Obama on pitbulls...analogy time


PDA






Mitlov
August 22, 2013, 04:24 AM
President Obama has just publicly condemned state and local laws restricting or banning pitbulls, stating:

We don't support breed-specific legislation -- research shows that bans on certain types of dogs are largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources...The CDC also noted that the types of people who look to exploit dogs aren't deterred by breed regulations -- when their communities establish a ban, these people just seek out new, unregulated breeds. And the simple fact is that dogs of any breed can become dangerous when they're intentionally or unintentionally raised to be aggressive.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/20/obama-breed-specific-legislation_n_3785911.html

Probably worth bringing up if you find yourself in a debate with someone who seems to agree with Obama on everything.

If you enjoyed reading about "Obama on pitbulls...analogy time" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
1911Tuner
August 22, 2013, 06:15 AM
In this case, he's absolutely correct.

About any dog can be aggressive if it's taught to be. Pitbulls are just dogs. They're pretty much what you make'em.

And laws don't stop people from obtaining whatever they want, from dogs to guns to illegal drugs.

hso
August 22, 2013, 08:03 AM
"We don't support firearm-specific legislation -- research shows that bans on certain types of firearms are largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources...The CDC also noted that the types of people who look to exploit firearms aren't deterred by gun control regulations -- when their communities establish a ban, these people just seek out new, unregulated firearms. And the simple fact is that guns of any type can become dangerous when they're intentionally or unintentionally used to for harm."

I'd be careful with the last sentence since guns aren't "aggressive" or dangerous on their own. I'd point out that unlike a dog that can act on its own a firearm is incapable of doing anything. A person picks it up and uses it for ill or good just as any tool is used.

1911Tuner
August 22, 2013, 08:29 AM
I'd be careful with the last sentence since guns aren't "aggressive" or dangerous on their own.

Neither are dogs unless they've either been taught to be...or are suffering with pain or illness...or they're in fear for one reason or another. Most people who are bitten bring it on themselves, whether they realize it or not. Most dog bites are fear-based.

Ryanxia
August 22, 2013, 09:25 AM
Anyone else see the irony? Of course dogs are less of a threat to the regime than guns.

1911Tuner
August 22, 2013, 09:31 AM
Anyone else see the irony?

Exactly. Barack Hussein Obama alluding to the fact that bans don't work is off the scale ironic.

vamo
August 22, 2013, 10:06 AM
Pitbull = assault rilfe of dogs. Poorly defined under the law and no rationale reason to consider them more dangerous than other large dogs.

Don't believe google an assault rifle or pitbull ban debate, and replace pitbull with assault rifle or vice versa, its basically the same argument.

RustHunter87
August 22, 2013, 10:42 AM
I'd bet pit bulls cause more damage here in the states than "assault rifles"

Mitlov
August 22, 2013, 11:15 AM
I definitely posted this because of the irony factor. Substitute a couple words and this is what second amendment supporters have been saying all along! Gun bans don't work, and any sort of gun can be used for murder by someone who wants to commit murder. Just like dogfighters could use Rhodesian ridgebacks or mastiffs or German shepherds, just as much as pitbulls, a mass-murderer not confronted by a good guy with a gun could cause terrible devastation with a pump-action shotgun and a belt full of twelve-gauge buckshot, a backpack full of J-frames and speedloaders, etc.

But that's irony that can be used in activism. Ask a gun ban supporter if they know Obama's stance on pitbulls. Walk them through his reasoning. Get them to support each logical stepping stone. Then switch three words and make it about AR-15 bans and ask why the same reasoning no longer applies.

beatledog7
August 22, 2013, 11:28 AM
But the irony--no, hypocrisy--of such a statement will be lost on Obama supporters and most of the media. It'll be a non-story.

1911Tuner
August 22, 2013, 04:07 PM
Sometimes I wonder if this man even listens to his own chin music.

cfullgraf
August 22, 2013, 07:08 PM
And laws don't stop people from obtaining whatever they want, from dogs to guns to illegal drugs.

Right, bans do not work but folks will not learn from Prohibition or the "War on drugs".

Walkalong
August 22, 2013, 07:43 PM
Ironic. Too bad he doesn't feel that way about firearms. Wonder why? :rolleyes:

sixgunner455
August 22, 2013, 08:05 PM
Power, of course. It's not gun control, it's people control.

LeonCarr
August 22, 2013, 09:14 PM
I would like to see some stats on number of people injured or killed by firearms compared to number of people injured or killed by dogs.

The meanest dog I have ever seen is a Pit Bull, and the friendliest dog I have ever seen is a Pit Bull. IME/IMO the temperament of a dog is directly related to how he/she is treated by the owner.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

hso
August 23, 2013, 12:09 AM
Guys,

Let's not drift into a dog discussion.

Stay focused on the OP's plan and help to distribute it or make suggestions on how to enhance it or this will turn into a dog topic instead of 2A.

improperlyaged
August 23, 2013, 06:53 AM
Has anyone noticed the comments on that page? No mention of gun control whatsoever and almost everyone supports Obama in this. I bet they also supported Obama on gun control

hso
August 23, 2013, 10:05 AM
Folks,

Once again, and for the final time, we need to focus on what to do with this opportunity to turn this to a 2A purpose.

Rants about President Obama, love or fear of dogs, or any other drift simply aren't useful.

We have a gift on a platter given to us in the statement made by POTUS and we need to put it to use.

Some have pointed out the irony of the President of the United States getting involved in a discussion of laws concerning certain breeds of dogs in the midst of the controversies and problems in this country. The "wasting time" aspect doesn't tie directly to the 2A defense, but it can be useful.

Others have pointed out the irony of POTUS making our case for the 2A supporter by analogy. Public perception, the abuse of something powerful by a very few and the fear it produces are analogous to the firearms debate. A very few misuse firearms to commit crimes and abuse their power, but the public perception is manipulated to create a greater public impression of risk than statistics and facts show exists. So how do we use this?

We don't turn it against President Obama right away in one on one discussions where we're trying to show someone that's been brainwashed by a biassed media. The best thing is to point out that POTUS has come to the defense of these breeds and to point out the parallels between the arguments. If the person tries to claim one is not like the other it becomes our responsibility to provide the facts about firearms and violence and point out that the entertainment industry and news media aren't interested in showing boring safe situations since their goal is to quicken the pace and ramp up the adrenaline and capture the attention with tales of horror whether it is an American Pit or a pistol. We have to know that the violent crime and firearms deaths have been dropping since the drug war fueled 80's (yes, I know that there are other socioeconomic factors that drove the violent crime rate to an all time high in that decade) so that the risk of a violent crime is lower than it has been in a generation. We need to point out that more people own the firearms the Antis are fearmongering about in contrast to this low violent crime rate. We need to point out that people have begun to fight back against the prejudice and lies about firearms and these breeds because the truth is that only a very few abuse either and that much more good is done because of them than any harm.

1911Tuner
August 23, 2013, 10:47 AM
Once again, and for the final time, we need to focus on what to do with this opportunity to turn this to a 2A purpose.

Spinnin' wheels.

The pro side already gets it. The anti side either won't get it...or they'll ignore it, avowing that it has nothing to do with the issue. Most of them probably have good intentions, and truly believe that banning guns will solve all the problems. The ones that have a darker agenda aren't concerned with crime or gun violence victims in the least...and very likely would love to see more of the same because it garners public support for their goals.

Look at how quickly they jumped on the recent mass killings. The blood wasn't even dry before they were dancing in it.

This is what we're up against, and a contradictory statement by his grace ain't gonna mean a thing until he says that a gun ban won't solve the violence problem...and you can try holdin' your breath 'til that happens.

hso
August 23, 2013, 11:26 AM
Surrendering the greater middle ground of uncommitted and fence sitters because the two ends of the argument can't be swayed doesn't get us anywhere. Those people that are open to persuasion are where we can make gains as opposed to the committed antis who are invested in destroying the 2A. Giving up the culture struggle assures us of losing.

Mitlov
August 23, 2013, 01:17 PM
HSO,

Thanks for your last two posts. Agreed, I only posted this because of the gun control analogy. I don't want to debate dog breeds or open up a "I hate Obama more than you" competition.

To the person who said debating with antis is pointless, no. Debating with the likes of Nancy Pelosi is pointless, but debating with friends and coworkers in a polite-and-reasoned manner has changed a least a couple people's minds in my personal experience. If you assume that nobody who disagrees with you would ever change their mind, you will debate/argue the issue in such a way to make that a self-fulfilling prophecy.

1911Tuner
August 23, 2013, 04:28 PM
You're not going to win a debate with them, any more than they can win a debate with us. Even the fence-sitters have shown to be "okay" with hunting and target shooting and not much else.

And we're not going to out vote them. They're too many...which brings us to the subject that shouldn't be discussed.

The politicians don't care what we want. They don't care that we know that they lie and do the opposite of what they promise. They do as they please...and it's not a matter of R vs D or L vs C. They're two sides of the same coin.

We can't win it by voting. Voting got us into this mess to start with. We're going to have to make some hard choices soon...much sooner than I anticipated. I didn't think that I'd see it in my lifetime, but now I'm thinking that I was overly optimistic.

They've gotten bold and impatient. They mean to govern.

When the call goes out...will you comply with registration? When the whistle sounds...will you turn them in?

Not defeatist at all, HSO. Just realistic. Coming events cast their shadows before them...and the shadows are already on the wall.

hso
August 23, 2013, 07:41 PM
Tuner this isn't the forum for negativity. The very reason for it to exist is in the belief that action can be taken that is beneficial.

That's written into the description of the purpose of the forum and into the scope for us.

When we give up we have no reason to participate.

The Bushmaster
September 11, 2013, 10:46 AM
Come to my house, but bring a towel. You'll need it. My Pit Bull will LICK you to death. Pit Bulls are not mean. They are trained or made to be mean. I've had several Pit Bulls over the years and NONE of them have been mean. In fact they LOVE two legged critters. Watch out for unbobbed tails though. They are like a bull whip.

Arkansas Paul
September 11, 2013, 12:14 PM
Quote:
Anyone else see the irony?
Exactly. Barack Hussein Obama alluding to the fact that bans don't work is off the scale ironic.

Almost as ironic as a man with a Nobel Peace Prize trying to launch us into World War 3.

Coop45
September 13, 2013, 12:22 AM
I'm pretty sure my beagle still dislikes him.

hso
September 13, 2013, 11:08 AM
People want to talk about dogs at this point as much as the OP's original point and as much as folks love and hate certain breeds we're never going to be a dog forum.

If you enjoyed reading about "Obama on pitbulls...analogy time" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!