President might use executive order:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ns_694984.html

I say do it, he doesn't have the stones to go this route.

Nice wording. The rest of the country couldn't care less about stopping gun violence? It still doesn't explain why Chicago has some of the Highest gun and crime in general despite not allowing the ownership of handguns. Surely there are less guns in the city then other big cities which would at least mean less crime. Same with DC, no?

The Supreme Court ruled recently that Chicago's gun laws were unconstitutional so there's that too.

this is the dumbest tactic you guys you ITT, yet it happens at least once per 100 posts. are you guys just after my jimmies or what?

That could get really ugly. A lot of people will flip out. The President using an Executive Order to try and disarm the American people? Yikes.

The definition of "sport" isn't limited to the Olympics. Plenty of people use AR-15 style rifles in shooting competitions.

The fact is the number is most likely a literal zero. If you are just so passionate about reducing gun violence then why do you want to take measures that don't reduce it what so ever? Seems there is more to it then just wanting to reduce gun violence.

What's dumb about it? Doing it has a cost in political capital. He says his goal is to reduce X, I think it's completely legitimate to ask him to quantify how effective this particular tactic is going to be in working towards that goal.

Let's be honest, people are going to flip out no matter what route is taken (if any). Most people have no clue what an executive order is, and even if its a standard bill, people would still blame it all on Obama.

Self defense changes things drastically. Don't pretend that all killing is equal. Using a gun to kill Someone in self defense because I'm fearful of my life is not the same as someone using a gun to murder a random innocent person. I'm a smaller person, 5'8" 155, I'm just **** out of luck if someone is bigger and stronger and wants to attack, rob, rape, kill me? I have no right to defend myself? Guess I should get in the rape whistle business if a ban goes through.

Also that definition of an assault weapon is pretty funny. I would guess that you are one of the only people to describe an "assault weapon" that way. Maybe Feinstein too.

it's dumb b/c nobody here is able to answer the question, which I guess is why it keeps getting asked? I dunno. its not a gotcha of any kind tho

How many actual criminals does CC protect you from? It seems if you were actually concerned with stopping crime you'd be shooting actual criminals instead of merely carrying a gun. Unless you used a thing called foresight and believed that carrying a gun could protect you from criminals in spite of you actually not shooting anyone. Crazy.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using 2+2 Forums

No idea.

Because legislation works that way. The language of the law would likely cover those guns.

I am not painting everyone as unreasonable. I was not even painting you as unreasonable. I'm just saying that you treat everyone like they have no idea about your debate style. Just get to the point and stop being so incredulous.

Safety >>> hunting

ldo

Attempts to limit overall crime are important too. I think a healthy social safety net is extremely important. Plus education and a bunch of other things that don't really matter in this thread.

I was wrong. Most of the country does, at this moment, want increased gun control. A large minority could not care less about gun violence.

People legally purchase guns and then illegally take them into the city. The city of Chicago does not have customs agents inspecting every car as the enter the city. I don't know why this is supposed to be a point in favor of guns rights activists. It is beyond obvious that a city cannot fight guns when they are so easily bought and brought in less than 50 miles away.

We just need better justices.

But people are able to determine how much gun violence is committed with .50 cal rifles vs. other types of guns, aren't they?

Well what do you think the language is going to look like?

To "get to the point" here you obviously have some sort of preferred pseudobill in your head that you'd like to champion. What is the criteria for banning with the goal of reducing gun violence that you're imagining which results in guns that have literally zero use in violent crime get swept up? And why do you find this reasonable given that your stated, overt goal is limited to reducing gun violence?

I am not sure. I just think that if they ban "assault" or "military" style weapons then .50 cal will be covered if not specifically listed.

Pretty much what Japan has.

Sigh.

So really this isn't about gun violence. It's about gun grabbing.

This shows you have no idea what a muzzle loader is. Think 1860's style gun or even 1776. But they have to be banned because .50 cal sounds dangerous?

of course that's all this is about.

Are you going for anything other than trying to prove you know more about guns than I do?

No, it really is not. What incentive is there in gun grabbing?

That would just make too much sense. Banning AR-15's is one thing, but banning handguns would mean that people would have to fight for the right to carry rifles and shotguns in all the public places they CC right now. Many people don't want to leave the house unarmed. And carrying a rifle all day in public, year in, year out, would start to feel burdensome, like a ball and chain. Plus you'd look like a clown.

Apparently you haven't been clued in to the death dealing machine commonly known as the hammer.

It shows that you know pretty much nothing about guns.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/t...dle-of-the-gun
http://www.samharris.org/blog

Haven't seen this posted. Harris destroys anti-gun arguments regarding self-defense with logic and math, then answers his critics with more. If your level of comprehension is still at the "gun are bad m'kay" level then this probably isn't for you. If you are an anti who considers himself a serious thinker give it a try.

If you don't know who Sam Harris is then check out his wiki page. Here is a hint. He isn't a Tea Party member.