• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standard

Boo Radley said:
I do nothing of the kind. I use an objective fact. Numbers are numbers, nothing more. So, yes, I lecture you, and not knowing the difference is one reason why.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the facts you mentioned were from a study that was very flawed...

And the numbers you're using both ways assumes guns to be the only factor. I don't make that causal relationship error. Nor have I really mentioned murder at all. Also know, you may be reading propaganda on Britain and not actual numbers or any reasonable comparison. but, that would depend on what you're basing your opinion on.
Click to expand...

So, wait, guns are not the only factors of the problem, but limiting guns is the only solution you will look at?!?
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

BmanMcfly said:
Unfortunately, the facts you mentioned were from a study that was very flawed...



So, wait, guns are not the only factors of the problem, but limiting guns is the only solution you will look at?!?
Click to expand...

No, you either have the wrong numbers, or you're reading some flawed koolaid.

And you don't have to be the only factor to be a factor. It's not all one or the other. But the issue is not one of safety entirely, but whether there can be limitations. I believe that precedence has already been set. The only question is where the line is.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Boo Radley said:
The digs improve without the stats that I'd be more likely to shoot myself, or a family member, or any number if things that wrong.
Click to expand...

Wrong, the Kellerman studied was flawed and completely discredited.

Critics of Kellermann's 1993 paper responded with a number of objections: (e.g. the guns/homicide association could simply reflect the fact that people already at risk of homicide are more likely to acquire guns for self-protection; the study population was urban and therefore higher risk in general, compared to suburban or rural areas), and (e.g. that members of rival gangs were tabulated as "family member or intimate acquaintance"; that the data was cherry-picked).
Click to expand...

Arthur Kellermann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your bull**** don't fly.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, you either have the wrong numbers, or you're reading some flawed koolaid.

And you don't have to be the only factor to be a factor. It's not all one or the other. But the issue is not one of safety entirely, but whether there can be limitations. I believe that precedence has already been set. The only question is where the line is.
Click to expand...

Oh that's even better... You're truth finally comes out.

You don't want gun control for the kids, or safety, or to reduce crime and murders.... You finally want that you want control of guns for the sake of controlling guns.

Seriously, why else would you be focused on one issue that will have no impact, in the best case, and reflects only a small portion of te overall problem of violence in society??
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

BmanMcfly said:
Oh that's even better... You're truth finally comes out.

You don't want gun control for the kids, or safety, or to reduce crime and murders.... You finally want that you want control of guns for the sake of controlling guns.

Seriously, why else would you be focused on one issue that will have no impact, in the best case, and reflects only a small portion of te overall problem of violence in society??
Click to expand...

Didn't say that either. I merely noted that precedence has already been established. The real problem is us, and or love affair with weapons. Not sure that can be legislated, but convinced we shouldn't ignore it. it is an issue, people will address it. And they will do so not because of some covert agenda, but because of what is happening in our communities. If you want to slow that down, become part of the solution and not the problem.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

BmanMcfly said:
Just a note, this would have been called "conspiracy theory" just a year ago.
Click to expand...

It's how Socialists work... deny it to the public, but work towards it like termites or dry rot... out of view they just keep eating away, eating away, eating away.

Then they claim republicans have played along and are responsible.

They're a dishonest lot, just look at Obama and gay marriage. Does anyone really believe the BS he stated before? I didn't. Why? Because he's a socialist, and socialists are liars.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

BmanMcfly said:
Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Orders' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standard

Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standard



That's if the other ten or so anti-gun bills don't pass obama will make an executive order...

Just a note, this would have been called "conspiracy theory" just a year ago.
Click to expand...

It still is, as it still isn't what your side claims it is.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Mr.Nick said:
Try treason....

The POTUS is not immune from treason..
Click to expand...

Treason? Seriously? I torn between asking you to elaborate, as I know that ought to be good; and asking you to calm down and take pill, as I know that would be good for you.

No one can make a serious charge of treason against the POTUS... though I am certain there are plenty that are swimming well up the tributaries of the mainstream that have wild hair about what constitutes treason.
 
Boo Radley said:
Didn't say that either. I merely noted that precedence has already been established. The real problem is us, and or love affair with weapons. Not sure that can be legislated, but convinced we shouldn't ignore it. it is an issue, people will address it. And they will do so not because of some covert agenda, but because of what is happening in our communities. If you want to slow that down, become part of the solution and not the problem.
Click to expand...

Ya, become a responsible gun owner, teach others the same and how to be empowered against the criminal elements of society, then at least criminals will have a harder time finding victims.
 
zimmer said:
It's how Socialists work... deny it to the public, but work towards it like termites or dry rot... out of view they just keep eating away, eating away, eating away.

Then they claim republicans have played along and are responsible.

They're a dishonest lot, just look at Obama and gay marriage. Does anyone really believe the BS he stated before? I didn't. Why? Because he's a socialist, and socialists are liars.
Click to expand...

Though republicans are equally corrupt, make no mistakes about that...
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

BmanMcfly said:
Ya, become a responsible gun owner, teach others the same and how to be empowered against the criminal elements of society, then at least criminals will have a harder time finding victims.
Click to expand...

You don't need a gun to not be a victim. That's your first mistake. Like I said, our love affair with guns takes on an almost magical element when too many believe the tool is a solution to all problems.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Boo Radley said:
You don't need a gun to not be a victim. That's your first mistake. Like I said, our love affair with guns takes on an almost magical element when too many believe the tool is a solution to all problems.
Click to expand...

It may not be the solution to all problems, however, IMO it shouldn't be the job of the government to tell you that you cannot have one or how many bullets you can have in a clip if you are a law abiding citizen.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

TheNextEra said:
It may not be the solution to all problems, however, IMO it shouldn't be the job of the government to tell you that you cannot have one or how many bullets you can have in a clip if you are a law abiding citizen.
Click to expand...

I quite disagree, . . .to a degree. You can have a gun for protection, and I think the courts have ruled that so. But the government can restrict, something else the courts have ruled acceptable. We'll see how it plays out. ;)
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Boo Radley said:
I quite disagree, . . .to a degree. You can have a gun for protection, and I think the courts have ruled that so. But the government can restrict, something else the courts have ruled acceptable. We'll see how it plays out. ;)
Click to expand...

Oh I know the government CAN restrict, I just don't think they should in this case is all. Law abiding citizens shouldn't be restricted like the government is doing now with these new rules.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

TheNextEra said:
Oh I know the government CAN restrict, I just don't think they should in this case is all. Law abiding citizens shouldn't be restricted like the government is doing now with these new rules.
Click to expand...

It doesn't seem like a major restriction to me. Hunting won't really be effected, and I don't think self defense will either.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Boo Radley said:
It doesn't seem like a major restriction to me. Hunting won't really be effected, and I don't think self defense will either.
Click to expand...

It's just one more liberty that the government should not be involved with that it is IMO. I mean with these new restrictions do you really believe that a criminal is going to say to themselves "Gee I better take that extra bullet out because that would be illegal"? Do you believe a criminal is going to follow any of then new rules?

And if its really isn't going to prevent more shootings or more deaths than why do it? It's more knee jerk reactions from the government again and it's not needed IMO.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

upsideguy said:
Treason? Seriously? I torn between asking you to elaborate, as I know that ought to be good; and asking you to calm down and take pill, as I know that would be good for you.

No one can make a serious charge of treason against the POTUS... though I am certain there are plenty that are swimming well up the tributaries of the mainstream that have wild hair about what constitutes treason.
Click to expand...

In what universe is screwing with the Bill of Rights not treason?

In what universe is spending and printing money like water while putting my grandchildren into epic debt not treason?

You may as well act like Obama can just do whatever he wants without consequence.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

TheNextEra said:
It's just one more liberty that the government should not be involved with that it is IMO. I mean with these new restrictions do you really believe that a criminal is going to say to themselves "Gee I better take that extra bullet out because that would be illegal"? Do you believe a criminal is going to follow any of then new rules?

And if its really isn't going to prevent more shootings or more deaths than why do it? It's more knee jerk reactions from the government again and it's not needed IMO.
Click to expand...

Exactly, they're criminals for a reason.

The only people being hurt here are law abiding citizens. The people who are NOT responsible for gun crime.

At the end of the day the topic is all moot tho. Guns will still be around and there isn't a damn thing our tyrannical government can do to change that.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

TheNextEra said:
It's just one more liberty that the government should not be involved with that it is IMO. I mean with these new restrictions do you really believe that a criminal is going to say to themselves "Gee I better take that extra bullet out because that would be illegal"? Do you believe a criminal is going to follow any of then new rules?

And if its really isn't going to prevent more shootings or more deaths than why do it? It's more knee jerk reactions from the government again and it's not needed IMO.
Click to expand...

Do I believe? No. But the larger problem is we just have too much arsenal floating around. It's all too easy to get. Hell, they don't really even have to work at it. While it won't prevent all deaths, the mere increased difficulty is likely to lower the death total overall. But, feel free to monitor and study, as i think we should have real information guiding our decisions.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Boo Radley said:
Do I believe? No. But the larger problem is we just have too much arsenal floating around. It's all too easy to get. Hell, they don't really even have to work at it. While it won't prevent all deaths, the mere increased difficulty is likely to lower the death total overall.
Click to expand...

How is it going to lower the death toll? Is a criminal not going to commit a crime or kill someone if he can't use an "assault weapon? That's even assuming he can't get one which we know they can.

This is simply a horrible knee jerk reaction by the government and is an unnecessary intrusion IMO.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

TheNextEra said:
How is it going to lower the death toll? Is a criminal not going to commit a crime or kill someone if he can't use an "assault weapon? That's even assuming he can't get one which we know they can.

This is simply a horrible knee jerk reaction by the government and is an unnecessary intrusion IMO.
Click to expand...

One, it does limit access, even among criminals. They have to work to get it. Right now many can just walk in a buy it. This also helps in making him work to kill that many, upping the odds more will survive.

And largely, it is just a return, and not a lot new in actual limitations.

For much of this we are dealing in opinions, which is why I liked the call for research best. We really have no way of knowing how little or how much, and i don't think either side actually wants any information that might not back their unchallenged assertions. i say, lets do the actual research. Lets find out as best we can.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Mr.Nick said:
In what universe is screwing with the Bill of Rights not treason?

In what universe is spending and printing money like water while putting my grandchildren into epic debt not treason?

You may as well act like Obama can just do whatever he wants without consequence.
Click to expand...

So you pretty much want to elect a President then impeach him right away.... as those are characteristics of just about every president we have had.... It would be a short-list of Presidents that did not fill that bill: William Henry Harrison, who served for one month, during which he suffered from pneumonia the whole time, might be only one that steers clear.

(BTW.. Presidents do not really spend money; they just write the checks)
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

upsideguy said:
So you pretty much want to elect a President then impeach him right away.... as those are characteristics of just about every president we have had.... It would be a short-list of Presidents that did not fill that bill: William Henry Harrison, who served for one month, during which he suffered from pneumonia the whole time, might be only one that steers clear.

(BTW.. Presidents do not really spend money; they just write the checks)
Click to expand...

Obama should have been impeached long ago..

Also, presidents don't spend money, congress authorizes spending. It just so happens that progressives in congress want to spend money and are eager to obey every command given to them by Obama.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom