If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AP)   President Obama has announced his new world order where Uncle Sam will now confiscate your gun...wait...what...those are, um, reasonable and Constitutional expansions to regulation authority. You may now cancel your outrage   (hosted.ap.org) divider line 1394
    More: Interesting, President Obama, Uncle Sam  
•       •       •

25792 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Jan 2013 at 2:14 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1394 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-16 01:11:18 PM
Says you, subby.
 
2013-01-16 01:11:43 PM
Supporting a renewal of the AWB is silly, but otherwise I liked what I heard. I'm truly impressed that he seems to have targeted actions and reforms that get to the bulk of gun violence rather than focusing just on high-profile shootings like Sandy Hook or Aurora.
 
2013-01-16 01:14:11 PM
I'm sure that the NRA thinks that any changes are unconstitutional, no matter what.  And I'm sure at least 4 of the members of the Supreme Court would agree.
 
2013-01-16 01:14:27 PM
I'm a bit concerned that this may make it less likely for people to get help from therapists, but other than that...
 
2013-01-16 01:14:48 PM
My God.

This is how democracy dies... with enhanced background checks and enforcement of existing laws.
 
2013-01-16 01:15:18 PM

SphericalTime: I'm sure that the NRA thinks that any changes are unconstitutional, no matter what.  And I'm sure at least 4 of the members of the Supreme Court would agree.


Anything less than being able to buy an RPG from the gas station on the corner without having to show ID is unconstitutional to them.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-16 01:15:39 PM
Not a chance subby, not a chance.
 
2013-01-16 01:16:23 PM
Backdoor maneuver to eliminate the 2nd Amendment!
 
2013-01-16 01:17:16 PM

Diogenes: Backdoor maneuver to eliminate the 2nd Amendment!


How so?  can you not buy guns any more?
 
2013-01-16 01:17:59 PM
oh you should hear Limbaugh today.  He's already said that President Obama's kids shouldn't have guards, and I swear to f*cking god, I thought he was going to actually CRY at one point...the left is mocking the NRA you see.  and these things Obama is proposing have made Limbaugh very angry.
 
2013-01-16 01:19:14 PM

Diogenes: Backdoor maneuver to eliminate the 2nd Amendment!


heh. Backdoor maneuver.
 
2013-01-16 01:19:54 PM
What? Cancel my outrage? Did you say "cancel my outrage"? No outrage is cancelled until I decide it is! Was outrage cancelled when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
 
2013-01-16 01:20:23 PM
Freepers are going ape shiat over what to be outraged over and resorted to

Comparing Obama to Lance Armstrong and implying Obama dopes Americans to get his way

God, Pray, God, Pray, Pray 4 Guns, God, Bibles, Americas war on guns, Pray, Bibles, Guns, Bibles

And Obama trotted out kids as a human shield during his speech today to deflect criticism.
 
2013-01-16 01:23:03 PM

Weaver95: oh you should hear Limbaugh today.  He's already said that President Obama's kids shouldn't have guards, and I swear to f*cking god, I thought he was going to actually CRY at one point...the left is mocking the NRA you see.  and these things Obama is proposing have made Limbaugh very angry.


hahahahah
 
2013-01-16 01:23:45 PM

Weaver95: oh you should hear Limbaugh today.  He's already said that President Obama's kids shouldn't have guards, and I swear to f*cking god, I thought he was going to actually CRY at one point...the left is mocking the NRA you see.  and these things Obama is proposing have made Limbaugh very angry.


If anyone doesn't need armed guards, it's Limbaugh.

Seriously, Florida.  You have "stand-your-ground," and Limbaugh's a strung out, drug-addicted maniac with a long history of advocating violence against innocent people.

Why is that fat bastard still waddling around?!?
 
2013-01-16 01:24:26 PM
This was essentially a press conference signaling the end of the president's assualt on assualt weapons.  He put the onus on congress knowing full well they can't pass anything.  The 23 provisions are toothless and useless.

The president can now say "I did something" when asked.

This was actually a great day for gun owners.  A really great day.
 
2013-01-16 01:24:28 PM

Dubwise: Diogenes: Backdoor maneuver to eliminate the 2nd Amendment!

How so?  can you not buy guns any more?


Dubwise: Diogenes: Backdoor maneuver to eliminate the 2nd Amendment!

How so?  can you not buy guns any more?


a248.e.akamai.net
 
2013-01-16 01:25:05 PM
ooooookkk...
 
2013-01-16 01:26:09 PM
Actually, I've learned recently of how many road signs in the US are actually marked on the back with secret signals designed to communicate high-value strike targets and directions to an invading UN army, and on a recent trip into town noticed no less than FOUR new road signs along my regular route. I don't know if all of them had secret signals on the back, because it did not occur to me then to stop and check, but that sudden proliferation along with his new and unprecedented move against the Constitution makes me wonder if perhaps we are approaching some tipping point. I'm going to study it out a little more and see what else I can find; I earnestly suggest that everyone else does likewise.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-16 01:26:38 PM

SphericalTime: I'm sure that the NRA thinks that any changes are unconstitutional, no matter what.  And I'm sure at least 4 of the members of the Supreme Court would agree.


No, they wouldn't.  Both the right and left like to say that (for different reasons), but look at DC v Heller.


(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons

And

Scalia's opinion for the majority provided 2nd Amendment protection for commonly used and popular handguns but not for atypical arms or arms that are used for unlawful purposes such as short-barreled shotguns. Scalia stated: "Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid." "We think that Miller's "ordinary military equipment" language must be read in tandem with what comes after: "[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179." "We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns." Furthermore, military grade weapons not being the sort of weapons that are possessed at home that would be brought to militia duty are not the sort of lawful weapon conceived of being protected. "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service - M-16 rifles and the like - may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty."Therefore, weapons that are most useful in military service - M-16 rifles and weapons like it - are also not provided with 2nd Amendment protection.

So there is nothing there that would prevent a new assault weapons ban.  Not even in Scalia's opinion.
 
2013-01-16 01:27:20 PM
COMMENCE THE IMPEACHMENT!!11,!!
 
2013-01-16 01:27:37 PM
so far, all the right people seem to oppose Obama's plans.  if the NRA or Rush Limbaugh are against something then it's probably a plan worth following.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-16 01:27:50 PM

Weaver95: oh you should hear Limbaugh today.  He's already said that President Obama's kids shouldn't have guards, and I swear to f*cking god, I thought he was going to actually CRY at one point...the left is mocking the NRA you see.  and these things Obama is proposing have made Limbaugh very angry.


I think the word you want is mad.  That's what they would say in the UK anyway.
 
2013-01-16 01:28:14 PM

Dubwise: ooooookkk...


And it seems I had too much coffee this morning.  Hit that quote button like a meth addict.
 
2013-01-16 01:29:11 PM

Diogenes: Dubwise: ooooookkk...

And it seems I had too much coffee this morning.  Hit that quote button like a meth addict.


no worries...i should have known ...i've read your comments long enough..
 
2013-01-16 01:29:48 PM

bradkanus: This was essentially a press conference signaling the end of the president's assualt on assualt weapons.  He put the onus on congress knowing full well they can't pass anything.  The 23 provisions are toothless and useless.

The president can now say "I did something" when asked.

This was actually a great day for gun owners.  A really great day.


Do you get $1 for each time you post that?
 
2013-01-16 01:30:47 PM

Weaver95: so far, all the right people seem to oppose Obama's plans.  if the NRA or Rush Limbaugh are against something then it's probably a plan worth following.


QFT
 
2013-01-16 01:32:02 PM
This is really a great move, from a political strategy POV:

-The ECs are immediate, are well within his authority, and are right in line with what the public wants
-Congress now shoulders all the load for passing what amount to very reasonable measures that have broad public support (AWB being the exception)
-If Congress passes all but the AWB, the WH can claim 99% success, and walk out a winner.
-If Congress does nothing, WH gets to blame Congress 100%, and the GOP/NRA eats it again
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-16 01:32:05 PM

bradkanus: This was essentially a press conference signaling the end of the president's assualt on assualt weapons.  He put the onus on congress knowing full well they can't pass anything.  The 23 provisions are toothless and useless.

The president can now say "I did something" when asked.

This was actually a great day for gun owners.  A really great day.


The sane ones yes.  The provisions aren't enough but they are a good start.

We can improve things with future legislation and tighten the laws up.
 
2013-01-16 01:32:45 PM
That was a lot more tempered than I was expecting.  Almost all of it pretty negligible.
 
2013-01-16 01:33:50 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: bradkanus: This was essentially a press conference signaling the end of the president's assualt on assualt weapons.  He put the onus on congress knowing full well they can't pass anything.  The 23 provisions are toothless and useless.

The president can now say "I did something" when asked.

This was actually a great day for gun owners.  A really great day.

Do you get $1 for each time you post that?


In this economy?  No.  It's now $.75.
 
2013-01-16 01:35:05 PM

Pocket Ninja: Actually, I've learned recently of how many road signs in the US are actually marked on the back with secret signals designed to communicate high-value strike targets and directions to an invading UN army, and on a recent trip into town noticed no less than FOUR new road signs along my regular route. I don't know if all of them had secret signals on the back, because it did not occur to me then to stop and check, but that sudden proliferation along with his new and unprecedented move against the Constitution makes me wonder if perhaps we are approaching some tipping point. I'm going to study it out a little more and see what else I can find; I earnestly suggest that everyone else does likewise.


i expect better from you.
 
2013-01-16 01:35:30 PM
Gun Nut Here!

So I've looked at the list, and I really cannot get mad at it.  I do take some issue with two aspects:

1.  Doctors asking if there are guns in the home.  Some doctors are going to get yelled at, some will get preachy.  This really has nothing to do with the federal government though...
2.  "Universal Background Checks" - I have no idea what that means or how it differs from the current system.  I do fear that like many things the federal government works on, it will become convoluted, bloated and inefficient

Other than those, I ain't mad
 
2013-01-16 01:36:12 PM
The sheer reasonability of the man. What unmitigated temperance.
 
2013-01-16 01:36:40 PM

Weaver95: oh you should hear Limbaugh today.



No... no I shouldn't.
 
2013-01-16 01:36:55 PM
Sure, Obama made some reasonable suggestions; but that's just to lull us into a false sense of security until the UN comes here to take away our guns.
 
2013-01-16 01:37:14 PM
As a staunch supporter of gun rights... a believer in the 2nd Amendment... a hater of our expanding Fed. Gov. and the over-reaching of the Executive Branch... I'm okay with this.

Looks to me like most of the orders relate to health/mental health obstacles and issues that he's trying to clarify... or correct.

"Today, the President is announcing that he and the Administration will:

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health."
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-16 01:37:56 PM

SlothB77: That was a lot more tempered than I was expecting.  Almost all of it pretty negligible.


Well, what can he do with executive orders?  Just use authority he already has.

The overriding the second amendment stuff is just irresponsible people stirring up trouble with the lunatic fringe.
 
2013-01-16 01:38:39 PM

LasersHurt: The sheer reasonability of the man. What unmitigated temperance.


What makes a man turn beige?
 
2013-01-16 01:39:02 PM
I have read the 23 executive orders and nothing jumped out at me as bad.  I will have to look them over again when I have time to really think about them and see if my opinion changes.  My only concern would be abuse of the mental health system where people are too easily labeled unsuitable.

No to an AWB.   Could live with background checks for private sales if dealers aren't allowed to gouge us for making a phone call.  Or better yet make the NICSaccessible to everyone.  No to magazine bans.

/NRA Life Member
 
2013-01-16 01:39:04 PM
I can't wait for a brave patriot to fight back against this and blow up a Federal building and murder hundreds of people like they did last time.
 
2013-01-16 01:40:42 PM

Aarontology: I can't wait for a brave patriot to fight back against this and blow up a Federal building and murder hundreds of people like they did last time.


I suppose you know a better way to prove their point?
 
2013-01-16 01:41:18 PM
#14 is interesting:

14. "Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."

Isn't the CDC forbidden by the NR, er, Congress from funding such research?
 
2013-01-16 01:42:20 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: This is really a great move, from a political strategy POV:

-The ECs are immediate, are well within his authority, and are right in line with what the public wants
-Congress now shoulders all the load for passing what amount to very reasonable measures that have broad public support (AWB being the exception)
-If Congress passes all but the AWB, the WH can claim 99% success, and walk out a winner.
-If Congress does nothing, WH gets to blame Congress 100%, and the GOP/NRA eats it again


I agree mostly with what you have here.  The ECs are useless because there's no penalty for the various federal departments involved not doing what the president asked.  The president basically said "do your job."

Congress will not pass anything meaningful.  They will likely not have a vote on anything at all.  The president did himself a favor punting it over to them.  However, the GOP isn't hurt by any of this given that what polls have been reported have major gaps where specifics belong.  When they 52 percent of Americans support "gun control" - we have no idea to what degree of "gun control" they are asking about.  Other polls that used the word "ban" show that a majority of Americans do not want guns banned.  Besides, 2014 isn't a presidential year, so nationwide sentiment is useless.  How people feel district by district is much more important.  Does Senator Pryor in Arkansas survive his race?  Doubtful.

And it doesn't matter if public sentiment is against the NRA - their membership is up.

the good news is that it's over and I get to keep my guns and buy the ones I have my eye on.
 
2013-01-16 01:42:33 PM
huh.  Rush Limbaugh just implied he's pro-choice now.
 
2013-01-16 01:43:08 PM

St_Francis_P: Sure, Obama made some reasonable suggestions; but that's just to lull us into a false sense of security until the UN comes here to take away our guns.


My local news comments are of that variety of craziness... also they are completely wrong in what the decisions were, but that's to be expected. However, there's only a small fraction of the number of comments that most gun control stories tend to generate.
 
2013-01-16 01:43:13 PM

Endive Wombat: Gun Nut Here!

So I've looked at the list, and I really cannot get mad at it.  I do take some issue with two aspects:

1.  Doctors asking if there are guns in the home.  Some doctors are going to get yelled at, some will get preachy.  This really has nothing to do with the federal government though...
2.   "Universal Background Checks" - I have no idea what that means or how it differs from the current system.  I do fear that like many things the federal government works on, it will become convoluted, bloated and inefficient

Other than those, I ain't mad


It's basically making all private sales go through an FFL so that a NICS check is done.  Like I said above, I'm ok with that as long as the FFLs don't get to gouge on the fee or better yet open NICS up to everyone.
 
2013-01-16 01:44:29 PM

CapeFearCadaver: St_Francis_P: Sure, Obama made some reasonable suggestions; but that's just to lull us into a false sense of security until the UN comes here to take away our guns.

My local news comments are of that variety of craziness... also they are completely wrong in what the decisions were, but that's to be expected. However, there's only a small fraction of the number of comments that most gun control stories tend to generate.


Give it time. I'm sure WND will say what I said, but be dead serious.
 
2013-01-16 01:44:50 PM

Weaver95: huh.  Rush Limbaugh just implied he's pro-choice now.


How?
 
2013-01-16 01:45:49 PM

St_Francis_P: Aarontology: I can't wait for a brave patriot to fight back against this and blow up a Federal building and murder hundreds of people like they did last time.

I suppose you know a better way to prove their point?


It is my understanding that poorly spelled signs and willful ignorance have lead to some success in recent years. But, you know. That doesn't stop the absolute tyranny that is a background check in the same way terrorism does.
 
2013-01-16 01:46:05 PM
I'd really like to know what they're going to ramrod through congress and get passed while everyone is arguing over this.  Obama is very, very good at sleight of hand.
 
2013-01-16 01:46:40 PM

CapeFearCadaver: Weaver95: huh.  Rush Limbaugh just implied he's pro-choice now.

How?


oh he's saying that it's wrong for government to push people around and tell them how they live their lives.  that government CAN NOT under any circumstances ever be used to push 'hard working 'muricans' around.

basically, Limbaugh is saying he's now pro-choice.
 
2013-01-16 01:47:15 PM

Lumpmoose: #14 is interesting:

14. "Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."

Isn't the CDC forbidden by the NR, er, Congress from funding such research?


part of the proposal is to lift that ban.
 
2013-01-16 01:48:45 PM

Callous: I have read the 23 executive orders and nothing jumped out at me as bad.  I will have to look them over again when I have time to really think about them and see if my opinion changes.  My only concern would be abuse of the mental health system where people are too easily labeled unsuitable.

No to an AWB.   Could live with background checks for private sales if dealers aren't allowed to gouge us for making a phone call.  Or better yet make the NICSaccessible to everyone.  No to magazine bans.

/NRA Life Member


I just don't get the huge hang up about AWs and overly large mags.  Even in the hands of a sane and well trained person, I can't think of a single legitimate need to have either of those. (and "just because" doesn't pass muster, imo)

Still, how about this instead of an AWB:

1.  Each AW and large mag has to be serialized and registered to their specific owner
2.  Said owner must complete extra training and evaluations to obtain a license to own these items.  License includes demonstrating proper use and care, as well as a background check and mental health eval.
3.  License must be renewed every year, with proficiency retests every two years
4.  Fees for #2-3 will be subsidized to lower your out of pocket cost.  Subsidy will be paid for with increased fines on those who do not get licenses, and a 0.2% tax on all ammo sales (up to a max per transaction)
5.  If either the AWs or the mags are used in the commission of a crime, the penalties are doubled.  If this occurs because the items were stolen from you, you are not liable, unless you obviously left them unsecured.
 
2013-01-16 01:49:17 PM

Callous: Endive Wombat: Gun Nut Here!

So I've looked at the list, and I really cannot get mad at it.  I do take some issue with two aspects:

1.  Doctors asking if there are guns in the home.  Some doctors are going to get yelled at, some will get preachy.  This really has nothing to do with the federal government though...
2.   "Universal Background Checks" - I have no idea what that means or how it differs from the current system.  I do fear that like many things the federal government works on, it will become convoluted, bloated and inefficient

Other than those, I ain't mad

It's basically making all private sales go through an FFL so that a NICS check is done.  Like I said above, I'm ok with that as long as the FFLs don't get to gouge on the fee or better yet open NICS up to everyone.


I've always wondered how this would work.  The government doesn't know what guns people already own in most cases (In Texas for sure) - so how would they know if I'm selling my friend a pistol?  They could track all future sales, but the approximately 300 million guns floating around now are untrackable.

I don't mind doing what I do when I buy guns off of Gunbroker - putting an FFL in the middle of the sale for a small fee.  I have nothing to hide and don't mind if they check up on me.
 
2013-01-16 01:49:22 PM
Weaver95:

oh he's saying that it's wrong for government to push people around and tell them how they live their lives.  that government CAN NOT under any circumstances ever be used to push 'hard working 'muricans' around.

basically, Limbaugh is saying he's now pro-choice.


Ha! That won't bite him in a** later.
 
2013-01-16 01:52:38 PM
How are they going to enforce the background checks in private sales?  Isn't that going to be as effective as trying to make prostitution illegal?
 
2013-01-16 01:54:48 PM

bradkanus: Grand_Moff_Joseph: This is really a great move, from a political strategy POV:

-The ECs are immediate, are well within his authority, and are right in line with what the public wants
-Congress now shoulders all the load for passing what amount to very reasonable measures that have broad public support (AWB being the exception)
-If Congress passes all but the AWB, the WH can claim 99% success, and walk out a winner.
-If Congress does nothing, WH gets to blame Congress 100%, and the GOP/NRA eats it again

I agree mostly with what you have here.  The ECs are useless because there's no penalty for the various federal departments involved not doing what the president asked.  The president basically said "do your job."

Congress will not pass anything meaningful.  They will likely not have a vote on anything at all.  The president did himself a favor punting it over to them.  However, the GOP isn't hurt by any of this given that what polls have been reported have major gaps where specifics belong.  When they 52 percent of Americans support "gun control" - we have no idea to what degree of "gun control" they are asking about.  Other polls that used the word "ban" show that a majority of Americans do not want guns banned.  Besides, 2014 isn't a presidential year, so nationwide sentiment is useless.  How people feel district by district is much more important.  Does Senator Pryor in Arkansas survive his race?  Doubtful.

And it doesn't matter if public sentiment is against the NRA - their membership is up.

the good news is that it's over and I get to keep my guns and buy the ones I have my eye on.



Here's one poll's view of the support levels for various things:
s3.amazonaws.com

NRA may have more members today than they did last week, but the sentiment is not in their favor overall, and unlike past shooting events, it hasn't faded away quickly either.

Obama did do himself a favor, granted, but his "punt" is pretty much required.  He can't make any laws - only Congress can.  So, why not use the bully pulpit to prod them to act.  Today, Obama did all he could do on his own.  the rest if up to Congress, and these polls show that the nation is still paying attention to the outcome.

Finally, you were always going to be able to keep the guns you have.  Even if an AWB ban was passed, it would not be retroactive.
 
2013-01-16 01:55:06 PM
 
2013-01-16 01:55:50 PM

minoridiot: How are they going to enforce the background checks in private sales?  Isn't that going to be as effective as trying to make prostitution illegal?


No idea.  Maybe require a title or something?
 
2013-01-16 01:56:52 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Callous: I have read the 23 executive orders and nothing jumped out at me as bad.  I will have to look them over again when I have time to really think about them and see if my opinion changes.  My only concern would be abuse of the mental health system where people are too easily labeled unsuitable.

No to an AWB.   Could live with background checks for private sales if dealers aren't allowed to gouge us for making a phone call.  Or better yet make the NICSaccessible to everyone.  No to magazine bans.

/NRA Life Member

I just don't get the huge hang up about AWs and overly large mags.  Even in the hands of a sane and well trained person, I can't think of a single legitimate need to have either of those. (and "just because" doesn't pass muster, imo)

Still, how about this instead of an AWB:

1.  Each AW and large mag has to be serialized and registered to their specific owner
2.  Said owner must complete extra training and evaluations to obtain a license to own these items.  License includes demonstrating proper use and care, as well as a background check and mental health eval.
3.  License must be renewed every year, with proficiency retests every two years
4.  Fees for #2-3 will be subsidized to lower your out of pocket cost.  Subsidy will be paid for with increased fines on those who do not get licenses, and a 0.2% tax on all ammo sales (up to a max per transaction)
5.  If either the AWs or the mags are used in the commission of a crime, the penalties are doubled.  If this occurs because the items were stolen from you, you are not liable, unless you obviously left them unsecured.


I need want an AR-15 with a 30 magazine because I know there's someone out there who has one.  I'd hate to bring a revolver to a rifle fight.  I also purchased my "assault rife" because I hunt along the border with Mexico (In new mexico and texas) and had some encounters where my Browning Hi Power was useless.  I literally bought mine for protection while out hunting and have since gotten involved in three gun competitions etc et al.  I shoot thousands of rounds through my AR every month at the detriment of paper and steel.

I object to a ban because the vast majority of people with these guns do not hurt anyone.
 
2013-01-16 01:56:59 PM

Callous: Endive Wombat: Gun Nut Here!

So I've looked at the list, and I really cannot get mad at it.  I do take some issue with two aspects:

1.  Doctors asking if there are guns in the home.  Some doctors are going to get yelled at, some will get preachy.  This really has nothing to do with the federal government though...
2.   "Universal Background Checks" - I have no idea what that means or how it differs from the current system.  I do fear that like many things the federal government works on, it will become convoluted, bloated and inefficient

Other than those, I ain't mad

It's basically making all private sales go through an FFL so that a NICS check is done.  Like I said above, I'm ok with that as long as the FFLs don't get to gouge on the fee or better yet open NICS up to everyone.


Here's the thing.  It would be not impossible, but very difficult to stop private sale.  As it stands, in many states guns are not tracked, certainly not on a federal level.  So if this is a round about method in creating some kind of national registration system, I suspect that it will be extremely difficult to track and enforce, I mean hell...there's what... and estimated 300M guns in the US?

If they open the NICS to the public for free, that would be nice.  But if they do not get rid of private sale, the average citizen privately selling a gun has no compelling reason to use it.  Also, I sure as heck am not handing over a ton of personal information to some random dude I met off vaguntrader.com, that is just asking for all kinds of identity theft issues.
 
2013-01-16 01:57:38 PM

minoridiot: How are they going to enforce the background checks in private sales?  Isn't that going to be as effective as trying to make prostitution illegal?


Basically, put a licensing office in the middle of all gun shows to take care of it on the spot.

As for fully private sales, just require a license and proof of sale/purchase to be available to present on demand for any firearm.  If you can't produce it (or provide it in 24 hours), you get arrested, and the gun is seized.
 
2013-01-16 01:58:38 PM

minoridiot: How are they going to enforce the background checks in private sales?  Isn't that going to be as effective as trying to make prostitution illegal?


The only way I can see them doing it is sting operation after sting operation.  A lot of money will be spent for very little gain.  I doubt they are going to get rid of private sale on a national level, its political suicide.
 
2013-01-16 01:59:56 PM
There's really nothing objectionable about these executive orders, and they should have been done a long time ago. Extending background checks to private sales isn't that big of a deal either (using the term 'gun show loophole' demonstrates an extremely under-informed view on the matter).

The congressional proposals are absolute non-starters, though.

/Obama isn't after (most of) our guns
//can't say the same about Cuomo or Feinstein
 
2013-01-16 02:00:03 PM
bradknaus:  Fair point.  So, would you object to the extra steps I outlined above?  IMO, it would ensure that the rest of the folks who have ARs are handling them responsibly, as you seem to be.
 
2013-01-16 02:00:05 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: bradkanus: Grand_Moff_Joseph: This is really a great move, from a political strategy POV:

-The ECs are immediate, are well within his authority, and are right in line with what the public wants
-Congress now shoulders all the load for passing what amount to very reasonable measures that have broad public support (AWB being the exception)
-If Congress passes all but the AWB, the WH can claim 99% success, and walk out a winner.
-If Congress does nothing, WH gets to blame Congress 100%, and the GOP/NRA eats it again

I agree mostly with what you have here.  The ECs are useless because there's no penalty for the various federal departments involved not doing what the president asked.  The president basically said "do your job."

Congress will not pass anything meaningful.  They will likely not have a vote on anything at all.  The president did himself a favor punting it over to them.  However, the GOP isn't hurt by any of this given that what polls have been reported have major gaps where specifics belong.  When they 52 percent of Americans support "gun control" - we have no idea to what degree of "gun control" they are asking about.  Other polls that used the word "ban" show that a majority of Americans do not want guns banned.  Besides, 2014 isn't a presidential year, so nationwide sentiment is useless.  How people feel district by district is much more important.  Does Senator Pryor in Arkansas survive his race?  Doubtful.

And it doesn't matter if public sentiment is against the NRA - their membership is up.

the good news is that it's over and I get to keep my guns and buy the ones I have my eye on.


Here's one poll's view of the support levels for various things:
[s3.amazonaws.com image 298x480]

NRA may have more members today than they did last week, but the sentiment is not in their favor overall, and unlike past shooting events, it hasn't faded away quickly either.

Obama did do himself a favor, granted, but his "punt" is pretty much required.  He can't make ...


Actually - the president could have declared assualt weapons a threat to national security and done away with them right then and there.  He didn't.  I can't speculate as to why, but that option was/is on the table. Past presidents have had no problem suspending our rights in the name of "national security."
 
2013-01-16 02:01:23 PM

Endive Wombat: minoridiot: How are they going to enforce the background checks in private sales?  Isn't that going to be as effective as trying to make prostitution illegal?

The only way I can see them doing it is sting operation after sting operation.  A lot of money will be spent for very little gain.  I doubt they are going to get rid of private sale on a national level, its political suicide.


I'm not going to refute that.  But I would be really interested to see how the NRA proposes we pay for armed guards and/or police in every school.

It's also very cost prohibitive, as some school districts are discovering.
 
2013-01-16 02:01:45 PM

Endive Wombat: minoridiot: How are they going to enforce the background checks in private sales?  Isn't that going to be as effective as trying to make prostitution illegal?

The only way I can see them doing it is sting operation after sting operation.  A lot of money will be spent for very little gain.  I doubt they are going to get rid of private sale on a national level, its political suicide.


wait until we start using the property seizure laws to take guns away from crazy people....that's a whole lotta 'I told you so' coming from the hippies, lemme tell ya.
 
2013-01-16 02:02:53 PM

Fark It: using the term 'gun show loophole' demonstrates an extremely under-informed view on the matter


Its quite purposeful.  It is inflammatory because it implies that people are skirting the law or taking advantage of the law.
 
2013-01-16 02:04:17 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Callous: I have read the 23 executive orders and nothing jumped out at me as bad.  I will have to look them over again when I have time to really think about them and see if my opinion changes.  My only concern would be abuse of the mental health system where people are too easily labeled unsuitable.

No to an AWB.   Could live with background checks for private sales if dealers aren't allowed to gouge us for making a phone call.  Or better yet make the NICSaccessible to everyone.  No to magazine bans.

/NRA Life Member

I just don't get the huge hang up about AWs and overly large standard mags.  Even in the hands of a sane and well trained person, I can't think of a single legitimate need to have either of those. (and "just because" doesn't pass muster, imo)


Because I don't like spending more time filling mags than shooting when I am at the range.

Still, how about this instead of an AWB:

1.  Each AW and large mag has to be serialized and registered to their specific owner
2.  Said owner must complete extra training and evaluations to obtain a license to own these items.  License includes demonstrating proper use and care, as well as a background check and mental health eval.
3.  License must be renewed every year, with proficiency retests every two years
4.  Fees for #2-3 will be subsidized to lower your out of pocket cost.  Subsidy will be paid for with increased fines on those who do not get licenses, and a 0.2% tax on all ammo sales (up to a max per transaction)
5.  If either the AWs or the mags are used in the commission of a crime, the penalties are doubled.  If this occurs because the items were stolen from you, you are not liable, unless you obviously left them unsecured.


How 'bout no.  What you just described would turn a right into a privilege for the rich only.  You really think that if the government institutes a tax on ammo to pay for mental health screenings and gun safety courses it will be used for that?  Just look at the anti smoking campaigns as an example.  They raise taxes on cigarettes to pay for it, put up a couple billboards and the rest goes into the general fund.
 
2013-01-16 02:06:20 PM

Weaver95: Endive Wombat: minoridiot: How are they going to enforce the background checks in private sales?  Isn't that going to be as effective as trying to make prostitution illegal?

The only way I can see them doing it is sting operation after sting operation.  A lot of money will be spent for very little gain.  I doubt they are going to get rid of private sale on a national level, its political suicide.

wait until we start using the property seizure laws to take guns away from crazy people....that's a whole lotta 'I told you so' coming from the hippies, lemme tell ya.


Well, those that are dangerous to themselves and others have no business owning a gun in the first place.  It will be very interesting to see how they go about it, because, yeah...I can see some Police Chief or some Sheriff getting a wild hair up his ass and getting a list of mentally unstable people and doing no knock warrants and unannounced property seizures.
 
2013-01-16 02:07:49 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: bradknaus:  Fair point.  So, would you object to the extra steps I outlined above?  IMO, it would ensure that the rest of the folks who have ARs are handling them responsibly, as you seem to be.


I can't say that your steps would be anything more than annoying and time consuming.  I would still have access, I'd just have some more hurdles to jump through.  It's preferable to a ban!  I'm just not sure we'll always be able to weed out the crazies.  I was astounded when the president said that only 1.4 million people have been kept from buying a gun because they didn't pass the background check.  For some reason I figured the number would be way higher.

What you have going for your suggestion is that it's not much different that what it takes to drive.  We manage to jump through a lot of hurdles in order to drive and other than the DMV sucking, it's okay.  I think that's the best argument for your process.  It also shows that car are as heavily regulated as guns, if not more so and that kills the argument of "if they ban guns, they should ban cars."
 
2013-01-16 02:08:40 PM

Callous: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Callous: I have read the 23 executive orders and nothing jumped out at me as bad.  I will have to look them over again when I have time to really think about them and see if my opinion changes.  My only concern would be abuse of the mental health system where people are too easily labeled unsuitable.

No to an AWB.   Could live with background checks for private sales if dealers aren't allowed to gouge us for making a phone call.  Or better yet make the NICSaccessible to everyone.  No to magazine bans.

/NRA Life Member

I just don't get the huge hang up about AWs and overly large standard mags.  Even in the hands of a sane and well trained person, I can't think of a single legitimate need to have either of those. (and "just because" doesn't pass muster, imo)

Because I don't like spending more time filling mags than shooting when I am at the range.

Still, how about this instead of an AWB:

1.  Each AW and large mag has to be serialized and registered to their specific owner
2.  Said owner must complete extra training and evaluations to obtain a license to own these items.  License includes demonstrating proper use and care, as well as a background check and mental health eval.
3.  License must be renewed every year, with proficiency retests every two years
4.  Fees for #2-3 will be subsidized to lower your out of pocket cost.  Subsidy will be paid for with increased fines on those who do not get licenses, and a 0.2% tax on all ammo sales (up to a max per transaction)
5.  If either the AWs or the mags are used in the commission of a crime, the penalties are doubled.  If this occurs because the items were stolen from you, you are not liable, unless you obviously left them unsecured.

How 'bout no.  What you just described would turn a right into a privilege for the rich only.  You really think that if the government institutes a tax on ammo to pay for mental health screenings and gun safety courses it will be used for that?  Just look at the anti ...


How does that take a right away from you?  We all have the right to drive a car, but we have to take a training course and pay for a license to do so.  And I really don't think a 0.2% tax on that box of shells is going to dent your wallet.
 
2013-01-16 02:09:41 PM

Endive Wombat: Fark It: using the term 'gun show loophole' demonstrates an extremely under-informed view on the matter

Its quite purposeful.  It is inflammatory because it implies that people are skirting the law or taking advantage of the law.


True. Like the nebulous and ever-changing definition of 'assault weapons' and even 'high capacity' magazines.
 
2013-01-16 02:10:31 PM

Weaver95: CapeFearCadaver: Weaver95: huh.  Rush Limbaugh just implied he's pro-choice now.

How?

oh he's saying that it's wrong for government to push people around and tell them how they live their lives.  that government CAN NOT under any circumstances ever be used to push 'hard working 'muricans' around.

basically, Limbaugh is saying he's now pro-choice.


You're assuming he's consistent on when and how he applies this line of logic.  You know as well as I do that there's no consistency to his arguments.  Heck lately he's disagreeing with himself on the same issue as he goes into full stream of consciousness meltdown.
 
2013-01-16 02:12:00 PM

ShawnDoc: Weaver95: CapeFearCadaver: Weaver95: huh.  Rush Limbaugh just implied he's pro-choice now.

How?

oh he's saying that it's wrong for government to push people around and tell them how they live their lives.  that government CAN NOT under any circumstances ever be used to push 'hard working 'muricans' around.

basically, Limbaugh is saying he's now pro-choice.

You're assuming he's consistent on when and how he applies this line of logic.  You know as well as I do that there's no consistency to his arguments.  Heck lately he's disagreeing with himself on the same issue as he goes into full stream of consciousness meltdown.


oh I know...but it's always fun watching the dittoheads try to defend Limbaugh as he spirals down into madness.
 
2013-01-16 02:12:32 PM

Callous: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Callous: I have read the 23 executive orders and nothing jumped out at me as bad.  I will have to look them over again when I have time to really think about them and see if my opinion changes.  My only concern would be abuse of the mental health system where people are too easily labeled unsuitable.

No to an AWB.   Could live with background checks for private sales if dealers aren't allowed to gouge us for making a phone call.  Or better yet make the NICSaccessible to everyone.  No to magazine bans.

/NRA Life Member

I just don't get the huge hang up about AWs and overly large standard mags.  Even in the hands of a sane and well trained person, I can't think of a single legitimate need to have either of those. (and "just because" doesn't pass muster, imo)

Because I don't like spending more time filling mags than shooting when I am at the range.

Still, how about this instead of an AWB:

1.  Each AW and large mag has to be serialized and registered to their specific owner
2.  Said owner must complete extra training and evaluations to obtain a license to own these items.  License includes demonstrating proper use and care, as well as a background check and mental health eval.
3.  License must be renewed every year, with proficiency retests every two years
4.  Fees for #2-3 will be subsidized to lower your out of pocket cost.  Subsidy will be paid for with increased fines on those who do not get licenses, and a 0.2% tax on all ammo sales (up to a max per transaction)
5.  If either the AWs or the mags are used in the commission of a crime, the penalties are doubled.  If this occurs because the items were stolen from you, you are not liable, unless you obviously left them unsecured.

How 'bout no.  What you just described would turn a right into a privilege for the rich only.  You really think that if the government institutes a tax on ammo to pay for mental health screenings and gun safety courses it will be used for that?  Just look at the anti ...


Also, you have to now staff this newly created registration organization  pay salaries, benefits, etc.  You gotta put them somewhere, you have to buy servers, computers, etc.  All this for what?  Most gun owners are not responsible for gun related crimes, so you are unnecessarily burdening those who will never commit a gun crime to begin with.  Registering a magazine does not do a single thing to prevent gun violence.
 
2013-01-16 02:13:09 PM

bradkanus: Grand_Moff_Joseph: bradknaus:  Fair point.  So, would you object to the extra steps I outlined above?  IMO, it would ensure that the rest of the folks who have ARs are handling them responsibly, as you seem to be.

I can't say that your steps would be anything more than annoying and time consuming.  I would still have access, I'd just have some more hurdles to jump through.  It's preferable to a ban!  I'm just not sure we'll always be able to weed out the crazies.  I was astounded when the president said that only 1.4 million people have been kept from buying a gun because they didn't pass the background check.  For some reason I figured the number would be way higher.

What you have going for your suggestion is that it's not much different that what it takes to drive.  We manage to jump through a lot of hurdles in order to drive and other than the DMV sucking, it's okay.  I think that's the best argument for your process.  It also shows that car are as heavily regulated as guns, if not more so and that kills the argument of "if they ban guns, they should ban cars."


That's pretty much the point.  Yeah, it'll be a little more annoying for the 95% of folks like you who play it straight, but it standardizes the entire system, and (hopefully) makes a dent in keeping wholly unqualified people away from the guns.  The upshot, like you said, is that it's not a ban.  It's a bit more headache for a lot more safety, imo.
 
2013-01-16 02:15:50 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: That's pretty much the point.  Yeah, it'll be a little more annoying for the 95% of folks like you who play it straight, but it standardizes the entire system, and (hopefully) makes a dent in keeping wholly unqualified people away from the guns.  The upshot, like you said, is that it's not a ban.  It's a bit more headache for a lot more safety, imo.


How does this address the millions of guns that are on the black market/in the hands of criminals who are not allowed to own a gun?
 
2013-01-16 02:17:12 PM
Wail, gnash your teeth and fight this notion with every misspelled post you hillbillies can muster. Get your arguments out there in front of the public and make your case, you Real Americans.

And then the next massacre will happen and you're farked. It's just a question of time.

Enjoy.
 
2013-01-16 02:17:44 PM

Diogenes: Dubwise: Diogenes: Backdoor maneuver to eliminate the 2nd Amendment!

How so?  can you not buy guns any more?

[a248.e.akamai.net image 322x313]


I don't see any sand on that
 
2013-01-16 02:17:47 PM
I wish he would have also spoke more about mental health. That's as much if not more of a problems than the guns. This is better than nothing though.
 
2013-01-16 02:17:57 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: bradknaus:  Fair point.  So, would you object to the extra steps I outlined above?  IMO, it would ensure that the rest of the folks who have ARs are handling them responsibly, as you seem to be.


No it wouldn't.  It would insure they had been through training to properly handle them but it doesn't mean they will abide by it.  And it still won't stop someone who snaps and shoots up a theater   And it won't stop someone who kills the lawful owner, steals her guns, and shoots up a school.

I have all my guns and ammo in a safe that weighs about 500lbs.  It's bolted to the floor joists and the studs in the wall.  Still with a crowbar mine would take less than 15 minutes to open, likely less than 10.  There are three crowbars, various grinders and saws in my basement capable of prying or cutting that safe open in a few minutes.  You can take steps to mitigate risk but you cannot ensure anything.
 
2013-01-16 02:18:19 PM

Weaver95: oh you should hear Limbaugh today.  He's already said that President Obama's kids shouldn't have guards, and I swear to f*cking god, I thought he was going to actually CRY at one point...the left is mocking the NRA you see.  and these things Obama is proposing have made Limbaugh very angry.


Why do you continue to listen to Limbaugh. Don't you have anything better to do than bate yourself into being outraged?
 
2013-01-16 02:18:25 PM

Endive Wombat: Grand_Moff_Joseph: That's pretty much the point.  Yeah, it'll be a little more annoying for the 95% of folks like you who play it straight, but it standardizes the entire system, and (hopefully) makes a dent in keeping wholly unqualified people away from the guns.  The upshot, like you said, is that it's not a ban.  It's a bit more headache for a lot more safety, imo.

How does this address the millions of guns that are on the black market/in the hands of criminals who are not allowed to own a gun?


It helps to slow the supply of guns through buyers TO the black market. After all, they start somewhere.
 
2013-01-16 02:18:26 PM
Nice to see the paid White House shills are out in force.
 
2013-01-16 02:18:43 PM
So....is it finally time to crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside?
 
2013-01-16 02:18:50 PM
They were outraged before the press conference, and once they're on that train there is no getting off. It's like putting a bag of candy in front of a retard and telling him only one. He's eating all that candy, you uppity normy, and there ain't shiat you can do about it.

Also, he is like Sadaam Hussein because he had children there.
 
2013-01-16 02:19:07 PM
Hey the gun rights people let these loudmouthed lunatics do the talking...You get what you pay for
 
2013-01-16 02:19:26 PM
As a legal gun owner not one of these proposals has any impact on me at all.

Could somebody explain why I'm supposed to be outraged? I was promised jack-booted thugs stealin' mah gerns. This is what I get?

Sheesh. Worst. Tyrant. EVER.
 
2013-01-16 02:19:50 PM

themindiswatching: SphericalTime: I'm sure that the NRA thinks that any changes are unconstitutional, no matter what.  And I'm sure at least 4 of the members of the Supreme Court would agree.

Anything less than being able to buy an RPG from the gas station on the corner without having to show ID Obama being shot out of a cannon into the sun is unconstitutional to them.

 
2013-01-16 02:19:57 PM

Frank N Stein: Weaver95: oh you should hear Limbaugh today.  He's already said that President Obama's kids shouldn't have guards, and I swear to f*cking god, I thought he was going to actually CRY at one point...the left is mocking the NRA you see.  and these things Obama is proposing have made Limbaugh very angry.

Why do you continue to listen to Limbaugh. Don't you have anything better to do than bate yourself into being outraged?


Oh lordy...
 
2013-01-16 02:20:03 PM

WTFDYW: I wish he would have also spoke more about mental health. That's as much if not more of a problems than the guns. This is better than nothing though.


QFT
 
2013-01-16 02:20:30 PM

miss diminutive: So....is it finally time to crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside?


As far as I'm concerned, it's always that time.
 
2013-01-16 02:20:53 PM
Still a lot of tinfoil hats atop the heads of our gun obsessed patriot wannabees.
 
2013-01-16 02:20:56 PM

Endive Wombat: Grand_Moff_Joseph: That's pretty much the point.  Yeah, it'll be a little more annoying for the 95% of folks like you who play it straight, but it standardizes the entire system, and (hopefully) makes a dent in keeping wholly unqualified people away from the guns.  The upshot, like you said, is that it's not a ban.  It's a bit more headache for a lot more safety, imo.

How does this address the millions of guns that are on the black market/in the hands of criminals who are not allowed to own a gun?


The item you referenced won't do much good in the black market area.  That's where (IMO) much stronger action by federal agencies to track and acquire black market weapons needs to come in.  And work closely with state agencies to help setup stings and other operations on local levels to catch the small fry guys first.  Just like the mob busts, if you catch the small guys, they'll likely flip on the next bigger fish to save their own hides.
 
2013-01-16 02:20:56 PM
The White House calls background checks the most efficient and effective way to keep guns away from dangerous individuals.

/Sounds reasonable, except the fact that criminals don't generally worry about getting a guy legally, they just steal them. And since there is no magic crystal ball that tells us when a law abiding gun owner will go bugshiat crazy, we are back to where we were before. Even if a gun owner has legal guns, gets them legally, crazy people steal them and use them. Look at the last mass shooting. The guns all belonged to his mother, and he killed her and stole them to go on his rampage. This law does NOTHING to address this issue. If anything, should make a law that people keep their guns locked up, but that is unenforceable, and useless for home defense.
 
2013-01-16 02:20:58 PM
Where are the reasonable limits to the first amendment? Would they include outlawing all liberal retarded lying speech? Hey, maybe that isn't a bad idea!
 
2013-01-16 02:21:05 PM

Pocket Ninja: Actually, I've learned recently of how many road signs in the US are actually marked on the back with secret signals designed to communicate high-value strike targets and directions to an invading UN army, and on a recent trip into town noticed no less than FOUR new road signs along my regular route. I don't know if all of them had secret signals on the back, because it did not occur to me then to stop and check, but that sudden proliferation along with his new and unprecedented move against the Constitution makes me wonder if perhaps we are approaching some tipping point. I'm going to study it out a little more and see what else I can find; I earnestly suggest that everyone else does likewise.


I always get excited when I see bright green coming up (you) because you never fail to impress me. ha! getting out my tinfoil hat and going out for a walk....to check the backs of signs
 
2013-01-16 02:21:06 PM
You're wrong, subby. It's plain as day why these proposals are unconstitutional:

-Obama proposed them
-Obama is an illegitimate Kenyanesian soshulist userper president
-Therfore they are unconstitutional.

Q.E.D.
 
2013-01-16 02:21:10 PM
Now a lot of Dem Senators need to decide if they want to risk losing their jobs. This will be interesting.
 
2013-01-16 02:21:16 PM

Callous: Grand_Moff_Joseph: bradknaus:  Fair point.  So, would you object to the extra steps I outlined above?  IMO, it would ensure that the rest of the folks who have ARs are handling them responsibly, as you seem to be.

No it wouldn't.  It would insure they had been through training to properly handle them but it doesn't mean they will abide by it.  And it still won't stop someone who snaps and shoots up a theater   And it won't stop someone who kills the lawful owner, steals her guns, and shoots up a school.

I have all my guns and ammo in a safe that weighs about 500lbs.  It's bolted to the floor joists and the studs in the wall.  Still with a crowbar mine would take less than 15 minutes to open, likely less than 10.  There are three crowbars, various grinders and saws in my basement capable of prying or cutting that safe open in a few minutes.  You can take steps to mitigate risk but you cannot ensure anything.


So we should do nothing. Got it.
 
2013-01-16 02:21:22 PM

Aarontology: I can't wait for a brave patriot to fight back against this and blow up a Federal building and murder hundreds of people like they did last time.


Blowing up a day care center is what Jefferson and Washington were all about, get with it man.
 
2013-01-16 02:21:28 PM
Has anyone considered what the next "reasonable and Constitutional expansions to regulation authority" will be?

It will not be long before some other horrendous soul searing outrage against humanity is perpetrated.
Counting; 10, 9,
Whatch gonna do?
 
2013-01-16 02:21:42 PM

Pocket Ninja: Actually, I've learned recently of how many road signs in the US are actually marked on the back with secret signals designed to communicate high-value strike targets and directions to an invading UN army, and on a recent trip into town noticed no less than FOUR new road signs along my regular route. I don't know if all of them had secret signals on the back, because it did not occur to me then to stop and check, but that sudden proliferation along with his new and unprecedented move against the Constitution makes me wonder if perhaps we are approaching some tipping point. I'm going to study it out a little more and see what else I can find; I earnestly suggest that everyone else does likewise.


That's why I've been sabotaging the invasion by moving road signs around. There have been a few fatal accidents from people blowing through intersections missing stop signs at 45 mph, but that is a small price to pay for freedom.
 
2013-01-16 02:21:48 PM
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

Because gun violence is inherently worse than every other type of violence...
 
2013-01-16 02:21:50 PM

Endive Wombat: Grand_Moff_Joseph: That's pretty much the point.  Yeah, it'll be a little more annoying for the 95% of folks like you who play it straight, but it standardizes the entire system, and (hopefully) makes a dent in keeping wholly unqualified people away from the guns.  The upshot, like you said, is that it's not a ban.  It's a bit more headache for a lot more safety, imo.

How does this address the millions of guns that are on the black market/in the hands of criminals who are not allowed to own a gun?


It's better to do nothing at all if you can't stop every gun crime, right?

Link
 
2013-01-16 02:21:58 PM
but my right-wing fb friends all tell me obama used kids a probs like hitler did, so he must be comin after my 2nd penis!!!!
 
2013-01-16 02:22:01 PM

vpb: So there is nothing there that would prevent a new assault weapons ban.  Not even in Scalia's opinion.


Except for the fact that they are very popular arms. They are "the sorts of lawful weapons that they [the people] possessed at home".
 
2013-01-16 02:22:10 PM

Weaver95: CapeFearCadaver: Weaver95: huh.  Rush Limbaugh just implied he's pro-choice now.

How?

oh he's saying that it's wrong for government to push people around and tell them how they live their lives.  that government CAN NOT under any circumstances ever be used to push 'hard working 'muricans' around.

basically, Limbaugh is saying he's now pro-choice.


He has an out, those women who are pro-choice are sluts, not hard working 'muricans.
 
2013-01-16 02:22:35 PM

LasersHurt: Endive Wombat: Grand_Moff_Joseph: That's pretty much the point.  Yeah, it'll be a little more annoying for the 95% of folks like you who play it straight, but it standardizes the entire system, and (hopefully) makes a dent in keeping wholly unqualified people away from the guns.  The upshot, like you said, is that it's not a ban.  It's a bit more headache for a lot more safety, imo.

How does this address the millions of guns that are on the black market/in the hands of criminals who are not allowed to own a gun?

It helps to slow the supply of guns through buyers TO the black market. After all, they start somewhere.


No it doesn't.  There are an estimated 300M guns in the US.  All a determined criminal needs to do is to simply break into someones house and take them.  Which is how a lot of guns get into the black market to begin with.  So this does nothing to address current supply.
 
2013-01-16 02:22:50 PM
Ermahgerd! My Gerns
 
2013-01-16 02:22:51 PM

LasersHurt: Endive Wombat: Grand_Moff_Joseph: That's pretty much the point.  Yeah, it'll be a little more annoying for the 95% of folks like you who play it straight, but it standardizes the entire system, and (hopefully) makes a dent in keeping wholly unqualified people away from the guns.  The upshot, like you said, is that it's not a ban.  It's a bit more headache for a lot more safety, imo.

How does this address the millions of guns that are on the black market/in the hands of criminals who are not allowed to own a gun?

It helps to slow the supply of guns through buyers TO the black market. After all, they start somewhere.


Oh, you mean like the ATF?
 
2013-01-16 02:23:00 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: And since there is no magic crystal ball that tells us when a law abiding gun owner will go bugshiat crazy,


we have ways of telling if someone may be at risk of misusing a firearm, like if they have a previous history of violence (i.e., Final Restraining Order or criminal conviction for a violent felony), or if they've ever been in a mental institution.
 
2013-01-16 02:23:09 PM

bradkanus: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Callous: I have read the 23 executive orders and nothing jumped out at me as bad.  I will have to look them over again when I have time to really think about them and see if my opinion changes.  My only concern would be abuse of the mental health system where people are too easily labeled unsuitable.

No to an AWB.   Could live with background checks for private sales if dealers aren't allowed to gouge us for making a phone call.  Or better yet make the NICSaccessible to everyone.  No to magazine bans.

/NRA Life Member

I just don't get the huge hang up about AWs and overly large mags.  Even in the hands of a sane and well trained person, I can't think of a single legitimate need to have either of those. (and "just because" doesn't pass muster, imo)

Still, how about this instead of an AWB:

1.  Each AW and large mag has to be serialized and registered to their specific owner
2.  Said owner must complete extra training and evaluations to obtain a license to own these items.  License includes demonstrating proper use and care, as well as a background check and mental health eval.
3.  License must be renewed every year, with proficiency retests every two years
4.  Fees for #2-3 will be subsidized to lower your out of pocket cost.  Subsidy will be paid for with increased fines on those who do not get licenses, and a 0.2% tax on all ammo sales (up to a max per transaction)
5.  If either the AWs or the mags are used in the commission of a crime, the penalties are doubled.  If this occurs because the items were stolen from you, you are not liable, unless you obviously left them unsecured.

I need want an AR-15 with a 30 magazine because I know there's someone out there who has one.  I'd hate to bring a revolver to a rifle fight.  I also purchased my "assault rife" because I hunt along the border with Mexico (In new mexico and texas) and had some encounters where my Browning Hi Power was useless.  I literally bought mine for protection while out hunting ...


Damn, I'd hate to be in the middle of the war zone you apparently live in.
 
2013-01-16 02:23:30 PM
Add me to the group surprised by lack 'outrageable' EOs. I get to save my outrage for Congress. Good.
 
2013-01-16 02:23:42 PM
Obama low information crime fighting plan?

Hassle law abiding people as much as possible.

It certainly will affect gangs in the streets of wherever big city shooting at each other, to see to it that Joe Whoever in Anytown USA has to comply with some left wing crazy wish list.

Yeah. Great plan.
 
2013-01-16 02:23:55 PM

Callous: Grand_Moff_Joseph: bradknaus:  Fair point.  So, would you object to the extra steps I outlined above?  IMO, it would ensure that the rest of the folks who have ARs are handling them responsibly, as you seem to be.

No it wouldn't.  It would insure they had been through training to properly handle them but it doesn't mean they will abide by it.  And it still won't stop someone who snaps and shoots up a theater   And it won't stop someone who kills the lawful owner, steals her guns, and shoots up a school.

I have all my guns and ammo in a safe that weighs about 500lbs.  It's bolted to the floor joists and the studs in the wall.  Still with a crowbar mine would take less than 15 minutes to open, likely less than 10.  There are three crowbars, various grinders and saws in my basement capable of prying or cutting that safe open in a few minutes.  You can take steps to mitigate risk but you cannot ensure anything.


You said the key word here - mitigation.  You are right, one can be assured of just about nothing in this world, regardless of subject.  but, if we can take steps to mitigate bad outcomes (without putting insurmountable barriers in front of the mostly civil and law-abiding populace), then we should at least try.
 
2013-01-16 02:23:58 PM

ItchyMcDoogle: Hey the gun rights people let these loudmouthed lunatics do the talking...You get what you pay for


LOL, ain't that the truth. One of the other threads here today links to a Huffpo article which cites Alex Jones and James "I'm going to start killing people" Yeager as the opposing viewpoints. Wonderful ambassadors there.

I can't stop LOL'ing.

/loves guns
//hates the right more
 
2013-01-16 02:23:59 PM

Endive Wombat: 2. "Universal Background Checks" - I have no idea what that means or how it differs from the current system. I do fear that like many things the federal government works on, it will become convoluted, bloated and inefficient


You can already go to an FFL and have them do a transfer for a person to person sale. They charge for it, since they have to enter the firearm into their bound book and may also be passing on any fees that the states who have their own dial in numbers charge.

Depending on the FFL, where I live these cost anywhere from 20 to 40 dollars.

In PA if you're selling a privately owned handgun you have to do this. In every state if you're buying a gun online it has to be shipped to the FFL and go through the check. And if you're buying across state lines - yup, FFL. In the buyer's state for a handgun, any FFL in any state for a long gun.
 
2013-01-16 02:24:01 PM
So far the consensus among the gun owners I know (myself included) is that a new AWB is unlikely to make it through Congress, and the rest of the stuff is entirely reasonable. Shrugs all around.
 
2013-01-16 02:24:11 PM

Pocket Ninja: Actually, I've learned recently of how many road signs in the US are actually marked on the back with secret signals designed to communicate high-value strike targets and directions to an invading UN army, and on a recent trip into town noticed no less than FOUR new road signs along my regular route. I don't know if all of them had secret signals on the back, because it did not occur to me then to stop and check, but that sudden proliferation along with his new and unprecedented move against the Constitution makes me wonder if perhaps we are approaching some tipping point. I'm going to study it out a little more and see what else I can find; I earnestly suggest that everyone else does likewise.


This is useless without research able links
 
2013-01-16 02:24:13 PM
expand background checks on gun buyers to include private sales and is using his executive authority to increase the information available in data banks in the background check system.

Fair enough, this is one of those "everyone agrees it's a good plan" things. Well, except the people exploiting the loopholes to avoid background checks, and the rest of us agree they can fark right off.

Obama is also ordering federal agencies to make "relevant data" available to the federal background check system and to remove barriers that might prevent states from providing information, particularly mental health data, for background checks.

Yeah, much as I'm in favor of HIPAA in general, if you've been ruled mentally incapable of self-control by a licensed physician, that needs to come up if you're buying a firearm, or explosives, or anything else that triggers the automatic background check.

Endive Wombat: How does this address the millions of guns that are on the black market/in the hands of criminals who are not allowed to own a gun?


Um... it doesn't. It just prevents them from being resold to other criminals legally. I guess it would increase the number of charges you'd face as a black-market dealer.

But you do realize that "black market" and "criminal" means the things you're talking about are already illegal, right? How exactly is a change in law or policy going to do anything there? Make them double-secret-illegal? At some point, it's an enforcement issue and you need to stop looking at the high end of the executive and the legislative and start looking at the ATF and the local cops.
 
2013-01-16 02:24:16 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: Sounds reasonable, except the fact that criminals don't generally worry about getting a guy legally, they just steal them


Liar.
 
2013-01-16 02:24:20 PM
This is asinine and won't pass the Congress. Nice try, Fascist twit.
 
2013-01-16 02:24:32 PM

Frank N Stein: Weaver95: oh you should hear Limbaugh today.  He's already said that President Obama's kids shouldn't have guards, and I swear to f*cking god, I thought he was going to actually CRY at one point...the left is mocking the NRA you see.  and these things Obama is proposing have made Limbaugh very angry.

Why do you continue to listen to Limbaugh. Don't you have anything better to do than bate yourself into being outraged?


'outraged'?  more like 'amused'.  I know it's mean of me to say it but...I like watching Limbaugh disintegrate   that's one of the reasons I occasionally tune into his show.  listening to him paint himself into a corner day after day, then watching when he realizes he f*cked up just never gets old, at least not for me anyways.
 
2013-01-16 02:24:33 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: As a legal gun owner not one of these proposals has any impact on me at all.

Could somebody explain why I'm supposed to be outraged? I was promised jack-booted thugs stealin' mah gerns. This is what I get?

Sheesh. Worst. Tyrant. EVER.


The 2012 NDAA that destroyed the 5th, 6th, and 7th amendments are pretty tyranty.
 
2013-01-16 02:24:44 PM

Callous: How 'bout no. What you just described would turn a right into a privilege for the rich only. You really think that if the government institutes a tax on ammo to pay for mental health screenings and gun safety courses it will be used for that? Just look at the anti smoking campaigns as an example. They raise taxes on cigarettes to pay for it, put up a couple billboards and the rest goes into the general fund.


Citation requested for the anti-smoking funding allocation bit.
 
2013-01-16 02:24:48 PM
What is Obama doing?!?!? He was supposed to propose banning and confiscating all guns, while having all gun owners report promptly to forced labor camps.

Come on Obama, you're making a really lame run at becoming the next Hitler.
 
2013-01-16 02:24:53 PM

Fubini: Supporting a renewal of the AWB is silly, but otherwise I liked what I heard. I'm truly impressed that he seems to have targeted actions and reforms that get to the bulk of gun violence rather than focusing just on high-profile shootings like Sandy Hook or Aurora.


themindiswatching: I'm a bit concerned that this may make it less likely for people to get help from therapists, but other than that...


Pretty much these.

Other than the utterly idiotic retreading of the "VIOLENT VIDEOGAEMZ!!!" ground that he's got Biden marching, and the typical "IT'S TEH ASSALT WEPOWNZ!" squawking from the irresponsible crowd, I'm actually pretty pleased with Obama's handling of this issue.  Other than the expansion of the ATF anyway...

The ATF is essentially the TSA, but with tanks.  G-Men are garbage.  Reform that entire bureau and then we'll talk.  Until then, they need to be kept far, far away from everybody.
 
2013-01-16 02:25:03 PM
Gun ownership should be limited to the types of weapons available when the 2nd amendment was written.
 
2013-01-16 02:25:08 PM
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

Will do nothing unless inner city unemployment, single parenthood and high drug/crime areas is addressed; which will not happen...just video games and violent movies.
 
2013-01-16 02:25:10 PM

bradkanus: Actually - the president could have declared assualt weapons a threat to national security and done away with them right then and there.  He didn't.  I can't speculate as to why, but that option was/is on the table. Past presidents have had no problem suspending our rights in the name of "national security."


This is a hell of a political football. I wouldn't want to be the one that fumbles it right now.

I'm glad his response appears to be reasonable. While I only have bolt action rifles and revolvers, I've had no problem with semi autos.
 
2013-01-16 02:25:19 PM

Endive Wombat: Grand_Moff_Joseph: That's pretty much the point.  Yeah, it'll be a little more annoying for the 95% of folks like you who play it straight, but it standardizes the entire system, and (hopefully) makes a dent in keeping wholly unqualified people away from the guns.  The upshot, like you said, is that it's not a ban.  It's a bit more headache for a lot more safety, imo.

How does this address the millions of guns that are on the black market/in the hands of criminals who are not allowed to own a gun?


I said in a different thread that there should be a reduction in the 4th amendment protections for violent felons. Basically from the point that you are release from jail for a violent crime the term "unreasonable" no longer legally applies to you. You forfeited that right when you killed/raped/etc someone.

They can be stopped, detained, and searched at any time. This would take a considerable amount of drugs and guns off the street.
 
2013-01-16 02:25:20 PM

Endive Wombat: How does this address the millions of guns that are on the black market/in the hands of criminals who are not allowed to own a gun?


Why don't you ask the NRA how they'd like to address it? After all, they're the self-proclaimed experts on guns. They're the guys who've ensured, all these years, that criminals have easy access to whatever kinds of weapons they want.

Instead, we get complaints about how the government makes it way too hard for us to shoot the President.
 
2013-01-16 02:25:23 PM

Fubini: Supporting a renewal of the AWB is silly, but otherwise I liked what I heard. I'm truly impressed that he seems to have targeted actions and reforms that get to the bulk of gun violence rather than focusing just on high-profile shootings like Sandy Hook or Aurora.


This.
 
2013-01-16 02:25:25 PM

Fark It: There's really nothing objectionable about these executive orders, and they should have been done a long time ago. Extending background checks to private sales isn't that big of a deal either (using the term 'gun show loophole' demonstrates an extremely under-informed view on the matter).

The congressional proposals are absolute non-starters, though.

/Obama isn't after (most of) our guns
//can't say the same about Cuomo or Feinstein


This^^^^^^^^^^^
 
2013-01-16 02:25:27 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Obama wants universal background checks for guns. Would it work?


Yup.

It's the sane thing to do.
 
2013-01-16 02:25:30 PM
He actually proposed 1,000 more officers for schools and NRA wingnuts are still furious. I don't get it. I heard nothing to be outragey about in his speech.
 
KIA
2013-01-16 02:25:39 PM
From a different site:

24. Ask Eric Holder to stop giving machine guns to drug cartels in Mexico.
 
2013-01-16 02:25:54 PM
The outrage will not be over until Fartbama is impeached, convicted, frogmarched out of the White House in chains, and executed for Crimes Against Humanity, and his entire administration likewise removed from office, all laws passed under his watch repealed, the Democrat Party banned and all Liberals shot. Then and only then, with a Christian Republican at the helm, can the healing of our Nation begin.
 
2013-01-16 02:25:55 PM

Insatiable Jesus: Aarontology: I can't wait for a brave patriot to fight back against this and blow up a Federal building and murder hundreds of people like they did last time.

Blowing up a day care center is what Jefferson and Washington were all about, get with it man.


Recall Patrick Henry's moving speech:

"Give me my narrow version of what I personally consider to be liberty, or I'll give your children death!"
 
2013-01-16 02:26:25 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: Fubini: Supporting a renewal of the AWB is silly, but otherwise I liked what I heard. I'm truly impressed that he seems to have targeted actions and reforms that get to the bulk of gun violence rather than focusing just on high-profile shootings like Sandy Hook or Aurora.

This.


Well, yeah, but if he REALLY wanted to make gun violence drop like a stone he'd have to address out nation's drug laws. But that ain't happening in my lifetime or yours.
 
2013-01-16 02:26:30 PM
Insatiable Jesus
Nice to see you are patiently waiting for more people to die
so you can claim the intellectual high ground
you sir, are a tool

While I can appreciate a knee jerk reaction to an incident
-it's what americans do-
I fail to see how these new edicts would have stopped any of the recent shootings
so
is the president pandering and placating
are we now safer than yesterday
OR
is this one of a chain of political moves designed to eventually remove firearms from the citizenry
 
2013-01-16 02:26:32 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: 1. Each AW and large mag has to be serialized and registered to their specific owner
2. Said owner must complete extra training and evaluations to obtain a license to own these items. License includes demonstrating proper use and care, as well as a background check and mental health eval.
3. License must be renewed every year, with proficiency retests every two years
4. Fees for #2-3 will be subsidized to lower your out of pocket cost. Subsidy will be paid for with increased fines on those who do not get licenses, and a 0.2% tax on all ammo sales (up to a max per transaction)
5. If either the AWs or the mags are used in the commission of a crime, the penalties are doubled. If this occurs because the items were stolen from you, you are not liable, unless you obviously left them unsecured.


or...

1. Recognize that semi-automatic rifles with certain cosmetic features are not, in fact, "assault weapons", and treat them like any other semi-automatic rifle.
 
2013-01-16 02:26:37 PM

aegean: Where are the reasonable limits to the first amendment? Would they include outlawing all liberal retarded lying speech? Hey, maybe that isn't a bad idea!


Yelling fire in a crowded theater, libel, slander, threats, etc. These are pretty well established...
 
2013-01-16 02:26:44 PM
So they want to require all firearms be sold through FFLs. That would be the same as requiring you to sell all cars through dealersships. Im pretty sure it violates the Sherman antitrust act and the interstate commerce clause whether it violates the 2nd ammend or not.
 
2013-01-16 02:26:52 PM
It's fitting these two scumbags are using children as props for their announcement, given how they exploited dead first graders to get to this point in the first place. Absolute scum of the earth here. This is who you are liberals. Take a long look.
 
2013-01-16 02:27:09 PM

whizbangthedirtfarmer: Damn, I'd hate to be in the middle of the war zone you apparently live in.


These people live in their minds more than they do the real world. Minds full of homicidal ideation and creating fantasy Superman scenarios they hope to live out someday.
 
2013-01-16 02:27:22 PM

Vodka Zombie: Why is that fat bastard still waddling around?!?


Because it's still illegal to kill people you don't agree with. Fartb0ng0 hasn't become emperor yet, so you'll just have to wait.
 
2013-01-16 02:27:25 PM
This is not a pro/anti 2nd amendment bookmark.
 
2013-01-16 02:27:35 PM
Why would my doctor ask me if I had guns in the house?
 
2013-01-16 02:27:36 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: How does that take a right away from you?  We all have the right to drive a car, but we have to take a training course and pay for a license to do so.  And I really don't think a 0.2% tax on that box of shells is going to dent your wallet.


Not on public roads.  It's a privilege.  On private land you can drive anyway that you want, that's why you don't see licence plates and government imposed speed limits in Nascar.  But if it's on the street you have to be licensed, insured, vehicle has to be registered, follow speed limits, etc.

It's not the dent in my wallet, it's that they won't use the money for what it's supposed to be for.  Just look at Massachusetts' temporary sales tax, cigarette taxes, and the Mass Pike tolls.  And I don't like putting requirements on constitutional rights.  We don't require permits and language courses before someone is allowed to speak in a vain attempt to prevent people from shouting FIRE in a theater.  We don't require writers to get permits and take mandatory courses before they can write a book.  We don't require people to get permits before they go to church.

If you need a permission slip from the government to exercise a right, it's not a right.
 
2013-01-16 02:27:39 PM
I can save the CDC the time and money involved in extensive gun violence research:

Most gun crimes are committed by black and Hispanic drug-dealing gang-members.

Or is this the part of the "national discussion" we're not supposed to mention?
 
2013-01-16 02:27:39 PM

Endive Wombat: LasersHurt: Endive Wombat: Grand_Moff_Joseph: That's pretty much the point.  Yeah, it'll be a little more annoying for the 95% of folks like you who play it straight, but it standardizes the entire system, and (hopefully) makes a dent in keeping wholly unqualified people away from the guns.  The upshot, like you said, is that it's not a ban.  It's a bit more headache for a lot more safety, imo.

How does this address the millions of guns that are on the black market/in the hands of criminals who are not allowed to own a gun?

It helps to slow the supply of guns through buyers TO the black market. After all, they start somewhere.

No it doesn't.  There are an estimated 300M guns in the US.  All a determined criminal needs to do is to simply break into someones house and take them.  Which is how a lot of guns get into the black market to begin with.  So this does nothing to address current supply.



Yes, there are about 300M guns in the US, and that number continues to grow because of our insane gun culture promoted by the NRA. I love how the NRA creates a problem, then uses that problem as a basis for its arguments against gun control.

It's like "the assault weapons ban was ineffective because it had a stupid definition of assault weapon." Um... ok. Isn't the answer to strengthen the law to make it effective? Isn't "no law whatsoever" the most ineffective law imaginable?
 
2013-01-16 02:27:44 PM

kombat_unit: Vegan Meat Popsicle: As a legal gun owner not one of these proposals has any impact on me at all.

Could somebody explain why I'm supposed to be outraged? I was promised jack-booted thugs stealin' mah gerns. This is what I get?

Sheesh. Worst. Tyrant. EVER.

The 2012 NDAA that destroyed the 5th, 6th, and 7th amendments are pretty tyranty.


Thank you for including the year. It's nice to see someone who doesn't think there was just the one.

/pet peeve
 
2013-01-16 02:27:45 PM

SlothB77: That was a lot more tempered than I was expecting told to expect.  Almost all of it pretty negligible.


fixed.
 
2013-01-16 02:27:52 PM

rufus-t-firefly: Endive Wombat: Grand_Moff_Joseph: That's pretty much the point.  Yeah, it'll be a little more annoying for the 95% of folks like you who play it straight, but it standardizes the entire system, and (hopefully) makes a dent in keeping wholly unqualified people away from the guns.  The upshot, like you said, is that it's not a ban.  It's a bit more headache for a lot more safety, imo.

How does this address the millions of guns that are on the black market/in the hands of criminals who are not allowed to own a gun?

It's better to do nothing at all if you can't stop every gun crime, right?

Link


That's not what I was getting at.  Look at Sandy Hook.  Legal gun owner was killed by her son who stole the guns from her and then shot up a school.  No amount of legislation, short of outright confiscation of all guns in the US (which will never happen) would have prevented this horrible tragedy.

I am not saying that some form of gun control is bad, in fact, it is smart.  But doing stuff like yearly re-registration of a mag and gun is just silly and does nothing to stop a crazy person from shooting up a classroom of 7 year olds.
 
2013-01-16 02:27:58 PM

WhoopAssWayne: It's fitting these two scumbags are using children as props for their announcement, given how they exploited dead first graders to get to this point in the first place. Absolute scum of the earth here. This is who you are liberals. Take a long look.


Ok, done looking. Now what?
 
2013-01-16 02:28:16 PM
Liberals want more government control, less individual rights.

News at 11:00!
 
2013-01-16 02:28:18 PM

Jim_Callahan: Fair enough, this is one of those "everyone agrees it's a good plan" things.


Except it's not. The immensely influential NRA and its 4 million members have successfully fought tooth and nail to keep that loophole open repeatedly.

Jim_Callahan: Yeah, much as I'm in favor of HIPAA in general, if you've been ruled mentally incapable of self-control by a licensed physician, that needs to come up if you're buying a firearm, or explosives, or anything else that triggers the automatic background check.


Again, not something everyone agrees on. The right-wing derp-o-sphere in particular is lit up like a burning Christmas tree right now with outrage over this suggestion.

This is why I could so infuriated with the gun nuts in these damn threads. I'm sick of discussing this issue with a huge group of people who have decided that anything at all is too much and that it's just an outrage that we're even talking about guns in the context of gun violence. It's insane. They're insane.
 
2013-01-16 02:28:19 PM

Endive Wombat: Grand_Moff_Joseph: That's pretty much the point.  Yeah, it'll be a little more annoying for the 95% of folks like you who play it straight, but it standardizes the entire system, and (hopefully) makes a dent in keeping wholly unqualified people away from the guns.  The upshot, like you said, is that it's not a ban.  It's a bit more headache for a lot more safety, imo.

How does this address the millions of guns that are on the black market/in the hands of criminals who are not allowed to own a gun?


So once again we're at "this won't solve everything, so we should do nothing".  Right?

I have zero problem with any of the Executive Orders.  As I said in a redlit thread, I oppose the AWB because it's a pretend cure for gun violence, and because actual research on the last one showed that it caused no change in violence, with "assault weapons" or otherwise.  And as for hi capacity magazines...well, I'm willing to give 'em that in exchange for the AWB.  There will still be all the existing large magazines on the secondary market if you REALLY think you need one, and as others have said before, if I ever get into a situation where I need more than ten rounds in a mag, I probably made a huge error in getting into that situation in the first place.
 
2013-01-16 02:28:33 PM
DEY TERK ER GUNZ

ssl.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-16 02:29:17 PM

Pants full of macaroni!!: The outrage will not be over until Fartbama is impeached, convicted, frogmarched out of the White House in chains, and executed for Crimes Against Humanity, and his entire administration likewise removed from office, all laws passed under his watch repealed, the Democrat Party banned and all Liberals shot. Then and only then, with a Christian Republican at the helm, can the healing of our Nation begin.


AAAND this is why you won't get what you want.
 
2013-01-16 02:29:25 PM

Phinn: I can save the CDC the time and money involved in extensive gun violence research:

Most gun crimes are committed by black and Hispanic drug-dealing gang-members.

Or is this the part of the "national discussion" we're not supposed to mention?


So you're saying we need to expand restrictions on hand guns too? Let's get on it.
 
2013-01-16 02:29:31 PM
Huh, so he did propose some funds for the armed guards, according to this article.

Overall, it appears to be a "little of everything" approach. I don't know how much this will do, or even if anything will pass Congress. I expect two things to happen:

1) Growing chorus of impeachment calls due to the executive orders
2) Reopening of the F&F issue during the confirmation of the ATF director Obama will push for.

Best of luck getting anything done there folks.
 
2013-01-16 02:29:35 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: As a legal gun owner not one of these proposals has any impact on me at all.

Could somebody explain why I'm supposed to be outraged? I was promised jack-booted thugs stealin' mah gerns. This is what I get?

Sheesh. Worst. Tyrant. EVER.


Don't be fooled, he's just doing a tyranty rope-a-dope. He'll wait till we get all outraged out and then come back with a flurry of re-education camps and implanted tracking devices.
 
2013-01-16 02:29:43 PM
content.newsinc.com Biatch stole my election!
/hot as Biden's tires
 
2013-01-16 02:29:53 PM

Sybarite: What? Cancel my outrage? Did you say "cancel my outrage"? No outrage is cancelled until I decide it is! Was outrage cancelled when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!


Germans?
 
2013-01-16 02:29:58 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Gun ownership should be limited to the types of weapons available when the 2nd amendment was written.


Ditto for 1st amendment and all forms of communication.

Only public speaking and quill/parchment for you!
 
2013-01-16 02:29:59 PM

barneyfifesbullet: Obama low information crime fighting plan?

Hassle law abiding people as much as possible.

It certainly will affect gangs in the streets of wherever big city shooting at each other, to see to it that Joe Whoever in Anytown USA has to comply with some left wing crazy wish list.

Yeah. Great plan.


Um... I take it that you don't understand even slightly what a background check does, right?

All the things that come up on a background check already make owning a gun illegal, all the background check does is tell the person selling to you whether you're trying to commit a crime. It's about as much of a "hassle" for a "crazy wish list" as the cashier at the grocery store asking to see a photo ID when you pay with a check or credit card.
 
2013-01-16 02:30:14 PM

LasersHurt: The sheer reasonability of the man. What unmitigated temperance.


Presidents have been impeached for lesser infractions!
 
2013-01-16 02:30:14 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Callous: Grand_Moff_Joseph: bradknaus:  Fair point.  So, would you object to the extra steps I outlined above?  IMO, it would ensure that the rest of the folks who have ARs are handling them responsibly, as you seem to be.

No it wouldn't.  It would insure they had been through training to properly handle them but it doesn't mean they will abide by it.  And it still won't stop someone who snaps and shoots up a theater   And it won't stop someone who kills the lawful owner, steals her guns, and shoots up a school.

I have all my guns and ammo in a safe that weighs about 500lbs.  It's bolted to the floor joists and the studs in the wall.  Still with a crowbar mine would take less than 15 minutes to open, likely less than 10.  There are three crowbars, various grinders and saws in my basement capable of prying or cutting that safe open in a few minutes.  You can take steps to mitigate risk but you cannot ensure anything.

You said the key word here - mitigation.  You are right, one can be assured of just about nothing in this world, regardless of subject.  but, if we can take steps to mitigate bad outcomes (without putting insurmountable barriers in front of the mostly civil and law-abiding populace), then we should at least try.


Agreed all to Hell.
But your problem IS NOT LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.
Don't accept this pandering crap from your politicians.
Demand something EFFECTIVE be done, not some morer BS.
 
2013-01-16 02:30:16 PM

deanis: He actually proposed 1,000 more officers for schools and NRA wingnuts are still furious. I don't get it. I heard nothing to be outragey about in his speech.


They have to be angry. If they stop being angry, they will cease to exist
 
2013-01-16 02:30:22 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Gun ownership should be limited to the types of weapons available when the 2nd amendment was written.


Freedom of speech should be limited to the types of media available when the 1st amendment was written.
 
2013-01-16 02:30:25 PM

vpb: Therefore, weapons that are most useful in military service - M-16 rifles and weapons like it - are also not provided with 2nd Amendment protection.

So there is nothing there that would prevent a new assault weapons ban. Not even in Scalia's opinion.


Although not much commented at the time, that's a complete refutation of Miller. Indeed, SCOTUS itself seems not to have realized it, as they refer to Miller elsewhere.
 
2013-01-16 02:30:27 PM
Pretty sure that if I can't own a Patriot missile, then somebody's 'fringing on my rights.
 
2013-01-16 02:30:27 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: My God.

This is how democracy dies... with enhanced background checks and enforcement of existing laws.


And black guys in the White House!!1!
 
2013-01-16 02:30:28 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: bradkanus: Grand_Moff_Joseph: This is really a great move, from a political strategy POV:

-The ECs are immediate, are well within his authority, and are right in line with what the public wants
-Congress now shoulders all the load for passing what amount to very reasonable measures that have broad public support (AWB being the exception)
-If Congress passes all but the AWB, the WH can claim 99% success, and walk out a winner.
-If Congress does nothing, WH gets to blame Congress 100%, and the GOP/NRA eats it again

I agree mostly with what you have here.  The ECs are useless because there's no penalty for the various federal departments involved not doing what the president asked.  The president basically said "do your job."

Congress will not pass anything meaningful.  They will likely not have a vote on anything at all.  The president did himself a favor punting it over to them.  However, the GOP isn't hurt by any of this given that what polls have been reported have major gaps where specifics belong.  When they 52 percent of Americans support "gun control" - we have no idea to what degree of "gun control" they are asking about.  Other polls that used the word "ban" show that a majority of Americans do not want guns banned.  Besides, 2014 isn't a presidential year, so nationwide sentiment is useless.  How people feel district by district is much more important.  Does Senator Pryor in Arkansas survive his race?  Doubtful.

And it doesn't matter if public sentiment is against the NRA - their membership is up.

the good news is that it's over and I get to keep my guns and buy the ones I have my eye on.


Here's one poll's view of the support levels for various things:
[s3.amazonaws.com image 298x480]

NRA may have more members today than they did last week, but the sentiment is not in their favor overall, and unlike past shooting events, it hasn't faded away quickly either.

Obama did do himself a favor, granted, but his "punt" is pretty much required.  He can't make ...


So 58% want a ban on most guns?
 
2013-01-16 02:30:37 PM
Is it Constitutional to infringe on citizens' right to keep and bear arms? Even if there wasn't a 2nd Amendment, it wouldn't be legal for the feds to regulate guns because it would be a matter for the states, as per the 10th Amendment.
 
2013-01-16 02:30:37 PM

susansto-helit: Callous: Grand_Moff_Joseph: bradknaus:  Fair point.  So, would you object to the extra steps I outlined above?  IMO, it would ensure that the rest of the folks who have ARs are handling them responsibly, as you seem to be.

No it wouldn't.  It would insure they had been through training to properly handle them but it doesn't mean they will abide by it.  And it still won't stop someone who snaps and shoots up a theater   And it won't stop someone who kills the lawful owner, steals her guns, and shoots up a school.

I have all my guns and ammo in a safe that weighs about 500lbs.  It's bolted to the floor joists and the studs in the wall.  Still with a crowbar mine would take less than 15 minutes to open, likely less than 10.  There are three crowbars, various grinders and saws in my basement capable of prying or cutting that safe open in a few minutes.  You can take steps to mitigate risk but you cannot ensure anything.

So we should do nothing. Got it.


The courses should be offered for free, but not required.
 
2013-01-16 02:30:44 PM

kombat_unit: The 2012 NDAA that destroyed the 5th, 6th, and 7th amendments are pretty tyranty.


Yea, but that's just typical, run-of-the-mill legal tyranny. Bush did it, Clinton did it... it's old hat.

I was promised armed thugs in the streets and door-to-door home invasions and blackjacks and dogs and tear gas and tank blockades and FEMA camps....

This Obama... he's just such a huge letdown, y'know?
 
2013-01-16 02:30:48 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: This is why I could so infuriated with the gun nuts in these damn threads. I'm sick of discussing this issue with a huge group of people who have decided that anything at all is too much and that it's just an outrage that we're even talking about guns in the context of gun violence. It's insane. They're insane.


They're liars more than anything.
 
2013-01-16 02:31:03 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: As for fully private sales, just require a license and proof of sale/purchase to be available to present on demand for any firearm. If you can't produce it (or provide it in 24 hours), you get arrested, and the gun is seized.


I don't have a proof of sale for any of my guns, all of which I've purchased over 10 years ago.  So I should go to jail?
 
2013-01-16 02:31:28 PM
Paranoid bedshiatters were wrong AGAIN?

Well, I'm sure the next thing will REALLY push us over the edge into oblivion.
 
2013-01-16 02:31:28 PM

CADMonkey79: Why would my doctor ask me if I had guns in the house?


Mine had it on a check-in questionnaire a couple years ago. I asked why, and he told me it was so they could offer literature on keeping them out of the hands of infants and children.
 
2013-01-16 02:31:29 PM

Chummer45: Endive Wombat: LasersHurt: Endive Wombat: Grand_Moff_Joseph: That's pretty much the point.  Yeah, it'll be a little more annoying for the 95% of folks like you who play it straight, but it standardizes the entire system, and (hopefully) makes a dent in keeping wholly unqualified people away from the guns.  The upshot, like you said, is that it's not a ban.  It's a bit more headache for a lot more safety, imo.

How does this address the millions of guns that are on the black market/in the hands of criminals who are not allowed to own a gun?

It helps to slow the supply of guns through buyers TO the black market. After all, they start somewhere.

No it doesn't.  There are an estimated 300M guns in the US.  All a determined criminal needs to do is to simply break into someones house and take them.  Which is how a lot of guns get into the black market to begin with.  So this does nothing to address current supply.


Yes, there are about 300M guns in the US, and that number continues to grow because of our insane gun culture promoted by the NRA. I love how the NRA creates a problem, then uses that problem as a basis for its arguments against gun control.

It's like "the assault weapons ban was ineffective because it had a stupid definition of assault weapon." Um... ok. Isn't the answer to strengthen the law to make it effective? Isn't "no law whatsoever" the most ineffective law imaginable?


I like to think that they were upset because the ABW was not a fancy acronym.
 
2013-01-16 02:31:39 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: As a staunch supporter of gun rights... a believer in the 2nd Amendment... a hater of our expanding Fed. Gov. and the over-reaching of the Executive Branch... I'm okay with this.


Yeah, me too. I don't forsee selling any of my guns, but to make the background check available so I have at least some assurance I wouldn't be selling them to an obvious nutbag is a nice touch. The AW ban is stupid pandering, though.
 
2013-01-16 02:31:51 PM

CADMonkey79: Why would my doctor ask me if I had guns in the house?


So your insurance could increase your premiums and deductable.
 
2013-01-16 02:31:59 PM
What's wrong with a little regulation? Even my bowels movements are regulated. 7:30 am every morning. -- like clockwork.
 
2013-01-16 02:32:01 PM

Endive Wombat: LasersHurt: Endive Wombat: Grand_Moff_Joseph: That's pretty much the point.  Yeah, it'll be a little more annoying for the 95% of folks like you who play it straight, but it standardizes the entire system, and (hopefully) makes a dent in keeping wholly unqualified people away from the guns.  The upshot, like you said, is that it's not a ban.  It's a bit more headache for a lot more safety, imo.

How does this address the millions of guns that are on the black market/in the hands of criminals who are not allowed to own a gun?

It helps to slow the supply of guns through buyers TO the black market. After all, they start somewhere.

No it doesn't.  There are an estimated 300M guns in the US.  All a determined criminal needs to do is to simply break into someones house and take them.  Which is how a lot of guns get into the black market to begin with.  So this does nothing to address current supply.


You contend that the majority of illegal guns ALL come from being stolen? By irresponsible gun owners who just let them lie around?
 
2013-01-16 02:32:03 PM
Love how he went out there with a bunch of little kids. After he signed, he should have turned and said to the kids, 'I just added another $500M to my $16T you'll have to pay back, but we cool right?'
 
2013-01-16 02:32:26 PM
Sold high, waiting for price to go back down to buy low...

If they threaten to ban washing machines I will be on top of that one too.
 
2013-01-16 02:32:44 PM

RidgeRunner5: Ditto for 1st amendment and all forms of communication.

Only public speaking and quill/parchment for you!


Because having more effective ways of communicating is the same as having more effective ways of killing.
 
2013-01-16 02:32:53 PM
There's really nothing for anyone to be angry about in the EO's.
 
2013-01-16 02:33:01 PM
I wonder if Dear Ruler will go take all but 10 rounds out of the magazines of the men guarding his children's school.
 
2013-01-16 02:33:04 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: How does that take a right away from you? We all have the right to drive a car, but we have to take a training course and pay for a license to do so.


Two problems with your analogy. You don't have to conform to any requirements to own a car and use it on private property; you only need a driver's license to drive on public roads. Furthermore, doing so is legally a "privilege", not a right, and your license can be yanked for any number of increasingly minor reasons.
 
2013-01-16 02:33:10 PM

natas6.0: Insatiable Jesus
Nice to see you are patiently waiting for more people to die
so you can claim the intellectual high ground
you sir, are a tool

While I can appreciate a knee jerk reaction to an incident
-it's what americans do-
I fail to see how these new edicts would have stopped any of the recent shootings
so
is the president pandering and placating
are we now safer than yesterday
OR
is this one of a chain of political moves designed to eventually remove firearms from the citizenry


WTF is that? It reads like Dylan Thomas meets Joe the Plumber. Punctuation motherfarker, do you speak it?

As far as me "waiting" for more people to die, the implication being that I am HOPING for people to die is cute, that's so cute. I'm sure you can give us all a reason why the massacres will suddenly stop now that you need them to. You had your chance after any one of these incidents to act like "responsible" gun owners and decent citizens by seeking ANY reasonable measure. Instead you painted yourself into a corner and made yourselves to look all the world like deranged gun-fetishists. Hoisted on your own petards, retards.
 
2013-01-16 02:33:18 PM

Galileo's Daughter: Germans?


Forget it. He's rolling.
 
2013-01-16 02:33:30 PM
An Executive Order that enhanced background checks, closes loopholes and tries to have the States share their background database, truly Obama is the worlds greatest monster.
 
2013-01-16 02:33:39 PM

Koalaesq: Well, yeah, but if he REALLY wanted to make gun violence drop like a stone he'd have to address out nation's drug laws. But that ain't happening in my lifetime or yours.


This.
 
2013-01-16 02:33:54 PM
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

Bye HIPAA, was nice knowing you. So much for patients rights.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

A blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment. Essentially, if I get pulled over while carrying a gun, the police officer gets to keep it for six to eight weeks? Don't think so.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

You know... The NRA has been doing that for more than 100 years. Maybe if you would actually talk to them instead of vilify them at every turn...

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

Yeah, okay sure. Wait, what kind of criminal investigations? If I get busted for jaywalking does that mean the FBI has to run my gun? Hello Fourth Amendment again. The firearm has to be pertinent to the crime to be searched and seized.

Bah, not like the Constitution stood a chance..

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

Wait... I though that police officers in schools wasn't a viable answer? Hang on... Did Obama just implement the NRAs suggestion? Obama must be the greatest troll ever. Not only does he get the whole left riled up against the NRA's "stupid" suggestion, he goes and implements it. LOL
 
2013-01-16 02:34:16 PM
This far and away the least traumatic option. Seizeing weapons already owned would be a nightmare.

minoridiot: Grand_Moff_Joseph: As for fully private sales, just require a license and proof of sale/purchase to be available to present on demand for any firearm. If you can't produce it (or provide it in 24 hours), you get arrested, and the gun is seized.

I don't have a proof of sale for any of my guns, all of which I've purchased over 10 years ago.  So I should go to jail?


I inherited most of my guns, so also no bill of sale.. BTW, we both need to buy more and newer guns.
 
2013-01-16 02:34:22 PM
AWB and high cap ban will never pass. Dems in gun states are not going to risk losing their seat over this.

The universal background check has a chance.
 
2013-01-16 02:34:35 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: As for fully private sales, just require a license and proof of sale/purchase to be available to present on demand for any firearm. If you can't produce it (or provide it in 24 hours), you get arrested, and the gun is seized.


The burden of proof is on the government that a private weapon is illegal.
 
2013-01-16 02:34:56 PM

Pocket Ninja: Actually, I've learned recently of how many road signs in the US are actually marked on the back with secret signals designed to communicate high-value strike targets and directions to an invading UN army, and on a recent trip into town noticed no less than FOUR new road signs along my regular route. I don't know if all of them had secret signals on the back, because it did not occur to me then to stop and check, but that sudden proliferation along with his new and unprecedented move against the Constitution makes me wonder if perhaps we are approaching some tipping point. I'm going to study it out a little more and see what else I can find; I earnestly suggest that everyone else does likewise.


You just unjumped the shark and became funny again. Well done, good sir.
 
2013-01-16 02:35:04 PM
Sandy Hook truly is the 9/11 of gun control.

We are going to end up with PATRIOT Act level effectiveness, costs and trampling of rights.

/never underestimate the political class
 
2013-01-16 02:35:14 PM

vpb: The overriding the second amendment stuff is just irresponsible people stirring up trouble with the lunatic fringe.


The GOP calls that "speaking to our base."
 
2013-01-16 02:35:24 PM

Noam Chimpsky: Is it Constitutional to infringe on citizens' right to keep and bear arms? Even if there wasn't a 2nd Amendment, it wouldn't be legal for the feds to regulate guns because it would be a matter for the states, as per the 10th Amendment.


Aw, you're cute. You think the delegation construction of the Constitution has the slightest connection to what the Supreme Court will let the feds get away with.
 
2013-01-16 02:35:27 PM

Callous: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Callous: I have read the 23 executive orders and nothing jumped out at me as bad.  I will have to look them over again when I have time to really think about them and see if my opinion changes.  My only concern would be abuse of the mental health system where people are too easily labeled unsuitable.

No to an AWB.   Could live with background checks for private sales if dealers aren't allowed to gouge us for making a phone call.  Or better yet make the NICSaccessible to everyone.  No to magazine bans.

/NRA Life Member

I just don't get the huge hang up about AWs and overly large standard mags.  Even in the hands of a sane and well trained person, I can't think of a single legitimate need to have either of those. (and "just because" doesn't pass muster, imo)

Because I don't like spending more time filling mags than shooting when I am at the range.


I was talking to my husband about this last night... he's somewhat to the right but mostly politically apathetic. He thought that making higher capacity mags legal only at (and possibly sold at) gun ranges would be a good compromise. There's something to be said for letting the enthusiasts have their fun, but in real life, if you can't shoot a deer with only a few shots, you should probably not be shooting at the deer at all. I couldn't find a whole lot of fault with that logic.
 
2013-01-16 02:35:33 PM

minoridiot: Grand_Moff_Joseph: As for fully private sales, just require a license and proof of sale/purchase to be available to present on demand for any firearm. If you can't produce it (or provide it in 24 hours), you get arrested, and the gun is seized.

I don't have a proof of sale for any of my guns, all of which I've purchased over 10 years ago.  So I should go to jail?


those are the best weapons to own. just don't go looking for owner's manuals online from your own computer. pay cash for ammo.
 
2013-01-16 02:35:45 PM
The outrage wasn't based on facts in the first place.
 
2013-01-16 02:35:49 PM

LasersHurt: You contend that the majority of illegal guns ALL come from being stolen? By irresponsible gun owners who just let them lie around?


No, I do not have exact stats.  But some of the guns on the black market are stolen.  It matters not where I leave my guns in my house.  B&E is already illegal.  Theft is already illegal.  Me leaving my gun in my night stand is hardly irresponsible.
 
2013-01-16 02:35:52 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Phinn: I can save the CDC the time and money involved in extensive gun violence research:

Most gun crimes are committed by black and Hispanic drug-dealing gang-members.

Or is this the part of the "national discussion" we're not supposed to mention?

So you're saying we need to expand restrictions on hand guns too? Let's get on it.


No, it means that law-abiding people need handguns (or any weapon of their choosing, really) to defend themselves against the occasional spill-over threat posed by black and Hispanic drug-dealing gang members.

What Obama should really propose, in order to save the most lives, is a slate of proposals designed to eliminate the threat posed by black and Hispanic drug-dealing gang members.

Since that's who's committing the most gun violence.
 
2013-01-16 02:35:56 PM

Insatiable Jesus: whiz


No shiat. A big gun nut I know (who thinks the Sandy Hook shootings was the result of the government hiring a bunch of actors) carries guns everywhere he goes, because, as he says, "you never know." Our small city has had something like three murders in the past five years, and maybe four or five shootings. What the hell is the name of the universe he lives in?
 
2013-01-16 02:36:05 PM
Telling Republicans not to be outraged is like telling them they cant breathe through their mouth.

img151.imageshack.us
 
2013-01-16 02:36:10 PM

Weaver95: so far, all the right people seem to oppose Obama's plans.  if the NRA or Rush Limbaugh are against something then it's probably a plan worth following.


This can't be repeated enough.
 
2013-01-16 02:36:10 PM
Honestly? It's about what I expected. I didn't think the White House wanted a full fledged brawl over this issue. I really don't see much to object over. At least now we can move on to something else.

\need to check out the details
\\the Devil is in there you know
 
2013-01-16 02:36:11 PM
Nothing he does will even remotely solve the problem. All it will do is be a pain in the ass for legal gun owners. nothing more. Next shooting that happens with a 10 round magazine will prompt bans on them as well. Then 5 rounds will be the maximum. Then only bolt action rifles allowed. Then only revolvers. Then ATF will have the right to come into your house to check, for safety of course. Etc....

Really doesn't sound unreasonable does it? But that is how this starts. background checks? No problem. I always get one, because I buy from a dealer. But my doctor now will quiz me on gun ownership? I don't like the vague stipulations regarding Obamacare, I wonder if my doctor will now have to investigate any evil gun ownership and report it to the IRS, or ATF, Brown Shirts, what have you.
 
2013-01-16 02:36:12 PM

The 4chan Psychiatrist: 14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

Because gun violence is inherently worse than every other type of violence...


It could be caused by demons, bad humors in the body, perhaps evil spirits in the head.  Maybe even curable by human sacrifice and trepanation.
 
2013-01-16 02:36:27 PM
I'll reserve judgment until I see the documents generated from this. The EO authorizing assassinations, for example, is pretty vague yet pretty broad.

I'm also a little worried about keeping the paranoids away from receiving the mental health care that they need. Will be interesting to see how draconian this seems to those types after the docs are generated and the dust in the blogs settles.

In brief, I'm not sure what any of this means yet.

Also, did anyone notice the parts where the AG/DoJ is to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks and provide a report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

Maybe we'll get some more info on Fast and Furious??
 
2013-01-16 02:36:37 PM

Click Click D'oh: 7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

You know... The NRA has been doing that for more than 100 years.


Was Nancy Lanza signed up for it?
 
2013-01-16 02:36:49 PM

bradkanus: Callous: Endive Wombat: Gun Nut Here!

So I've looked at the list, and I really cannot get mad at it.  I do take some issue with two aspects:

1.  Doctors asking if there are guns in the home.  Some doctors are going to get yelled at, some will get preachy.  This really has nothing to do with the federal government though...
2.   "Universal Background Checks" - I have no idea what that means or how it differs from the current system.  I do fear that like many things the federal government works on, it will become convoluted, bloated and inefficient

Other than those, I ain't mad

It's basically making all private sales go through an FFL so that a NICS check is done.  Like I said above, I'm ok with that as long as the FFLs don't get to gouge on the fee or better yet open NICS up to everyone.

I've always wondered how this would work.  The government doesn't know what guns people already own in most cases (In Texas for sure) - so how would they know if I'm selling my friend a pistol?  They could track all future sales, but the approximately 300 million guns floating around now are untrackable.

I don't mind doing what I do when I buy guns off of Gunbroker - putting an FFL in the middle of the sale for a small fee.  I have nothing to hide and don't mind if they check up on me.


What you're referencing is a huge problem. What this does is make a beginning toward dealing with the problem.
 
2013-01-16 02:36:51 PM
You ever notice how gun nuts are like "professional wrestling" fans? They both live in fantasy worlds and there is probably a correlation between the two groups.

Can you imagine the frothing outrage if someone tried to ban "professional" wrestling? The semi-justification I can see would be to protect people from stupidity. Gun nuts on the other hand are both stupid and a public safety hazard.
 
2013-01-16 02:37:19 PM

Callous: Endive Wombat: Gun Nut Here!

So I've looked at the list, and I really cannot get mad at it.  I do take some issue with two aspects:

1.  Doctors asking if there are guns in the home.  Some doctors are going to get yelled at, some will get preachy.  This really has nothing to do with the federal government though...
2.   "Universal Background Checks" - I have no idea what that means or how it differs from the current system.  I do fear that like many things the federal government works on, it will become convoluted, bloated and inefficient

Other than those, I ain't mad

It's basically making all private sales go through an FFL so that a NICS check is done.  Like I said above, I'm ok with that as long as the FFLs don't get to gouge on the fee or better yet open NICS up to everyone.


Uh, no it's not. He's basically going to send them a letter outlining the steps they already know if someone comes in for a transfer.
 
2013-01-16 02:37:25 PM

Endive Wombat: LasersHurt: You contend that the majority of illegal guns ALL come from being stolen? By irresponsible gun owners who just let them lie around?

No, I do not have exact stats.  But some of the guns on the black market are stolen.  It matters not where I leave my guns in my house.  B&E is already illegal.  Theft is already illegal.  Me leaving my gun in my night stand is hardly irresponsible.


When your contention is that we shouldn't monitor sales, you're ignoring that source of illegal guns. By defending your need to keep guns lying around - and blaming that for the REST of the illegal guns - you're not making a strong point.
 
2013-01-16 02:37:28 PM

Farce-Side: CADMonkey79: Why would my doctor ask me if I had guns in the house?

So your insurance could increase your premiums and deductable.


Not happening, nobody can afford health insurance anyways.
 
2013-01-16 02:37:36 PM
You have all this outrage packaged up and rolling.
Don't let this crappy misdirection to "gun control" disarm you.
DEMAND that your pandering politicians do someting ACTUALLY USEFUL to reduce gun violence.

And folks, this Presidential Masterbation ain't it.
 
2013-01-16 02:37:39 PM

Thunderpipes: Liberals want more government control, less individual rights.

News at 11:00!


Conservatives want to kill children.
News at 11.
 
2013-01-16 02:37:42 PM

Koalaesq: Holocaust Agnostic: Fubini: Supporting a renewal of the AWB is silly, but otherwise I liked what I heard. I'm truly impressed that he seems to have targeted actions and reforms that get to the bulk of gun violence rather than focusing just on high-profile shootings like Sandy Hook or Aurora.

This.

Well, yeah, but if he REALLY wanted to make gun violence drop like a stone he'd have to address out nation's drug laws. But that ain't happening in my lifetime or yours.


I may just be unreasonably optimistic, but the drug war seems to be receiving more and more negative attention.
 
2013-01-16 02:37:42 PM

ManRay: Sandy Hook truly is the 9/11 of gun control.

We are going to end up with PATRIOT Act level effectiveness, costs and trampling of rights.

/never underestimate the political class


This is tyranny!!!!!! 1111
 
2013-01-16 02:37:46 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: How 'bout no. What you just described would turn a right into a privilege for the rich only. You really think that if the government institutes a tax on ammo to pay for mental health screenings and gun safety courses it will be used for that? Just look at the anti ...

How does that take a right away from you? We all have the right to drive a car, but we have to take a training course and pay for a license to do so. And I really don't think a 0.2% tax on that box of shells is going to dent your wallet.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harper_v._Virginia_Board_of_Elections

You cannot make a right dependent on the payment of a fee or tax.
 
2013-01-16 02:37:46 PM

Sybarite: What? Cancel my outrage? Did you say "cancel my outrage"? No outrage is cancelled until I decide it is! Was outrage cancelled when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!


REMEMBER THE ALAMO!!!
-- Admiral Chester "Bull" Halsey
 
2013-01-16 02:37:46 PM

Colin O'Scopy: Dusk-You-n-Me: Obama wants universal background checks for guns. Would it work?

Yup.

It's the sane thing to do.


Maybe, depends on how it's enforced. Because, if you are talking about making even private sales require a background check, individuals (non-dealers) selling to another individual, you will need their 'voluntary' cooperation to make it happen. If they checks consist of a simple phone call, a quick response, minimal fee you will get a lot of cooperation. But, knowing how gun-controllers write regulations, I would expect 10 pages of paperwork, waiting periods, huge fees, etc., you will get far less cooperation and it will be useless.
 
2013-01-16 02:38:02 PM

Farce-Side: CADMonkey79: Why would my doctor ask me if I had guns in the house?

So your insurance could increase your premiums and deductable.


How would that conversation even start? I mean I know how it would end with me telling to get farked.
Are there doctors out there that even want to ask this question? I don't get it.
 
2013-01-16 02:38:17 PM

gweilo8888: Pocket Ninja: Actually, I've learned recently of how many road signs in the US are actually marked on the back with secret signals designed to communicate high-value strike targets and directions to an invading UN army, and on a recent trip into town noticed no less than FOUR new road signs along my regular route. I don't know if all of them had secret signals on the back, because it did not occur to me then to stop and check, but that sudden proliferation along with his new and unprecedented move against the Constitution makes me wonder if perhaps we are approaching some tipping point. I'm going to study it out a little more and see what else I can find; I earnestly suggest that everyone else does likewise.

You just unjumped the shark and became funny again. Well done, good sir.


Are the otherwise partiotic bullet holes part of the secret code?
 
2013-01-16 02:38:36 PM

RidgeRunner5: Popcorn Johnny: Gun ownership should be limited to the types of weapons available when the 2nd amendment was written.

Ditto for 1st amendment and all forms of communication.

Only public speaking and quill/parchment for you!


And the commerce clause should only apply to the first 13 states!
 
2013-01-16 02:38:51 PM
I said this years ago before there was even a peep about gun control: If Obama could get away with more, he would.

Stop acting like he doesn't want to ban most types of guns.
 
2013-01-16 02:38:59 PM
So, the most "unconstitutional" EO is for agencies to share more information that they should have already been sharing under the existing law?  I can't wait to see the Alex Jones Derp Brigade spin this into black helicopters coming to confiscate their guns and pocket-sized copies of the Constitution.
 
2013-01-16 02:39:07 PM

minoridiot: Grand_Moff_Joseph: As for fully private sales, just require a license and proof of sale/purchase to be available to present on demand for any firearm. If you can't produce it (or provide it in 24 hours), you get arrested, and the gun is seized.

I don't have a proof of sale for any of my guns, all of which I've purchased over 10 years ago.  So I should go to jail?


No, but you should have to register them regardless.  No fines or anything, just a requirement to get them registered under your name going forward.  The serials will be checked just to make sure they weren't previously used in a crime (which if they were, you'd likely not have been aware of it), but assuming all is good, then you get your registration, and go home.

Heck, to encourage folks in your scenario to register, I'd even offer the registration for free for guns previously purchased privately.
 
2013-01-16 02:39:10 PM
Good job at keeping the screaming dumb masses focused on something other than the disaster that Obama has made of the economy though, huh?

Masterful.
 
2013-01-16 02:39:12 PM
Still fascism, and bad form no matter what the outcome to grandstand on the victims of Sandy Hook like this.
 
2013-01-16 02:39:27 PM
Missed the speach - stupid pre-deployment physical. So, the executive orders are supposedly as follows:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

I'm ok with this

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

I'm ok with this

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

I'm ok with this

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

I'm (tentatively) ok with this - depends on who they say is now prohibited if they weren't previously.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

I'm ok with this, as long as it isn't used as an excuse to keep a gun any longer from a qualified person (background checks are instant with the current FFL system, should be for this as well)

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

I am (tentatively) ok with this - depends how onerous they will make private sales.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

I'm ok with this.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

I'm (tentatively) ok with this - as long as they don't try and make them compulsory for all gun owners (I build my own safes, thanks)

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

I'm ok with this

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

I'm ok with this

11. Nominate an ATF director.

I'm ok with this

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

I'm ok with this

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

I'm (tentatively) ok with this - depends on what preventative measures they implement

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

I'm (tentatively) ok with this - maintaining a neutral stance can be difficult for politically charged issues. Even a statistics-based approach can be biased depending on the setup. Hopefully that won't be an issue.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

I'm ok with this

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

This is stupid. "Yes doc, I have a gun in my home. What specific training do you have to advise me on this? None? Then lemme alone."

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

I'm ok with this

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

I'm ok with this

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

I'm ok with this

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

I'm ok with this

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

I ... am actually not sure what this means. Reserving judgement.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

Again, not sure what this means. I can admit my ignorance.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

I am ok with this

So, as a gun owner, I don't have too many issues with the exec orders. The stuff going through Congress, well, that remains to be seen.
 
2013-01-16 02:39:35 PM

Click Click D'oh: 2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

Bye HIPAA, was nice knowing you. So much for patients rights.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

A blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment. Essentially, if I get pulled over while carrying a gun, the police officer gets to keep it for six to eight weeks? Don't think so.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

You know... The NRA has been doing that for more than 100 years. Maybe if you would actually talk to them instead of vilify them at every turn...

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

Yeah, okay sure. Wait, what kind of criminal investigations? If I get busted for jaywalking does that mean the FBI has to run my gun? Hello Fourth Amendment again. The firearm has to be pertinent to the crime to be searched and seized.

Bah, not like the Constitution stood a chance..

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

Wait... I though that police officers in schools wasn't a viable answer? Hang on... Did Obama just implement the NRAs suggestion? Obama must be the greatest troll ever. Not only does he get the whole left riled up against the NRA's "stupid" suggestion, he goes and implements it. LOL


Shhh, see, the idea is to get people like Weaver95 to feel like they came up with the ideas and get smug about it, so that we can watch them foam at the mouth when we explain they're agreeing with the NRA...
 
Bf+
2013-01-16 02:39:43 PM
cdn.ientry.com
America died.
 
2013-01-16 02:39:56 PM
He wants to get rid of armor piercing bullets?!? How am I supposed to hunt turtles now?

Thanks but no thanks O'Bummer!
 
2013-01-16 02:40:00 PM
Just make guns and ammo so expensive only the rich can afford them. Surely, the GOP has to get behind this idea.
 
2013-01-16 02:40:01 PM

mesmer242: He thought that making higher capacity mags legal only at (and possibly sold at) gun ranges would be a good compromise. There's something to be said for letting the enthusiasts have their fun, but in real life, if you can't shoot a deer with only a few shots, you should probably not be shooting at the deer at all. I couldn't find a whole lot of fault with that logic.


Short example: Citizens who carry firearms defensively can usually only practically carry one magazine, though some large men and women who carry in purses could carry an extra. When assaulted by more than one attacker, five rounds each is entirely likely not enough to disable both of them. Unlike on TV, hitting a person once doesn't make him stop and drop to the ground, and there have been instances where police have emptied magazines into drugged-up attackers without stopping them.
 
2013-01-16 02:40:02 PM
Click Click D'oh

Almost got a bite out of me. I give it 7/10.
 
2013-01-16 02:40:04 PM
As a very pro-gun guy, I see no problem with these ideas. I do think that there needs to be more detail as far as reporting mental conditions to the authorities. Seems like it would make people less likely to come forward with their issues if they think they are going to get blacklisted.


This is A-OK with me as long as the AWB dies in Congress. Also, the New York gun law was clearly passed unconstitutionally and will hopefully be challenged in court.
 
2013-01-16 02:40:08 PM
Obama made pretty reasonable proposals, so I expect the hate machine to nearly burst a weld from excessive pressure.

- checks Limbaugh/Fox/etc.....Yep, seam burting, aneurism inducing rage well in progress.
 
2013-01-16 02:40:15 PM
tl;dr

So, how will this "ban" on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds, or "assault weapons" work? You have 30 days to turn yours in, or what?
 
2013-01-16 02:40:18 PM

Phinn: HotWingConspiracy: Phinn: I can save the CDC the time and money involved in extensive gun violence research:

Most gun crimes are committed by black and Hispanic drug-dealing gang-members.

Or is this the part of the "national discussion" we're not supposed to mention?

So you're saying we need to expand restrictions on hand guns too? Let's get on it.

No, it means that law-abiding people need handguns (or any weapon of their choosing, really) to defend themselves against the occasional spill-over threat posed by black and Hispanic drug-dealing gang members.


What about from the white drug dealing gang members?

What Obama should really propose, in order to save the most lives, is a slate of proposals designed to eliminate the threat posed by black and Hispanic drug-dealing gang members.

We have a few thousand laws on the books that should sate your racism.
 
2013-01-16 02:40:22 PM

lordjupiter: Paranoid bedshiatters were wrong AGAIN?

Well, I'm sure the next thing will REALLY push us over the edge into oblivion.


Hardly, by the time the long form version of these Executive Orders are revealed and the truth comes out it will be too late, the Feds would have rounded up all the law abiding gun owners and housed them in the empty boxcars that are lined up in the Dakotas.
 
2013-01-16 02:40:57 PM

Endive Wombat: Callous: Endive Wombat: Gun Nut Here!

So I've looked at the list, and I really cannot get mad at it.  I do take some issue with two aspects:

1.  Doctors asking if there are guns in the home.  Some doctors are going to get yelled at, some will get preachy.  This really has nothing to do with the federal government though...
2.   "Universal Background Checks" - I have no idea what that means or how it differs from the current system.  I do fear that like many things the federal government works on, it will become convoluted, bloated and inefficient

Other than those, I ain't mad

It's basically making all private sales go through an FFL so that a NICS check is done.  Like I said above, I'm ok with that as long as the FFLs don't get to gouge on the fee or better yet open NICS up to everyone.

Here's the thing.  It would be not impossible, but very difficult to stop private sale.  As it stands, in many states guns are not tracked, certainly not on a federal level.  So if this is a round about method in creating some kind of national registration system, I suspect that it will be extremely difficult to track and enforce, I mean hell...there's what... and estimated 300M guns in the US?

If they open the NICS to the public for free, that would be nice.  But if they do not get rid of private sale, the average citizen privately selling a gun has no compelling reason to use it.  Also, I sure as heck am not handing over a ton of personal information to some random dude I met off vaguntrader.com, that is just asking for all kinds of identity theft issues.


How is a private sale of a vehicle done? Should be the same method. All guns have a serial number, which means they are trackable the same as a vehicle's VIN.
 
2013-01-16 02:41:11 PM
Guys, it's time just to repeal the second amendment. Go on, just get it over with.
 
2013-01-16 02:41:21 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: Koalaesq: Holocaust Agnostic: Fubini: Supporting a renewal of the AWB is silly, but otherwise I liked what I heard. I'm truly impressed that he seems to have targeted actions and reforms that get to the bulk of gun violence rather than focusing just on high-profile shootings like Sandy Hook or Aurora.

This.

Well, yeah, but if he REALLY wanted to make gun violence drop like a stone he'd have to address out nation's drug laws. But that ain't happening in my lifetime or yours.

I may just be unreasonably optimistic, but the drug war seems to be receiving more and more negative attention.


Not as much as it deserves.
One can hope.
 
2013-01-16 02:41:38 PM
HE'S TAKING OUR GUNS!!!

BACK TO BENGHAZI!


these buffoons are quite predictable.
 
2013-01-16 02:41:48 PM
partiotic


Looks like I picked the wrong week to give up heroin methadone heroin.
 
2013-01-16 02:41:56 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Jim_Callahan: Fair enough, this is one of those "everyone agrees it's a good plan" things.

Except it's not. The immensely influential NRA and its 4 million members have successfully fought tooth and nail to keep that loophole open repeatedly.


From what authority does the federal government have jurisdiction over intrastate sales?
 
2013-01-16 02:41:56 PM
I occasionally barter for firearms. I wonder if the new regulations will require me to perform background checks before trading.
 
2013-01-16 02:42:02 PM

sodomizer: Still fascism


When do you start the revolution?
 
2013-01-16 02:42:05 PM

Jounville: He wants to get rid of armor piercing bullets?!? How am I supposed to hunt turtles now?

Thanks but no thanks O'Bummer!


And the packs of feral armadillos that freely roam Anson, Texas.
 
2013-01-16 02:42:19 PM

dennysgod: lordjupiter: Paranoid bedshiatters were wrong AGAIN?

Well, I'm sure the next thing will REALLY push us over the edge into oblivion.

Hardly, by the time the long form version of these Executive Orders are revealed and the truth comes out it will be too late, the Feds would have rounded up all the law abiding gun owners and housed them in the empty boxcars that are lined up in the Dakotas.


We can only hope.
 
2013-01-16 02:42:39 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: No, but you should have to register them regardless. No fines or anything, just a requirement to get them registered under your name going forward.


I'm leery of slippery-slope arguments, but can you point to a single historical example in which citizens were required to register lawfully-owned firearms after which the government didn't start seizing them?
 
2013-01-16 02:42:57 PM

USP .45: I said this years ago before there was even a peep about gun control: If Obama could get away with more, he would.

Stop acting like he doesn't want to ban most types of guns.


He doesn't want to ban most types of guns. And you, along with everyone else who believes this, are a f*cking moron.

\gun owner
 
2013-01-16 02:43:23 PM

Callous: It's not the dent in my wallet, it's that they won't use the money for what it's supposed to be for.  Just look at Massachusetts' temporary sales tax, cigarette taxes, and the Mass Pike tolls.  And I don't like putting requirements on constitutional rights.  We don't require permits and language courses before someone is allowed to speak in a vain attempt to prevent people from shouting FIRE in a theater.  We don't require writers to get permits and take mandatory courses before they can write a book.  We don't require people to get permits before they go to church.


You do have to have a permit for a rally. You do have to abide by certain restrictions when gathering for a protest (free speech zones). You do need to register a newly formed church with the government. You do have to register with the state to perform a marriage.

The first amendment isn't quite as absolute as some might believe.
 
2013-01-16 02:43:57 PM

Click Click D'oh: Bye HIPAA, was nice knowing you. So much for patients rights.


So, basically, you have no idea what duty to report is nor are you aware that care providers are already obligated by law under numerous circumstances to report certain types of injuries to law enforcement.

But you go ahead and pretend there isn't already a long-standing precedent for this type of law.

Click Click D'oh: A blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment.


They can already do that. They can seize virtually any of your private property if they have reasonable suspicion to believe a crime has occurred. A gun is not now and has never been exempt from that fact, all this does is change the rules so that law enforcement is allowed to check that you're actually allowed to own it before they give it back after the investigation.

But, again, why should you bother having any idea what you're talking about, right?

Click Click D'oh: If I get busted for jaywalking does that mean the FBI has to run my gun? Hello


Yea, there's going to be a criminal investigation because you got a jaywalking ticket you farking moron. I'll bet that happens all the time.

Click Click D'oh: Wait... I though that police officers in schools wasn't a viable answer?


That's because you choose to listen to what the NRA says in its little dishonest soundbites instead of sticking with the words that, you know, actually came out of the president's mouth:

I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools


But, no, I'd hate to suggest you're completely full of shiat and just flailing aimlessly at a world that exists solely in your own imagination just because everything in your post proves that's true.
 
2013-01-16 02:44:03 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Colin O'Scopy: Dusk-You-n-Me: Obama wants universal background checks for guns. Would it work?

Yup.

It's the sane thing to do.

Maybe, depends on how it's enforced. Because, if you are talking about making even private sales require a background check, individuals (non-dealers) selling to another individual, you will need their 'voluntary' cooperation to make it happen. If they checks consist of a simple phone call, a quick response, minimal fee you will get a lot of cooperation. But, knowing how gun-controllers write regulations, I would expect 10 pages of paperwork, waiting periods, huge fees, etc., you will get far less cooperation and it will be useless.


Currently, it's a form and a phone call, about 10 minutes. It's not that big a deal, honestly. They ask some questions, you give some answers, and file some paperwork.

I don't see why this would be any different.
 
2013-01-16 02:44:11 PM

d_lebowski: USP .45: I said this years ago before there was even a peep about gun control: If Obama could get away with more, he would.

Stop acting like he doesn't want to ban most types of guns.

He doesn't want to ban most types of guns. And you, along with everyone else who believes this, are a f*cking moron.

\gun owner


no you're a slashie fraud. I just heard him say it on farking tv.
 
2013-01-16 02:44:34 PM
img.youtube.com
I am the NRA!
 
2013-01-16 02:44:48 PM

LasersHurt: Endive Wombat: LasersHurt: You contend that the majority of illegal guns ALL come from being stolen? By irresponsible gun owners who just let them lie around?

No, I do not have exact stats.  But some of the guns on the black market are stolen.  It matters not where I leave my guns in my house.  B&E is already illegal.  Theft is already illegal.  Me leaving my gun in my night stand is hardly irresponsible.

When your contention is that we shouldn't monitor sales, you're ignoring that source of illegal guns. By defending your need to keep guns lying around - and blaming that for the REST of the illegal guns - you're not making a strong point.


I see what you are saying, and I am not explaining myself well enough.  My issue is that this may nab a few people trying to by a gun when the cannot, but what it really does, (and I am speculating here, as we do not have any specifics), is that this has the very likely possibility in becoming massively inefficient and backlogged.  Especially if there are waiting periods, if there are high fees, it may be cost prohibitive for some...

Yeah, we need to do something about illegal weapons, but if you look at the recent mass shootings, all those guns were acquired legally by people who had passed background checks...just sayin'...so yeah, perhaps Sideshow Bob would not have been able to buy his cache of guns, but he made homemade explosives...so yeah...if the crazy and determined are ready to kill, they will use whatever means necessary.
 
2013-01-16 02:44:50 PM

USP .45: I said this years ago before there was even a peep about gun control: If Obama could get away with more, he would.

Stop acting like he doesn't want to ban most types of guns.


Sandy Hook was a hoax! Wake up Sheeple! It's all part of the NRO!
 
2013-01-16 02:44:54 PM

orbister: Guys, it's time just to repeal the second amendment. Go on, just get it over with.


Wish libs would just be honest about it. They want the 2nd, and the 4th at minimum to be at Obama's discretion. That is the real agenda. Quit hiding behind kids and emotions and just come out and say it.

I have a few 20 round magazines for my M1A. Under NY law, and pretty soon everywhere in blue states, I will be a criminal unless I turn them in? I will have to go get booked, fingerprinted and picture taken to keep weapons I own?

Oops, lost my weapons in the move officer.
 
2013-01-16 02:45:18 PM

chrylis: Grand_Moff_Joseph: No, but you should have to register them regardless. No fines or anything, just a requirement to get them registered under your name going forward.

I'm leery of slippery-slope arguments, but can you point to a single historical example in which citizens were required to register lawfully-owned firearms after which the government didn't start seizing them?


It's quiet.
Too quiet, kemosabe.

I think we are being pandered to.
 
2013-01-16 02:45:30 PM

abhorrent1: Ermahgerd! My Gerns


encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-16 02:45:33 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: minoridiot: Grand_Moff_Joseph: As for fully private sales, just require a license and proof of sale/purchase to be available to present on demand for any firearm. If you can't produce it (or provide it in 24 hours), you get arrested, and the gun is seized.

I don't have a proof of sale for any of my guns, all of which I've purchased over 10 years ago.  So I should go to jail?

No, but you should have to register them regardless.  No fines or anything, just a requirement to get them registered under your name going forward.  The serials will be checked just to make sure they weren't previously used in a crime (which if they were, you'd likely not have been aware of it), but assuming all is good, then you get your registration, and go home.

Heck, to encourage folks in your scenario to register, I'd even offer the registration for free for guns previously purchased privately.


the government needs to know which citizens own guns.
don't ask why, just do as you're told.
and gbtw so you can pay them taxes.
 
2013-01-16 02:46:06 PM

This text is now purple: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Jim_Callahan: Fair enough, this is one of those "everyone agrees it's a good plan" things.

Except it's not. The immensely influential NRA and its 4 million members have successfully fought tooth and nail to keep that loophole open repeatedly.

From what authority does the federal government have jurisdiction over intrastate sales?


upload.wikimedia.org

I gave it to them in Gonzales v. Raich! In your face, pot growers!
 
2013-01-16 02:46:07 PM

Weaver95: so far, all the right people seem to oppose Obama's plans.  if the NRA or Rush Limbaugh are against something then it's probably a plan worth following.


Generally, I stand with the NRA, SAF, JPFO, GOA, etc. Most of the stuff they have backed and recommended has been pretty fair-minded, and they keep screaming that the issue is with the people who are using these guns, not the guns themselves. I think if people would stop and listen for a moment, and took some personal responsibility, things would be a lot different.
 
2013-01-16 02:46:09 PM

d_lebowski: USP .45: I said this years ago before there was even a peep about gun control: If Obama could get away with more, he would.

Stop acting like he doesn't want to ban most types of guns.

He doesn't want to ban most types of guns. And you, along with everyone else who believes this, are a f*cking moron.

\gun owner



Don't bother, he chose the model number of a handgun as his screenname. That means he is a real, live American Internet Badass.
 
2013-01-16 02:46:15 PM
If you give B. Hussein an inch you know he'll take a mile. Background checks are his Sudetanland.
 
2013-01-16 02:46:20 PM
Oh, and I wonder why Cuomo threw away his chances for the White House in '16?

If the Administration really trades in its blue chips to try to get this passed, we will see a massive GOP resurgence in '16.

/can you say "President Good Hair Guy"?
//GOP extends lead in House
///retakes Senate
 
2013-01-16 02:46:28 PM

pottie: I occasionally barter for firearms. I wonder if the new regulations will require me to perform background checks before trading.


yes, it's TRANSFER a firearm to another individual. Doesn't matter if sale, trade, gift, inheritance, etc.
 
2013-01-16 02:46:32 PM
I am not too sure if GOP's plan of making it more of a pain in the ass to vote then it is to buy a damn guy will really work out well in their favor.
 
2013-01-16 02:46:33 PM

This text is now purple: From what authority does the federal government have jurisdiction over intrastate sales?


You go ahead and put that in front of the Supreme Court and let me know how it turns out.
 
2013-01-16 02:46:52 PM

Kit Fister: Click Click D'oh: 2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

Bye HIPAA, was nice knowing you. So much for patients rights.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

A blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment. Essentially, if I get pulled over while carrying a gun, the police officer gets to keep it for six to eight weeks? Don't think so.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

You know... The NRA has been doing that for more than 100 years. Maybe if you would actually talk to them instead of vilify them at every turn...

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

Yeah, okay sure. Wait, what kind of criminal investigations? If I get busted for jaywalking does that mean the FBI has to run my gun? Hello Fourth Amendment again. The firearm has to be pertinent to the crime to be searched and seized.

Bah, not like the Constitution stood a chance..

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

Wait... I though that police officers in schools wasn't a viable answer? Hang on... Did Obama just implement the NRAs suggestion? Obama must be the greatest troll ever. Not only does he get the whole left riled up against the NRA's "stupid" suggestion, he goes and implements it. LOL

Shhh, see, the idea is to get people like Weaver95 to feel like they came up with the ideas and get smug about it, so that we can watch them foam at the mouth when we explain they're agreeing with the NRA...


Many of those will end up being challenged in court and much of what he "requested" congress to fund is going to be answered by a polite " fark you".
 
2013-01-16 02:46:57 PM

Hagbardr: Pocket Ninja: Actually, I've learned recently of how many road signs in the US are actually marked on the back with secret signals designed to communicate high-value strike targets and directions to an invading UN army, and on a recent trip into town noticed no less than FOUR new road signs along my regular route. I don't know if all of them had secret signals on the back, because it did not occur to me then to stop and check, but that sudden proliferation along with his new and unprecedented move against the Constitution makes me wonder if perhaps we are approaching some tipping point. I'm going to study it out a little more and see what else I can find; I earnestly suggest that everyone else does likewise.

That's why I've been sabotaging the invasion by moving road signs around. There have been a few fatal accidents from people blowing through intersections missing stop signs at 45 mph, but that is a small price to pay for freedom.


You are a true 'merican, sir. May God bake his face and shine apron you.
 
2013-01-16 02:47:00 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: Fubini: Supporting a renewal of the AWB is silly, but otherwise I liked what I heard. I'm truly impressed that he seems to have targeted actions and reforms that get to the bulk of gun violence rather than focusing just on high-profile shootings like Sandy Hook or Aurora.

This.


I agree with this - but what's silly about the AWB? I haven't heard a single person make a reasonable argument why assault rifles should be freely available for anyone to purchase. The only arguments I have heard are nonsensical, completely disingenuous arguments like "assault rifles are impossible to define" and "an assault rifle is the exact same thing as a typical hunting rifle." Those arguments are bullshiat, and the progun folks know it. The only reason why anyone is arguing against banning ARs is because (1) they're really cool, and (2) some people are so deluded that they think they're going to be fighting a guerilla war some day.

I get it - assault rifles are really cool. I wouldn't mind owning an AR-15 to take out to the range every now and then. But there's no reason why I would need to own one other than the fact that it's my hobby and I like it. I'll happily give up that one small facet of my recreational shooting hobby, if it means that it will be more difficult for people like Holmes and Lanza to get their hands on an AR-15.
 
2013-01-16 02:47:11 PM

USP .45: d_lebowski: USP .45: I said this years ago before there was even a peep about gun control: If Obama could get away with more, he would.

Stop acting like he doesn't want to ban most types of guns.

He doesn't want to ban most types of guns. And you, along with everyone else who believes this, are a f*cking moron.

\gun owner

no you're a slashie fraud. I just heard him say it on farking tv.


Thank you for proving my point.

\moron
 
2013-01-16 02:47:47 PM

themindiswatching: SphericalTime: I'm sure that the NRA thinks that any changes are unconstitutional, no matter what.  And I'm sure at least 4 of the members of the Supreme Court would agree.

Anything less than being able to buy an RPG from the gas station on the corner without having to show ID is unconstitutional to them.


Trolltastic!

In other news, "reasonable and Constitutional expansions to regulation authority"...except that there's nothing there that expands his authority.

I will go so far as to say if things were left at this, and Congress dropped the rest into the waste bin, it would defuse a very tense situation and allow Congress to focus on fixing the budget. Instead, some asshole Democratic senators will instead ram some emotional gun and magazine bans through the Senate, wasting many hours of time and the House will shred them. The states will be free to come up with odd, low numbers of bullets that people can put in magazines to look good to blue staters and the rest of us will point and laugh.

/meanwhile, proposals to provide better security for schools will go unheeded because Barry doesn't like them
 
2013-01-16 02:48:08 PM

Thunderpipes: orbister: Guys, it's time just to repeal the second amendment. Go on, just get it over with.

Wish libs would just be honest about it. They want the 2nd, and the 4th at minimum to be at Obama's discretion. That is the real agenda. Quit hiding behind kids and emotions and just come out and say it.

I have a few 20 round magazines for my M1A. Under NY law, and pretty soon everywhere in blue states, I will be a criminal unless I turn them in? I will have to go get booked, fingerprinted and picture taken to keep weapons I own?

Oops, lost my weapons in the move officer.


We get it, you're an irresponsible law breaking gun owner.
 
2013-01-16 02:48:28 PM

chrylis: Grand_Moff_Joseph: No, but you should have to register them regardless. No fines or anything, just a requirement to get them registered under your name going forward.

I'm leery of slippery-slope arguments, but can you point to a single historical example in which citizens were required to register lawfully-owned firearms after which the government didn't start seizing them?


No, but in all seriousness, can you point to a case where that did happen? (not being snarky, just asking)

Think of it this way:  If I purchased an ATV years before ATV registration was required going forward, I don't have much incentive to register it.  Unless the penalties for having an unregistered ATV of any variety were stiff.  In that case, I'd either A)not use it at all or B) look for a way to register it.  If I am then offered a chance to do so for free, no muss, no fuss, then why would I not then do it?
 
2013-01-16 02:48:35 PM

WhoopAssWayne: It's fitting these two scumbags are using children as props for their announcement, given how they exploited dead first graders to get to this point in the first place. Absolute scum of the earth here. This is who you are liberals. Take a long look.


Have you considered decaf?
 
2013-01-16 02:48:38 PM

chrylis: I'm leery of slippery-slope arguments, but can you point to a single historical example in which citizens were required to register lawfully-owned firearms after which the government didn't start seizing them?


Almost every single registered gun in this country?
 
2013-01-16 02:48:45 PM

Insatiable Jesus: d_lebowski: USP .45: I said this years ago before there was even a peep about gun control: If Obama could get away with more, he would.

Stop acting like he doesn't want to ban most types of guns.

He doesn't want to ban most types of guns. And you, along with everyone else who believes this, are a f*cking moron.

\gun owner


Don't bother, he chose the model number of a handgun as his screenname. That means he is a real, live American Internet Badass.


Ironically H&K are elitist douches that sell overpriced hardware and don't give a rat's ass about civilian firearms ownership, since they cater mostly to LE and military. Anyone looking to buy in VA?
 
Bf+
2013-01-16 02:48:46 PM
How dare he force Americans to get background checks for stockpiling armor piercing bullets!
How will we shoot the government?
images.sodahead.com
 
2013-01-16 02:49:09 PM
I have no problem with any of the content.

But it exceeds his authority to do most of this on his own.

Not that anyone cares about separation of powers anymore.
 
2013-01-16 02:49:36 PM

Antimatter: Ow! That was my feelings!: Colin O'Scopy: Dusk-You-n-Me: Obama wants universal background checks for guns. Would it work?

Yup.

It's the sane thing to do.

Maybe, depends on how it's enforced. Because, if you are talking about making even private sales require a background check, individuals (non-dealers) selling to another individual, you will need their 'voluntary' cooperation to make it happen. If they checks consist of a simple phone call, a quick response, minimal fee you will get a lot of cooperation. But, knowing how gun-controllers write regulations, I would expect 10 pages of paperwork, waiting periods, huge fees, etc., you will get far less cooperation and it will be useless.

Currently, it's a form and a phone call, about 10 minutes. It's not that big a deal, honestly. They ask some questions, you give some answers, and file some paperwork.

I don't see why this would be any different.


That depends entirely on what state you live in. That is the way it should work, tho.
 
2013-01-16 02:49:42 PM

susansto-helit: Callous: Grand_Moff_Joseph: bradknaus:  Fair point.  So, would you object to the extra steps I outlined above?  IMO, it would ensure that the rest of the folks who have ARs are handling them responsibly, as you seem to be.

No it wouldn't.  It would insure they had been through training to properly handle them but it doesn't mean they will abide by it.  And it still won't stop someone who snaps and shoots up a theater   And it won't stop someone who kills the lawful owner, steals her guns, and shoots up a school.

I have all my guns and ammo in a safe that weighs about 500lbs.  It's bolted to the floor joists and the studs in the wall.  Still with a crowbar mine would take less than 15 minutes to open, likely less than 10.  There are three crowbars, various grinders and saws in my basement capable of prying or cutting that safe open in a few minutes.  You can take steps to mitigate risk but you cannot ensure anything.

So we should do nothing. Got it



...nothing more.   You left off an important word. Short of some seriously draconian security regulations for schools, or property seizures (all firearms), or both, you can't ensure that mass school shootings won't occur.

"Let's make 'assault weapons' illegal, so this won't happen again!"
Fine, the next nut will use a shotgun.
"Let's make shotguns illegal, so this won't happen again!"
Fine, the next nut will use pistols.
"Let's make pistols illegal, so thing won't happen again!"
Fine, the next nut will use explosives/Molotov cocktails.

Guess what? Arson is already illegal. Come to think of it, so is taking any kind of gun onto school property. So is shooting people with it. So is murdering your mother so she won't stop you from taking a bunch of guns to a school.

Can you think of any scenario that will keep a determined psychopath from committing a mass murder?
When something this horrible happens, we all jump up and down and yell, "Something needs to be done!" And we're all correct: something does need to be done.
But what needs to be done has to address the real problem, not just be a "Look what we did!" change that accomplishes nothing.
 
2013-01-16 02:49:48 PM

Endive Wombat: How does this address the millions of guns that are on the black market/in the hands of criminals who are not allowed to own a gun?


You're right. House-by-house searches and confiscation are the only reasonably strategy.
 
2013-01-16 02:49:53 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: This text is now purple: From what authority does the federal government have jurisdiction over intrastate sales?

You go ahead and put that in front of the Supreme Court and let me know how it turns out.


Yeah, I know. Maybe in 50 years we'll get the statutory interpretation back.

SCOTUS belated acknowledged Dred Scott actually had standing eventually.
\farking Taney
 
2013-01-16 02:49:55 PM

greenboy: How is a private sale of a vehicle done? Should be the same method. All guns have a serial number, which means they are trackable the same as a vehicle's VIN.


The person I am selling to gets the title of my car which DOES NOT include my DOB or DL#

The issue that I have with tracking numbers is how it can be exploited.  Hacking is one issue as is FOIA (See the Journal News)...it becomes a witch hunt and shopping list for criminals.  I do not trust the feds to protect this information.  Call me crazy, but the negatives FAR outweigh the positives.
 
2013-01-16 02:49:55 PM
A requirement for universal background checks could only work if there was also universal registration, which I doubt would be politically feasible at all. Even then, enforcement would be expensive and difficult. A limit on high capacity magazines is probably pointless as well. There's an absolutely massive number of them already in circulation, and as was demonstrated just the other day, 3D printer technology can already produce a functional (though not long-lasting) high capacity mag. It seems likely that in a decade or so, pretty much anyone who wants will be able to print up a high capacity mag in the privacy of their own home. A renewal of the AW ban, or any other ban based on a gun's cosmetics, doesn't address anything concerning the lethality of guns, either. The whole thing is just political theater, and an excuse to spend more tax dollars.
 
2013-01-16 02:50:00 PM

Uisce Beatha: 16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

This is stupid. "Yes doc, I have a gun in my home. What specific training do you have to advise me on this? None? Then lemme alone."


I know that one seems odd on the face of it, but there's a reason for it. The ACA included a section regarding the 2nd amendment (weird, I agree), related to privacy that restricted the use of any data collected regarding gun ownership. It's worded, in part:
"None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care ct or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any in formation relating to..." and then a list of "lawful ownership" stuff.

The clarification in the order is just saying, "it didn't ban doctors from asking either."
 
2013-01-16 02:50:11 PM

d_lebowski: USP .45: d_lebowski: USP .45: I said this years ago before there was even a peep about gun control: If Obama could get away with more, he would.

Stop acting like he doesn't want to ban most types of guns.

He doesn't want to ban most types of guns. And you, along with everyone else who believes this, are a f*cking moron.

\gun owner

no you're a slashie fraud. I just heard him say it on farking tv.

Thank you for proving my point.

\moron


He

just

said

it.
 
2013-01-16 02:50:34 PM

the ha ha guy: You do have to have a permit for a rally.


But any ordinance that requires a permit must be clearly shown to be necessary from a crowd-control perspective, and permits can't be denied or surcharged based on who's rallying or why.

You do have to abide by certain restrictions when gathering for a protest (free speech zones).

Currently the subject of a number of lawsuits, several of which have been settled with government concessions.

You do need to register a newly formed church with the government.

In China, yes. In the United States, no. You have to file paperwork if you want tax concessions on the basis of being a church, but any requirement to "register" churches would get smacked down faster than a violent-video-game ban.

You do have to register with the state to perform a marriage.

Depends on the state, and the handful I'm familiar with don't require any such registration. They simply list classes of people who are qualified to "solemnize" a marriage, and in addition to broadly-defined ministers of religion, a Quaker assembly usually qualifies.
 
2013-01-16 02:50:37 PM
As a gun owner I thought I'd spend most of the afternoon being somewhat pissed off over this whole thing. However I'm glad to see the reaction is focused more about the flow of weapons and ensuring they don't end up in the hands of the mentally ill.

My hope is that the AWB aspect of it is the compromise part that is building in to be given away and placate House Republicans so they support the background checks and some of the loophole closing. That being said of course the only thing that really would have stopped Aurora, Sandy Hook, and Taft was better mental health services. All the guns were purchased legally and in each case the shooter had at least one weapon that would be outlawed by the AWB (handgun or shotgun). So getting rid of the scary AR-15s isn't really going to do anything meaningful.
 
2013-01-16 02:50:45 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Endive Wombat: Grand_Moff_Joseph: That's pretty much the point.  Yeah, it'll be a little more annoying for the 95% of folks like you who play it straight, but it standardizes the entire system, and (hopefully) makes a dent in keeping wholly unqualified people away from the guns.  The upshot, like you said, is that it's not a ban.  It's a bit more headache for a lot more safety, imo.

How does this address the millions of guns that are on the black market/in the hands of criminals who are not allowed to own a gun?

The item you referenced won't do much good in the black market area.  That's where (IMO) much stronger action by federal agencies to track and acquire black market weapons needs to come in.  And work closely with state agencies to help setup stings and other operations on local levels to catch the small fry guys first.  Just like the mob busts, if you catch the small guys, they'll likely flip on the next bigger fish to save their own hides.


Just so we're clear here, you expect this action to come from the same government that gave actual assault weapons (read fully automatic) to Mexican drug lords who then brought them into the US.  is that correct?
 
2013-01-16 02:51:00 PM
Cancel outrage? My Paultard buddy is on the verge of an aneurysm.

img.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-16 02:51:08 PM
AWB and magazine restriction won't pass. Now I can laugh at the retarded panic buyers that bought shiatty $2000 Bushmasters and the cretins on Fark that were saying "kiss your guns goodbye" or some similar shiat.

And in a few months I can buy a firearm at a reasonable farking price
 
2013-01-16 02:51:10 PM

Weaver95: and these things Obama is proposing have made Limbaugh very angry.


Limbaugh's job is to be very angry at everything Obama does. it's what he gets paid for.

fark that pustule.
 
2013-01-16 02:51:20 PM
i.imgur.com

Lest we forget.
 
2013-01-16 02:51:51 PM

Noam Chimpsky: Is it Constitutional to infringe on citizens' right to keep and bear arms? Even if there wasn't a 2nd Amendment, it wouldn't be legal for the feds to regulate guns because it would be a matter for the states, as per the 10th Amendment.


Incorrect. The Commerce Clause gives them the ability to regulate them. Unless, all guns are verified as manufactured and used in a single state per factory or whatever. But if you purchased a locally-made firearm, they could prevent you from transporting it to another state if you moved.
 
2013-01-16 02:52:03 PM

Zerochance: Cancel outrage? My Paultard buddy is on the verge of an aneurysm.

[img.photobucket.com image 433x616]


Nobody here cares about your facebook friend. Go back to reddit.
 
2013-01-16 02:52:17 PM

moanerific: As a very pro-gun guy, I see no problem with these ideas. I do think that there needs to be more detail as far as reporting mental conditions to the authorities. Seems like it would make people less likely to come forward with their issues if they think they are going to get blacklisted.


Well, there already was a stigma with being mentally ill in this country. So that doesn't really make things worse or better. Our healthcare system sucks as we all know, and our mental healthcare system sucks even more than the general healthcare system.
 
2013-01-16 02:52:23 PM

USP .45: Insatiable Jesus: d_lebowski: USP .45: I said this years ago before there was even a peep about gun control: If Obama could get away with more, he would.

Stop acting like he doesn't want to ban most types of guns.

He doesn't want to ban most types of guns. And you, along with everyone else who believes this, are a f*cking moron.

\gun owner


Don't bother, he chose the model number of a handgun as his screenname. That means he is a real, live American Internet Badass.

Ironically H&K are elitist douches that sell overpriced hardware and don't give a rat's ass about civilian firearms ownership, since they cater mostly to LE and military. Anyone looking to buy in VA?



LMFAO. H&K didn't say what you wanted them to say and only now is their stuff overpriced? News flash: H&K was overpriced when you bought whatever you're selling. I remember when posers went from Sig to H&K.
 
2013-01-16 02:52:35 PM
So encroaching upon your privacy and infringing upon your rights is "reasonable and Constitutional"?

Subby has been skull farked a little too hard.
 
2013-01-16 02:52:39 PM

Galileo's Daughter: Sybarite: What? Cancel my outrage? Did you say "cancel my outrage"? No outrage is cancelled until I decide it is! Was outrage cancelled when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

Germans?


Nevermind, he's on a roll
 
2013-01-16 02:52:42 PM

HotWingConspiracy: What about from the white drug dealing gang members?


They commit gun violence at a lower rate than black and Hispanic drug-dealing gang members.

But, sure, go ahead and

HotWingConspiracy: We have a few thousand laws on the books that should sate your racism.


If it's racism, then gun crime statistics are racist.
 
2013-01-16 02:52:59 PM

Fail in Human Form: Many of those will end up being challenged in court and much of what he "requested" congress to fund is going to be answered by a polite " fark you".


Exactly. Which demonstrates that the NRA, their members and the politicians that they own have been lying their asses off ever since LaPierre's Sandy Hook press conference.
 
2013-01-16 02:53:02 PM

CADMonkey79: Why would my doctor ask me if I had guns in the house?


Because you just came in his office for a checkup, and muttered out of the side of your mouth that you WISH THIS VOICES WOULD STOP TELLING YOU TO ALL THE BODYSNATCHERS IN YOUR LOCAL MALL!!

I imagine primary health care professionals might be well suited to identify some of the up-and-coming paranoid mass murderers among us. So, lets not stop doctors from at least asking the question.
 
2013-01-16 02:53:03 PM

Diogenes: Backdoor maneuver to eliminate the 2nd Amendment!


You make jokes, but while I was reading the article, Obama snuck into my parent's basement fortified compound, and took all my guns...
 
2013-01-16 02:53:28 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: You go ahead and put that in front of the Supreme Court and let me know how it turns out.


Still, it's a valid question. It's one of those powers that just sort of appeared out of nowhere, or which is a wildly absurd extension of the Commerce Clause. Now, it's not merely a matter of regulating commerce that actually exists. It's the ability to regulate activity that might make it so you don't have to engage in commerce. By growing my own tomatoes, for example, I'm not buying them on the open market. That causes potential commerce not to happen, which means that the Federal government, apparently, can forbid me to grow tomatoes. Upheld or not, that's just plain stupid.
 
2013-01-16 02:53:29 PM

give me doughnuts: Guess what? Arson is already illegal. Come to think of it, so is taking any kind of gun onto school property. So is shooting people with it. So is murdering your mother so she won't stop you from taking a bunch of guns to a school.

Can you think of any scenario that will keep a determined psychopath from committing a mass murder?
When something this horrible happens, we all jump up and down and yell, "Something needs to be done!" And we're all correct: something does need to be done.
But what needs to be done has to address the real problem, not just be a "Look what we did!" change that accomplishes nothing.



two things may have prevented sandy hook;
1. gun safe. his mom should have locked them up.
2. mental health evaluation. i believe his mom was in the process of having him committed?

i said "may have".
 
2013-01-16 02:53:44 PM

susansto-helit: Callous: Grand_Moff_Joseph: bradknaus:  Fair point.  So, would you object to the extra steps I outlined above?  IMO, it would ensure that the rest of the folks who have ARs are handling them responsibly, as you seem to be.

No it wouldn't.  It would insure they had been through training to properly handle them but it doesn't mean they will abide by it.  And it still won't stop someone who snaps and shoots up a theater   And it won't stop someone who kills the lawful owner, steals her guns, and shoots up a school.

I have all my guns and ammo in a safe that weighs about 500lbs.  It's bolted to the floor joists and the studs in the wall.  Still with a crowbar mine would take less than 15 minutes to open, likely less than 10.  There are three crowbars, various grinders and saws in my basement capable of prying or cutting that safe open in a few minutes.  You can take steps to mitigate risk but you cannot ensure anything.

So we should do nothing. Got it.


Well, we should do something once the wealthy without morals are no longer able to make a substantial profit from human lives. But certainly not before then.

/Barbie guns (a.k.a. assault rifles) make up 20% of profits for gun manufacturers
//The NRA is fighting for gun manufacturers, not firearm rights
///Much in the same way one fights for drug cartel
 
2013-01-16 02:54:14 PM

Bf+: How dare he force Americans to get background checks for stockpiling armor piercing bullets!
How will we shoot the government?
[images.sodahead.com image 350x273]


Do you know what armour piercing bullets are?  Deer hunting bullets.  Pretty much any round that is fired from a center-fire rifle as a matter of fact.

/still okay with background checks for any weapons, but hey, lets throw some more hysteria into the mix.
 
2013-01-16 02:54:23 PM

orbister: Guys, it's time just to repeal the second amendment. Go on, just get it over with.


static.someecards.com
 
2013-01-16 02:54:54 PM

Vodka Zombie: Weaver95: oh you should hear Limbaugh today.  He's already said that President Obama's kids shouldn't have guards, and I swear to f*cking god, I thought he was going to actually CRY at one point...the left is mocking the NRA you see.  and these things Obama is proposing have made Limbaugh very angry.

If anyone doesn't need armed guards, it's Limbaugh.

Seriously, Florida.  You have "stand-your-ground," and Limbaugh's a strung out, drug-addicted maniac with a long history of advocating violence against innocent people.

Why is that fat bastard still waddling around?!?


Because his Rascal is back-ordered, hasn't been delivered yet.
 
2013-01-16 02:55:09 PM

AFKobel: CADMonkey79: Why would my doctor ask me if I had guns in the house?

Because you just came in his office for a checkup, and muttered out of the side of your mouth that you WISH THIS VOICES WOULD STOP TELLING YOU TO ALL THE BODYSNATCHERS IN YOUR LOCAL MALL!!

I imagine primary health care professionals might be well suited to identify some of the up-and-coming paranoid mass murderers among us. So, lets not stop doctors from at least asking the question.


I could see the value in that. But if, for instance, I visited the doctor about say a leg injury and the good Doc asks me about whether or not I have firearms, I would just decline to answer.
 
2013-01-16 02:55:34 PM

cleek: Limbaugh's job is to be very angry at everything Obama does. it's what he gets paid for.

fark that pustule.


He's a lot more tolerable once you realize he's an actor in a role, an entertainer. Still can't stand him, though.
 
2013-01-16 02:56:00 PM

CheekyMonkey: Vodka Zombie: Weaver95: oh you should hear Limbaugh today.  He's already said that President Obama's kids shouldn't have guards, and I swear to f*cking god, I thought he was going to actually CRY at one point...the left is mocking the NRA you see.  and these things Obama is proposing have made Limbaugh very angry.

If anyone doesn't need armed guards, it's Limbaugh.

Seriously, Florida.  You have "stand-your-ground," and Limbaugh's a strung out, drug-addicted maniac with a long history of advocating violence against innocent people.

Why is that fat bastard still waddling around?!?

Because his Rascal is back-ordered, hasn't been delivered yet.


Maybe they should *sunglasses* put a rush on it.
 
2013-01-16 02:56:21 PM

themindiswatching: Anything less than being able to buy an RPG from the gas station on the corner without having to show ID is unconstitutional to them.


Hey, screw you, you gun-grabbing libtard!

I should be able to order a surface to air missile from Amazon and use Prime to get it over night.

Anything less means fartbongo is a dictator and it's time to water the tree of liberty.
 
2013-01-16 02:56:26 PM

Pocket Ninja: Actually, I've learned recently of how many road signs in the US are actually marked on the back with secret signals designed to communicate high-value strike targets and directions to an invading UN army, and on a recent trip into town noticed no less than FOUR new road signs along my regular route. I don't know if all of them had secret signals on the back, because it did not occur to me then to stop and check, but that sudden proliferation along with his new and unprecedented move against the Constitution makes me wonder if perhaps we are approaching some tipping point. I'm going to study it out a little more and see what else I can find; I earnestly suggest that everyone else does likewise.


You must live in a fancy neighborhood. The road signs by me are just marked with bullet holes.

\thanks, hillbillies
 
2013-01-16 02:56:43 PM

Mike_1962: What this does is make a beginning toward dealing with the problem.


But remember if it isn't perfect we shouldn't be doing it!

/ Just don't point out that having stand your ground laws does not stop all murder or anything like that. This logic only applies to gun control advocates, not the NRA and its sheep.
 
2013-01-16 02:57:02 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Fail in Human Form: Many of those will end up being challenged in court and much of what he "requested" congress to fund is going to be answered by a polite " fark you".

Exactly. Which demonstrates that the NRA, their members and the politicians that they own have been lying their asses off ever since LaPierre's Sandy Hook press conference.


It'll just get tied up with other bills and forgotten about when the debt ceiling disaster gets going. Nothing to do with the NRA.
 
Bf+
2013-01-16 02:57:06 PM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Galileo's Daughter: Sybarite: What? Cancel my outrage? Did you say "cancel my outrage"? No outrage is cancelled until I decide it is! Was outrage cancelled when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

Germans?

NevermindForget it, he's on a roll rolling.

/FI
 
2013-01-16 02:57:10 PM

colon_pow: two things may have prevented sandy hook;
1. gun safe. his mom should have locked them up.
2. mental health evaluation. i believe his mom was in the process of having him committed?

i said "may have".


The kid likely knew how to get into the safe, since while they were his mother's guns she was training him to use them. Even if she didn't teach him, he might have observed the combo or knew where the key was hidden. In reality the moment mom wanted to commit him (if not earlier) she should have given the guns to a friend to hold onto or otherwise gotten them out of the house.

/around here the local cops offered to lock up the guns of anyone facing such a problem, just bring them down to the station and into the weapons locker they go until the unstable adult is gone
//of course then you don't have them around for self defense, but by the same toke they're also not there for the unstable adult to use against you
 
2013-01-16 02:57:14 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: No, but in all seriousness, can you point to a case where that did happen? (not being snarky, just asking)


Nazi Germany (Hitler was quite proud of it), Britain, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, without having to look anything up. I'm aware that in some cases the government has graciously deigned to permit a few people whom it considers to have a good reason to keep one or two firearms locked and unusable (DC-pre-Heller-style), but most of the firearms were seized from most of the people, most especially handguns, which are the most practical for everyday personal self-defense.


cryinoutloud: Almost every single registered gun in this country?


Fair enough. I should have specified "seized or required disposition of". How are those 15-round magazines working out for you in California and New York?
 
2013-01-16 02:57:24 PM
So how do these new rules stop someone from using a gun to kill someone without a gun.
 
2013-01-16 02:57:28 PM

Phinn: HotWingConspiracy: What about from the white drug dealing gang members?

They commit gun violence at a lower rate than black and Hispanic drug-dealing gang members.


So what they have in common is guns. Again, I'm glad to have you on board to begin restricting hand guns.


HotWingConspiracy: We have a few thousand laws on the books that should sate your racism.

If it's racism, then gun crime statistics are racist.


No, honey, they're just number. You're a racist though.
 
2013-01-16 02:57:34 PM

Frank N Stein: the cretins on Fark that were saying "kiss your guns goodbye" or some similar shiat.


No one was saying that you dumb fark Republican.

How do you have a rational debate with such morons.
 
2013-01-16 02:57:47 PM

bradkanus: This was actually a great day for gun owners.  A really great day.


As a gun owner I agree.

The only "bad things" in there are re-activating the AWB and magazine size limits. And Obama probably knows he needs to put a few things in there for the NRA to "win" on. Those might come back out.

It could have been MUCH worse.
 
2013-01-16 02:57:53 PM

Chummer45: I agree with this - but what's silly about the AWB?


The ban banned things that had NOTHING to do with gun violence and gun safety.  High capacity mags were banned - do you know what about them was banned?  During the ban it was illegal to manufacture, but people could still buy and sell.  All they did was ramp up production before the ban went into effect.  This accomplished nothing.  It banned barrel shrouds - these are the scary looking things around a barrel that prevent you from burning yourself.   It banned bayonet mounts - because so many shootings in the US involve a gun and a bayonet right?

The ban did nothing to address the root causes of crime, it was simply a feel good law.  It was a total failure, many liberals will agree with this.
 
2013-01-16 02:57:54 PM
If only there was this much of an uproar when the federal government talks about limiting a few of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights.
 
2013-01-16 02:57:58 PM

SpectroBoy: themindiswatching: Anything less than being able to buy an RPG from the gas station on the corner without having to show ID is unconstitutional to them.

Hey, screw you, you gun-grabbing libtard!

I should be able to order a surface to air missile from Amazon and use Prime to get it over night.

Anything less means fartbongo is a dictator and it's time to water the tree of liberty.


Oh, you know, we can just not ban guns that look scary on the basis that they look scary. But don't let me stop your strawman
 
2013-01-16 02:57:58 PM
says who, subby? obama?

fark him. Worst president in history. I can't believe you farktards voted for him.
 
2013-01-16 02:58:12 PM

queezyweezel: Bf+: How dare he force Americans to get background checks for stockpiling armor piercing bullets!
How will we shoot the government?
[images.sodahead.com image 350x273]

Do you know what armour piercing bullets are?  Deer hunting bullets.  Pretty much any round that is fired from a center-fire rifle as a matter of fact.

/still okay with background checks for any weapons, but hey, lets throw some more hysteria into the mix.


More likely that hes referring to steel cored ammo designed to defeat body armor.
 
2013-01-16 02:58:16 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle:
So, basically, you have no idea what duty to report is nor are you aware that care providers are already obligated by law under numerous circumstances to report certain types of injuries to law enforcement.


Duty to report was covered under another executive order, that you'll notice I didn't object to. My wife is a LPC, I'm very familiar with duty to report and don't object to it. Duty to report also isn't restricted by HIPAA, so this EO clearly isn't covering it since you don't need to modify HIPAA to keep it working.


Vegan Meat Popsicle: They can already do that. They can seize virtually any of your private property if they have reasonable suspicion to believe a crime has occurred. A gun is not now and has never been exempt from that fact, all this does is change the rules so that law enforcement is allowed to check that you're actually allowed to own it before they give it back after the investigation.


A police officer can seize my firearm for the duration of a detention for officer safety concerns bust must return it upon my release. They may not keep it upon the condition that I prove I am lawfully allowed to own it. Not even close.

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Yea, there's going to be a criminal investigation because you got a jaywalking ticket you farking moron. I'll bet that happens all the time.


Yeah... because police would never abuse their authority... never... ever... Right Fark?

Vegan Meat Popsicle:
That's because you choose to listen to what the NRA says in its little dishonest soundbites instead of sticking with the words that, you know, actually came out of the president's mouth:

I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools

But, no, I'd hate to suggest you're completely full of shiat and just flailing aimlessly at a world that exists solely in your own imagination just because everything in your post proves that's true.


So wait... you're telling me that Fark hasn't been flailing around about how silly the NRA was for suggesting police in schools? Really? Okay then...
 
2013-01-16 02:58:42 PM

Pocket Ninja: Actually, I've learned recently of how many road signs in the US are actually marked on the back with secret signals designed to communicate high-value strike targets and directions to an invading UN army, and on a recent trip into town noticed no less than FOUR new road signs along my regular route. I don't know if all of them had secret signals on the back, because it did not occur to me then to stop and check, but that sudden proliferation along with his new and unprecedented move against the Constitution makes me wonder if perhaps we are approaching some tipping point. I'm going to study it out a little more and see what else I can find; I earnestly suggest that everyone else does likewise.


Don't think they just use spraypaint, man. You have to use UV lights to see it. Keep up the good fight.
 
2013-01-16 02:58:57 PM

Callous: Grand_Moff_Joseph

snip

Still, how about this instead of an AWB:

1.  Each AW and large mag has to be serialized and registered to their specific owner
2.  Said owner must complete extra training and evaluations to obtain a license to own these items.  License includes demonstrating proper use and care, as well as a background check and mental health eval.
3.  License must be renewed every year, with proficiency retests every two years
4.  Fees for #2-3 will be subsidized to lower your out of pocket cost.  Subsidy will be paid for with increased fines on those who do not get licenses, and a 0.2% tax on all ammo sales (up to a max per transaction)
5.  If either the AWs or the mags are used in the commission of a crime, the penalties are doubled.  If this occurs because the items were stolen from you, you are not liable, unless you obviously left them unsecured.

How 'bout no.  What you just described would turn a right into a privilege for the rich only.  You really think that if the government institutes a tax on ammo to pay for mental health screenings and gun safety courses it will be used for that?  Just look at the anti ...


A well regulated militia...
How about all firearm owners be licensed.
For all firearms.
With a minimum age limit. (No owners under 12.)
With mandatory liability insurance on each piece. We can have a sliding scale from single shot .22 rifles through streetsweeper 12 ga. autoloaders.
As long as we're decriminalizing pot, the prison-for-profit folks need to be able to jail someone. Let's start enforcing each and every gun regulation.
 
2013-01-16 02:59:02 PM
Any gun control measure that has the slightest chance of passing now (and most that don't) is half-assed and as effective as damming half a river. Obama will give it some face time, but he knows his legacy is making Obamacare work, getting the budget under control, and fundamentally shifting America's international military posture (no one really notices that, but for good or ill the history books won't miss it).

He's not about to seriously stick his dick in a blender by honestly going after another assault weapon ban that will just be undone again in 4 to 12 years. He'll take the PR, smile for the cameras, put the Republicans on the spot, and then get back to business.
 
2013-01-16 02:59:05 PM

ItchyMcDoogle: Hey the gun rights people let these loudmouthed lunatics do the talking...You get what you pay for


Boy howdy, is that the truth.

Just look at the threads on Fark, where gun control advocates and gun rights advocates both wasted their time arguing with the derptards, who kept saying stuff like "SO ARE YOU GONNA BAN CARS TOO, EVEN THOUGH CARS HAVE SECRET TITLES SO YOU DON'T REALLY OWN YOUR CAR BUT RENT IT FROM THE GOVERNMENT? HE COULD HAVE KILLED EVERYONE WITH A BOTTLE OF BLEACH OR A MUSKET BECAUSE A MUSKET CAN FIRE MORE THAN 20 SHOTS IN 20 MINUTES"

These people have deputized themselves as the defenders of the 2nd amendment, and they're probably the main reason gun rights advocates have gotten nowhere. Even official gun rights organizations like the NRA are infected by the derp virus, and their spokesmen just repeat more derp. The public hears derp, derp, and official derp. They have to decide where they stand on an issue with one side recommending limits on magazine size, and the other side making weird analogies to spoons.

Liberals act as though Obama is some super genius playing 6-dimensional chess, and every time the opposition steps in it, liberals act like the cowpie got there through brilliant political maneuvering. Nevertheless, I find it fascinating that the other side was allowed to become so permanently radicalized and derpy that a loudmouth derp brigade shouts down every legitimate argument they have, and convince the public that they are making a decision between informed policy and crazy uncle Sid.
 
2013-01-16 02:59:07 PM

xen0blue: says who, subby? obama?

fark him. Worst president in history. I can't believe you farktards voted for him.


You'll get over it. Or keep whining until 2017.
 
2013-01-16 02:59:13 PM

NateGrey: No one was saying that you dumb fark Republican.

How do you have a rational debate with such morons.


There were people saying that. They were a minority, but it was said. And it was retarded, hence why I called them retarded.
 
2013-01-16 02:59:20 PM

LasersHurt: The sheer reasonability of the man. What unmitigated temperance.


One might almost say that he's being "uppity" what with having the sheer gall to thing that HE and HE alone can propose sone sort of reasonable, sensible, and practical compromise  to actually try to help fix a problem rather than stake out and extremist position and start poo-flinging.

Why it's downright disrespectful, is what it is, a slap in the face to the GOP Congress.  By taking all the GOOD ideas first, he leaves them with nothing useful to pass that they can claim credit for, thus FORCING them to obstruct even these common-sense reforms.

Why can't Obama learn to COMPROMISE and Work WITH Congress by insteading proposing ridiculous lawsand acting like the Liberal Boogeyman they paint him as so that the GOP can shoot down his agenda and play the hero by coming up with reasonable alternatives to it?  Is that so much to ask?
 
2013-01-16 02:59:23 PM

chrylis: Grand_Moff_Joseph: No, but in all seriousness, can you point to a case where that did happen? (not being snarky, just asking)

Nazi Germany (Hitler was quite proud of it), Britain, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, without having to look anything up. I'm aware that in some cases the government has graciously deigned to permit a few people whom it considers to have a good reason to keep one or two firearms locked and unusable (DC-pre-Heller-style), but most of the firearms were seized from most of the people, most especially handguns, which are the most practical for everyday personal self-defense.


cryinoutloud: Almost every single registered gun in this country?

Fair enough. I should have specified "seized or required disposition of". How are those 15-round magazines working out for you in California and New York?


The city of New York used a firearm registry to enforce an "assault weapons ban", mandating that previously legally owned and registered firearms newly classified as "assault weapons" be destroyed or removed from the city.
 
2013-01-16 02:59:30 PM

Fail in Human Form: HotWingConspiracy: Fail in Human Form: Many of those will end up being challenged in court and much of what he "requested" congress to fund is going to be answered by a polite " fark you".

Exactly. Which demonstrates that the NRA, their members and the politicians that they own have been lying their asses off ever since LaPierre's Sandy Hook press conference.

It'll just get tied up with other bills and forgotten about when the debt ceiling disaster gets going. Nothing to do with the NRA.


No, the NRA will ensure that this isn't forgotten about. They can't help themselves.
 
2013-01-16 02:59:35 PM

Stone Meadow: tl;dr

So, how will this "ban" on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds, or "assault weapons" work? You have 30 days to turn yours in, or what?


I think if you have the M9 with a 15-round magazine, you are now supposed to transition over to the M1911 or a Glock 10mm or .45 with single stack mags.
 
2013-01-16 02:59:42 PM
Reasonable legislation that targets gun sales to criminals rather than infringing on law abiding citizens' rights?

2.bp.blogspot.com
On the other hand, I do think there should be some kind of mental health screening, which would of course be some kind of infringement on whack-jobs' rights.
 
2013-01-16 02:59:44 PM
This is awesome. Still relies purely on background checks, which don't catch undiagnosed conditions, but still--FINALLY that damn gun-show loophole is closed, and the health care providers are getting clearer instructions. Those are  great first steps.
 
2013-01-16 02:59:44 PM

moanerific: As a very pro-gun guy, I see no problem with these ideas. I do think that there needs to be more detail as far as reporting mental conditions to the authorities.


A very big problem is what gets defined as a "mental condition"; you may have noticed that over the past few decades the number of alleged mental disorders has been growing ever more numerous, while at the same time the left- liberal establishment has increasingly attempted to pathologize political dissent as being motivated by irrational hatred or "phobias" (whether homo-, Islamo-, trans-, xeno- or whatever else is handy). There has also been a growing trend for the federal government (FBI, DHS) in the US to diagnose "extremism" even in those who appeal to the Constitution as a supreme authority or who like to stockpile MREs.

The convergence of these tendencies will make it much more difficult in the future to obtain a firearm unless you meet an arbitrary and constantly shifting standard of what the powers that be consider "mental health." Of course, to express anything less than complete faith in the eternal benevolence of government will itself be regarded as a sign of paranoia, despite the fact that hundreds of millions of innocent people have been murdered by their governments over the past century (a far larger number than those killed in spree shootings). Perhaps we should consider all of this before we sign away ever more of our traditional freedoms to keep us safe from law- abiding gun owners who never posed any threat to us in the first place.
 
2013-01-16 03:00:06 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: The White House calls background checks the most efficient and effective way to keep guns away from dangerous individuals.

/Sounds reasonable, except the fact that criminals don't generally worry about getting a guy legally, they just steal them. And since there is no magic crystal ball that tells us when a law abiding gun owner will go bugshiat crazy, we are back to where we were before. Even if a gun owner has legal guns, gets them legally, crazy people steal them and use them. Look at the last mass shooting. The guns all belonged to his mother, and he killed her and stole them to go on his rampage. This law does NOTHING to address this issue. If anything, should make a law that people keep their guns locked up, but that is unenforceable, and useless for home defense.


Aaaannnd, once again the perfect solution steps to the fore.
 
2013-01-16 03:00:18 PM

Phinn: I can save the CDC the time and money involved in extensive gun violence research:

Most gun crimes are committed by black and Hispanic drug-dealing gang-members.

Or is this the part of the "national discussion" we're not supposed to mention?


By number of incidents, yes. But by pure body count, loner white guys without mortgages are starting to pull ahead.
 
2013-01-16 03:00:35 PM

Zerochance: Cancel outrage? My Paultard buddy is on the verge of an aneurysm.

[img.photobucket.com image 433x616]


You really should out your buddy here. The comments would generate enough energy to power the entire planet.
 
2013-01-16 03:00:50 PM

vpb: bradkanus: This was essentially a press conference signaling the end of the president's assualt on assualt weapons.  He put the onus on congress knowing full well they can't pass anything.  The 23 provisions are toothless and useless.

The president can now say "I did something" when asked.

This was actually a great day for gun owners.  A really great day.

The sane ones yes.  The provisions aren't enough but they are a good start.

We can improve things with future legislation and tighten the laws up.


bradkanus is right. This was nothing more than a photo op. Not one of the 23 "orders" requires anything concrete: they're all ephemeral "recommendations". If I was a gun control advocate who supported Obama, I'd be embarrassed.

As far as passing legislation? Good luck with that.
 
2013-01-16 03:00:53 PM

Bilgewater: What's wrong with a little regulation? Even my bowels movements are regulated. 7:30 am every morning. -- like clockwork.


You are one lucky farker. Don't ever forget that.
 
2013-01-16 03:01:06 PM

AFKobel: CADMonkey79: Why would my doctor ask me if I had guns in the house?

Because you just came in his office for a checkup, and muttered out of the side of your mouth that you WISH THIS VOICES WOULD STOP TELLING YOU TO ALL THE BODYSNATCHERS IN YOUR LOCAL MALL!!

I imagine primary health care professionals might be well suited to identify some of the up-and-coming paranoid mass murderers among us. So, lets not stop doctors from at least asking the question.


There is nothing preventing a doctor from asking you questions about your mental health and trying to diagnose any problems you might have. What would be the reason for him to ask if you have a gun? Would he also need to ask about any other potential weapons you might have. Why would his be the doctor's responsibility, they are healthcare providers not law enforcers.
 
2013-01-16 03:01:17 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: No, but in all seriousness, can you point to a case where that did happen? (not being snarky, just asking)


And sorry, I can't believe I forgot both Bolshevik Russia, where everyone who owned a firearm was required to bring it to the police station for registration and was then shot, and 1950's China, in which the 20-million-dead purges immediately followed.
 
2013-01-16 03:01:19 PM

Deep Contact: So how do these new rules stop someone from using a gun to kill someone without a gun.


Haha. Look at you pretending to be stupider than a four year old. Cute.
 
2013-01-16 03:01:35 PM
Background checks aren't the problem. The trouble comes from who sets the standards in regards to what is unacceptable in those checks and ecaluations. "You attended a Tea Party rally in 2011. The government has declared them a hate group. No gun for you." Just using that as a hypothetical.
 
2013-01-16 03:01:39 PM

Deep Contact: So how do these new rules stop someone from using a gun to kill someone without a gun.


In twenty years, there will be less guns, and it will be harder to kill someone with a gun.  Get rid of the guns, and people wont kill people with guns.  Simple really.
 
2013-01-16 03:01:41 PM

orbister: Guys, it's time just to repeal the second amendment. Go on, just get it over with.


Be more efficient to repeal the 13th.
 
2013-01-16 03:02:07 PM
They mad in freeper land:

To: chessplayer

Quite a few rich queers coming out of the closet to get hysterical against our Constitution.


I have to admit I chuckled at this one:

i931.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-16 03:02:15 PM
Things Obama did NOT propose (and good on him)

* Banning semi automatics
* Confiscating any guns
* Registration of guns or gun owners
* tagging of ammo
* regulation of ammo amounts


Not that bad overall. Take out the AWB and mag limits and we got a deal.
 
2013-01-16 03:02:20 PM

Weaver95: huh.  Rush Limbaugh just implied he's pro-choice now.


I also listen to Limbaugh on lunch and throw out nuggets to my FB folks. A couple of weeks ago he said Obama wants to mandate changes to text books to blame Reagan for AIDS. You can listen for five minutes and usually come across something that, in context, is absolutely ludicrous.
 
2013-01-16 03:02:54 PM

Ego edo infantia cattus: Reasonable legislation that targets gun sales to criminals rather than infringing on law abiding citizens' rights?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x331]
On the other hand, I do think there should be some kind of mental health screening, which would of course be some kind of infringement on whack-jobs' rights.


The children will be fine. The smaller magazines will be easier for their small hands and how much could be found in their short little background checks??
 
2013-01-16 03:03:16 PM

jigoro: Phinn: I can save the CDC the time and money involved in extensive gun violence research:

Most gun crimes are committed by black and Hispanic drug-dealing gang-members.

Or is this the part of the "national discussion" we're not supposed to mention?

By number of incidents, yes. But by pure body count, loner white guys without mortgages are starting to pull ahead.


Ahead? Not likely. Become a noticable statistic, yes. Get more media attention yes. But pulling ahead? Not likely. Watch your local news, every broadcast seems to start with a shooting if you live anywhere near a major city.
 
2013-01-16 03:03:24 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: My God.

This is how democracy dies... with enhanced background checks and enforcement of existing laws.


But enhanced background checks and enforcement of existing laws was a bad thing with SB1070.
 
2013-01-16 03:03:49 PM
it's funny to come here and read... all the republicans this... all the conservatives that... yet, working for a hunters' advocacy group here and the nearly hundred employees aren't jumping off the roof or spitting any such hatred. Rather the opposite, pointing out the obvious in that these are items that should have been the focus of our attention long before Sandy Hook. Oh and harsher penalties wouldn't have had any consequences on the Sandy Hook murderer or most of the other mass shootings. The Tucson, AZ shooting could have been avoided completely but since the Pima Community College Police didn't share their concern with the Tucson Police, the shooter, who was pulled over before the shooting was allowed to continue to hid destination without question.
 
2013-01-16 03:03:55 PM
I like the BBC reporter's take on the whole thing I heard last night:

Obama knows that he will NEVER get new, sweeping legislation through this Congress, so ALL he has is executive orders...and all they can do is increase enforcement of existing laws, and expand the data sharing among the various governmental agencies. Surprised he even asked for Congress to force background checks on private sales (which will probably never happen either)

He would LOVE to do more - but he knows he can't.
 
2013-01-16 03:04:10 PM

Weaver95: huh.  Rush Limbaugh just implied he's pro-choice now.


He's a slut.
 
2013-01-16 03:04:39 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Gun ownership should be limited to the types of weapons available when the 2nd amendment was written.


Freedom of speech should be limited to communication techniques available when the constitution was written.

I trust you will be leaving FARK, giving up your computer, telephone, cell phone, and any radios asap.


/See how it sounds?
 
2013-01-16 03:04:52 PM

chrylis: Grand_Moff_Joseph: No, but in all seriousness, can you point to a case where that did happen? (not being snarky, just asking)

And sorry, I can't believe I forgot both Bolshevik Russia, where everyone who owned a firearm was required to bring it to the police station for registration and was then shot, and 1950's China, in which the 20-million-dead purges immediately followed.


But this is America.  That can't won't happen here.
 
2013-01-16 03:05:25 PM

queezyweezel: Deep Contact: So how do these new rules stop someone from using a gun to kill someone without a gun.

In twenty years, there will be less guns, and it will be harder to kill someone with a gun.  Get rid of the guns, and people wont kill people with guns.  Simple really.


Don't fall for it, it's a technically unanswerable question.
1) Party A doesn't have a gun, question doesn't apply
2) Party B has a gun, question doesn't apply

The only conceivable "right" answer would be something like mandatory full-body armor for everyone.

/Learn to recognize trolls
//It could save your life
 
2013-01-16 03:05:29 PM

Chummer45: I haven't heard a single person make a reasonable argument why assault rifles should be freely available for anyone to purchase.


And I haven't heard a single reasonable argument for banning them.
 
2013-01-16 03:05:36 PM

Endive Wombat: During the ban it was illegal to manufacture, but people could still buy and sell. All they did was ramp up production before the ban went into effect. This accomplished nothing.


Or, you know, actual facts and data indicate that the number of large capacity magazines seized during arrests steadily declined over the whole period of that ban. But that's just reality, which is nothing in the face of a Fark Expert.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-10/news/36272948_1_magazin e s-and-assault-weapons-high-capacity-magazines-33-round-magazine

The biggest step Obama made towards eventually curtailing gun ownership is getting data collection going on them again. There is surprisingly little data on questions like if assault weapons are ever used for defense versus shotguns, most commonly used weapons for homicides versus suicides, etc. And the lack of data is not an accident.
 
2013-01-16 03:05:40 PM

This text is now purple: From what authority does the federal government have jurisdiction over intrastate sales?


They are the authority.
 
2013-01-16 03:05:50 PM

aegean: Where are the reasonable limits to the first amendment? Would they include outlawing all liberal retarded lying speech? Hey, maybe that isn't a bad idea!


Libel, slander, incitement to riot, direct threats, "fire" in a crowded theater, and "provoking words" are all classified as unprotected speech.
 
2013-01-16 03:05:59 PM

Endive Wombat:
If they open the NICS to the public for free, that would be nice.  But if they do not get rid of private sale, the average citizen privately selling a gun has no compelling reason to use it.  Also, I sure as heck am not handing over a ton of personal information to some random dude I met off http://vaguntrader.com/, that is just asking for all kinds of identity theft issues.


Is that a "no animal products" gun store? Because vegans don't strike me as the right demo for a boutique gun store.
 
2013-01-16 03:06:00 PM

PsiChick: This is awesome. Still relies purely on background checks, which don't catch undiagnosed conditions, but still--FINALLY that damn gun-show loophole is closed, and the health care providers are getting clearer instructions. Those are  great first steps.


The background checks still require Congressional approval.
 
2013-01-16 03:06:11 PM

Chummer45: Holocaust Agnostic: Fubini: Supporting a renewal of the AWB is silly, but otherwise I liked what I heard. I'm truly impressed that he seems to have targeted actions and reforms that get to the bulk of gun violence rather than focusing just on high-profile shootings like Sandy Hook or Aurora.

This.

I agree with this - but what's silly about the AWB? I haven't heard a single person make a reasonable argument why assault rifles should be freely available for anyone to purchase. The only arguments I have heard are nonsensical, completely disingenuous arguments like "assault rifles are impossible to define" and "an assault rifle is the exact same thing as a typical hunting rifle." Those arguments are bullshiat, and the progun folks know it. The only reason why anyone is arguing against banning ARs is because (1) they're really cool, and (2) some people are so deluded that they think they're going to be fighting a guerilla war some day.

I get it - assault rifles are really cool. I wouldn't mind owning an AR-15 to take out to the range every now and then. But there's no reason why I would need to own one other than the fact that it's my hobby and I like it. I'll happily give up that one small facet of my recreational shooting hobby, if it means that it will be more difficult for people like Holmes and Lanza to get their hands on an AR-15.


Firstly, what would you define as an assault weapon if it is indeed so clear cut? Anything with a detachable magazine? Anything semi-automatic? Anything over a certain caliber?

Second, you've got you telescope backwards. Its not "why should we allow this" its "why should we ban this". 400ish murders with rifles doesn't seem like a compelling need to me and that's for all rifles, not any 'assult' subset. That number can only drop.
 
2013-01-16 03:06:19 PM

queezyweezel: Do you know what armour piercing bullets are?  Deer hunting bullets.


Do you know how I know you haven't read the laws and regulations that define armor piercing rounds? Because 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(17)(B) states that the banned rounds must be able to be used in handguns.

(17)
(A) The term "ammunition" means ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellent powder designed for use in any firearm.
(B) The term "armor piercing ammunition" means-
(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.
 
2013-01-16 03:06:44 PM

Ego edo infantia cattus: On the other hand, I do think there should be some kind of mental health screening, which would of course be some kind of infringement on whack-jobs' rights.


My personal argument has always been that you should have to do a check every 4 to 6 years to buy guns. You get issued something similar to a driver's license that says "Ha-ha-guy has a clean bill of health, sell him guns". The first time in you actually have to take tests. After that you just need your primary care physician to sign off saying they've seen no emerging signs of mental issues/senility/etc since the full on check (and perhaps one a decade or so you have to go see a shrink and get a fresh clean bill of health). Plus with Obamacare we can make the entire thing covered by insurance.

That placates the fears over the government is coming for your guns types. The government knows you have a license to own guns, but they don't necessary know if you have 1 or 100 squirreled away. So when the government comes to take my guns al la post Katrina, I give them a few rifles and have the rest buried out back IRA style (just to play devil's advocate).

Of course the real issue is what do you do when a sane person is engaged in cohabitation with a mental ill person. Al la the Newton shooter taking his mom's gun or the Taft High one taking his brother's shotgun. That's going to be an interesting test case, if you can restrict the rights of the sane individual due to their association with a nutcase who can't pass the weapons check. That's the real area that needs to be hammered out, weapons ownership and security of the weapon when associated with a nutbag.
 
2013-01-16 03:06:53 PM
I'm for banning all conservatives/libertarians from owning guns. That should solve most of the problem.
 
2013-01-16 03:07:24 PM

Oldiron_79: So they want to require all firearms be sold through FFLs. That would be the same as requiring you to sell all cars through dealersships. Im pretty sure it violates the Sherman antitrust act and the interstate commerce clause whether it violates the 2nd ammend or not.


It says no such thing. You are tilting at windmills
 
2013-01-16 03:07:42 PM

USP .45: I said this years ago before there was even a peep about gun control: If Obama could get away with more, he would.

Stop acting like he doesn't want to ban most types of guns.



What he wants doesn't matter. It's what he will try to do, and what he can actually get done that matter.
 
2013-01-16 03:07:47 PM

NateGrey: Frank N Stein: the cretins on Fark that were saying "kiss your guns goodbye" or some similar shiat.

No one was saying that you dumb fark Republican.

How do you have a rational debate with such morons.


I was debating this issue in the comments section of a UK newspaper some weeks ago, and one poster on the thread expressed the hope that the billions of rounds recently purchased by the US government for domestic purposes would be used to exterminate all the legal gun owners. True, he was British, but it goes to show you that anti- gun extremists do exist.
 
2013-01-16 03:08:11 PM

maachubo: "fire" in a crowded theater


Not that I agree or disagree with what you said, but can't someone PLEASE come up with different analogy? I'm really tired of hearing YELLING FIRE IN A MOVIE THEATER every time people discuss firearm regulations.

Again, nothing against what you said. It's just starting to be a pet peeve for me.
 
2013-01-16 03:08:21 PM

CheatCommando: queezyweezel: Do you know what armour piercing bullets are?  Deer hunting bullets.

Do you know how I know you haven't read the laws and regulations that define armor piercing rounds? Because 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(17)(B) states that the banned rounds must be able to be used in handguns.

(17)
(A) The term "ammunition" means ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellent powder designed for use in any firearm.
(B) The term "armor piercing ammunition" means-
(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.


Sorry, I was going with the media (and common gun control discussion) parlance.
 
2013-01-16 03:08:23 PM

Weaver95: oh you should hear Limbaugh today.  He's already said that President Obama's kids shouldn't have guards, and I swear to f*cking god, I thought he was going to actually CRY at one point...the left is mocking the NRA you see.  and these things Obama is proposing have made Limbaugh very angry.

And the sad thing is most of you farkers are just as ape shiat crazy as he is just on the other side. Its becoming increasingly hard to be a centrist in this world
 
2013-01-16 03:08:37 PM

Insatiable Jesus: LMFAO. H&K didn't say what you wanted them to say and only now is their stuff overpriced? News flash: H&K was overpriced when you bought whatever you're selling. I remember when posers went from Sig to H&K.


yes, overpriced then and stupidly overpriced now, and crap customer service. I have no idea what they say however, just how they act.
 
2013-01-16 03:08:40 PM
He ain't mah preznint! I believe in Jeezus, Ron Paul, and Ayn Rand! Now bring back King George II!
 
2013-01-16 03:08:42 PM

ha-ha-guy: Ego edo infantia cattus: On the other hand, I do think there should be some kind of mental health screening, which would of course be some kind of infringement on whack-jobs' rights.

My personal argument has always been that you should have to do a check every 4 to 6 years to buy guns. You get issued something similar to a driver's license that says "Ha-ha-guy has a clean bill of health, sell him guns". The first time in you actually have to take tests. After that you just need your primary care physician to sign off saying they've seen no emerging signs of mental issues/senility/etc since the full on check (and perhaps one a decade or so you have to go see a shrink and get a fresh clean bill of health). Plus with Obamacare we can make the entire thing covered by insurance.

That placates the fears over the government is coming for your guns types. The government knows you have a license to own guns, but they don't necessary know if you have 1 or 100 squirreled away. So when the government comes to take my guns al la post Katrina, I give them a few rifles and have the rest buried out back IRA style (just to play devil's advocate).

Of course the real issue is what do you do when a sane person is engaged in cohabitation with a mental ill person. Al la the Newton shooter taking his mom's gun or the Taft High one taking his brother's shotgun. That's going to be an interesting test case, if you can restrict the rights of the sane individual due to their association with a nutcase who can't pass the weapons check. That's the real area that needs to be hammered out, weapons ownership and security of the weapon when associated with a nutbag.


I could use that same standard for the rest of the bill of rights. Not sure you'd like the results though.
 
2013-01-16 03:09:09 PM

Click Click D'oh: Duty to report blah blah blah...


So you agree there's precedent and your prior comment on the issue was completely idiotic. Glad we agree.

Click Click D'oh: A police officer can seize my firearm blah blah blah


So you agree that nothing changed and your prior comment on the issue was completely idiotic. Glad we agree.

But, no, you're right it's totally an outrage that they're going to check to make sure you're allowed to have a gun before handing one to you after they seized it in the process of a criminal investigation involving you. that just makes no sense at all.

Click Click D'oh: Yeah... because police would never abuse their authority... never... ever... Right Fark?


No, no. Totally legitimate fear. A cop going to the trouble and paperwork of putting together a formal investigation because they gave you a ticket for a violation most people never even get cited for. Absolutely legitimate concern and you don't sound completely off your goddamn rocker at all.

Click Click D'oh: o wait... you're telling me that Fark hasn't been flailing around about how silly the NRA was for suggesting police in schools?


So Fark is the president now?

Holy shiat guys! You hear that?! I wanna try that damn autopen thing!
 
2013-01-16 03:09:19 PM

Frank N Stein: AFKobel: CADMonkey79: Why would my doctor ask me if I had guns in the house?

Because you just came in his office for a checkup, and muttered out of the side of your mouth that you WISH THIS VOICES WOULD STOP TELLING YOU TO ALL THE BODYSNATCHERS IN YOUR LOCAL MALL!!

I imagine primary health care professionals might be well suited to identify some of the up-and-coming paranoid mass murderers among us. So, lets not stop doctors from at least asking the question.

I could see the value in that. But if, for instance, I visited the doctor about say a leg injury and the good Doc asks me about whether or not I have firearms, I would just decline to answer.


And you're certainly be well within your rights. But the executive order relative to this matter simply clarifies that doctors are allowed to ask the question.
 
2013-01-16 03:09:27 PM
Now it's time to watch all the law-abiding gun owners show everyone how law-abiding they are by vowing to circumvent/break these changes any chance they can.
 
2013-01-16 03:09:37 PM

Endive Wombat: Chummer45: I agree with this - but what's silly about the AWB?

The ban banned things that had NOTHING to do with gun violence and gun safety.  High capacity mags were banned - do you know what about them was banned?  During the ban it was illegal to manufacture, but people could still buy and sell.  All they did was ramp up production before the ban went into effect.  This accomplished nothing.  It banned barrel shrouds - these are the scary looking things around a barrel that prevent you from burning yourself.   It banned bayonet mounts - because so many shootings in the US involve a gun and a bayonet right?

The ban did nothing to address the root causes of crime, it was simply a feel good law.  It was a total failure, many liberals will agree with this.


So you're advocating the search and seizure of all hicap mags. Granted Obama's proposal isn't perfect, but you're batshiat insane.
 
Bf+
2013-01-16 03:09:40 PM

queezyweezel: Bf+: How dare he force Americans to get background checks for stockpiling armor piercing bullets!
How will we shoot the government?
[images.sodahead.com image 350x273]

Do you know what armour piercing bullets are?  Deer hunting bullets.  Pretty much any round that is fired from a center-fire rifle as a matter of fact.

/still okay with background checks for any weapons, but hey, lets throw some more hysteria into the mix.


Of course, I'm sure you realize that some definitions of "armor piercing" (and "metal piercing, etc") differ, and that some bullets are made specifically for penetrating armor (say Kevlar), even when fired from a less powerful rifle. If some guy is using those to down deer, even kevlar-protected deer, it probably wouldn't be all that bad an idea to let the DNR know that it takes him 3000 rounds to do so...
 
2013-01-16 03:09:42 PM

MayoSlather: I'm for banning all conservatives/libertarians from owning guns. That should solve most of the problem.


Nope, it'd just bring the next civil war in the US that much closer -- a war that the more numerous and better- armed side would inevitably win.
 
2013-01-16 03:10:08 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Thunderpipes: orbister: Guys, it's time just to repeal the second amendment. Go on, just get it over with.

Wish libs would just be honest about it. They want the 2nd, and the 4th at minimum to be at Obama's discretion. That is the real agenda. Quit hiding behind kids and emotions and just come out and say it.

I have a few 20 round magazines for my M1A. Under NY law, and pretty soon everywhere in blue states, I will be a criminal unless I turn them in? I will have to go get booked, fingerprinted and picture taken to keep weapons I own?

Oops, lost my weapons in the move officer.

We get it, you're an irresponsible law breaking gun owner.


Not yet.
 
2013-01-16 03:10:15 PM

MayoSlather: I'm for banning all conservatives/libertarians from owning guns. That should solve most of the problem.


yeah all those freemarket drug distributing entrepreneurs in the inner city and southern border.
 
2013-01-16 03:10:19 PM

SpectroBoy: * tagging of ammo


What is the problem with tagging ammo? I get annoying, but so's buying Sudafed. Is there a real problem with it?
 
2013-01-16 03:10:53 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: NateGrey: Frank N Stein: the cretins on Fark that were saying "kiss your guns goodbye" or some similar shiat.

No one was saying that you dumb fark Republican.

How do you have a rational debate with such morons.

I was debating this issue in the comments section of a UK newspaper some weeks ago, and one poster on the thread expressed the hope that the billions of rounds recently purchased by the US government for domestic purposes would be used to exterminate all the legal gun owners. True, he was British, but it goes to show you that anti- gun extremists do exist.


Understandably nobody likes to acknowledge extremest on their side, but you can't ignore them and pretend they don't exist. That's dangerous for all parties.
 
2013-01-16 03:10:56 PM

SpectroBoy: Popcorn Johnny: Gun ownership should be limited to the types of weapons available when the 2nd amendment was written.

Freedom of speech should be limited to communication techniques available when the constitution was written.

I trust you will be leaving FARK, giving up your computer, telephone, cell phone, and any radios asap.


/See how it sounds?


Ya cuz its a terrible analogy. Internet is a medium. Words are the 'tools.' Freedom of speech should be restricted to only words in the english language at the time, would be more apt a comparison.
 
2013-01-16 03:11:08 PM

Jounville: He wants to get rid of armor piercing bullets?!? How am I supposed to hunt turtles now?

Thanks but no thanks O'Bummer!


With an Italian plumber, same as everyone else.
 
2013-01-16 03:11:14 PM

CADMonkey79: Why would my doctor ask me if I had guns in the house?


First, you can always switch doctors.

Second, it's not illegal to lie to a doctor.

Doctor: Any guns in the house?
Me: Nope, not a one. Once my wife bought a staple gun and I beat her with it to drive the point home. Now can we get on with the actual HEALTH related part of this process?
 
2013-01-16 03:11:18 PM

Surpheon: Endive Wombat: During the ban it was illegal to manufacture, but people could still buy and sell. All they did was ramp up production before the ban went into effect. This accomplished nothing.

Or, you know, actual facts and data indicate that the number of large capacity magazines seized during arrests steadily declined over the whole period of that ban. But that's just reality, which is nothing in the face of a Fark Expert.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-10/news/36272948_1_magazin e s-and-assault-weapons-high-capacity-magazines-33-round-magazine

The biggest step Obama made towards eventually curtailing gun ownership is getting data collection going on them again. There is surprisingly little data on questions like if assault weapons are ever used for defense versus shotguns, most commonly used weapons for homicides versus suicides, etc. And the lack of data is not an accident.


Sure, they seized a lot of high cap mags, but you cannot say that there was less gun violence or less crime involving guns due to the high cap ban portion of the AWB.

Yeah, I think the NRA/Right blocking such stats is silly to a certain degree.  But I can see their point, in that if a specific type of gun or ammo size is used in a majority of crimes, then politicians will try to legislate against it and get it banned...which does nothing in addressing the root causes.  They are fearful that the data will be used incorrectly, like being used for politicking rather than addressing social issues...
 
2013-01-16 03:11:19 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Gun ownership should be limited to the types of weapons available when the 2nd amendment was written.


Wait, are we talking exact models, types, or what your average citizen was able to legally acquire?

/I don't think you're going to like the answer to any of those
 
2013-01-16 03:12:07 PM

Frank N Stein: maachubo: "fire" in a crowded theater

Not that I agree or disagree with what you said, but can't someone PLEASE come up with different analogy? I'm really tired of hearing YELLING FIRE IN A MOVIE THEATER every time people discuss firearm regulations.

Again, nothing against what you said. It's just starting to be a pet peeve for me.


And we're tired of hearing about how criminals dont obey laws. At least that one is the truth and not a logical fallacy.
 
2013-01-16 03:12:37 PM

chrylis: Grand_Moff_Joseph: No, but in all seriousness, can you point to a case where that did happen? (not being snarky, just asking)

And sorry, I can't believe I forgot both Bolshevik Russia, where everyone who owned a firearm was required to bring it to the police station for registration and was then shot, and 1950's China, in which the 20-million-dead purges immediately followed.


see, I knew about many of those events of history, but for some reason, none of them came to mind when I mentioned requiring firearm registration.  Maybe because we don't live in a Bolshevik state, or Imperial China, or Nazi Germany.  Sure, some UK/EU countries (and Canada) curtailed firearm ownership, but A)they aren't dictatorships and B) the populace there seems not to mind, given their lack of protests  over it
 
2013-01-16 03:12:49 PM

justtray: SpectroBoy: Popcorn Johnny: Gun ownership should be limited to the types of weapons available when the 2nd amendment was written.

Freedom of speech should be limited to communication techniques available when the constitution was written.

I trust you will be leaving FARK, giving up your computer, telephone, cell phone, and any radios asap.


/See how it sounds?

Ya cuz its a terrible analogy. Internet is a medium. Words are the 'tools.' Freedom of speech should be restricted to only words in the english language at the time, would be more apt a comparison.


"Press" would have been closer.
 
2013-01-16 03:12:54 PM

CADMonkey79: AFKobel: CADMonkey79: Why would my doctor ask me if I had guns in the house?

Because you just came in his office for a checkup, and muttered out of the side of your mouth that you WISH THIS VOICES WOULD STOP TELLING YOU TO ALL THE BODYSNATCHERS IN YOUR LOCAL MALL!!

I imagine primary health care professionals might be well suited to identify some of the up-and-coming paranoid mass murderers among us. So, lets not stop doctors from at least asking the question.

There is nothing preventing a doctor from asking you questions about your mental health and trying to diagnose any problems you might have. What would be the reason for him to ask if you have a gun? Would he also need to ask about any other potential weapons you might have. Why would his be the doctor's responsibility, they are healthcare providers not law enforcers.


The doctor would then report you to the BATF, local police, Obama himself. He is a menace, and has guns in the house. And then you would get a visit from the nice policemen with "assault weapons" to take yours away.

There was an article about 4 or 5 years ago when a man told a doctor he drank 8 to 12 beers a day. The doctor called the DMV, and the man's drivers license was suspended.

Bottom line, the first rule of the gun club is don't talk about the gun club.

Doctor: Do you have any guns in the house?
Me: Nope, nothing to see here.
 
2013-01-16 03:12:58 PM

SpectroBoy: Things Obama did NOT propose (and good on him)

* Banning semi automatics
* Confiscating any guns
* Registration of guns or gun owners
* tagging of ammo
* regulation of ammo amounts


Not that bad overall. Take out the AWB and mag limits and we got a deal.


Yes but if don't bring the AWB back, the next school shooting could involve an AR-15 variant with bayonet mounted to it! OMG panic!

/people talk about the right having gun control issues, but the liberals have a big gun control issue in thinking that the AWB means jack and shiat beside annoying gun owners
//aside from some of the semi-auto pistol restricts that is, those actually did have an impact in that the street gangs couldn't by drive by ready machine pistols as easily for whatever it was worth
/the rifle and shotgun parts were absurd though
 
2013-01-16 03:13:17 PM

Bf+: queezyweezel: Bf+: How dare he force Americans to get background checks for stockpiling armor piercing bullets!
How will we shoot the government?
[images.sodahead.com image 350x273]

Do you know what armour piercing bullets are?  Deer hunting bullets.  Pretty much any round that is fired from a center-fire rifle as a matter of fact.

/still okay with background checks for any weapons, but hey, lets throw some more hysteria into the mix.

Of course, I'm sure you realize that some definitions of "armor piercing" (and "metal piercing, etc") differ, and that some bullets are made specifically for penetrating armor (say Kevlar), even when fired from a less powerful rifle. If some guy is using those to down deer, even kevlar-protected deer, it probably wouldn't be all that bad an idea to let the DNR know that it takes him 3000 rounds to do so...


Yep.  the US govt has lots of it.  So do some police departments.  It's used all the time in crimes all across the country since it's cheap and easily available.
 
2013-01-16 03:13:22 PM

Bf+: Satan's Bunny Slippers: Galileo's Daughter: Sybarite: What? Cancel my outrage? Did you say "cancel my outrage"? No outrage is cancelled until I decide it is! Was outrage cancelled when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

Germans?

NevermindForget it, he's on a roll rolling.
/FI



:)

It was a quick and dirty. Thanks.
 
2013-01-16 03:13:32 PM

chrylis: In China, yes. In the United States, no. You have to file paperwork if you want tax concessions on the basis of being a church, but any requirement to "register" churches would get smacked down faster than a violent-video-game ban.


You do have to register if you want your church to be anything larger than a gathering in your living room. Take donations to cover the cost of the facility? If you haven't registered for tax exempt status, prepare for a visit from the IRS for unclaimed income. Discuss certain 'banned' topics during your church service? Say goodbye to that tax exempt status. And depending on the state, you'll likely need a business license regardless of the size/location.

chrylis: Depends on the state, and the handful I'm familiar with don't require any such registration. They simply list classes of people who are qualified to "solemnize" a marriage, and in addition to broadly-defined ministers of religion, a Quaker assembly usually qualifies.


Many/most states require the officiant to provide copies of their ordination to the county clerk (or whatever local entity handles marriage licenses).
 
2013-01-16 03:13:45 PM

bigbadideasinaction: Now it's time to watch all the law-abiding gun owners show everyone how law-abiding they are by vowing to circumvent/break these changes any chance they can.


I would advise every law- abiding gun owner to do exactly that... "law- abiding" when it comes to guns means that you aren't committing violent crimes with your firearm, not that you are obligated to jump through every arbitrary hoop raised by the government. To draw an analogy you might find easier to understand, people who use drugs obviously break the law by doing so, but are generally "law- abiding" otherwise -- smoking pot doesn't turn you into a dangerous criminal, and neither does owning a "high- capacity" magazine.
 
2013-01-16 03:13:54 PM

Surpheon: What is the problem with tagging ammo? I get annoying, but so's buying Sudafed. Is there a real problem with it?


What's it going to do?
 
2013-01-16 03:14:19 PM

Frank N Stein: maachubo: "fire" in a crowded theater

Not that I agree or disagree with what you said, but can't someone PLEASE come up with different analogy? I'm really tired of hearing YELLING FIRE IN A MOVIE THEATER every time people discuss firearm regulations.

Again, nothing against what you said. It's just starting to be a pet peeve for me.


Look, if you are in a crowded theater with gun nuts, the last thing you want to do is yell, "FIRE!"
 
2013-01-16 03:14:23 PM

bigbadideasinaction: Now it's time to watch all the law-abiding gun owners show everyone how law-abiding they are by vowing to circumvent/break these changes any chance they can.


If you make enough laws, everyone becomes a criminal.  How about we make the color blue illegal.  it'll do just as much to curb crime as the AWB will.
 
2013-01-16 03:14:39 PM

MayoSlather: I'm for banning all conservatives/libertarians from owning guns. That should solve most of the problem.


Probably.
cdn.stripersonline.com
 
2013-01-16 03:14:40 PM

SpectroBoy: CADMonkey79: Why would my doctor ask me if I had guns in the house?

First, you can always switch doctors.

Second, it's not illegal to lie to a doctor.

Doctor: Any guns in the house?
Me: Nope, not a one. Once my wife bought a staple gun and I beat her with it to drive the point home. Now can we get on with the actual HEALTH related part of this process?


Spectro, we are on the same page.
 
2013-01-16 03:14:52 PM
THERE ISN'T A LAW IN EXISTENCE THAT WILL PREVENT VIOLENCE...
lather, rinse, repeat...
 
2013-01-16 03:14:56 PM

give me doughnuts: USP .45: I said this years ago before there was even a peep about gun control: If Obama could get away with more, he would.

Stop acting like he doesn't want to ban most types of guns.


What he wants doesn't matter. It's what he will try to do, and what he can actually get done that matter.


Give USP a break. His mom is Chauchat.
 
2013-01-16 03:15:03 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: MayoSlather: I'm for banning all conservatives/libertarians from owning guns. That should solve most of the problem.

Nope, it'd just bring the next civil war in the US that much closer -- a war that the more numerous and better- armed side would inevitably win.


Nice bottom of the barrel troll attempt. If you want to talk "next civil war" shiat, go to one of your freeper sites.
 
2013-01-16 03:15:06 PM

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: He would LOVE to do more - but he knows he can't.


He would huh? And you got that from his first 4 years in office in which he relentless lobbied for more gun laws (while actually expending the rights of gun owners)? Or was it for his campaign promise to "get the guns"? Or was it signing a few EO's that in no way ban guns? But you know, just KNOW, he wants to do more. Cause Beck told you so, huh?
 
2013-01-16 03:15:09 PM

Oldiron_79: So they want to require all firearms be sold through FFLs. That would be the same as requiring you to sell all cars through dealersships. Im pretty sure it violates the Sherman antitrust act and the interstate commerce clause whether it violates the 2nd ammend or not.


What is it about "well regulated" that has your panties in a bunch? If you want to be a militia of one. that's fine, but don't expect to be able to do so without jumping through a hoop or two to prove to the general society that you are responsible enough to do so. Voting is a sacred right and we routinely deny that right to felons even after they have fully served their sentence.
 
2013-01-16 03:15:36 PM

Thunderpipes: Good job at keeping the screaming dumb masses focused on something other than the disaster that Obama has made of the economy though, huh?

Masterful.


Let me guess. Did you also prepare a post that says "Obama has done nothing about gun because he keeps trying to spin the economy by talking about it!?!?"

I mean let's be honest. The guy could cure cancer and make blowjob mandatory and you would still hate him.
 
2013-01-16 03:15:37 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: Surpheon: What is the problem with tagging ammo? I get annoying, but so's buying Sudafed. Is there a real problem with it?

What's it going to do?


add massive cost and make handloading illegal, thereby further increasing the cost.
 
2013-01-16 03:15:44 PM

ha-ha-guy: //aside from some of the semi-auto pistol restricts that is, those actually did have an impact in that the street gangs couldn't by drive by ready machine pistols as easily for whatever it was worth


daily.greencine.com
Do.
We.
Have.
A.
Pro`lem?
 
2013-01-16 03:16:17 PM

Endive Wombat: Gun Nut Here!

So I've looked at the list, and I really cannot get mad at it.  I do take some issue with two aspects:

1.  Doctors asking if there are guns in the home.  Some doctors are going to get yelled at, some will get preachy.  This really has nothing to do with the federal government though...
2.  "Universal Background Checks" - I have no idea what that means or how it differs from the current system.  I do fear that like many things the federal government works on, it will become convoluted, bloated and inefficient

Other than those, I ain't mad


Here in Vermont, background checks are against a state database, not a federal one.
 
2013-01-16 03:17:04 PM

I_C_Weener: Frank N Stein: maachubo: "fire" in a crowded theater

Not that I agree or disagree with what you said, but can't someone PLEASE come up with different analogy? I'm really tired of hearing YELLING FIRE IN A MOVIE THEATER every time people discuss firearm regulations.

Again, nothing against what you said. It's just starting to be a pet peeve for me.

Look, if you are in a crowded theater with gun nuts, the last thing you want to do is yell, "FIRE!"


lol
 
2013-01-16 03:17:07 PM

USP .45: MayoSlather: I'm for banning all conservatives/libertarians from owning guns. That should solve most of the problem.

yeah all those freemarket drug distributing entrepreneurs in the inner city and southern border.


Criminlas would soon run out of guns without "responsible gun owners" and dealers to buy them from.
 
2013-01-16 03:17:24 PM

chrylis: Grand_Moff_Joseph: No, but in all seriousness, can you point to a case where that did happen? (not being snarky, just asking)

And sorry, I can't believe I forgot both Bolshevik Russia, where everyone who owned a firearm was required to bring it to the police station for registration and was then shot, and 1950's China, in which the 20-million-dead purges immediately followed.


If you think the US is headed towards any of your examples, it's already too late to change trajectory. I suggest you GTFO.
 
2013-01-16 03:17:47 PM

NightOwl2255: DontMakeMeComeBackThere: He would LOVE to do more - but he knows he can't.

He would huh? And you got that from his first 4 years in office in which he relentless lobbied for more gun laws (while actually expending the rights of gun owners)? Or was it for his campaign promise to "get the guns"? Or was it signing a few EO's that in no way ban guns? But you know, just KNOW, he wants to do more. Cause Beck told you so, huh?


To be fair, we're going to find out the truth over the next few weeks. I tend to think the AWB is going off to die a horrible death in Congress. So Obama can at least to go tell the anti-gun part of the base he tried something and the Republicans blocked it. If he puts a lot of political capital behind it though, then that shows he does want to do more. Whereas if just shrugs and walks away at the Republicans kill it (while getting all the checks he want in place), then it is clear the AWB was just a move to placate part of his base and give the Republicans something to yell about beside the checks.
 
2013-01-16 03:17:49 PM

bullsballs: THERE ISN'T A LAW IN EXISTENCE THAT WILL PREVENT VIOLENCE... people from using cannabis
lather, rinse, repeat...


And yet, we keep trying...
 
2013-01-16 03:18:12 PM

Callous: Grand_Moff_Joseph: How does that take a right away from you?  We all have the right to drive a car, but we have to take a training course and pay for a license to do so.  And I really don't think a 0.2% tax on that box of shells is going to dent your wallet.

Not on public roads.  It's a privilege.  On private land you can drive anyway that you want, that's why you don't see licence plates and government imposed speed limits in Nascar.  But if it's on the street you have to be licensed, insured, vehicle has to be registered, follow speed limits, etc.

It's not the dent in my wallet, it's that they won't use the money for what it's supposed to be for.  Just look at Massachusetts' temporary sales tax, cigarette taxes, and the Mass Pike tolls.  And I don't like putting requirements on constitutional rights.  We don't require permits and language courses before someone is allowed to speak in a vain attempt to prevent people from shouting FIRE in a theater.  We don't require writers to get permits and take mandatory courses before they can write a book.  We don't require people to get permits before they go to church.

If you need a permission slip from the government to exercise a right, it's not a right.


Well let's abolish all boards of election and voter registration then. Vote early and often.
 
2013-01-16 03:18:46 PM

ha-ha-guy: Ego edo infantia cattus: On the other hand, I do think there should be some kind of mental health screening, which would of course be some kind of infringement on whack-jobs' rights.

My personal argument has always been that you should have to do a check every 4 to 6 years to buy guns. You get issued something similar to a driver's license that says "Ha-ha-guy has a clean bill of health, sell him guns". The first time in you actually have to take tests. After that you just need your primary care physician to sign off saying they've seen no emerging signs of mental issues/senility/etc since the full on check (and perhaps one a decade or so you have to go see a shrink and get a fresh clean bill of health). Plus with Obamacare we can make the entire thing covered by insurance.

That placates the fears over the government is coming for your guns types. The government knows you have a license to own guns, but they don't necessary know if you have 1 or 100 squirreled away. So when the government comes to take my guns al la post Katrina, I give them a few rifles and have the rest buried out back IRA style (just to play devil's advocate).

Of course the real issue is what do you do when a sane person is engaged in cohabitation with a mental ill person. Al la the Newton shooter taking his mom's gun or the Taft High one taking his brother's shotgun. That's going to be an interesting test case, if you can restrict the rights of the sane individual due to their association with a nutcase who can't pass the weapons check. That's the real area that needs to be hammered out, weapons ownership and security of the weapon when associated with a nutbag.



The big issue here is with trying to make sure someone fits into a predefined set of criteria, and you run into the issue where the evaluator (the shrink) may be biased against guns or specific topics, and you now create a market where enterprising shrinks do nothing but "mental health screenings" and for a nominal fee, you get a clean bill of health - I would point to the doctors in states where medical marijuana is legal.

I am having difficulty in coming up with an extensive enough mental health check that is totally objective and has zero room for the subjective interpretation by the evaluator.
 
2013-01-16 03:19:30 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: a war that the more numerous and better- armed side would inevitably win.


That would be whichever side the military broke for. We're not fresh off the articles of confederation anymore, the military would go one way or the other not split by state. Unlike two centuries ago, there is now simply no comparison between military hardware and civilian hardware.

In the modern world, the '2nd amendment solution' could also be referred to as the 'Gabrielle Giffords solution'. Any thoughts of a militia-style uprising getting anywhere is delusional. Gun owner's defense against tyranny would be limited to assassination at best, terrorism at worst (like Timothy McVeigh, a right winger denounced even faster than GWB in an election year). Which is why the hard core '2nd amendment solution' folks are generally considered delusional, abhorrent assholes, or both.
 
2013-01-16 03:19:33 PM

Vodka Zombie: Seriously, Florida.  You have "stand-your-ground," and Limbaugh's a strung out, drug-addicted maniac with a long history of advocating violence against innocent people.


All you gotta do is yell "OMG THAT FAT BASTARD'S ASSAULTING ME!" and you're covered.

/Worked for George Zimmerman.
//Of course, he said the n-word rather than Fat Bastard.
 
2013-01-16 03:19:53 PM

Insatiable Jesus: Criminlas would soon run out of guns without "responsible gun owners" and dealers to buy them from.


Riiiiiiight...
 
2013-01-16 03:20:52 PM

SpectroBoy: Thunderpipes: Good job at keeping the screaming dumb masses focused on something other than the disaster that Obama has made of the economy though, huh?

Masterful.

Let me guess. Did you also prepare a post that says "Obama has done nothing about gun because he keeps trying to spin the economy by talking about it!?!?"

I mean let's be honest. The guy could cure cancer and make blowjob mandatory and you would still hate him.


If the front page of the New York Times was "Obama Walks On Water" Thunderpipes would say, "told you that coon couldn't swim".
 
2013-01-16 03:21:02 PM

The 4chan Psychiatrist: 14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

Because gun violence is inherently worse than every other type of violence...


You have to admit, it is pretty effective and usually final so there's that . . .
 
2013-01-16 03:21:24 PM

jigoro: By number of incidents, yes. But by pure body count, loner white guys without mortgages are starting to pull ahead.


Not really -- very few people are killed in mass shootings as a percentage of all the thousands of murders committed in the US every year, and in any event non- white mass shooters are proportionally well- represented (e.g. Colin Ferguson, Omar Thornton, One Goh, Seung- Hui Cho, Chai Vang, that guy who torched Freddy's Fashion Mart at Al Sharpton's instigation...) Basically the "white shooter" myth is just socially acceptable anti- white racism for progressives, and in at least one case -- that of the Beltway Sniper -- that theory has proved to be a serious impediment for law enforcement.
 
2013-01-16 03:21:28 PM

digistil: Endive Wombat: Chummer45: I agree with this - but what's silly about the AWB?

The ban banned things that had NOTHING to do with gun violence and gun safety.  High capacity mags were banned - do you know what about them was banned?  During the ban it was illegal to manufacture, but people could still buy and sell.  All they did was ramp up production before the ban went into effect.  This accomplished nothing.  It banned barrel shrouds - these are the scary looking things around a barrel that prevent you from burning yourself.   It banned bayonet mounts - because so many shootings in the US involve a gun and a bayonet right?

The ban did nothing to address the root causes of crime, it was simply a feel good law.  It was a total failure, many liberals will agree with this.

So you're advocating the search and seizure of all hicap mags. Granted Obama's proposal isn't perfect, but you're batshiat insane.


I never said that.  I was pointing out that the mere possession of a high cap mag is not going to turn you into a killer.  If you go way back to my post at the beginning of this thread, I said that I am not bothered by Obama's EOs.  I am insane because why?
 
2013-01-16 03:21:31 PM
lh4.ggpht.com
 
2013-01-16 03:21:39 PM

Weaver95: bullsballs: THERE ISN'T A LAW IN EXISTENCE THAT WILL PREVENT VIOLENCE... people from using cannabis
lather, rinse, repeat...

And yet, we keep trying...


I think we probably agree in principle on marijuana legalization. But we can reduce the prevalence of banned materials and actions in society. We'll never stop everyone who wants to commit murder either. But that's no good reason not to make it illegal.
 
2013-01-16 03:21:47 PM

Insatiable Jesus: USP .45: MayoSlather: I'm for banning all conservatives/libertarians from owning guns. That should solve most of the problem.

yeah all those freemarket drug distributing entrepreneurs in the inner city and southern border.

Criminlas would soon run out of guns without "responsible gun owners" and dealers to buy them from.


Just like when we banned growing Marijuana in the US?
 
2013-01-16 03:21:50 PM

queezyweezel: Sorry, I was going with the media (and common gun control discussion) parlance.


In other words, you didn't give a shiat if you were right and were willing to increase the level of misinformation?
 
2013-01-16 03:22:07 PM
Based on this thread, I have determined...

1) The pro-gun lobby thinks Obama overstepped his bounds.
2) The anti-gun lobby doesn't think Obama did enough
3) Drug dealers get guns from law abiding citizens
4) Don't give guns to Mexican's or African Americans, unless they are Bill Cosby or George Lopez.

Cliff notes, they aren't just for school.
 
2013-01-16 03:22:33 PM

Pocket Ninja: Actually, I've learned recently of how many road signs in the US are actually marked on the back with secret signals designed to communicate high-value strike targets and directions to an invading UN army, and on a recent trip into town noticed no less than FOUR new road signs along my regular route. I don't know if all of them had secret signals on the back, because it did not occur to me then to stop and check, but that sudden proliferation along with his new and unprecedented move against the Constitution makes me wonder if perhaps we are approaching some tipping point. I'm going to study it out a little more and see what else I can find; I earnestly suggest that everyone else does likewise.


not only that but soil, around any major US city, say Des Moines, Iowa, perfect example...
 
2013-01-16 03:22:59 PM
And for all the "zomg" Obama has armed security for his kids, why are mine different. Because, his are high profile children, and a legitimate political target. Yours, are not. That being said, i have 0 problem with armed guards in schools. In this day and age, it looks like we need SOMEONE that could stop a armed intruder.
 
2013-01-16 03:23:11 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: PsiChick: This is awesome. Still relies purely on background checks, which don't catch undiagnosed conditions, but still--FINALLY that damn gun-show loophole is closed, and the health care providers are getting clearer instructions. Those are  great first steps.

The background checks still require Congressional approval.


...Instructions.  Instructions are good. I will cling to my fantasy that this does something, damnit! :p
 
2013-01-16 03:23:26 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: My God.

This is how democracy dies... with enhanced background checks and enforcement of existing laws.


It is my understanding that the Sandy Hook shooter didn't have any guns of his own, he took his mother's guns. He never had to pass a background check. So this new law would have done nothing to stop that shooting.

So what's the point, then?

Oh yeah, to avoid the future pre-crime stuff. Got it.
 
2013-01-16 03:23:33 PM

Endive Wombat: digistil: Endive Wombat: Chummer45: I agree with this - but what's silly about the AWB?

The ban banned things that had NOTHING to do with gun violence and gun safety.  High capacity mags were banned - do you know what about them was banned?  During the ban it was illegal to manufacture, but people could still buy and sell.  All they did was ramp up production before the ban went into effect.  This accomplished nothing.  It banned barrel shrouds - these are the scary looking things around a barrel that prevent you from burning yourself.   It banned bayonet mounts - because so many shootings in the US involve a gun and a bayonet right?

The ban did nothing to address the root causes of crime, it was simply a feel good law.  It was a total failure, many liberals will agree with this.

So you're advocating the search and seizure of all hicap mags. Granted Obama's proposal isn't perfect, but you're batshiat insane.

I never said that.  I was pointing out that the mere possession of a high cap mag is not going to turn you into a killer.  If you go way back to my post at the beginning of this thread, I said that I am not bothered by Obama's EOs.  I am insane because why?


You're not marching lockstep with the anti-gun fark majority.
 
2013-01-16 03:23:40 PM
So the two handguns that the wife and I carry on a daily basis came purchased with no modifications with a 19 round clip. Now because some asshats are retards with guns I have to go buy new clips that hold only 10 rounds? Or will the government buy this for me?
 
2013-01-16 03:24:13 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: -The ECs are immediate, are well within his authority


That's if you assume the president has the authority to create law with the stroke of his pen and without congressional approval.  Last I checked, only Congress has the power to create laws, the president's job is to enforce them.

/executive orders are an abuse of power that have been going on for far too long
 
2013-01-16 03:24:20 PM

Caluth: So the two handguns that the wife and I carry on a daily basis came purchased with no modifications with a 19 round clip. Now because some asshats are retards with guns I have to go buy new clips that hold only 10 rounds? Or will the government buy this for me?


shut up criminal.
 
2013-01-16 03:24:44 PM
In the past week, the only people in town wearing guns are old white guys.

And they look pissed.
 
2013-01-16 03:25:08 PM
Link sucks, so here's a list of the executive orders

Mostly meh, but 3 raised an eyebrow:
2. Lowering HIPPA boundaries -- sounds great, but with mandated EMR (electronic medical records), the easiest info to glean is diagnosis codes. Discuss any anxiety or depression with your doctor, and he/she may in haste click on a rubber stamp psychiatric diagnosis rather than taking the time/effort to look up a more accurate and less serious diagnosis. The background check system then kicks out your application rather than having a person actually read your medical record.
11. Why don't we have an ATF director now?
14. How impartial is a CDC study going to be when the funder of a study has a stake in the outcome?
 
2013-01-16 03:25:15 PM
The non-sense of passing 'gun  control' bills quickly without actually discussing them. In New York Gov. Cuomo  passed strict new guns laws:
www.nypost.com

Rushing new stupid laws into effect just waste time and money.
 
2013-01-16 03:25:22 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: see, I knew about many of those events of history, but for some reason, none of them came to mind when I mentioned requiring firearm registration. Maybe because we don't live in a Bolshevik state, or Imperial China, or Nazi Germany. Sure, some UK/EU countries (and Canada) curtailed firearm ownership, but A)they aren't dictatorships and B) the populace there seems not to mind, given their lack of protests over it


Nazi Germany was ostensibly a democracy.

And the citizens of Bolshevik Russia and Republican China (Imperial China hadn't existed for almost 40 years by the close of the Chinese civil war) didn't live in those states either, until suddenly they did.
 
2013-01-16 03:25:47 PM

CheatCommando: queezyweezel: Sorry, I was going with the media (and common gun control discussion) parlance.

In other words, you didn't give a shiat if you were right and were willing to increase the level of misinformation?


I just think it's stupid to spend time money and legislative effort to ban something that's not a problem.
 
2013-01-16 03:25:49 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Sure, some UK/EU countries (and Canada) curtailed firearm ownership, but A)they aren't dictatorships and B) the populace there seems not to mind, given their lack of protests  over it


Firearms owners in Canada complained about the (ridiculously expensive) and useless long- gun registry until it was abolished. Interestingly, the registry was also a piece of legislation rushed through in a panic after a mass shooting, and was equally ineffective in preventing others as Obama's initiatives will be.
 
2013-01-16 03:25:51 PM

queezyweezel: Just like when we banned growing Marijuana in the US


Just like the time we banned murder and rape, but people still committed murder and rape. Why do we even bother with these bullsh*t "bans" anyway? None of them stamp out every prohibited item or activity. So why bother? Ridiculous.
 
2013-01-16 03:25:59 PM
I just find it amazing how anti-gun Fark is and how pro-gun Reddit is.
 
2013-01-16 03:26:10 PM

Endive Wombat: Sure, they seized a lot of high cap mags, but you cannot say that there was less gun violence or less crime involving guns due to the high cap ban portion of the AWB.

Yeah, I think the NRA/Right blocking such stats is silly to a certain degree. But I can see their point, in that if a specific type of gun or ammo size is used in a majority of crimes, then politicians will try to legislate against it and get it banned...which does nothing in addressing the root causes. They are fearful that the data will be used incorrectly, like being used for politicking rather than addressing social issues...


Gee, and why can't I say that? Oh yeah, the NRA blocking collection of data. Blocking collection of data is the move of something like a tobacco lobby. Why not require the collection of data on the use of guns in defense?

Thugs typically shoot thugs with low capacity handguns. Mass murdering psychos who kill indiscriminately have shown a tendency to use large capacity magazines. That should be a touted fact to protect handgun ownership, not shouted down to protect a few fanboy's hobby.
 
2013-01-16 03:26:30 PM

Aarontology: I can't wait for a brave patriot to fight back against this and blow up a Federal building and murder hundreds of people like they did last time.


You want people to die just to prove what a pretentious partisan douchebag you are? Get help.

Insatiable Jesus: USP .45: MayoSlather: I'm for banning all conservatives/libertarians from owning guns. That should solve most of the problem.

yeah all those freemarket drug distributing entrepreneurs in the inner city and southern border.

Criminlas would soon run out of guns without "responsible gun owners" and dealers to buy them from.


You actually believe that criminals are going to obey some gun control law? You're a special kind of stupid, aren't you?
 
2013-01-16 03:26:49 PM

SpectroBoy: CADMonkey79: Why would my doctor ask me if I had guns in the house?

First, you can always switch doctors.

Second, it's not illegal to lie to a doctor.

Doctor: Any guns in the house?
Me: Nope, not a one. Once my wife bought a staple gun and I beat her with it to drive the point home. Now can we get on with the actual HEALTH related part of this process?


Exactly. Having a doctor ask about guns during a visit with someone who potentially has a serious mental health problem seems like a good way to get them to clam up and stop seeking treatment. Criminalizing someone the second there "might" be a problem is going to do more harm than good when trying to keep guns out of the hands of seriously disturbed people.

Most of these seem reasonable. But I think anytime you start talking about a ban, the real gun nuts feel like they are being backed into a corner and start lashing out like McVey in OKC. This might "help" prevent a few mass shootings but it may just change the profile of the people committing the violence from "weird loners" to wingnut militia types.
 
2013-01-16 03:26:58 PM

NightOwl2255:

If the front page of the New York Times was "Obama Walks On Water" Thunderpipes would say, "told you that coon couldn't swim".


You just made me snert out loud on a conference call.

+1
 
2013-01-16 03:27:15 PM

Endive Wombat: The big issue here is with trying to make sure someone fits into a predefined set of criteria, and you run into the issue where the evaluator (the shrink) may be biased against guns or specific topics, and you now create a market where enterprising shrinks do nothing but "mental health screenings" and for a nominal fee, you get a clean bill of health - I would point to the doctors in states where medical marijuana is legal.

I am having difficulty in coming up with an extensive enough mental health check that is totally objective and has zero room for the subjective interpretation by the evaluator.


You'd almost have to make it a blind one or something. Like tell the shrink the guy is just coming in for a check with regard to becoming a LEO, getting a security clearance, or just a general background check. Or perhaps a general neurological thing. For example when I was in a car accident, one neurologist thought I was faking the pain and sent me to a shrink for an evaluation. So tell the shrink the guy is coming in for that. Then take the shrink's report and if it says "This guy is normal", issue the permit. If it shows anything, don't issue. Of course then you get into the business of lying to doctors about the reason you're sending them a patient.

Basically don't tell the shrink that you're sending the guy with a specific regard to guns (after all it isn't like I have a specific reason to showing up for my physical aside from the fact a year has gone by). Then the shrink submits a standard form, which is done for all visits, and that depending on what was filled out on that form, you get a permit or you don't.

Although personally given the role of guns in suicides and rage shootings around the home, I think as a general rule gun owners should be encouraged to see a shrink for a general mental health checkup as a form of gun safety. An intelligent gun owners org would push their members in that direction. Plus your insurance covers it and you get an afternoon off work, so win win.
 
2013-01-16 03:27:46 PM

queezyweezel: Deep Contact: So how do these new rules stop someone from using a gun to kill someone without a gun.

In twenty years, there will be less guns, and it will be harder to kill someone with a gun.  Get rid of the guns, and people wont kill people with guns.  Simple really.


OK, I feel better already(puts another clip in belt)
 
2013-01-16 03:28:40 PM

Weaver95: huh.  Rush Limbaugh just implied he's pro-choice now.


Watch Fox noise accidentally put a D after his name now.
 
2013-01-16 03:28:49 PM

Endive Wombat: I never said that.  I was pointing out that the mere possession of a high cap mag is not going to turn you into a killer.  If you go way back to my post at the beginning of this thread, I said that I am not bothered by Obama's EOs.  I am insane because why?


I called you insane because it sounded like you were advocating the search and seizure of all hicap mags. If you're not, I'm not sure why you're saying it's the only solution.
 
2013-01-16 03:28:59 PM
Obamas list seems pretty reasonable to me.
So my only issue is if they tried to ban semi-auto weapons would that not be most modern revolvers also? Every pull of the trigger fires the gun with no need to pull back the hammer. Not saying this is on the proposed list of things Obama put forth but a lot of anti gun people want it.

treesloth: cleek: Limbaugh's job is to be very angry at everything Obama does. it's what he gets paid for.

fark that pustule.

He's a lot more tolerable once you realize he's an actor in a role, an entertainer. Still can't stand him, though.


I don't think that fat windbag is acting at all. just getting paid to spew his really farked up opinions at the rest of the world..or at least to the ones who will listen to him.
 
2013-01-16 03:29:21 PM

Endive Wombat: LasersHurt: Endive Wombat: Grand_Moff_Joseph: That's pretty much the point.  Yeah, it'll be a little more annoying for the 95% of folks like you who play it straight, but it standardizes the entire system, and (hopefully) makes a dent in keeping wholly unqualified people away from the guns.  The upshot, like you said, is that it's not a ban.  It's a bit more headache for a lot more safety, imo.

How does this address the millions of guns that are on the black market/in the hands of criminals who are not allowed to own a gun?

It helps to slow the supply of guns through buyers TO the black market. After all, they start somewhere.

No it doesn't.  There are an estimated 300M guns in the US.  All a determined criminal needs to do is to simply break into someones house and take them.  Which is how a lot of guns get into the black market to begin with.  So this does nothing to address current supply.


Incorrect, perfect solution fallacy.
 
2013-01-16 03:29:33 PM
My, that was a short, uninformative article.

smallbiztrends.com
 
2013-01-16 03:29:40 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Aarontology: I can't wait for a brave patriot to fight back against this and blow up a Federal building and murder hundreds of people like they did last time.

You want people to die just to prove what a pretentious partisan douchebag you are? Get help.

Insatiable Jesus: USP .45: MayoSlather: I'm for banning all conservatives/libertarians from owning guns. That should solve most of the problem.

yeah all those freemarket drug distributing entrepreneurs in the inner city and southern border.

Criminlas would soon run out of guns without "responsible gun owners" and dealers to buy them from.

You actually believe that criminals are going to obey some gun control law? You're a special kind of stupid, aren't you?


Sweet, it's the thread shiatter.
 
2013-01-16 03:30:05 PM

ferretman: The non-sense of passing 'gun  control' bills quickly without actually discussing them. In New York Gov. Cuomo  passed strict new guns laws:
[www.nypost.com image 525x300]

Rushing new stupid laws into effect just waste time and money.


We have caused minor ergonomic pain to criminals and annoyed a bunch of law abiding gun owners in the process, good job!
 
2013-01-16 03:30:15 PM

mittromneysdog: queezyweezel: Just like when we banned growing Marijuana in the US

Just like the time we banned murder and rape, but people still committed murder and rape. Why do we even bother with these bullsh*t "bans" anyway? None of them stamp out every prohibited item or activity. So why bother? Ridiculous.


Right over yer head, huh?
 
2013-01-16 03:30:20 PM
I don't seem to see the "round up all the guns" part anywhere... They clearly left it out!
 
2013-01-16 03:31:24 PM

Deep Contact: queezyweezel: Deep Contact: So how do these new rules stop someone from using a gun to kill someone without a gun.

In twenty years, there will be less guns, and it will be harder to kill someone with a gun.  Get rid of the guns, and people wont kill people with guns.  Simple really.

OK, I feel better already(puts another clip in belt)


Just make sure you only put 7 rounds in that 10 round magazine, lest you be a law breaking psycho killer.
 
2013-01-16 03:31:27 PM

NightOwl2255: SpectroBoy: Thunderpipes: Good job at keeping the screaming dumb masses focused on something other than the disaster that Obama has made of the economy though, huh?

Masterful.

Let me guess. Did you also prepare a post that says "Obama has done nothing about gun because he keeps trying to spin the economy by talking about it!?!?"

I mean let's be honest. The guy could cure cancer and make blowjob mandatory and you would still hate him.

If the front page of the New York Times was "Obama Walks On Water" Thunderpipes would say, "told you that coon couldn't swim".


Ahhh, bring race into it when there is none. Classic.

Way to go, Hitler!
 
2013-01-16 03:32:32 PM

star_topology: I don't seem to see the "round up all the guns" part anywhere... They clearly left it out!


That happens in 2014 or 2015, after all the GOP congressmen lose their seats due to their pro child-killing stance on gun control.
 
2013-01-16 03:32:41 PM

digistil: Endive Wombat: I never said that.  I was pointing out that the mere possession of a high cap mag is not going to turn you into a killer.  If you go way back to my post at the beginning of this thread, I said that I am not bothered by Obama's EOs.  I am insane because why?

I called you insane because it sounded like you were advocating the search and seizure of all hicap mags. If you're not, I'm not sure why you're saying it's the only solution.


When the fark did I say that?
 
2013-01-16 03:32:45 PM

Caluth: So the two handguns that the wife and I carry on a daily basis came purchased with no modifications with a 19 round clip. Now because some asshats are retards with guns I have to go buy new clips that hold only 10 rounds? Or will the government buy this for me?


No, and no. Feel better now?
 
2013-01-16 03:32:56 PM

CADMonkey79: Farce-Side: CADMonkey79: Why would my doctor ask me if I had guns in the house?

So your insurance could increase your premiums and deductable.

How would that conversation even start? I mean I know how it would end with me telling to get farked.
Are there doctors out there that even want to ask this question? I don't get it.


I had my pediatrician tell me that his professional organization (American Academy of Pediatrics, notable for their vocal position on banning gun ownership) encouraged all pediatricians to ask this, and at one point even wanted their doctors to REPORT THE PEOPLE WHO ANSWERED YES TO BE PUT IN A DATABASE.
He refused to even ask, he didn't feel it was his place. Not all are that cool. When I moved recently, one pediatrician I looked into refused to treat my son at all due to my answer. I quickly found another one that refuses to ask, though there is more pressure recently for them to ask and report.
My understanding is that during some times in the past, they have turned over lists of 'suspected gun owners' to police. Remember Maryland when the police searched homes of 'suspected gun owners' and confiscated all the .223 rifles for testing during the DC Sniper thing? Last thing we need are more gun grabbers with lists of our addresses.
 
2013-01-16 03:33:05 PM

Theburner: CADMonkey79: AFKobel: CADMonkey79: Why would my doctor ask me if I had guns in the house?

Because you just came in his office for a checkup, and muttered out of the side of your mouth that you WISH THIS VOICES WOULD STOP TELLING YOU TO ALL THE BODYSNATCHERS IN YOUR LOCAL MALL!!

I imagine primary health care professionals might be well suited to identify some of the up-and-coming paranoid mass murderers among us. So, lets not stop doctors from at least asking the question.

There is nothing preventing a doctor from asking you questions about your mental health and trying to diagnose any problems you might have. What would be the reason for him to ask if you have a gun? Would he also need to ask about any other potential weapons you might have. Why would his be the doctor's responsibility, they are healthcare providers not law enforcers.

The doctor would then report you to the BATF, local police, Obama himself. He is a menace, and has guns in the house. And then you would get a visit from the nice policemen with "assault weapons" to take yours away.

There was an article about 4 or 5 years ago when a man told a doctor he drank 8 to 12 beers a day. The doctor called the DMV, and the man's drivers license was suspended.

Bottom line, the first rule of the gun club is don't talk about the gun club.

Doctor: Do you have any guns in the house?
Me: Nope, nothing to see here.


This whole 'doctors talking about guns' thing got started because the NRA got it's panties in a bunch when some pediatricians thought it was appropriate to tell new parents that, with toddlers, keeping guns in a safe place might be a good idea.

The horror!

Classic example of how being unremittingly pro- something can be completely unreasonable.

Afa the mental health aspect, the 1/6 New Yorker has an excellent article on how dubious psychiatry has turned into a lucrative racket in the 'treatment' of pedophiles.

Very Orwellian, and reinforces my low opinion of the mental health profession.
 
Bf+
2013-01-16 03:33:14 PM

star_topology: I don't seem to see the "round up all the guns" part anywhere... They clearly left it out!


That's just what they want you to think!
Study it out!
/!
 
2013-01-16 03:33:28 PM

Weaver95: bullsballs: THERE ISN'T A LAW IN EXISTENCE THAT WILL PREVENT VIOLENCE... people from using cannabis
lather, rinse, repeat...

And yet, we keep trying...


I applaude you; you with your obvious grammar mistakes and uber-liberal stance now.

Awesome work.

I remember the old club we used to have off of Fark, and I never thought you'd accomplish all of this when you said you would :)

Bravo, dude.

10/10 for a couple of years now. You'll have food for the rest of ALL of your family's lives with your work.
 
2013-01-16 03:34:03 PM
I think the details of Obama's plan in the submitted link were missing quite a bit of details. I'm reading an AP article that includes quite a bit more proposals, including an assault weapons and high-capacity magazine ban.

So what is it?
 
2013-01-16 03:34:06 PM

mittromneysdog: Weaver95: bullsballs: THERE ISN'T A LAW IN EXISTENCE THAT WILL PREVENT VIOLENCE... people from using cannabis
lather, rinse, repeat...

And yet, we keep trying...

I think we probably agree in principle on marijuana legalization. But we can reduce the prevalence of banned materials and actions in society. We'll never stop everyone who wants to commit murder either. But that's no good reason not to make it illegal.


yes but my point here is that it is logically inconsistent (or flat out intellectually dishonest) to support stupidly draconian drug laws, then turn around and claim that gun control is 'going too far'.  either you are in favor of freedom or you aren't.  you can't have it both ways.
 
2013-01-16 03:34:14 PM
Impeach, Imprison and Execute today.

/because Hitler
 
2013-01-16 03:34:28 PM
To: publius321

The children represent the zero information public. The zero information public has been endoctrinated by our schools and our state owned media how to think. The children are the zer0 information public in the beginning stages of this indoctrination process.

Once fully indoctrinated, The zero information public will not listen to anything that challenges their world view. Their minds are set. They will not listen to Talk Radio or Fox News because their ideas are set by the indoctrination they already have. This gives them more time to seek life's pleasures, watch American Idol and listen to music on their FM radio. Do not talk politics with them because their minds are set.

4 posted on Wednesday, January 16, 2013 1:22:38 AM by jonrick46 (The opium of Communists: other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
 
2013-01-16 03:35:04 PM
good luck with the enforcement.
 
2013-01-16 03:35:05 PM
vpb
Therefore, weapons that are most useful in military service - M-16 rifles and weapons like it - are also not provided with 2nd Amendment protection.

So there is nothing there that would prevent a new assault weapons ban. Not even in Scalia's opinion.


An M-16 has either full -auto or three round burst capabilities, depending on version. Those weapons are already banned. Assault weapons like the AR-15 are semi-auto only. A pretty significant difference.

So Scalia's opinion does not read quite the way you represented it... I think he probably knows the difference between an M-16 and an AR-15.

Maybe not though.
 
2013-01-16 03:35:32 PM

ha-ha-guy: My personal argument has always been that you should have to do a check every 4 to 6 years to buy guns. You get issued something similar to a driver's license that says "Ha-ha-guy has a clean bill of health, sell him guns". The first time in you actually have to take tests. After that you just need your primary care physician to sign off saying they've seen no emerging signs of mental issues/senility/etc since the full on check (and perhaps one a decade or so you have to go see a shrink and get a fresh clean bill of health).


I think it would be hilarious if we did this, but also required a signature from the applicant's spouse or girlfriend/boyfriend, or ex spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend, attesting that you aren't a psycho or a loser.

I'd want this just because of the supreme levels of butthurt it would cause among all the Internet Tough Guys of the world. Want a gun? Have you successfully kissed a girl? Nevermind.

You could have a provision where a dateless wonder could still get a permit if his mother signed the form, attesting that he never had a girlfriend and why.

I only bring this up because Chris Rock joked that you should have a mortgage before you can have a gun (if it's about protecting your property, after all,) and far too many people on Fark took that dude far too seriously. Apparently the idea that you shouldn't have a gun if you live in your mom's basement pinched a lot of nerves. So I say, require applicants to own property and have kissed a girl. Also, put an entry on the bottom of the form that says 3D6+2: ______. An applicant who writes anything in there gets twice as much scrutiny.
 
2013-01-16 03:35:44 PM

Thunderpipes: NightOwl2255: SpectroBoy: Thunderpipes: Good job at keeping the screaming dumb masses focused on something other than the disaster that Obama has made of the economy though, huh?

Masterful.

Let me guess. Did you also prepare a post that says "Obama has done nothing about gun because he keeps trying to spin the economy by talking about it!?!?"

I mean let's be honest. The guy could cure cancer and make blowjob mandatory and you would still hate him.

If the front page of the New York Times was "Obama Walks On Water" Thunderpipes would say, "told you that coon couldn't swim".

Ahhh, bring race into it when there is none. Classic.

Way to go, Hitler!


I bet you never use the word coon, right?
 
Bf+
2013-01-16 03:36:12 PM

sunsawed: Impeach, Imprison and Execute today.

/because Hitler



It's like the Holocaust... for guns!
 
2013-01-16 03:36:27 PM

Feltonl: good luck with the enforcement.


Of what?
 
2013-01-16 03:36:28 PM

deanis: Nice bottom of the barrel troll attempt. If you want to talk "next civil war" shiat, go to one of your freeper sites.


I notice that you had no objection to the original comment that all conservatives and libertarians be forcibly disarmed.

I'm sorry to introduce an unwelcome dose of reality to your world, but -- in case you hadn't noticed -- civil wars do occur in countries with deeply polarized and mutually hostile populations, especially when large numbers of the inhabitants are already armed. Thinking that the US is magically exempt from this possibility (why?) is dangerously naive; if anything, the US at the moment is as precariously balanced as 1920s Spain. But by all means, keep scapegoating your enemies for all the problems of the country and imagining that there will be no adverse consequences -- who am I to deprive you of your illusions?
 
2013-01-16 03:37:12 PM

queezyweezel: Deep Contact: queezyweezel: Deep Contact: So how do these new rules stop someone from using a gun to kill someone without a gun.

In twenty years, there will be less guns, and it will be harder to kill someone with a gun.  Get rid of the guns, and people wont kill people with guns.  Simple really.

OK, I feel better already(puts another clip in belt)

Just make sure you only put 7 rounds in that 10 round magazine, lest you be a law breaking psycho killer.


Qu'est-ce que c'est?
 
2013-01-16 03:37:15 PM

neversummer: I think the details of Obama's plan in the submitted link were missing quite a bit of details. I'm reading an AP article that includes quite a bit more proposals, including an assault weapons and high-capacity magazine ban.

So what is it?


Well he can make the executive orders happen. Although it wouldn't surprise me if the NRA went full retarded and sued over them. As for the bans, I assume some Congressional drone will introduce them. Or maybe Feinstein in the Senate in hopes it can at least pass the Senate before Boehner buries them. As for how critical the bans are to Obama's plan, we'll see how far he backs them versus just uses them as a distracting action.
 
2013-01-16 03:37:50 PM

USP .45: add massive cost and make handloading illegal, thereby further increasing the cost.


Interesting. Is handloading of handgun and rifle ammo common? Seems pretty easy to exempt shotguns.

Looking around, it sounds like the technology may not be there yet. I thought they had managed to make the 'nanotags' in the charge powder work, but it doesn't sound like it. One serial number per bullet is not workable.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/01/ammunition-accountability-act/
 
2013-01-16 03:38:05 PM

Endive Wombat: I do take some issue with two aspects:

1.  Doctors asking if there are guns in the home.  Some doctors are going to get yelled at, some will get preachy.


I don't think doctors are being  required to ask about guns in the home. I think they're being  allowed to ask without having to worry about legal repercussions.
 
2013-01-16 03:38:14 PM
Can we get a focus on creating the ID tech of the Dredd Lawgiver?
 
2013-01-16 03:38:30 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: So you agree there's precedent and your prior comment on the issue was completely idiotic. Glad we agree.


No, duty to report only covers very specific statements or actions that would cause a health care provider to believe that their patient is intent on causing harm to themselves or others. It does not cover anything that HIPAA would protect.


Vegan Meat Popsicle: So you agree that nothing changed and your prior comment on the issue was completely idiotic. Glad we agree.


No. Current law does not allow an officer to keep a firearm seized for his protection until a full background check can be completed.


Vegan Meat Popsicle: No, no. Totally legitimate fear. A cop going to the trouble and paperwork of putting together a formal investigation because they gave you a ticket for a violation most people never even get cited for. Absolutely legitimate concern and you don't sound completely off your goddamn rocker at all.


So, you think it's completely paranoid and unbelievable that a police officer with a bend would find a minor offense and use it as an excuse to seize and run a gun that a person was lawfully carrying? You must not pay much attention if you think that's beyond the realm of belief.

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Holy shiat guys! You hear that?! I wanna try that damn autopen thing!


I don't even know what you are on about.
 
2013-01-16 03:38:50 PM
 
2013-01-16 03:38:52 PM

pottie: I occasionally barter for firearms. I wonder if the new regulations will require me to perform background checks before trading.


They should. If 'title' to a firearm is being transferred then the person receiving the firearm should be vetted to insure that they have the right to bear arms. (ie., not at felon)
 
2013-01-16 03:38:59 PM

queezyweezel: mittromneysdog: queezyweezel: Just like when we banned growing Marijuana in the US

Just like the time we banned murder and rape, but people still committed murder and rape. Why do we even bother with these bullsh*t "bans" anyway? None of them stamp out every prohibited item or activity. So why bother? Ridiculous.

Right over yer head, huh?


Nope. Evidently over yours.

"This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals."--Adolph Hitler.

Now, in context, it's clear Herr Hitler--wait, did I say Hitler? I meant Reagan.

Anyway, in context, it's clear Herr Reagan didn't think we could ever eliminate all assault weapons. But by "drying up" the supply, we can make them less available.
 
2013-01-16 03:39:35 PM

Fuggin Bizzy: Endive Wombat: I do take some issue with two aspects:

1.  Doctors asking if there are guns in the home.  Some doctors are going to get yelled at, some will get preachy.

I don't think doctors are being  required to ask about guns in the home. I think they're being  allowed to ask without having to worry about legal repercussions.


And why would that ever be any of their business either way?
 
2013-01-16 03:39:35 PM

CliChe Guevara: CADMonkey79: Farce-Side: CADMonkey79: Why would my doctor ask me if I had guns in the house?

So your insurance could increase your premiums and deductable.

How would that conversation even start? I mean I know how it would end with me telling to get farked.
Are there doctors out there that even want to ask this question? I don't get it.

I had my pediatrician tell me that his professional organization (American Academy of Pediatrics, notable for their vocal position on banning gun ownership) encouraged all pediatricians to ask this, and at one point even wanted their doctors to REPORT THE PEOPLE WHO ANSWERED YES TO BE PUT IN A DATABASE.
He refused to even ask, he didn't feel it was his place. Not all are that cool. When I moved recently, one pediatrician I looked into refused to treat my son at all due to my answer. I quickly found another one that refuses to ask, though there is more pressure recently for them to ask and report.
My understanding is that during some times in the past, they have turned over lists of 'suspected gun owners' to police. Remember Maryland when the police searched homes of 'suspected gun owners' and confiscated all the .223 rifles for testing during the DC Sniper thing? Last thing we need are more gun grabbers with lists of our addresses.


Yet you post, repeatedly, in a public form about your gun ownership. I have to give you a fail for your paranoia. You should think about dropping off "the grid". It's the only way to be sure they won't come for your guns, and they are coming!
 
2013-01-16 03:39:37 PM

CADMonkey79: AFKobel: CADMonkey79: Why would my doctor ask me if I had guns in the house?

Because you just came in his office for a checkup, and muttered out of the side of your mouth that you WISH THIS VOICES WOULD STOP TELLING YOU TO ALL THE BODYSNATCHERS IN YOUR LOCAL MALL!!

I imagine primary health care professionals might be well suited to identify some of the up-and-coming paranoid mass murderers among us. So, lets not stop doctors from at least asking the question.

There is nothing preventing a doctor from asking you questions about your mental health and trying to diagnose any problems you might have. What would be the reason for him to ask if you have a gun? Would he also need to ask about any other potential weapons you might have. Why would his be the doctor's responsibility, they are healthcare providers not law enforcers.


Hypothetically, if you have a person developing a mental illness throughout a history of visits with a doctor, and the doctor realizes the patient is well on his way to becoming, for example, a full blown paranoid schizophrenic, with delusions that everyone is out to get him... I don't have a problem with him asking the patient if he has guns at home.

And yes, he can ask about other weapons the person has a home. The problem was Obamacare specifically addressed the second amendment, and what could be asked. This EO merely clarifies that doctors are not prohibited from asking about guns.

Doctor/patient privilege is waived when the doctor has reason to believe the patient is going to commit a crime, or put himself or other in danger. You're saying that doctors are healthcare providers, and not law enforcers... so then, should the doctor just shrug his shoulders, do the best he can with medication and not express his concerns to law enforcement that an individual that is developing paranoid schizophrenic, with delusions that everyone is out to get him, has high capacity weapons in his home?

You seems to be saying "Let law enforcement handle it." Which I guess is what happens nowadays... sometimes after the person has obtained active shooter status. What is so distasteful about allowing doctors to ask the question; to be a part of prevention?
 
2013-01-16 03:39:51 PM
in case you hadn't noticed -- civil wars do occur in countries with deeply polarized and mutually hostile populations,

But you duopoly farkers hardly disagree about anything.
 
2013-01-16 03:40:02 PM

miss diminutive: So....is it finally time to crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside?


I'm still full from lunch. Maybe in a few hours...
 
2013-01-16 03:40:16 PM
No matter what the president proposes, discusses, or talks about, the GOP will oppose it hand and foot. All of the conservative morons will stay in the echo chamber and be totally against it no matter what. That said, from what I saw, they are common sense ideas, but some may be open to interpretation.
 
2013-01-16 03:40:43 PM

star_topology: I don't seem to see the "round up all the guns" part anywhere... They clearly left it out!


That's because it was spoken in coded language.
 
2013-01-16 03:40:53 PM

queezyweezel: Insatiable Jesus: USP .45: MayoSlather: I'm for banning all conservatives/libertarians from owning guns. That should solve most of the problem.

yeah all those freemarket drug distributing entrepreneurs in the inner city and southern border.

Criminlas would soon run out of guns without "responsible gun owners" and dealers to buy them from.

Just like when we banned growing Marijuana in the US?



Wake me up when criminals are growing their own guns.
 
2013-01-16 03:41:13 PM

Surpheon: Interesting. Is handloading of handgun and rifle ammo common? Seems pretty easy to exempt shotguns.


Not really. Bulk ammo so damn cheap and hand loading requires large amounts of gun power sitting around, so people don't bother it (I don't want a keg of gunpowder in my basement). However the general feeling in the gun community is that if ammo access becomes problematic, everyone will just run out and buy hand loading kits. Or you'll be able to drive to some shady backwoods farm and buy rounds using cash (even resale would be illegal). Basically while it might do something, you'd mostly just be pissing away money to enforce something that is easily circumvented. Society as a whole would get more benefit for their dollar by spending it in other areas of gun ownership/mental health regs.
 
2013-01-16 03:41:16 PM
I'm always surprised at the people who think this doesn't affect them.
 
2013-01-16 03:41:51 PM
Subby obviously doesn't understand how the conservative mindset works....
It's a prerequisite to being an conservative GOP supporter, that if you hear the name "Obama" you immediately see a hot-white light and go into a self-destructive red-faced wharrgarbl.
 
2013-01-16 03:42:03 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: Surpheon: What is the problem with tagging ammo? I get annoying, but so's buying Sudafed. Is there a real problem with it?

What's it going to do?


Allow for identification of who purchased the ammo used. That's useful information. If a bunch of ammo bought as part of that ATF fast and furious program, well I'd like to know that. Also opposing tagging on principal, as opposed to due to solid technical reasons like cost, makes it seem like even legitimate gun owners are trying to shirk any responsibility for keeping their weapons out of criminal's hands.
 
2013-01-16 03:42:32 PM

Jake Havechek: To: publius321

Once fully indoctrinated, The zero information public will not listen to anything that challenges their world view. Their minds are set.


A Freeper is complaining about people that will not listen to anything that challenges their world view? That's hilarious.
 
2013-01-16 03:42:45 PM

PunGent: This whole 'doctors talking about guns' thing got started because the NRA got it's panties in a bunch when some pediatricians thought it was appropriate to tell new parents that, with toddlers, keeping guns in a safe place might be a good idea.


Um, no. If it was just a discussion on gun locks the NRA would have supported them and supplied them with free locks to give out.

This is about when some pediatricians thought it would be a good idea to refuse farking treatment to gun owners children, to spend large amounts of time and money funding gun ban legislation, and coming up with the idea of reporting all suspected gun owners to police.
 
2013-01-16 03:42:57 PM
So if someone goes to seek council when they hit a rough spot, suddenly they are equal to a felon and cant own a gun anymore?

Also at what point is this breech of patient/doctor right to privacy? Since when has someone being sick been equal with a criminal?

You farkers don't think anything threw.
 
2013-01-16 03:43:59 PM
Because video games causing people to go on killing sprees is completely logical...
 
2013-01-16 03:44:08 PM

the ha ha guy: Callous: It's not the dent in my wallet, it's that they won't use the money for what it's supposed to be for.  Just look at Massachusetts' temporary sales tax, cigarette taxes, and the Mass Pike tolls.  And I don't like putting requirements on constitutional rights.  We don't require permits and language courses before someone is allowed to speak in a vain attempt to prevent people from shouting FIRE in a theater.  We don't require writers to get permits and take mandatory courses before they can write a book.  We don't require people to get permits before they go to church.

You do have to have a permit for a rally. You do have to abide by certain restrictions when gathering for a protest (free speech zones). You do need to register a newly formed church with the government. You do have to register with the state to perform a marriage.

The first amendment isn't quite as absolute as some might believe.


Most of the government regulations regarding churches/religions have to do with their status as tax exempt charities and not with their supposed business of developing a relationship with a Higher Being and encouraging moral behavior.

You can start up any religion you want; you just can't presume that your actions are tax exempt.
 
2013-01-16 03:44:12 PM

HotWingConspiracy: So what they have in common is guns. Again, I'm glad to have you on board to begin restricting hand guns.


No, what they have in common is running a business that falls outside the visible, governmental protection services. As a result, the business attracts and rewards the most ruthlessly violent members of society. This is what prohibition of alcohol did, and what prohibition of everything else does.

But, if the government is going to insist on creating a black market, and one that is operated largely by criminal gangs who perpetrate MOST of the gun crime in America, and then PRETEND to care about gun crime, then scumbag liars like Obama and his sycophants ought to spend MOST of their time focusing on cracking down on the drug-dealing gangs whose gun crimes they've helped foster.

HotWingConspiracy: No, honey, they're just number. You're a racist though.


Ooh, scary labels. I'm so inhibited now. I dare not even think about the correlation between gun crime and black and Hispanic drug-dealing gangs, much less talk about it!

Wait, what happened to the national dialogues we're supposed to be having? The one on guns? And the one on race?

We're not allowed to dialogue about guns and race at the same time?
 
2013-01-16 03:44:31 PM

mesmer242: Callous: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Callous: I have read the 23 executive orders and nothing jumped out at me as bad.  I will have to look them over again when I have time to really think about them and see if my opinion changes.  My only concern would be abuse of the mental health system where people are too easily labeled unsuitable.

No to an AWB.   Could live with background checks for private sales if dealers aren't allowed to gouge us for making a phone call.  Or better yet make the NICSaccessible to everyone.  No to magazine bans.

/NRA Life Member

I just don't get the huge hang up about AWs and overly large standard mags.  Even in the hands of a sane and well trained person, I can't think of a single legitimate need to have either of those. (and "just because" doesn't pass muster, imo)

Because I don't like spending more time filling mags than shooting when I am at the range.

I was talking to my husband about this last night... he's somewhat to the right but mostly politically apathetic. He thought that making higher capacity mags legal only at (and possibly sold at) gun ranges would be a good compromise. There's something to be said for letting the enthusiasts have their fun, but in real life, if you can't shoot a deer with only a few shots, you should probably not be shooting at the deer at all. I couldn't find a whole lot of fault with that logic.


I usually fill the magazines the night before I head to the range.  That way I just shoot when I am there and then leave when they are all empty.  It saves a lot of time.
 
2013-01-16 03:44:42 PM
Gun nut and lib here. Obama will undoubtedly be glad to know he's back in my good graces.

I'm curious to see how the mental health provisions shake out. I truly believe that better screening for the crazy could reduce spree shooters. Street crime will continue the same as before, but that's not really what today was about.

That being said, I hope the mental health provisions are reasonable. I would hate for someone to be scared of getting help with depression or anxiety for fear that they would lose their gun rights.

I'm very happy that the President decided to throw an Assault Weapons Ban to congress, where it is highly unlikely to pass.

All in all, a good day.
 
2013-01-16 03:44:44 PM

Insatiable Jesus: queezyweezel: Insatiable Jesus: USP .45: MayoSlather: I'm for banning all conservatives/libertarians from owning guns. That should solve most of the problem.

yeah all those freemarket drug distributing entrepreneurs in the inner city and southern border.

Criminlas would soon run out of guns without "responsible gun owners" and dealers to buy them from.

Just like when we banned growing Marijuana in the US?


Wake me up when criminals are growing their own guns.


Dont even humor the nirvana false equivilency.

Just ask him, does the ban on any drug lower the number of users of it?

The goal isnt removing it entirely.

End of stupid fallacy (lol yeah right ill read it again 5x more today)
 
2013-01-16 03:45:18 PM

mittromneysdog: queezyweezel: mittromneysdog: queezyweezel: Just like when we banned growing Marijuana in the US

Just like the time we banned murder and rape, but people still committed murder and rape. Why do we even bother with these bullsh*t "bans" anyway? None of them stamp out every prohibited item or activity. So why bother? Ridiculous.

Right over yer head, huh?

Nope. Evidently over yours.

"This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals."--Adolph Hitler.

Now, in context, it's clear Herr Hitler--wait, did I say Hitler? I meant Reagan.

Anyway, in context, it's clear Herr Reagan didn't think we could ever eliminate all assault weapons. But by "drying up" the supply, we can make them less available.


t2.gstatic.com