• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Biden hints at Obama executive order (concerning guns)

Page 23 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Incorruptible said:
Havent heard much about the guy but IF he is Russian it could be a way to make gun owners look crazy and tear down the 2nd Amendment and make it easier for obama to ban guns or whatever other idiotic things the moron wants to do
Click to expand...

*sigh*. He's a kid from Georgia whose parents own one of the largest gun stores in the state. The Russian accent is completely fake and simply a character he adopted.
 
jstern01 said:
Nice read on the silliness of the anti gun control group argument against gun control.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/gun-control_b_2449628.html
Click to expand...

LOL, an epidemiologist criticizing pro-2A groups for playing a numbers game when his entire field of study and every argument he makes is based on numbers.

I don't need to play the numbers game, 2A is guaranteeing the means to shoot tyrants. Ergo, reasonable use = resisting tyranny and reasonable arms = the same small arms as the military.
 
irishScott said:
Well at least he admits the pro-banning arguments are philosophically and emotionally driven with no regard towards actually preventing deaths.
Click to expand...

Also LOL @ him claiming a person can only use an "assault weapon" for a mass shooting. George Hennard, Thomas Hamilton and Seung-Hui Cho would have begged to differ.
 
jstern01 said:
Nice read on the silliness of the anti gun control group argument against gun control.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/gun-control_b_2449628.html
Click to expand...

and yet the virginia tech massacre was done with pistols, not rifles.

numbers ARE important. numbers tell you "if i want do something in the most effective way, here is where i need to focus my energy"

and that's exactly it - it would be more effective to focus on curbing illegal handgun sales than to enact an assault weapons ban. but that's not newsworthy.

and some restrictions i'm even fine with (folding stock, GL's). the pistol grip doesn't make sense to me since you can fire any rifle from the hip - it just means you're less accurate than if you had a pistol grip. but restricting magazine size makes little sense because of the following, IMO:

1)it's easy enough to get any number of 10-round magazines (for pistols, just use multiple pistols so you don't have to reload)

2)if you're hell-bent on having 30+ rounds, making the mags yourself.

3) there have been plenty of higher-than-30-capacity magazines available since the expiration of the AWB in 2004. how many have been used for a mass shooting? my guess would be none.
 
Fenixgoon said:
and yet the virginia tech massacre was done with pistols, not rifles.

numbers ARE important. numbers tell you "if i want do something in the most effective way, here is where i need to focus my energy"

and that's exactly it - it would be more effective to focus on curbing illegal handgun sales than to enact an assault weapons ban. but that's not newsworthy.

and some restrictions i'm even fine with (folding stock, GL's). the pistol grip doesn't make sense to me since you can fire any rifle from the hip - it just means you're less accurate than if you had a pistol grip. but restricting magazine size makes little sense because of the following, IMO:

1)it's easy enough to get any number of 10-round magazines (for pistols, just use multiple pistols so you don't have to reload)

2)if you're hell-bent on having 30+ rounds, making the mags yourself.

3) there have been plenty of higher-than-30-capacity magazines available since the expiration of the AWB in 2004. how many have been used for a mass shooting? my guess would be none.
Click to expand...

It doesn't take long to reload a gun. The whole ban on high capacity (30+) is silly, just an illusion of safety to appease the mass.

What's even more silly are the dumbasses on this forum flipping out about a ban on the high capacity magazines--I would rather have the 30+ mags be banned to appease the liberals frothing at the mouths than an actual ban on assault weapons.

I have zero need for a 30+ magazine, other than feeling a bit annoyed having to reload more often at the range.
 
sigurros81 said:
It doesn't take long to reload a gun. The whole ban on high capacity (30+) is silly, just an illusion of safety to appease the mass.

What's even more silly are the dumbasses on this forum flipping out about a ban on the high capacity magazines--I would rather have the 30+ mags be banned to appease the liberals frothing at the mouths than an actual ban on assault weapons.

I have zero need for a 30+ magazine, other than feeling a bit annoyed having to reload more often at the range.
Click to expand...

No compromise. You're falling for obamas trap.
 
sigurros81 said:
It doesn't take long to reload a gun. The whole ban on high capacity (30+) is silly, just an illusion of safety to appease the mass.

What's even more silly are the dumbasses on this forum flipping out about a ban on the high capacity magazines--I would rather have the 30+ mags be banned to appease the liberals frothing at the mouths than an actual ban on assault weapons.

I have zero need for a 30+ magazine, other than feeling a bit annoyed having to reload more often at the range.
Click to expand...

If the government can ban a 30+ magazine, then the government can ban a 20+ magazine, can ban a 10+ magazine, can ban a 1 bullet magazine.

If the government cannot ban a 30+ magazine, then the government cannot ban a 1 bullet magazine.

You say you would rather have 30+ mags banned to appease the liberals, except the fault in the logic is your assumption that liberals will be appeased.

It's simple history lesson, if the government has a power, it will eventually use it.
 
cubby1223 said:
If the government can ban a 30+ magazine, then the government can ban a 20+ magazine, can ban a 10+ magazine, can ban a 1 bullet magazine.

If the government cannot ban a 30+ magazine, then the government cannot ban a 1 bullet magazine.

You say you would rather have 30+ mags banned to appease the liberals, except the fault in the logic is your assumption that liberals will be appeased.

It's simple history lesson, if the government has a power, it will eventually use it.
Click to expand...

Right, that's the kind of blind-fear mentality that if people like you were in power, we'd still have slavery. Look at the progression of the nation, people of the same sex are actually able to marry each other now, and people can actually smoke a harmless herb. What, just a century ago women couldn't vote, and before that, blacks were not considered humans. Whatever faculties you're lacking, you do not seem to get people are more logical than you think. Progress, deal with it. Simple history lesson indeed, notice how your kind that share your politics are dying out?
 
sigurros81 said:
Right, that's the kind of blind-fear mentality that if people like you were in power, we'd still have slavery. Look at the progression of the nation, people of the same sex are actually able to marry each other now, and people can actually smoke a harmless herb. What, just a century ago women couldn't vote, and before that, blacks were not considered humans. Whatever faculties you're lacking, you do not seem to get people are more logical than you think. Progress, deal with it. Simple history lesson indeed, notice how your kind that share your politics are dying out?
Click to expand...

what does any of that have to do with government enhancing restriction on rights?

in all those cases, the government eased restriction, not enhanced it.
 
xj0hnx said:
http://youtu.be/XMg0FQS6Fqo
Click to expand...

But what about all the needless civilian deaths from people caught in the cross fire? And the neighbors all pulling their guns out and shooting back when they heard gunfire? Some wild wild west shit right there.



Oh wait... none of that happened. Story is obviously a fake, because we know what happens when civilians own guns. Only "the experts" and "trained officials" know anything, the rest of us are incompetent retards.
 
dmens said:
Also LOL @ him claiming a person can only use an "assault weapon" for a mass shooting. George Hennard, Thomas Hamilton and Seung-Hui Cho would have begged to differ.
Click to expand...

I live in one of the most dearmed country in the world and even I find that hilariously stupid.
 
Obama cannot counter the constitution with an executive order.

Pull your heads out of your asses and get some fresh air people.
 
Fenixgoon said:
what does any of that have to do with government enhancing restriction on rights?

in all those cases, the government eased restriction, not enhanced it.
Click to expand...

My point was to address his paranoia. Instread of freaking out about uncertainties, why not use some common sense if you're going to talk about history as a projection of the future.
 
sigurros81 said:
Right, that's the kind of blind-fear mentality that if people like you were in power, we'd still have slavery. Look at the progression of the nation, people of the same sex are actually able to marry each other now, and people can actually smoke a harmless herb. What, just a century ago women couldn't vote, and before that, blacks were not considered humans. Whatever faculties you're lacking, you do not seem to get people are more logical than you think. Progress, deal with it. Simple history lesson indeed, notice how your kind that share your politics are dying out?
Click to expand...

So we should progressively give up all our rights? How about the first or fourth amendments? Is this what you are saying? What does slavery and women voting rights have to do with the second amendment?

You really do trust your government, don't you? I don't and none of us should. The founders of this country had the same sentiment and it's just as relevant today....be skeptical, it's really OK.
 
Last edited:
K1052 said:
Well he could try anyway....it's not like he was a Harvard Law graduate who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago or anything.
Click to expand...

Amazing, though, how horrible of an understanding he seems to have, of said US Constitution. I shudder to think of what he taught others! 😱
 
Don Vito Corleone said:
What specific things has he done that you believe reflect a lack of understanding of the Constitution?
Click to expand...

Obama understands it fine. It is not his understanding if it but his respect. Off the top of my head warrant less wiretapping, unlimited detention without charge, and his kill list. Granted, Bush started at least the first two. It is not a republican or democratic difference this not caring about long-standing laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top