This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
There are gun message boards out there, and at least one of them has an entire sub board dedicated to these shooting scenarios. 'Okay, so two guys pull up behind you in your driveway and get out of their car, late at night. You have your glock in the shoulder holster and a loaded tactical shotgun in the back seat. What's your first move?'
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
I'm not on these boards nor do I really participate in these sorts of discussions generally, but wouldn't you prefer that armed civilians be prepared and able to act in a well thought out, controlled manner... Rather than just knee-jerk reacting with a pistol or shotgun? Practice makes perfect and I certainly prefer anyone opening fire in public have Put in some range time and have thought about the safest, most effective course of action beforehand. But hey... That's just my opinion... I could be wrong.
It's indicative of how gullible and dense they think their constituents are. The President's kids are at the best school in the city, first and foremost. It is also equipped for handling the demands of Presidents', VPs', and other children who are potentially desirable kidnap/ransom targets, due to having educated Chelsea Clinton, two Nixon kids, Albert Gore, Jr, Teddy Roosevelt's son (you get the idea), not to mention a zillion other kids of Washington heavyweights. As well as the heavyweights themselves (Hillary and Gore went there). Do you not understand why some kids are more likely to be kidnapped or harmed than others? And it doesn't even matter...the President's children have Secret Service with them at all times, so the security at the school is pretty much redundant. The NRA people think you're a fool while being ecstatic to be able help you stay that way.
I'm surprised he allowed freethinking people into his audience.
That won't happen again I can assure you
They must have lied on the application to get in. Typical right wingers!
seriously dude?
I'd like to see a poll where they ask respondents should the high capacity maximum be 100 (or more), 50, 30, or 7 (or less)?
Picking out any individuals to politicize is pretty bad. But the President's family is supposed to be out of bounds. It's not gonna go over well. Using young children in political propaganda is chicken####.
You just threw them a meatball.
I honestly have no idea what this means
Argumentum ad populum
I would absolutely prefer that people have a well thought out plan before opening fire.I would also prefer that the people who have guns not spend hours every day fantasizing about shooting people, particularly when the scenes they describe are generally innocuous except for the part where they 'know' that they need to open fire.
He's going to have a bunch of kids who wrote him letters about gun violence in the wake of Sandy Hook surrounding him when he announces his plan this afternoon.
It means the same argument can be used to invalidate those saying we need gun control because of the untimely end of 20 children in Connecticut.
Perhaps we should do the same:Totally agree and they(the smart ones as you noted)do this all the time.Maybe one day people can handle the truth,so far that day is a long ways away.'Jewell said:Politicians, at least smart ones, know that it's far easier to sway the public with emotion than it is to win them over with arguments based on logic, statistics, or the law. The children surrounding Obama will tug at heart strings, and that emotion alone will have many people, particularly women, agreeing that "Obama is doing what's best for our kids."'tom22406 said:Was reading the WP online and caught this little blurb in the Obama gun control article about his plans for the announcement tomorrow.
Never let a tragedy go to waste!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-to-unveil-sweeping-gun-proposals-wednesday-including-assault-weapons-ban/2013/01/15/09452c34-5f31-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_story.html?wpisrc=al_comboNP_p
I'm not saying that's the way it should be. I'm just acknowledging that's the way it is.
So you want people to be prepared by thinking through scenarios but you don't want them to fantasize about them? I'm sorry but you sound a bit emotional/irrational about this... Since this happens to be such a huge problem that you keep running into, I imagine you'd have no trouble linking to a few examples? TIAFor the record, I am hardly a "gun nut" but I would think a scenario where two strange men pull onto my property late at night and get out behind me is a pretty good time I be aware of the ideal position/method to defend yourself. Apparently to you that seem "innocuous" though...
Is the idea disgusting or just the ad?
Yes. Same thing EXACTLY.
Hey, I'm on your side and I know what you meant, but the way you worded that couldn't have been worse considering what Obama is about to do.
I had to read that twice
It's classic salami-slice politics...Salami tactics, also known as the salami-slice strategy, is a process used to overcome opposition. With it, an aggressor can influence and eventually dominate a landscape, typically political, piece by piece. In this fashion, the opposition is eliminated "slice by slice" until one realizes (too late) that it's gone in its entirety.
It's ironic, isn't it, that he'd answer a question about a hypocrisy with another hypocrisy?
It's okay. I forgive you.
What?
So, do you start with a shoulder roll onto the ground, and come up shooting, or do you just blast the tactical shotgun out through the back window and use the car seat as cover until your wife comes out with the Bushmaster?It's an example of what the poster I was responding to was discussing. If it bothers you so much that I mentioned that there's an online forum where people talk about how to "shoot the hostage," you're welcome to put me on ignore.For the record, I am hardly a "gun nut" but I would think a scenario where two strange men pull onto my property late at night and get out behind me is a pretty good time I be aware of the ideal position/method to defend yourself. Apparently to you that seem "innocuous" though...
Tail fin blasters down?It's okay. I forgive you.What?So, do you start with a shoulder roll onto the ground, and come up shooting, or do you just blast the tactical shotgun out through the back window and use the car seat as cover until your wife comes out with the Bushmaster?It's an example of what the poster I was responding to was discussing. If it bothers you so much that I mentioned that there's an online forum where people talk about how to "shoot the hostage," you're welcome to put me on ignore.For the record, I am hardly a "gun nut" but I would think a scenario where two strange men pull onto my property late at night and get out behind me is a pretty good time I be aware of the ideal position/method to defend yourself. Apparently to you that seem "innocuous" though...
I missed this before. Forget about the Secret Service for now, because as you pointed out, the security was there prior to Obama's children. You, and clearly the wealthy who enroll their children there, clearly think that armed security is a deterrent to criminals. The fact that someone like Gregory suggests his kids are more important than mine is hypocritical. I don't see a problem with someone pointing that out that hypocrisy. I don't think there is any child more important than my own, so telling me they're more important doesn't work (and it shouldn't). Maybe you don't have children or just don't think the same. The issue isn't whether you believe there should be armed personnel in schools, but whether someone else should be hypocritically telling us we don't need it.As I asked before, is it still disgusting if they instead used a phrase like "wealthy kids"?
Are you just playing dumb here?I have no idea what David Gregory said, and I don't care. Obama's kids, and many others, aren't more important than yours, but they most certainly have a higher likelihood that somebody might want to do kidnap them or do them harm due to their father's job. Again...not more important, just more vulnerable. There is no hypocrisy on Obama's part on this issue and trying to drum it up doesn't do you any favors. What's "disgusting" is how the NRA ignores the painfully obvious logic of having armed security with the President's family to prey on neanderthals who salivate every chance they get to view Obama as "elitist." "Wealthy kids" is just more of that.Besides, you can say there is no more important child than your own, but other's can't feel that way about their children?
I find it incredibly ironic that liberals are chastizing the NRA for engaging in class warfare.The reality is that in the current environment it's an incredibly effective tool for leading around the "disenfranchised".
Crazy right? Who would use children to promote a political agenda?
The class warfare is politics as usual; it's the brazen demonstration of how stupid they think their constituents are that is noteworthy here.
He wasn't responding to using the kids, but the argument being made about them. Unreal.
Although I still think he is putting the cart before the horse by moving forward with his recommendation of the lapsed AWB.
How is the right going to argue against what he is proposing? Seems sensible to me.I am lollering at all the nuts that were screaming that Obama is going to take away the guns.
There is no argument against reinstating assault weapons and clip of 10 or more bans. It will save the lives of children! The other stuff doesn't even matter.
Exactly, the Rush Limbaughs and Cookiemonsters of teh world all overreacted......again.
- Obama isn’t sending “specific legislative language” to Congress, the officials said, instead following his usual blueprint of laying out principles and then letting lawmakers craft a bill.- In keeping with the president’s promises, his proposals would limit the manufacture of new assault weapons and ammunition clips with more than 10 bullets – but would not affect those already on the market.Is that what you were hoping for?
Well they either change their standard clips or stop making it!How do you implement a 10 round clip when a lot of guns are 17 rounds or so with their standard clips?
