• 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

I would have trouble banning hunting weapons or some that are used for personal protection.

So the AR-15...is primarily a hunting weapon. Would you ban this "assault weapon"?
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

So the AR-15...is primarily a hunting weapon. Would you ban this "assault weapon"?

Would you say it is the only hunting weapon? Will people be unable to hunt without it? If they can still hunt, I would not be upset. Many tools have duel uses.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Would you say it is the only hunting weapon? Will people be unable to hunt without it? If they can still hunt, I would not be upset. Many tools have duel uses.

Yeah. Thats not an answer. Thanks for revealing your false flag.

So, can we take away fishing poles since people can fish with spears? Can we take away trains, since people can drive to work? How about computers, since people can remain in contact through phone, right? Wait we were talking about weapons right? I guess we need to take away all knives since they can be used as weapons.

Terrible argument, with more logical inconsistency than normal, even for you.
 
LOL, you don't know squat about this. I was a prosecutor for years. I know what cops do-most of them never fire a shot other than at the range

And if citizens have guns, unlike cops will go around just shooting at random...

This must be how the left thinks guns are in society (the people being like government / police allowing the population, the ape, to have a gun) :

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

They do a lot more than I do, and anyone I know. I'm sorry TD but I see nothing to back your claim.

That's just because you're old and feeble. Most everybody I know shoots thousands of rounds more than the police, who usually qualify twice a year with less than 100 rounds and their gun never clears leather.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Yeah. Thats not an answer. Thanks for revealing your false flag.

So, can we take away fishing poles since people can fish with spears? Can we take away trains, since people can drive to work? How about computers, since people can remain in contact through phone, right? Wait we were talking about weapons right? I guess we need to take away all knives since they can be used as weapons.

Terrible argument, with more logical inconsistency than normal, even for you.

If the reason was rational, sure. You seem to think that if you're allowed to something, no restrictions can be placed on it. I tried to get across to you that you're mistaken. Because I can hunt with a particular weapon doesn't mean it can't be restricted.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

You seem to think that if you're allowed to something, no restrictions can be placed on it. I tried to get across to you that you're mistaken.

If you can't understand, "shall not be infringed" then anything is possible, like all the unconstitutional laws on our books right now.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

That's just because you're old and feeble. Most everybody I know shoots thousands of rounds more than the police, who usually qualify twice a year with less than 100 rounds and their gun never clears leather.

I'd love you to prove that.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

If you can't understand, "shall not be infringed" then anything is possible, like all the unconstitutional laws on our books right now.
We already have precedence that limitations can be placed. Even most conservatives concede that.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

I'd love you to prove that.

What? That you're old, you already admitted that. How often does the nursing home take you to the shooting range?
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

We already have precedence that limitations can be placed. Even most conservatives concede that.

Precedence has no bearing on a constitutionally enumerated protected right. It doesn't matter if some people concede their right away or not.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

I'm sorry, but that too is incorrect. BTW, I have not claimed most fire their weapons. Most of us don't either. You're really missing the point the badly.

wrong as usual, you seem to think that police should have superior weapons to other civilians when in reality we should have the same small arms as infantry which is often more advanced than what police have. and you can never give us a rational explanation where the line should be drawn while I have supplied a common sense bright line starting point

if CIVILIAN cops have it so should we

your approach is cowardly and allows you to constantly change what we are allowed to own because when we cut away the crap-you want to ban guns
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Precedence has no bearing on a constitutionally enumerated protected right. It doesn't matter if some people concede their right away or not.

It has a lot to do with what can and will be done.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

wrong as usual, you seem to think that police should have superior weapons to other civilians when in reality we should have the same small arms as infantry which is often more advanced than what police have. and you can never give us a rational explanation where the line should be drawn while I have supplied a common sense bright line starting point

if CIVILIAN cops have it so should we

your approach is cowardly and allows you to constantly change what we are allowed to own because when we cut away the crap-you want to ban guns

Dude, I'm the one who isn't scared at all. :2funny::2funny:
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Dude, I'm the one who isn't scared at all. :2funny::2funny:

you miss the point-you won't tell us where you draw the line because the incremental gun banners never want to limit themselves
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

you miss the point-you won't tell us where you draw the line because the incremental gun banners never want to limit themselves

I have clear stated that hunters can have hunting weapons (which don't have to be either automatic or semiautomatic), and you can have a gun to protect yourself, which doesn't need to be those either. But I'm not all scared at all, which is why I don't need a gun.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

If the reason was rational, sure. You seem to think that if you're allowed to something, no restrictions can be placed on it. I tried to get across to you that you're mistaken. Because I can hunt with a particular weapon doesn't mean it can't be restricted.

Guns are not "allowed". They are an enumerated right outlined by the Bill of Rights, we possess them, the BoR just restates those rights.

Btw you said you wouldnt ban hunting rifles, I just proved you would. Just in increments as you felt the need and pressure to do so.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Guns are not "allowed". They are an enumerated right outlined by the Bill of Rights, we possess them, the BoR just restates those rights.

Btw you said you wouldnt ban hunting rifles, I just proved you would. Just in increments as you felt the need and pressure to do so.

Yes, with that pesky well regulated part. And no, I did not suggest duel use weapons couldn't be banned.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Yes, with that pesky well regulated part. And no, I did not suggest duel use weapons couldn't be banned.

You should really try to understand the text of the 2nd Amendment and the context of the Founders use of "regulated." As its not in terms of "regulations" but regulated as in trained. Regulars was the term used for trained soldiers at the time. Regulated means well trained. Not well ruled.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

I have clear stated that hunters can have hunting weapons (which don't have to be either automatic or semiautomatic), and you can have a gun to protect yourself, which doesn't need to be those either. But I'm not all scared at all, which is why I don't need a gun.

you just spend hours complaining about others wanting to own guns
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Yes, with that pesky well regulated part. And no, I did not suggest duel use weapons couldn't be banned.

so you adopt the idiocy that part of the bill of rights is a delegation of power to the federal government or the equally vapid belief that one has to have already joined a formed militia before the second amendment vests?
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

you just spend hours complaining about others wanting to own guns

Dude, you misread people on some issues because you fail to make reasonable distinctions.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

You should really try to understand the text of the 2nd Amendment and the context of the Founders use of "regulated." As its not in terms of "regulations" but regulated as in trained. Regulars was the term used for trained soldiers at the time. Regulated means well trained. Not well ruled.

I've read that view, as I have read court decisions. The prevailing view set by precedence is that they can be regulated.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

so you adopt the idiocy that part of the bill of rights is a delegation of power to the federal government or the equally vapid belief that one has to have already joined a formed militia before the second amendment vests?

I merely understand that the precedence has already been established.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

I have clear stated that hunters can have hunting weapons (which don't have to be either automatic or semiautomatic), and you can have a gun to protect yourself, which doesn't need to be those either. But I'm not all scared at all, which is why I don't need a gun.

Of course you don't need a gun, the nursing home is locked and has a security guard.
 
Back
Top Bottom