• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

US Federal Elections 2012

In regard to the brief mention of "assault weapons" during the debate...

If I remember correctly Obama and Romney both stated (or at least implied to varying degrees) that law abiding and "not mentally ill" (whatever the hell that means) citizens should be guaranteed only the right to own guns for the purpose of hunting and "sporting". However "ak-47 style weapons"(again whatever the hell that means) should not be allowed.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I don't understand the logic. A militia would have modern weapons designed for killing people, not just for hunting. At the time of the American Revolution which inspired the constitution, a musket WOULD have been considered the "ak47 style" assault weapon of it's time. After the incident in Colorado (and others) the gun issue is going to be pivotal in this election. Any thoughts on the logic that guns should only be allowed for hunting as it relates to this election?

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20121017/US.Debate.Assault.Weapons/
 

Attachments

  • uploadfromtaptalk1350452716698.jpg
    uploadfromtaptalk1350452716698.jpg
    22.6 KB · Views: 57
bberryhill0 said:
Obama sounded whiny and Romney sounded condescending. If I could I would vote to abolish the Presidency.
Click to expand...

I felt the whole debate boiled down to this:

Obama: You're a dirty liar!!!
Romney: No. You're a dirty liar!!!

I thought Romney looked more presidential, but Obama had some great quips. Caught both of them lying through their teeth several times though which was very disappointing. Just once I want to hear one of them tell the truth and admit they screwed up something.
 
bberryhill0 said:
Obama sounded whiny and Romney sounded condescending. If I could I would vote to abolish the Presidency.
Click to expand...

I think a prime minister chosen from Congress would certainly be less divisive.

At the very least it would be nice if the President had to have a governing majority in Congress.
 
ElasticNinja said:
I think a prime minister chosen from Congress would certainly be less divisive.

At the very least it would be nice if the President had to have a governing majority in Congress.
Click to expand...


Horrible idea imo. Also, if Congress is controlled by the other party, then both parties are basically forced to work together instead of one party being able to force their agenda.
 
A.Nonymous said:
Horrible idea imo.
Click to expand...
It is far, far less divisive, however.

A.Nonymous said:
Also, if Congress is controlled by the other party, then both parties are basically forced to work together instead of one party being able to force their agenda.
Click to expand...
And hasn't both parties having to work together being utterly disastrous in the last few decades? Would also dramatically reduce the whole issue of people voting for candidates rather than parties in federal elections.

If a president from one party has to work with a congressional government from another, so be it. Mitterand did it, why couldn't an American President?
 
I'll give you a pass since you're not from this country, but there have been quite a few times in recent years when the party in the White House also had a majority in Congress. Hasn't made things better.
 
ya like 2 years ago when Obama had a 2 year super majority in congress......

its amazing how quick everyone is to blame the Republicans in congress for Obamas failure...... when for 2 years there was absolutely nothing any Republican could say or do to prevent Obama from doing anything he wanted
 
copestag said:
ya like 2 years ago when Obama had a 2 year super majority in congress......

its amazing how quick everyone is to blame the Republicans in congress for Obamas failure...... when for 2 years there was absolutely nothing any Republican could say or do to prevent Obama from doing anything he wanted
Click to expand...
That's pretty simplistic, since the republicans forced him to have a filibuster proof majority to pass anything and the democrat majority was razor thin, I think it was one or two seats in the senate, and a couple of those were independents that just got lumped in as democrats. Meaning the republicans would vote lock step unanimously against anything and everything and just one or two democrats voting against it would kill the bill. Obama tried to compromise and negotiate with republicans many times, but they wouldn't have it, seeing how their #1 priority was making sure Obama was a one term president.
 
That's certainly one way to look at it. The other viewpoint is that Obama refused to offer any real compromises and was more interested in shoving his agenda down everyone's throats as he only needed to convince one or two Republicans to switch sides as well.
 
A.Nonymous said:
I'll give you a pass since you're not from this country, but there have been quite a few times in recent years when the party in the White House also had a majority in Congress. Hasn't made things better.
Click to expand...

By a majority you mean that he had a majority of Democrats. What the President needs is a governing majority, and neither party is cohesive enough to provide that in the current system.
 
He had a filibuster proof majority. Not sure what more he needs than that. He's not the first President to have that either.
 
A.Nonymous said:
He had a filibuster proof majority. Not sure what more he needs than that. He's not the first President to have that either.
Click to expand...

He needs to have loyal deputies is what. In America there is not the same party cohesiveness that there is in most places, as there is no need for it the way the system works.
 
There have been a few times in recent years where Congress has voted on an issue on straight party lines. In most cases when that happens the general public is displeased.
 
A.Nonymous said:
There have been a few times in recent years where Congress has voted on an issue on straight party lines. In most cases when that happens the general public is displeased.
Click to expand...

And? The public have their vote every few years. They should be electing governments, not candidates.
 
bberryhill0 said:
Sadly the main criteria for electing candidates seems to be who can bring home the pork.
Click to expand...
Sadly so. Politicians supporting bills only if funds go to their constituents needs to end.
If a politician refuses to toe the line, they should be quite simply kicked from the parliamentary party.
 
ElasticNinja said:
Sadly so. Politicians supporting bills only if funds go to their constituents needs to end.
If a politician refuses to toe the line, they should be quite simply kicked from the parliamentary party.
Click to expand...

How do you boot a guy from a party? He/she simply runs as an independent the next year. Not sure I like the idea of parties being able to dictate who joins them.
 
I have to say, I don't like that idea at all. If that was the case, why even have candidates? Just vote for the party and have them pick who they want. I'd rather see people who can think for themselves, (more than they do now, actually) than just take orders from the party bosses.
 
Gmash said:
I have to say, I don't like that idea at all. If that was the case, why even have candidates? Just vote for the party and have them pick who they want. I'd rather see people who can think for themselves, (more than they do now, actually) than just take orders from the party bosses.
Click to expand...

Our better yet, just skip Congress and become a dictatorship. Yeah, bad idea.
 
A.Nonymous said:
That's certainly one way to look at it. The other viewpoint is that Obama refused to offer any real compromises and was more interested in shoving his agenda down everyone's throats as he only needed to convince one or two Republicans to switch sides as well.
Click to expand...

BS. Republicans are on record and have demonstrated that their goal to prevent progress under Obama, i.e. no compromise, even for bills the Republicans once supported. This is a political game of the Republicans, hoping the voters don't notice who is to blame for inaction. By your post they are winning this game.

Notice the filibusters under Obama. The Republicans have forced a Senate 60 vote minimum.

The history of the filibuster, in one graph - The Washington Post

"There
 
A.Nonymous said:
How do you boot a guy from a party? He/she simply runs as an independent the next year. Not sure I like the idea of parties being able to dictate who joins them.
Click to expand...

They only get booted from the parliamentary party, not the party itself. They basically lose the influence or chance of promotion they once had.
 
Parties censuring their members for refusing to toe the party line is usually frowned upon here. Remember that we tend to favor free thinking here. McCain and Obama both ran on the idea that they didn't do things the way their party did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom