I think that's a very good comparison. Though this may sound like a bit of a stretch, I think many people have the moral high ground when they disapprove of abortion, regardless of what the law says. Furthermore, with regard to gay marriage, I think it's far more acceptable to be against gay marriage than it is to be against gun rights. It is far more convenient to be against gay marriage and abortion, than to be against gun rights. Also, The requirements of a constitutional ban are so extreme, it would never happen in a million years.

But Obama didn't actually say, "More people will get shot." He simply said that the potential is theoretically greater. If more people involved in gun-related altercations have guns, than it seems reasonable to assume that more people will get shot. I'm not even suggesting that concealed weapons laws don't bring down crime rates. I'm just suggesting that if you've got one person with a gun robbing another person without a gun, the likelihood that an innocent bystander will get shot is lower than if you've got one person with a gun trying to rob another person with a gun. That's just what I think.

__________________
"The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised.”
- George Will

Not exactly a reason to applaud the man. He merely predicted something that, frnakly, is quite expected...

I don't want a guy being elected because of his skin color. Period. Yet, there are people out there who are going to vote for him because he's black, and for no other reason...

I guess you've missed the frequent news items where the unarmed victim completely complies with the armed criminals demands - and then is shot anyway?

What is definitively lower when you make sure all the potential victims are disarmed is the change the criminal will be shot.

Pardon me for not finding that to be a worthy goal.

Matt

__________________

Not true. I think judgment matters far more than character. But Obama's wife, church, etc. really only appear to be "judgment" concerns for conservatives. People left-of-center don't really care about anyone's religion. We didn't even care about the evangelical endorsements of Republican candidates (Hagee, Robertson, Dobson, etc.) until conservatives brought religion into the debate. Then we just used it to show the double-standard that was being used. Almost all of us still do not care if McCain would have kept Hagee's endorsement. Call us crazy, but we don't think radical religious zealots will be influencing the president all that much. Many conservatives seem to think otherwise.


I didn't mention race in the quote to which you're referring. My only mention of race was in the context of suggesting that some people might vote for Obama because he's black. Which, as I just noticed, you suggested as well. For some reason though, when I try to use a practical discussion of race, I get accused of playing some kind of race card. I think that's kind of puzzling.

__________________
"The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised.”
- George Will

I'm not saying his prediction is worthy of applause. I'm just saying his vocal recognition of the prediction was smart. If you vocally predict and ridicule your opponent's argument, people will be less likely to take it seriously when they hear it from the horse's mouth.

I don't either. But I made the exact same claim that you just made, and you decided it was some kind of liberal race baiting when I made it.

__________________
"The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised.”
- George Will

its not about RELIGION, anothert point I have made many many times. Stop trying to cloak judgement issues behind a storefront ther by declaring it offlimits, I think thats a strwman as well.

My point stands, I don't give a crap what race he is, never did never will. There are those that do, on both sides, personally I could care less.
BUT when a platform or judgment to be made say in regarding to his feelings on affirmative action etc. that’s a policy thing, wherein race is dragged in as a definer taking the discussion into areas outside policy.
The policy or debate is for instance is it right? Black has nothing to do with it and just rins the debate intpo an emotional appeal on its merits or lack there of as applied by an emotional context. It’s the POLICY that is the qualifier.

__________________
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile....

I found myself in exactly that situation, only I was the one with the gun, and the assailants had knives and pipes. I used my firearm, and my wife and I were uninjured. There were those here, though (and they were libs) who found fault with my actions.

I think it's silly to assume that it'll be an innocent bystander who'll get shot. In my situation, the only people who got shot were deserving of it. No "innocent bystanders" were injured.

My position on concealed carry based on the fact that, had I not had a firearm, my wife and I would be dead right now. For that reason alone, anyone who gives even a hint that they might try to impede my carrying a weapon, or is against concealed carry, is someone I will never vote for...

If you have one person with a gun, and that person is firing a gun, the odds are theoretically lower that bystanders will be shot, than if you have two people with guns shooting at each other. I'm not even against concealed-carry laws. I don't care if responsible people carry guns. But I think it's pretty unfair to suggest that measures Obama took to decrease gun violence in Illinois should be used to suggest that Obama's going to revoke everyone's gun rights.

And calling Obama a liar because he doesn't equate the use of assault weapons with hunting and target-shooting is also unfair, in my opinion. As I said before, if hunters decided they wanted to start using bazookas and land mines to attack their game, would Obama be a liar if he was opposed to it? I think there is a gray area here that isn't being recognized. Obama's support of hunters and target shooters is not unconditional. But he's not going to take away people's rights to carry a gun.

__________________
"The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised.”
- George Will

Why doesn't Obama (or any candidate) start having a platform to crack down on illegal ownership and carrying of firearms? That seems like a very good issue to add to a platform. The only votes they would lose are the criminal sect (and the ones that can't vote because of prior incarcerations don't matter anyway). Then any fear mongering about innocent bystanders being shot by lawful carriers would be eliminated.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them, speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

But it is about religion. These criticisms of judgment are criticisms of his religious associations. What I'm suggesting is that religion-related judgments should be viewed differently from policy-related judgments, because religion is, in my opinion, an off-limits issue. I know many conservatives have an extremely difficult time accepting that opinion. They think religion is the defining factor in every human being. I just happen to disagree.

Regarding affirmative action, I think it's somewhat unfair to suggest that Obama's support of affirmative action can be attributed to his race. If anything, I think it's far more likely that his support of affirmative action should be attributed to his political party. There are many white people who support affirmative action.

Also, affirmative action is such a misunderstood topic. It's not a quota system. It's not meant to promote people solely based on the color of their skin. I'm not even sure if that's what you're suggesting, but if you want to know a little more about AA, here's an interesting website: Affirmative Action History

__________________
"The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised.”
- George Will

I agree.

__________________
"The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised.”
- George Will

Affirmative action is not just for minorities. As one who could benefit from affirmative action, I am completely opposed to it. It creates an attitude among some in the population that a position was earned not on competency, rather on mandate.

For example, some moronic, misogynistic, and certifiable idiot I had the displeasure of recently encountering insists that my position is a result of affirmative action (when he is not claiming that I slept with someone to get a job, that is).

Affirmative action is an issue for all - regardless of race or discriminated status.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them, speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

I'm not even trying to change your vote. And I think you were probably perfectly justified in your actions. My whole point is that characterizations of Obama as a rabid anti-gun nut are a little misleading. Is he more pro gun-control than his counterpart? Absolutely. But these frantic accusations that Obama, or any Democrat for that matter, is going to take away people's guns are pretty exaggerated.

__________________
"The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised.”
- George Will

That's great. Then why is he not being supportive of legal gun owners with his desire to ban assault weapons? Matt brings up a good point about his published stance on this. He cannot have both desires - they are exclusive.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them, speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

The idiot you encountered is actually representative of the people that bring the vast majority of affirmative action cases to court. They are almost always brought by white males who believe their competitors were hired because of their race, gender, etc., regardless of their competitor's qualifications.

Furthermore, there is no mandate regarding affirmative action. Quotas are illegal. One of my professors worked at the defense department for years. He supported affirmative action and provided a very basic example of the policy:

If you have two equally qualified individuals, one black and one white, and you are significantly lacking in minority employment, you can use the person's race as an attempt to increase diversity. Far too many people view affirmative action as some kind of mandate or quota system where businesses are required to hire a certain number of minorities. That's actually not the case at all. In fact, it's illegal. But, in my opinion, trying to increase diversity in the workplace and, therefore, using race or gender to differentiate between two equally qualified candidates is perfectly acceptable.

__________________
"The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised.”
- George Will