Of course she'll likely dismiss all evidence as not "recent" enough for her, or just dismiss it out of hand without thought or discussion (as she did with the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act) Obama's past is littered with anti-gun stances, which he's predictably been running away from ever since he decided to run for President.
Here's a small bit of evidence for her of Obama's opposition to "bearing" arms, which she'll of course ignore or dismiss.
Obama stated he believes the following, despite it having NO basis in reality. He "feels" that this is the case, so it must be true and the reality of CCW in this country over the past few decades is irrelevant to Obama.
"I am not in favor of concealed weapons," Obama said. "I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."
Does that sound like someone who's pro-gun to you? How about someone who thinks DC's ban is Constitutional?
Now if Obama suddenly makes an about face and starts championing pro-gun legislation that's great. Until then any rational thinker will base their assessment of him on his past actions and statements.
Update - I post one comment. It goes through. Instead of reasonable discussion I get a copy & paste job and flat dismissal without any actual thought involved in her response whatsoever. Then I get this,
"You. are. a. dick.And you are not welcome on this blog.Adios!"
Ah, the typical response. She asks for an answer, doesn't like the response because it might challenge her irrational belief system, and resorts immediately to childish BS and banning. She's simply incapable of having a discussion based on the merits of each opposing arguments.
What a surprise!
Update #2 - Wow! I know I shouldn't be surprised, but this is some quick "reasoned discourse."
Skye in comments
"To traffic being directed here by Mike W. (once again acting in a manner that confirms my resolve not to engage in any kind of communication with him):Please see my post from today, 4.14.09.Life is short: don't waste my time and yours."
This is quite an interesting thought process on Skye's part. She asks for evidence that Obama is anti-gun, but doesn't allow me to comment. She then whines and complains that I linked to her post and drove over traffic. Can facts really be that damaging to the psyche of an anti-gunner?
She also insinuates that I, by virtue of my post, am acting in an uncivil, rude (insert other baseless pejorative here) manner. I did nothing more than link to her, provide her with some evidence to answer her question and predict (accurately) how she'd react when commenters tried to post facts that conflicted with her worldview.Why ask for proof if you never intended to allow any to be posted in the 1st place.? Why even make the post if you were going to remain willfully ignorant and turn off your mind and comment section from the very beginning? Why ask for proof if you consider rational thought and educating onesself to be "a waste of time?"
A sarcastic, "Awww, you took your ball and went home all because of a handful of comments" is apparently a "mean" thing for me to have said, but it continues to be such a demonstratably apt description of the pro-ignorance, anti-freedom crowd.*
*I shamelessly stole that line from Weer'd.
Sad But Predictable, even when you give them evidence exactly as they asked for in a calm and reasonable manner they still go through the predictable standard stages I've laid out before. Then eventually they take their ball and go home.