Gun Control or War With Iran- You choose

Election time is right around the corner. I know everyone is bummed about that. What will we ever do with out George W. in office.

If Obama-Biden were to gain office firearm owners are scared of a ban on guns. They both oppose war and prefer to handle such issues with diplomacy.

If McCain is elected then the possibility of war with Iran turned into most likely a warring with Iran. Unlike like Obama-Biden they are for firearms.

Which has the potential to harm America more? I was just wondering what ATS members thought on the issue. Do we take are chances on war with Iran or ban on guns? You Choose...

reply to post by TheHunted
sorry about the one liner but "what about all the other parties"?

Originally posted by crawgator406
reply to post by TheHunted

 

sorry about the one liner but "what about all the other parties"?

I'm just trying to be realistic here. These are two most likely parties to voted in.

If only it were that simple. The truth of the matter is that there are a whole host of issues that an informed voter should base their decision upon. Gun control and a possible conflict with Iran are but two.

Why not ask it this way: Do you support war with Iran, that could kill tens of thousands of US soldiers, or do you support abortion, which kills nearly 900,000 unborn children in the US every year?

Neither one is a fair question.

Originally posted by TheHunted
If Obama-Biden were to gain office firearm owners are scared of a ban on guns.

Are firearm owners afraid of a gun ban? I know he has supported them in the past, for local, high-crime areas. But there's nothing that I know of to indicate that Obama would support a gun ban for the country or even legal gun owners.

Obama on Gun Control

Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual's right to bear arms?

A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

Q: But do you still favor the registration & licensing of guns?

A: I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets.

He would probably like to constrain the ownership of guns, but I have no doubt that this Constitutionally-protected right will remain intact. The people would not stand for it, for one thing.

Originally posted by TheHunted
They both oppose war and prefer to handle such issues with diplomacy.

I would also have to say that they both oppose THIS war, but they don't "oppose war". And to choose diplomacy over war is a GOOD thing. Remember? Remember Peace? That they prefer diplomacy is a compliment to them.

If McCain is elected then the possibility of war with Iran turned into most likely a warring with Iran. Unlike like Obama-Biden they are for firearms.

Agreed. And I wouldn't be surprised if a war with Iran would turn into a war with others. McCain is a clear supporter of the second amendment, it's true.

Which has the potential to harm America more? ... Do we take are chances on war with Iran or ban on guns? You Choose...

If I HAD to choose between a war with Iran or a ban on guns, I would choose a ban on guns, Because I know the people wouldn't stand for it - and we have NO power over whether the government continues with their warring ways. There will be nothing we can do. Just as we had no choice about the current war. At least the people have some power if they have to defend their rights. They can't do much to prevent the government from enacting the draft and sending the military to war.

BUT!!!! I do not believe Obama is at all interested in imposing any kind of gun ban. There's nothing I can find in his plans that have anything to do with guns.

So, I don't think we have to make that choice.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Your last statement is inaccurate, regarding him having no gun law proposals. He has stated his support of reinstating the expired Assault Weapons Ban. In fact, its on his own website:

Link

He also supports making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

As much as I am against gun control, strong supporter of the NRA, I'd rather not go to war with Iran. If we do go to war, what are the chances that Russia backs Iran, then China hops on board and we slowly move into WW3?

reply to post by vor78


You're right. He does have something about guns. Sorry.

He doesn't have anything about gun bans, which is the supposition in the choices we were given in the OP.

Originally posted by vor78
If only it were that simple. The truth of the matter is that there are a whole host of issues that an informed voter should base their decision upon. Gun control and a possible conflict with Iran are but two.

Why not ask it this way: Do you support war with Iran, that could kill tens of thousands of US soldiers, or do you support abortion, which kills nearly 900,000 unborn children in the US every year?

Neither one is a fair question.

I do understand where you are coming from. There are plenty of other areas that need work and should be focused on. But lets be honest, these are probably the two biggest factors in who will necome president. I based questions from comments I have heard on ATS. It sounded to me more people were worried about a gun ban rather then going to war....

An "assault weapons ban" is a part of the democratic platform in plain writing.

Notice they hide this fact on their website. In fact the website says nothing about thier drafts and legislation to ban guns at all.

www.democrats.org...

Now look at what they really intend to ban.
www.morebans.org...

Look at the pictures. Click on each picture to see the truth. Will you be the next criminal?
www.morebans.org...

There are however no assault weapons available in the US without a class III permit and around 10,000-15,000 dollars each and up in to the hundreds of thousands of dollars. All in the hands of museums and collectors. Do they want to close museums?

So what do obamatrons do when confronted with the lies of their party and the lies they perpetuate? They start a new thread thinking they can avoid the truth. It always comes out though. No one can run away from the truth.

[edit on 27-8-2008 by Illahee]

[edit on 27-8-2008 by Illahee]

Originally posted by Illahee
So what do obamatrons do when confronted with the lies of their party and the lies they perpetuate? They start a new thread thinking they can avoid the truth. It always comes out though. No one can run away from the truth.

[edit on 27-8-2008 by Illahee]

[edit on 27-8-2008 by Illahee]

Hey friend nice to see you again. Taking pop shots are not very nice. The truth? You must know it all huh? Why don't you run for office, then we wouldn't have to worry about neither..

Seriously, I have no problem with your stance on firearms. I only stated that priorites in this country are mixed up. The fact is we basically have two choices gun control or war. Its obvious which you choose, and as an American it is your right...

[edit on 27-8-2008 by TheHunted]

Our rights are not negotiable. That is why they re called rights. Our human rights are not granted by our bill of rights they are acknowledged and spelled out as inalienable meaning they shall not be infringed.

Democrats overwhelmingly believe that if they have a majority on a vote then it is majority (mob) rules and they can pass laws that bend or break the laws that outline our natural rights to suit their own statist agenda.

Neoconservatives which are just democrats that lean to the right are no better. This nation is over run with statist, police state apologist, liberty hating idiots with no knowledge of history or awareness of their human rights.

The fact is just simply that the people have no representative for the spot of chief executive this go around. All we have is once again a choice of a lesser of two evils. Politics is useless in the restoration of liberty because global corporations run the show and they want our liberty so they can sell us a permanent police state.

reply to post by TheHunted


You are making two assumptions here that I think are innacurate - first while I agree that Obama would try diplomacy, I believe he would try it first. But remember, as far as Iran goes, Obama has stated repeatedly that Iran "must not get the bomb". I have no doubt whatsoever that he wouldn't have a problem signing the order to ask Congress to go to war if Iran became an imminent threat and diplomacy failed.

Also I believe you think McCain would shoot first and ask questions later. It might be true that McCain and other GOP members have learned some lessons in this final year of the Bush administration as Bush has reached out to talk with former "Axis of Evil" nations like North Korea. There's a very good chance McCain would do the same before thrusting the country into another war, especially considering the state of the economy and our military as it is now.

Originally posted by masterShake122
As much as I am against gun control, strong supporter of the NRA, I'd rather not go to war with Iran. If we do go to war, what are the chances that Russia backs Iran, then China hops on board and we slowly move into WW3?

I totally agree with you. It's pick your poison, with one having a more deadly result. Not going to war should be our first priority. Then worry about gun control..

Fighting an attempt to ban firearms would be a MUCH easier fight than trying to block from going to war with iran. Its not even debateable. This administration has proven that a president can and will go to war without the blessing of the people.

Trying to ban firearms has already been rejected by the supreme court. It is a battle that could not be won.

Unfortunately, if you think these are the only two issues at stake here, you are sadly underinformed.

[edit on 8/27/2008 by cautiouslypessimistic]

Your entire point may be moot at this point Hunted.

www.lewrockwell.com...

The neocons may not wait until after the election after all.

I do not follow too closely what "(s)he" says, but admit my ears prick when I hear WAR or GUNS- you can't have one without the other, today.
BHO has co-authored legislation, and voted to control, not war, but guns.
Given he did vote against war in Iraq... but who in their right mind should have voted for war?
I really have no idea how he voted on Afghanistan...I DON'T CARE, makes no difference.

IF there is a war to go to, I am sure McCain will get us there quickly, get the job done and get out. IF there is a CAUSE for it, I would expect no less from any POTUS. BHO would probably get us there quicker because, I feel, that it will be here, at home, on American soil.

McCain will not attack the 2nd Amendment, but I am am unsure how he will protect it

Originally posted by UFOTECH
Your entire point may be moot at this point Hunted.

www.lewrockwell.com...

The neocons may not wait until after the election after all.

Thanks for the link. I did say war with Iran is likely, I just chose the wrong guy.

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
Fighting an attempt to ban firearms would be a MUCH easier fight than trying to block from going to war with iran. Its not even debateable. This administration has proven that a president can and will go to war without the blessing of the people.

My thoughts exactly.

I can't see citizens standing for a sweeping or complete ban of firearms. Maybe the plan would be to create millions of more criminals, the one who will not give up their firearm.

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
Fighting an attempt to ban firearms would be a MUCH easier fight than trying to block from going to war with iran. Its not even debateable. This administration has proven that a president can and will go to war without the blessing of the people.

Trying to ban firearms has already been rejected by the supreme court. It is a battle that could not be won.

Unfortunately, if you think these are the only two issues at stake here, you are sadly underinformed.

[edit on 8/27/2008 by cautiouslypessimistic]

I totally agree with there being more at stake. Lets face it, most firearm owners vote republican and anti-war people vote democratic.

These two issues pla a key role in who will be president. Just wondering where peoples thoughts are on the matter..