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

American said:

swords and axes aren't illegal.

Click to expand...

Carrying them in public in town is often frowned on though.

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

Boo Radley said:

....And we don't need auto or semi automatic guns,...

Click to expand...

Who in the world do you think you speak for? not me....

And not this woman either....

"A woman hiding in her attic with children shot an intruder multiple times before fleeing to safety Friday.
The incident happened at a home on Henderson Ridge Lane in Loganville around 1 p.m. The woman was working in an upstairs office when she spotted a strange man outside a window, according to Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman. He said she took her 9-year-old twins to a crawlspace before the man broke in using a crowbar.

But the man eventually found the family.

"The perpetrator opens that door. Of course, at that time he's staring at her, her two children and a .38 revolver," Chapman told Channel 2’s Kerry Kavanaugh.

The woman then shot him five times, but he survived, Chapman said. He said the woman ran out of bullets but threatened to shoot the intruder if he moved.

"She's standing over him, and she realizes she's fired all six rounds. And the guy's telling her to quit shooting," Chapman said."

Woman Hiding in Attic Shoots Intruder Five Times to Protect Her Children - Daniel Doherty

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

j-mac said:

Who in the world do you think you speak for? not me....

And not this woman either....

"A woman hiding in her attic with children shot an intruder multiple times before fleeing to safety Friday.
The incident happened at a home on Henderson Ridge Lane in Loganville around 1 p.m. The woman was working in an upstairs office when she spotted a strange man outside a window, according to Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman. He said she took her 9-year-old twins to a crawlspace before the man broke in using a crowbar.

But the man eventually found the family.

"The perpetrator opens that door. Of course, at that time he's staring at her, her two children and a .38 revolver," Chapman told Channel 2’s Kerry Kavanaugh.

The woman then shot him five times, but he survived, Chapman said. He said the woman ran out of bullets but threatened to shoot the intruder if he moved.

"She's standing over him, and she realizes she's fired all six rounds. And the guy's telling her to quit shooting," Chapman said."

Woman Hiding in Attic Shoots Intruder Five Times to Protect Her Children - Daniel Doherty

Click to expand...

A reasonable person. That's who I am.

And as we've agreed before, you can't pull up single stories to prove a point. I can pull up stuff that would argue for methods that would have kept out of that situation to begin with. Or stats that show for every story like this one, there are some forty something of people shooting themselves.

So, how should we play it?

Boo Radley said:

I never said wining the election by any numbers means actual rights can be taken away.

Click to expand...

But you mentioned in your argument that gun owners are in the minority. The implication being that since they are a minority that their rights can be brushed aside.

I don't believe any actual rights are being lost.

Click to expand...

Just because you don't exercise that right you won't recognize that it's lost (or that you are losing it).

Regulations and limitations are well within the scope of legal and Constitutional possibilities.

Click to expand...

Ya, the limitations exist, self-defense is always justifiable, even it results in lethal force being used. You cannot aggressively use force or you will be prosecuted (and hopefully executed).

The only question is the lone of where you can and can't.

Click to expand...

Yes, in your private property you can put up a sign saying that guns are not allowed in your home.

The people are supposed to be police / militia, police officers being people delegated to the task of taking people to justice... Not the task of protecting people from crime.

That protection is your own responsibility, but if you prefer you, your children, your spouse remain defenseless against criminals, that's your own prerogative, but don't try to dictate how others should defend themselves.

And yes, I fully understand both of the issues you bring up. And we don't need auto or semi automatic guns, and being armed will not change anything. You better have another plan.

Click to expand...

Well, I guess we're just slaves to government then....

Boo Radley said:

A reasonable person. That's who I am.

And as we've agreed before, you can't pull up single stories to prove a point. I can pull up stuff that would argue for methods that would have kept out of that situation to begin with. Or stats that show for every story like this one, there are some forty something of people shooting themselves.

So, how should we play it?

Click to expand...

No, you're not really being reasonable...

So what?!? People commit suicide all the time, and it doesn't matter if you take all guns away people will hang themselves or whatever... You can even overdose on aspirin if you are really intent, or we going to ban aspirin because of the potential to kill oneself?

Or do you mean like the 0.001% of gun cases where a gun misfires an shoots someone? Hell, if someone is that dumb / careless they shouldn't have got the gun anyway.

This is an impossible debate, no matter how many facts and figures you are shown, it's not going to change your emotional fear based arguments... Check please.

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

Boo Radley said:

we don't need auto or semi automatic guns...

Click to expand...

You don't speak for me nor do you represent me. Your rights end at the tip of your nose.

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

BmanMcfly said:

But you mentioned in your argument that gun owners are in the minority. The implication being that since they are a minority that their rights can be brushed aside.

Click to expand...

yes, they are a minority. They would lose a vote on semi automatic weapons. But, no, it is not your RIGHT to have semi automatic weapons.

Just because you don't exercise that right you won't recognize that it's lost (or that you are losing it).

Click to expand...

It must first actually be a right.

Ya, the limitations exist, self-defense is always justifiable, even it results in lethal force being used. You cannot aggressively use force or you will be prosecuted (and hopefully executed).

Click to expand...

There is no proposed law against defending yourself.

Yes, in your private property you can put up a sign saying that guns are not allowed in your home.

The people are supposed to be police / militia, police officers being people delegated to the task of taking people to justice... Not the task of protecting people from crime.

That protection is your own responsibility, but if you prefer you, your children, your spouse remain defenseless against criminals, that's your own prerogative, but don't try to dictate how others should defend themselves.

Click to expand...

Strawman. Again, no one is suggesting anyone be defenseless.

Well, I guess we're just slaves to government then....

Click to expand...

And yet, one more strawman. No one said this either.

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

BmanMcfly said:

No, you're not really being reasonable...

So what?!? People commit suicide all the time, and it doesn't matter if you take all guns away people will hang themselves or whatever... You can even overdose on aspirin if you are really intent, or we going to ban aspirin because of the potential to kill oneself?

Or do you mean like the 0.001% of gun cases where a gun misfires an shoots someone? Hell, if someone is that dumb / careless they shouldn't have got the gun anyway.

This is an impossible debate, no matter how many facts and figures you are shown, it's not going to change your emotional fear based arguments... Check please.

Click to expand...

I mean both and more. The kid who finds his parents gun and shoots himself or another child. The home owner who messess around and shoots a neighbor of family member. In all kinds of ways, we shoot each other and not criminals.

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

Dammitboy! said:

You don't speak for me nor do you represent me. Your rights end at the tip of your nose.

Click to expand...

Again, unrelated.

Boo Radley said:

yes, they are a minority. They would lose a vote on semi automatic weapons. But, no, it is not your RIGHT to have semi automatic weapons.

Click to expand...

That's why Obama used executive orders, right? Cause he knew the votes would be in, right?

Actually, it's your right to bear arms so that you can defend yourself. Arms means weapons, there was no restriction... Yours is an arbitrary interpretation where the founders intended us to be able to defend ourselves with front loading muskets...

No, the right to bear arms was to ensure the continuation of a free state.

Let's say it wasnt the us government (effectively) declaring war against Americans that want to remain free, the second amendment I also meant to protect against another country coming in to enslave the country.

It must first actually be a right.

Click to expand...

The right to bear arms is a right... So, you try to say "I'm not infringing on your rights to bear arms, I'm trying to limit your use of weapons."

Think about that statement.... I can see the justification for not having missile silos in your back yard because the collateral damage risk is far to great and would only be useful in a case of invasion, so the use is best kept to the army. So, that's a reasonable restriction.

There is no proposed law against defending yourself.

Click to expand...

No, you are supporting laws that would limit your capacity to defend yourself against the crazies and criminals that we both admit are a problem in society.

Strawman. Again, no one is suggesting anyone be defenseless.

Click to expand...

Yes, you are pushing to restrict weapons, and you also missed the point here...

The point is that on your private property you can restrict guns, but if you want to limit people's abilities on the street then you are infringing on people's rights.

So, why aren't you going to put up a sign announcing to all who enter that guns are not allowed in your home??

And yet, one more strawman. No one said this either.

Click to expand...

You said the government cannot be stopped, so, we live only to serve government which runs our lives, for all intentions that means you are not truly a free person but subservient... In other words we are slaves.

No, this is not a strawman, this is what it looks like when you look past the tip of your nose to see the implications of what you say.

Boo Radley said:

I mean both and more. The kid who finds his parents gun and shoots himself or another child.

Click to expand...

In that case the parents should face charges for not teaching their children what it means to carry a gun, as well as not safely storin the weapons.

I don't lose my rights because of one bad apple, was it you that said you can't take one good example of gun use to make a larger point??

The home owner who messess around and shoots a neighbor of family member. In all kinds of ways, we shoot each other and not criminals.

Click to expand...

Ok, and that's terrible when that happens, I'm not devoid of sympathy (though it's alot less in cases of stupid).

The statistics are that you are 80 times more likely to prevent crime with a gun than you are to be a victim of crime with a gun.

And that's really a source of desperation that you are looking for the exceptions to justify the rules.... The fact is that both those cases make up a total of at most 0.0002% of incidents with guns.

Like I said before, your irrationally arguing based on emotion, so, it doesn't matter what facts get put up, guns make you scared so you'll push to get rid of them... Even though the overwhelming majority of gun owners (99.999%) are responsible, you want to... No, need to use the 0.0001% to punish the rest.

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

BmanMcfly said:

In that case the parents should face charges for not teaching their children what it means to carry a gun, as well as not safely storin the weapons.

I don't lose my rights because of one bad apple, was it you that said you can't take one good example of gun use to make a larger point??




Ok, and that's terrible when that happens, I'm not devoid of sympathy (though it's alot less in cases of stupid).

The statistics are that you are 80 times more likely to prevent crime with a gun than you are to be a victim of crime with a gun.

And that's really a source of desperation that you are looking for the exceptions to justify the rules.... The fact is that both those cases make up a total of at most 0.0002% of incidents with guns.

Like I said before, your irrationally arguing based on emotion, so, it doesn't matter what facts get put up, guns make you scared so you'll push to get rid of them... Even though the overwhelming majority of gun owners (99.999%) are responsible, you want to... No, need to use the 0.0001% to punish the rest.

Click to expand...

You haven't lost any rights. There has always been the ability to regulate weapons. And I have not been emotional at all. It has largely been your side that is being emotional and overreacting (not everyone mind you).

Oh, your 80% stat is from a very flawed study. It is n from anything objective, so it's useless.

Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns

Boo Radley said:

You haven't lost any rights. There has always been the ability to regulate weapons. And I have not been emotional at all. It has largely been your side that is being emotional and overreacting (not everyone mind you).

Oh, your 80% stat is from a very flawed study. It is n from anything objective, so it's useless.

Click to expand...

Ok, so let's sum up here ... Boo furthers his anecdotal evidence, but says you can't use yours. Boo is the self declared arbiter of what studies are acceptable, and which (yours) are not. Boo thinks that the 2nd amendment does not confer the right to bear arms to the people. Boo is simply not an honest debater in this, imho, and therefore, it is a waste of time and effort presenting fact to an emotional arguer...

Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns

j-mac said:

Ok, so let's sum up here ... Boo furthers his anecdotal evidence, but says you can't use yours. Boo is the self declared arbiter of what studies are acceptable, and which (yours) are not. Boo thinks that the 2nd amendment does not confer the right to bear arms to the people. Boo is simply not an honest debater in this, imho, and therefore, it is a waste of time and effort presenting fact to an emotional arguer...

Click to expand...

J, I gave nothing as weak as that. I asked you very specific questions backed by specific and objective evidence.

Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns

Boo Radley said:

J, I gave nothing as weak as that. I asked you very specific questions backed by specific and objective evidence.

Click to expand...

You did? Where? Because all I saw was you dancing all over this thread shooting down anything that disagrees with you and calling it "not objective" or whatever....Ah well, that is your only tactic in debate, that and emotion...So, you're right...Say, I don't think that teachers should own guns, and I would like you to set the example and give up your right to do so formally....Care to do that?

Boo Radley said:

You haven't lost any rights.

Click to expand...

An appropriate analogy would be "you didn't lose your hand, you just can't use it anymore."

There has always been the ability to regulate weapons.

Click to expand...

Yes, things like the calibers, the amount of powder, materials, etc...

And I have not been emotional at all. It has largely been your side that is being emotional and overreacting (not everyone mind you).

Click to expand...

Your argument has been the emotional argument that there's no purpose for certain guns, then you get shown facts destroying your point, and then out comes the next emotionally charged yet factually limited argument.

Oh, your 80% stat is from a very flawed study. It is n from anything objective, so it's useless.

Click to expand...

Better than your fabricated numbers based on nothing...

Another fact; violent crime with guns is down almost 45% according to FBI states and that's after millions upon millions more guns being purchased in that time.

Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns

j-mac said:

You did? Where? Because all I saw was you dancing all over this thread shooting down anything that disagrees with you and calling it "not objective" or whatever....Ah well, that is your only tactic in debate, that and emotion...So, you're right...Say, I don't think that teachers should own guns, and I would like you to set the example and give up your right to do so formally....Care to do that?

Click to expand...

I cannot help that you may see only what you want to see, but I laid out the issue fairly well. An objective measure is not based on opinion. When you merely ask people if hey thought a gun they had relented a crime, that is not an objective standard. However, when you count verifiable deaths, that is an objective standard.

as for your question, I don't follow it. If you rephrase it so I do, it will answer it when I return.

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

BmanMcfly said:

An appropriate analogy would be "you didn't lose your hand, you just can't use it anymore."



Yes, things like the calibers, the amount of powder, materials, etc...



Your argument has been the emotional argument that there's no purpose for certain guns, then you get shown facts destroying your point, and then out comes the next emotionally charged yet factually limited argument.



Better than your fabricated numbers based on nothing...

Another fact; violent crime with guns is down almost 45% according to FBI states and that's after millions upon millions more guns being purchased in that time.

Click to expand...

No that would not be appropriate. It would more like saying you lost a hand you never really had in the first place. The right is not absolute. It has already been established that restrictions can take place. This is not emotional but factual. You are the one who appears emotional.

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

Here is one example of the lunacy that accompanies stupid, knee jerk gun laws put into place in haste because progressives must use tragedy, and crisis to accomplish their goals...

Due to slight oversight in New York’s new gun law, both police and private citizens will be banned from carrying high-capacity magazines.

According to TV station WABC, the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, which bans magazines that carry more than seven rounds, does not provide an exemption for law enforcement officers, who typically carry handguns with a 15-round capacity.

Oops! NY's new gun law restricts police officers

Click to expand...

How about MSN Boo? Is that an acceptable source for you? Not that I care if it is or not....

At least six states say they are seriously considering taking some sort of legislative action against the government on the new gun control laws. They include Alabama, Missouri, South Carolina, Montana, Texas and Wyoming. Many more sheriffs around the country are also calling for action.

Several States Reject Obama’s Controversial New Gun Control Laws (Video) | The Gateway Pundit

Click to expand...

Obama, and progressives are doing things that purposely divide the country...So much for the vaunted "Not a red America, a blue America, but a United States of America."

Obama is a bully, a fight picker, and a community organizer/race baiter. It really is sad...

These gun control measures are largely cosmetic, and foolish, they did nothing in the 90s to effect gun violence what so ever, and won't do a damned thing now.

We should be focusing on the real problems, culture, mental health, early warning signs....The weapon is just a tool....

But I agree...Let's try something here...

I don't think that women should be allowed to own firearms, I mean they have that time of the month thing going on, and some get severely emotional, not to mention the whole postpartum depression thing...

I don't think that minorities should own weapons, we all know how some ethnicities get a little hot headed, and some are prone to act out.

I don't think that lower economic classes should be allowed to own guns, because they may use them in hold ups, right?...

And on, and on....Now, I don't really think any of these things above, but it just goes to show how stupid this argument is today.

We have this right, granted by our creator, NOT man! No matter what progressive incremental plan to reach the end goal of disarming law abiding citizens of their absolute right to keep and bear arms, it will fail.

Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns

Boo Radley said:

I cannot help that you may see only what you want to see, but I laid out the issue fairly well. An objective measure is not based on opinion. When you merely ask people if hey thought a gun they had relented a crime, that is not an objective standard. However, when you count verifiable deaths, that is an objective standard.

as for your question, I don't follow it. If you rephrase it so I do, it will answer it when I return.

Click to expand...

Well, like I said Boo, I couldn't give two fly farts what you think is objective or not...Your opinion is one of 310 Million so raspberry to that...

As for the question, it was clear...Here, I'll try again...

Statement portion:

I don't think that teachers should own guns.

Question portion:

Will you as a teacher set the example, and relinquish any guns you may own, and formally give up the right to own any in the future?

Boo Radley said:

No that would not be appropriate. It would more like saying you lost a hand you never really had in the first place. The right is not absolute. It has already been established that restrictions can take place. This is not emotional but factual. You are the one who appears emotional.

Click to expand...

If it wouldn't also hurt me, I would wish for you to have your way and that the second amendment means front loading muskets, or whatever interpretation you want it to mean...

Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns

j-mac said:

Well, like I said Boo, I couldn't give two fly farts what you think is objective or not...Your opinion is one of 310 Million so raspberry to that...

As for the question, it was clear...Here, I'll try again...

Statement portion:

I don't think that teachers should own guns.

Question portion:

Will you as a teacher set the example, and relinquish any guns you may own, and formally give up the right to own any in the future?

Click to expand...

That's just it, objective and subjective are not opinions.

I guns is a general term. I won't say any lawful citizen can't own a gun. I will accept that they can restrict them from having them at school, no automatics or semi automatics and such. So, in terms of limitations, I accept for teachers the same limitations as everyone else.

Your question still doesn't make sense to me. Where ave I argued banning all guns? Where is that been proposed and face a real vote?

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

BmanMcfly said:

If it wouldn't also hurt me, I would wish for you to have your way and that the second amendment means front loading muskets, or whatever interpretation you want it to mean...

Click to expand...

I think you can have muskets. Hunting rides, handguns for protection. The point is we have established weapons can be restricted. What we need more clarification on is which ones and by whom (there may be a state issue involved).

Boo Radley said:

I think you can have muskets. Hunting rides, handguns for protection. The point is we have established weapons can be restricted. What we need more clarification on is which ones and by whom (there may be a state issue involved).

Click to expand...

What kind of guns can the criminals have in your mind?

Oh wait, they won't give up any Guns and will use anything they can get their hands on!

Why do you want to help criminals have an easier time??

You do know the average police response is average 9-15 minutes?

So, honestly, why do you prefer the criminals have the advantage over their victims??

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

BmanMcfly said:

What kind of guns can the criminals have in your mind?

Oh wait, they won't give up any Guns and will use anything they can get their hands on!

Why do you want to help criminals have an easier time??

You do know the average police response is average 9-15 minutes?

So, honestly, why do you prefer the criminals have the advantage over their victims??

Click to expand...

Yes, criminals break laws. But we do still have laws and restrictions all the same. And I simply don't believe owning semiautomatics save you from criminals. I think is you pull back on the emotion a little bit you'll realize you can still own a weapon, and that with or without one being smart will always be more important.