Where does your list come from?
I was quoting the PDF on whitehouse.gov, which certainly mentions both assault weapons and ammunition magazines.
That’s just the conformation bias of the gun grabbers.
How is conducting research debatable? The CDC has been prohibited from spending money to investigate this issue, and the President is saying that it needs to be investigated. My personal gut feeling is that violence in entertainment has no impact on real life gun violence, but as I’ve learned on this board, my personal gut feeling is not a justification for creating laws (or not creating them). Arguing that we shouldn’t research the issue comes perilously close to the liberal view that Republicans are anti-science, and would rather do what feels right than learn the facts.
Please read for context. I didn’t say only gun nuts talk about circle jerks. I said you have a way of continually bringing this discussion around to dicks. I though that was just a liberal caricature, and here you are, doing it.
You can’t say stuff like ‘liberal guys are far more likely to be douchebag weenies’ and then say you were careful in your wording. You mean you tried to make your stereotypes limited so they would look like careful observations and not hoary stereotypes.
The 23 items mentioned are the list of executive orders, which is what the OP was talking about. Your list includes legislation the President intends to introduce to Congress.
Another stereotype comes true: the guy with drunk in his name fucks up at spelling.
I agree that his case is stated hyperbolically, and I hate that.
But when “assault weapons” are used in well under 1% of all gun homicides, and equally capable weapons will remain legal because they don’t look as scary, then it really isn’t a good faith effort to stop crime or protect children.
If you want to stop crime, handguns are the beginning and end of it. They’re almost the entire problem. But they’re not even in the discussion. That’s why it comes off as disingenuous. Suddenly we’re focused on guns that are used in a negligible amount of crime because of the emotional reaction people have to them.
They know that they couldn’t ban handguns, support for them is too widespread. But maybe they can ban “assault weapons”, because the ignorant public doesn’t understand what they are, the government and media deliberately try to conflate them with actual “machine guns” which they are not, and it’s a good scapegoat after a high profile shooting.
Which indicates that they’re interested in banning whatever they can ban based on the political realities of the time. Handguns are off the table, but “assault weapons” may be viable. But the reality is that assault weapons are a non-issue. The fact that they’re willing to push any ban that they view as politically viable, regardless of the actual impact on crime or safety, really does indicate that their primary agenda is to ban any and all guns they have, without regard for what it will actually do for crime and public safety.
Well, I said “a bit debatable.”
I think that’s a fair statement. I agree that “What a monster!” is not a fair criticism.
This is known as a strawman argument – you ascribe “What a monster,” to me, and then denigrate it. But since my argument was never “What a monster,” you are attacking an argument I never made.
You seem to think I’m claiming to be one of these manly men conservatives. I never did. I’m definitely not weak, but you wouldn’t put me in a marlboro man commercial, nor am I meaningfully conservative. Plus I talk about dicks at least 100 times a day.
I meant that I pointed out general trends - to say “more likely than average” or “less likely than average” is a pretty mild way to classify groups. I specifically stated that it certainly doesn’t encompass all members of the group, just that members of either group are more likely than average to have certain traits.
This was considerably more limited in scope and careful than all of the wild accusations flowing the other way.
Maybe not here on the dope, but here’s a collection of quotes from various people on a different forum I frequent. The forum’s primary purpose is not politics or guns, so I consider this a normal cross-section of internet users in my area.
Now, these aren’t dopers, nor are they pundits, lawmakers, or decision makers. They’re just regular folk, none of whom saw the absurdity in the idea of Obama banning anything via executive order. Nevertheless, they seem pretty sure that, if not guaranteed, it was at “likely.”
Suffice it to say, I’m having a one-man circle jerk over there, since I was the lone voice of reason. Not much of a circle. More of a wank, I guess. I’m having a wank.
Good point, and a useful distinction, to be sure.
While not paying attention to what he was reading, I meant to add.
Only the bolded one of your quotes seems to me to qualify for what I was asking for - an actual expectation that a blanket ban would be passed by executive order. It sounds like most of the other ones are concern about the general abuse of executive orders well beyond their intended original role to get around checks and balances, which is a more general concern not specific to gun issues.
That doesn’t remotely begin to justify this thread, the idea that it was a widespread belief that today would be The End of Guns or something.
I thank you for answering me respectfully and politely. I’m not going to debate for long in this thread, but I do get tired of being told that I’m only out to ban all guns.
I, too, don’t think that banning assault weapons is really going to fix the problem. But obviously something needs to be done. You can’t take handguns away, that much is clear to me. The cat is out of the bag.
What is the right solution? Well, we need to find out. But with a significant portion of people on one side screaming about how no one will ever take their guns away from them, and they’ll fight and kill to defend them, and with a significant portion of the othe side screaming about how guns are penis substitutes, we’ll probably never come to a good conclusion. I know NY has very strict gun laws but both my SO and I were able to get guns, so they can’t be that strict. But do I think just anyone should be allowed to walk into a store and buy a gun? Absolutely not.
And that is why I originally entered this thread. The excluded middle wants to speak up. We just get drowned out from either side.
Oooooh won’t that be a switch then! This time around it’ll be white men asking black men “where are all the white women at?”
I meant, of course “ban and and all guns they can”
In other words, the perspective is not “What sort of bans would affect the crime rates and public safety the most?” but rather “what sort of bans can we push through now in the current political climate?”
So you end up with ridiculous shit like the assault weapons bans, because you can convince an ignorant public that these guns are disproportionately dangerous, and you can get enough support to ban them. But you, as the person writing the law, actually know that these guns are almost never used in crime nor are they disproportionately dangerous.
Which means that it’s a bigger priority to you to ban anything you can than it is to try to approach gun control from a practical perspective on crime and public safety.
All of those comments were made in response to Biden’s announcement about a possible executive order for gun control last week, and all were made in the specific context of banning guns. I may have done a bad job of quoting, but I wanted to keep my post brief. I assure you, they were talking about overreaching executive orders in regards to banning guns. This wasn’t about the role of the executive branch in general. These were “from my cold, dead hands” types.
Pretty much sums it all up:
No, I believe you, and I understand the context. What I’m saying is that someone saying “Obama really shouldn’t try to use executive orders to push gun control, this is a continued violation of the checks and balances between Obama and Congress” does not serve for evidence of “I believe Obama is going to use executive orders to decree that all guns are banned”, which is what is required for the OP to have merit.
You shouldn’t beat your wife, it’s a continued violation of the law.