Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    06 Jan '16 18:00
    I admit I haven't read the executive orders that carefully, so I'm going to have to take his word for what they do.

    Even if you hate Obama, wasn't he just making plain common sense? He wasn't trying to prevent legal, sane non-criminals from getting guns. He was advocating a better background check system. What's so bad about that? He even reinforced his position that the Second Amendment rights to gun ownership are important and valid, a position that itself is not completely free of controversy.

    I think that speech could have been made by a Republican 15 years ago. At this point, it just seems that the GOP leadership feels morally obligated to oppose Obama no matter what the issue.
  2. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    06 Jan '16 18:02 / 1 edit
    Sleepyguy, Uther and the other reasonable staunch conservatives here: Being as objective as possible, did he really look like a guy cynically trying to expand government power or did he look like a guy who was just trying to do his best to save lives?
  3. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    06 Jan '16 18:12
    Originally posted by sh76
    I admit I haven't read the executive orders that carefully, so I'm going to have to take his word for what they do.

    Even if you hate Obama, wasn't he just making plain common sense? He wasn't trying to prevent legal, sane non-criminals from getting guns. He was advocating a better background check system. What's so bad about that? He even reinforced his posi ...[text shortened]... seems that the GOP leadership feels morally obligated to oppose Obama no matter what the issue.
    I don't think specific executive orders have been issued; the White House is referring to the steps taken as "executive actions". A fact sheet detailing them is here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our
  4. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    06 Jan '16 18:20 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    Sleepyguy, Uther and the other reasonable staunch conservatives here: Being as objective as possible, did he really look like a guy cynically trying to expand government power or did he look like a guy who was just trying to do his best to save lives?
    This thread will not end well.

    Almost everything Obama has done or proposed over the years Republicans have reflexively come out against, and vociferously, as if they were defending the last bastion of Western civilization. It would be comical if it didn't come at such a high cost in human suffering. Republicans even come out against their own ideas if Obama embraces them (Obamacare traces back to legislation proposed by Republicans in the mid-1990s).

    So Obama closed some loopholes in federal gun legislation that just about any sane person would find sensible, one of which enabled people to get hold of fully automatic machine guns without a background check merely by declaring themselves a corporation. Oh yes, truly despotic overreach there! How dare that foreign-born Marxist-Kenyan-muslim-atheist secretly gay Manchurian candidate from planet Xorkon! "He gunna git our guns!"

    So, just how despotic and free with executive orders is Obama? Well, just look at the following link to see that, actually, Obama issues fewer executive orders per year than any president since...since...well, since Grover Cleveland's first term in office, apparently:

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
  5. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    06 Jan '16 19:01
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    This thread will not end well.

    Almost everything Obama has done or proposed over the years Republicans have reflexively come out against, and vociferously, as if they were defending the last bastion of Western civilization. It would be comical if it didn't come at such a high cost in human suffering. Republicans even come out against their own ideas ...[text shortened]... Cleveland's first term in office, apparently:

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
    This thread will not end well.
    Never a truer word.

    I've looked at the points, and from a UK point of view still find it hard to get my head around the notion that there is any legitimate grounds for a civilian owning either a machine gun or a sawn off shotgun.
  6. 06 Jan '16 19:19
    Today it's criminals perhaps getting extremely lethal weapons slightly less easily, tomorrow it's the government coming to take away your hunting rifle. Isn't it obvious?
  7. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    06 Jan '16 19:43 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by sh76
    I admit I haven't read the executive orders that carefully, so I'm going to have to take his word for what they do.

    Even if you hate Obama, wasn't he just making plain common sense? He wasn't trying to prevent legal, sane non-criminals from getting guns. He was advocating a better background check system. What's so bad about that? He even reinforced his posi ...[text shortened]... seems that the GOP leadership feels morally obligated to oppose Obama no matter what the issue.
    The Democrats have been trying to get this point across for decades. Liberals have no problem with gun ownership, but every time they make a move to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, kids and irresponsible people, the gun nuts and NRA tells everyone "those damn liberals are gonna take away our guns!!!".... I knew you were too smart to be a republican!
  8. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    06 Jan '16 20:03 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    This thread will not end well.
    Never a truer word.

    I've looked at the points, and from a UK point of view still find it hard to get my head around the notion that there is any legitimate grounds for a civilian owning either a machine gun or a sawn off shotgun.
    Ah yes -- another one of the loopholes involves silencers. While the rest of the world, being relatively of sound mind and body, may expect that Obama's executive "action" finally bans the acquisition of silencers, the reality is otherwise. You can in fact still get your silencer. Obama's executive action -- which Republicans swear to fight in every way -- merely requires undergoing a background check.

    But why, indeed, would a law-abiding private citizen ever need a silencer? Are the ears of macho gun nuts that delicate, or earmuffs that expensive?
  9. 06 Jan '16 20:15
    Every poll indicates that the majority of U.S. citizens want more gun control. The NRA is a lobbying group for gun manufacturers. They have bought the GOP. The GOP has even come out against not allowing individuals on the U.S. terrorist watch list from getting a gun! So if you are a suspected terrorist in the U.S., you can buy a machine gun. However Republicans are totally terrified of Muslim widows, young women and their children who are desperate to leave Syria and the real terrorists.
  10. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    06 Jan '16 20:26
    Originally posted by bill718
    The Democrats have been trying to get this point across for decades. Liberals have no problem with gun ownership, but every time they make a move to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, kids and irresponsible people, the gun nuts and NRA tells everyone "those damn liberals are gonna take away our guns!!!".... I knew you were too smart to be a republican!
    Thank you, but:

    "Liberals have no problem with gun ownership,"

    I don't think that's always true. I have heard many vociferous and popular liberal arguments that want to limit the Second Amendment out of existence by tying the second clause to the militia clause.
  11. 06 Jan '16 21:54
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    This thread will not end well.

    Almost everything Obama has done or proposed over the years Republicans have reflexively come out against, and vociferously, as if they were defending the last bastion of Western civilization. It would be comical if it didn't come at such a high cost in human suffering. Republicans even come out against their own ideas ...[text shortened]... Cleveland's first term in office, apparently:

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
    By the way, how can and individual own a machine gun? Never mind without a background check.

    Leaving aside that I can't remember a criminal act carried out with a machine gun, since the prohibition era.

    BTW, I have no need to buy additional firearms. However, those I do own, came at a price of extreme inconvenience, due to infringements on my RTKABA. I am beginning to see proposals limiting free speech equal to some of the infringements on my RTKABA. Once one of the bill of rights falls, the rest are not far behind.
  12. 06 Jan '16 21:56
    Originally posted by normbenign
    By the way, how can and individual own a machine gun? Never mind without a background check.

    Leaving aside that I can't remember a criminal act carried out with a machine gun, since the prohibition era.

    BTW, I have no need to buy additional firearms. However, those I do own, came at a price of extreme inconvenience, due to infringements on my RT ...[text shortened]... infringements on my RTKABA. Once one of the bill of rights falls, the rest are not far behind.
    He probably means assault rifle. Clearly he is not aware of the 30-man gangs of robbers that might mug you in the streets.
  13. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    06 Jan '16 22:03 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    He probably means assault rifle. Clearly he is not aware of the 30-man gangs of robbers that might mug you in the streets.
    No, I mean real, fully automatic machine guns, not assault rifles.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun

    I have no idea what your second sentence means.

    Edit: yes, assault rifles may also be fully automatic, but they're smaller.
  14. 06 Jan '16 22:06
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    He probably means assault rifle. Clearly he is not aware of the 30-man gangs of robbers that might mug you in the streets.
    Read Colin Flaherty's book White Girl Bleed a Lot. A majority of the assaults and robberies in it don't include use of firearms. Limiting regular folks from owning and carrying guns will make them all the more vulnerable to violent gangs both armed and unarmed.

    So called "Assault rifles" are not that at all. They are semi automatic, one trigger press = one bullet downrange. Fully automatic weapons of any kind are given to collectors, after a background check, and those licenses have to be renewed annually, for each gun owned.

    30 man gangs aren't so out of the ordinary. See Flaherty's site for accounts of gangs of 50 to 100 members.
  15. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    06 Jan '16 22:09 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by normbenign
    So called "Assault rifles" are not that at all. They are semi automatic...
    Not necessarily: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

    Of course, now we're just arguing semantics.

    Edit: you're probably thinking this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon