• 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

phoenyx said:
Found an interesting site:
Dictators and Gun Control « America In Chains

Some excerpts from the site:
***
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.”
- Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942
Click to expand...

Who do you think Hitler's "subject races" and "underdogs" were? They were the scapegoat minorities the Nazi's used to instill fear and hate into the German population to help them rise to power. They were the Jews, gypsies and homosexuals and they didn't have their guns confiscated, they had all of their property and wealth confiscated and were shipped off to concentration camps. Do you think it's a coincidence that the rightwing are scapegoating minorities with brown skin and homosexuals in the US? I don't.

Hitler rose to power through national elections and by eliminating trade unions and opposing political parties......not unlike what the right wing in the US are trying to today. He didn't have the authority or the man power to confiscate arms until he was appointed Chancelor and the passage of the Enabling Act and by then the German people were overwhelmingly in support of the Nazi party. The notion that he had to confiscate guns in order to rise to power is pure rubbish and propaganda perpetuated by the right wing in the US so that they can machtergreifung in our own country and have totaltalitarian control over all our lives...just like Hitler.

Enabling Act of 1933 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Machtergreifung - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gleichschaltung - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Thank you for reminding me that Hitler eliminated trade unions in order to rise to power.
 
Last edited:
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Boo Radley said:
No one has argued you can't defend yourself.
Click to expand...

Right the argument is what tools would you be allowed to defend ones self.


Nor that a gun can't be one of those options. There is virtually no chance that option will be removed.
Click to expand...


Tell that to the people in Chicago and New York City. Try getting a permit for home possession not to mention legal carry.


The worse like to happen is a return to the the assault weapons ban. Very little else.
Click to expand...

The people who want to ban guns are either not rational thinkers who either fear guns since guns are capable of killing people or thinks that guns are the primary cause of crime and violent activity instead of a secondarily or tertiary reason ;or have a rational reason to ban guns for their own purposes.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

a351 said:
And on the other hand you've arbitrarily assigned extreme and draconian motives to those you disagree with. Both degrees of silliness and naivety I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

gun banners have assigned that to them selves

Google Nelson "Pete" Shields and his quotes about incrementally banning handguns
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

iguanaman said:
The # of murders committed with hammers is inconsequential. I don't see your point.
Click to expand...

more than with scary looking rifles people like you want to ban
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Boo Radley said:
Hardly.
Click to expand...

wrong as usual-your silly attempt to extrapolate your situation to everyone else's confrontations with criminals is just plain stupid
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

TurtleDude said:
swords sabers dirks, hatchets, poleaxes, bayonets rapiers switchblades (Supreme Court of Oregon ruled that its "second amendment" applied to switchblade knives) etc are all clearly protected as well
Click to expand...
Well, if the court can decide what arms are protected by the second amendment, then why can't congress regulate arms?

I still can't get passed the "well regulated milita" clause since it is the very first thing the second amendment calls for. So if militas can be regulated and the people are the militas then it stands to reason that people's arms can be regulated as well. The last I checked, regulating does not mean banning.


regulated past participle, past tense of reg·u·late (Verb)
Verb
1.Control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly.

2.Control or supervise (something, esp. a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.
 
Last edited:
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Moot said:
Well, if the court can decide what arms are protected by the second amendment, then why can't congress regulate arms?

I still can't get passed the "well regulated milita" clause since it is the very thing the second amendment calls for. So if militas can be regulated and the people are the militas then it stands to reason that people's arms can be regulated as well. The last I checked, regulating does not mean banning.
Click to expand...

you cannot get past an erroneous understanding of the amendment and ignorance of the tenth amendment because if you honestly interpreted the second amendment and other parts of the constitution you would realize that there is no proper grounds for the federal government to regulate small arms
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

TurtleDude said:
you cannot get past an erroneous understanding of the amendment and ignorance of the tenth amendment because if you honestly interpreted the second amendment and other parts of the constitution you would realize that there is no proper grounds for the federal government to regulate small arms
Click to expand...

The second amendment gives the federal government the authority to regulate militas and this is confirmed by the tenth amendment. The government can regulate milita's firearms and the people are the militas. So how can the government regulate the militas firearms if it can't regulate the people's firearms?
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

The confusion purposely advanced by those seeking to limit a constitutional right to own firearms is astonishing...For instance, no one is saying that regulation is necessarily a bad thing, however, regulation in the terms of constitutional ownership in the 18th century was largely on uniform manufacture. You didn't want the man next to you using a firearm that wasn't reliable. Uniform regulation in manufacture is a necessary thing with things like firearms to ensure operational standards.

Opponents of free application of ownership of firearms want to use regulation in a far different way.
 
iguanaman said:
The sad truth is that we would all be "safer" if only the criminals and the police had guns. No one thinks that will work here but we need to at least miniimize the risks so our gun culture isn't so destructive to innocents. What we don't want is for everyone to "need" a gun or think that having a gun will make you safer from gun violence, that is a lie and is unacceptble given the additional deaths it would cause. The other statistic that is undisputable is the one that says more guns = more gun violence. Is that what the "gun nuts" really want? More shootings, more murders?
Click to expand...

Really?!?!!?!?!?!?

You are actually and honestly stating that the world would be safer if only criminals and cops had guns?!?

So, let me ask you a question: a group of people breaks into your house, what is your strategy of survival for te average 15 minutes before cops arrive??
 
Moot said:
Such as?

First of all I never mentioned Obama and never suggested any such thing. But it's quite telling that you're trying to bring him into the equasion to distract from the the NRAs use of propaganda as compared to Hitlers. Because blaming the "other" is exactly what Hitler did to inspire the masses to achieve his goal of a paranoied distopian society as well.

It's just one fallacy after another with you, isn't it.

I think you've said plenty to prove my point.

Quite the opposite.
Click to expand...

Your argument has zero merit in the real world. Your understanding of history is somewhere between revisionist and fabrication.

And yes, bringing up Obama was relevant because you blamed gun owners under hitler, Stalin and Mao, the three greatest mass murderers of recent history, for being paranoid, and that paranoia being the cause for those tyrants to start killing people by the millions... Next you also blamed me and other gun owners for the push towards greater gun laws.

You are alluding that Obama SHOULD kill millions of Americans because there are some that prefer to maintain the capacity to defend themselves against such an oppression like we've seen several times in relatively recent history (100 years or so).

So, tell me, how many Swiss Jews died in the holocaust? And bonus points if you can address the factor that led to the answer.

And how have you even proven your point when you've offered absolute verifiable nonsense and haven't even gone and tried to offer a single source to back up your claims... Except for that one source by that historical revisionist with no real merits???
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

j-mac said:
The confusion purposely advanced by those seeking to limit a constitutional right to own firearms is astonishing...For instance, no one is saying that regulation is necessarily a bad thing, however, regulation in the terms of constitutional ownership in the 18th century was largely on uniform manufacture. You didn't want the man next to you using a firearm that wasn't reliable. Uniform regulation in manufacture is a necessary thing with things like firearms to ensure operational standards.
Click to expand...
There was quite a scandle over gun manufacturers making and selling inferior guns to the government during the early 19th century. So can you link or point to an 18th or early 19th century government regulation that standardized guns and/or their manufacture?


Opponents of free application of ownership of firearms want to use regulation in a far different way.
Click to expand...
The very first thing the second amendment calls for is a "well regulated milita." So if militas can be regulated and the people are the militas, then it stands to reason that the people's arms can be regulated as well.

Regulation does not mean "banning" and yet I hear the pro-gun side use the word ban and banning far more often than I do their opponents. So if anyone is using the word "regulation" in a far different way, it's the pro-gun folks.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Goshin said:
I'd prefer to avoid using legislation, let alone the dubious mechanism of Executive Orders, to make any major changes in our laws and traditions during a time of mass hysteria.
Click to expand...

I'm not certain that I would label a 13 year period during which we witnessed over 20 mass shootings leading to the deaths of over 200 people a "time of mass hysteria". Yes, over reacting to one event might be consistent with your characterization, but no one is reacting to just one event.

Backgrounder: Main mass shootings in U.S. since 1999
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
I'm not certain that I would label a 13 year period during which we witnessed over 20 mass shootings leading to the deaths of over 200 people a "time of mass hysteria". Yes, over reacting to one event might be consistent with your characterization, but no one is reacting to just one event.
Click to expand...

And how many people died in car accidents over that same 20 year period?

Then how come we aren't talking about banning cars, certainly more people died in car accidents, even as a ratio of gun owners to gun deaths to car owners and vehicular fatalities?
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

BmanMcfly said:
And how many people died in car accidents over that same 20 year period?

Then how come we aren't talking about banning cars, certainly more people died in car accidents, even as a ratio of gun owners to gun deaths to car owners and vehicular fatalities?
Click to expand...

Excellent example as much time, expense and regulation goes into improving car safety. But, your example was a bit knee-jerk as no one is talking about banning guns or autos. They are talking about regulation, which involves tightening sale and resale requirements and perhaps banning certain types of guns and extended clips.

We extensively regulate autos. Air bags, for example, were not highly popular, but we have them. The list of government imposed safety regulations on the auto industry specifically and transportation in general would blow your mind (be quite extensive), yet people don't throw the same irrational hissy fit over improvements to auto safety as they do over some simple make sense changes in gun distribution.

Moreover, I was addressing a few mass shootings, not the totality of gun deaths. If you must know there is one death by gun for every three deaths by auto. One distinction, however, is rarely is an auto death deliberate, yet most gun deaths are.
 
Last edited:
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

BmanMcfly said:
Your argument has zero merit in the real world. Your understanding of history is somewhere between revisionist and fabrication.
Click to expand...
Your argument is manure. You live in a fabricated fantasy straight out of a cheap comic book. zap, pow, bang.

And yes, bringing up Obama was relevant because you blamed gun owners under hitler, Stalin and Mao, the three greatest mass murderers of recent history, for being paranoid, and that paranoia being the cause for those tyrants to start killing people by the millions... Next you also blamed me and other gun owners for the push towards greater gun laws.
Click to expand...
I used the same comparison of Hitler, Stalin and Mao that I hear so often from pro-gun people. But the fact is propaganda, demonizing minorities and eliminating trade unions and opposing political parties is what brought the Nazis to power and interestingly enough those are the same exact tactics the right wing in the US are using today.


You are alluding that Obama SHOULD kill millions of Americans because there are some that prefer to maintain the capacity to defend themselves against such an oppression like we've seen several times in relatively recent history (100 years or so).
Click to expand...
Nope, only you are alluding that and it makes me wonder if you have a picture of Hitler hanging next to your confederate flag over your fireplace.
 
Last edited:
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Moot said:
There was quite a scandle over gun manufacturers making and selling inferior guns to the government during the early 19th century. So can you link or point to an 18th or early 19th century government regulation that standardized guns and/or their manufacture?
Click to expand...

Can I point to a regulation? Why would I need to? My argument is that you are using "regulation" in a different way than the intent of the framers of the Constitution.

The very first thing the second amendment calls for is a "well regulated milita." So if militas can be regulated and the people are the militas, then it stands to reason that the people's arms can be regulated as well.
Click to expand...

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the reading of the amendment...If for example you want to separate the statements of the amendment to suit your argument then you must also take into consideration the portion of the amendment that states "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Regulation does not mean "banning" and yet I hear the pro-gun side use the word ban and banning far more often than I do their opponents. So if anyone is using the word "regulation" in a far different way, it's the pro-gun folks.
Click to expand...

If not to ''ban" people from owning certain firearms, then in what way are you using regulation?
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

j-mac said:
Can I point to a regulation? Why would I need to? My argument is that you are using "regulation" in a different way than the intent of the framers of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
And I asked you to prove your argument by pointing out how the framers used regulation that is different from today? So either you can't or you don't know what you're talking about. I suspect both.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the reading of the amendment...If for example you want to separate the statements of the amendment to suit your argument then you must also take into consideration the portion of the amendment that states "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Click to expand...
The second amendment is only one sentence, not two. So why are you ignoring the first clause that the framers obviously intended to be more important than the second? Can you at least tell me who the militias were?

If not to ''ban" people from owning certain firearms, then in what way are you using regulation?
Click to expand...
I use the term to regulate the same way the dictionary does and there is no mention of ban or banning in the definition. So why do you keep using the word ban when it does't mean to regulate or isn't mentioned in the second amendment?
 
upsideguy said:
Excellent example as much time, expense and regulation goes into improving car safety. But, your example was a bit knee-jerk as no one is talking about banning guns or autos. They are talking about regulation, which involves tightening sale and resale requirements and perhaps banning certain types of guns and extended clips.

We extensively regulate autos. Air bags, for example, were not highly popular, but we have them. The list of government imposed safety regulations on the auto industry specifically and transportation in general would blow your mind (be quite extensive), yet people don't throw the same irrational hissy fit over improvements to auto safety as they do over some simple make sense changes in gun distribution.

Moreover, I was addressing a few mass shootings, not the totality of gun deaths. If you must know there is one death by gun for every three deaths by auto. One distinction, however, is rarely is an auto death deliberate, yet most gun deaths are.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly, in spite of the regulations and safety features, people are still dying at a far greater rate as a result of automobiles and we aren't even so much as talking about banning cars that can DOUBLE the speed limit with ease.


There's crazy people everywhere behind the wheels of a car they can't be trusted... Maybe you should have to pass a psychological exam before driving.

It's the same thing, you have the same rights to move as you do to defend yourself in the ways you see fit. (I don't even carry guns, though if I need I have quick access to a shotgun, but what I do have is this horrible tendency to "forget" to lock up my hammer or other tools when I leave work, which has protected me from being robbed downtown on at least one occasion).

And yes, most gun deaths are deliberate... If you point it at someone you better damn well mean it.
 
Moot said:
Your argument is manure. You live in a fabricated fantasy straight out of a cheap comic book. zap, pow, bang.
Click to expand...

Coming from the person who boasts about taking the word of a revisionist blogger... Ok, thanks for the compliment.


I used the same comparison of Hitler, Stalin and Mao that I hear so often from pro-gun people. But the fact is propaganda, demonizing minorities and eliminating trade unions and opposing political parties is what brought the Nazis to power and interestingly enough those are the same exact tactics the right wing in the US are using today.
Click to expand...

Ok, this thought shows a level of distinction I was worried you are incapable of...

In this way, both left and right are working together... The right through increasing political power, the left by increasing government power.

The fascism comes from the amalgamation of those two sides of the power structure into a power block, or said differently, the right creates a situation for a leftist to take over and do the killing. (this may be a valid example for nazi Germany, though im not sure if the distinction is accurate for stalin and Mao.)


Nope, only you are alluding that and it makes me wonder if you have a picture of Hitler hanging next to your confederate flag over your fireplace.
Click to expand...

Lol now you are revising history from 30 min ago... It was you that stated that it was because of gun owners paranoia that hitler became the mass murderer that he was... And you stated it in such a way as to allude that gun owners today are paranoid.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

BmanMcfly said:
Coming from the person who boasts about taking the word of a revisionist blogger... Ok, thanks for the compliment.
Click to expand...
The Jefferson quotes were the same. So it wouldn't matter it came from.


Ok, this thought shows a level of distinction I was worried you are incapable of...

In this way, both left and right are working together... The right through increasing political power, the left by increasing government power.

The fascism comes from the amalgamation of those two sides of the power structure into a power block, or said differently, the right creates a situation for a leftist to take over and do the killing. (this may be a valid example for nazi Germany, though im not sure if the distinction is accurate for stalin and Mao.)
Click to expand...
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.

Lol now you are revising history from 30 min ago... It was you that stated that it was because of gun owners paranoia that hitler became the mass murderer that he was... And you stated it in such a way as to allude that gun owners today are paranoid.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Moot said:
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.
Click to expand...

The left uses propaganda, manipulation of minorities, union monopolization, gerrymandering and demonization of politcal opponents and voter fraud to gain political power.

I hope you can see what I did there. Pretending one side of the political process is any less dirty than the other is like arguing which pig has less mud on it.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

upsideguy said:
I'm not certain that I would label a 13 year period during which we witnessed over 20 mass shootings leading to the deaths of over 200 people a "time of mass hysteria". Yes, over reacting to one event might be consistent with your characterization, but no one is reacting to just one event.

Backgrounder: Main mass shootings in U.S. since 1999
Click to expand...

Do you find it at all strange that so many of these incidents occurred in gun-free zones?
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

BmanMcfly said:
Yes, exactly, in spite of the regulations and safety features, people are still dying at a far greater rate as a result of automobiles and we aren't even so much as talking about banning cars that can DOUBLE the speed limit with ease.


There's crazy people everywhere behind the wheels of a car they can't be trusted... Maybe you should have to pass a psychological exam before driving.

It's the same thing, you have the same rights to move as you do to defend yourself in the ways you see fit. (I don't even carry guns, though if I need I have quick access to a shotgun, but what I do have is this horrible tendency to "forget" to lock up my hammer or other tools when I leave work, which has protected me from being robbed downtown on at least one occasion).

And yes, most gun deaths are deliberate... If you point it at someone you better damn well mean it.
Click to expand...

and yes most gun deaths are innocents too. Wives and chidren murdered by the very thing that was "supposed" to protect them. How sad is that? Leavng a loaded gun around is about the most dangerous thing you can do for your family. Why do so many still insist on doing it?

I agree we need to keep reducing auto fatalities too. Govt. safety regulations have already reduced them by over 90% oer mile traveled. But we still need to do more, just like we need to do more with gun safety.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Moot said:
Who do you think Hitler's "subject races" and "underdogs" were? They were the scapegoat minorities the Nazi's used to instill fear and hate into the German population to help them rise to power. They were the Jews, gypsies and homosexuals and they didn't have their guns confiscated, they had all of their property and wealth confiscated and were shipped off to concentration camps. Do you think it's a coincidence that the rightwing are scapegoating minorities with brown skin and homosexuals in the US? I don't.

Hitler rose to power through national elections and by eliminating trade unions and opposing political parties......not unlike what the right wing in the US are trying to today. He didn't have the authority or the man power to confiscate arms until he was appointed Chancelor and the passage of the Enabling Act and by then the German people were overwhelmingly in support of the Nazi party. The notion that he had to confiscate guns in order to rise to power is pure rubbish and propaganda perpetuated by the right wing in the US so that they can machtergreifung in our own country and have totaltalitarian control over all our lives...just like Hitler.

Enabling Act of 1933 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Machtergreifung - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Gleichschaltung - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Thank you for reminding me that Hitler eliminated trade unions in order to rise to power.
Click to expand...

Eliminating unions in favor of central planning (fascism) is a far cry from advocating right-to-work legislation. But it's always fun to see a leftie try and compare Repubs to Nazis...have the rich not been the biggest scapegoat over the past 4 years?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom