Double standard?

Double standards qualify as double standards because the hypocrisy is occurring on equal grounds. If America was in the midst of a bloody civil war, then yes, the President's words would be a double standard.

And before people jump on me, that doesn't mean that one has to support one statement over the other, or have to support either statements at all. I'm just pointing out that the President's words do not qualify as a conventional double standard because of the vast difference in situations, in America and in Syria. You can still be against giving weapons to the rebels and for assault weapons for American citizens and understand that it isn't a double standard.

 

It's kind of the way feminist say that women deserve this and that. No they don't.

 

Grown adults in the most journalistically and academically literate country in the world are using meme generators to justify owning assault weapons and evaluate global politics. This ain't Contra man, chill the **** out.

 

Or when Jewish people used to ask what's going on and where are you taking us. Just let stuff play out.

 

Are we in Syria? Does the U.S. need a revolution right now? No, we don't need assault weapons in this country but Syrians, that's a different situation.

 

No, it isn't a double standard at all.

 

Yeah! Its totally different from Contra -- because we're giving them weapons, not trading for them!

Interventionism is interventionism regardless of whether the Commander-in-Chief is a Republican or Democrat.

 

Contra the video game.

 

Legendary exchange. :grin:

 

Someone please educate this man as to what an "assault weapon" is.

 

You rationalized it by setting your own degrees of intent. It still comes down to someone deciding one thing for me and another for you. And to the layman, it sure feels like a double standard. It looks like a double standard. It sounds like a double standard. It....you know how this ends.

 

Dragician, are you comparing the US government's representation with that of the Syrian's government?

Thanks in advance.

 

... But it's not a double standard. Syrians live in a country where their government cruelly oppresses them. Hell, they might have been attacked by sarin gas. They need weapons to protect themselves.

In America, we are certainly in no danger of getting slaughtered by our government, so there is absolutely no need for us, in Obama's eyes, to possess assault weapons. I'm sure a simple handgun will suffice against the common criminal.

 

How can you compare giving assault weapons to one side of a civil war to giving assault weapons to the civilian population of a country at peace????

 

is this a topic on conservative radio?

 

It isn't about protection against common criminals. Its about rights and responsibilities. By this logic, we should go ahead and start banning anything and everything dangerous to us. I wouldn't be at a loss if smoking or drinking were banned, but as responsible adults, we should be allowed to choose our vices. I would not support these measures.

I am not sure why we think its ok to take away guns from responsible people but its ok to arm people who will be our enemy in a decade.

 

in both cases, Obama should be told: mind your own business.

 

I have no problem with responsible people owing guns, but my problem is that they have a way of ending up illegally in the hands of criminals.
It's not as if the criminals in our country are getting theirs guns by robbing an army depot, high jacking shipments from the gun manufacturers, or smuggling guns en mass (the opposite is probably true, i remember reading that upto 70% of the guns in Mexico were purchased legally in the US and than subsequently smuggled to Mexico)