• 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

Faith is a terrible thing to base one's actions on, especially when there is EVIDENCE to the contrary. Your assurances are no reason not to fight such prohibition at every point along the political process. If public opinion, state proposals, and the new law in NY are any indication, such a ban is very possible.

This "it'll never pass" "no one is coming for your guns" tripe gets ever so tiresome when such laws ARE passing and many actually do want gun confiscation.

those assurances are part of the SOP of the incrementalist gun banners. The same comments were issued when Britain required registration of all handguns. Same in NYC on semi auto rifles, same in NJ and same in Kalifornia
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Well, firstly, Her bill looks like it will be a non starter for Reid who enjoys a "B" rating from the NRA, and being from Nevada, has a lot of gun owning constituents. Secondly, the point is not whether or not it would pass, or not, nor is it about a court fight which we both know moving the case up the line would/could take a year or better, meanwhile their little un American plan would be implemented, but rather the fact that a hypocrite like Feinstein would bring something like this forward in a bill to begin with. It is unconstitutional, and she violates her oath of office for even attempting it. The hubris, and elitism it takes to be that out of touch is just one example why these people should be tossed out on their ear.

This is what mean, even you know it won't happen. All the sky is falling hyperbole because one congress critter says or dies something that won't fly. Line up my friend, both sides do this.

So buck up, life won't change much when all s said and done.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

This is what mean, even you know it won't happen. All the sky is falling hyperbole because one congress critter says or dies something that won't fly. Line up my friend, both sides do this.

So buck up, life won't change much when all s said and done.

30 years ago no one would have believed that the 15 round magazines issued with the hundreds of thousands of MI carbines our own government sold (at very favorable prices) to us civilians through the Dept. Of Civilian Marksmanship would become illegal to be made and sold for a ten year period.

the entire goal of the gun control movement is a complete ban on firearms. Once you believe that banning some firearms reduces crime and trumps the rights of those who lawfully use those firearms you have made all the choices needed to support a complete ban
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

I wouldn't call that faith, if said government gives people a reason to believe its valid.



Which?



That is evidence which refutes the claim that "no one is coming for your guns" when some in fact are trying. The fact they will fail is irrelevant to the point that they in fact exist.



I didn't claim they did. So what is your point? So long as some guns aren't banned we still have a 2nd amendment? To what end? You've got a single shot rifle so you can't complain?

The New York ban is an incremental step down a slippery slope, if you claim otherwise remember those who said the same thing about the 10 round ban not leading to future lower capacity bans.



Yes, I lived under the ban and in DC during the crack epidemic. I know exactly the effect such laws have and increase crime.



Who is my side? Have I overreacted? Is opposing this kind of tripe so that it fails an overreaction? Have you considered what would happen if such proposals went unopposed?

I think you're underreacting.

I love that you break this down to ask which and address my comments to each one. :2funny::2funny:

There are always some trying anything we can think of. By your logic, we must live in constant fear. Ever hear of threat assessment? There needs to be some reasonable possibility of success in order to make one raise the threat level to the panic.

Btw, seems your weren't killed in DC. How dd at not happen?
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

30 years ago no one would have believed that the 15 round magazines issued with the hundreds of thousands of MI carbines our own government sold (at very favorable prices) to us civilians through the Dept. Of Civilian Marksmanship would become illegal to be made and sold for a ten year period.

the entire goal of the gun control movement is a complete ban on firearms. Once you believe that banning some firearms reduces crime and trumps the rights of those who lawfully use those firearms you have made all the choices needed to support a complete ban

It took 30 years?

Again, it has to be reasonably possible before you reach panic mode.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

This is what mean, even you know it won't happen. All the sky is falling hyperbole because one congress critter says or dies something that won't fly. Line up my friend, both sides do this.

So buck up, life won't change much when all s said and done.


That doesn't mean that nothing should be said of the attempt does it? The intent of these liberals in their arrogant, and blatant disregard of the constitution should be called out whenever it happens, no matter how embarrassing it is for you.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

That doesn't mean that nothing should be said of the attempt does it? The intent of these liberals in their arrogant, and blatant disregard of the constitution should be called out whenever it happens, no matter how embarrassing it is for you.

Said? Sure. But only in context if the reality and not the exaggeration.

You would also do better to address the arguments and not "liberals." Often people fighting fantom liberals run astray of the argument before them.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

This is what mean, even you know it won't happen. All the sky is falling hyperbole because one congress critter says or dies something that won't fly. Line up my friend, both sides do this.

So buck up, life won't change much when all s said and done.
So in a nutshell, your approach is apathy.
Look, I am in no way comparing you with Nazis. I would like to point out that the same philosophy you propose led normal, decent Germans to allow the atrocities that occured. As in, unless it affected them directly, it was easy to ignore the reality of what was happening. After all, nobody could do such a thing. It must be partisan hyperbole.
BTW, those congress critters can do it one way or another if apathetic people allow them to.
 
Last edited:
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

I love that you break this down to ask which and address my comments to each one. :2funny::2funny:

Its called a point by point rebuttal, you made a great deal of statements which I felt warranting comment. Had I put all those comments in one TLDR paragraph, you would miss more of my points or not know to what I am referring to.

There are always some trying anything we can think of. By your logic, we must live in constant fear.

Not at all, do I strike you as fearful? I am vigilant, there is a difference, for constant vigilance is the cost of freedom.

Ever hear of threat assessment? There needs to be some reasonable possibility of success in order to make one raise the threat level to the panic.

Things having already passed, or having + 55% support when polled certainly falls under "potential threat." It seems you would wait to be under complete tyranny before calling it so.

Btw, seems your weren't killed in DC. How dd at not happen?

You son of a bitch, you know nothing of how many deaths I saw. My family, my neighbors, my brother's friends in high school. I saw more than enough blood during the crack epidemic to know that prohibition of both drugs and firearms exacerbates crime.

The reason I didn't die, like so many of my family, is because we fled DC for the much safer suburbs of Maryland where we could in fact defend our homes. After such an ignorant and despicable question, which pisses on all those who did die, I have no interest in you or your opinions at all ever again. May posterity forget you were my countrymen you insensitive piece of ****. **** you!
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Said? Sure. But only in context if the reality and not the exaggeration.

You would also do better to address the arguments and not "liberals." Often people fighting fantom liberals run astray of the argument before them.


Well, let me give you an example of astray coming from Feinstein, a liberal.

"Feinstein said. "The purpose is to dry up the supply of these weapons over time.”

in the same press conference Dick Durbin, another liberal said...

"This isn’t an issue of simply Constitution, it’s an issue of conscious,”

Letting the cat out of the bag that these liberals are not even considering the constitution in their goals...

Many "liberals" are supporting this.

As for fighting 'phantom liberals', I know Joe that you like to try and muddy these extreme elements of the liberal democrat coalition by attempting to downplay who they are, but you yourself as a self proclaimed liberal by your lean, and positions taken are whom I am speaking to generally. So let's not play the silly game of adopting the individuality of a representative only when convenient...
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Do you really take her that seriously? Like I said, this will be settled either b it not passing or the courts. Have some faith in your country.

There in lies the difference between a liberal thinker and conservatives:
A conservative trusts his countrymen more than the government. A liberal trusts government more than his countrymen.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

So in a nutshell, your approach is apathy.
Look, I am in no way comparing you with Nazis. I would like to point out that the same philosophy you propose led normal, decent Germans to allow the atrocities that occured. As in, unless it affected them directly, it was easy to ignore the reality of what was happening. After all, nobody could do such a thing. It must be partisan hyperbole.
BTW, those congress critters can do it one way or another if apathetic people allow them to.
On a non issue that is drive by hyperbole, yes.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Its called a point by point rebuttal, you made a great deal of statements which I felt warranting comment. Had I put all those comments in one TLDR paragraph, you would miss more of my points or not know to what I am referring to.



Not at all, do I strike you as fearful? I am vigilant, there is a difference, for constant vigilance is the cost of freedom.



Things having already passed, or having + 55% support when polled certainly falls under "potential threat." It seems you would wait to be under complete tyranny before calling it so.



You son of a bitch, you know nothing of how many deaths I saw. My family, my neighbors, my brother's friends in high school. I saw more than enough blood during the crack epidemic to know that prohibition of both drugs and firearms exacerbates crime.

The reason I didn't die, like so many of my family, is because we fled DC for the much safer suburbs of Maryland where we could in fact defend our homes. After such an ignorant and despicable question, which pisses on all those who did die, I have no interest in you or your opinions at all ever again. May posterity forget you were my countrymen you insensitive piece of ****. **** you!

The point by point is often sloppy. Take the fact that you asked a question answered in your next point.

You do, however, know a lot of people, the majority, actually styled and didn't die. Your fleeing was likely more overreacting.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Well, let me give you an example of astray coming from Feinstein, a liberal.

"Feinstein said. "The purpose is to dry up the supply of these weapons over time.”

in the same press conference Dick Durbin, another liberal said...

"This isn’t an issue of simply Constitution, it’s an issue of conscious,”

Letting the cat out of the bag that these liberals are not even considering the constitution in their goals...

Many "liberals" are supporting this.

As for fighting 'phantom liberals', I know Joe that you like to try and muddy these extreme elements of the liberal democrat coalition by attempting to downplay who they are, but you yourself as a self proclaimed liberal by your lean, and positions taken are whom I am speaking to generally. So let's not play the silly game of adopting the individuality of a representative only when convenient...

J, facts are facts, talking **** is not equal to something happening. This is important. I've listen for years to this constant so and so said. Meaningless statements followed my meaningless overreactions. The muddying is done by your side who sees any discussion that doesn't parrot some talking points as being evil in some way.

People, individuals, make arguments. It is appropriate to address the individual argument and some exaggerated misreading of a "liberal" argument.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

There in lies the difference between a liberal thinker and conservatives:
A conservative trusts his countrymen more than the government. A liberal trusts government more than his countrymen.

As we are the government, it's the same thing.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

As we are the government, it's the same thing.

no one really believes that anymore
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

no one really believes that anymore

Then they throw away the power they have.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Then they throw away the power they have.

They throw nothing away as long as no one questions them and remains apathetic towards keeping them in check. If the founding fathers had thought as you did and trusted the government, they would not have provided for checks and balances. People are part of the checks and balances process but only if they do not become apathetic to defending their rights as you have. It's too easy for you to dismiss valid concern as hyperbole. That is what some in the government hope for. Some will over reach their authority and wait to see if anyone questions them. I see it all the time in local as well as the federal government
 
I love that you break this down to ask which and address my comments to each one. :2funny::2funny:

There are always some trying anything we can think of. By your logic, we must live in constant fear. Ever hear of threat assessment? There needs to be some reasonable possibility of success in order to make one raise the threat level to the panic.

Btw, seems your weren't killed in DC. How dd at not happen?

No, not fear, constant VIGILANCE.

All cops carry guns, but very few of them ever actually use them. They don't carry guns because they fear criminals, they carry them just in case they need them. It's no different... And before you argue semantics, the gun of a police officer is most often use offensively without ever firing a shot, in subduing criminals, but the point remains that it's not carried out of fear.

Just like a police officer needs a gun, though many times more often than most others, it's important to have the capacity to protect yourself.

Thats why those that understand the second amendment are "zero compromise" on the subject.

There are millions of Americans who honestly believe the mantra "you can have my gun, bullets first", understand that and the deep implication of that fact before you push too hard for gun control.
 
They throw nothing away as long as no one questions them and remains apathetic towards keeping them in check. If the founding fathers had thought as you did and trusted the government, they would not have provided for checks and balances. People are part of the checks and balances process but only if they do not become apathetic to defending their rights as you have. It's too easy for you to dismiss valid concern as hyperbole. That is what some in the government hope for. Some will over reach their authority and wait to see if anyone questions them. I see it all the time in local as well as the federal government

Worse, America would still bow to the throne.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

They throw nothing away as long as no one questions them and remains apathetic towards keeping them in check. If the founding fathers had thought as you did and trusted the government, they would not have provided for checks and balances. People are part of the checks and balances process but only if they do not become apathetic to defending their rights as you have. It's too easy for you to dismiss valid concern as hyperbole. That is what some in the government hope for. Some will over reach their authority and wait to see if anyone questions them. I see it all the time in local as well as the federal government

But you don't trust the checks and balances. You don't trust the people to vote correctly. You are wildly overreacting and going far beyond where the founding fathers went. If they did nt believe in government, thy would not have created one.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

No, not fear, constant VIGILANCE.

All cops carry guns, but very few of them ever actually use them. They don't carry guns because they fear criminals, they carry them just in case they need them. It's no different... And before you argue semantics, the gun of a police officer is most often use offensively without ever firing a shot, in subduing criminals, but the point remains that it's not carried out of fear.

Just like a police officer needs a gun, though many times more often than most others, it's important to have the capacity to protect yourself.

Thats why those that understand the second amendment are "zero compromise" on the subject.

There are millions of Americans who honestly believe the mantra "you can have my gun, bullets first", understand that and the deep implication of that fact before you push too hard for gun control.

No fear and hyperbole.

If you remove suicide and killing friends and family (accidentally or otherwise) citizens use guns even less, face even less gun need situations, and have no obligation to tackle any if the dangerous situations police do.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

J, facts are facts, talking **** is not equal to something happening. This is important. I've listen for years to this constant so and so said. Meaningless statements followed my meaningless overreactions. The muddying is done by your side who sees any discussion that doesn't parrot some talking points as being evil in some way.

People, individuals, make arguments. It is appropriate to address the individual argument and some exaggerated misreading of a "liberal" argument.


So, in your mind it is a perfectly acceptable argument to say that I can not generalize liberals, but YOU can generalize by the use of "your side....Got it....
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

No fear and hyperbole.

If you remove suicide and killing friends and family (accidentally or otherwise) citizens use guns even less, face even less gun need situations, and have no obligation to tackle any if the dangerous situations police do.


And that is up to the individual to decide what their own particular need for a gun is....Not yours.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

So, in your mind it is a perfectly acceptable argument to say that I can not generalize liberals, but YOU can generalize by the use of "your side....Got it....

Mines a little more specific, limit to those on that side here arguing with me. I could list you each by name if you like (I might include those post silly ass **** on my Facebook page).
 
Back
Top Bottom