Now, over the next couple of months, we’ve got a couple of issues: gun control. (Applause.) I just came from Denver, where the issue of gun violence is something that has haunted families for way too long, and it is possible for us to create common-sense gun safety measures that respect the traditions of gun ownership in this country and hunters and sportsmen, but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon — by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly.
Obama’s too stupid to know the difference and Jim’s always ready to lie to cover for him.
Say what, Larry?
When he says “snatching a gaffe from the jaws of accuracy”, he’s not covering for the President – or lying.
The only thing he seems to have edited out is the “, sadly”, which isn’t really relevant to the factual issue.
The President said an accurate thing “… a semiautomatic weapon”, and then turned it into a gaffe by inaccurately correcting himself to “fully automatic”.
Which is what both you and Jim are saying!
Jim’s selecting editing comes in once again
I think we’re actually seeing Larry’s selective reading comprehension. Is it possible, Larry, that you decide what I’m going to say before you read it?
We might as well.
As a rule we can pretty well decide what you’re going to say before you even show up.
That seems to have been Larry’s mistake.
Fully automatic weapons have been highly restricted for private ownership since the 1930s. None of the current gun control proposals are focused on fully automatic reasons, so Obama calling for additional gun control laws to prevent the use of fully automatic weapons is stupid.
Of course. Obama said something accurate — that a semi-automatic weapon was used to kill kids in Newtown — and then “corrected” himself with a false statement, claiming that the Newtown weapon was fully automatic. No doubt he did this because “fully automatic” sounds scarier than semi-automatic, and so strengthens the case for action, but this false rhetoric is self-defeating because 1) it’s obviously false and 2) the action being debated has nothing to do with fully automatic weapons.
He was wrong and stupid, and should be embarrassed.
Well, I think Obama is right to focus on the problem of fully automatic weapons in elementary schools in the hands of teenagers with a history of deep long-term mental problems.
Trouble is ignorance about guns won’t hurt Obama and the gun-grabbers with their base. Their supporters are people who regard someone having too much knowledge about firearms as somehow being symptomatic of an unhealthy (in their eyes) infatuation with the aforementioned guns. Of course this assumes Obama isn’t deliberately misleading/dissembling….”military style” weapons belong on a battlefield not on our city streets”, is great copy for the liberal press, who cares if it is not accurate?
You would think an experienced skeet-shooter such as Barry would be more gun-savvy than that.
20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon — by a fully automatic weapon in that case
Snatching a gaffe from the jaws of accuracy — embarrassing.
Jim’s selecting editing comes in once again. From the White House transcript
Now, over the next couple of months, we’ve got a couple of issues: gun control. (Applause.) I just came from Denver, where the issue of gun violence is something that has haunted families for way too long, and it is possible for us to create common-sense gun safety measures that respect the traditions of gun ownership in this country and hunters and sportsmen, but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon — by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly.
Obama’s too stupid to know the difference and Jim’s always ready to lie to cover for him.
Say what, Larry?
When he says “snatching a gaffe from the jaws of accuracy”, he’s not covering for the President – or lying.
The only thing he seems to have edited out is the “, sadly”, which isn’t really relevant to the factual issue.
The President said an accurate thing “… a semiautomatic weapon”, and then turned it into a gaffe by inaccurately correcting himself to “fully automatic”.
Which is what both you and Jim are saying!
Jim’s selecting editing comes in once again
I think we’re actually seeing Larry’s selective reading comprehension. Is it possible, Larry, that you decide what I’m going to say before you read it?
We might as well.
As a rule we can pretty well decide what you’re going to say before you even show up.
That seems to have been Larry’s mistake.
Fully automatic weapons have been highly restricted for private ownership since the 1930s. None of the current gun control proposals are focused on fully automatic reasons, so Obama calling for additional gun control laws to prevent the use of fully automatic weapons is stupid.
Of course. Obama said something accurate — that a semi-automatic weapon was used to kill kids in Newtown — and then “corrected” himself with a false statement, claiming that the Newtown weapon was fully automatic. No doubt he did this because “fully automatic” sounds scarier than semi-automatic, and so strengthens the case for action, but this false rhetoric is self-defeating because 1) it’s obviously false and 2) the action being debated has nothing to do with fully automatic weapons.
He was wrong and stupid, and should be embarrassed.
Well, I think Obama is right to focus on the problem of fully automatic weapons in elementary schools in the hands of teenagers with a history of deep long-term mental problems.
Trouble is ignorance about guns won’t hurt Obama and the gun-grabbers with their base. Their supporters are people who regard someone having too much knowledge about firearms as somehow being symptomatic of an unhealthy (in their eyes) infatuation with the aforementioned guns. Of course this assumes Obama isn’t deliberately misleading/dissembling….”military style” weapons belong on a battlefield not on our city streets”, is great copy for the liberal press, who cares if it is not accurate?