• 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

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

DO be sure to mention that next time people offer how wonderfully successful gun bans were in England and elsewhere...

Why? It doesn't matter if they were successful there or not. We're not them.
 
Why? It doesn't matter if they were successful there or not. We're not them.

That's kinda the point, isn't it.

We would not be concerned about 'bans' were it not for politicians that rush to trumpet 'bans'. We wouldn't be concerned about gun confiscation and the violation of Constitutional rights were it not for elected officials promoting forced confiscation and the violation of rights.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

That's kinda the point, isn't it.

We would not be concerned about 'bans' were it not for politicians that rush to trumpet 'bans'. We wouldn't be concerned about gun confiscation and the violation of Constitutional rights were it not for elected officials promoting forced confiscation and the violation of rights.

A few (very few actually) talk ****. So? The fact remains they can only work within a certain framework. It's called the law. And when legislators have overstepped, the courts have put things back. There is virtually no likelihood or any real ban. So, while it might be discussion worthy to a point, only to a point, it doesn't warrant the hyperbolic panic many seem to project.
 
A few (very few actually) talk ****. So? The fact remains they can only work within a certain framework. It's called the law. And when legislators have overstepped, the courts have put things back. There is virtually no likelihood or any real ban. So, while it might be discussion worthy to a point, only to a point, it doesn't warrant the hyperbolic panic many seem to project.

Talk of bans and executive orders is not hyperbole and yes...it is subject to legal challenge yet here we are. It is very typical. Leftist a propose bans and force confiscation, gun owners respond, and the leftist cheerleaders say hey gun owners...stop overreacting. People like you might have a bit more credibility if your immediate response was aimed at those that start the ban rhetoric, not those that respond.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

A few (very few actually) talk ****. So? The fact remains they can only work within a certain framework. It's called the law. And when legislators have overstepped, the courts have put things back. There is virtually no likelihood or any real ban. So, while it might be discussion worthy to a point, only to a point, it doesn't warrant the hyperbolic panic many seem to project.

I dont know if you realize it, but those are exactly the arguments being made in England before they began implementing bans. Wether they are the same as us or not, there are a number of parallels and the implications are there if you arent blind to them.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Talk of bans and executive orders is not hyperbole and yes...it is subject to legal challenge yet here we are. It is very typical. Leftist a propose bans and force confiscation, gun owners respond, and the leftist cheerleaders say hey gun owners...stop overreacting. People like you might have a bit more credibility if your immediate response was aimed at those that start the ban rhetoric, not those that respond.

No, it's hyperbole. And there is no talk of banning all guns. At worse, only an assault weapons ban. So, yes, it is hyperbole. Nothing has happened. Nothing of significance is likely to happen. And like I said, this talk has been the same during my entire 54 years of life. When do you admit that it is silly?
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

I dont know if you realize it, but those are exactly the arguments being made in England before they began implementing bans. Wether they are the same as us or not, there are a number of parallels and the implications are there if you arent blind to them.

Doesn't matter at all. We're not them. There is no chance here. And if laws got passed here, those politicians would be out of office and repeal would be in place before it even got to court. it is silly to be talking about this as if all your guns were going to be banned. It has no chance of happening.
 
Murder suicide. However, it is people shooting each other. Family members. Just heard on the radio from the CDC that we're 43 times more likely to shoot each other, ourselves and family members than to defend ourselves. CDC spokesperson noted that even with the limited budget they had, they could shoot down the self defense stats you like to use. But, then again, we've done that already, haven't we?

Anyway, the point here is that your hyperbolic fear is largely silly. There are areas of debate. i get you want no restrictions and some what a ban, but the power to ban weapons altogether simply doesn't exist. There is next to no likelihood that you will lose your weapons.

Based off what numbers?

Here's a compilation of facts and myths
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf

Fact: Of the 43 deaths reported in this flawed study, 37 (86%) were suicides. Other deaths involved criminal activity between the family members (drug deals gone bad).186

86, Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home, Arthur L. Kellerman, D.T. Reay, 314 New Eng. J. Med. 1557-60, June 12, 1986. (Kellerman admits that his study did "not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm." He also admitted his study did not look at situations in which intruders "purposely avoided a home known to be armed." This is a classic case of a “study” conducted to achieve a desired result. In his critique of this “study”, Gary Kleck notes that the estimation of gun ownership rates was “inaccurate”, and that the total population came from a non-random selection of only two cities.)

Fact: Of the remaining deaths, the deceased family members include felons, drug dealers, violent spouses committing assault, and other criminals.187
Fact: Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator.188 This means you are much more likely to prevent a crime without bloodshed than hurt a family member.

187 Ibid.
188 Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, Gary Kleck, New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1991
 
Doesn't matter at all. We're not them. There is no chance here. And if laws got passed here, those politicians would be out of office and repeal would be in place before it even got to court. it is silly to be talking about this as if all your guns were going to be banned. It has no chance of happening.

What happens on the 1% chance you are wrong?
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

What happens on the 1% chance you are wrong?

It gets throw out in court if not repealed first by legislators. Hardly a problem.
 
No, it's hyperbole. And there is no talk of banning all guns. At worse, only an assault weapons ban. So, yes, it is hyperbole. Nothing has happened. Nothing of significance is likely to happen. And like I said, this talk has been the same during my entire 54 years of life. When do you admit that it is silly?

There it is. "At worst an assault weapons ban". Yeah...how could that POSSIBLY be a cause for concern. After all... Feinstein 'only' listed 120 specific weapons plus criteria for countless other weapons that would make them an "assault weapon". Yep. Thats what makes you "that guy".
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

There it is. "At worst an assault weapons ban". Yeah...how could that POSSIBLY be a cause for concern. After all... Feinstein 'only' listed 120 specific weapons plus criteria for countless other weapons that would make them an "assault weapon". Yep. Thats what makes you "that guy".

We lived with that ban for a long time. Hardly anything you're going to scare the majority about losing. It just isn't a big deal. Sorry.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

The Jefferson quotes were the same. So it wouldn't matter it came from.


Nnno. The right uses propaganda, persecution of minorities, union busting, gerrymandering, demogary and intimidation of political oppents, and voter disenfranchisment to gain political power. The left still uses the ballot box.

You're very good at twisting my words. But I can see you know exactly what I meant. So nice try, BmanMcFly but that pig don't fly.

Ok, are you a troll, or so whole heatedly partisan that you can't or won't even put a half a thought worth of examining your position.

Using minorities?? You mean like calling people that opposed Obamacare racist?

You mean union busting like how Obama signed a bailout that paid gm to move union jobs to mexico and china??

Using voter disenfranchisement on a campaign of "hope and change"??

Funny though.

She's no troll. If you disagree with her, I would like to see you debunk her position, please.
 
We lived with that ban for a long time. Hardly anything you're going to scare the majority about losing. It just isn't a big deal. Sorry.

Riiiight. So in the span of a few posts you have gone from There is no ban! to Well...come on...so what if its a ban...its 'just' an assault weapons ban. Never mind the fact that Feinstein announced how many more additions and characteristics she is adding that would make weapons that have pistol grips, detachable magazines, etc an 'assault weapon'. But...there you are. No bans...well...bans...but suck it up...no big deal.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Riiiight. So in the span of a few posts you have gone from There is no ban! to Well...come on...so what if its a ban...its 'just' an assault weapons ban. Never mind the fact that Feinstein announced how many more additions and characteristics she is adding that would make weapons that have pistol grips, detachable magazines, etc an 'assault weapon'. But...there you are. No bans...well...bans...but suck it up...no big deal.

No, two different issues. The no ban was in the context of defending ourselves. That meaning no universal ban of weapons will happen. This does not mean that there won't be, as there have been and are now, some limitations and regulations. But there will be no outright ban on weapons. Won't happen.

Like I noted, we've had an assault ban before, and people lived quite well with it. Now, you may argue how much it will or won't help, but whining that all your guns are going to be taken away is just silly.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

No, two different issues. The no ban was in the context of defending ourselves. That meaning no universal ban of weapons will happen. This does not mean that there won't be, as there have been and are now, some limitations and regulations. But there will be no outright ban on weapons. Won't happen.

Like I noted, we've had an assault ban before, and people lived quite well with it. Now, you may argue how much it will or won't help, but whining that all your guns are going to be taken away is just silly.

You aiiiiight with gun bans. I'm not. You support an assault on the second amendment. I don't. You pretend its all just an innocent and innocuous ban. I know better. You pooh pooh it and discount it because...at the end of the day...you want it.

Summary of 2013 legislation

Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
120 specifically-named firearms;
Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and
Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and
Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.
Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.
Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Not at all. Gun free zones are fundamentally a silly idea other than it gives the police/officials some right to confiscate a gun rather just having to observe someone. At the other extreme, its also silly to think the death penalty somehow stops this activity. In fact, you can't stop the activity, all you can do is slow it down... or limit the carnage.

The recidivism rate is very low among those executed... :roll:
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Obama is really intelligent on this one. In his one comment about what he "may" do, Obama has shifted focus away from the economy and jobs while the right laps this up like Koolaid and gets into a frenzy.

The country continues to go down the crapper with unemployment and the economy while the right is focused on an imaginary demon.

At worst, there will be an assault weapons ban PROPOSED, but highly unlikely it will ever pass.

Agreed. Obama benefits from anything that distracts attention from his dismal performance on the economy.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

You aiiiiight with gun bans. I'm not. You support an assault on the second amendment. I don't. You pretend its all just an innocent and innocuous ban. I know better. You pooh pooh it and discount it because...at the end of the day...you want it.

Summary of 2013 legislation

Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
120 specifically-named firearms;
Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and
Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and
Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.
Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.
Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.

I'm sorry, but that is all just hype. Nothing on there taken either individually or on the whole constitutes banning all weapons.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

I'm sorry, but that is all just hype. Nothing on there taken either individually or on the whole constitutes banning all weapons.
That isn't hyoe, it is a small piece of the proposed legislation. As to what it 'targets', by definition it would make virtually EVERY semiautomatic weapon illegal.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Difficult doesn't mean banned. And you will find a majority of city folks prefer less guns and not more. But the fact remains that guns have not remotely been banned.

It doesn't matter what some or most of the city folks prefer the right to bear arms is just as fundamental a right as the right of free speech, the press, assembly, religion, a just trial (and no cruel or unusual punishment), just compensation for eminent domain, or the right not to testify against yourself. When one right has been weakened the rest are also weakened. The right not to have ones property or person to be searched has been weakened and may then be used as precedent to weaken others. No on this the right to bear must be affirmed.

Also a ban against guns is NEVER a total ban. Those who are rich enough or politically well connected enough will not have to go thru all the hoops that the municipality will place to prevent the right to bear at least they will find the way easier to do so. When it comes to commoners no such luck you will wait your turn while the officials find some minor detail to deny the permit. The only thing that should deny such is if that person has a serious mental illness or has actively made threats against some person or group of persons.

Further more the one in New York treats the possession of a gun at a home as a privilege not a right and that permit doesn't include the right to bear. The requirments also required the person to indicate whether the were arrestred with a crime more serious than a parking violation and not just convicted. So there shows that it could be denied. When I looked at Chicago's website I was not able to find the info their online permit application was being "upgraded" and was not available and would have any applicant go to the office where they could apply.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

That isn't hyoe, it is a small piece of the proposed legislation. As to what it 'targets', by definition it would make virtually EVERY semiautomatic weapon illegal.

Limited to semi automatics. This is not all guns, nor not allowing you to defend yourself. I won't shed any crocodile tears of semi automatics.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

It doesn't matter what some or most of the city folks prefer the right to bear arms is just as fundamental a right as the right of free speech, the press, assembly, religion, a just trial (and no cruel or unusual punishment), just compensation for eminent domain, or the right not to testify against yourself. When one right has been weakened the rest are also weakened. The right not to have ones property or person to be searched has been weakened and may then be used as precedent to weaken others. No on this the right to bear must be affirmed.

Also a ban against guns is NEVER a total ban. Those who are rich enough or politically well connected enough will not have to go thru all the hoops that the municipality will place to prevent the right to bear at least they will find the way easier to do so. When it comes to commoners no such luck you will wait your turn while the officials find some minor detail to deny the permit. The only thing that should deny such is if that person has a serious mental illness or has actively made threats against some person or group of persons.

Further more the one in New York treats the possession of a gun at a home as a privilege not a right and that permit doesn't include the right to bear. The requirments also required the person to indicate whether the were arrestred with a crime more serious than a parking violation and not just convicted. So there shows that it could be denied. When I looked at Chicago's website I was not able to find the info their online permit application was being "upgraded" and was not available and would have any applicant go to the office where they could apply.

I'm sorry, but we're really only talking about semi automatics. Most people of all economic classes who what a gun, can have one. And trying to read into laws something that isn't their (the answering the questions could bit) isn't equal to the law actually preventing. Your side too often misreads and supposes what turns out to not actually be the case.
 
Back
Top Bottom