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,716
Obama Seeking to Shame 2A Supporters

As before Mr. Obama is marshalling support for his gun control initiatives by using emotion and seeking to shame supporters of the Second Amendment into submission. While surrounded by Mothers of crime victims he commented on recent high profile school shootings stating, "Less than 100 days ago that happened. ... Shame on us if we've forgotten," Obama said. "I haven't forgotten those kids. Shame on us if we've forgotten."

Sen. Mike Lee of Utah responded, "The proposals the president is calling for Congress to pass would primarily serve to reduce the constitutionally protected rights of law-abiding citizens while having little or no effect on violent crime," Lee said in a statement. "It is deeply unfortunate that he continues to use the tragedy at Newtown as a backdrop for pushing legislation that would have done nothing to prevent that horrible crime."

We’ve had some positive news recently, but I can assure you the battle is not over. Mayor Bloomberg is running some very good anti–gun adds even in pro gun States like Georgia. There are also numerous uninformed celebrities adding their often confusing voice to the mix. So, please contact your Congressman! Visit their WEB site and send them a message it only takes a few minutes. Send them some snail mail or even call. Please don’t sit on your hands and then wonder what the heck happened.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...ntrol-package/
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is offline  
Old March 28, 2013, 05:53 PM   #2
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,930
Quote:
We’ve had some positive news recently, but I can assure you the battle is not over. Mayor Bloomberg is running some very good anti–gun adds even in pro gun States like Georgia.
...and here in Ohio as well.

Bloomberg must have spent a real chunk of change cause his commercial is running non-stop on all three major networks here.

I'm waiting on a rebuttal commercial to run here starting with giving the violent crime stats of NYC and ending with something to the effect of Bloomberg not doing a very good job controlling violent crime in his own backyard with his anti gun ideas, stay the hell out of Ohio.

But then again, we have our own anti gun Mayors running around this state as well blaming the current gun laws for high crime cause they don't enforce our already existing gun laws.
Guess when you're incompetent in your job, it's best to blame something, eh.
shortwave is offline  
Old March 28, 2013, 06:37 PM   #3
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,716
Quote:
Bloomberg must have spent a real chunk of change cause his commercial is running non-stop on all three major networks here.
Here is a link to the commercial running in Georgia targeting Senators Chambliss and Isakson. While I obviously disagree with the message I also believe it is an effective piece of propaganda.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3V01JvW5wU
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is offline  
Old March 28, 2013, 06:40 PM   #4
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,862
Quote:
Bloomberg must have spent a real chunk of change cause his commercial is running non-stop on all three major networks here.
According to this article from his own tame news service, Bloomberg News, he's spending $12 million on this ad campaign.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old March 28, 2013, 06:59 PM   #5
22-rimfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 19, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 4,594
Obama and Bloomberg are at it. I suspect they think this will be their last chance at serious gun control from a public support perspective. Support is ebbing.
22-rimfire is offline  
Old March 28, 2013, 08:20 PM   #6
gummy jones
Junior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2013
Posts: 3
they are playing on Americas emotions and trying to blind us by meaningless "issues" like the marriage "debate."

why should 85 million law abiding gun owners feel shame when someone commits a crime?
gummy jones is offline  
Old March 28, 2013, 10:05 PM   #7
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,239

So, this is how Michael Bloomberg thinks all southerners dress and present themselves. Way to stereotype, buddy. The accent isn't one I can place, and I think it may be faked.

Nice trigger discipline, BTW.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old March 28, 2013, 10:17 PM   #8
Joe_Pike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 30, 2010
Posts: 1,015
I found it rather telling that they disabled comments for this video. I think they know what kind of responses it would get.
__________________
Stay Groovy
Joe_Pike is offline  
Old March 28, 2013, 10:18 PM   #9
SHE3PDOG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Posts: 980
I find it repulsive when members of society that do not agree with us try to restrict our rights or blame us for the wrongdoings of others, but then go breaking all of the rulers that responsible gun owners follow religiously. Feinstein had her finger on the trigger a while back as well. It never ceases to amaze me that the public is willing to accept "facts" from people who know so very little about what they are talking about.
__________________
Semper Fi

Marine, NRA member, SAF Defender's Club member, and constitutionally protected keeper and bearer of firearms
SHE3PDOG is offline  
Old March 28, 2013, 10:19 PM   #10
dakota.potts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2013
Location: Saint Augustine, Florida
Posts: 1,123
I also noticed the finger right on the trigger. Somebody who's never actually handled a gun before?
dakota.potts is online now  
Old March 28, 2013, 10:28 PM   #11
SHE3PDOG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Posts: 980
That would be my guess, Dakota. People learning how to handle guns from action movies.
__________________
Semper Fi

Marine, NRA member, SAF Defender's Club member, and constitutionally protected keeper and bearer of firearms
SHE3PDOG is offline  
Old March 28, 2013, 10:28 PM   #12
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,862
Quote:
The accent isn't one I can place, and I think it may be faked.
I thought the same thing. Central casting.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old March 28, 2013, 10:37 PM   #13
egor20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 14, 2010
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 1,762
Quote:
Feinstein had her finger on the trigger a while back as well.


__________________
Chief stall mucker and grain chef

Country don't mean dumb.
Steven King. The Stand
egor20 is offline  
Old March 28, 2013, 10:40 PM   #14
SHE3PDOG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Posts: 980
Yep, that picture. I wonder if they were ever told what gun owners think of them after their superb display of trigger mastery.
__________________
Semper Fi

Marine, NRA member, SAF Defender's Club member, and constitutionally protected keeper and bearer of firearms
SHE3PDOG is offline  
Old March 28, 2013, 10:47 PM   #15
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,930
Yes, I was amused as well.

No manners?? What do you expect. This is the same overbearing guy with communistic tendencies that thinks he should have the power to tell people how much soda they are allowed to drink.

He has surely forgotten that he is a servant of the people but rather thinks he is in control of the people. Typical loudmouthed NYC politician.

Noticed the trigger control also.
shortwave is offline  
Old March 28, 2013, 10:52 PM   #16
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Central casting.
It wouldn't be the first time. Remember the campaign to ban "assault clips?" The shooter in the video demonstrates several technical gaffes that suggest he doesn't have much idea what he's doing.

You'd think they could at least hire an off-duty officer for a few minutes to consult.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old March 28, 2013, 10:56 PM   #17
Newton24b
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2009
Posts: 974
putting purchase restrictions on alcohol would do far more to save lives then this so called gun control crap
Newton24b is offline  
Old March 28, 2013, 11:03 PM   #18
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,862
How did I ever miss that "assault clip" video? Wow...

They might have found that guy on YouTube; his gun handling is right up (or down) there with some of what you see there.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old March 28, 2013, 11:05 PM   #19
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
putting purchase restrictions on alcohol would do far more to save lives then this so called gun control crap
It's funny you should bring that up, because I was discussing that with someone the other day.

We still have booze. Responsible adults should be allowed to consume it at their leisure. We tried restricting it once, and the results spoke for themselves.

Folks who shouldn't have it can get it. Sometimes, they cause mayhem. But does that justify disallowing the responsible folks from having it? I'd say not.

Now, one of the particular dangers of alcohol consumption is drunk driving. In the early 1980's, Mothers Against Drunk Driving attacked the problem. They went after a specific behavior: the act of driving under the influence. They did not push for lowering speed limits, taxing booze, or restricting its sale. They simply lobbied for stricter punishments (and the enforcement) for a specific, destructive act.

The result was a dramatic decline in drunk-driving fatalities. I'd suggest we apply the same approach to crime involving firearms, but the government refuses to do so. Instead, we're asked to accept all sorts of peripheral restrictions on the law-abiding, many of which have been tried and which have failed to address the problem.

Quote:
How did I ever miss that "assault clip" video?
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old March 29, 2013, 12:10 AM   #20
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,862
Nnnnoooooo.... please.... anything but Clippie.

Quote:
I'd suggest we apply the same approach to crime involving firearms, but the government refuses to do so. Instead, we're asked to accept all sorts of peripheral restrictions on the law-abiding, many of which have been tried and which have failed to address the problem.
I've been thinking about something along these lines lately, which would involve treating violent behavior as the problem: taking it seriously, and making the consequences for gun ownership more severe than they are now. As I just wrote in another thread, the best predictor of violent behavior is a prior history of violence.

If we're serious about preventing violence, keeping guns out of the hands of violent people would be a good place to start. I'm thinking of something along these lines: in addition to the prohibition on felons from owning firearms, there could be a graduated system for people convicted of violent misdemeanors, so that a first conviction for, say, misdemeanor assault would carry a suspension of rights for perhaps three to five years, and two convictions (or three -- I'm not dogmatic about the details) would result in a lifetime prohibition.

I'm aware of the boys-will-be-boys argument, and I'm not impressed by it. If a someone commits a single violent misdemeanor, a "youthful indiscretion," that would have reversible consequences. If the behavior isn't repeated, his rights are restored. But if someone is convicted of a second or third such act, that's a pattern, and suggests that this is someone who's likely to repeat, and escalate, and shouldn't have access to guns.
[Flame suit on...]
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old March 29, 2013, 07:23 AM   #21
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
I'm aware of the boys-will-be-boys argument, and I'm not impressed by it.
I suppose that's considered an acceptable mentality when it comes to grammar school fistfights, but grown adults don't have the luxury of taking violence casually. That certainly applies when we're discussing guns.

The problem lies in defining what sorts of violence apply, and in how the punishment is handled. I'm sure a lot of folks who supported the Lautenberg Amendment thought it was a good way to curb domestic violence, but it's resulted in a lifetime loss of gun rights for many for minor incidents.

I may be sounding like a broken record, but we have laws to punish people who use firearms in crime. We're simply not enforcing them.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old March 29, 2013, 07:29 AM   #22
SHE3PDOG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Posts: 980
Quote:
Now, one of the particular dangers of alcohol consumption is drunk driving. In the early 1980's, Mothers Against Drunk Driving attacked the problem. They went after a specific behavior: the act of driving under the influence. They did not push for lowering speed limits, taxing booze, or restricting its sale. They simply lobbied for stricter punishments (and the enforcement) for a specific, destructive act.

The result was a dramatic decline in drunk-driving fatalities. I'd suggest we apply the same approach to crime involving firearms, but the government refuses to do so. Instead, we're asked to accept all sorts of peripheral restrictions on the law-abiding, many of which have been tried and which have failed to address the problem.
This argument seems to be a pretty good parallel to what is going on now. Unfortunately, drunk driving isn't portrayed in movies and mass media as something inherently bad like guns are. I think this is by far the biggest obstacle to overcome before advocating for stricter punishment against people who break the current laws.

I could also see someone claiming that the current bill is more directed at mass shootings and that many of the shooters involved simply kill themselves after they have completed their deed. In that light, what would be the point of enforcing stricter punishment if it is not a deterrent for a suicidal maniac?

Please note that I do not particularly agree with those arguments as the amount of mass shootings ending in suicide are quite small, but I could see many people thinking that these are good arguments against what might be said. As always, it is better to be prepared for what others might think, say, or do before running our mouths about things that seem to be so sensitive in the public eye.
__________________
Semper Fi

Marine, NRA member, SAF Defender's Club member, and constitutionally protected keeper and bearer of firearms
SHE3PDOG is offline  
Old March 29, 2013, 08:51 AM   #23
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
The problem lies in defining what sorts of violence apply, and in how the punishment is handled. I'm sure a lot of folks who supported the Lautenberg Amendment thought it was a good way to curb domestic violence, but it's resulted in a lifetime loss of gun rights for many for minor incidents.
I completely agree, which is why I'm suggesting a two strikes -- or three strikes, I think that would be fine -- approach to this. There's precedent for a less-than-lifetime ban in the way that drug offenses and restraining orders are handled. We have no problem with the notion that "criminals should not have guns," as applied to felons; I'm just suggesting lowering the bar for what counts, in this reckoning, as criminal behavior.

I worry more about the violent tendencies of someone with three convictions for misdemeanor assault than I do about those of someone with one felony conviction for shoplifting.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old March 29, 2013, 09:04 AM   #24
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,930
Quote:
but we have laws to punish people who use firearms in crime. We're simply not enforcing them.
Example (this just happened here last summer):

A felon that has made a living dealing drugs for several years was busted.

In the raid, local LE found a large quantity of dope in his safe along with almost a dozen guns. A few of which were considered the dreaded 'assault' rifles.

LE, was going to arrest felons wife as well but decided not to as felon told them she didn't know about anything. Felon claimed ownership to the dope, paraphernalia(bongs,pipes, burnt spoons, pop cans with burnt residue setting all over the house for the kiddies to play with) as well as all the guns.

After a couple days , 14 other drug dealers were arrested that all did business with the felon. Sounds great right!

The only problem is the felon never faced any gun related charges. Just dope charges.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how all this played out. Felon was clearly facing more time for the amount of guns he had in possession then the drugs so the guns were used as bargaining chips for names of felons drug contacts.


By the way...this felon is currently out walking the streets as I type this and will no doubt get back into some sort of crime as he has always did something illegal to support himself and has never held a job in thirty years.

Sadly, these deals happen all the time pertaining to guns. I don't blame the cop out on the street, I blame prosecutors as well as our court system for letting this type of plea bargaining get out of hand when guns are involved.

Many may say that the plea bargain made with this felon was worth it since it got other drug dealers off the street. I gotta ask, how long did it get them off the street for? Are they currently walking the street as I right this also due to some sharp attorney finding a 'T' that wasn't crossed in some form filed with the courts? Or are they currently walking the street due to 'overcrowding' at the jail as often happens?

I agree that we have come to a point with violent crimes involving guns that we do need something set up like Mothers Against Drunk Driving to monitor the court procedures for gun related cases same as MADD does with alcohol.

This above mentioned felon never went to a gun store to purchase his guns, he didn't go to a gun show to purchase them...and he wouldn't care of what kind of law was enacted as far as mandatory background check for legally purchasing firearms. He's gonna get them the same way he got the ones he was busted with and never charged with.... illegally.

It's really sad that the likes of Obama, Bloomberg, Feinstein etc. live in their ivory towers and claim to have the answers yet really, either don't have a clue of whats really happening out on the street or don't care but just want to promote their own anti gun campaigns to further their careers at the expense of our society.
shortwave is offline  
Old March 29, 2013, 09:18 AM   #25
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
Now, one of the particular dangers of alcohol consumption is drunk driving. In the early 1980's, Mothers Against Drunk Driving attacked the problem. They went after a specific behavior: the act of driving under the influence. They did not push for lowering speed limits, taxing booze, or restricting its sale. They simply lobbied for stricter punishments (and the enforcement) for a specific, destructive act.

The result was a dramatic decline in drunk-driving fatalities. I'd suggest we apply the same approach to crime involving firearms, but the government refuses to do so. Instead, we're asked to accept all sorts of peripheral restrictions on the law-abiding, many of which have been tried and which have failed to address the problem.
You're absolutely right, Tom. I was in high school in the 1980s, and drunk driving & MADD was all over the news. My high school lost at least one student to a drunk driving accident from every graduating class for several years preceding my graduation year. I presume the next few years lost at least one each, as well.

MADD totally changed the legal landscape on DWI for Arkansas, as I'm pretty sure it did for many states. For example, before certain laws were passed, a prosecutor could reduce a DWI to reckless driving, for example. Now, to give everyone a standard of reference, under current Arkansas law Reckless Driving carries a penalty of something like $500 + up to 5 or 10 days in jail. (We also have a much less serious charge, Careless & Prohibited Driving, which is about a $200 fine, but if there was a reduction, Reckless seemed to be the preferred charge to which DWI was reduced.) Anyway, that reduction was not uncommon in the pre-MADD days. As it stands today, under Arkansas law, a person charged with DWI shall either plead to the charge, or be tried on it, and probation is prohibited. Period. As a prosecutor, I cannot modify the charge, cannot reduce it, give the defendant a Pass to Dismiss, give them probation. Either plead or be tried. A defendant with a charge of Aggravated Battery (meaning "with a weapon") can be put on probation, but a DWI defendant cannot!

And yeah, by focusing on that specific behavior (DWI), MADD was very successful in changing the laws, which IMO, has resulted in a significant decline in DWIs around the country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanya
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
I'd suggest we apply the same approach to crime involving firearms, but the government refuses to do so. Instead, we're asked to accept all sorts of peripheral restrictions on the law-abiding, many of which have been tried and which have failed to address the problem.
I've been thinking about something along these lines lately, which would involve treating violent behavior as the problem: taking it seriously, and making the consequences for gun ownership more severe than they are now. As I just wrote in another thread, the best predictor of violent behavior is a prior history of violence.

If we're serious about preventing violence, keeping guns out of the hands of violent people would be a good place to start. I'm thinking of something along these lines: in addition to the prohibition on felons from owning firearms, there could be a graduated system for people convicted of violent misdemeanors, so that a first conviction for, say, misdemeanor assault would carry a suspension of rights for perhaps three to five years, and two convictions (or three -- I'm not dogmatic about the details) would result in a lifetime prohibition.

I'm aware of the boys-will-be-boys argument, and I'm not impressed by it. If a someone commits a single violent misdemeanor, a "youthful indiscretion," that would have reversible consequences. If the behavior isn't repeated, his rights are restored. But if someone is convicted of a second or third such act, that's a pattern, and suggests that this is someone who's likely to repeat, and escalate, and shouldn't have access to guns.
[Flame suit on...]
No need for the flame suit, V. I thinik that makes a great deal of sense. I think that we (as gun owners) need to just own up and admit that there are some folks who really shouldn't have guns. Then again, there are also some folks who commit some "youthful indiscretions," which need to have consequences, but those young folks (& it's usually young men) a chance to rehabilitate themselves. Criminal punishments are almost always dealt with on a graduated basis: X for a 1st offender, Y for a 2nd offender, Z for a third offender. For whatever reason, though, firearms prohibitions are included on a "yes-or-no" basis. Either you're prohibited or not.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14936 seconds with 9 queries