Page 26 of 84 FirstFirst ... 1624252627283676 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 838

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

  1. #251
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:24 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,467

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dammitboy! View Post
    The 2nd amendment was not written to protect gun manufacturers. In point of fact, I doubt there was any kind of established gun manufacturing at the time it was written. The 2nd amendment was written to protect our right to self-defense from an over-reaching government - to put restrictions on government from taking our firearms.

    How can you not possibly know or understand this?!
    If the intent of the second amendment was to protect the right to self defense from government then why limit it to firearms? Why not include canons, swords, axes and other methods of self defense?

  2. #252
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    I cannot find the part about confiscating guns.
    Can you underline it?
    Afaict, there's more to the definition of a threat than mere intent. It has to be an intent to do some harm iirc. I mean I have an intent to get another cup of coffee. But that's hardly a threat.
    Sorry to hear that.
    I had been hoping that my grasp of language would remain loyal to my "pretentious pseudo-intellectualism." ...especially after all they have been through together. That's life I s'pose.

    Have you thought much about your motivation to shift the topic of conversation to my varied multitude of personality flaws?
    Cataloging my many flaws doesn't seem to do much to advance your case that Biden threatened "to take the guns."
    Discussing my shortcomings seems to distract and detract from your case, imho.
    Of course, ymmv. You may feel that it logic dictates that if I have flaws then Biden did indeed "threaten to take the guns."
    idk
    But, fwiw and imho, it doesn't seem to strengthen your argument.
    Let's browse google on the subject of gun laws...

    http://www.examiner.com/article/obam...gislation-2013

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWerM...e_gdata_player

    Ok, context of the quote, "after a meeting concerning gun violence.", meaning that the discussion was concerning gun control.

    Then he said that the president will act executively AS WELL AS the legislative action that is believed to be required.

    Then says if the executive power saves one life then it's worth it...

    But wait... More important than how I see this what the hell are you going to propose he is saying here?!?

    Oh, and I brought up your grasp of language because you can't seem to understand the meaning of what he is saying, and then attempt to use your seeming ignorance in a pretentious attempt to appear superior.

    I was bringing it up only to point out that smugness like that does not strengthen your point.

  3. #253
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    If the intent of the second amendment was to protect the right to self defense from government then why limit it to firearms? Why not include canons, swords, axes and other methods of self defense?
    Sure, but collateral damage is indefensible.

  4. #254
    Advisor Dammitboy!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Meridian, Mississippi
    Last Seen
    04-13-13 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    343

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    If the intent of the second amendment was to protect the right to self defense from government then why limit it to firearms? Why not include canons, swords, axes and other methods of self defense?
    It says "the right to bear arms", firearms being what we are discussing. At the time it was completely legal to own cannon and it still is today. Swords, axes, bayonets are all "arms". Jesus, educate yourself before you start discussing a topic please, why do I have to educate you?

    Arms are not limited to firearms. The Supreme Court has interpreted the word "arms" to mean anything a soldier could normally carry by himself. Grenades fall in this category. As our founders pointed out;

    "Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." ~ Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788 explaining the meaning of the 2nd amendment.
    Some apes are more equal...

  5. #255
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,945
    Blog Entries
    5

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

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    More important than how I see this what the hell are you going to propose he is saying here?!?
    I would propose hewing a little more closely to the meanings of the words which were actually used.
    But I am boring like that.
    Sometimes I can be the last one to get on board with creative and dynamic interpretations of words and phrases.
    Just another one of my personality flaws I s'pose.
    I may be wrong.

  6. #256
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    I would propose hewing a little more closely to the meanings of the words which were actually used.
    But I am boring like that.
    Sometimes I can be the last one to get on board with creative and dynamic interpretations of words and phrases.
    Just another one of my personality flaws I s'pose.
    Well you were missing just the element of context.

    See, the political context of such a statement in say Clinton's day would have been a threat for something like background checks or gun registration...

    Here, in the wake of ten bills being proposed, Biden talks about Obama going the executive route if the legislative route fails.

    Again, what do you interpret Bidens statement as saying?? Since it clearly means something else in your mind.

  7. #257
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:24 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,467

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dammitboy! View Post
    It says "the right to bear arms", firearms being what we are discussing. At the time it was completely legal to own cannon and it still is today. Swords, axes, bayonets are all "arms". Jesus, educate yourself before you start discussing a topic please, why do I have to educate you?

    Arms are not limited to firearms. The Supreme Court has interpreted the word "arms" to mean anything a soldier could normally carry by himself. Grenades fall in this category.

    As our founders pointed out;

    "Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." ~ Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788 explaining the meaning of the 2nd amendment
    "...arms to mean anything a soldier could normally carry by himself." So does that mean the intent of the second amendment was for soldiers and people in militas and not for an individual citizen's self defense? Because it sure looks like thats what you and Coxe saying.

    Tench Coxe was a gun manufacturer. lol Yeah, I can see why he believed in the "peoples right to keep and bear arms." Because the more guns he sold the richer he got. Hmm, sounds familiar.

    Tench Coxe was a quite a paradox. Apparently, he helped to arm the British during the Revolution at the same time his fellow patriots were being disarmed. After the Revolution he procured a lucrative government contract to manufacture guns for the standing army ....to use against American citizens. Wasn't that what the framers were most afraid of? And doesn't kinda undermine Coxe's quote above?

    Something about Coxe...

    "... In a series of articles published in early 1811, Coxe's former Pennsylvania political associate, William Duane, charged that Purveyor Coxe had accepted large quantities of inferior firearms. In his first article, Duane made the sweeping allegation "that arms we had seen, which had been manufactured for the MONEY (for we cannot say the use) of the United States, were better adapted to kill American soldiers into whose hands they should be put, than an enemy." Coxe rejoined in the same issue, flatly denying the charges and noting that all arms were inspected prior to payment.

    In subsequent installments, Duane relied on averments of the former inspector who was discharged for incompetence. Duane claimed that some rifle barrels lacked grooves (rifling), had grooves only six inches down the barrel, or had grooves that were too shallow. Some were made with unfit Dutch locks (firing systems), or had stocks filled with glue and sawdust. There were Hessian or Hanoverian arms (German imports) which needed inspecting. "There were nine hundred pairs of pistols, but not one pair fit for public service."

    In a series of articles addressed To the Public, Coxe responded to "the late unfounded attack upon the public muskets and private manufacturers of of muskets for the United States." The muskets, rifles, and pistols in question were the equivalent of any manufactured in this country. Coxe stated that, thanks to the federal procurement program, the number of private armorers had increased ten-fold in just a few years.

    Months passed without further public controversy, but at the end of 1811, Duane renewed "The Military Establishment" series. Duane insinuated that in America there were those who placed "a military force before its enemy with saw dust cartridges or balls too large for the calibre, or with rifles without touchholes, and without spiral grooves, and of which 8 out of 18 burst on the proof with powder only of 135, whilst the true proof should be of the standard of 150."....read

    The James Madison Research Library and Information Center
    It appears that Tench Coxe was a one man NRA whose only goal it seems was to peddle fear in order to make money from selling guns....and poor quality guns at that.


    Hey Dammitboy, thanks for educating me. LOL
    Last edited by Moot; 01-12-13 at 04:30 AM.

  8. #258
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    If the intent of the second amendment was to protect the right to self defense from government then why limit it to firearms? Why not include canons, swords, axes and other methods of self defense?
    Because firearms are what you used to kill people in the late 18th century. You will recall, for example, that what kick-started the actual Revolution was an attempt by the British to seize privately owned cannon.

  9. #259
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dammitboy! View Post
    It says "the right to bear arms", firearms being what we are discussing. At the time it was completely legal to own cannon and it still is today. Swords, axes, bayonets are all "arms". Jesus, educate yourself before you start discussing a topic please, why do I have to educate you?

    Moot, you really are getting destroyed in this thread. Maybe quit digging while you are still behind?

  10. #260
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Thanks I'll add your link to my favorites. Nevertheless, not remembering the official name does not negate my original response
    No, it just demonstrates the baseline you are working from.

    But it is a very interesting historical factoid that many are unaware of and for me it gave an entire new perspective on the Civil War. I thought it was brilliant on Lincoln's part and was probably the most single important factor that kept the union in tact..legally.
    Nah. Mao had that one right - political power flows from the barrel of the gun. Lincoln understood that if you win the war, the legal reasoning will follow.

    The point of posting the 1807 insurrection law was in response to someone posting Jeffersons quote, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
    Yeah, here's the only problem with that. It doesn't actually have any impact whatsoever on either that quote or the discussion at hand - especially given that it was an act of Congress.

Page 26 of 84 FirstFirst ... 1624252627283676 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •