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

[QUOTE=Aman VII;39159665]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.[/QUOTE] They left because they perceived there was an attack upon slavery (the anti-slavery movement had been building steam). States rights become somewhat meaningless when you ask "What was meddled with to cause the states to think their rights were being infringed?" In this case, it was slavery.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39159730]They left because they perceived there was an attack upon slavery (the anti-slavery movement had been building steam). States rights become somewhat meaningless when you ask "What was meddled with to cause the states to think their rights were being infringed?" In this case, it was slavery.[/QUOTE] How is it meaningless it was a states rights issue regardless of the morality surrounding slavery. A states rights to leave the union, reason for leaving the union? A lot to do with slavery but do you get what I'm trying to say here? Sure the south was "the bad guys" I guess but they wanted to leave the union because of their disagreement and apparently they should have been able to sucede. Lincoln didn't allow that. That is if I understand the way seceding from the union is supposed to work I might be wrong

[QUOTE=Aman VII;39159755]How is it meaningless it was a states rights issue regardless of the morality surrounding slavery. A states rights to leave the union, reason for leaving the union? A lot to do with slavery but do you get what I'm trying to say here? Sure the south was "the bad guys" I guess but they wanted to leave the union because of their disagreement and apparently they should have been able to sucede. Lincoln didn't allow that[/QUOTE] One cannot use states rights as a reason because there in turn must be a valid reason for that. The rebelling states didn't really have one, and just left because it realized that the modern, industrializing north was becoming powerful, and that a north hostile to slavery (along with many foreign nations hostile to slavery) meant the Southern slave system was in deep shit.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39159730]They left because they perceived there was an attack upon slavery (the anti-slavery movement had been building steam).[/QUOTE] It couldn't have been the fact that the federal government used tariffs and protectionist policies to punish southern states and protect the north could it? Hell, the vast majority of confederates didn't own slaves and Robert E. Lee thought slavery was inherently immoral. [editline]9th January 2013[/editline] You've still yet to recognize how long the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists has waged on (all of our history), Sobotnik. Of-course anyone who is in favor of states rights must be a racist southerner, right? Open a history book

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39159830]One cannot use states rights as a reason because there in turn must be a valid reason for that. The rebelling states didn't really have one, and just left because it realized that the modern, industrializing north was becoming powerful, and that a north hostile to slavery (along with many foreign nations hostile to slavery) meant the Southern slave system was in deep shit.[/QUOTE] But how is it not a valid reason? They had a pretty large disagreement with the federal government and in their eyes it was worth leaving over

Take yer slaves here, this is a gun debate [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1234145[/url]

[QUOTE=Marbalo;39159762]I mean making it significantly harder to obtain firearms. There are many ideas and theories that can apply here, the one I'm keen on is making handguns difficult to obtain, with only the most trusted of customers and owners would be allowed to purchase anything larger than that for hunting/other recreational purposes. I don't. I'm not talking about confiscating anything. I'm referring to stricter gun obtaining policies. I'm talking about the long term effect. Of course you won't see any real results in the first decade or two, but after 30 or 40 years you can have an entirely different gun culture that is not as alarmingly passionate about their hobby. That's just one of the ways of handling this however. Way I see, you got 3 options; A) The one described above. B) Increased education of gun safety and use. C) Increased education + what [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1238375&p=39159596&viewfull=1#post39159596"]GunFox[/URL] said. And option A is the one that is most realistic and money saving solution, I believe.[/QUOTE] I agree with this completely. It's high time we started granting guns owners at very least with the same responsibilities as car owners. However, I still don't see how this would reduce the number of guns in criminals' hands. Making guns harder to obtain wouldn't do a thing to get rid of them. Why would criminals stop using guns as often? I realize that this is a problem that will be hard to answer. In my opinion, the real solution is to get rid of crime altogether. Though that is a highly idealistic thing to say, it's the only real way to prevent guns being used for crime.

[QUOTE=Strider*;39159846]It couldn't have been the fact that the federal government used tariffs and protectionist policies to punish southern states and protect the north could it?[/QUOTE] This is tied back into slavery again. It was intended to force Southern states to spend more importing manufactured goods (from the north no less), whilst having reduced profits from the sale of cotton. [editline]9th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Aman VII;39159900]But how is it not a valid reason? They had a pretty large disagreement with the federal government and in their eyes it was worth leaving over[/QUOTE] Except the southern planters held considerable political power in the south, and used it to protect their own interests, rather than that of the people. [QUOTE=Strider*;39159846] You've still yet to recognize how long the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists has waged on (all of our history), Sobotnik. Of-course anyone who is in favor of states rights must be a racist southerner, right? Open a history book[/QUOTE] Erm, states rights is used as an excuse by Southern Apologists. It wasn't a proper casus belli at all.

How does gun control get rid of buried or hidden guns, or guns in the hands of criminals? If it does not, then how is it effective at preventing gun crime? Sobotnik this ones for you.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39159959]This is tied back into slavery again. It was intended to force Southern states to spend more importing manufactured goods (from the north no less), whilst having reduced profits from the sale of cotton. [editline]9th January 2013[/editline] Except the southern planters held considerable political power in the south, and used it to protect their own interests, rather than that of the people. Erm, states rights is used as an excuse by Southern Apologists. It wasn't a proper casus belli at all.[/QUOTE] I agree but this belongs in your MD thread.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39159999]How does gun control get rid of buried or hidden guns, or guns in the hands of criminals? If it does not, then how is it effective at preventing gun crime? Sobotnik this ones for you.[/QUOTE] You tell me. You're the one making a claim.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39160029]You tell me. You're the one making a claim.[/QUOTE] I'm not, I'm asking you a question. Why are you anti-gun?

I agree, take the Civil War discussion someplace else. If only because it's frustrating watching Sobotnik recite really basic 19th century history and seeing people retort it with the meaningless "b-but states rights!" argument. Yeah, the first states to secede did do it over states rights. [B]The states right to declare human beings property. [/B]It was in several states' declaration of independence and the Confederate Constitution.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39160045]I'm not, I'm asking you a question. Why are you anti-gun?[/QUOTE] Well it's not a very good question. It's like asking a rightwing person why they are leftwing.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39160091]Well it's not a very good question. It's like asking a rightwing person why they are leftwing.[/QUOTE] Thats a pretty poor comparison, unless you're comparing yourself to people who bandwagon on political policy.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39160118]Thats a pretty poor comparison, unless you're comparing yourself to people who bandwagon on political policy.[/QUOTE] Point is that you are asking me a deliberately loaded question that I can't disagree with. "Why are you anti-gun?" This assumes I am anti-gun, and then asks why. I cannot answer the fucking thing because the statement doesn't make logical sense.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39160154]Point is that you are asking me a deliberately loaded question that I can't disagree with. "Why are you anti-gun?" This assumes I am anti-gun, and then asks why. I cannot answer the fucking thing because the statement doesn't make logical sense.[/QUOTE] I'd like to solve the puzzle. Are you anti-gun?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39160154]Point is that you are asking me a deliberately loaded question that I can't disagree with. "Why are you anti-gun?" This assumes I am anti-gun, and then asks why. I cannot answer the fucking thing because the statement doesn't make logical sense.[/QUOTE] You are, because in every gun control debate you're always opposing the pro-gunners. If you're not anti-gun, are you pro-gun? Or let me make it easier for you, do you support gun owners against Obama's wishes?

Sure seems anti gun

[QUOTE=King Tiger;39160160]I'd like to solve the puzzle. Are you anti-gun?[/QUOTE] No, I'm not for the AWB legislation or that sort of thing. He just pulled a statement out of nowhere and expects me to simultaneously do two contradictory things with it.

[QUOTE=GunFox;39159683]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.[/QUOTE] I agree 100% but to add what you put, let us not forget that at the time, the British government was the most powerful European empire at the time. Most powerful army in the world vs. rag-tag colonists = American revolution.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39160195]No, I'm not for the AWB legislation or that sort of thing. He just pulled a statement out of nowhere and expects me to simultaneously do two contradictory things with it.[/QUOTE] Then what are you for or against in relation to gun ownership?

[QUOTE=laserguided;39160172]You are, because in every gun control debate you're always opposing the pro-gunners. If you're not anti-gun, are you pro-gun? Or let me make it easier for you, do you support gun owners against Obama's wishes?[/QUOTE] The fuck? Criticizing a bunch of people who support pro-gun views doesn't make me anti-gun. [editline]9th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=UziXxX;39160209]I agree 100% but to add what you put, let us not forget that at the time, the British government was the most powerful European empire at the time. Most powerful army in the world vs. rag-tag colonists[/QUOTE] Uh, the colonies nearly collapsed. If it wasn't for the French/Spanish/Dutch/Prussians/more then the USA would have never existed. [editline]9th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=laserguided;39160210]Then what are you for or against in relation to gun ownership?[/QUOTE] I'm saying that gun ownership rates don't correlate with crime rates or political freedoms if that's what you are after? I.e more guns does not improve things.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39160218]The fuck? Criticizing a bunch of people who support pro-gun views doesn't make me anti-gun. [editline]9th January 2013[/editline] Uh, the colonies nearly collapsed. If it wasn't for the French/Spanish/Dutch/Prussians/more then the USA would have never existed.[/QUOTE] Then what is your stance on gun ownership? You seem to be in every single gun debate on facepunch ever.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39160218]Uh, the colonies nearly collapsed. If it wasn't for the French/Spanish/Dutch/Prussians/more then the USA would have never existed.[/QUOTE] The French didn't aid the colonists until the very end of the war. Our victory was also aided by the decline of the British empire at the time, but never the less, on paper, the British army should have pulverized the colonist militias.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39160218]The fuck? Criticizing a bunch of people who support pro-gun views doesn't make me anti-gun. [editline]9th January 2013[/editline] Uh, the colonies nearly collapsed. If it wasn't for the French/Spanish/Dutch/Prussians/more then the USA would have never existed. [editline]9th January 2013[/editline] [B]I'm saying that gun ownership rates don't correlate with crime rates or political freedoms if that's what you are after? I.e more guns does not improve things.[/B][/QUOTE] Even if it didn't, so? You said earlier that if you own a gun for self defence you intend to kill somebody, I suspect your opinions go further then just "more guns does not improve things.".

[QUOTE=Strider*;39159105]Why is this being rated funny? This isn't a joke at all.[/QUOTE] because it's so stupid that it's funny [editline]9th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=meppers;39159621]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] it was also a semi-automatic pistol

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39160251]The French didn't aid the colonists until the very end of the war. Our victory was also aided by the decline of the British empire at the time, but never the less, on paper, the British army should have pulverized the colonist militias.[/QUOTE] The American Revolution resulted in British dominance of India. Decline my ass.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39160313]The American Revolution resulted in British dominance of India. Decline my ass.[/QUOTE] It was starting to decline at the time of the revolution, or so said my history professor. /shrug What I don't understand about people who think guns are the problem is that if someone is stabbed to death, these same people admit the person who did the stabbing killed the victim, not the knife. The same should be true for firearms, but people have this idea that its the gun that kills someone, not the person pulling the trigger. :dumb:

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39160251]The French didn't aid the colonists until the very end of the war. Our victory was also aided by the decline of the British empire at the time, but never the less, on paper, the British army should have pulverized the colonist militias.[/QUOTE] The American economy imploded during the war. The currency had to be reissued (twice) due to hyperinflation. The US government was constantly short of funds, and the soldiers often went unpaid. Desertion and mutinies also occurred throughout the army. Food and supplies also had to be requisitioned from people to help maintain the army, and compensation usually wasn't given back. Plus the French started sending over aid and supplies starting in 1776.