If Your Neighbors Followed this Advice?

[Spy Car]

Ambassadors have to be diplomatic. Getting in someone's face paints an entirely different picture for me.

 

I don't disagree, and I thought that was the point I tried to make in my post.

 

 

 

And I agree that this would absolutely be counter-productive if the neighbor is bitter and clings to his/her gun and religion. It would be easier and safer to put lipstick on a pig. :laugh:

 

This is when you have to pray the neighbor's "pro-life" views extend beyond the un-born :D

 

Bill

[5kidsforME]

 

This is when you have to pray the neighbor's "pro-life" views extend beyond the un-born :D

 

Bill

 

 

:lol::lol::lol:

[Jill- OK]

"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face," he said.

 

...with anyone espousing this sort of 'conversation' is that there's a presupposition of correction going on.

 

To answer the OP, if one of my neighbors decided to find out if I was Democrat, Republican, or Independent, they'd likely be frustrated, because I don't generally like to reveal that. I'm all for discussing issues, don't get me wrong...I just have a little personal protest going on in that area. :D

 

I also rarely tell people how I vote. If I got the idea that my neighbor was trying to mine me for information, and 'school' me in the greatness of any one candidate...I'd probably grin a little, and change the subject.

 

And make a mental note to avoid certain topics with that person, quite honestly.

 

I love to discuss issues. I love to learn things...but not from folks who don't believe they can't be taught anything. That concerns me. In individuals...and political parties. If you've got all your evidence piled up, and you're just waiting for your turn to talk ("Okay, her line, her line...now's where I insert this talking point!"), then we likely won't talk politics much.

 

If you believe that you truly know all the answers about the issues, the candidates, our government and every other government's motives and actions and destiny...then we likely won't talk politics much, unless you can admit that you have a reason to believe what you do, and that your beliefs influence your perceptions. (For example, you can say that you're overlooking certain behaviors of your candidate because you prefer him, without trying to justify him doing almost exactly the same thing you decry in the other guy, lol.)

[Aubrey]

"If they tell you, 'Well, he's going to raise your taxes,' you say, 'No, he's not, he's going lower them.'"

 

Didn't Biden just say that it was our patriotic duty to pay/raise taxes? Or something like that?

 

Where's Joanne? I think we need some bean dip!

[Laurie]

I don't disagree, and I thought that was the point I tried to make in my post.

 

 

 

 

This is when you have to pray the neighbor's "pro-life" views extend beyond the un-born :D

 

Bill

 

I was agreeing with you and just being silly with the rest. FWIW I thought the whole lipstick-on-a-pig thing was stupid. It's one of those annoying sayings that sounds like it's right out of the mouth of Dr. Phil and is better left for daytime tv.

[Amy loves Bud]

But what if I have 13 people on my Christmas list and they all want handguns this year? Then what should I do?:lol:

 

 

It's okay, Kelli. Just get me a gift certificate and I'll pick out my own gun. :D

[Carrie12345]

So are you able to talk to her without a fight erupting? If so, how do you do it? Sometimes I feel like throwing an article I agree with at one of my relatives and then running away yelling, "That's how I feel. Try reading the article. It states my position succintly."

Holly

 

That depends on your definition of "fight." :D

 

I think I'm the kind of person who tries so hard not to appear combative that it comes across as patronizing. Since she's my sister, she's used to it. To anyone else, I'm sure I'd be thought of as a giant ba-donkey-donk. Which is why I try to play the shy, quiet type. Poorly. Just ask my mil. I can't, because she rarely speaks to me.:001_huh:

[HollyinNNV]

I love to discuss issues. I love to learn things...but not from folks who don't believe they can't be taught anything. That concerns me. In individuals...and political parties. If you've got all your evidence piled up, and you're just waiting for your turn to talk ("Okay, her line, her line...now's where I insert this talking point!"), then we likely won't talk politics much.

 

Great mental image. There is a certain commentator that fits your description. I actually agree with the person politically, but that style of "gotcha" politics with an extra helping of talking points is a turn-off to me, too.

Holly

[Mrs Mungo]

That is how McCain supporters feel about what is said about McCain sometimes too.

 

I've said before, I'm an equal opportunity eye-roller when it comes to people being ridiculous. When the initial thread with a list of books supposedly requested by Palin for banning was posted I posted links showing that it wasn't true even though I don't support the McCain/Palin ticket.

 

Another recent example was my griping quite a lot at my tv due to Keith Olbermann making a big deal of the fact Palin had a tanning bed installed in the Alaska governor's mansion. As long as she paid for it herself, who cares?! But none of the Dems on the board bothered to bring up such an absurd factoid to use against her.

 

Now, actual facts on Obama and gun control?

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gunning_for_obama.html

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/587/

 

Especially look at these bits:

“I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.â€

 

Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of people — law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying, we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets, we are going to trace more effectively how these guns are ending up on the streets, to unscrupulous gun dealers, who often times are selling to straw purchasers, and cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. ...We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measures that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.

 

I support the Second Amendment. We are gun owners. My husband target shoots, shoots skeet and hunts when we're back home. He received his first gun when he was 10 years old. However, I *absolutely* believe that reasonable restrictions can be made without countermanding the Second Amendment.

 

Go back and read some of the very passionate posts from Fourmother or some of the other posters from urban areas who see this issue MUCH differently than those from areas where hunting or sport shooting are the norm rather than gang violence. Considering Obama's work on the south side of Chicago, I'm sure he has seen his fair share of gang violence. I have to agree with Obama that it is an issue for *local* governments. In fact, it was a point I argued long before Obama was the Democratic candidate.

[Spy Car]

I was agreeing with you and just being silly with the rest. FWIW I thought the whole lipstick-on-a-pig thing was stupid. It's one of those annoying sayings that sounds like it's right out of the mouth of Dr. Phil and is better left for daytime tv.

 

I'm agreeing with you too. There are plenty of issues of substance that could be discussed, yet somehow our national political discourse seems to get more and more focus on the "silly" side-shows every election season.

 

I think it's a shame really.

 

Bill (who's ready to point fingers both ways)

[elegantlion]

I think the phrase "get in their face" was poorly chosen.

 

But it's clear to me Mr Obama was asking people to be his advocates with friends and others in their communities so they could make their case (or his case) for why he [Obama] would be a good president, and his purpose was not to not urge his supporters to go out and incite hostility (or worse) with their neighbors. The latter would be rather counter-productive, no?

 

And in fact (toward this end) he said, "You are my ambassadors. You guys are the ones who can make the case."

 

This is not an unreasonable thing to say to your supporters, is it?

 

Seems like a lot of noise a lot of strum und drang over nothing to me.

 

Bill

 

:iagree: Shortly after we moved here my neighbor came over and got in my face about our trees. I ended up thinking the neighbor was an idiot, not the trees. I imagine I'd feel the same if he came over discussing Obama in such a manner. He, not Obama, would be the idiot.

[Zelda]

I took a moment to picture that scene and let it play out for a while but by the time I got to small claims court the election was over.

 

I really hope no one takes that literally.

 

Aw, who am I kidding? I totally want to see this.

[Jill- OK]

Great mental image. There is a certain commentator that fits your description. I actually agree with the person politically, but that style of "gotcha" politics with an extra helping of talking points is a turn-off to me, too.

Holly

 

...the phrase "Gotcha! Politics", by the way. :) (Between that and Martha's "If you don't really want to have a conversation, don't start one"...I'm envisioning a niche t-shirt market, for folks like me during election season.

 

I wanted to add that I do have a different suggestion (because I'm sure that Senators Obama and McCain are interested in my opinion); one state senator that I've recently become aware of has made a campaign promise to keep a website with not only his voting record available...but explanations of why he voted in a particular way.

 

Rather than get Americans even more polarized (they're in each other's face enough already, in my opinion)...I'd suggest having such a web address like this available for campaigners to give to those they're attempting to 'convince'. Comprehensive voting records...and explanations. Not your explanations of the other guy's voting...your reasoning behind your own voting.

 

I've recently visited both candidate's websites, and don't recall anything like this. I'd love to be wrong, if someone will point it out to me, though.

[HollyinNNV]

I support the Second Amendment. We are gun owners. My husband target shoots, shoots skeet and hunts when we're back home. He received his first gun when he was 10 years old. However, I *absolutely* believe that reasonable restrictions can be made without countermanding the Second Amendment.

 

 

 

OK-I am glad you came back to the thread. I have a question-not related to Obama, but just your comment. And this is just a question in the spirit of Martha's previous post.

 

Do you think that it is possible that, without any further gun restrictions/laws, we could simply apply the current laws and restrictions and get a better or similar result? Enforcement rather than legislation?

Holly

[sleepy]

 

Where's Joanne? I think we need some bean dip!

 

Mmmmm... all political discussions should come with bean dip on the side. :001_smile:

[Mrs Mungo]

OK-I am glad you came back to the thread. I have a question-not related to Obama, but just your comment. And this is just a question in the spirit of Martha's previous post.

 

Do you think that it is possible that, without any further gun restrictions/laws, we could simply apply the current laws and restrictions and get a better or similar result? Enforcement rather than legislation?

Holly

 

I honestly think more legislation is necessary. Large-scale dealers at gun shows, hollow-point ammunition, large capacity clips, etc.

 

As Kelli said in the other thread, no deer hunter needs an SKS or AK-47. *Especially* since as these are sold in the US they are sold as semi-automatic weapons but a small, widely known adaptation makes them automatic. To be perfectly frank, I personally know *a lot* of people who own these because of the community in which I live and they are just collecting them and using them at the firing range. However, I know good and well that they could be used to inflict major damage in the wrong hands.

 

A small aside, a semi-automatic weapon means you must pull the trigger every time in order for it to fire, you can't just hold down the trigger and have it fire multiple rounds. However, since you don't have to pull back the hammer every time or anything you could still do serious damage with a semi-automatic SKS or AK-47.

[Reya]

What would your reaction be to this IRL?

 

 

I'd turn on the sprinklers. :-)))))

 

EDIT: Because of door-to-door canvassing and "getting in your face" nonsense, not because of the issue, FWIW. What he describes is inCREDibly offensive--basically, that all Independents and Republicans are wrongheaded, period, for being Independent or Republican.

 

I do have to say that I'm going to be voting a straight Republican ticket in Nov for the first time in my life, but that's because I despise every single one of my elected representatives--who are all Democrats. I don't care WHO'S running against them, at this point. I just want them all GONE. I'm a fairly active person in contacting local representatives, and I have NEVER had such a complete lack of response to their constituency as I have here. I've also NEVER had a government take in so much for taxes and return SO little. It's pathetic. The money's all going into corruption and bloated salaries--NO services and incredibly high taxes. What a freaking joke.

 

In New Mexico, my elected county representative talked to our neighborhood half a dozen times. My state representative knew my name and occupation because she *came by my house* to talk to her constituency about the issues we cared about! When she came back two years later and my parents were there, she knew, too, that they weren't me--so she even remembered me. Here? I can't even get a flipping FORM letter in response to actively contacting them.

[FlockOfSillies]

"You believe in God? You do well. The demons also believe, and shudder."

[Amy loves Bud]

Obama was in Nevada (Elko) and made an interesting statement:

 

"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face," he said.

 

What would your reaction be to this IRL?

 

Link to where I found the quote:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/09/17/politics/p185733D40.DTL&type=politics

 

I would invite them in and give them a cold beer. Then I'd explain why they were wrong. :D

 

Actually, this goes on a lot around here. But we're a pretty close knit bunch in this neighborhood, so we usually end up ordering pizza and arguing until late into the night.

[happygrrl]

Well, me too.

 

But, I'm also tired of not being part of the "conversation." But, I'm also scared to join the conversation. KWIM

 

So, how do we navigate the conversation without missing it because of fear?:bigear:

 

Holly

 

I think the 'pearls before swine' rule comes into place here. There are many neighbors that I could talk to because they are adult, intelligent, and open to hearing other points of view (and telling me theirs) without getting personally attached to my response. Then there are those neighbors... what can I say.... that I can't even ask the time as they will want to be rude about it.

 

So- maybe start by practicing discussions with the first sort of neighbor. :)

[I talk to the trees]

I haven't read all of the replies yet, but here's my $.02:

 

Obama needs to fire the idiot on his team that told him to use the words "argue" and "in their face!" Somebody thought that would be a hip and trendy way to get across to people, but a much more sensible phrasing would have been "Talk to your neighbors. Engage them in discussions. Find out what they believe, and tell them what you believe! Communicate our party's message!"

 

I tell you this truly: If you EVER get within 12 inches of my face, you'd better be related to me, or about to give me CPR!

 

-Robin

[LisaKinVA]

I have these conversations all the time, although I'm not usually the one initiating them. Just this week, I spoke with a woman who said, "If McCain wins, I'll slit my wrists." Of course, she was joking.

 

I know her through my job, she is one of my clients. She's a small business owner, and we talked about everything about abortion, to taxes, to Iraq.

 

We found places we agreed completely. We found places we agreed on certain aspects -- and we each gave one another food for thought.

 

My biggest "food" for her, was that she's an S-Corp... making over $500,000 a year (that is NOT take-home pay, but that's not how taxes work for S-Corps). She started off by saying the wealthy should pay more -- and then realized SHE was considered wealthy.

 

I don't think she's going to run out and vote McCain, but she was able to see my point of view on that point.

 

I love this woman almost as a second mom -- we are able to talk openly and honestly, because we approach each other with mutual respect, and a willingness to listen.

 

If only more people could be this way.... our country would be far better off.

[5kidsforME]

I have these conversations all the time, although I'm not usually the one initiating them. Just this week, I spoke with a woman who said, "If McCain wins, I'll slit my wrists." Of course, she was joking.

 

I know her through my job, she is one of my clients. She's a small business owner, and we talked about everything about abortion, to taxes, to Iraq.

 

We found places we agreed completely. We found places we agreed on certain aspects -- and we each gave one another food for thought.

 

My biggest "food" for her, was that she's an S-Corp... making over $500,000 a year (that is NOT take-home pay, but that's not how taxes work for S-Corps). She started off by saying the wealthy should pay more -- and then realized SHE was considered wealthy.

 

I don't think she's going to run out and vote McCain, but she was able to see my point of view on that point.

 

I love this woman almost as a second mom -- we are able to talk openly and honestly, because we approach each other with mutual respect, and a willingness to listen.

 

If only more people could be this way.... our country would be far better off.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[Storm Bay]

Well, I'm not going to vote for Obama just because some neighbour comes to me to do this. Nor McCain. I prefer to examine for myself and hate it when people tell me who to vote for. Both of them have things I agree with, and both of them have things I vehemently disagree with. Some things they happen to be the same on. Neither of them is someone I actually trust.

 

Personally, I hope no neighbour comes to me this way. I'm happy to discuss politics, but only with people who don't have knee jerk reactions or who think that one party is all right and the other all wrong. Mostly, people who will speak intelligently about it and not take offense if we disagree, and RIL this seems very few people indeed.

[Spy Car]

It's pretty easy in my neighborhood...everyone's for Obama :D

:auto:

[lovemyboys]

I have these conversations all the time, although I'm not usually the one initiating them. Just this week, I spoke with a woman who said, "If McCain wins, I'll slit my wrists." Of course, she was joking.

 

I know her through my job, she is one of my clients. She's a small business owner, and we talked about everything about abortion, to taxes, to Iraq.

 

We found places we agreed completely. We found places we agreed on certain aspects -- and we each gave one another food for thought.

 

My biggest "food" for her, was that she's an S-Corp... making over $500,000 a year (that is NOT take-home pay, but that's not how taxes work for S-Corps). She started off by saying the wealthy should pay more -- and then realized SHE was considered wealthy.

 

I don't think she's going to run out and vote McCain, but she was able to see my point of view on that point.

 

I love this woman almost as a second mom -- we are able to talk openly and honestly, because we approach each other with mutual respect, and a willingness to listen.

 

If only more people could be this way.... our country would be far better off.

 

That's wonderful. We had a group of friends like this years ago, we could sit around and respectfully debate the hottest topics and still be friends. It was wonderful to challenge our positions and form cogent arguments.

 

I seem to be running into the "slit wrists" variety more lately. Before "we" run off believing the wildest assertions, don't we owe it to ourselves to check the facts? Sort of like using Snopes, with a reliable source, kwim? (Btw, the "truth-o-meter" doesn't always get the exact quotation, so they're incorrect from the start.)

 

Seems to me that this is one forum with (mostly) very respectful discussion and disagreement. That's in no small measure to SWB's policies, oversight and intervention.

 

This is definitely a breath of fresh air after sitting at a park day with other homeschoolers flinging around the wildest tidbits as absolute, irrefutable fact.:tongue_smilie:

[Aubrey]

It's pretty easy in my neighborhood...everyone's for Obama :D

:auto:

 

Can you imagine the poor Republican who moves in? I'm imagining something like Stepford Wives. :lol:

[Jami]

It's pretty easy in my neighborhood...everyone's for Obama :D

:auto:

 

Yeah, that's how it would be in my old neighborhood (St. Louis City), but here in TX...not so much. ;)

[CactusPair]

Actually, I wish my neighbors would talk to me about anything, standing a good 6 inches away from my face, of course.:001_smile: Just about everybody works and it's lonely here.;) I'd be up for a lively chat.

[HollyinNNV]

As Kelli said in the other thread, no deer hunter needs an SKS or AK-47. *Especially* since as these are sold in the US they are sold as semi-automatic weapons but a small, widely known adaptation makes them automatic. To be perfectly frank, I personally know *a lot* of people who own these because of the community in which I live and they are just collecting them and using them at the firing range. However, I know good and well that they could be used to inflict major damage in the wrong hands.

 

 

Yes, an AK-47 vs deer seems like overkill.

 

I guess I just pause at your last sentence. Further regulation will keep these guns out of the hands of the law abiding. Law breakers will find a way to get them anyways.

 

I'd love to see strict regulation of current laws. Thanks for your thoughtful response.

Holly

[lynn]

That's funny. Now this may be way off and please kindly let me know if I misunderstood something along the waybut is it not the dems that want more g'ment programs, g'ment health care and have people DEPENDENT on the g'ment Is it not the dems that want to tax capitals gains and big oil to give money to entitlement programs that are for people that DEPEND on the g'ment to take care of them

[hsmamainva]

Well...judging from my avatar, if someone wanted to strike up a conversation with me in support of Obama, I think we'd get along great!!! :lol:

 

However...I'm not about to get in anyone's face to try to convince them to vote the way I'm going to vote. I wouldn't want the reverse to happen to me (i.e., a McCain supporter getting in my face and trying to convince me to change my mind)

 

We each must walk our own path. (However, I do enjoy a civil debate!! And I've tried to be civil in my discussions here -- at least I hope I've come across that way!!)

 

:)

[Mrs Mungo]

That's funny. Now this may be way off and please kindly let me know if I misunderstood something along the waybut is it not the dems that want more g'ment programs, g'ment health care and have people DEPENDENT on the g'ment Is it not the dems that want to tax capitals gains and big oil to give money to entitlement programs that are for people that DEPEND on the g'ment to take care of them

 

I don't share your views of the two parties and their desires. If you want to cite some specific arguments I'm happy to discuss but these sorts of statements don't make for rational discourse.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

Apparently my daughter took this seriously. She just called to try to convince my oldest son to vote for Obama.

[Spy Car]

Apparently my daughter took this seriously. She just called to try to convince my oldest son to vote for Obama.

 

I hope you give her plenty of "at-a-girls" from the hive :D

 

 

Hey, it was worth a try

:auto:

[pqr]

I honestly think more legislation is necessary.

 

As Kelli said in the other thread, no deer hunter needs an SKS or AK-47. *Especially* since as these are sold in the US they are sold as semi-automatic weapons but a small, widely known adaptation makes them automatic. To be perfectly frank, I personally know *a lot* of people who own these because of the community in which I live and they are just collecting them and using them at the firing range. However, I know good and well that they could be used to inflict major damage in the wrong hands.

 

A small aside, a semi-automatic weapon means you must pull the trigger every time in order for it to fire, you can't just hold down the trigger and have it fire multiple rounds. However, since you don't have to pull back the hammer every time or anything you could still do serious damage with a semi-automatic SKS or AK-47.

 

 

Mrs. Mungo and I frequently disagree, but in her comment about hunting she is absolutely correct. No hunter needs a semi-automatic AK-47 look alike.

 

Nevertheless the 2nd Amendment was never written to ensure our right to hunt, if one reads the words of the Founders it was written for a completely different reason. Indeed no less a personage than Thomas Jefferson said "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

 

Yes, I suppose a semi can be converted to a full auto, but I believe the penalty is 10 years in prison and a 250,000 dollar fine. I would ask that if this is insufficient to stop a criminal, why would a ban work any better.

 

The definition of a semi-auto is correct, but one does not need to pull back the hammer on a double action revolver either. As far as serious damage, to be frank, a pump action shotgun can also do horrific damage, so the point becomes moot.

 

I think the main point of the thread is the "in your face" comment and the lie that Obama is pro-2nd Amendment. This is simply not true.

 

Lenin may have said "A lie told often enough becomes truth" but Lincoln stated " You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." In the case of Obama and the 2nd Amendment I trust in Lincoln over Lenin.

[Spy Car]

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others", I believe Marx said that.

 

Groucho Marx

.

.

:auto:

[Jill- OK]

...full disclosure, I just told my husband not too long ago that I'm going to try and convince my mom to vote for my choice, because she's still undecided.

 

So, I'm not totally against the "stealth campaign" idea, lol...you just catch more flies with honey, if you know what I mean.

 

You could also try subliminal messages, lol. (Wasn't it Kevin Nealon that did Subliminal Man, on Saturday Night Live?)

[Mrs Mungo]

Nevertheless the 2nd Amendment was never written to ensure our right to hunt, if one reads the words of the Founders it was written for a completely different reason. Indeed no less a personage than Thomas Jefferson said "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

 

But in this case an AK-47 really wouldn't do you any good. You'd need tanks and aircraft carriers and such...in theory...so are we to make those available to the public as well?

 

The definition of a semi-auto is correct, but one does not need to pull back the hammer on a double action revolver either. As far as serious damage, to be frank, a pump action shotgun can also do horrific damage, so the point becomes moot.

 

A revolver or shotgun does not hold that many rounds, that's the inherent difference...along with the automatic bit wrt the shotgun.

 

I think the main point of the thread is the "in your face" comment and the lie that Obama is pro-2nd Amendment. This is simply not true.

 

So are *you* lying if you don't think people should have actual AK-47s and you say you are pro-Second Amendment? Because by your own logic you are.

[Jill- OK]

I took a moment to picture that scene and let it play out for a while but by the time I got to small claims court the election was over.

 

I really hope no one takes that literally.

 

Aw, who am I kidding? I totally want to see this.

 

Next on Judge Judy...

 

Judge Judy: "So, tell me in your own words what happened."

 

Defendant: "Well, your honor, my neighbor came over, and I thought he was coming to return my weed eater, but then he got all up in my grill and started asking me if I was a Republican, or an Independent, and when I said, "Yo, just chill...", he got even closer, so I Stooge-poked him, right in the eyes."

 

(I hope everyone knows I'm kidding, too...I just thought this response was hilarious, Zelda.)

[klmama]

"I want you to argue with them and get in their face," he said.

 

What would your reaction be to this IRL?

 

 

How would I react if my neighbors did this in real life? I'd wonder what drugs they were taking! LOL! We have very different political opinions (evidenced by our conflicting yard signs), but we like each other well enough. We do favors for each other, share garden produce, keep an eye out when the other is vacationing, etc. You don't mess with that kind of neighborly relationship by getting pushy about politics, or much of anything else, for that matter.

[Spy Car]

...full disclosure, I just told my husband not too long ago that I'm going to try and convince my mom to vote for my choice, because she's still undecided.

 

So, I'm not totally against the "stealth campaign" idea, lol...you just catch more flies with honey, if you know what I mean.

 

You could also try subliminal messages, lol. (Wasn't it Kevin Nealon that did Subliminal Man, on Saturday Night Live?)

 

 

LOL. Yes, if I remember correctly vote for Obama that was Kevin Nealon :D

:auto:

[Mamagistra]

LOL. Yes, if I remember correctly vote for Obama that was Kevin Nealon :D

:auto:

 

:lol::lol: I loved that write in Ron Paul guy on SNL! :D

[Zelda]

Next on Judge Judy...

 

Judge Judy: "So, tell me in your own words what happened."

 

Defendant: "Well, your honor, my neighbor came over, and I thought he was coming to return my weed eater, but then he got all up in my grill and started asking me if I was a Republican, or an Independent, and when I said, "Yo, just chill...", he got even closer, so I Stooge-poked him, right in the eyes."

 

 

:lol:

 

It didn't come with sound effects so I added them in my head.

 

As if my neighbor would worry about the weeds. If they did that where would the rats hide?

 

True story. Vector control has already warned them, to no avail. So, I was picturing them getting in my face about gun control while their rats sneak into my garage. And well, you already wrote the ending.:001_smile:

[Zelda]

LOL. Yes, if I remember correctly vote for Obama that was Kevin Nealon :D

:auto:

 

:lol:

[happygrrl]

LOL. Yes, if I remember correctly vote for Obama that was Kevin Nealon :D

:auto:

 

:lol::lol: I loved that write in Ron Paul guy on SNL! :D

 

 

Brilliant, you two!

[hsmamainva]

Next on Judge Judy...

 

Judge Judy: "So, tell me in your own words what happened."

 

Defendant: "Well, your honor, my neighbor came over, and I thought he was coming to return my weed eater, but then he got all up in my grill and started asking me if I was a Republican, or an Independent, and when I said, "Yo, just chill...", he got even closer, so I Stooge-poked him, right in the eyes."

 

(I hope everyone knows I'm kidding, too...I just thought this response was hilarious, Zelda.)

 

ROTFLOL!!!!!

 

Thanks for the great mental picture!! :lol:

[Peek a Boo]

per the OP:

man, i would LOVE for a liberal neighbor to do this!

But i tend to be a "bring it ON" kinda gal :)

 

I file this statement the same way SpyCar does [and the same way i filed Kerry's "stupid= in Iraq" comment], but on the flip side, Obama is smart enough to know the nuance between "face to face" and "in your face."

 

 

So are *you* lying if you don't think people should have actual AK-47s and you say you are pro-Second Amendment? Because by your own logic you are.

 

He didn't say people shouldn't have AK-47s-- he said hunters don't need them. he then explains the logic behind the right to own an AK-47:

 

But in this case an AK-47 really wouldn't do you any good. You'd need tanks and aircraft carriers and such...in theory...so are we to make those available to the public as well?

 

Constitutionally speaking? to defend against our gvt? yeah, actually, they should. I addressed that [and other gun issues]in the other thread about Obama voting to ban guns:

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53528

 

a snippet--

=========

and my comments about the list from ontheissues.org:

 

per the list given:

 

Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)

....even if they determine to take away an Honest Citizen's right to own and carry.

 

 

FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)

BAN. against criminals only??

 

 

Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)

...translation: "respect" 2d amendment only so far as he agrees with it. interpretations abound on this one. again --does this only apply to criminals? or will people who "just" carry guns be deemed criminals under these bans???

 

Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)

....that makes "common sense" subjectively determined by those who are enforcing. If they are interpreting the 2d amendment in a "bans are ok" way then that "common sense" is going to be strictly defined.

 

 

2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007) Is that in the second amendment??? or does it LIMIT an individual's right in the 2d amendment?? or is this only for criminals??

 

 

Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007) ....so he only respects the second amendment's right to bear arms to certain people that he deems worthy. and just being an Honest Citizen doesn't cut it. I missed that part of the 2d amendment.....

 

Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)

I'm all for enforcing the law. As long as it doesn't infringe a non-criminal's rights per the second amendment. Criminals lose that right. Honest citizens shouldn't.

 

Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)

 

"keep guns out" --another ban. only on criminals???

 

Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)

Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)

 

again --only against criminals, or against Honest Citizens too??

 

Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

so it's ok to sue someone that didn't commit the crime and legally distributed a product.

 

Second Amendment stuff isn't really an issue for me, but it would be a STRETCH to say Obama supports fully the second amendment with all the bans he supports and has voted for. he won't overturn it, he'll just choose the strictest interpretation and keep redefining it and say that's what it Always Meant.

 

to say that they only want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is a lie. Those bans apply not only to criminals but to honest citizens who have never held a gun.

 

==============

The last thing I would address is that Supreme Court justices are NOT infallible. But our branches of gvt have a long history of not extending Constitutional rights to everyone who deserves them. i think I'll go read Animal Farm again, print out the Bill of Rights, and start marking it up w/ "clarifications."

[RoughCollie]

If my neighbors came to talk me into voting for Obama, I'd say, "I appreciate your interest, but you would be banging your head against a brick wall."

 

If they persisted I would be blunt and tell them to go away. I am rarely in the mood to "discuss" politics.

[pqr]

Originally Posted by pqr

pqr comment:- Nevertheless the 2nd Amendment was never written to ensure our right to hunt, if one reads the words of the Founders it was written for a completely different reason. Indeed no less a personage than Thomas Jefferson said "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

 

But in this case an AK-47 really wouldn't do you any good. You'd need tanks and aircraft carriers and such...in theory...so are we to make those available to the public as well?

 

History, recent military history, has taught us that yes, a rifleman with homemade weapons can do a lot of damage.

 

Cases in point: Angola, Mozambique, Rhodesia, Chechnya, Oman, Aden, Kenya, Malaysia, Algeria, Sri Lanka, Assam, Punjab, Burundi, Congo (Simba uprising), Palestinian uprising, Sudan, Uganda, East Timor, Afghanistan and yes unfortunately Iraq.

 

While some of the insurgents did have heavy weapons, the vast majority were armed with small arms and home made weapons. So yes, Thomas Jefferson did have it right.

 

pqr comment:- The definition of a semi-auto is correct, but one does not need to pull back the hammer on a double action revolver either. As far as serious damage, to be frank, a pump action shotgun can also do horrific damage, so the point becomes moot.

 

A revolver or shotgun does not hold that many rounds, that's the inherent difference...along with the automatic bit wrt the shotgun.

 

 

Some semi autos hold very few rounds. My .45 has 6 while I also have a 6 round .357 A semi-auto M-1 Garand holds 8 rounds, a WWI enfield bolt action holds 10 and some lever action 1894s hold 13 which is more than the fixed-mag SKS holds (10 rounds).

 

One of many problems I have with Obama's anti semi-auto comment is that it displays a lack of understanding. As I showed above some semi-autos do not hold more rounds than any other weapon.

 

pqr: comment:- I think the main point of the thread is the "in your face" comment and the lie that Obama is pro-2nd Amendment. This is simply not true.

 

So are *you* lying if you don't think people should have actual AK-47s and you say you are pro-Second Amendment? Because by your own logic you are.

 

No you are not anti-second amendmant simply because you don't think people should have an AK-47. There is room for dissention. If however you do not think people should have any semi-autos, any pistols and would pose excessive limitations on those few weapons that you would allow us then you are anti-Second Amendment.

 

If you believe that the Bill of Rights does not apply to all Americans and that only those of us fortunate enough to live in areas that respect individual rights can live by the Second Amendment then...yes you are anti-Second Amendment.

 

Mrs Mungo, you are justifiably proud of your association with the US military. A friend of mine with 14 years in the Navy received orders from Texas to California. As a man who has put his life on the line for this nation he was told that he could NOT take some of his personal property with him when he went to California. Some of his firearms are illegal in California. Surely you would agree that this is just wrong. A man who took an oath to our Constitution was deprived the rights of property that are guaranteed under our Bill of Rights. How can anyone support this?

 

So yes..... anyone who thinks a serviceman or any American should be denied property rights, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, in his own nation is not only anti-Second Amendment, but anti-Constitution.

 

 

 

 

Regarding Obama: As he believes the above not only is he anti-Second Amendment, but if he wins and takes the Presidential oath...

 

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability,

preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States

."

he will either, in thought, be violating that oath or opposing what he claims to believe. In either case hardly a moral act.

 

As I said earlier regarding Obama and the Second Amendment.

Lenin may have said "A lie told often enough becomes truth" but Lincoln stated " You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." In the case of Obama and the 2nd Amendment I trust in Lincoln over Lenin.