• 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

Limited to semi automatics. This is not all guns, nor not allowing you to defend yourself. I won't shed any crocodile tears of semi automatics.

Semi-automatics didn't even exist when the 2nd Amendment was passed. So much for strict construction and originalism among gun advocates.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Limited to semi automatics. This is not all guns, nor not allowing you to defend yourself. I won't shed any crocodile tears of semi automatics.
In turn I wouldnt shed any tears if your house was invaded by multiple intruders and you & your wife & kids were all there & you had to defend yourself with a single shot. My guess is you wouldnt be able to stop them and your family would be at there mercy.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Glad we agree :)



I have to say at this point, that although I'm not American, I would have voted for Obama both times. I would have preferred Dennis Kucinich, but he didn't win the Democratic nomination. I'm disappointed that Obama's bailed out the banks just like Bush did, he's legalized warrantless wiretapping, he went back on his promise to look into the safety of vaccines and he seems uniterested in doing a new investigation on 9/11, but I'm really hoping that it's just that he's not informed, and that he's not one of those who would like to create a police state. I know that people who I greatly respect, such as Sibel Edmonds, are not impressed with him (the Whistleblower act that passed during his time as president does absolutely nothing to protect people in organizations such as the FBI), but I keep on hoping that he's just being duped instead of being complicit in anything.



Thanks :)
God, I hope your right. I personally think Obama has done a horrible job.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Semi-automatics didn't even exist when the 2nd Amendment was passed. So much for strict construction and originalism among gun advocates.
So then by your logic the only thing we could use to defend ourselves would be a black powder musket? :roll:
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Semi-automatics didn't even exist when the 2nd Amendment was passed. So much for strict construction and originalism among gun advocates.

But swords and knives did how ever try to open carry them then.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Limited to semi automatics. This is not all guns, nor not allowing you to defend yourself. I won't shed any crocodile tears of semi automatics.

The permits are for handguns and they are severely restricted so it is an issue. Gov. Cummo and Mayor Bloomberg both want to take away all semiautomatics. All semiautomatics do is automatically put the next round in the chamber after firing the first. The same goes for the Gov of Illinois and many Mayors in that State. They simply do not want common folk to have firearms but are being forced to by the Courts into accepting it.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Not at all....A weapon is used for many things. My shotgun for hunting, and personal protection. My 9mm for home protection, and personal protection on the road. Both could be used in defense of the nation, if the need arose, like say a Red Dawn type of thing, but they are mine, not the governments. And the right is mine, not afforded me by man, but ensured as endowed by my creator.

Then would I be off the mark if I said we both agree that most Americans would purchase a weapons based on how they intend to use it?

For personal protection, most people would purchase a hand gun, not a shot gun or assault riffle - semi-automatic or full. A few would even purchase a shot gun (but I'd consider that to be over-kill but that's just me). If you're a hunter, you'd certainly buy a hunting riffle some of which are semi-automatic, but I think the adage, "one shot, one kill," is appropriate in such circumstances. And if you're a gun collector, you'd likely purchase just about anything the law allows. However, I think the quantity of ammunition for weapons as collector's items should be limited or even restricted to procurment only at shooting ranges. The reason for this is simple: You purchased the weapons as a collector's item - a show piece, not for sport. But I do understand that collectors would like to show off such weapons if for no other reason than to ensure they still work. I also believe certain types of ammunication should be restricted for use by the general public, i.e., hollow-point bullets.

I think the gun application, the background checks AND the gun permit(s) should all reflect the specific "category" of weapon the applicant applied for, i.e., "personal use, hunting, collector" (if that's not what's already happening). IMO, none of the ideas mentioned herein would prevent anyone from purchasing any weapon of practical use that's on the market today. Thus, no one's 2nd Amendment rights would be infringed upon. It's just good old common sense.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

In turn I wouldnt shed any tears if your house was invaded by multiple intruders and you & your wife & kids were all there & you had to defend yourself with a single shot. My guess is you wouldnt be able to stop them and your family would be at there mercy.

Not worried it. But it says a lot about you here.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

The permits are for handguns and they are severely restricted so it is an issue. Gov. Cummo and Mayor Bloomberg both want to take away all semiautomatics. All semiautomatics do is automatically put the next round in the chamber after firing the first. The same goes for the Gov of Illinois and many Mayors in that State. They simply do not want common folk to have firearms but are being forced to by the Courts into accepting it.

Yeah, I know what they do, and it is not a big issue. It just isn't. Nor does your conclusion drawn make any sense. There are plenty of weapons that are not semi automatic. Many common folks own them.
 
You use a gun lobbying site, hardly objective, but using them in suicides supports what I'm saying and doesn't rebut it. You link is merely trying to excuse the fact.

If someone is going to kill themselves they will find a way, men typically use guns or hanging, women typically use pills or knife. And women commit suicide more often then men... Are we going to ban all these things too??

Yes, suicide is tragic, but it does not relate to gun laws, it's a separate issue.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

If someone is going to kill themselves they will find a way, men typically use guns or hanging, women typically use pills or knife. And women commit suicide more often then men... Are we going to ban all these things too??

Yes, suicide is tragic, but it does not relate to gun laws, it's a separate issue.

Again, matters not one bit to he fact. Not one single bit. It is merely a. Statistically fact that we shoot ourselves more than we do criminals. A gun in the house, statistically, is more likely to be used in a suicide, to shoot a family member or friend, or be involved in an accidental shooting. No matter how you explain it or excuse it, the fact is still a fact.
 
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.

No, what is wanted is that the second amendment means that you can fire a revolver at a gun range, with proper permits.

Unfortunately that just leaves criminals and cops with guns... And cops are not required to save your life, but they are there to respond to a crime and then bring the person responsible I justice.

Go ahead and ask a cop his liability if he doesn't prevent harm to a victim of crime.

So, that gives the criminals a tremendous advantage.
 
In turn I wouldnt shed any tears if your house was invaded by multiple intruders and you & your wife & kids were all there & you had to defend yourself with a single shot. My guess is you wouldnt be able to stop them and your family would be at there mercy.

So,the second amendment means front loaded muskets... That's funny...
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

No, what is wanted is that the second amendment means that you can fire a revolver at a gun range, with proper permits.

Unfortunately that just leaves criminals and cops with guns... And cops are not required to save your life, but they are there to respond to a crime and then bring the person responsible I justice.

Go ahead and ask a cop his liability if he doesn't prevent harm to a victim of crime.

So, that gives the criminals a tremendous advantage.

Just so you know, you are arguing against a strawman or your perception of what you think liberals believe. You certainly are not arguing against anything I said as I have never stated nor suggested we ban guns, nor do I believe guns should be banned. Though wI personally believe that having a gun in the home for security gives you nothing more than a false sense of security, but if it makes you sleep better at night, more power to you. I also don't believe in studded snow tires in Colorado, but some people think they are necessary. Neither are arguments I am terribly interested in.

I do believe we should ban extended clips and require background checks for ALL gun transactions. (People would be licensed to buy guns, getting the license after a background check... and sellers would be legally liable if they could not prove they saw the buyer's license). I know neither are a panacea, but I think in each case they have major benefit. I realize the violence issues at hand are very complex and I am not looking for one thing to fix it.... but, the gun constituency can concede those items.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

The # of murders committed with hammers is inconsequential. I don't see your point.

Your ignorance is consequential...

looking-spoon-nra-not-the-enemy-home-depot-is-hammers-vs-rifles.jpg


So if your statement is true, "# of murders committed with hammers is inconsequential" - then the number of murders committed with a rifle are even less so.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

I dont know if you realize it, but those are exactly the arguments being made in England before they began implementing bans. Wether they are the same as us or not, there are a number of parallels and the implications are there if you arent blind to them.

Boo Radley
A few (very few actually) talk ****. So? The fact remains they can only work within a certain framework. It's called the law. And when legislators have overstepped, the courts have put things back. There is virtually no likelihood or any real ban. So, while it might be discussion worthy to a point, only to a point, it doesn't warrant the hyperbolic panic many seem to project.

Incrementalism. Every time there is a "ban" on a few weapons, it seems to get more vague and encompass more and more different types of guns. It wont be done by an outright ban, it will be done in small steps to avoid judicial and legislative pushback as well as pushback from citizens. I dont take your view that it cant be done, Im for preventing the incrementalism that walks towards it being done slowly.

Your posts on the issue argue for it, while at the same time you deny it CAN happen with absolutely no support of this side of your argument, just that it cant happen. Its got a logical hole in it the size of a tank.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

No, it's hyperbole. And there is no talk of banning all guns. At worse, only an assault weapons ban.

And what is the point of a fraudulent “assault weapon” ban? It is to ban some guns. There is no reason for it except as a step toward banning more guns, and eventually, banning all guns. There is no other purpose to it. Anyone who supports an “assault weapon” ban does so either out of extreme ignorance, or out of the hope and intent that it will lead to a ban on all firearms.

Senator Feinstein herself as much as admitted this, when she authored the 1994 version. She stated on 60 Minutes that what she really wanted was a ban on all privately-held firearms; and that what she authored was the closest thing to that that she thought she could get away with in one step, at that time.
 
Last edited:
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Semi-automatics didn't even exist when the 2nd Amendment was passed. So much for strict construction and originalism among gun advocates.

Neither did radio, television, telephones, or the Internet. Yet the First Amendment protects your right to communicate over these media exactly the same as it protects your right to publish a newspaper or to stand on a soapbox and speak in the public square.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Today is the day when they announce martial law and the jack-booted federal storm troopers start kicking in our doors to confiscate our means to resist.
Oh that I should have ever lived to see this day. Oh rue and rue and rue!

Biden vows recommendations by Tuesday on curbing gun violence - CNN.com
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

And what is the point of a fraudulent “assault weapon” ban? It is to ban some guns. There is no reason for it except as a step toward banning more guns, and eventually, banning all guns. There is no other purpose to it. Anyone who supports an “assault weapon” ban does so either out of extreme ignorance, or out of the hope and intent that it will lead to a ban on all firearms.

Senator Feinstein herself as much as admitted this, when she authored the 1994 version. She stated on 60 Minutes that what she really wanted was a ban on all privately-held firearms; and that what she authored was the closest thing to that that she thought she could get away with in one step, at that time.

I covered that elsewhere. It may well help some with police not being out armed at times. The effect likely small, but real. And there is very little need for anyone to want such weapons. So, it is hardly a huge deal. You also read to much into the words of politicians. You'd do better to consider what is actually possible.
 
Just so you know, you are arguing against a strawman or your perception of what you think liberals believe. You certainly are not arguing against anything I said as I have never stated nor suggested we ban guns, nor do I believe guns should be banned. Though wI personally believe that having a gun in the home for security gives you nothing more than a false sense of security, but if it makes you sleep better at night, more power to you. I also don't believe in studded snow tires in Colorado, but some people think they are necessary. Neither are arguments I am terribly interested in.

No, I'm sure youre a nice person that only reasonably prefers criminals to have an advantage over their victims.
(that's not what you said, but that's an implication of what you are saying)


I do believe we should ban extended clips and require background checks for ALL gun transactions. (People would be licensed to buy guns, getting the license after a background check... and sellers would be legally liable if they could not prove they saw the buyer's license). I know neither are a panacea, but I think in each case they have major benefit. I realize the violence issues at hand are very complex and I am not looking for one thing to fix it.... but, the gun constituency can concede those items.

Unfortunately, the facts are against you... You must realize that guns have a deterrent effect that is undeniable, hell, more often then not crime deterred with guns (or other weapons) is done so without using the weapon.

I've mentioned the story where I personally was about to be mugged ("guy wanting to show me a good deal in a back alley downtown"), showing the hammer in the bag I was carrying and asked him if he still wanted me in the back alley and he walked off.

A gun is SUPPOSED TO BE SCARY, or else people would only respond once shot...

Specifically though, minimize magazine size and you can just reload... Reloading can be performed in 5 seconds or less (maybe down to 1 second or less if you are trained).

Controlling sales only increases a black market, and does NOTHING about the millions of guns that are already undocumented and circulating amongst criminals.

I'll say it again, you decrease crime (you can't eliminate it) as you increase the numbers of people who are armed and trained in the use and responsibilities of firearm ownership.

Prime example, switzerland, most guns and among the least crime.

How are you gonna rob a bank when half your hostages will shoot when your back is turned??
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Orders' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standard

Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standard



That's if the other ten or so anti-gun bills don't pass obama will make an executive order...

Just a note, this would have been called "conspiracy theory" just a year ago.

Going to have to wait and see what he does. Unlike some of his other, imo, illegal Executive Orders, this one has money behind it to challenge it if he goes too far.

But if he orders the FBI to start tracking crime committed with illegally acquired weapons vs legally acquired ones and has them hunt down the illegal sales, I would fully support that and I think it would be within the bounds of an Executive Order. Unfortunately, the left has a bad history of going after all guns instead of just the illegal ones.
 
And what is the point of a fraudulent “assault weapon” ban? It is to ban some guns. There is no reason for it except as a step toward banning more guns, and eventually, banning all guns. There is no other purpose to it. Anyone who supports an “assault weapon” ban does so either out of extreme ignorance, or out of the hope and intent that it will lead to a ban on all firearms.

Senator Feinstein herself as much as admitted this, when she authored the 1994 version. She stated on 60 Minutes that what she really wanted was a ban on all privately-held firearms; and that what she authored was the closest thing to that that she thought she could get away with in one step, at that time.

Yes, cause then Everytime there is a mass shooter you can just lobby to ban the next gun, reduce clip size, etc...

Thing is there WILL BE more shootings regardless of any new laws... People can be violent and will pick up any weapon to act out on that violence...

Most anti-gun people don't realize it that it's not even about the guns, it's about the control.

However, there are those that understand its about control and feel they will benefit... To them I would recommend reading a history book. After disarmament, historically comes a purge, and those expecting to gain power through that control typically find themselves lined up against a wall staring down guns that weren't banned (soldiers weapons).
 
Going to have to wait and see what he does. Unlike some of his other, imo, illegal Executive Orders, this one has money behind it to challenge it if he goes too far.

But if he orders the FBI to start tracking crime committed with illegally acquired weapons vs legally acquired ones and has them hunt down the illegal sales, I would fully support that and I think it would be within the bounds of an Executive Order. Unfortunately, the left has a bad history of going after all guns instead of just the illegal ones.

Ya, and you'll never find all the illegal guns until they are used in crime, or by fluke...

Unless you're wanting to eliminate other rights to allow such tracking.

So, of course it's just as important to go for all guns hoping the illegal ones will be dealt with afterwards.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Yeah, I know what they do, and it is not a big issue. It just isn't. Nor does your conclusion drawn make any sense. There are plenty of weapons that are not semi automatic. Many common folks own them.

How many (legally) in New York or Chicago though?
 
Back
Top Bottom