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  
•       •       •

25803 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 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.
 
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