• 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

And that is up to the individual to decide what their own particular need for a gun is....Not yours.

I said nothing to which your answer applies. :shrug:
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

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).


Who give a **** what you put on your Facebook? Is that supposed to frighten someone into not responding to your dumb ass **** or something? What a childish response.....:lol:
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

I said nothing to which your answer applies. :shrug:


Sure you did, go back a re read it again, then come on back and reply intelligently please.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Sure you did, go back a re read it again, then come on back and reply intelligently please.

No, I didn't. You should re-read without your assumptions guiding your eyes.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Who give a **** what you put on your Facebook? Is that supposed to frighten someone into not responding to your dumb ass **** or something? What a childish response.....:lol:

J, that is wildly non responsive.
 
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.

So in essence, you have decided to place more value on the lives of gun crime victims than on responsible adults that have used them for self defense. You believe in the zebra version of self defense. A crocodile can only eat one of us, as long as it isn't me, i'm OK with it. You fear the sheepdog more than you fear the wolf. And BTW, if you do not feel you do not have the obligation to help, that is the biggest difference between us. I feel I do have an obligation because I understand exactly what the limitations and capabilities of law enforcement are. A lot of friends and co workers (law enforcement) have said the same thing. They are historians with guns.
 
Last edited:
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

So in essence, you have decided to place more value on the lives of gun crime victims than on responsible adults that have used them for self defense. You believe in the zebra version of self defense. A crocodile can only eat one of us, as long as it isn't me, i'm OK with it. You fear the sheepdog more than you fear the wolf. And BTW, if you do not feel you do not have the obligation to help, that is the biggest difference between us. I feel I do have an obligation because I understand exactly what the limitations and capabilities of law enforcement are. A lot of friends and co workers (law enforcement) have said the same thing. They are historians with guns.

I've said nothing like that. Not a single thing. You still have the right to have a weapon.

Btw, I also ave friends in law enforcement. Work with a fellow who trains police officers in self defense, and we work together in this program. I've talked to a lot f police officers local and nationally, and I've even posted posted a few things you can find on a search. They largely up port what I'm saying, as do the objective numbers I mentioned above. This is not about whether you can have a gun to protect yourself, but whether you face the same challenges as police officers.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

I've said nothing like that. Not a single thing. You still have the right to have a weapon.

Btw, I also ave friends in law enforcement. Work with a fellow who trains police officers in self defense, and we work together in this program. I've talked to a lot f police officers local and nationally, and I've even posted posted a few things you can find on a search. They largely up port what I'm saying, as do the objective numbers I mentioned above. This is not about whether you can have a gun to protect yourself, but whether you face the same challenges as police officers.
So then why not allow me to decide which tools best suit me to meet my obligation? What exactly do you fear/question?
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

So then why not allow me to decide which tools best suit me to meet my obligation? What exactly do you fear/question?

Would you suggest there is to be no limitations on your choice?
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Would you suggest there is to be no limitations on your choice?
Absolutely. I should have the choice to use whatever weapons the typical police officer has to choose from.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

So you support wasting crisises? Me, I prefer to learn from them, make changes needed, and improve.

If that were true, liberals would have banned automobiles long ago and continued to support prohibition.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

If that were true, liberals would have banned automobiles long ago and continued to support prohibition.

Wrong, and why does this have nothing whatsoever to do with what I said?
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

I've said nothing like that. Not a single thing. You still have the right to have a weapon.

Btw, I also ave friends in law enforcement. Work with a fellow who trains police officers in self defense, and we work together in this program. I've talked to a lot f police officers local and nationally, and I've even posted posted a few things you can find on a search. They largely up port what I'm saying, as do the objective numbers I mentioned above. This is not about whether you can have a gun to protect yourself, but whether you face the same challenges as police officers.


The problem with this argument is a couple of logical fallacies, one of which being appeal to authority. No one disagrees that a law enforcement officer faces challenges that most suburban, middle class citizenry don't. One factor is that LEO's are tasked with putting themselves in 'high risk' situations, in order to do their jobs. However, with the expansion of the inner cities migrating outward into the suburbs along with it comes the crime associated with the inner cities. Police are often out manned, and under equipped to handle the increase in crime, and often warn that Police are not there to actually prevent crime from happening, but rather to investigate, and bring to justice after the incident the perpetrator of said crime. It is for that reason that we have the right, not granted by man, but inherent to protect ourselves, our families, and our property. If you think you can do that without a firearm, more power to you. But the argument that I, a legal citizen, that follow's the law, and doesn't commit crime shouldn't have a gun because you don't think I need it, is laughable, and should be ignored.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Wrong, and why does this have nothing whatsoever to do with what I said?

There have been many more deaths involving alcohol and automobiles than mass shootings with guns. But liberals love their cars and alcohol.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

There have been many more deaths involving alcohol and automobiles than mass shootings with guns. But liberals love their cars and alcohol.

Which still has nothing to do with what I said or the gun control debate for that matter. Inane references to things that have nothing to do with the topic are not really relevant.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

The problem with this argument is a couple of logical fallacies, one of which being appeal to authority. No one disagrees that a law enforcement officer faces challenges that most suburban, middle class citizenry don't. One factor is that LEO's are tasked with putting themselves in 'high risk' situations, in order to do their jobs. However, with the expansion of the inner cities migrating outward into the suburbs along with it comes the crime associated with the inner cities. Police are often out manned, and under equipped to handle the increase in crime, and often warn that Police are not there to actually prevent crime from happening, but rather to investigate, and bring to justice after the incident the perpetrator of said crime. It is for that reason that we have the right, not granted by man, but inherent to protect ourselves, our families, and our property. If you think you can do that without a firearm, more power to you. But the argument that I, a legal citizen, that follow's the law, and doesn't commit crime shouldn't have a gun because you don't think I need it, is laughable, and should be ignored.

First, I've made no appeal to authority. I have speaking to TD who disputes what you just said about the police and the person who brought up knowing police. I merely noted I did as well. I then noted actual objective numbers.

Nor do I argue you can't have a gun. I have repeated this many times. The debate is can the government restrict which guns.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Redress said:
So you support wasting crisises? Me, I prefer to learn from them, make changes needed, and improve.

Well, as Rhambo once said, "never let a crisis go to waste..." The problem with progressives is that if no crisis exist then they manufacture one.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Which still has nothing to do with what I said or the gun control debate for that matter. Inane references to things that have nothing to do with the topic are not really relevant.

Your post was about wasting a tragedy or crisis, so 30 school children is a tragedy but over 1 million per year is acceptable, please give us your definition for crisis or tragedies.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

First, I've made no appeal to authority.


because the argument from authority is an inductive-reasoning argument — wherein is implied that the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises — it also is fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true.[2] Such a determinative assertion is a logical non sequitur, because, although the inductive argument might have merit — either probabilistic or statistical — the conclusion does not follow unconditionally, in the sense of being logically necessary.[4][5]

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now when you assert:

"Btw, I also ave friends in law enforcement. Work with a fellow who trains police officers in self defense, and we work together in this program. I've talked to a lot f police officers local and nationally, and I've even posted posted a few things you can find on a search. They largely up port what I'm saying, as do the objective numbers I mentioned above."

Clearly that fits the definition of the fallacy.

I have speaking to TD who disputes what you just said about the police and the person who brought up knowing police.

To which you attempted to trump his own appeal to authority with one of your own...Doesn't make it any less a fallacy.

I merely noted I did as well.

Which was wrong.

I then noted actual objective numbers.

Actually, you only said that you had provided objective numbers....IRRC, those numbers you provided from a controversial study were in dispute themselves, so instead of making your case you just continued to say "nuh uh" and take on face value that the stats were correct, and objective. A dishonest tactic BTW.

Nor do I argue you can't have a gun.

Only because you have NO power to make such a reality. Based on your stated reasoning I think that any reasonable person would have to conclude that you would argue that if you had the power to make such a reality.

I have repeated this many times.

If you repeat a lie often enough it still does not become a fact, although you may like to think differently.

The debate is can the government restrict which guns.

Yes, and can you lay out to me what you think the term "shall not infringe" means in legal terms?
 
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.

that's crap. every time a cop draws his weapon its documented. Many times with non leo's there are no reports

and you still ignore the initiator-non-initiator difference

why don't you just come out and say what we all know you believe

you think honest law abiding citizens cannot be trusted with the same self defensive weapons we give civilian police officers
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Your post was about wasting a tragedy or crisis, so 30 school children is a tragedy but over 1 million per year is acceptable, please give us your definition for crisis or tragedies.

And now you are just putting words in my mouth. Get back to me if you are ever interested in honest debate.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

And now you are just putting words in my mouth. Get back to me if you are ever interested in honest debate.


Leaving the classic dodge aside, could you answer the question?

Please lay out the difference in your mind between a "crisis" and a "tragedy"....
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Now when you assert:

"Btw, I also ave friends in law enforcement. Work with a fellow who trains police officers in self defense, and we work together in this program. I've talked to a lot f police officers local and nationally, and I've even posted posted a few things you can find on a search. They largely up port what I'm saying, as do the objective numbers I mentioned above."

Clearly that fits the definition of the fallacy.



To which you attempted to trump his own appeal to authority with one of your own...Doesn't make it any less a fallacy.



Which was wrong.



Actually, you only said that you had provided objective numbers....IRRC, those numbers you provided from a controversial study were in dispute themselves, so instead of making your case you just continued to say "nuh uh" and take on face value that the stats were correct, and objective. A dishonest tactic BTW.



Only because you have NO power to make such a reality. Based on your stated reasoning I think that any reasonable person would have to conclude that you would argue that if you had the power to make such a reality.



If you repeat a lie often enough it still does not become a fact, although you may like to think differently.



Yes, and can you lay out to me what you think the term "shall not infringe" means in legal terms?

No. One reason says I have friends in police work, and the other says so does he, but the points to objective evidence, there is not an appeal to authority. You are mistaken. My argue,ent is not build on who we both know or their opinion.

And no, the numbers are not disputed by anyone. Those who argue dispute the conclusions, making excuses fir why those dead shoud not be counted. But he numbers themselves are not disputed.

And no, no reasonable person makes wild leaps about something I have neither sad nor implied. In fact I have stated the exact opposite.

And if "shall not infringe" were the only words, asking that question might make sense. But even the courts have interpreted the other words to all for some limitations. Precedence matters.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

that's crap. every time a cop draws his weapon its documented. Many times with non leo's there are no reports

and you still ignore the initiator-non-initiator difference

why don't you just come out and say what we all know you believe

you think honest law abiding citizens cannot be trusted with the same self defensive weapons we give civilian police officers

I bet I could not find one single citizen in our largest city here in my state who has pulled a weapon against a criminal in the last year. You are largely supposing the suit your preconceived notion of the gun myth.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

No. One reason says I have friends in police work, and the other says so does he, but the points to objective evidence, there is not an appeal to authority. You are mistaken. My argue,ent is not build on who we both know or their opinion.


Tap dance around the fact all you want Joe, you got busted in your fallacy, now just accept it and move on. The thread isn't about you.

And no, the numbers are not disputed by anyone. Those who argue dispute the conclusions, making excuses fir why those dead shoud not be counted. But he numbers themselves are not disputed.

Well, I do apologize for not catching the link to this study you are hanging your hat on. Could you possibly post the link again so that I may review it myself without spending the afternoon searching for it?

And no, no reasonable person makes wild leaps about something I have neither sad nor implied. In fact I have stated the exact opposite.

The mistake you make here is to assume that you are the judge of what is reasonable.

And if "shall not infringe" were the only words, asking that question might make sense. But even the courts have interpreted the other words to all for some limitations. Precedence matters.

I didn't ask you that. Can you answer the question?
 
Back
Top Bottom