Biden: Obama Might Use Executive Order to Deal With Guns - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39159357]I said that the attempted revolution would consist of that demographic. The sensible ones would sit at home playing games or watching the telly.[/QUOTE] Do you have a citation to back this probability up?

[QUOTE=The golden;39159346] What exactly do Americans gain from gun ownership and why are they so defensive about it to the point of (seriously or not) poking at civil war? [B][I]Usage of firearms in the US outside of a designated facility is highly illegal[/I][/B] anyway so I honestly fail to see what the uproar is about. Please, enlighten us outsiders.[/QUOTE] Well, for starters that statement is wrong.

[QUOTE=Strider*;39159352]Those aren't relatable to gun control. People in the United States don't care as much about gays marrying as they do about their firearms. The relative difference in outrage between the two is like a grain of sand to a boulder. Guns are deeply ingrained into our culture and revolution is in our blood. Perhaps you'd know that if you were from here, but it seems you really don't understand. Complete gun control (of-course not relevant) would most certainly lead to revolution.[/QUOTE] Uh, massive groups of people banged on constantly about how unconstitutional X is or why Y is bad. The last time something that big happened was in the Civil War, and even then, that was preceded by decades of tension (with multiple compromises) followed by the slaveowners suddenly using a persecution complex to justify an aborted war of independence.

[QUOTE=The golden;39159346] What exactly do Americans gain from gun ownership and why are they so defensive about it to the point of (seriously or not) poking at civil war? Usage of firearms in the US outside of a designated facility is highly illegal anyway so I honestly fail to see what the uproar is about. Please, enlighten us outsiders.[/QUOTE] Oh I don't know, why don't you use your head for more than three seconds? How did our state come into existence and what kind of power structure did our forefathers have to fight against? Ponder that and then see if you have the audacity to ask such an obtuse question again.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39159381]Do you have a citation to back this probability up?[/QUOTE] Unfortunately, I don't have a handy dandy revolt risk percentage per month thing.

[QUOTE=The golden;39159403]I was under the impression that shooting firearms in a public place would land you in shit pretty fast. Correct me then.[/QUOTE] Stand your ground, castle doctrine, self defense, firing ranges, concealed carry, etc. What were you saying?

[QUOTE=The golden;39159403]I was under the impression that shooting firearms in a public place would land you in shit pretty fast. Correct me then.[/QUOTE] Outside of city limits, there tend to be few restrictions on the use of firearms. Public land has a few restrictions on a case by case basis depending on the purpose of the public land and its proximity to other people. Unless they have a reason to restrict the usage of firearms on such land, they generally don't restrict it. Private property outside of a city also is pretty much open. Obviously it varies state to state, but for the most part it is only the major population centers which will put you up shit creek for shooting outside of a facility.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39159420]Uh, massive groups of people banged on constantly about how unconstitutional X is or why Y is bad.[/QUOTE] The relative importance of those supposed "unconstitutional acts" do not hold a candle to the gravity of gun control. Americans associate gun control with tyranny. How can you not get this?

Shooting on your own land is perfectly legal, provided you do it safely. And there is public land you can shoot on too, I believe it's mostly out west.

[QUOTE=The golden;39159403]I was under the impression that shooting firearms in a public place would land you in shit pretty fast. Correct me then.[/QUOTE] you made a big jump from shooting range to public place eh. You can shoot all you want on private land and often in national parks. If your backyard is big enough and there's no issue stopping you have all the fun you want

[QUOTE=Strider*;39159444]Stand your ground, castle doctrine, self defense, firing ranges, concealed carry, etc. What were you saying?[/QUOTE] Those listed only apply on either private property or require a permit in a CCW state.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39159481]Those listed only apply on either private property or require a permit in a CCW state.[/QUOTE] You don't need permission from the state to stand your ground with a firearm or to use it in urgent self defense.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39159271]I found it hilarious. Trust me, most people won't give two shits. I mean, there was this big thing about "oh the IRS/gay marriage/federal reserve/obama/etc" and you had things like gun sales skyrocket after Obama took office. However, not really anything happened. People got on with their lives as though that day was like any other.[/QUOTE] You're obviously unfamiliar with how absolutely hated the Democrats are in half the country. Then again, you live in a nation with so few freedoms that porn is censored by the government and you can be arrested for calling a horse gay. Just because your country surrendered its freedoms so easily, doesn't mean a nation with a completely different culture will be so quick to bend over, especially if the ban has no expiry date, prohibits transfer, and is retroactive. There's been much speculation that a national mandatory buyback would be enacted, giving people an offensively low amount, only $500, for their now banned guns. If this ban is retroactive and involves a buyback, there will be massive civil unrest. As well, with how hated Obama is in part of the nation, if he tried to circumvent the democratic process and dictate to people what they can and can't own, there will be massive civil unrest.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39159443]Unfortunately, I don't have a handy dandy revolt risk percentage per month thing.[/QUOTE] Then don't stereotype gun owners and such that way.

[QUOTE=The golden;39159492]Thank you for giving a informative answer instead of being an arse.[/QUOTE] This is a hot topic. I'll apologize. I thought you were trying to intentionally incite an altercation.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39159420]Uh, massive groups of people banged on constantly about how unconstitutional X is or why Y is bad. The last time something that big happened was in the Civil War, and even then, that was preceded by decades of tension (with multiple compromises) followed by the slaveowners suddenly using a persecution complex to justify an aborted war of independence.[/QUOTE] Well on the topic of the civil war it set a dangerous precedent. The US was built to be really decentralized and give states a lot of power and say. I believe states were allowed to pick up and leave the union if they had serious concerns. Hence the argument of states rights being paraded often concerning the civil war. The states rights to leave the union. At least that's how I understand it I'm not a great historian on the civil war era

[QUOTE=Marbalo;39159490]There's only one risk that has whole subcategories under it. An increased risk of gun murder/crime/violence/accidents/etc. When you have a culture of prominent gun carrying, that also applies to criminals, as they are more likely to use firearms to commit petty crime. I'm not talking about serious crime organizations who are going to have weapons regardless of the laws and regulations, that's out of the question. I'm talking about your everyday thieves who rob grocery stores and what have you. You aren't going to go about applying for a CHL for what could take weeks or months depending on the region, and only then rob a grocery store. Some might still go as far and actually do it. But most, won't. So they will resort to robbery with other objects like knives. And yes, both knives and firearms kill people, But the former is a lot less dangerous, I find you will agree. The overall problem here is the fact that there are too many guns in the U.S. When someone expresses a complaint against this, that doesn't automatically mean he's in favor of banning every single firearm from every single citizen. You can still have your guns, just have a little less of them and see where that brings us.[/QUOTE] So instead we will still have the same amount of petty crime, but with less firearms? That is even the ideal result, in practice we may wind up with exactly the same amount of firearms in petty crime and only the people who follow the law will surrender their hardware. How about instead we just focus on decreasing the size of our military and redirecting the funding towards programs to improve the quality of our education system and decrease the poverty rate? Those will, [I]reliably[/I], decrease the overall crime rate. Seems like solving the problem causing crime makes way more sense. Especially given that the US actually has abnormally low crime rates as it is, with the exception of our murder rate which is in keeping with the population, poverty rate, lack of education, and overall number of population centers.

[QUOTE=Strider*;39159120]This will destroy the Democratic party for at least the next decade. He can't be this dense.[/QUOTE] It will probably take them out of the game until the next major GOP fuck-up, in which everyone decides to go left until they fuck up and then go back right, and the cycle repeats.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39159502]You're obviously unfamiliar with how absolutely hated the Democrats are in half the country. Then again, you live in a nation with so few freedoms that porn is censored by the government and you can be arrested for calling a horse gay. Just because your country surrendered its freedoms so easily, doesn't mean a nation with a completely different culture will be so quick to bend over, especially if the ban has no expiry date, prohibits transfer, and is retroactive. There's been much speculation that a national mandatory buyback would be enacted, giving people an offensively low amount, only $500, for their now banned guns. If this ban is retroactive and involves a buyback, there will be massive civil unrest. As well, with how hated Obama is in part of the nation, if he tried to circumvent the democratic process and dictate to people what they can and can't own, there will be massive civil unrest.[/QUOTE] I agree that my country has massive curtails on freedom. Only yesterday did MI5 smash down my bedroom door for wanking, and the local vicar held a book burning of copies of the God Delusion.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39159502]You're obviously unfamiliar with how absolutely hated the Democrats are in half the country.[/quote] Where? The hick south. You can continue fucking your cousins. Oh sorry, did that offend you and offer nothing to the debate? Because that's exactly what you did in the rest of your post.

a bullet is a bullet it doesn't matter what it comes out of any bullet can kill someone. the Virginia tech shooter killed 33 people with just 2 pistols

[quote]Biden talked also about taking responsible action. "As the president said, if you're actions result in only saving one life, they're worth taking. But I'm convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of americans and take thousands of people out of harm's way if we act responsibly."[/quote] You're... Bad journalism bugs the fuck out of me.

[QUOTE=Aman VII;39159562]Well on the topic of the civil war it set a dangerous precedent. The US was built to be really decentralized and give states a lot of power and say. I believe states were allowed to pick up and leave the union if they had serious concerns. Hence the argument of states rights being paraded often concerning the civil war. The states rights to leave the union. At least that's how I understand it I'm not a great historian on the civil war era[/QUOTE] States rights is mainly used as an excuse by Southern Apologists who don't want to admit that slavery was the issue. Basically, the moment the war ended, you suddenly had all these people who thought to themselves "Shit, we better produce a good reason for why we did all that and treated black people like shit".

[QUOTE=Marbalo;39159490]There's only one risk that has whole subcategories under it. An increased risk of gun murder/crime/violence/accidents/etc. When you have a culture of prominent gun carrying, that also applies to criminals, as they are more likely to use firearms to commit petty crime. I'm not talking about serious crime organizations who are going to have weapons regardless of the laws and regulations, that's out of the question. I'm talking about your everyday thieves who rob grocery stores and what have you. You aren't going to go about applying for a CHL for what could take weeks or months depending on the region, and only then rob a grocery store. Some might still go as far and actually do it. But most, won't. So they will resort to robbery with other objects like knives. And yes, both knives and firearms kill people, But the former is a lot less dangerous, I find you will agree. The overall problem here is the fact that there are too many guns in the U.S. When someone expresses a complaint against this, that doesn't automatically mean he's in favor of banning every single firearm from every single citizen. You can still have your guns, just have a little less of them and see where that brings us.[/QUOTE] I understand your point about more firearms = more uses of them in petty thefts. However, I have two questions. First, what do you mean by "You can still have your guns, just have a little less of them"? Do you mean to take guns away from people? And second, why do you assume that criminals would release their guns if they were confiscated?

[QUOTE=Marbalo;39159567]I'm sorry but this is completely irrelevant. They also used guns in the French revolution. You don't see France developing a strong gun culture because of it. They also used guns in the Russian revolution. There are so many examples, I dont think this is a valid explanation. Besides the "we built this country with guns boy" argument, have you got any other reasons?[/QUOTE] Because the importance of guns in those revolutions is understood by our populace and our right to it is recognized by our constitution. The French revolutionary army constituted more of trained troops with previously issued armaments than did the American. Although very similar, the Americans could be more characterized as ragtag than their French counterparts. The Russians fought for a political system that would obviously relinquish their right to firearms, so I don't understand why that revolution is relevant. How many Russians nowadays think fondly of the Russian revolution?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39159628]States rights is mainly used as an excuse by Southern Apologists who don't want to admit that slavery was the issue. Basically, the moment the war ended, you suddenly had all these people who thought to themselves "Shit, we better produce a good reason for why we did all that and treated black people like shit".[/QUOTE] Yeah but how was states rights not the issue? Sure that issue was slavery among other things but they wanted the right to leave the union because they didn't want to comply with the federal demands.

Bury your guns.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;39159567]I'm sorry but this is completely irrelevant. They also used guns in the French revolution. You don't see France developing a strong gun culture because of it. They also used guns in the Russian revolution. There are so many examples, I dont think this is a valid explanation. Besides the "we built this country with guns boy" argument, have you got any other reasons?[/QUOTE] It is of limited accuracy to attribute some of the gun culture to the history of the US. The US fought a revolution against an outside force. It wasn't a revolution against our own internal government, it was a war for independence. Furthermore the system of government which was put into place was intentionally designed to include multiple fail safes in the event that one branch, or all branches, of government went off the rails. The ultimate fail safe being that the population couldn't be disarmed, permitting them a chance to revolt against potential tyranny. This was done because it was a very unusual government at the time that hadn't really been tried before. They were completely unsure if it would hold up over the long run. Then you had the spread of settlers across the US and clashing with the indigenous people, which further cemented the gun culture of the US. Civilians felt the need to protect themselves on the frontier. And, to make matters worse, the US was home to a variety of large predators which could cause serious harm to a person. Even today much of the United States is sparsely populated, with police response times being quite massive in the event of an emergency. People feel the need to protect themselves. Even inside cities the response time often is quite miserable. The country was built with firearms, and then needed firearms to continue to expand, and continued to need firearms to maintain order. It is simply woven into our history.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39159628]States rights is mainly used as an excuse by Southern Apologists who don't want to admit that slavery was the issue.[/QUOTE] Wow you really don't know anything of American history, do you? That or you're intentionally ignorant. As if Thomas Jefferson never existed.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;39159620]Where? The hick south. You can continue fucking your cousins. Oh sorry, did that offend you and offer nothing to the debate? Because that's exactly what you did in the rest of your post.[/QUOTE] Way to stereotype half of a nation I don't even live in, brilliant job being a bigot. Perhaps I should see just how far Section 5 of the Public Order Act actually goes.