• 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

wow, 300 million guns in the USA-how many of us have shot ourselves?

A number worthy of note.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Like I said earlier, that incremental must be some slow moving effort. Nothing has happened to speak of. So, you won't convince any argument with anyone but the faithful with that line if reasoning.
cuomo sort of bitch slapped your feigned ignorance into cyberspace
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

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
Really? Lets see if we can help you out with that. 20 incidents in 13 years = 1.5 incidents a year. Divide that by the number of legal gun owners in this country and you have an average .000000000125 incidents to every law abiding citizen. Yes...that lust to ban weapons of ANY type based and ignoring the factual reality...that's what you call 'mass hysteria'. Meanwhile, liberals ignore the 20,000 or so deaths by all manner of violent means and ignore the perpetrators, choosing instead to pass laws specifically and only to target law abiding citizens. Why do you suppose that is?
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

A number worthy of note.

really? accidental shootings go down and down and down

suicides-I prefer people use guns-far less likely to hurt innocents
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

There are no gun bans. Not universal. I'm sorry, but they is huge hyperbole from gun folks.

It is very difficult to get a gun permit in either of those cities both are run by people who belive the comon citizen should not have the right to own much less bear a gun.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Really? Lets see if we can help you out with that. 20 incidents in 13 years = 1.5 incidents a year. Divide that by the number of legal gun owners in this country and you have an average .000000000125 incidents to every law abiding citizen. Yes...that lust to ban weapons of ANY type based and ignoring the factual reality...that's what you call 'mass hysteria'. Meanwhile, liberals ignore the 20,000 or so deaths by all manner of violent means and ignore the perpetrators, choosing instead to pass laws specifically and only to target law abiding citizens. Why do you suppose that is?

Ok, so you are saying events like Columbine, Newtown, Virginia Tech, etc, are acceptable collateral damage. An interesting viewpoint. An opinion to which are entitled.

Here is a more complete list of US school shootings. They are running at a greater pace than 1.5 per year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

Now, I assume that list doesn't sway your opinion at all, but just wanted to let you know that you find a far greater number of incidents per year acceptable than 1.5.
 
Last edited:
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Ok, so you are saying events like Columbine, Newtown, Virginia Tech, etc, are acceptable collateral damage. An interesting viewpoint. An opinion to which are entitled.
Yep...I am saying that, especially when of the three you mentioned off the top of your head only 1 involved the types of weapons being discussed by anti-gun types for bans.

Oh...you CAN of course keep going for the emotional appeal. Hey...I know..."for the children" lets ban cars. Do you know how many people are killed or maimed every year by people that INTENTIONALLY set out to drink and drive?

Yes...using the bad actions of 1-2 individuals to attack 199,999,998 law abiding citizens is about as vile and corrupt a thing as I can imagine.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

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.

Again, as a society we are more than willing to spend time and money to regulate, restrict, ban, and improve aspects of the automobile to improve safety. All most people are asking is that the gun consistency be equal amenable.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Do you find it at all strange that so many of these incidents occurred in gun-free zones?

Not at all. Gun free zones are fundamentally a silly idea other than it gives the police/officials some right to confiscate a gun rather just having to observe someone. At the other extreme, its also silly to think the death penalty somehow stops this activity. In fact, you can't stop the activity, all you can do is slow it down... or limit the carnage.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Not at all. Gun free zones are fundamentally a silly idea other than it gives the police/officials some right to confiscate a gun rather just having to observe someone. At the other extreme, its also silly to think the death penalty somehow stops this activity. In fact, you can't stop the activity, all you can do is slow it down... or limit the carnage.

Gun free zones are like anything else...law abiding citizens will comply...its like any other law...you cant committ armed robbery but it still happens hundreds of times a month...you cant rape but it happens everyday...you cant break and enter it happens every day.
Gun laws are no different, there are those that have the mindset that gun restrictions will not matter too. Thats the conundrum.
You cant stop criminals from getting guns in america...there are MILLIONS out there that govt has no knowledge of and have changed hands so many times they could never be tracked down...Uncle Steve died he has 12 guns his male relatives all took one...they sold it to joe blow...joe blow sold it to harry canarry...etc...so if you have all these millions of guns already out there how the hell is banning a few assault rifles and magazine sizes going to change anything ? throw in more background checks and even abolish gun shows. Make more stringent background checks....I dont see any of that slowing crime down....you cannot stop the people so inclined...especially the mentally whacked like these kids that commit these school shootings....I honestly dont see it...If I truly thought it would stop it or slow it down I would be for it.
 
The Jefferson quotes were the same. So it wouldn't matter it came from.


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.

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.

Ok, are you a troll, or so whole heatedly partisan that you can't or won't even put a half a thought worth of examining your position.

Using minorities?? You mean like calling people that opposed Obamacare racist?

You mean union busting like how Obama signed a bailout that paid gm to move union jobs to mexico and china??

Using voter disenfranchisement on a campaign of "hope and change"??

Funny though.
 
Again, as a society we are more than willing to spend time and money to regulate, restrict, ban, and improve aspects of the automobile to improve safety. All most people are asking is that the gun consistency be equal amenable.

Yes, and you improve safety by promoting a healthy gun culture where most people are armed and trained in the use of those weapons. Think back to when being self-sufficient was the standard, almost everyone had a gun and bank robberies were national headlines... Though theres a great many more differences from people 100 years ago to today.

It's education, responsibility and training that will make the streets safer, not restricting and limiting firearms for law abiding citizens.
 
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.

There are many husbands and wives that kill their significant other (mostly its the man that kills the woman though), and they do this with knives, hammers, poison, drowning, beating with fists, and any other way that's ever been thought up for people to kill each other LONG BEFORE any guns were around... He'll, most anything in your house could be used as a weapon in the right circumstance... The fact is that people can be dangerous.

You could have a gun on your hip for years and never have to pull it out outside of a gun range, and most people with guns do just that, but the fact is that you are about 80 times more likely to see a crime stopped with a gun than committed with a gun, and 75% of gun crimes are gang related anyway...

So, until we eliminate crime from society, then we can talk about banning guns, but even then there's wildlife to deal with also, so, even then it may not be entirely prudent.

Unless you get lucky, If you are the victim of a crime, gun related or not, the police cannot help you until they get there in avg 15 min... Then they take the report of the crime and investigate accordingly.

And even then, you only increase your odds of a better outcome, you can have a weapon and still be a victim, nothing is certain o course, but why would you want to be an easy victim??
 
Last edited:
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

cuomo sort of bitch slapped your feigned ignorance into cyberspace

Pray tell how? Not another of your overreacting is there?
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

really? accidental shootings go down and down and down

suicides-I prefer people use guns-far less likely to hurt innocents

Accept those who take others with them. Going up? Going down? Doesn't change what I said.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

It is very difficult to get a gun permit in either of those cities both are run by people who belive the comon citizen should not have the right to own much less bear a gun.

Difficult doesn't mean banned. And you will find a majority of city folks prefer less guns and not more. But the fact remains that guns have not remotely been banned.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Accept those who take others with them. Going up? Going down? Doesn't change what I said.

uh that is called murder when you deliberately shoot someone else.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Difficult doesn't mean banned. And you will find a majority of city folks prefer less guns and not more. But the fact remains that guns have not remotely been banned.

you either deliberately or ignorantly pretend that incremental steps towards gun bans facilitate gun bans
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

uh that is called murder when you deliberately shoot someone else.

Murder suicide. However, it is people shooting each other. Family members. Just heard on the radio from the CDC that we're 43 times more likely to shoot each other, ourselves and family members than to defend ourselves. CDC spokesperson noted that even with the limited budget they had, they could shoot down the self defense stats you like to use. But, then again, we've done that already, haven't we?

Anyway, the point here is that your hyperbolic fear is largely silly. There are areas of debate. i get you want no restrictions and some what a ban, but the power to ban weapons altogether simply doesn't exist. There is next to no likelihood that you will lose your weapons.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

you either deliberately or ignorantly pretend that incremental steps towards gun bans facilitate gun bans

Again, I've been hearing this my entire life. Show me those bans. Not your fear. But real bans.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Murder suicide. However, it is people shooting each other. Family members. Just heard on the radio from the CDC that we're 43 times more likely to shoot each other, ourselves and family members than to defend ourselves. CDC spokesperson noted that even with the limited budget they had, they could shoot down the self defense stats you like to use. But, then again, we've done that already, haven't we?

Anyway, the point here is that your hyperbolic fear is largely silly. There are areas of debate. i get you want no restrictions and some what a ban, but the power to ban weapons altogether simply doesn't exist. There is next to no likelihood that you will lose your weapons.

Isnt that what they used to say in England?
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Obama is really intelligent on this one. In his one comment about what he "may" do, Obama has shifted focus away from the economy and jobs while the right laps this up like Koolaid and gets into a frenzy.

The country continues to go down the crapper with unemployment and the economy while the right is focused on an imaginary demon.

At worst, there will be an assault weapons ban PROPOSED, but highly unlikely it will ever pass.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Isnt that what they used to say in England?

England is not the same as the U.S. politically and you know this.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Isnt that what they used to say in England?

We're not England. Just in case you haven't noticed. :coffeepap
 
We're not England. Just in case you haven't noticed. :coffeepap

DO be sure to mention that next time people offer how wonderfully successful gun bans were in England and elsewhere...
 
Back
Top Bottom