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  
•       •       •

25798 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
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
 
Displayed 50 of 1394 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report