Biden hints at Obama executive order (concerning guns)

Page 17 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Angry Irishman

Angry Irishman

Golden Member
Jan 25, 2010
1,883
1
81
eskimospy said:
Clinton was also the subject of a lot of crazed right wing paranoia. It seems to be a larger problem with a Democrat occupying the presidency.
Click to expand...

He's not really been much of a Democrat. I'd say he's been more of a prime minister if I were to run some comparisons. In fact, as I've stated many times, he'd be better suited to act as a facilitator and leader than the party man that he is.
 
Bowfinger

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
irishScott said:
I don't follow the civil war bullshit, but to be fair, the FBI puts the estimates of total privately owned guns at close to 300 million, and gallup says around half of American households have a gun. Guns are hardly the realm of a tiny minority.

I'd also note that supply is currently woefully short of demand. Distributers have nothing to distribute, the market for anything that might be banned is all but completely dry and/or gouged to all hell. That means there are potential buyers out there who will not get a gun. Those NICS numbers you cited only indicate the number of guns sold, not the number of people trying to buy guns, which is likely much larger.

Also, a gun is not a disposable good. In many cases people buy guns and keep them for a lifetime. So while the number buying new guns may be relatively small, there may be millions who are simply happy with their current AR-15/AK/whatever and stocked up on magazines or other goods, or just didn't buy jack squat.

My point being, those NICS numbers don't effectively quantify the number of assault weapons enthusiasts, who by the way are not all paranoid survivalist morons.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree, but my point is drawing the distinction between rational gun owners and the loony fringe who are binge buying in paranoid panic that Obama will "repeal the 2nd Amendment with an executive order". Exdeath (and others in this thread) are suggesting this fringe element is somehow representative of most Americans, civil war, etc., and it's nonsense. Those loons are a small minority; a LOUD minority, but a minority nonetheless.
 
Bowfinger

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
exdeath said:
That was before his last reelection. His track record is "having more flexibility after I can't run for re-election anymore".
Click to expand...
That's not a track record, it's a talking point. It's just another benign remark that the right wing propaganda machine perverted into something insidious, catapulted into the nutter echo chamber, and right on cue Pavlov's Clowns yelp in outrage.
 
irishScott

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
Don Vito Corleone said:
You can dedicate your energy however you want, but I'd suggest that anyone who fears the President taking some massive steps to restrict gun ownership is ignoring his track record and the reality of the situation as a whole. It ain't happening, and you're pinging for no legitimate reason.

I find it very difficult to understand why President Obama gets some Republicans whipped into such a paranoid frenzy on this issue when his governance has, if anything, been right of center as it relates to guns. I really do think a lot of the unwarranted fear of him relates to his race and name - it's not that people are consciously discriminating against him, but he is different from them and that makes him an unknown variable and thus scarier.
Click to expand...

Any attack on our gun rights will be incremental. Some are jumping a little far down the road, but I see assault weapons/magazines as the first step towards even more restrictive gun control. The slippery slope of such laws can be seen right now in states such as New York and New Jersey, who are pushing for sweeping new gun regulation despite already having some of the most strict gun laws in the nation.

I don't fear Obama per-se, but I see him as an enabler of the gun grabbers in congress. If a hi-cap magazine/assault weapons ban is passed, when the next shooting crops up I can all but guarantee further restrictions (say, all weapons with detachable magazines) will come into question. I keep hearing from many how it "will never happen in the US", and then the otherwise popular (with both parties apparently) governor of New York talks about confiscating assault weapons and says "you don't need ten rounds to kill a deer".

If we give an inch, and keep giving inches, the buck stops when the most you're allowed to own is a 5-shot deer rifle. This is not a favorable outcome, and I love how the gun grabbers and media blame the NRA for its lack of compromise when their side is just as radical.
 
Last edited:
S

sigurros81

Platinum Member
Nov 30, 2010
2,371
0
0
It's a new day! I'm excited to hear what the right wing drama queens are going to cry about today.
 
F

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,073
55,604
136
irishScott said:
Any attack on our gun rights will be incremental. Some are jumping a little far down the road, but I see assault weapons/magazines as the first step towards even more restrictive gun control. The slippery slope of such laws can be seen right now in states such as New York and New Jersey, who are pushing for seeping new gun regulation despite already having some of the most strict gun laws in the nation.

I don't fear Obama per-se, but I see him as an enabler of the gun grabbers in congress. If a hi-cap magazine/assault weapons ban is passed, when the next shooting crops up I can all but guarantee further restrictions (say, all weapons with detachable magazines) will come into question. I keep hearing from many how it "will never happen in the US", and then the otherwise popular (with both parties apparently) governor of New York talks about confiscating assault weapons and says "you don't need ten rounds to kill a deer".

If we give an inch, and keep giving inches, the buck stops when the most you're allowed to own is a 5-shot deer rifle. This is not a favorable outcome, and I love how the gun grabbers and media blame the NRA for its lack of compromise when their side is just as radical.
Click to expand...


So why didn't this happen with the last AWB?
 
irishScott

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
eskimospy said:
So why didn't this happen with the last AWB?
Click to expand...

Because 20 kids didn't die in a single shooting during its tenure. This type of legislation only gains traction in the wake of severe tragedy, and preys on the emotions of worried parents.

You'll note that mental health, the real problem, is being given little more than lip service by the gun grabbers (who are virtually all Democrats and supposedly on the side of healthcare reform); and the misinformation in the media is disgustingly thick (I saw PBS show an amateur video clip of a guy firing a fully automatic machine gun, then talk about "semi-automatic" rifles.)

The agenda is quite clear, and the fact that it has the support it does is deeply disturbing.
 
F

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,073
55,604
136
TerryMathews said:
Because the Democrats held the legislative branch when it was passed, and with one exception didn't hold it again until after it sunset?

Oh wait, logic. Can't be. Amirite?
Click to expand...

Ah, so the creeping destruction of gun rights depends on continued single party domination of all 3 elected parts of government.

Thanks for helping my point, it's appreciated.
 
corwin

corwin

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2006
8,644
9
81
eskimospy said:
Ah, so the creeping destruction of gun rights depends on continued single party domination of all 3 elected parts of government.

Thanks for helping my point, it's appreciated.
Click to expand...
Except when an EO is used to bypass two of those branches and push an agenda
 
irishScott

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
eskimospy said:
Ah, so the creeping destruction of gun rights depends on continued single party domination of all 3 elected parts of government.

Thanks for helping my point, it's appreciated.
Click to expand...

Your point seems to hold the perspective that gun control advocates will ban assault weapons, magazines and then stop; despite the fact that many have explicitly said they won't. Given that under any critical analysis banning assault weapons/magazines is woefully ineffective at stopping gun crime of any variety, what's to stop them from doing something as equally irrational the next time around?
 
F

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,073
55,604
136
irishScott said:
Your point seems to hold the perspective that gun control advocates will ban assault weapons, magazines and then stop; despite the fact that many have explicitly said they won't. Given that under any critical analysis banning assault weapons/magazines is woefully ineffective at stopping gun crime of any variety, what's to stop them from doing something as equally irrational the next time around?
Click to expand...

Again, I'm just saying that actual US history doesn't show that happening.
 
corwin

corwin

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2006
8,644
9
81
eskimospy said:
Again, I'm just saying that actual US history doesn't show that happening.
Click to expand...
Due to vocal opponents and the diligence of the NRA, even if a lot of the NRA is wackos they are the only real thing stopping it from happening
 
monovillage

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
eskimospy said:
For which there is of course no evidence of in this case.
Click to expand...

If someone is threatening to use something then they should be taken seriously. Biden in his speech talked about Obama and and the Obama/Biden administration using executive orders to push their political agenda. Any reasonable person would accept this as being a valid concern. You're trying to pretend there's no concern until they actually carry out this threat. You're wrong.
 
corwin

corwin

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2006
8,644
9
81
surfsatwerk said:
Biden says a lot of crazy shit.
Click to expand...
Doesn't mean it's not true
eskimospy said:
Right. Meaning that you have no idea what those executive orders do, so saying that they are bypassing the other branches is evidence free absurdity.
Click to expand...
Well considering an EO is by definition bypassing the other branches then it's not even close to absurdity...now of course we don't know what he's going to put in that EO yet but voicing opposition to it is also far from absurd
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom