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

you know, i've generally been on the other side of the gun-rights debate, as i'm from a country where gun ownership IS quite restricted (new zealand, it's not as bad as say, aussie or the UK though) and i've never felt the need to own guns although i kinda wanna get into hunting and shit so i guess maybe i wanna own a gun now. but the main thing that has changed my mind is i feel more and more that authority cannot really be trusted, especially when it comes to disarming the populace at a time when police forces and government forces are being armed more and more heavily. and yeah basically freedom > safety, no matter what

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39161534]What you [B]would[/B] do.[/QUOTE] Nationalize the firearms industry. That's about it. [editline]10th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Lachz0r;39161537]you know, i've generally been on the other side of the gun-rights debate, as i'm from a country where gun ownership IS quite restricted (new zealand, it's not as bad as say, aussie or the UK though) and i've never felt the need to own guns although i kinda wanna get into hunting and shit so i guess maybe i wanna own a gun now. but the main thing that has changed my mind is i feel more and more that authority cannot really be trusted, especially when it comes to disarming the populace at a time when police forces and government forces are being armed more and more heavily. and yeah basically freedom > safety, no matter what[/QUOTE] Remember that rates of firearm ownership don't correlate to political freedoms though, so holding a gun isn't really going to stop a police state from forming.

I'm all for the bill. I think hunters with rifles or shotguns is fine, and pistols for self defense is fine. I just really don't see a need for assault rifles with hundreds of bullets as a need, and some need to give up the hobby with them. If you can't go deer hunting without a gun with a giant mag full of bullets, you probably shouldn't be deer hunting. AS FOR the self defense issue, you don't need an assault rifle for self defense (and most likely wouldn't have it with you in the scenario that you DO need self defense). If your reason for assault rifles to stay is for the right to militia and defeat a corrupt government, well, that's a stupid argument. We have the army. Secession is illegal, and is treason. You'd get your ass kicked, end of the story. We have tanks and airplanes that would crush any attempt with assault rifles. The second amendment was written during the time of muskets. It's an outdated amendment in my opinion and needs to be updated to new age standards. I'm not against the right to bear arms, but rather the right to bear assault rifles or ridiculously powered weapons.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39161549]Nationalize the firearms industry. That's about it. [/QUOTE] What in the world would that achieve?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39161549]Nationalize the firearms industry. That's about it.[/QUOTE] so you basically want norinco? that's pretty goofy. firearms industry is probably one of the last things I'd ever suggest nationalizing.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39161549]Nationalize the firearms industry. That's about it. [editline]10th January 2013[/editline] Remember that rates of firearm ownership don't correlate to political freedoms though, so holding a gun isn't really going to stop a police state from forming.[/QUOTE] gun ownership IS a political freedom though???

[QUOTE=alexguydude;39161623]I'm all for the bill. I think hunters with rifles or shotguns is fine, and pistols for self defense is fine. I just really don't see a need for assault rifles with hundreds of bullets as a need, and some need to give up the hobby with them. If you can't go deer hunting without a gun with a giant mag full of bullets, you probably shouldn't be deer hunting. AS FOR the self defense issue, you don't need an assault rifle for self defense (and most likely wouldn't have it with you in the scenario that you DO need self defense). If your reason for assault rifles to stay is for the right to militia and defeat a corrupt government, well, that's a stupid argument. We have the army. Secession is illegal, and is treason. You'd get your ass kicked, end of the story. We have tanks and airplanes that would crush any attempt with assault rifles. The second amendment was written during the time of muskets. It's an outdated amendment in my opinion and needs to be updated to new age standards. I'm not against the right to bear arms, but rather the right to bear assault rifles or ridiculously powered weapons.[/QUOTE] pistols are going to be under the bill

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;39161660]pistols are going to be under the bill[/QUOTE] Says who? There's no bill publicly available yet and as I understand it he wants to ban assault rifles, not pistols. I didn't know a pistol was an assault rifle.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39161626]What in the world would that achieve?[/QUOTE] Well, I think the state should have a large degree of control on several industries. Weaponry and munitions just happens to be one of them.

[QUOTE=alexguydude;39161670]Says who? I didn't know a pistol was an assault rifle.[/QUOTE] it's not assault rifles ban it's assault WEAPONS ban which is just a label that many types of guns get

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;39161656]gun ownership IS a political freedom though???[/QUOTE] Yemen and Saudi Arabia have high rates of gun ownership, yet aren't very free.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39161683]Well, I think the state should have a large degree of control on several industries. Weaponry and munitions just happens to be one of them.[/QUOTE] USA is a nation founded on 'we the people' the state should be the people and that is certainly not the case nowadays. i wouldn't trust the USA government with control due to how corrupt it can be and how much power money has in politics

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;39161636]so you basically want norinco? that's pretty goofy. firearms industry is probably one of the last things I'd ever suggest nationalizing.[/QUOTE] Well an industry producing things for the military should be under state control.

[QUOTE=alexguydude;39161623]I'm all for the bill. I think hunters with rifles or shotguns is fine, and pistols for self defense is fine. I just really don't see a need for assault rifles with hundreds of bullets as a need, and some need to give up the hobby with them. If you can't go deer hunting without a gun with a giant mag full of bullets, you probably shouldn't be deer hunting. AS FOR the self defense issue, you don't need an assault rifle for self defense (and most likely wouldn't have it with you in the scenario that you DO need self defense). If your reason for assault rifles to stay is for the right to militia and defeat a corrupt government, well, that's a stupid argument. We have the army. Secession is illegal, and is treason. You'd get your ass kicked, end of the story. We have tanks and airplanes that would crush any attempt with assault rifles. The second amendment was written during the time of muskets. It's an outdated amendment in my opinion and needs to be updated to new age standards. I'm not against the right to bear arms, but rather the right to bear assault rifles or ridiculously powered weapons.[/QUOTE] Oh yeah, I forgot the 2nd amendment says "muskets" and not firearms. Wait.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39161695]Yemen and Saudi Arabia have high rates of gun ownership, yet aren't very free.[/QUOTE] yeah well take a look at libya & egypt and every other country involved in the arab spring. it's about the ability to gain freedom

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39161715]Oh yeah, I forgot the 2nd amendment says "muskets" and not firearms. Wait.[/QUOTE] They didn't know assault rifles would exist. That's why new amendments are created. You couldn't own a gatling gun in that time period is my guess, and that's a big version of a machine gun.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;39161704]USA is a nation founded on 'we the people' the state should be the people and that is certainly not the case nowadays. i wouldn't trust the USA government with control due to how corrupt it can be and how much power money has in politics[/QUOTE] The USA isn't as spectacularly corrupt as you imagine it to be. Dictatorships have it difficult these days, due to how incompetent they actually are in comparison with democracy. [editline]10th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Lachz0r;39161720]yeah well take a look at libya & egypt and every other country involved in the arab spring. it's about the ability to gain freedom[/QUOTE] Tunisia has one of the lowest rates of gun ownership, yet still attained freedoms.

[QUOTE=alexguydude;39161730]They didn't know assault rifles would exist. That's why new amendments are created. You couldn't own a gatling gun in that time period is my guess, and that's a big version of a machine gun.[/QUOTE] They didn't know the internet, radio, or television would exist when they made the 1st Amendment, does that mean the First only covers printed media and one's own voice, and is therefore invalid to all forms of electronic media? Of course not, just like simply because the 2nd was written in the time of muskets doesn't mean it doesn't apply to modern firearms. The 2nd Amendment is about having arms comparable to that of a national military in the hands of civilians, by that principle it should be hunting rifles that get banned because the 2nd doesn't cover them and these so-called "assault weapons" should be left alone because they're the ones actually protected by the amendment. And actually, you could own a Gatling gun back then, hell in the '20s you could have a Thompson submachine gun delivered to your door for $200.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39161736]The USA isn't as spectacularly corrupt as you imagine it to be. Dictatorships have it difficult these days, due to how incompetent they actually are in comparison with democracy. [editline]10th January 2013[/editline] Tunisia has one of the lowest rates of gun ownership, yet still attained freedoms.[/QUOTE] alright? so they had a peaceful transition, obviously that's the best outcome but it's not the most likely one. look at syria.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39161766]They didn't know the internet, radio, or television would exist when they made the 1st Amendment, does that mean the First only covers printed media and one's own voice, and is therefore invalid to all forms of electronic media? Of course not, just like simply because the 2nd was written in the time of muskets doesn't mean it doesn't apply to modern firearms. The 2nd Amendment is about having arms comparable to that of a national military in the hands of civilians, by that principle it should be hunting rifles that get banned because the 2nd doesn't cover them and these so-called "assault weapons" should be left alone because they're the ones actually protected by the amendment.[/QUOTE] They're going after assault rifles. Why would they go after normal hunting rifles or shotguns? And there's a reason amendments are created, they update older ones that may be vague.

[QUOTE=alexguydude;39161730]They didn't know assault rifles would exist. That's why new amendments are created. [B]You couldn't own a gatling gun in that time period[/B] is my guess, and that's a big version of a machine gun.[/QUOTE] Citation?

[QUOTE=alexguydude;39161730]They didn't know assault rifles would exist. That's why new amendments are created. You couldn't own a gatling gun in that time period is my guess, and that's a big version of a machine gun.[/QUOTE] New amendments are for new situations. Or, should we need an amendment to be able to speak freely on the internet, TV and radio as well? Should people have to be licensed before they can speak publically?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39161781]Citation?[/QUOTE] "You couldn't own a gatling gun in that time period [B]is my guess[/B], and that's a big version of a machine gun." Read.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39161706]Well an industry producing things for the military should be under state control.[/QUOTE] Nationalizing the industry really has nothing to do whether to ban the public from owning guns or certain guns. Good job yet again side stepping the questions.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;39161773]alright? so they had a peaceful transition, obviously that's the best outcome but it's not the most likely one. look at syria.[/QUOTE] Syria is about halfway down the list. Point I am trying to make, is that arming people doesn't make them any less or more vulnerable to tyranny.

[QUOTE=alexguydude;39161791]"You couldn't own a gatling gun in that time period [B]is my guess[/B], and that's a big version of a machine gun." Read.[/QUOTE] I'll read when you make provable claims, not stupid guesses.

[QUOTE=alexguydude;39161780]They're going after assault rifles. Why would they go after normal hunting rifles or shotguns? And there's a reason amendments are created, they update older ones that may be vague.[/QUOTE] Dianne Feinstein's bill would ban: [QUOTE]Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of: -120 specifically-named firearms; -Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and -Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons[/url]

[QUOTE=alexguydude;39161780]They're going after assault rifles. Why would they go after normal hunting rifles or shotguns? And there's a reason amendments are created, they update older ones that may be vague.[/QUOTE] Because of what I just stated, the 2nd's intention was to cover firearms that would be used by a military, hunting rifles are not commonly used by a military. Just because the guns a military uses have changed since 1776, doesn't mean the principle of the amendment has.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39161794]Nationalizing the industry really has nothing to do whether to ban the public from owning guns or certain guns. Good job yet again side stepping the questions.[/QUOTE] Well if you control the industry, you can control the production of guns and munitions. Consequently, you can choose which guns to produce.

[QUOTE=alexguydude;39161623]I'm all for the bill. I think hunters with rifles or shotguns is fine, and pistols for self defense is fine. I just really don't see a need for assault rifles with hundreds of bullets as a need, and some need to give up the hobby with them. If you can't go deer hunting without a gun with a giant mag full of bullets, you probably shouldn't be deer hunting. AS FOR the self defense issue, you don't need an assault rifle for self defense (and most likely wouldn't have it with you in the scenario that you DO need self defense). If your reason for assault rifles to stay is for the right to militia and defeat a corrupt government, well, that's a stupid argument. We have the army. Secession is illegal, and is treason. You'd get your ass kicked, end of the story. We have tanks and airplanes that would crush any attempt with assault rifles. The second amendment was written during the time of muskets. It's an outdated amendment in my opinion and needs to be updated to new age standards. I'm not against the right to bear arms, but rather the right to bear assault rifles or ridiculously powered weapons.[/QUOTE] I do not need an "assault rifle" for self defense...why not? Who are you to tell me what I do or do not need for self defense? You know what I do not think you need? Multiple electronic devices. You're right. The 2A was written during the time of muskets. But those muskets were the top of the line military hardware of the time. You did not see them say "You have the right to bear arms HOWEVER you are limited to older model firearms, bows and arrows, crossbows, ETC." I mean DEAR LORD, 3 ROUNDS A MINUTE. THOSE GO WAY OVER THE OLDER STUFF. BAN THESE ASSAULT MUSKETS IMMEDIATELY!!!! =/ Your argument is stupid and has been defeated numerous times. Do yourself a favor and just stop while you are ahead.