• 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!

So, Obama is not after our guns?

Ok Mr. Head-in-the-sand
I'm not wasting hours of time for an argument you are going to dismiss by sheer disagreement. My sources are well known, and have been presented numerous times.
 
I posted the parts of the OP that I am talking about. One of them was about people who could not pass the background check being able to buy firearms for their buisness. Again, are you really for arming violent felons?
Why should felons not be allowed to own and carry firearms? Is there something in the second amendment I'm missing that doesn't protect their right to bear arms? Is one of us seeing imaginary text again?
 
At some point we get to sillyville. I think we did that with the last gun bill. I am all for all responsible Americans being encouraged to carry. What I am not for is felons etc being allowed to. As I understand it the RW is all for that now.

By the way, they will never get my firearms, but I dont think we should be silly about it. We are getting there.
Never? Really? To what lengths are you willing to go?
You dont even see the problem with an exec order outlawing the importation of certian American rifles.
 
I posted the parts of the OP that I am talking about. One of them was about people who could not pass the background check being able to buy firearms for their buisness. Again, are you really for arming violent felons?

Total red herring moot points.
I know in Florida if you have a domestic restraining order you must surrender your weapons and on many other restraining orders you must as well.
Felons buying guns, already illegal in most of the country.
Legislating from the oval office is bad form and in this case there was no reason for it. None.
 
From the OP.

The Obama administration is also proposing a federal rule to stop those who would be ineligible to pass a background check from skirting the law by registering a gun to a corporation or trust. The new rule would require people associated with those entities, like beneficiaries and trustees, to undergo the same type of fingerprint-based background checks as individuals if they want to register guns.

Read more: Administration announces new gun control measures, targets military surplus imports | Fox News

Total red herring moot points.
I know in Florida if you have a domestic restraining order you must surrender your weapons and on many other restraining orders you must as well.
Felons buying guns, already illegal in most of the country.
Legislating from the oval office is bad form and in this case there was no reason for it. None.
 
I posted the parts of the OP that I am talking about. One of them was about people who could not pass the background check being able to buy firearms for their buisness. Again, are you really for arming violent felons?

Felons have just as much right to bear arms as I do. As for the background check business, again, look at the amendment. I'm getting a bit tired of people reading imaginary text in the constitution.
 
From the OP.

The Obama administration is also proposing a federal rule to stop those who would be ineligible to pass a background check from skirting the law by registering a gun to a corporation or trust. The new rule would require people associated with those entities, like beneficiaries and trustees, to undergo the same type of fingerprint-based background checks as individuals if they want to register guns.

Read more: Administration announces new gun control measures, targets military surplus imports | Fox News

You can start all the LLCs trusts corporations you want. If you are a felon you cannot in most states take possesion of said guns.
Its pure grand standing on Obama's part.
 
Felons have just as much right to bear arms as I do. As for the background check business, again, look at the amendment. I'm getting a bit tired of people reading imaginary text in the constitution.
The only concession I am willing to make at this moment in time is felon in possession and only for violent crimes. The only reason is because the justice system is so overloaded with people spending more time for nonviolent felonies that violent offenders get released before they should be. Violent offenses should always involve the most time served, but because of idiotic criminal statutes they for the most part serve the least time and re offend. Until that's addressed I'm "okay" with that minor violation, but only with the caviotte that in the meantime the justice system gets tweaked to get violent offenders off the streets so that the prohibition can be stricken ASAP.
 
Wrong. There are Garands that are in South Korea that were supposed to be returned to the US and sold to the public through the CMP and Obama decided to step in the way of that.
What's wrong about my statement then? Do you own this weapon already? Are you normally allowed to buy South Korean garands? If not, then how is he after your guns?

Do you have any idea what a Garand is?
$1000. What's the big deal?

The sad part is you'll probably think I'm serious. Gun supporters usually don't pick up subtleties where guns are concerned.
 
What's wrong about my statement then? Do you own this weapon already? Are you normally allowed to buy South Korean garands? If not, then how is he after your guns?

$1000. What's the big deal?

The sad part is you'll probably think I'm serious. Gun supporters usually don't pick up subtleties where guns are concerned.
Sad part is you think our 2A rights are not under attack. You see this executive order as basically nothing that impacts gun owners here in the US.
I imagine you will think that all the way past the point where perhaps a hand gun ban or anothere AWB.
 
Sad part is you think our 2A rights are not under attack. You see this executive order as basically nothing that impacts gun owners here in the US.
I imagine you will think that all the way past the point where perhaps a hand gun ban or anothere AWB.
So in other words, you cannot defend your position so you resort to empty rhetoric. I can't say I'm surprised.
 
Because so many Garand's and M-14's are used in crimes all over the US. The least this spoiled baby can do is stop lying, and just say that he has no intention of reducing crime. Nothing he has done in office has reduced crime, and he has had zero positive impact on this country as president. The only thing he has done is drag us into more wars and cry like a little bitch when he didn't get his way. Now he's punishing us because we didn't see things his way.
 
So in other words, you cannot defend your position so you resort to empty rhetoric. I can't say I'm surprised.
Your problem is, you refuse to take any answer as "defending ones position".
You have yet to counter my arguement or bring a valid point to the exec order making it more understandable.
You are a classic one sided debater that can not make an arguement, except to go after other peoples posts with an attempt to diminish them with some pseudo intellectual comments.
I defended my position within the first page.
Our president shot out an executive order for basically "wall hanger' guns. Collectables, yet does absolutley NOTHING about crime.
 
I love how the gun nuts love to talk about the 2nd amendment right to "keep and bear arms" but they fight against all regulation....without realizing or conveniently forgetting that the 2nd amendment also talks about the "militia" being "WELL REGULATED".
 
I love how the gun nuts love to talk about the 2nd amendment right to "keep and bear arms" but they fight against all regulation....without realizing or conveniently forgetting that the 2nd amendment also talks about the "militia" being "WELL REGULATED".

I love how nuts like you throw around "militias" and "well regulated" not even knowing what that meant in 1776 and how it relates to 2013.
There are no militias. None, not one. Nothing the government does or has relates to a militia. They dont support them either in any way shape or form.
And what regulations are you speaking of? Name one. Any one that pertains to a militia.
 
I love how the gun nuts love to talk about the 2nd amendment right to "keep and bear arms" but they fight against all regulation....without realizing or conveniently forgetting that the 2nd amendment also talks about the "militia" being "WELL REGULATED".
Gramatically, the primary clause is the second clause. "Well regulated militia" is the subordinate clause, meaning it's simply a justification. Besides, "well regulated" did not mean "controlled" it meant "in working order" which simply meant the militia was to drill, maintain their own weapons, and respond to a "call to muster". But of course, the tripe you so conveniently repeated has been disproven multiple times.
 
:lol:

I think it speaks to the ridiculousness of the gun culture that the following two orders are "going after your guns"...guns you don't even have, and I believe are not even allowed normally to buy.


Your source.


Such ridiculous fanaticism to an inanimate object.

He isn't taking away any guns that are already here, he is banning further importation. It is yet another incremental step. Looking at the list there is one in particular I noticed, the M1 Garand, a beautiful piece of American history that General Patton described as the single biggest advancement in American military weaponry. There are armories here where you can still walk in and buy them, one of them is in Anniston Alabama. I don't have one yet but it's in my que, a compliment to my Russian 1928 Mosin Nagant. Put this together with a bill proposed to increase the tax on ammunition and handguns and you have some clues to what will in effect become a drying up of firearms and the ability to use them in this country. California is proposing licensing to purchase ammunition and a background check each time you buy and a ban on internet sales of ammunition. Next will be banning importation of ammunition followed by taxing domestic ammunition and domestic firearm manufacturers out of business. This is why we oppose incremental gun control. While none of these laws individually remove the 2nd amendment, collectively they have the same effect.
 
Your problem is, you refuse to take any answer as "defending ones position".
I asked a question. You have yet to attempt to answer it. It's a simple question. I'll post it again for you:

"What's wrong about my statement then? Do you own this weapon already? Are you normally allowed to buy South Korean garands? If not, then how is he after your guns?"

You have yet to counter my arguement
Yes, I did. I responded directly. This would be the part where you counter my statement, but you did not, you resorted to empty rhetoric.

or bring a valid point to the exec order making it more understandable.
I most certainly did. I asked how he was after your guns, if this executive order did not have anything to do with your guns.

You are a classic one sided debater that can not make an arguement, except to go after other peoples posts with an attempt to diminish them with some pseudo intellectual comments.
Says the person who still has not answered my simple question. *shrug*

I defended my position within the first page.
Not to me, and I didn't read any other post in this thread. Could you direct me to where you addressed my question? I'll happily go back and read it.
He isn't taking away any guns that are already here, he is banning further importation.
So he's not going after YOUR guns. Correct?

There are armories here where you can still walk in and buy them, one of them is in Anniston Alabama.
So, then he didn't ban the gun, only the importation, correct? So he's not going after YOUR guns. That's kind of the point I'm getting at.

This thread is a ridiculous overreaction by the thread starter.

Put this together with a bill proposed to increase the tax on ammunition and handguns and you have some clues to what will in effect become a drying up of firearms and the ability to use them in this country. California is proposing licensing to purchase ammunition and a background check each time you buy and a ban on internet sales of ammunition. Next will be banning importation of ammunition followed by taxing domestic ammunition and domestic firearm manufacturers out of business. This is why we oppose incremental gun control. While none of these laws individually remove the 2nd amendment, collectively they have the same effect.
I'm sorry, slippery slope arguments hold no weight with me. It's ridiculous to oppose one situation because of a fear of a future situation which may never come to pass.

To be clear, I do appreciate your response, it was very reasonable. I just do not agree with the idea this is anyone going after your guns because of a fear of something which may never happen in the future. Taking a position against a situation because of what may happen in the future is never a good argument.
 
I'm sorry, slippery slope arguments hold no weight with me. It's ridiculous to oppose one situation because of a fear of a future situation which may never come to pass.

And Iam sure alot of Jews thought the same thing in 1935.
 
And Iam sure alot of Jews thought the same thing in 1935.
:lol:

More empty and irrelevant rhetoric. It truly is all you have, isn't it? I asked you the question again, told you I'd be willing to go back and read if you simply pointed me to the post where you claimed to have answered it. But instead of debating, you instead to bring up a situation from nearly 80 years ago which is completely unrelated to this one, an issue which was not about gun control but instituting prejudice.

As I said before, I can't say I'm surprised.
 
:lol:

More empty and irrelevant rhetoric. It truly is all you have, isn't it? I asked you the question again, told you I'd be willing to go back and read if you simply pointed me to the post where you claimed to have answered it. But instead of debating, you instead to bring up a situation from nearly 80 years ago which is completely unrelated to this one, an issue which was not about gun control but instituting prejudice.

As I said before, I can't say I'm surprised.
Empty and irrelevant? You've got to be kidding, The Weimar republic had a gun ban prior to the Nazi SS because of conditions of surrender from WWI, HOWEVER, the gun restrictions were lessened.............but only for people who were higher ups in the party, that excluded Jewish, gypsies, transigents, homosexuals, and non-whites not on board with the government direction. If anything the gun controls were circumvented ONLY on behalf of the people that were meant to be disarmed in the first place.

His point is spot on, the Jewish people weren't rounded up immediately, they were disarmed, propogated against, and rounded up. Genocide would be the next step.
 
Empty and irrelevant?
Yes, Nazi discrimination against Jews is irrelevant to the conversation about these two executive orders. I do not see how this can be a point of contention.

You've got to be kidding, The Weimar republic had a gun ban prior to the Nazi SS because of conditions of surrender from WWI, HOWEVER, the gun restrictions were lessened.............but only for people who were higher ups in the party, that excluded Jewish, gypsies, transigents, homosexuals, and non-whites not on board with the government direction.
Right. It was prejudice/institutionalized discrimination, not gun control. I already said that.

His point is spot on, the Jewish people weren't rounded up immediately, they were disarmed, propogated against, and rounded up. Genocide would be the next step.
His point is ridiculous, as is yours. You're comparing institutionalized discrimination against gun control. They are completely separate issues. Comparing these two executive orders against discrimination is absurd.

Like I said before, such ridiculous fanaticism to an inanimate object.
 
So he's not going after YOUR guns. Correct?

So, then he didn't ban the gun, only the importation, correct? So he's not going after YOUR guns. That's kind of the point I'm getting at.

This thread is a ridiculous overreaction by the thread starter.

I'm sorry, slippery slope arguments hold no weight with me. It's ridiculous to oppose one situation because of a fear of a future situation which may never come to pass.

To be clear, I do appreciate your response, it was very reasonable. I just do not agree with the idea this is anyone going after your guns because of a fear of something which may never happen in the future. Taking a position against a situation because of what may happen in the future is never a good argument.

Slippery slope arguments hold no weight for you because what is being proposed doesn't affect you directly. But banning the importation of firearms that up until now have been imported is intended to dry up the supply. The other historically significant mililtary rifle I would like to have it a British Enfield 303. That one is not on this list. Maybe next week. The milsurp ammunition for my Russian Mosin Nagants (I have 2, one all original and one highly modified) is imported, I expect to see that ban next. I purchased a few hundred rounds of Russian 9mm just today for use this weekend with my guests on my steels range. My favorite 22lr ammo is made in Mexico. I don't want to see this action extended to ammunition next, but rest assured it is on the timeline.

As for "Taking a position against a situation because of what may happen in the future is never a good argument", I have to ask if you are student of history. I seem to remember a quote about those who refuse to consider history being doomed to repeat it.

I can return the comment about appreciating your response. We do not always agree on the issues but you are a reasonable poster and you do a good job of making your points. People like you are why I stay here. People like Haymarket are why I'm glad we have an ignore function. But our government, and this administration in particular, are very good at incremental creep. We are seeing it in health care as we speak. Our President is a backhanded lawyer who has a vision many of us do not share. While you and I can have reasonable discussion, he will have none of that, instead opting for ignoring the will of the public and Congress. I'm not one for restricting executive orders because that would hamstring future leaders. But this President abuses those powers in contradiction of the will of the people, and I am of the mind that this country belongs to the people and the government works for us... at least it used to and should still.
 
Back
Top Bottom