The thread in which you discuss Obama and current American .politics. ...

[MuggyWuggy]

Use this thread to be anti or pro Obama and all current affairs linked to him

Discuss all you want about it here

Just please keep the debates out of other topics its getting out of hand once the word "Obama" is mentioned.

[Ertai]

Don't feed the karma trolls.

[MuggyWuggy]

All I'm gonna do is plus every one up!

BOOM positive hippie powers activate!

[Ertai]

Haha. There ya go! Right back at ya.

[MuggyWuggy]

✌💗💋🌺🍄🍁⭐🌍🌈🍕🍦🍑🍒🍪💯💟

[Ertai]

That cookie looks nummy.

[Moneekahh]

I was pro Obama at first, now I'm Obama neutral. Like every president, he has some good ideas and some bad ideas. He keeps a few promises and breaks the rest. The day an American citizen is truly happy with a president at the end of their term, pigs will fly. I disliked bush but I didn't make it a point to say so at every given opportunity, I get annoyed with the constant praising or dissing of current presidents. .politics. is just not my thing I guess.

✌️

[Wingnut]

In my opinion we will not have a good president until he walks in and simply starts firing people. Digs into levels of corruption and simply starts firing and/or trying people for treason. Until then, our president will be for the government, not the people. But this will never happen because that person will never make it to the office, there is too much political control over the outcome.

[rarehuntertay]

I am not allowed to voice my opinion on Mr. Obama.

[Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth]

I think Obama has really good intentions, but they are misconstrued or twisted by the Congress to produce horrible legislation.

Giving everyone Healthcare at an affordable rate, Good Idea---->Obamacare which is iffy legislation at its best
Make it so everyone makes a living wage, Good Idea---->Raising minimum wage puts jobs in danger
Make the world safer by banning assault rifles---->Exaggerated and isn't passed.

[Wingnut]

I think Obama has really good intentions, but they are misconstrued or twisted by the Congress to produce horrible legislation.

Giving everyone Healthcare at an affordable rate, Good Idea---->Obamacare which is iffy legislation at its best
Make it so everyone makes a living wage, Good Idea---->Raising minimum wage puts jobs in danger
Make the world safer by banning assault rifles---->Exaggerated and isn't passed.

I actually don't disagree with this, the only problem is he is fought tooth and nail on everything unless it fits congresses agenda. Though his ideas in delivery are next to crap, I will buy that the intentions at his level are good. I just wish they gave a half a crap about what we the people want.

[#noided]

Make the world safer by banning assault rifles---->Exaggerated and isn't passed.

You were doing so well 🌚

[Wingnut]

Make the world safer by banning assault rifles---->Exaggerated and isn't passed.

You were doing so well 🌚

In theory I think he was TRYING to make the world safer, the only problem is having ignorant rich people saying "guns are the problem", "guns kill people", blah, blah , blah I'm a dirty tramp.   The problem is that the "guns are the problem" people REFUSE to acknowledge and accept that guns are inanimate objects and do not make people want to commit crime. People want to commit crime and use guns as a tool. Eliminating guns will not lower crime or even murder, the mission will be accomplished using other tools.

[Wingnut]

Make the world safer by banning assault rifles---->Exaggerated and isn't passed.

You were doing so well 🌚

In theory I think he was TRYING to make the world safer, the only problem is having ignorant rich people saying "guns are the problem", "guns kill people", blah, blah , blah I'm a dirty tramp.   The problem is that the "guns are the problem" people REFUSE to acknowledge and accept that guns are inanimate objects and do not make people want to commit crime. People want to commit crime and use guns as a tool. Eliminating guns will not lower crime or even murder, the mission will be accomplished using other tools.

So, pop quiz time. How hard is it to actually kill someone. How about stabbing, surely that's effective right? Actually, no, many people have been reported living from over 20 stab wounds. Vehicular manslaughter? Unless the person is completely unaware or in some way incapacitated, they can survive. Poison? Suicide rate for poison is 1.8% success, and that's with no resistance. All this helps illustrate a point: guns are the most effective means of murder that we own. We need to stop pretending that they're just tools, and they treat them for what they are: weapons designed for murder that should be highly regulated.

But this still ignores the issue as to why the hell kill in the first place. Don't ignore the mental issues here. But yes, regulating guns is different, I do not disagree with making things tighter for criminals to get them. For example, if someone is murdered with a weapon in my name, I should also be responsible. As a gun owner I should be responsible for them and responsible for making sure they do not end up in the wrong hands.

[Wingnut]

Guns are just a different way to do it.  If someone wants to kill someone, they will accomplish it with or without guns.  people have survived several gunshots in a row.  There's a police officer in my state that took a shotgun blast to the head and survived just fine.  Guns aren't some crazy easy way to kill someone.

Far easier to kill more people with less skill, planning, or luck than any of the other forms of murder you have described. If you honestly can't see the difference between a man with a hammer and a man with a Beretta in terms of ability to murder on any scale and get away with it, you're mad. Put it another way: the majority of murders occur between those having personal conflict, in the heat of a moment. Unplanned, uncoordinated. What's going to be most effective, swinging a hammer at someone, swinging at them with a knife, or putting a bullet in them. Also, as one of my favorite authors put it:

"Fire and drugs kill people. I am so agreeing with that right now. But in this article by Scott L. Bach, president of guns and stuff, he puts forth an argument in favor of guns and stuff that takes it too far. It is a very common yet very broken argument, so I'll just copy/paste it for you right here:

"When an arsonist lights a match that burns a building, is the match at fault? Are match manufacturers responsible for the fire? Should laws be passed prohibiting you from having and using matches, or restricting which types you can have, and in what quantities?

"The obvious answer to these questions is no. The same match that is misused by the arsonist lights the fireplace that warms us, and the stove that feeds us. The match has no mind of its own. It is not an evil invention. Its purpose is to ignite, nothing more. If it is misused, the solution is to punish the individual wrongdoer. Everyone else should be left alone.

"The same is true of firearms."

OK. Simply put, "Nuh-uh."

A match has many uses completely unrelated to causing death. A match is not manufactured or intended for death. And the same goes for drugs (unless of course you're talking about the death of the walls confining us to our limited understanding of perception, man). In fact, the same goes for basically anything other than a firearm. Tools are misused to kill people, it's true. But tools are meant for something else entirely. Tools build and fix and aid and improve. Firearms do not. If used correctly, a firearm is meant to, in an instant, kill or destroy something. If a gun is used incorrectly, it would actually mean that something doesn't get shot.

Again, I'm not saying we should outlaw guns. But the conversation can't progress if people keep using arguments that ignore what guns actually are, and what they are used for. Likening a gun to a match or recreational drugs or an icicle or [anything else that can cause death] is an attempt to lighten the weight of a firearm's actual purpose. Guns and [anything else] are not the same."

Also, youre saying we should stop pretending their tools and treat them as tools for murder?  What?

My point is that you should stop with false equivocation and trying to pretend that people are somehow just as dangerous with a rope or a hammer than a machine built specifically to fire at least half a dozen deadly projectiles with intent to kill.

I see your point and you have points that are impossible to logically argue against. I simply feel that it is still ignoring the REAL problem at hand which is the desire to murder in the first place. The government WANTS a society that needs them to survive, needs food stamps, needs section 8, NEEDS government funded cell phones. But they DO NOT want them to be armed nor intelligent. This entire thing is not to prevent murder, it is to start picking apart the constitution. #2 has to be the first to go, because with that, we can defend the rest. But this is only my opinion. Which we can all express because we still have #2, and therefore #1.