When political rhetoric become dangerous (Ricin laced letters)

[Lisnpuppy]

This is no longer a debate of the original topic but an argument about who said what, when. I don't know if Colour indeed said that but the entire debate argument certainly ask that question.

 

So does anyone have any actual debating left in them or are we going to continue to argue semantics?~Lisnpuppy

[colourwheel]

You said that LaPierre should be held accountable for "false rhetoric" that you incorrectly linked to the ricin letters. You repeated this many times.

 

The example you link where the The SPLC condemned Corkin's attack on the FRC was a great example of accountability and responcibility.

 

Despite if the SPLC claims on the FRC was false or not they made statements in light of the event that lead to Corkin's attack on the FRC.

 

Maybe Lapierre should have made a statement as well just like the SPLC did, concidering all the hate and fear he has built within gun owners across the nation, where as the letters were specifically sent to people and organizations surrounding gun control legislation....

 

I still feel Lapierre should make a public statement about what has recently happened, since all miss-information about gun control legislation point back to the him and the NRA.... this is what I mean about accountability, if you can accept that.....

Edited June 9, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

since all miss-information about gun control legislation point back to the him and the NRA.

I disagree that they are spreading misinformation. You have yet to demonstrate that any of their claims are incorrect or misinformative. You simply do not agree with them. That does not make them liars. Your political perspective is very self-centered. You seem unwilling to acknowledge even the possibility that their opinions hold any validity by consistently referring to them as misinformation.

 

Please cite a single example of the NRA lying about anything. Remember, a prediction or speculation is not a lie. Please provide an example of something that the NRA stated as fact but can be unambiguously and objectively proven false.

 

In contrast, it is quite easy to find examples of lies that the President has told.

Edited June 9, 2013 by TRoaches

[colourwheel]

 

Please cite a single example of the NRA lying about anything. Remember, a prediction or speculation is not a lie. Please provide an example of something that the NRA stated as fact but can be unambiguously and objectively proven false.

 

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/05/nra-lie-obama-gun-control-registry-survey

Edited June 9, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

That article focuses on the NRA's assertion that the President supports a national gun registry, and calls this a lie based on the fact that he does not say he would like to create a registry. Once again, it is a purely semantical difference.

 

Obama does not use the phrase "gun registry". His position is that the purchase of a gun should require a background check. Let's say that a law is passed making these proposed background checks a requirement to legally purchase a gun. Do you believe that, following the proposed background check, the information gathered during the check would be discarded? If that information is retained, as it certainly would be, that IS a gun registry. There is no difference.

 

To argue that a required federal background check does not produce a gun registry is like saying that the requirement to obtain a driver's license to legally drive does not produce a driver registry. A registry, as it is being used here, is nothing more than a list of people who have been processed under the proposed law.

 

What is the difference between a federal gun registry and the information that would be collected during a federal gun purchase background check? Are they not the same thing?

 

I realize that the existing laws prohibit such information from being retained, but the existing law is not the issue. It is about proposed law, and speculation about the possibilities of what direction such law could point us toward. Also, the federal government has a nice track record of ignoring their own laws with regards to privacy, such as the whole wiretapping issue during the Bush administration. The law says that the feds need a warrant to tap a phone, but it is now known that they monitor every phone call without a warrant. They do this under the authority granted by the patriot act, which legally supersedes nearly any other law in the nation. There is no reason to assume that such an abuse would not occur with the background check data as well.

Edited June 9, 2013 by TRoaches

[Lisnpuppy]

That article focuses on the NRA's assertion that the President supports a national gun registry, and calls this a lie based on the fact that he does not say he would like to create a registry. Once again, it is a purely semantical difference.

 

Obama does not use the phrase "gun registry". His position is that the purchase of a gun should require a background check. Let's say that a law is passed making these proposed background checks a requirement to legally purchase a gun. Do you believe that, following the proposed background check, the information gathered during the check would be discarded? If that information is retained, as it certainly would be, that IS a gun registry. There is no difference.

 

To argue that a required federal background check does not produce a gun registry is like saying that the requirement to obtain a driver's license to legally drive does not produce a driver registry. A registry, as it is being used here, is nothing more than a list of people who have been processed under the proposed law.

 

What is the difference between a federal gun registry and the information that would be collected during a federal gun purchase background check? Are they not the same thing?THe

Go read the bill. I will give this point to Colour. You are making an assumption Roach that something will happen..that is not said anywhere it will happen. No where does it say that and you are making an argument that the information said by LaPierre was not a lie based only on what you THINK will happen. You may be right or you may be wrong but you have no proof based on the bill or any other information available that this will be so.

[TRoaches]

I did read the bill, but the wording of the bill is almost irrelevant. The precedent is for the government to ignore its own laws with regard to privacy. They can put whatever they want in the gun registration law, but it will be superseded by the patriot act.

 

Is it against the law to tap a phone without a warrant? Does it still happen? The problem with the gun registration requirement is that it creates a potential for abuse, and where there is potential for abuse there is an almost certainty that the potential will be utilized.

[Lisnpuppy]

Regardless...you are still making an assumption based on something which is not said anywhere and has not actually happened.

 

We are not arguing the potential of this. We are arguing is what LaPierre said a fact. He could have said just what you did and that would have been a acceptable. He did not and your argument was to counter Colour's when they said LaPierre lied.

 

You are saying she is wrong saying that he lied (and he did here) when there is no evidence yet that it is so. You argue that is incorrect based on the assumption of what will happen based on past behavior. It was not said and has not happened.

 

Thus your argument that Colour is incorrect when she said he lied in this instance is incorrect.

[TRoaches]

This is the precise wording of the survey question that you are alleging is a lie:

 

 

 

President Obama has supported a national gun registration system allowing federal government officals to keep track of all your firearm purchases. Do you oppose national gun registration?

Notice that it does not say "Obama currently supports", but rather "Obama has supported". It is a past tense reference to what he has supported in the past. When he was a legislator his stated position was in favor of banning all semi-auto guns, banning all handguns, and tracking all gun purchases at the state level via mandatory registration.

 

Given that the sharing of information between state and federal agencies was one of the big reasons behind the creation of the patriot act it stands to reason that any law enforcement or security information gathered by individual states constitutes a federal database once it is aggregated by the DHS. The line between state level and federal level has been nearly non-existent since 2001 at least with regard to law enforcement.

 

When he ran for president he adopted a more moderate position on gun control but the language of the survey question is not restricted to his current position or the position he has held while president. Therefore, it is not a lie.

[colourwheel]

 

When he ran for president he adopted a more moderate position on gun control but the language of the survey question is not restricted to his current position or the position he has held while president. Therefore, it is not a lie.

 

Troached the survey question in itself alone is kind of irrelevant, beside the fact it is "misleading"...

 

You remember me pointing out LaPierre on Foxnews "speculating" Obama was going to be taking away rifles, shotguns, and handguns?

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-obama-flip-flop-on-gun-control/

 

What Lapierre is doing whether or not you think it's a lie is dangerous when the sole purpose is to misslead the public with fear and hate "speculating" peoples guns are going to be taking away Just to get new members and sell more guns....

 

Sure, Obama might have not have lead up to his promiss trying to get the troops back but it is hardly rhetoric to spread fear and hate into the minds of the public...

Edited June 9, 2013 by colourwheel