• 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

A big part of your dilemma stems from the assumption that a tyrannical government would retain the loyalty of the military. The military is not some big, monolithic mindless machine under the government's control. It consists of a very large number of individual American citizens, every one of which has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and to defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I think it's a safe bet that a very large proportion of these individuals would, if it came to that—a tyrannical government handing down orders to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow Americans, and to make war against their fellow Americans—would understand what their true duty is in accordance with that oath, and act to fulfill that duty.

I wonder if the SS would be able to protect the President against what he thought was his own military. Of course, the SS also consists of citizens who have taken that same oath, and under the circumstances being described, may very well also choose to obey that oath.

Thanks for bringing this up. Every time I mention the miltiary vs. the U.S., I do keep in mind that not every soldier in the military would turn on its people. However, I have also come into contact with a lot of soldiers who have nothing but contempt for the civilian population. All they care about is their own immediate community, and the rest of America be damned. All the government and media has to do is paint patriots as insurgents or radicals and a lot of support will be retained. It works for foreign combattants and it would work here.

Even if some people in the military turn coat, a lot would remain. All the government has to do is deploy troops to areas that they aren't from. For example, deploying troops from the south to the north. When they have no attachment to the region they are more likely to open fire on the people there. It's the strategy most used in domestic disturbances around the world, even today.

The point I'm trying to prove is that in this day and age, the Second Amendment does not guarantee we could even fight tyranny. Most of our population is dying slowly of obesity. Many people don't even show up to vote... forget putting them into militias!

The Second Amendment should remain as is, I just don't think it has much teeth according to its original purpose.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

A year ago this would have been a conspiracy theory since there was no evidence to support it. No one cvould have predicted the mass outcry by the public for something like this. Being right one time in a million is not something to take pride in.

No excuse, not evidence.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Ah, so it's not the weapon but in fact the person using the weapon.

The same could be said of a madman with a pistol, grenade, knife, or automobile.
Why yes it could. But the difference is a madman claiming self defense using a grenade, knife, or automobile isn't protected by the second amendment. So I propose that instead of the second amendment just protecting firearms, lets include all weapons and objects that can be used for self defense including boxcutters, screwdrivers, hammers, tire irons, baseball bats, rocks, sticks, bricks, heck, even a lawn chair could make great weapon. Really, why should gun manufacturers have an constitutional amendment just for their products? Thats not fair to the car industry or knife making industry or the even the patio furniture industry, now is it? And after all, wasn't this country was founded on equality and equal justice for all?
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Um, McVeigh used a homemade bomb....Should we ban fertilizer, and diesel fuel now too?
Those products are heavily regulated, but since you like that comparison so much, then perhaps guns should be regulated as well....um.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

What does that mean? Not trying to be snarky here, but I asked a specific question....Do you have a specific answer?
Will Obama's EO carry the force of law on the citizenry?
Idk very much about EOs. Let me Google that question and see.
Well, wikipedia says so.
Executive order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The wiki cites this document by the congressional research service:

Executive Orders and Proclamations - Wikisource, the free online library

That's about all the effort I am willing to expend on it. I hope that helps.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

If you will read the OP you may notice that there're zero instances of the govt "threatening to take the guns".
That's why I wondered how that idea worked its way into your head.

Curious don't you think?
The article did not say that the govt was "threatening to take the guns."
Nor did Biden threaten to take the guns.

Still a number of people are quite certain that was what happened. A curious and notable phenomenom, imho.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

If you will read the OP you may notice that there're zero instances of the govt "threatening to take the guns".
That's why I wondered how that idea worked its way into your head.

Curious don't you think?
The article did not say that the govt was "threatening to take the guns."
Nor did Biden threaten to take the guns.

Still a number of people are quite certain that was what happened. A curious and notable phenomenom, imho.

major politicians have called for taking guns

what is the government and who speaks for it? the ranking senator from the most populous state in the country?
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

major politicians have called for taking guns

what is the government and who speaks for it? the ranking senator from the most populous state in the country?

The calls have been very limited in scope, and really much that hasn't been law before.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

The calls have been very limited in scope, and really much that hasn't been law before.

feinswine admitted she wanted to confiscate all semi auto weapons
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

major politicians have called for taking guns
what is the government and who speaks for it? the ranking senator from the most populous state in the country?
I suppose if we're willing to leave the context of the thread--Obama's executive order--the meaning of a number of statements change.

Please consider my previous statements to have specified the context of an executive order from Obama even though they did not.
 
Re: Biden

A year ago this would have been a conspiracy theory since there was no evidence to support it. No one cvould have predicted the mass outcry by the public for something like this. Being right one time in a million is not something to take pride in.

Don't be overly deceived by polls. The mass outcry is being answered by a gazillion guns being sold.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

feinswine admitted she wanted to confiscate all semi auto weapons

Well, now that means it's going happen. :2funny::2funny:
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

It's true my standards are very high and it would take a lot more than the government regulating a few firearms and/or ammo that probably does more harm than good for me to turn against my country.

To turn against a corrupt, out-of-control government is not to turn against the country. In fact, I would have to say that to take the side of such a government is to turn against the country.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

I think if many anti-2nd amendment crack pots had it their way then assault weapon would be defined as any semi-automatic weapon that accepts a detachable magazine and revolvers.

Around the time that the fraudulent 1994 “assault weapon”*ban was passed, Ms. Feinswine came out and admitted, in an interview on “60 Minutes”, that what she really wanted, and would have pushed for if she thought she could get the votes to pass it, was a complete ban on all privately-owned firearms, “Mr, and Mrs. America, turn them in.” What she authored was, at the time, the closest to that that she thought she could get away with in one step.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

To turn against a corrupt, out-of-control government is not to turn against the country. In fact, I would have to say that to take the side of such a government is to turn against the country.
It's hypocritical for conservatives to turn against their own government and then expect that same government to protect their rights.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Right, it should be called the Civil Rebellion instead of a war...but you would have to had an education to understand that.

Actually it's official name is "The War of the Rebellion" ('Civil War' is a misnomer). But, then, you would have had to have been educated and read in American history to know that interesting little factoid, as it mostly only comes up to those of us who have actually spent time searching through the archives, which name it correctly.

Unlike you I fully understand what I quoted and it wasn't a blog, it was a law signed by Jefferson to squelch insurrections such as the one you and others are proposing. Jefferson had the support of public opinion on his side as will any president who has to put down a few extremists. So it might behoove you to remember that Timothy McVeigh is no hero.

No, some idiot on teh interwebz thought this was some kind of brilliant answer and so you copied it. Unfortunately, you copied from a fool, because the ability of the Congress to authorize a campaign to put down insurrection =/= an Executive attempt to unilaterally overturn the second amendment.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

It's hypocritical for conservatives to turn against their own government and then expect that same government to protect their rights.


Not at all - you are simply reading it backwards. As Locke (and even to an extent Hobbes) pointed out, government exists to protect our most basic rights, and when they fail to do so, they have turned against us. We can but defend ourselves, or surrender.
 
And what form of lunacy leads you to believe that will be the executive order?

The fact that Biden JUST SAID that this was the plan.... Not surprised that you wouldn't let facts and /or statements get in the way of your argument.

And that is ONLY Bidens statements.

What's the point of spoon feeding that since you'll just call it more "lunacy" and I agree with you, it is lunacy to try and go after guns.
 
Right, it should be called the Civil Rebellion instead of a war...but you would have to had an education to understand that.


Unlike you I fully understand what I quoted and it wasn't a blog, it was a law signed by Jefferson to squelch insurrections such as the one you and others are proposing. Jefferson had the support of public opinion on his side as will any president who has to put down a few extremists. So it might behoove you to remember that Timothy McVeigh is no hero.

If anything Tim mcveigh was a victim (though he was still guilty), but this isn't the time or the place...

You are correct though that the majority of the fat, lazy, tv zombies will support any president in anything the doesn't interfere with their tv programming. So, of course those that won't turn in their guns will eventually fight back, and they will be called terrorists...

Some of you seem to think that this won't impact you in any way, that's gotta be the most foolish thing I've heard in a long time... You really think you could just go to work, go home and watch tv while theres an equivalent of a war going on in your back yard.
 
If you will read the OP you may notice that there're zero instances of the govt "threatening to take the guns".
That's why I wondered how that idea worked its way into your head.

Curious don't you think?
The article did not say that the govt was "threatening to take the guns."
Nor did Biden threaten to take the guns.

Still a number of people are quite certain that was what happened. A curious and notable phenomenom, imho.

Well, Biden said :
"The president is going to act," said Biden, giving some comments to the press before a meeting with victims of gun violence. "There are executive orders, there's executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet. But we're compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required."

This is a clear declaration of intent, which is the definition of a threat, add that to the 10 or so gun control bills that have been proposed and / or presented.

You're grasp of language betrays your pretentious pseudo-intellectualism.
 
Around the time that the fraudulent 1994 “assault weapon”*ban was passed, Ms. Feinswine came out and admitted, in an interview on “60 Minutes”, that what she really wanted, and would have pushed for if she thought she could get the votes to pass it, was a complete ban on all privately-owned firearms, “Mr, and Mrs. America, turn them in.” What she authored was, at the time, the closest to that that she thought she could get away with in one step.

Thanks, I was tryin to find that quote...

This raises the question : WHY is government pushing to get the guns??

Both Britain and australia have banned guns and seen an increase in crime, next is knife / blunt object control, because people can be dangerous animals regardless of the weapon used.

So, why the push to restrict guns?? The facts show it does not work.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Well, Biden said :
"The president is going to act," said Biden, giving some comments to the press before a meeting with victims of gun violence. "There are executive orders, there's executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet. But we're compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required."
I cannot find the part about confiscating guns.
Can you underline it?
This is a clear declaration of intent, which is the definition of a threat...
Afaict, there's more to the definition of a threat than mere intent. It has to be an intent to do some harm iirc. I mean I have an intent to get another cup of coffee. But that's hardly a threat.
You're grasp of language betrays your pretentious pseudo-intellectualism.
Sorry to hear that.
I had been hoping that my grasp of language would remain loyal to my "pretentious pseudo-intellectualism." ...especially after all they have been through together. That's life I s'pose.

Have you thought much about your motivation to shift the topic of conversation to my varied multitude of personality flaws?
Cataloging my many flaws doesn't seem to do much to advance your case that Biden threatened "to take the guns."
Discussing my shortcomings seems to distract and detract from your case, imho.
Of course, ymmv. You may feel that it logic dictates that if I have flaws then Biden did indeed "threaten to take the guns."
idk
But, fwiw and imho, it doesn't seem to strengthen your argument.
:shrug:
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Actually it's official name is "The War of the Rebellion" ('Civil War' is a misnomer). But, then, you would have had to have been educated and read in American history to know that interesting little factoid, as it mostly only comes up to those of us who have actually spent time searching through the archives, which name it correctly.
Thanks I'll add your link to my favorites. Nevertheless, not remembering the official name does not negate my original response. But it is a very interesting historical factoid that many are unaware of and for me it gave an entire new perspective on the Civil War. I thought it was brilliant on Lincoln's part and was probably the most single important factor that kept the union in tact..legally.


No, some idiot on teh interwebz thought this was some kind of brilliant answer and so you copied it. Unfortunately, you copied from a fool, because the ability of the Congress to authorize a campaign to put down insurrection =/= an Executive attempt to unilaterally overturn the second amendment.

The point of posting the 1807 insurrection law was in response to someone posting Jeffersons quote, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” and was not intended to address your strawman second amendment. The blog I copied it from was well "sourced" rendering your criticism fallacious and irrelevant.

Well, that same great man you quoted signed a law in 1807 granting the president the power to use the standing army against US citizens......

Elektratig: Thomas Jefferson Enforces the Embargo 1: Congress Authorizes the Use of the Army and Navy to Suppress Insurrection....
One of those words there is more important than the others. Can you guess which one? :)
It was approved by congress and signed by Jefferson into law. Once it became law, the president as "commander in chief" and "executor of the laws" and "having first observed all pre-requisites" does not need congressional authorization to use the standing army to suppress insurrections.....


Be it enacted, &c., That in all cases of insurrection, or obstruction to the laws, either of the United States, or of any individual State or Territory, where it is lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia for the purpose of suppressing such insurrection, or of causing the laws to be duly executed, it shall be lawful for him to employ for the same purposes, such part of the land or naval force of the United States, as shall be judged necessary, having first observed all the pre-requisites of the law in that respect.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth the militia of such state, or any other state or states, as may be necessary to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and the use of militia so to be called forth may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the then next session of Congress.

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Really, why should gun manufacturers have an constitutional amendment just for their products?

The 2nd amendment was not written to protect gun manufacturers. In point of fact, I doubt there was any kind of established gun manufacturing at the time it was written. The 2nd amendment was written to protect our right to self-defense from an over-reaching government - to put restrictions on government from taking our firearms.

How can you not possibly know or understand this?!
 
Back
Top Bottom