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

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

Lachean said:

No one? So Diane Feinstein didn't want an outright ban on all firearms? A CT Senator didn't just propose a felony on all firearm ownership that's capable of more than a single shot?

>50 % of Americans support bans on "high capacity" magazines and "assault weapons." Should Feinsteins bill, with all the support it has + the full weight of the President's support, pass it would mean no more semi-automatic handguns as well.

These things aren't liberal pipe dreams, they're under serious consideration so concerns about them is QUITE warranted.

I'm willing to make a $200 paypal escrow bet that we see the passage of some form of gun control in the next two months, I've got $300 on something happening at the state level in at least one state. You game?

Click to expand...

Again, a little perspective goes a long way...

NO ONE WITHIN THE PRESIDENT'S CABIT IS CALLING FOR BANNING ALL GUNS!!! NO ONE!!!

Sen. Feinstein has been the only person's name I've seen repeated by Republicans/Conservatives who takes this position, but somehow every one on the Right who speaks on the gun control issue continues to quote her as if she and she alone has some broad authority to disarm America.

STOP AND THINK, people! She doesn't have that kind of power nor influence to persuade enough members of Congress on either side to take such a stance. Furthermore, very few would even take up her proposal especially not in the wake of Sandy Hook. If anything, there are more people inside and outside of Congress who are calling for comprehensive gun control measures that make sense - initiatives that plug the holes in current gun control legislation, i.e., improving and/or expanding requirements for stronger background checks including mental health related issues, limiting the number of rounds in gun clips, and keeping assault weapons (full-auto or semi-automatic) out of the hands of every-day, average Americans. These are all common-sense approaches to reducing the violence that result from people (usually criminals and the mentally unstable) using weapons irresponsibily.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I am NOT a proponent of taking away a citizen's right to bear arms. That in my estimation would be foolish and wrong. But I do believe there are just some weapons the general public do not need to have access to for personal protection.

All of these scare tactics coming from the Right, i.e., quotes from the Hilter or Stalin regimes, are just taking things to the extreme. You folks need to stop.

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

Moot said:

And I asked you to prove your argument by pointing out how the framers used regulation that is different from today? So either you can't or you don't know what you're talking about. I suspect both.

Click to expand...

Well, the Virginia Institute has this to say....

"When we talk about making some aspect of life "well regulated" today, we usually mean that it should be heavily regulated, or at least more regulated. But this is simply a modern prejudice. The term "well regulated" does not imply heavy regulation, or more regulation. When you pause over the term, you should easily recognize what would have been much more immediately apparent to any eighteenth-century reader: something can only be "well regulated" when it is not overly regulated or inappropriately regulated.

Recall that the original Constitution gave Congress almost unlimited authority to regulate the militia. As the operative clause of the Second Amendment makes clear, its purpose is simply to forbid one kind of inappropriate regulation (among the infinite possible regulations) that Congress might be tempted to enact under its sweeping authority to make all laws "necessary and proper" for executing the powers granted by the Constitution.21 What is that one kind of inappropriate regulation? Disarming the citizenry from among which any genuine militia must be constituted.

Congress is permitted to do many things to ruin the militia, and to omit many things that are necessary for a well regulated militia. Congress may pervert the militia into the functional equivalent of an army, or even deprive it completely of any meaningful existence. A lot of those things have in fact been done, and many members of the founding generation would have strongly disapproved. But the original Constitution allowed it, and the Second Amendment did not purport to interfere with congressional latitude to regulate the militia. What the Second Amendment does is to expressly forbid one particular, and particularly extravagant, extension of Congress' authority to make laws "necessary and proper" for exercising its control over the militia. Whatever the federal government does or fails to do about the militia, the Second Amendment forbids it from disarming citizens under the pretense of regulating the militia.

A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms

The second amendment is only one sentence, not two. So why are you ignoring the first clause that the framers obviously intended to be more important than the second? Can you at least tell me who the militias were?

Click to expand...

Well, first you have to understand the mindset of the framers of the constitution. They didn't want any central authority, or militia controlled by a central government. Then you have to understand sentence structure...the easiest way I can demonstrate that for you is to go back to the Virginia Institute....

"It should come as no surprise that there are so many obvious problems with reading the operative clause of the Second Amendment to protect any sort of right belonging to state governments. If the Constitution had simply provided that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," nobody could maintain with a straight face that the provision could mean anything other than that individuals have that right. Doubts about the plain and obvious meaning of that clause have been raised only because of the prefatory phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . . . "

Before looking at these words more closely, we should pause to focus on a few things that the Second Amendment does not say:

It emphatically does not say that it protects the right of the militia to keep and bear arms.
Nor does the Second Amendment say that the people's right to arms is sufficient to establish a well regulated militia, or that a well regulated militia is sufficient for the security of a free state.
Nor does the Second Amendment say that the right of the people to keep and bears arms is protected only to the extent that such a right fosters a well regulated militia or the security of a free state.
As these observations suggest, the grammar of the Second Amendment emphasizes the indefiniteness of the relation between the introductory participial phrase and the main clause. If you parse the Amendment, it quickly becomes obvious that the first half of the sentence is an absolute phrase (or ablative absolute) that does not modify or limit any word in the main clause. The usual function of absolute phrases is to convey information about the circumstances surrounding the statement in the main clause, such as its cause. For example: "The teacher being ill, class was cancelled."

The importance of this can be illustrated with a simple example. Suppose the Constitution provided:
A well educated Electorate, being necessary to self-governance in a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

Ok, get it? Their sentence first started out with a statement of fact, then proceeded to ensure the right to maintain that.

I use the term to regulate the same way the dictionary does and there is no mention of ban or banning in the definition. So why do you keep using the word ban when it does't mean to regulate or isn't mentioned in the second amendment?

Click to expand...

And that would be a fail in the same way as described above...Well regulated, doesn't mean today what it did then. And it is explained above.

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

Objective Voice said:

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I am NOT a proponent of taking away a citizen's right to bear arms. That in my estimation would be foolish and wrong. But I do believe there are just some weapons the general public do not need to have access to for personal protection.

Click to expand...

Why not? In reading the framers intentions, they believed strongly that the people being armed with military grade weapons was not only proper, but mandated by the militia act of the time....Not only so they could be called up when necessary, but to ward against tyranny.

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

j-mac said:

Why not? In reading the framers intentions, they believed strongly that the people being armed with military grade weapons was not only proper, but mandated by the militia act of the time....Not only so they could be called up when necessary, but to ward against tyranny.

Click to expand...

That was at a time when our nation was far less civilized, far less refined that it is now. It was also at a time when this nation was young and somewhat vulnerable to the whims of a foreign government. We don't have such threats looming over our heads today. Moreover, each state can now man its own militia group (more commonly known today as the National Guard). This civilian-volunteer group is more than capable of handling any foreign invasion that gets past our military defense umbrella.

But to your point, back then it was necessary to ensure that every able-bodied male (I believe the age limit was 16 yrs old and above) was well armed to fight in defense of the nation at worse, his state territorial boundaries at best. This was at a time when our nation did not have a well regimented military fighting force. As such, the federal government called upon conscripts wherever they could find them, men loyal to the national call "to arms". Today, too many people use the "well armed militia" line to 1) defend their position of gun rights, and 2) as an excuse to insight fear that somehow the fed gov't will at worse pull a German/Russian/Egyptian/Syrian coup. Got news for you...ain't gonna happen!

Too many Americans are armed to the teeth!! And it was like this long before Waco, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson (Gabby Gifford shooting) or even Sandy Hook. So, again...get a grip, folks.

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

A law is actually not what is needed to control the violence we face is in this country at the hands of people with guns. A change in culture is. The gun-loving mentality needs to go away, or innocent children will continue to be murdered by people who think that they are more important than the community around them.

The second amendment crowd is technically correct that laws against gun ownership probably won't help. But they are also in denial that the same spirit they're espousing is responsible for the violence. The stronger they make their argument, the less and less true it actually is.

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

j-mac said:

[Y]ou have to understand the mindset of the framers of the constitution. They didn't want any central authority, or militia controlled by a central government. Then you have to understand sentence structure...the easiest way I can...illustrate [this to you is to give] a simple example. Suppose the Constitution provided:

"A well educated Electorate, being necessary to self-governance in a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

Ok, get it? Their sentence first started out with a statement of fact, then proceeded to ensure the right to maintain that.

Click to expand...

I get what you're saying here. Using your analogy, if you take away books from the people they can't remain part of "a well informed Electorate". Using that same analogy, if we're going to go with absolutes wouldn't that also mean that the ONLY time the people could use their fire arms would be in defense of the nation as part of a militia (National Guard) and not necessarily for personal protection?

I get your point, but I would suggest you think it through alittle more.

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

Courtesy of flogger on another thread: C3: Global Warming Quotes & Climate Change Quotes: Human-Caused Global Warming Advocates/Supporters

This marvelous clip says it all:

Quotes by H.L. Mencken, famous columnist: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." And, "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it."

Click to expand...

And as a side benefit to the Dems, the gun control kerfuffle distracts attention away from the economic disaster they are bringing us.

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

Objective Voice said:

I get what you're saying here. Using your analogy, if you take away books from the people they can't remain part of "a well informed Electorate". Using that same analogy, if we're going to go with absolutes wouldn't that also mean that the ONLY time the people could use their fire arms would be in defense of the nation as part of a militia (National Guard) and not necessarily for personal protection?

I get your point, but I would suggest you think it through alittle more.

Click to expand...

Not at all....A weapon is used for many things. My shotgun for hunting, and personal protection. My 9mm for home protection, and personal protection on the road. Both could be used in defense of the nation, if the need arose, like say a Red Dawn type of thing, but they are mine, not the governments. And the right is mine, not afforded me by man, but ensured as endowed by my creator.

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

Moot said:

The second amendment gives the federal government the authority to regulate militas and this is confirmed by the tenth amendment. The government can regulate milita's firearms and the people are the militas. So how can the government regulate the militas firearms if it can't regulate the people's firearms?

Click to expand...

of all the moronic things I have seen on gun arguments, this reoccurring bit of idiocy is the worst

you are arguing that the BILL OF RIGHTS DELEGATES power to the federal government

unbelievably stupid

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

Moot said:

phoenyx said:

Found an interesting site:
Dictators and Gun Control « America In Chains

Some excerpts from the site:
***
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.”
- Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942
***

Click to expand...

Who do you think Hitler's "subject races" and "underdogs" were? They were the scapegoat minorities the Nazi's used to instill fear and hate into the German population to help them rise to power. They were the Jews, gypsies and homosexuals and they didn't have their guns confiscated, they had all of their property and wealth confiscated and were shipped off to concentration camps.

Click to expand...

From what I've seen, they had their guns confiscated first. I notice that you cut off what I wrote after Hitler's speech, but I actually said more in the message you're quoting regarding Hitler's Germany. Here's the rest of what I said:

"Read this post for more information on Hitler's gun control laws."

I'm guessing you didn't read it and perhaps never will if I don't quote it here, so here goes:
===
As a matter of fact, Hitler made sure that people he didn't trust couldn't own guns right before starting World War II. From Wikipedia's entry on Gun Politics in Germany:

***
The 1938 German Weapons Act

The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law:

...
•Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.[6]

On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.[7]
***

While some may disagree, most people believe that the Holocaust was right around the corner.

Now, Obama wants to do the same in America. I don't know what his personal intentions are, but I think it's interesting to note these other events that have occurred in the not too distant past...
» DHS Buys 1.6 Billion Bullets Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Now We Know Why There’s A Press Blackout On S 1959 – It’s Called “ENDGAME” By DHS – Updated 7/20/08 | ThePoliticalBandit.com

An excerpt from the second link. I took out the word "concentration" twice, as there's no proof that the camps are concentration camps from what I've seen, but left the rest in:
***
Over 800... camps are reported throughout the United States, all fully operational and ready to receive U.S. Prisoners who disagree with the government. The... camps are all staffed and manned by full-time guards, however, they are all empty. These camps are to be operated by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) when Martial Law is implemented in the United States (at the stroke of a Presidential pen and the Attorney General’s signature on a warrant).

The camps have railroad facilities as well as roads leading to and from the detention facilities, many have airports. Like Auschwitz, some of the camps have airtight buildings and furnaces. The majority of the camps can each house a population of 20,000 prisoners. Currently, the largest of these facilities is just outside of Fairbanks, Alaska. The Alaskan facility is a massive “mental health” facility and can hold approximately 2 million people.
***

And then there's this:
FEMA has over 4 acres of new coffins — why?

And this:


Apparently they've been moved since the video:
500,000+ FEMA Coffins Now Gone: Where Are They? (Redux) | Conspiracy Theories

I'm sure many if not most will just think it's a coincidence that all these coffins and bullets are being lined up. Me, I'm not so sure about that...
===

Moot said:

Do you think it's a coincidence that the rightwing are scapegoating minorities with brown skin and homosexuals in the US? I don't.

Click to expand...

What's your point? I'm pretty left wing, by the way. Though I'm not a fan of communism, I definitely like the notion "From each according to ability, to each according to need". I just don't think that you can really force people to be generous; you have to show them that being generous ultimately benefits everyone, and that isn't easy to do.

Moot said:

Hitler rose to power through national elections and by eliminating trade unions and opposing political parties......not unlike what the right wing in the US are trying to today.

Click to expand...

You'll find that dictators tend to eliminate any competition, whether it's the left or the right. Or did you not catch some of the other entries in my post? Just in case you missed it:
***
“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”
- Joseph Stalin

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. By 1987 that figure had risen to 61,911,000.

...
Mao Tze Tung - Promoted Gun Control
“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”
- Mao Tze Tung, Nov 6 1938

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952 10,076,000 political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated in Kuomintang China, and by 1987 another 35,236,000 exterminations were carried out under the Communists.
***

Moot said:

He didn't have the authority or the man power to confiscate arms until he was appointed Chancelor and the passage of the Enabling Act and by then the German people were overwhelmingly in support of the Nazi party. The notion that he had to confiscate guns in order to rise to power is pure rubbish and propaganda perpetuated by the right wing in the US so that they can machtergreifung in our own country and have totaltalitarian control over all our lives...just like Hitler.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying that he had to confiscate guns in order to rise to power. I'm saying that he confiscated guns as one of his finishing touches before starting World War II. Which, if you think about it from an American perspective, should be kind of scary. As mentioned, I don't know what Obama's intentions are, but Obama is only one man and he'll be gone in a few years anyway. There is a saying that in government, the left hand doesn't know what the right one is doing, and I can believe that. Regardless of what Obama's motives are, what I'm concerned about is the motives of those who have been getting all these bullets and FEMA camps operational.

Moot said:

Enabling Act of 1933 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Machtergreifung - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gleichschaltung - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you for reminding me that Hitler eliminated trade unions in order to rise to power.

Click to expand...

I'm not against unions per se, though I don't think they're always the best; I found this film to be quite good:



On the whole, I think we're better off with unions then without them, but I've certainly seen some corruption in their ranks as well.

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

people kill people, not guns. we have all seen it before and we will see it again, the ban on guns will ultimately reek havoc. Look at Chicago, enough said.

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

Objective Voice said:

Again, a little perspective goes a long way...

NO ONE WITHIN THE PRESIDENT'S CABIT IS CALLING FOR BANNING ALL GUNS!!! NO ONE!!!

Sen. Feinstein has been the only person's name I've seen repeated by Republicans/Conservatives who takes this position, but somehow every one on the Right who speaks on the gun control issue continues to quote her as if she and she alone has some broad authority to disarm America.

STOP AND THINK, people! She doesn't have that kind of power nor influence to persuade enough members of Congress on either side to take such a stance. Furthermore, very few would even take up her proposal especially not in the wake of Sandy Hook. If anything, there are more people inside and outside of Congress who are calling for comprehensive gun control measures that make sense - initiatives that plug the holes in current gun control legislation, i.e., improving and/or expanding requirements for stronger background checks including mental health related issues, limiting the number of rounds in gun clips, and keeping assault weapons (full-auto or semi-automatic) out of the hands of every-day, average Americans. These are all common-sense approaches to reducing the violence that result from people (usually criminals and the mentally unstable) using weapons irresponsibily.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I am NOT a proponent of taking away a citizen's right to bear arms. That in my estimation would be foolish and wrong. But I do believe there are just some weapons the general public do not need to have access to for personal protection.

All of these scare tactics coming from the Right, i.e., quotes from the Hilter or Stalin regimes, are just taking things to the extreme. You folks need to stop.

Click to expand...

I certainly don't believe that the U.S. Government is in the same state as Hitler's regime was immediately prior to World War II. I think it's more like how it was after the Reichstag Fire, which many believe was actually caused by the Nazi Party itself. Kind of like many believe that elements within the U.S. government were allowed/were involved in/ orchestrated some of the events on 9/11. The Nazis got their Reichstag Fire Decree, Americans got their Patriot Act. Since then, things have only gotten worse, as documented by a few brave whistleblowers, such as Sibel Edmonds:

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

cado20 said:

people kill people, not guns. we have all seen it before and we will see it again, the ban on guns will ultimately reek havoc. Look at Chicago, enough said.

Click to expand...

True. Anyway, if you have some information on Chicago, please link. There's also the old adage to think of: "Who watches the watchers?" The watchers in this case being the government and the media. I personally believe that many people in the western world have become far too trusting of their governments and their mass media; from what I understand, this is precisely what potential dictators and oligarchies need to rise to power. I believe the battle on people's freedoms is being waged on 2 fronts: on their freedom of speech, as Sibel Edmonds' case aptly demonstrates, and now on the right to bear arms.

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

phoenyx said:

True. Anyway, if you have some information on Chicago, please link. There's also the old adage to think of: "Who watches the watchers?" The watchers in this case being the government and the media. I personally believe that many people in the western world have become far too trusting of their governments and their mass media; from what I understand, this is precisely what potential dictators and oligarchies need to rise to power. I believe the battle on people's freedoms is being waged on 2 fronts: on their freedom of speech, as Sibel Edmonds' case aptly demonstrates, and now on the right to bear arms.

Click to expand...

Wow, you completely just read my mind. I personally think Obama is trying to make it easy for him to become a Dictator, limit the guns to stop the violence when he tries to over throw us. link:Chicago Gun Violence Returns To The National Spotlight: Is Enough Being Done?

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

cado20 said:

phoenyx said:

True. Anyway, if you have some information on Chicago, please link. There's also the old adage to think of: "Who watches the watchers?" The watchers in this case being the government and the media. I personally believe that many people in the western world have become far too trusting of their governments and their mass media; from what I understand, this is precisely what potential dictators and oligarchies need to rise to power. I believe the battle on people's freedoms is being waged on 2 fronts: on their freedom of speech, as Sibel Edmonds' case aptly demonstrates, and now on the right to bear arms.

Click to expand...

Wow, you completely just read my mind.

Click to expand...

Glad we agree

cado20 said:

I personally think Obama is trying to make it easy for him to become a Dictator, limit the guns to stop the violence when he tries to over throw us.

Click to expand...

I have to say at this point, that although I'm not American, I would have voted for Obama both times. I would have preferred Dennis Kucinich, but he didn't win the Democratic nomination. I'm disappointed that Obama's bailed out the banks just like Bush did, he's legalized warrantless wiretapping, he went back on his promise to look into the safety of vaccines and he seems uniterested in doing a new investigation on 9/11, but I'm really hoping that it's just that he's not informed, and that he's not one of those who would like to create a police state. I know that people who I greatly respect, such as Sibel Edmonds, are not impressed with him (the Whistleblower act that passed during his time as president does absolutely nothing to protect people in organizations such as the FBI), but I keep on hoping that he's just being duped instead of being complicit in anything.

cado20 said:

link:Chicago Gun Violence Returns To The National Spotlight: Is Enough Being Done?

Click to expand...

Thanks

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

Lachean said:

No one? So Diane Feinstein didn't want an outright ban on all firearms? A CT Senator didn't just propose a felony on all firearm ownership that's capable of more than a single shot?

>50 % of Americans support bans on "high capacity" magazines and "assault weapons." Should Feinsteins bill, with all th
e support it has + the full weight of the President's support, pass it would mean no more semi-automatic handguns as well.

These things aren't liberal pipe dreams, they're under serious consideration so concerns about them is QUITE warranted.

I'm willing to make a $200 paypal escrow bet that we see the passage of some form of gun control in the next two months, I've got $300 on something happening at the state level in at least one state. You game?

Click to expand...

One person s hardly a movement, or what is required. Some form? Very broad. Worse, assault weapons ban. Hardly taking all your guns or stopping self-defense. Try keep some context.

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

Shadow Serious said:

Right the argument is what tools would you be allowed to defend ones self.





Tell that to the people in Chicago and New York City. Try getting a permit for home possession not to mention legal carry.




The people who want to ban guns are either not rational thinkers who either fear guns since guns are capable of killing people or thinks that guns are the primary cause of crime and violent activity instead of a secondarily or tertiary reason ;or have a rational reason to ban guns for their own purposes.

Click to expand...

There are no gun bans. Not universal. I'm sorry, but they is huge hyperbole from gun folks.

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

TurtleDude said:

wrong as usual-your silly attempt to extrapolate your situation to everyone else's confrontations with criminals is just plain stupid

Click to expand...

You do know there are actual statistics (not the weak news you cite concerning stopping crime, but verifiable numbers).

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

Boo Radley said:

One person s hardly a movement, or what is required. Some form? Very broad. Worse, assault weapons ban. Hardly taking all your guns or stopping self-defense. Try keep some context.

Click to expand...

you seem to think that banning some guns will be the end of it

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

Boo Radley said:

You do know there are actual statistics (not the weak news you cite concerning stopping crime, but verifiable numbers).

Click to expand...

you mean your idiotic claims that because you were able to get out of some situation without a gun means that others don't need guns?

you sure hate the freedom of choice don't you?

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

TurtleDude said:

you seem to think that banning some guns will be the end of it

Click to expand...

Yep, I do. I've been hearing the same whining hyperbolic scare **** from guys on your side for fifty years, and squat has happened. So, yes, I think that will be the end of it.

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

TurtleDude said:

you mean your idiotic claims that because you were able to get out of some situation without a gun means that others don't need guns?

you sure hate the freedom of choice don't you?

Click to expand...

No, that's just common sense. But stats show we're more likely to shoot ourselves than anyone else.

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

Boo Radley said:

Yep, I do. I've been hearing the same whining hyperbolic scare **** from guys on your side for fifty years, and squat has happened. So, yes, I think that will be the end of it.

Click to expand...

well we realize that some of you pretend that the incremental approach doesn't exist despite one of the founders of the Gun hate movement-Nelson "Pete" Shields setting it out. But Governor Cuomo pretty much proved we were right as did Diane Feinswine.

both of them have admitted that the prior bans were just steps to more idiotic bans

BTW didn't you once claim you really didn't care about gun issues?

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

Boo Radley said:

No, that's just common sense. But stats show we're more likely to shoot ourselves than anyone else.

Click to expand...

wow, 300 million guns in the USA-how many of us have shot ourselves?

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

TurtleDude said:

well we realize that some of you pretend that the incremental approach doesn't exist despite one of the founders of the Gun hate movement-Nelson "Pete" Shields setting it out. But Governor Cuomo pretty much proved we were right as did Diane Feinswine.

both of them have admitted that the prior bans were just steps to more idiotic bans

BTW didn't you once claim you really didn't care about gun issues?

Click to expand...

Like I said earlier, that incremental must be some slow moving effort. Nothing has happened to speak of. So, you won't convince any argument with anyone but the faithful with that line if reasoning.