Page 30 of 84 FirstFirst ... 2028293031324080 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 838

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

  1. #291
    Guru
    Diogenes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen
    10-11-13 @ 06:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,980

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Serious View Post
    The answer is those who refuse to own arms will have to depend on their neighbors who do.
    Truth. It has always been so.
    "We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
    - Abraham Lincoln

  2. #292
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,460

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

    Quote Originally Posted by austrianecon View Post
    And this is your failure to understand, not theirs. To each person the Constitution means it's own thing.
    Well, thats your first mistake, the constitution was not intended for each person to mean it's own thingy.

    You think the Constitution is a "living" document. I personally don't and I have history on my side.
    No you don't have history on your side as evidenced by the thousands and thousands of statutes, legislation, bills, acts and laws that derive their legality from the constitution over the last two hundred and twenty years or so.

    So I hold that if you want to curtail or remove a natural right granted in the Bill of Rights.. you need to have a Constitutional Convention or go through the process of having each State ratify it.
    Nobody can remove a natural right, not even the constitution because they are endowed by the creator and are inalienable. All rights, natural and legal are protected in the ninth amendement unless stated elsewhere in the constitution or Bill of Rights. The constitution doesn't grant rights, it simply protects them. So there again you you have shown just how misinformed and ignorant your understanding of the constitution is and why it's best to leave it's interpretation to the people who know a lot more than you.

    I find my view as the most correct due to it was standard practice for the better part of 140 years prior to FDR. It ended when the Supreme Court got infected with the Progressive Movement. Laws that wouldn't have past the sniff test 10 years earlier passed without a blink. Now many in the Military gave a big fat pass on privacy and 4th amendment rights being ignored over the last 20 years as well. Do I think they actually understand the Constitution? Hell no.. the Military isn't for the thinking man, just the follower, who if there long enough becomes the leader. People will get worked up about that comment but oh well. It's the reality.
    You can believe whatever you want, it's a free country but it won't make you right.


    Now the list of "rebellions" you list from Wiki (which isn't a great source by the way) is full of riots which have nothing to directly do with Federal Government actions. Only 2 rebellions happened under the US Constitution since 1789. Whiskey and Fries's Rebellion.. none ended with great violence but rather arrests and then Federal pardons.
    It's called a list of rebellions and civil unrest for a reason...probably because that's what they are.

    Now excuse me if I don't take Brad Hart's opinion on the matter seriously. It's revision history of Thomas Jefferson on his part. Thomas Jefferson was a revolutionist. By Thomas Jefferson's own actions he acted in a manner in which Brad Hart would disapprove. But I would also state.. a Rebellion in itself can't be filled with ignorance or misinformed. As Rebellion is based on a belief that it's actors know better and it's the others who are ignorant and misinformed. This has to be true or the idea that the "Patriots" had was actually wrong and the British were correct and since I personally don't know alot of people who claim our colonial cousins were right.. I tend to see it that way.
    I know, it's hard to dispute direct quotes from the man who said them, isn't it. So forgive me if I don't take you or your opinion on the matter seriously, either.

    You are moderate, rational and informed.. I think not. You are the one quoting some hack's blog spot. Not I.
    Thats fine, but I'll take the sources and quotes in his blog over your biased clueless little opinions any day of the week, month or year.

  3. #293
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Serious View Post
    If you were to replace majority with minority this would be a question based in reality. The answer is those who refuse to own arms will have to depend on their neighbors who do.
    Nonsense. I've protected myself, and an occasional neighbor just fine without ever owning a gun. A gun is nothing more than a tool. Safety should not depend on tools, but the human minds ability to reason and plan.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  4. #294
    Professor
    Shadow Serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Last Seen
    07-18-14 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,460

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    You have in fact not. Gun rights are less restrictive now than they have been any time recently. And some one who claims to be neutral on some rights, and is actually against others, can't go and claim to be a big defender of right. At least I am consistent, and believe strongly in protecting rights, even when I do not like the outcome of that protection. Being willing to limit people's access to medical treatments(see abortion), but don't come after my gun, that is not consistently defending rights. Claiming to be neutral on the right to marry, but heaven help some one who is considering possibly, maybe limiting in some way that might even pass Supreme Court muster, and you are willing to declare your intent to ignore those laws(which there is no constitutional basis for you to be able to do)...that is not a consistent defense of rights, and kinda means you should not be crying about any "erosion of rights".
    You are in error; the right to bear arms is an enumerated right like that of free speech, the press, religion, and the right not to testify against oneself in a trial. Gay marriage would be up to individual states to determine its legality (under the Constitution). In no case, shape or form could access to medical treatments be considered a "right" on the same level as the right to bear arms. They are provided by individuals and businesses and must be paid for and the government has no place on setting the price for these services nor should the government be the primary responsible party to pay for them.
    An Enlightened Master is ideal only if your goal is to become a Benighted Slave. -- Robert Anton Wilson

  5. #295
    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
    The worst being the pro-gun sides paranoid delusional belief in dsytopia perpetuated by the NRA which is very similar to the same kind of paranoid propaganda that Hitler, Mao and Stalin espoused to the masses.
    Let's assume that to be true for a second; wouldn't you say they each delivered what people were "paranoid" about???

    What's worse here is that you actually seem to be suggesting that Obama is seeking to cull a large portion of Americans, and it's going to be gun owners fault because they are resisting??

    Are you actually suggesting that hitler was a good guy until he dealt with gun owners?

    I don't know what to say...

    Where do you get off saying that Hitler, Stalin and Mao disarmed the population? They didn't disarm them, they enlisted them and 90% of them went willingly. The millions they killed were the scapegoat minorities they used to perpetate hate and fear into the ignorant masses to do their killing for them.
    Please tell me this is a joke?

  6. #296
    Professor
    Shadow Serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Last Seen
    07-18-14 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,460

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Nonsense. I've protected myself, and an occasional neighbor just fine without ever owning a gun. A gun is nothing more than a tool. Safety should not depend on tools, but the human minds ability to reason and plan.
    You were the one who brought up the point asking who will protect the non-gun owners against bad people who use guns in their wrongdoing. And I wish more people would think that guns are tools and not some scary demonic device that goes off and kills people.
    An Enlightened Master is ideal only if your goal is to become a Benighted Slave. -- Robert Anton Wilson

  7. #297
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Last Seen
    08-25-17 @ 02:13 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,127

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Well, thats your first mistake, the constitution was not intended for each person to mean it's own thingy.
    Really? How about you tell the Supreme Court Justices that when they rule outside the bounds of their legal responsibilities by legislating from the bench.. See: Commerce Clause and General Welfare Clause.

    But gun control is okay? Even though it expressly says in the 2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    No you don't have history on your side as evidenced by the thousands and thousands of statutes, legislation, bills, acts and laws that derive their legality from the constitution over the last two hundred and twenty years or so.
    Actually, I do. How about you check up the opinion of US vs Lopez (1995) or maybe read up on how Justice Marshall laid the ground work for "dormant" Commerce Clause theory which was bastardized by progressive Judges in the 1930s and later.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Nobody can remove a natural right, not even the constitution because they are endowed by the creator and are inalienable. All rights, natural and legal are protected in the ninth amendement unless stated elsewhere in the constitution or Bill of Rights. The constitution doesn't grant rights, it simply protects them. So there again you you have shown just how misinformed and ignorant your understanding of the constitution is and why it's best to leave it's interpretation to the people who know a lot more than you.
    So now nobody can remove a natural right? Such as self-defense and ownership of a firearm or free speech.. but gun "control" is allowed. How crazy of me to think that natural rights are questionable in an age when Government curtails natural rights all the time (such as "Free Speech Zones") and this very topic is about Government wanting to curtail a natural right. The 9th Amendment is one which a natural right has to be claimed for it to mean anything. But this one time in American History some people got together to claim their "natural rights" and an listed right (10th Amendment) a President forced war and cost 600,000 Americans their lives. So we know 9th Amendment protects jack.

    No, I am making a point in which you failed to get. Furthermore you don't even realized I just sockpuppeted you. Government curtails "natural rights" all the time despite the protection that's suppose to be afforded to them. You have no problem with this as you clearly stated earlier. So it's you that is trying interpreting the Constitution wrong. So are the Courts, Congress and the Executive branch. Yet here we are.. you trying to educate me on what "rights" are or aren't.



    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    You can believe whatever you want, it's a free country but it won't make you right.
    Go read up on things like the Patriot Act, wiretapping and all the fancy things Government is doing to remove privacy rights.



    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    It's called a list of rebellions and civil unrest for a reason...probably because that's what they are.
    Civil unrest is a broad term. In law it can mean: illegal parades, sit-ins, riots, sabotage, and other crimes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    I know, it's hard to dispute direct quotes from the man who said them, isn't it. So forgive me if I don't take you or your opinion on the matter seriously, either.
    Here is Thomas Jefferson's full quote:

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson
    "I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a Chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: and what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted."
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Thats fine, but I'll take the sources and quotes in his blog over your biased clueless little opinions any day of the week, month or year.
    Ah so now I am clueless? Even though I am about to educated you full on the whole quote.

    Thomas Jefferson was speaking of the Shay's Rebellion which he thought nothing of and that the Government's actions should be one of forgiveness, not of cruelty. But ironically if it wasn't for that "Rebellion" Articles of Confederation would have lasted longer.

    Now a mere 12 years later, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in response to the Alien and Sedition Laws (American's first great denial of rights).
    The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

    Good ol' Thomas Jefferson was calling for "Revolution", go figure right?

  8. #298
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,361

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Serious View Post
    If you were to replace majority with minority this would be a question based in reality. The answer is those who refuse to own arms will have to depend on their neighbors who do.
    The sad truth is that we would all be "safer" if only the criminals and the police had guns. No one thinks that will work here but we need to at least miniimize the risks so our gun culture isn't so destructive to innocents. What we don't want is for everyone to "need" a gun or think that having a gun will make you safer from gun violence, that is a lie and is unacceptble given the additional deaths it would cause. The other statistic that is undisputable is the one that says more guns = more gun violence. Is that what the "gun nuts" really want? More shootings, more murders?

  9. #299
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

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

    I read that the fortune Jefferson left to his daughters in his will had to be used to pay off the huge debts he had outstanding. Made me question how smart he really was.

  10. #300
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,460

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

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    Let's assume that to be true for a second; wouldn't you say they each delivered what people were "paranoid" about???
    Such as?

    What's worse here is that you actually seem to be suggesting that Obama is seeking to cull a large portion of Americans, and it's going to be gun owners fault because they are resisting??
    First of all I never mentioned Obama and never suggested any such thing. But it's quite telling that you're trying to bring him into the equasion to distract from the the NRAs use of propaganda as compared to Hitlers. Because blaming the "other" is exactly what Hitler did to inspire the masses to achieve his goal of a paranoied distopian society as well.

    Are you actually suggesting that hitler was a good guy until he dealt with gun owners?
    It's just one fallacy after another with you, isn't it.

    I don't know what to say...
    I think you've said plenty to prove my point.

    Please tell me this is a joke?
    Quite the opposite.

Page 30 of 84 FirstFirst ... 2028293031324080 ... 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
  •