Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Zan15]

From what I can tell in your link they were invited by Bloomberg to speak to the room *sorry re-read your link invited to speak at a "news conference" still nothing with Biden being there to "met up" with them and talk with the parents, again nothing there disproves what the kid was saying (did you even watch the video of Biden he was responding to)

Somehow his dad and Biden shaking hands at a New conference put on by the Mayor of new York is proof Biden went out to speak (Met up with) that kids dad.

*Your entire basis of stating

is because of a picture at a new conference Bloomberg put on with them shaking hands on the stage, you have a odd meaning of "met up with"

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ntrol/2419555/

Same picture...same story....Sure seems like an accidental meeting /s

Obama, Biden meet Newtown parents

Six months after the school shooting that claimed the lives of 20 children, President Obama met Thursday with the relatives of victims to thank them for urging Congress to pass new gun laws.
"We commend the families' courage and perseverance in continuing to press for common sense legislation to reduce gun violence," said White House spokesman Jay Carney before the meeting.
The White House did not issue a statement after the private discussion that also included Vice President Biden.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ol-person.html
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...icle-1.1310858

The other families who plan to fly on Air Force One are scheduled to meet privately with the president before he speaks and attend the speech. Those relatives include:
— Mark and Jackie Barden — parents of 7-year-old Daniel
— Nelba Marquez Greene — mother of 6-year-old Ana
— Neil Heslin — father of 6-year-old Jesse
— Jennifer Hensel — mother of 6-year-old Avielle
— Bill Sherlach — husband of Mary, a 56-year-old school psychologist
— Ben and Cheyanne Wyatt — parents of 6-year-old Allison
— David and Francine Wheeler — parents of 6-year-old Ben


Seems according to reports at the time, the father did actually fly on Air Force One.




you still have not answered my question.

Where did Biden say he went to sandy hook and met with every family. The video is only a minute long should not be too hard to find it.

BIDEN SAID : "I think I met with every one of the parents," he continues, "and ... the families of those who were lost."

KID SAID: This is a lie. Obama came to Sandy Hook and met with every family. Joe Biden DID NOT.

KID SAID: But JT Lewis, 19, whose brother Jesse, 6, was killed in the attack, which happened just 11 days before Christmas, says former President Obama met with each of the grieving families after the Newtown shooting — not Biden.


Still waiting.....

[Dadwen]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ntrol/2419555/

Same picture...same story....Sure seems like an accidental meeting /s

Obama, Biden meet Newtown parents

Six months after the school shooting that claimed the lives of 20 children, President Obama met Thursday with the relatives of victims to thank them for urging Congress to pass new gun laws.
"We commend the families' courage and perseverance in continuing to press for common sense legislation to reduce gun violence," said White House spokesman Jay Carney before the meeting.
The White House did not issue a statement after the private discussion that also included Vice President Biden.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ol-person.html
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...icle-1.1310858

The other families who plan to fly on Air Force One are scheduled to meet privately with the president before he speaks and attend the speech. Those relatives include:
— Mark and Jackie Barden — parents of 7-year-old Daniel
— Nelba Marquez Greene — mother of 6-year-old Ana
— Neil Heslin — father of 6-year-old Jesse
— Jennifer Hensel — mother of 6-year-old Avielle
— Bill Sherlach — husband of Mary, a 56-year-old school psychologist
— Ben and Cheyanne Wyatt — parents of 6-year-old Allison
— David and Francine Wheeler — parents of 6-year-old Ben


Seems according to reports at the time, the father did actually fly on Air Force One.




you still have not answered my question.

Where did Biden say he went to sandy hook and met with every family. The video is only a minute long should not be too hard to find it.

BIDEN SAID : "I think I met with every one of the parents," he continues, "and ... the families of those who were lost."

KID SAID: This is a lie. Obama came to Sandy Hook and met with every family. Joe Biden DID NOT.

KID SAID: But JT Lewis, 19, whose brother Jesse, 6, was killed in the attack, which happened just 11 days before Christmas, says former President Obama met with each of the grieving families after the Newtown shooting — not Biden.


Still waiting.....

He said he met with them in the video (didn't say he bumped into them at a press conf put on by the mayor of new York) which is all your first response showed. *what Obama did is my definition of "met with", went out and met with them.... (could be why he brought up that part of obama meeting with them in sandy hook.)

*and all I can find for him was planned to fly, the after news says they flew 11 members out but I've yet to find a list of those that did go.

[Svifnymr]

Seems according to reports at the time, the father did actually fly on Air Force One.

But not JT Lewis or the rest of the family?

Where did Biden say he went to sandy hook and met with every family. The video is only a minute long should not be too hard to find it.

BIDEN SAID : "I think I met with every one of the parents," he continues, "and ... the families of those who were lost."

KID SAID: This is a lie. Obama came to Sandy Hook and met with every family. Joe Biden DID NOT.

KID SAID: But JT Lewis, 19, whose brother Jesse, 6, was killed in the attack, which happened just 11 days before Christmas, says former President Obama met with each of the grieving families after the Newtown shooting — not Biden.


Still waiting.....

So we agree he met with one of the parents, but not "the family", right? Obama went there and met the families, Biden did not meet the families, right?

Can we move on from this pointless derailment? The original story was linked because of the statement about not being invited due to the families pro-gun stance, not to debate some off-topic Biden-ism.

[Noxx79]

lmao did they really say that? Holy shit! Good answer though.

So you don’t need a gun to protect yourself from the government, because they won’t attack.

So your entire point is garbage, like most of your points.

- - - Updated - - -

Wow. So you don't acknowledge anything between "no danger of attack" and "dropping bombs on American soil"? What a peculiarly hyperbolic view you have of things.

So, will soldiers follow orders or not? Such an self contradictory view. How can you function?

You: solders won’t attack, they would never harm civilians.
Also you: soldiers will attack, you need to protect yourself.

Do you really think your pitiful semi automatic will protect you?

[Levelfive]

Well that is a wonderful conspiracy with no basis in fact and no proof other than a 12 year olds recollection.....


Lets see...oh pictures....proof:

http://csweb.brookings.edu/content/r...un-safety.html

On April 17, 2013, Sandy Hook Promise families got a bitter taste of Senate procedure and gun politics after the defeat of a bipartisan compromise to require criminal background checks for all commercial gun purchases. Mark Barden, left, who lost his son Daniel in Newtown said: "We return home for now, disappointed but not defeated. We return home with a determination that change will happen, maybe not today but soon." L-R: Mark Barden; former Rep. Gabby Giffords; Neil Heslin, father of Jesse Lewis; President Barak Obama; Vice President Joe Biden; Jackie Barden, with daughter Natalie; and Nicole Hockley, mother of Dylan.

https://www.theday.com/article/20130321/NWS12/130329912

Published March 21. 2013 4:00PM | Updated March 21. 2013 4:31PM


NEW YORK (AP) — Vice President Joe Biden, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and parents who lost children in the Newtown school massacre met Thursday to redouble efforts for tougher gun restrictions after a setback in Congress, challenging lawmakers to look beyond the politics that appear likely to doom a proposed assault weapons ban.

Beyond all that, what does it have to do with gun control? It's just textbook right-wing playbook shit to smear and obfuscate because they're on the wrong side of the issue.

[PhaelixWW]

So, will soldiers follow orders or not? Such an self contradictory view. How can you function?

You: solders won’t attack, they would never harm civilians.
Also you: soldiers will attack, you need to protect yourself.

Do you really think your pitiful semi automatic will protect you?

Again, your complete inability to imagine a middle ground between "peace, rainbows, and unicorns" and "soldiers gleefully dropping bombs on American soil" is a little scary. If we've devolved to the point where 100% of the military is just fine dropping bombs on US citizens, then we're already fucked. But there exists a middle ground where soldiers are used to detain people and otherwise quietly violate their Constitutional freedoms, rather than carpet-bombing them. The point of allowing your citizenry to be armed is to force potential tyranny to be openly tyrannical in order to achieve its goals, rather than allowing it to remain hidden.

It's not a terribly likely scenario, but it's less likely with armed citizenry than without.

And it's not like "defense against tyranny" is the only reason for the 2nd Amendment.

[Zan15]

But not JT Lewis or the rest of the family?

So we agree he met with one of the parents, but not "the family", right? Obama went there and met the families, Biden did not meet the families, right?

Can we move on from this pointless derailment? The original story was linked because of the statement about not being invited due to the families pro-gun stance, not to debate some off-topic Biden-ism.

JT lewis was 12 years old...… no no you are right they did not meet with the "families".... the aunts or uncles ...grandparents....cousins maybe not sure....
Stop being ridiculous.


Again Biden NEVER said he WENT THERE and MET THE FAMILIES.....holy shit its one fucking sentence in the video.


Pointless derailment? I was not the original poster, go complain to him. Report his post as off topic and trolling.

But not JT Lewis or the rest of the family?

Can we move on from this pointless derailment? The original story was linked because of the statement about not being invited due to the families pro-gun stance, not to debate some off-topic Biden-ism.

which has been proven false but someone just can't accept it even after multiple pieces of information including the reports on Air Force One which completely negates his statement.

Also the statement that his "family" is pro-gun is also incorrect since his father is not pro-gun.....as indicated in the multiple multiple multiple articles

[Svifnymr]

JT lewis was 12 years old...… no no you are right they did not meet with the "families".... the aunts or uncles ...grandparents....cousins maybe not sure....
Stop being ridiculous.


Again Biden NEVER said he WENT THERE and MET THE FAMILIES.....holy shit its one fucking sentence in the video.

And "went there" is not a part of my discussion.
Did Biden say "I think I met with every one of the parents," he continues, "and ... the families of those who were lost."?
Did he meet the family? No, he met A PARENT. I didn't say aunt, uncle, whatever else you want to toss in there to try to make a brother of the victim and the mother not "family" enough to qualify.

Pointless derailment? I was not the original poster, go complain to him. Report his post as off topic and trolling.

His post bolded the point, that the family was not invited due to not agreeing with the anti-gun message, same as happened with the Parkland shooting. The gun message has some bearing on this thread. You standing up for Biden to protect his reputation has no bearing.

Also the statement that his "family" is pro-gun is also incorrect since his father is not pro-gun.....as indicated in the multiple multiple multiple articles

As you said, the parents are divorced. The father decided to go push anti-gun agenda, the mother and brother were (apparently) denied.

[Elegiac]

And it's not like "defense against tyranny" is the only reason for the 2nd Amendment.

Yeah, there was that whole slavery thing too.

Sorry, *state militia that are in no way intended to be slave patrols or put down slave revolts.

[PhaelixWW]

Yeah, there was that whole slavery thing too.

Sorry, *state militia that are in no way intended to be slave patrols or put down slave revolts.

"Putting down slave revolts" is not, and has never been, a legally accepted justification for the 2nd Amendment. Whether or not that was in the minds of the southern colonies when they ratified the Bill of Rights does not mean that it owes its existence to that consideration.

What is, however, a legally accepted justification for the 2nd Amendment is general self-defense. You may not like the decision in DC v. Heller or the 2nd Amendment, but they are the law in the US.

[Elegiac]

"Putting down slave revolts" is not, and has never been, a legally accepted justification for the 2nd Amendment. Whether or not that was in the minds of the southern colonies when they ratified the Bill of Rights does not mean that it owes its existence to that consideration.

Considering that the entire exercise writing the Constitution and its original ten amendments was an exercise in concession and compromise? Yes. Yes, it does.

What is, however, a legally accepted justification for the 2nd Amendment is general self-defense. You may not like the decision in DC v. Heller or the 2nd Amendment, but they are the law in the US.

Cool. The law is wrong and should be changed. There's no justifiable reason for widespread firearm ownership like you see in the US.

[PhaelixWW]

Considering that the entire exercise writing the Constitution and its original ten amendments was an exercise in concession and compromise? Yes. Yes, it does.

Just 'cause you say so? No, no it doesn't.

Cool. The law is wrong and should be changed. There's no justifiable reason for widespread firearm ownership like you see in the US.

Cool. Convince 2/3 of Congress and then 3/4 of States and then change it. Otherwise, you can clutch your opinion closely to your chest and hope that it brings you comfort.

[Elegiac]

Just 'cause you say so? No, no it doesn't.

I mean, they deemed it enough of a consideration for it to be discussed. Don't have to get in a huff because you forgot Patrick Henry existed for a second there.

Cool. Convince 2/3 of Congress and then 3/4 of States and then change it. Otherwise, you can clutch your opinion closely to your chest and hope that it brings you comfort.

The difficulty of changing the law is not a defense of the law itself. This is a piss weak argument that just shows how lacking in substance the Pro-2A camp actually is.

[Citizen T]

Stop bickering over whether Biden met with everyone, someone, or no one.

[Zan15]

Stop bickering over whether Biden met with everyone, someone, or no one.

Might I inquiry why?

It's now part of the gun control debate since this individual running for office has made claims against Biden and those claims are very specific to blame gun control positions of Biden as the cause.

I have provided proof of a meeting, proof of reports of an air Force one ride and the stance of at least one of his parents all of which counters his claim.

Providing facts is not bickering. Everytime I respond I have posted new facts and proof. That is a progression of a discussion and debate.



Complaining about the nuances of the word family....well that might be another case.

It just hit drudge, daily mail and several other major sites. Should we just ignore it??

[Stormdash]

Let me know how your Ar-15 works against a stealth bomber, or a drone.

So it's not a "weapon of war", then? Thanks

- - - Updated - - -

The difficulty of changing the law is not a defense of the law itself. This is a piss weak argument that just shows how lacking in substance the Pro-2A camp actually is.

Kinda is. Got rid of slavery that way. Women got the vote that way. We stopped sticking Presidents with their opponents as VP that way. If something is actually clearly failed or unjust, it's not hard to hit that margin.

And if you put the 2A up to ratify again, it would be, easily.

EDIT: The *content* of the Bill of Rights was not particularly contentious. The debate was whether to include one. The main argument against - which frankly I think history has proven out - is that the hardwired limits on the government in the actual text of the Constitution would become an afterthought and the Bill of Rights would in practice be the only limits. Do you need an Amendment prohibiting the government from doing a thing it was never given the power to even attempt in the first place? That was the central debate about the Bill of Rights.

[Citizen T]

Might I inquiry why?

It's now part of the gun control debate since this individual running for office has made claims against Biden and those claims are very specific to blame gun control positions of Biden as the cause.

I have provided proof of a meeting, proof of reports of an air Force one ride and the stance of at least one of his parents all of which counters his claim.

Providing facts is not bickering. Everytime I respond I have posted new facts and proof. That is a progression of a discussion and debate.



Complaining about the nuances of the word family....well that might be another case.

It just hit drudge, daily mail and several other major sites. Should we just ignore it??

Because it's about Biden not gun control at this point and it's derailing the thread. Take it to politics and drop it here

[Elegiac]

Kinda is. Got rid of slavery that way.

Sure you want to stake your argument on amendments whose ratification was made a condition of reconciliation with the rest of the union after a...what's the word...civil war? That aside, slavery being bad had fuck all to do with its legality; the same thing applies here. You got any other fallacies you want to put on the carousel besides appeal to authority and appeal to popularity?

Again, I'm aware that there's a persistent issue with believing that because something is the law, it automatically makes it just. Hint: Unjust systems have laws too.

[Stormdash]

Sure you want to stake your argument on amendments whose ratification was made a condition of reconciliation with the rest of the union after a...what's the word...civil war? That aside, slavery being bad had fuck all to do with its legality; the same thing applies here. You got any other fallacies you want to put on the carousel besides appeal to authority and appeal to popularity?

Again, I'm aware that there's a persistent issue with believing that because something is the law, it automatically makes it just. Hint: Unjust systems have laws too.

Here is something more linear and non-fallacious -

Try to disarm the American people by operation of law, and you will fail.
Try to disarm the American people by operation of force, and you will fail.

Any questions?

[Elegiac]

Here is something more linear and non-fallacious -

Try to disarm the American people by operation of law, and you will fail.
Try to disarm the American people by operation of force, and you will fail.

Any questions?

Why you seem to think it's anything but childish to respond with "there is no valid argument in favor of widespread firearm ownership" with "well you'll never change it so nyeehhh"? Lol.

You really aren't doing anything to dispel the notion that gun ownership in America is a nationalistic cult.