• 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 rails against access to assault weapons after recent spate of shootings

RF667799 said:
Would you categorize such a government as legitimate, or only if it was administered by Russians?
Click to expand...

Sounds like someone needs to stop watching Red Dawn before bed ;)
 
Tigerace117 said:
Anyone who actually thinks the average American’s life is in as much danger as high profile politicians such as the president of the United States is totally clueless.

But then again, gun obsessives have never been known for their intelligence ;)
Click to expand...

Oh look. A goalpost move. Hard to argue with someone who just changes his story when rebutted.

Is the President's life more valuable than your own?
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
It says right there Reagan still carried a lot of weight with the Republican Party... Clinton went to him for help..

And it passed.. Case closed..
Click to expand...
According to you libs, Reagan had Alzheimer's while he was still president. Now you want to pretend he was of sound mind 6 years after he left office. You libs need to keep your rhetoric straight.
 
Tlrmln said:
As much as it would never pass, and would be struck down by SCOTUS if it did, as least he said something that made sense for a change.

Banning weapons based on whether they have pistol grips or adjustable shoulder stocks (i.e., an "assault weapon" ban) is idiotic.
Click to expand...
But just fine, since we can't ban them all.
 
RF667799 said:
Oh look. A goalpost move. Hard to argue with someone who just changes his story when rebutted.

Is the President's life more valuable than your own?
Click to expand...

Oh look, more wailing about imaginary “goalpost moves” . Hard to argue with people who wouldn’t be bothered by a school shooting every day of the year as long as they got to keep clinging to their precious toys 🙄😂

My life isn’t actively threatened. The lives of the president— and other high ranking politicians— are.
 
The AntiDonald said:
Only a gun hoarder like you would notice that mistake. He meant AR-15 style weapons and everyone knows it. He's not coming after all semi-auto weapons nor is anyone else, sorry to say.

And besides that, no one is proposing taking any weapons away from LE. They are the only ones who should have one.
Click to expand...

Stupid or liar, no matter how you slice it.

If he's only talking about banning rifles of a certain style, then he's shockingly stupid (or maybe a liar, in the sense he wants you to think that will do anything when it won't).

If he said "semiautomatic" when he meant "assault weapon," then he's definitely stupid.

And if he's been saying "assault weapon" all this time when he really was planning to go after all semiautomatics, he's a liar.
 
Galactic Spin said:
But just fine, since we can't ban them all.
Click to expand...

If "idiotic" is "just fine" with you, then that says all I need to know about you and anyone who agrees with you.
 
Tlrmln said:
If "idiotic" is "just fine" with you, then that says all I need to know about you and anyone who agrees with you.
Click to expand...
Idiotic was your word, not mine. And stop your insufferable crybabying.
 
Anthony60 said:
CNN —
President Joe Biden said Thursday that he would work with Congress to “try to get rid of assault weapons” after a recent spate of shootings in the US.

“The idea (that) we still allow semiautomatic weapons to be purchased is sick, it’s just sick. It has no social redeeming value, zero, none. Not a single, solitary rationale for it,” Biden told reporters during a brief gaggle outside the Nantucket Fire Department in Massachusetts, where he greeted first responders.

Asked whether he would try to take action on guns, the president said, “I’m going to try. I’m going to try to get rid of assault weapons.” When pressed on whether he would try to do so during the lame duck session, he said, “I’m going to do it whenever – I’ve got to make that assessment as soon as I get in and start counting the votes.”

Now Biden wants to go after semiautomatic weapons. Biden makes this huge comment, which is all that matters in what he said. What does CNN do? Even though the quote is in the article, they completely ignore it. They act as if it's not even there. No mention at all about the significance of such a statement by the POTUS.

In fact, despite the headline, the majority of the article is about the possible railroad strike!
Click to expand...

What does CNN do?

www.cnn.com

Biden rails against access to assault weapons after recent spate of shootings | CNN Politics

President Joe Biden said Thursday that he would work with Congress to "try to get rid of assault weapons" after a recent spate of shootings in the US.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
 
Tlrmln said:
Lol, says the guy crybabying over scary looking rifles.
Click to expand...
Which, of course, I did not do. You are just trying to excuse your own embarrassing behavior by inventing a little dolly to point at.
 
VanceMack said:
:ROFLMAO:
Yep...I deliberately posted that video that highlighted the stupidity of Bidens comments in a funny way.
Click to expand...
You post videos that misleads. no wonder no one takes you seriously.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Oh look, more wailing about imaginary “goalpost moves” . Hard to argue with people who wouldn’t be bothered by a school shooting every day of the year as long as they got to keep clinging to their precious toys 🙄😂

My life isn’t actively threatened. The lives of the president— and other high ranking politicians— are.
Click to expand...

You said the average American had no credible threats to his life.

When that was noted as supporting the idea that further gun regulation is unnecessary, you changed to a claim that the average American wasn't in as much danger.

Classic goalpost move.
 
mrjurrs said:
I agree with 100% of the President's quoted statement in the op. The style of weapons he refers to has no place in civil society.
Click to expand...
Semiautomatic firearms?
 
Galactic Spin said:
But just fine, since we can't ban them all.
Click to expand...
You need to if you want to reach your goal. You do realize that the AWB bill in Congress will only lead to more "assault weapons" being owned by citizens, right?
 
Tlrmln said:
Stupid or liar, no matter how you slice it.

If he's only talking about banning rifles of a certain style, then he's shockingly stupid (or maybe a liar, in the sense he wants you to think that will do anything when it won't).

If he said "semiautomatic" when he meant "assault weapon," then he's definitely stupid.

And if he's been saying "assault weapon" all this time when he really was planning to go after all semiautomatics, he's a liar.
Click to expand...

Disagree. I support the bans. (for starters)
 
Galactic Spin said:
False. Go play with your dollies over there -->
Click to expand...
The goal of the Democratic Party is "end gun violence".

That's a zero sum goal.

Heck, to even get close to "no more mass shootings" or "no more school shootings" you'd have to ban virtually every firearm in the US.
 
Rucker61 said:
The goal of the Democratic Party is "end gun violence".
Click to expand...



Yes, that is rhetoric. Like a goal of world peace, or ending world hunger.

The slippery slope boogeyman you are playing with don't scare me. At all. Sorry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom