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 301
    More: Interesting, President Obama, Uncle Sam  
•       •       •

25799 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-16 01:27:37 PM
16 votes:
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.
2013-01-16 01:32:02 PM
13 votes:
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
2013-01-16 01:24:26 PM
11 votes:
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 01:26:09 PM
10 votes:
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.
2013-01-16 01:36:40 PM
9 votes:

Weaver95: oh you should hear Limbaugh today.



No... no I shouldn't.
2013-01-16 01:35:30 PM
9 votes:
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 01:14:48 PM
9 votes:
My God.

This is how democracy dies... with enhanced background checks and enforcement of existing laws.
2013-01-16 01:36:12 PM
8 votes:
The sheer reasonability of the man. What unmitigated temperance.
2013-01-16 01:23:45 PM
8 votes:

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 01:16:23 PM
8 votes:
Backdoor maneuver to eliminate the 2nd Amendment!
2013-01-16 01:11:43 PM
8 votes:
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 03:38:59 PM
6 votes:

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.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-16 01:37:56 PM
6 votes:

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 01:14:11 PM
6 votes:
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 01:11:18 PM
6 votes:
Says you, subby.
2013-01-16 02:33:54 PM
5 votes:
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 01:39:02 PM
5 votes:
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 03:29:33 PM
4 votes:
My, that was a short, uninformative article.

smallbiztrends.com
2013-01-16 02:35:04 PM
4 votes:
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 02:04:17 PM
4 votes:

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 01:54:48 PM
4 votes:

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.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-16 01:32:05 PM
4 votes:

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 01:15:18 PM
4 votes:

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.
2013-01-16 09:58:11 PM
3 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Noticeably F.A.T.: Omahawg: CADMonkey79: Omahawg: exactly how many of the save my guns fark brigade even know how to gut a deer?

anyone?

bueller?

So guns are just for hunting? I thought you said they were for protecting us from the natives?

welcome to the 21st century. the violent crime rate has been dropping steadily since the 1950s. what the hell else would I use a gun for?

Putting small holes in paper. putting large holes in anyone trying to harm you and yours.

A Winchester bolt-action is just fine for both of those. Or if you like a lot of little holes at once, a shotgun. You don't need an AR-15 to accomplish either of those things.


Thank you for telling me what I can or can not use to defend myself and my family, I'm sure someone like you with your nearly infinite wisdom and knowledge about firearms knows so much more than me.

In New York I'm going to be a criminal in about a year, most of the guns I own are going to be useless because none of them have magazines that will be compliant with the ban. If you honestly think 7 rounds is enough for multiple assailants, you are ignorant and your irrational fears put me at risk. It takes about 30 minutes for police/firefighters to get to my property, I've been the victim of arson, or assault. So you know what, fark you. You don't know jack farking shiat.

It must be nice being so narcissistic that you believe you can dictate how other people can live.
2013-01-16 07:20:30 PM
3 votes:

Grand_Moff_Joseph: I just can't see a legitimate need for flash suppressors or silencers


Safety. Flash suppressors do just that (and are often integrated into/confused with compensators, which do something else), they suppress the flash when I'm shooting in low light. That keeps me and everyone around me safer, because I'm not blinded by my own tools. Suppressors (not silencers, they don't silence anything) are also safety devices*, they lower (not eliminate) the noise produced, so you don't need to wear as much hearing protection*. What you've seen in the movies is nowhere close to correct, they don't make guns silent (or nearly so), they take them from 'JESUS, ARE MY EARS BLEEDING?' to 'Ok, now I don't need earplugs under my earmuffs'.

*These are valid civilian uses. The military also likes the fact that they somewhat disguise the noise, the enemy will still definitely hear them, but it's a chance it could be mistaken for something else.
2013-01-16 03:25:15 PM
3 votes:
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 02:58:57 PM
3 votes:

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 02:43:57 PM
3 votes:

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 02:34:35 PM
3 votes:

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 02:32:03 PM
3 votes:
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 02:30:22 PM
3 votes:

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.
KIA
2013-01-16 02:25:39 PM
3 votes:
From a different site:

24. Ask Eric Holder to stop giving machine guns to drug cartels in Mexico.
2013-01-16 02:24:13 PM
3 votes:
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 02:19:26 PM
3 votes:
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 01:59:56 PM
3 votes:
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 01:48:45 PM
3 votes:

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 01:43:13 PM
3 votes:

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 01:37:14 PM
3 votes:
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."
2013-01-17 01:38:23 PM
2 votes:

Phinn: Therefore, when inquiring as to whether gun crime is more frequently perpetrated by "rednecks" as opposed to blacks/Hispanics, it makes no logical sense to aggregate the statistics state-by-state. Your argument that there are "rednecks" in those states is misplaced, unless you can show that "rednecks" are actually committing those crimes.

The reason I mentioned Vermont is because it happens to have virtually zero gun crime, and also zero black/Hispanic population. The absence of gun crime there is therefore noteworthy, but in itself, Vermont's statistics do not fully answer the question of who is perpetrating gun crimes. To do that, we need to examine the statistics from states where gun crime rates are higher.

So, let's look deeper into the gun and race statistics on which your Guardian article was based.

Of the approximately 8500 murders-by-firearm committed in the USA in 2011, more then half were committed by blacks and Hispanics, despite the fact that they make up a minority of the US population (not even including the number of crimes that went unsolved, although we can extrapolate the race of the perpetrators from the race of the victims, who were predominately black and Hispanic). Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit armed robbery. Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate. When blacks commit crimes of violence, they are three times more likely than non-blacks to use a gun.

The majority of these gun-related crimes (including deaths) are related to drug-dealing gangs, whose membership is approximately 10% white and 90% non-white.

In other words, the drug-dealing industry in the USA is the origin of most gun crime, and is dominated by blacks and Hispanics.


It's thinly-veiled racist derp like this that makes me glad that the CDC will finally be able to do some research into this. I think that you will find that it's less about race, and more about socio-economics. It will be nice to have good data with the same dimensionality as that collected for the flu. Maybe then we can quantitatively zero in on some root causes that aren't along the lines of "don't ban guns, ban blacks and hispanics" (which is essentially what your stupid argument says).

You'll find the people of colour (of any ethnicity) with comparable educations and incomes to that of your idealized 'white' population do not commit a disproportionate percentage of crimes.
2013-01-17 12:35:49 PM
2 votes:

TerminalEchoes: What are some honest ideas about the real root of them problem? I can't blame Hollywood because my parents and grandparents grew up on westerns where John Wayne was shooting anything that moved. Aside from the rare Charles Whitman or Starkweather, you didn't see the type of gun violence we have today. So what changed?


The decline of the mental health system, coupled with growing wealth disparity.
2013-01-17 09:27:53 AM
2 votes:
How to argue with a liberal - Gun Control

Liberal: You don't need an assault weapon to hunt deer!

You: An assault weapon is not for hunting deer, it is a weapon for self defense and for the defense of others against whatever threat may arise, including but not limited to muggers or home break ins, but more importantly to effectively defend against the possibility of a well-organized, well-coordinated, and well-equipped threat. It is currently the most effective, powerful, and accurate style of small arms available to the public.

Liberal: You don't need a 30-round HIGH CAPACITY magazine to hunt deer!! lolz!

You: First off, a 30rd magazine is not high capacity, so stop calling it that. A 30 round magazine is considered standard capacity for the AR/AK platform. A 100 round drum would be properly characterized as a high capacity mag. More rounds equal more firepower, which equals a greater ability to deal with any threat that may present itself.

Liberal: Well maybe we should just give everyone Tanks and RPGs! LOLZORS!

You: Civilians should not have access heavy armor, highly explosive ordinance, rockets, nukes, etc. These are highly advanced and powerful weapons of war specifically designed to cause destruction on a large scale to not just personnel but also to infrastructure, and capital. An assault rifle is an anti-personnel weapon and considered a SMALL ARMS weapon by military standards. It's not in the same ballpark.

Liberal: Well how many more children need to die before we do something?

You: Please, do not use scare tactics. Historically there is not a single instance in history where scare tactics have been used to deprive the people of liberties in which it worked out favorably for the people! Violent and heinous acts are a problem that lies within the individual and should be addressed as such. Blaming the tool used for the evil acts is equivalent to blaming a spoon for turning you into a fat liberal turd.

Liberal: But But... BUSH and CHENEY!!... and GLOBAL WARMING!!! and, and uhh..

You: Have a nice day!
2013-01-16 10:26:48 PM
2 votes:

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.


For the more cerebral it isn't entirely about magazine capacity. It is about the federal government not micromanaging your life to the degree that they tell you what you can and cannot have. It is a free country: You shouldn't need permission from the government to do things. You instead have to deal with the consequences to your decisions and to others' decisions. That is the price of freedom-- stupid/sick/evil people are free to do stupid/sick/evil things.

I hate the argument that "we need guns to protect us from the government." But guns in the hands of private citizens should a reminder (if only symbolic) to the politicians that on a one-on-one basis they are no more powerful than us lowly citizens-- even though they have elevated themselves beyond the status of humble "civil servant." Politicians are meant to represent the people, not rule them or lead them down a path favoured by one party or another.

I'd say something like "they work for American citizens," but that isn't true any more. The democrats work for the democrats. The republicans work for the republicans. I find it difficult to respect any of them.

"Just because" may not pass muster. But the inconvenient fact is that as a free person, as long as it is legal, nobody owes (legally) anyone an explanation or justification for any action. The catch as I mentioned earlier, is that one does have to take responsibility for the consequences.
2013-01-16 09:32:45 PM
2 votes:

Omahawg: as far as home protection....there is no better than your standard pump .12 gauge. no burglar who hears that noise will stick around and they work well in close confines, such as your home's hallway.

everything else just seems small penis syndrome. seriously. the zombies are not coming. we are not going to get invaded by canada. red dawn was fiction, kids.


Ah oh did I get hooked. Omahawg ridicules me for having a gun for home invasion protection, then give advise to someone else on what type of gun to use in a home invasion. Damn he got me.
2013-01-16 08:39:52 PM
2 votes:

The Southern Dandy: I'm not trolling and I am asking in all seriousness, what is the purpose of the 2nd amendment, and why was it included in the bill of rights, but the only responses I get is that I'm bat shiat crazy and not worth answering.

It seems the answer to "Why should only the government have access to military style weapons?" is "Because you're farking nuts, and this conversation is over, that's why".

I suppose I am ignorant, but I'm trying to understand why we have a 2nd amendment. WTF were the founding fathers thinking?


If you not trolling, then use the internet to go look up what Thomas Jefferson and the other signers said about the 2nd. Since you obviously have access to the internet, your either trolling, very lazy, or very stupid by making the comment above.
2013-01-16 08:05:40 PM
2 votes:
In at least one respect this could be a very good thing. If the CDC is allowed to research gun violence in a serious and non-political fashion, it's going to come to light that a majority of American gun violence is related to the war on drugs.

Ending the war on drugs would save many more gun violence victims than any other proposal on the table.
2013-01-16 07:42:17 PM
2 votes:

the ha ha guy: Grand_Moff_Joseph: yes - into a field full of strawmen.  And I just waxed that truck too.


So explain what benefit would come from banning things that you personally think are useless.

I don't mean a benefit of "it means the bad men with scary looking guns go to jail", I mean an actual measurable benefit in terms of lives saved.

If Lanza's gun had a night vision scope, how many more students would have been killed? If Holmes' gun had a pistol grip, how many more people in the theater would have been killed?


That still isn't a just reason to ban pistol grips and night vision scopes from hundreds of millions of people who have owned these firearms and things for years and never had an issue. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say "if people get scared and worried at some point then you can take this away" it says "the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

Seriously, its like a farking broken record these days. Gun control fanatics just let facts go in one ear and out the other. They have no common sense, they are like drones that can only repeat what they are programmed with by the media. Its sad.
2013-01-16 07:35:22 PM
2 votes:

Grand_Moff_Joseph: yes - into a field full of strawmen.  And I just waxed that truck too.



So explain what benefit would come from banning things that you personally think are useless.

I don't mean a benefit of "it means the bad men with scary looking guns go to jail", I mean an actual measurable benefit in terms of lives saved.

If Lanza's gun had a night vision scope, how many more students would have been killed? If Holmes' gun had a pistol grip, how many more people in the theater would have been killed?
2013-01-16 07:21:16 PM
2 votes:

Grand_Moff_Joseph: But, even if they are useless, I just can't see a legitimate need for flash suppressors or silencers - even if they are junk.  To me, you only need either of those if you intend to shoot something without being noticed, and someone with that goal in mind is probably up to no good.



I just can't see a legitimate need for a truck with green camouflage paint. To me, you only need that if you intend to drive in the woods without being noticed, and someone with that goal in mind is probably up to no good.

I just can't see a legitimate need for peer-to-peer software. To me, you only need that if you intend to steal a movie without paying the MPAA, and someone with that goal in mind is probably up to no good.

See where this is going?
2013-01-16 07:21:06 PM
2 votes:

Grand_Moff_Joseph: 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.


You appear to be calling for the confiscation of all guns owned for a substantial length of time. I have no sales receipts for guns I've owned for over 30 years.
2013-01-16 07:13:08 PM
2 votes:

jigoro: I'm no expert but I assume those pistol grips are there for a reason. I'll throw one out: less likely to drop it in the chaos of war. Now that doesn't make a weapon more deadly, per se, but you probably don't need a pistol grip to deer hunt.



Does that pistol grip give the gun more firepower? Greater capacity? Greater accuracy? A magic "convert to tank" switch?

In a civilian setting, criminal or otherwise, a pistol grip gives no discernible advantage whatsoever. So why push to ban it at all, other than to appease the crowd that wants to ban anything that looks scary?
2013-01-16 06:52:07 PM
2 votes:

Mi-5: 5. Civvies don't need military style weapons. Period. Full stop.


"Military style" refers to the cosmetic appearance, not the functionality.

Banning a weapon over it's appearance quite literally falls under the right-wingers claims of "the gun grabbers just want to ban anything that looks scary".
2013-01-16 06:24:20 PM
2 votes:
Hopefully once he gets done appeasing the family values think of the children crowd he will order background checks for anyone buying alcohol, and expand mandatory DWI checkpoints in all states. Drunk drivers kill a lot more people than gun owners around here.
2013-01-16 06:21:38 PM
2 votes:

Surpheon: Would be interesting if Japanese Americans had risen up en masse with guns when internment was done during WWII. Wonder if the mass casualities (they'd have all been killed most likely) would have been worth it?


The Japanese were (a wild guess) 0.00000000000001% of the US population and lived mostly in Hawaii and California. They were also mostly poor farm workers. They were out numbered and overwhelmed by mass hysteria. It was a shame. Lets not let it happen again with guns.

My father in law, who was Chinese, joined the US Army as a cook shortly after Pearl Harbor. It was in self defense as his friends were being beat to death by white punks "getting back at the japs". The punks were never prosecuted.  This was in "progressive" San Francisco. They don't teach this in the history books.
2013-01-16 06:12:52 PM
2 votes:

LasersHurt: CD_Ridge: What do these executive orders do about criminals that have guns?

What would you like to do about criminals who have guns?


The only reasonably successful option is to dramatically increase penalties for crimes committed involving a gun. This will potentially curb things like robberies and thefts, but do absolutely nothing for spree killers because those are the unstable individuals most likely to be suicidal at worst, or completely disconnected from the idea of consequences at best.

The local 7-11 clerk might be happy to hear that there's an extra ten year penalty without the possibility of parole on top of a robbery charge for the next guy to pull a gun on him, but it won't matter to the guy that already plans on eating a bullet after he's done.
2013-01-16 06:04:38 PM
2 votes:

Fail in Human Form: Constant fear? Nahhh. Do I fear waking up one morning and being a felon because I refuse to obey an unconstitutional law that demands I turn in my weapons? Kinda


No fear on my part, just a tremendous resentment as a responsible gun owning citizen being equated as being the same as homicidal maniacs, drug lords, urban gangsters fighting tribal warfare  and gratuitously demonized by the media and self serving political cranks because it it.
2013-01-16 05:55:24 PM
2 votes:

the money is in the banana stand: Pincy: Magnanimous_J: Pincy: So you are saying she should have never been allowed to have weapons in her house because her kid was autistic?

I'm saying she should have known better than to fill a kid's, who due to his disability, already has a hard time making interpersonal connections, with survivalist bullshiat and taught him how to use a rifle.

If she hadn't been killed as well, the country would be placing a lot more blame at her feet for her irresponsibility.

Trouble is, you can't legislate responsibility on those who are not interested in practicing it.

So basically you are saying there is nothing we can do about it? At least that's what it sounds like to me.

You cannot stop things from happening. You cannot eliminate crime. You could make it mandatory that gun owners have gun safes. How exactly do you ensure that and ensure that they keep them in it? Responsible gun owners will continue to be responsible, irresponsible ones will be irresponsible. There is almost no way to decipher who falls into what category.


The gun laws in this country are so lax that being a "responsible" gun owner in the eyes of the law is damn near "irresponsible." No background check at gun shows? insanity. Responsible gun owners should want more ways to make guns safer and get into less foolish hands. Not less.
2013-01-16 05:53:25 PM
2 votes:

CynicalLA: Magnanimous_J: CynicalLA: People like you are why I want more regulations. You gun nuts are seriously deranged and should have to be checked out for mental problems. Not trolling.

You should be checked out for low testosterone.

Another coward projecting. Only pussies need weapons to feel safe. You have it backwards.


I'm the coward? You're the one getting your panties in a bunch because other people like things that you don't like. Only a coward would want to stop people from doing something just because it makes him uncomfortable.

And by the way, you need weapons to feel safe too. You're just content letting other people carry them for you.
2013-01-16 04:46:06 PM
2 votes:

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


Then your freedom of speech should be limitted to what was available then too:

ts4.mm.bing.net
2013-01-16 04:13:37 PM
2 votes:

ronaprhys: FYI - there's decent evidence that illegal drugs are readily available and cheaper now than ever, when our efforts are at their highest to ban them. My guess is that firearms will be no different.



It's a helluva lot easier to make this:
www.1stmarijuanagrowerspage.com

From this:
www.hempgrown.com

Than it is to make this:
cache.gawker.com

From this:
waseemsohailsteel.com
2013-01-16 03:38:05 PM
2 votes:

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 03:18:46 PM
2 votes:

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 03:14:39 PM
2 votes:

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 03:09:09 PM
2 votes:

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 03:02:15 PM
2 votes:
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 02:57:54 PM
2 votes:
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 02:57:53 PM
2 votes:

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 02:54:14 PM
2 votes:

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 02:49:42 PM
2 votes:

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 02:38:51 PM
2 votes:
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 02:37:46 PM
2 votes:

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 02:37:42 PM
2 votes:

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 02:31:51 PM
2 votes:

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 02:31:03 PM
2 votes:

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 02:29:59 PM
2 votes:

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 02:29:58 PM
2 votes:

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 02:27:36 PM
2 votes:

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 02:26:52 PM
2 votes:
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 02:25:20 PM
2 votes:

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 02:25:19 PM
2 votes:

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 02:24:53 PM
2 votes:

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 02:23:09 PM
2 votes:

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 02:17:57 PM
2 votes:

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 02:17:47 PM
2 votes:
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 02:17:12 PM
2 votes:
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 02:15:50 PM
2 votes:

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 02:12:32 PM
2 votes:

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 02:00:05 PM
2 votes:

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 01:46:40 PM
2 votes:

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 01:46:05 PM
2 votes:
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 01:39:04 PM
2 votes:
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 01:29:48 PM
2 votes:

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?
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-16 01:26:38 PM
2 votes:

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 01:23:03 PM
2 votes:

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 01:19:54 PM
2 votes:
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 01:17:16 PM
2 votes:

Diogenes: Backdoor maneuver to eliminate the 2nd Amendment!


How so?  can you not buy guns any more?
2013-01-17 11:33:38 PM
1 votes:

Phinn: llachlan: Phinn: There's no such thing as "collective shame." It's an oxymoron, like "free slavery" or "rational Leftist."

Attempts to impose collective guilt, punishment or shame is a violation of one's basic human rights, and is an inversion of the fundamental premise of ethics.

You can stick it right up your ass.

So you believe that we don't as members of a society have any responsibilities for the decisions of that society? That we all bear a measure of guilt and shame for events we are not directly responsible for, but that none the less were the result of choices our society made?

So much for the idea of a responsible society.

You do know what an "individual" is, don't you? It's like you are unfamiliar with the term.

You think we exist only as "members of societies," as though societies exist first and individual "members" are just subdivisions of them.

Societies are just individuals, you know, associating.

Societies don't think, choose or act. Only individuals do. Therefore only individuals can be guilty, ashamed, unethical, etc.

Obviously.


In a society governed by the will of the majority, the collective majority who enable or condone an action are indeed morally culpable for that action. It's why the government apologizes on our behalf when we go and do boneheaded things like inter the Japanese, even if they happen to have been citizens of the US. If as a society we are not 'ashamed' of our actions we are either doomed to repeat them, or perhaps not even change them. If a society cannot be unethical, immortal, criminal or feel shame, then sanctions like the ones on South Africa that helped end Apartheid would never work - and they do work.
2013-01-17 01:31:57 PM
1 votes:

Phinn: justtray: It's almost like there are other factors that contribute to crime? Like population density.

Now, lets take a look at some low population density states with highest gun-related crime. Mississippi, Louisana, Arkansas, South Carolina. (also DC, Michigan, NY)

The three blue states have very populated cities known for crime. What do all the super low density states have in common I wonder? Rednecks and guns.

But that's an honest comparison, unlike yours, so I'm sure you'll just ignore it like you do all valid statistics and instead focus in on the cherry picked, irrelevant and invalid ones.

Source - http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

Riddle me this, genius -- Who within those states is actually committing the majority of the gun crimes?

The last time I checked, most states had sizable white and non-white populations (especially those with relatively high gun crime rates).

Therefore, when inquiring as to whether gun crime is more frequently perpetrated by "rednecks" as opposed to blacks/Hispanics, it makes no logical sense to aggregate the statistics state-by-state. Your argument that there are "rednecks" in those states is misplaced, unless you can show that "rednecks" are actually committing those crimes.

The reason I mentioned Vermont is because it happens to have virtually zero gun crime, and also zero black/Hispanic population. The absence of gun crime there is therefore noteworthy, but in itself, Vermont's statistics do not fully answer the question of who is perpetrating gun crimes. To do that, we need to examine the statistics from states where gun crime rates are higher.

So, let's look deeper into the gun and race statistics on which your Guardian article was based.

Of the approximately 8500 murders-by-firearm committed in the USA in 2011, more then half were committed by blacks and Hispanics, despite the fact that they make up a minority of the US population (not even including the number of crimes that ...


You hit on an actual, real correlated problem, Drug Control.
And that every Control causes violence, it is in the nature of the beast.
/hard pressed think of anything harder to control than humans
2013-01-17 07:08:12 AM
1 votes:

Surpheon: 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?


The main problems are

1) It makes ammo more expensive
2) It means you can't buy imported ammo from countries that don't require tags (ie the whole world)
3) It is meaningless without having to register when you buy a box of ammo, and this is too much like registering gun ownership
4) It won't stop anything

None of the mass shootings that I can recall left any doubt about who did the shooting. In most cases they end in the shooters death or capture immediately. How does tagging ammo at the expense of legal shooters help?
2013-01-17 01:45:46 AM
1 votes:

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.


Plonk!
2013-01-17 12:04:20 AM
1 votes:

ProfessorOhki: djh010


So, you'll punish me for a gun I owned that I reported stolen? Really?

I don't think you have a good grasp of the "Criminal" vs. "victim" thing. Your failure to differentiate law abiding gun owners, vs. criminals, is actually a key point in our differences. There are a million or so of us law abiding folks, who you apparently blame for the actions of each criminal. I'm sure this surprises you, but, when you blame a million people for the actions of the one criminal who has victimized us all, we honest people find being blamed for all that, as offensive.

Maybe you could think about this for a while and try to understand why the 999,999 of us, are not happy to be blamed with the 1 out of the 1,000,000 of gun owners who do bad things. If you are capable of a deeper thought, perhaps you could consider that the law abiding gun owners would prefer to not be disarmed while the criminals still have guns. See, the law abiding people abide to the laws, but, the criminals don't. So all those laws do, is to promise the bad guys a safe working environment.

Some day, I imagine that at least one anti-gun person will read the above and understand it. It saddens me that human nature among those who prefer to feel and use emotions, rather than think and use logic, will find a reason to attack my statements and observations of human nature.

TL;DR: Seriously, you're not that important. Read it again.
2013-01-16 11:40:24 PM
1 votes:

Phinn: NightOwl2255: Phinn: Hey, guys, does anyone know what the gun laws are like in Vermont?

Or what the gun crime rate is in Vermont? Pretty low, I hear.

I wonder what it is about Vermont that makes it so safe.

I wonder what kinds of problems they don't have in Vermont.

They sure don't seem to have a lot of people in Vermont who commit a disproportionate number of gun crimes, that's for sure.

I wonder ....

Oh, well. It's a mystery!

Well, let's see, since you are Frak's #2 racist, it's not going out on a limb to say you are referring to the lack of blacks. As whites are gun-lovin', god-fearing, law-abiding citizens and black are violent, armed, drug-dealing killing thugs. Like you said, it's a good thing Zimmerman killed Martin, as Martin was well on his way to a life as a violent killer.

Hey, look, the Left told me we needed to have a national conversation on race. Now they are saying it's time for a national dialogue on guns.

I'm just saving time and having both conversations at the same time.

When I completely disregard the shaming labels that ass-itches like you try to apply to me, and instead look at reality objectively, I am suddenly able to discern a few interesting facts. For example, a grossly disproportionate number of gun crimes are committed by black and Hispanic drug-dealing gang members. Most of them, actually.

There are very few of such people in Vermont.

Vermont has virtually no gun control laws.

Vermont has an extremely low gun crime rate.

Let's consider the zip codes in the USA with very high gun crime rates. Washington DC, LA, New Orleans, Detroit, Chicago.

But the Left insists on telling me that gun crime rates are higher where there is an absence of gun control laws.

The facts say otherwise.


It's almost like there are other factors that contribute to crime? Like population density.

Now, lets take a look at some low population density states with highest gun-related crime. Mississippi, Louisana, Arkansas, South Carolina. (also DC, Michigan, NY)

The three blue states have very populated cities known for crime. What do all the super low density states have in common I wonder? Rednecks and guns.

But that's an honest comparison, unlike yours, so I'm sure you'll just ignore it like you do all valid statistics and instead focus in on the cherry picked, irrelevant and invalid ones.
2013-01-16 11:21:28 PM
1 votes:

CADMonkey79: My handguns are locked in a safe, and my shotgun is in the top of a closet out of reach of my 5 yr old. I can get to it quickly and she cannot. I plan on educating her about guns when she is older. Last year a young widow had to shoot one of her dead husbands meth'd-out friends with a shotgun as he kicked in her door, He was their to kill her according to one of their friends (not sure the figured out why). Several years ago a family friend had her entire family locked in a closet by home invaders. For some reason the spared them but went on to kill another family a few days later. Sorry to ruin your rosey view of the world but home invasion is not really that rare.

See this is why you gun-control whacko's get such strong visceral reaction from the pro-gun whackos. I am paranoid and delusional and fantasize about killing an intruder because I choose to have a gun for personal protection? I exercise a constitutional right, safely, and I deserve to be ridiculed as delusional. Nice.

Mass shootings account for a tiny percentage of gun related crime in this country. You are much more likely to be killed by a common meth fueled pos just looking to find money for the next fix than some weird loner that lives with crazy prepper mom.


If she is 5, and it is on the top shelf of your closet, you need to have that talk with her NOW. If your kid is half as smart as my dumb brother, she will have no trouble figuring out how to get up there - probably while searching for a birthday present or something else innocuous. Please. I am not belittling you, ridiculing you or in any way saying you shouldn't have the gun. Just please, educate her now. Please.
2013-01-16 11:03:45 PM
1 votes:

NightOwl2255: Phinn: Hey, guys, does anyone know what the gun laws are like in Vermont?

Or what the gun crime rate is in Vermont? Pretty low, I hear.

I wonder what it is about Vermont that makes it so safe.

I wonder what kinds of problems they don't have in Vermont.

They sure don't seem to have a lot of people in Vermont who commit a disproportionate number of gun crimes, that's for sure.

I wonder ....

Oh, well. It's a mystery!

Well, let's see, since you are Frak's #2 racist, it's not going out on a limb to say you are referring to the lack of blacks. As whites are gun-lovin', god-fearing, law-abiding citizens and black are violent, armed, drug-dealing killing thugs. Like you said, it's a good thing Zimmerman killed Martin, as Martin was well on his way to a life as a violent killer.


Hey, look, the Left told me we needed to have a national conversation on race. Now they are saying it's time for a national dialogue on guns.

I'm just saving time and having both conversations at the same time.

When I completely disregard the shaming labels that ass-itches like you try to apply to me, and instead look at reality objectively, I am suddenly able to discern a few interesting facts. For example, a grossly disproportionate number of gun crimes are committed by black and Hispanic drug-dealing gang members. Most of them, actually.

There are very few of such people in Vermont.

Vermont has virtually no gun control laws.

Vermont has an extremely low gun crime rate.

Let's consider the zip codes in the USA with very high gun crime rates. Washington DC, LA, New Orleans, Detroit, Chicago.

But the Left insists on telling me that gun crime rates are higher where there is an absence of gun control laws.

The facts say otherwise.
2013-01-16 10:42:35 PM
1 votes:

rustik: muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: Noticeably F.A.T.: Omahawg: CADMonkey79: Omahawg: exactly how many of the save my guns fark brigade even know how to gut a deer?

anyone?

bueller?

So guns are just for hunting? I thought you said they were for protecting us from the natives?

welcome to the 21st century. the violent crime rate has been dropping steadily since the 1950s. what the hell else would I use a gun for?

Putting small holes in paper. putting large holes in anyone trying to harm you and yours.

A Winchester bolt-action is just fine for both of those. Or if you like a lot of little holes at once, a shotgun. You don't need an AR-15 to accomplish either of those things.

Why do you need a car to go anywhere? A bicycle or mule and cart will get you there too.

I wish I would have been on my game in my Weeners to this argument.. Replace "paper" with "people" and his argument is still accurate, which pretty much nullifies it.


It's like saying chainsaws and axes should be banned because a good old fashioned saw can do the same job.
2013-01-16 10:27:58 PM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Noticeably F.A.T.: Omahawg: CADMonkey79: Omahawg: exactly how many of the save my guns fark brigade even know how to gut a deer?

anyone?

bueller?

So guns are just for hunting? I thought you said they were for protecting us from the natives?

welcome to the 21st century. the violent crime rate has been dropping steadily since the 1950s. what the hell else would I use a gun for?

Putting small holes in paper. putting large holes in anyone trying to harm you and yours.

A Winchester bolt-action is just fine for both of those. Or if you like a lot of little holes at once, a shotgun. You don't need an AR-15 to accomplish either of those things.


Why do you need a car to go anywhere? A bicycle or mule and cart will get you there too.
2013-01-16 10:25:13 PM
1 votes:
My favorite part is where he says "You cannot buy guns to give or sell them to criminals, or we will put you in prison.

At this point, why wasn't Holder arrested?
2013-01-16 10:14:45 PM
1 votes:
Not one life would have been saved at sandy hook had these regulations already been in place.
2013-01-16 10:13:44 PM
1 votes:

llachlan: Grand_Moff_Joseph: the ha ha guy: Mi-5: 5. Civvies don't need military style weapons. Period. Full stop.

"Military style" refers to the cosmetic appearance, not the functionality.

Banning a weapon over it's appearance quite literally falls under the right-wingers claims of "the gun grabbers just want to ban anything that looks scary".

Not necessarily.  Sure, a night vision scope is a cosmetic add-on, but it's also very functional.  I highly doubt that any civilian needs one of those.  Or a silencer.  Or a flash suppressor.

I can actually get behind letting people at ranges rent a silencer for use at a range. They aren't really advantageous to criminals like portrayed on TV, but they definitely help protect hearing.

And I know it's an irrational position, but I'd like to see the 'scary looking' modern sporting rifles (which is such a load of crock term) restricted to renting them to use at ranges for the simple reason that on average, scary people gravitate toward that gun. I know, tres stupid, but there you have it.


How can "I know it's stupid, but let's do it anyway" be a rational argument to do anything? Sounds a lot like the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
2013-01-16 10:12:21 PM
1 votes:

Grand_Moff_Joseph: GUTSU: cameroncrazy1984: Noticeably F.A.T.: Omahawg: CADMonkey79: Omahawg: exactly how many of the save my guns fark brigade even know how to gut a deer?

anyone?

bueller?

So guns are just for hunting? I thought you said they were for protecting us from the natives?

welcome to the 21st century. the violent crime rate has been dropping steadily since the 1950s. what the hell else would I use a gun for?

Putting small holes in paper. putting large holes in anyone trying to harm you and yours.

A Winchester bolt-action is just fine for both of those. Or if you like a lot of little holes at once, a shotgun. You don't need an AR-15 to accomplish either of those things.

Thank you for telling me what I can or can not use to defend myself and my family, I'm sure someone like you with your nearly infinite wisdom and knowledge about firearms knows so much more than me.

In New York I'm going to be a criminal in about a year, most of the guns I own are going to be useless because none of them have magazines that will be compliant with the ban. If you honestly think 7 rounds is enough for multiple assailants, you are ignorant and your irrational fears put me at risk. It takes about 30 minutes for police/firefighters to get to my property, I've been the victim of arson, or assault. So you know what, fark you. You don't know jack farking shiat.

It must be nice being so narcissistic that you believe you can dictate how other people can live.

1.  If you have been the victim or arson and assault already, perhaps you should consider moving, instead of buying more guns.
2.  If there is a legitimate threat of multiple assailants, then you really, really should think about moving.  You can buy as many guns as you want, but you won't win every firefight forever.  I may not agree with your position here, but I'd much rather you be alive in the long run.


I'm not in any immediate danger, but I have been. I know what it's like to be a victim, I know that under stress I would probably miss an assailant at least a few times, I know that a single round is unlikely to stop a person, so there is no is no way in hell that I am trusting my life to a 7 round magazine.
2013-01-16 10:07:27 PM
1 votes:

Vector R: 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?

And that's the question that needs to be asked every time a ridiculous restriction comes up.

/NY'er that can't wait to leave


Eventually it gets harder to get ones in good working order and harder to replace the ones that are confiscated. Like population control but for guns.
2013-01-16 09:43:02 PM
1 votes:

Omahawg: [0.tqn.com image 530x406]


You're an idiot. I can't believe you can even find a voting booth.
2013-01-16 09:38:32 PM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: mizchief: Only looking at GUN crimes in a island nation where GUNS are banned and ignoring violent crime by all other weapons is blatantly misleading

It's not misleading at all. The Firearms act of 1997 was meant to curb mass shootings, and it has: since the act was passed only 1 "mass" shooting occurred and the guy had to do it with a shotgun and only killed like 9 people.

Sh*t works, yo.


As long as you think that stopping 20 people from being shot once every few years is a fair trade for millions of additional people being beaten, raped, stabbed, bludgeoned, and killed by other weapons, I guess it does work yo.
2013-01-16 09:36:43 PM
1 votes:

llachlan: Mi-5: /Have weapons at home
//Don't care if they increased regulations or control, because
1. Don't need a gun to protect myself or my house

Agree. Using a gun to protect yourself at home should be the last part of your plan to protect yourself at home. There is no substitute for hardening your home. If my gun needs to come out at home, I have seriously farked up.


"Last part of the plan" is still part of the plan.
2013-01-16 09:36:05 PM
1 votes:

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.


He's not angry, he's happy. His ratings are thru the roof and the money he can charge the Gold advertisers is gonna double. An all GOP White House and Congress for 8 years? That'd sink Limbaugh into bankruptcy.
2013-01-16 09:31:56 PM
1 votes:

TerminalEchoes: What are some honest ideas about the real root of them problem? I can't blame Hollywood because my parents and grandparents grew up on westerns where John Wayne was shooting anything that moved. Aside from the rare Charles Whitman or Starkweather, you didn't see the type of gun violence we have today. So what changed?


The war on drugs. That's the answer. We also had a huge spike in gun violence during the first prohibition. Not a coincidence.

When I was a kid, you could order a military weapon from an ad in the back of a comic book and the postman would deliver to your door. In high school, I was on the rifle team. THE RIFLE TEAM. It was a letter sport.

While there have always been massacres, drug war related violence is driving an awful lot of social dysfunction. Okay, I'm old as dirt, but again, when I was a kid growing up in a rough part of El Paso, the gangs were armed with bicycle chains knives, and zip guns. The war on drugs has made drug selling so insanely profitable that these same gangs are now armed with assault weapons.

Follow the money.
2013-01-16 09:13:59 PM
1 votes:

Magnanimous_J: . Only a coward would want to stop people from doing something just because it makes him uncomfortable.


I am not remotely uncomfortable with guns. I have fired many many kinds, and own airguns and bows. Guns scare me not at all. I have met a good number of people who owned them who scare me (in terms of their apparent mental state and what they may one day do, not personal fear)

I also do not think 'rapid fire' weapons however you choose to define them, military clones, many handguns and various other 'toys' are a good idea for sporting (amusement really, actual sporting use suits other guns much better) or utility use and hunting. Guns specific to those purposes and stored/used appropriately to that purpose are better and should be generally allowed.

For personal defense, given that your country allows this use, a simple low calibre pistol (general) or shotgun (rural) is all that could ever really serve an actual purpose. The rest is either paranoia or vanity and ego-tripping as far as I am concerned. If you actually live somewhere where you think an AR15 or a really amped up handgun is needed for home defense then for your family's sake MOVE.
2013-01-16 09:06:22 PM
1 votes:

TerminalEchoes: What are some honest ideas about the real root of them problem? I can't blame Hollywood because my parents and grandparents grew up on westerns where John Wayne was shooting anything that moved. Aside from the rare Charles Whitman or Starkweather, you didn't see the type of gun violence we have today. So what changed?


rphprnusa.com
2013-01-16 09:03:11 PM
1 votes:

justtray: You should read the entire 2nd ammendment. Not just the cherry picked, out of context, misinterpreted part you wish it was


The SCOUS settled the definition of "militia", the "people" and "shall not be infringed" in Heller vs DC. All very definitively against the "good" wishes and high minded hopes of the anti-gun crowd  And they made it a point to say in the decision that they didn't really want to revisit the issue again. They also pretty much said that M-16s and the like were standard issue with the army and as such were allowed, without restriction, to the militia, meaning all the people.
2013-01-16 08:23:19 PM
1 votes:

a61sun: The part that bothers me most is one simple truth: Criminals do NOT care about laws! We can make laws all day and they will not stop criminal actions.

That is all.


i don't even care about criminals. hell, i've been a criminal and any smart criminal knows it's easier to stay out of jail if you don't use a gun.

it's only the nutjobs that worry me. the paranoid who fantasize about some dumb bastard to try and steal their tv so they have an excuse to blow their brains out and the tin-foil hat brigade whose neighbor's dog tells them it's the will of jesus

criminals rarely go to schools and movie theaters and shoot little kids because there is no profit potential

I learned how to shoot when I was 8, encouraged my step-kid go through hunter safety, I have no problem with guns

i have a problem with lunatics having easy access to guns that aren't meant to hunt squirrels or deer
2013-01-16 08:14:37 PM
1 votes:
The part that bothers me most is one simple truth: Criminals do NOT care about laws! We can make laws all day and they will not stop criminal actions.

That is all.
2013-01-16 08:11:04 PM
1 votes:
0.tqn.com
2013-01-16 08:02:11 PM
1 votes:

justtray: MagicMissile: the ha ha guy: Grand_Moff_Joseph: yes - into a field full of strawmen.  And I just waxed that truck too.


So explain what benefit would come from banning things that you personally think are useless.

I don't mean a benefit of "it means the bad men with scary looking guns go to jail", I mean an actual measurable benefit in terms of lives saved.

If Lanza's gun had a night vision scope, how many more students would have been killed? If Holmes' gun had a pistol grip, how many more people in the theater would have been killed?

That still isn't a just reason to ban pistol grips and night vision scopes from hundreds of millions of people who have owned these firearms and things for years and never had an issue. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say "if people get scared and worried at some point then you can take this away" it says "the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

Seriously, its like a farking broken record these days. Gun control fanatics just let facts go in one ear and out the other. They have no common sense, they are like drones that can only repeat what they are programmed with by the media. Its sad.

Hello projection.

You should read the entire 2nd ammendment. Not just the cherry picked, out of context, misinterpreted part you wish it was


I did read it. Heres some information on the latest Supreme Court ruling in 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Where the Supreme Court says that the 2nd Amendment applies to the Individuals right to keep and bear arms, and is not talking about the national guard or reserves.

Pull your head out of your ass and stop clinging to the crap the media has been spoon feeding you for most of your life.
2013-01-16 07:48:56 PM
1 votes:

Theburner: 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.


That was Pennsylvania, because doctors are required by law to report any impairments that could affect motor vehicle operation.

So the lesson here is:  lie to your doctor.

My old doctor asked me if I had guns in the house.  I have one Henry rifle that I keep unloaded and locked in a case.  I don't have kids.  Didn't stop him from lecturing me about it.  When my new doctor asked if I had guns in the house I told him I didn't.
2013-01-16 07:42:09 PM
1 votes:

llachlan: You are right - I should not have used the inflammatory 'gun show' loophole phrase. I mean the lack of checks on private sales that happen in places not limited to gun shows.


Ok, good. Because every gun show I've been to, the dealers all followed the same rules as brick and mortar stores (checks if required, not all states require them for all guns), and all the ones I've been to here in CO prohibit private transfers without checks while on the premises (they provide a big table for private party checks). That still doesn't stop private sales without checks, how on earth would you enforce it? All it would do is make sure it doesn't happen in a big parking lot (I, and everyone I have bought/sold from prefer a nice public place).
2013-01-16 07:41:28 PM
1 votes:

Ow! That was my feelings!: People_are_Idiots: Allright, since this thread is full of a wide-range of gun nuts and anti-gun nuts, let's put a definition to the term "assault" weapon.

Assault Weapon:
A fully automatic, select fire rifle used by militaries around the world. Not to be confused with the semi-automatic knock-offs that look like assault rifles and have become extremely popular sporting rifles.


So you would ban some of the air rifles? Some are full auto.
2013-01-16 07:31:51 PM
1 votes:

sillydragon: The Southern Dandy:
Just because the weapons of war have improved means that only the govt should have them? Why is that?

Anyone have that "trolling or stupid?" pic handy?


It's not a troll. It's a serious question. Consider the context of the 2nd amendment and then tell me why the government should have weapons that civilians can't.

What does the 2nd amendment mean? Why was it included in the bill of rights, a bill that protects individuals rights from government tyranny?
2013-01-16 07:29:51 PM
1 votes:

Uranus Is Huge!: CADMonkey79: Uranus Is Huge!: CADMonkey79: but it might be a good idea to consider the likelihood of that being a consequence.

CADMonkey79: I didn't say that is what should dictate the decision. I said it might be a consequence of making the "unhinged" feel as thought they are being backed into a corner

What's this mean?

Ummm, don't be surprised if it happens because it happened before.

I wasn't trying to be snarky. I was curious it meant. Crazy people do crazy things. And there seems to be a frothy, outraged reaction to every single decision made by the current administration.

Is there the same concern when the US government makes decisions that might piss off Muslims? Does it prevent us from acting?


I agree that crazy is one of those things in life than can never be completely accounted for, and my point was I fear an AWB will push some these people (real gun nuts) over the edge and we will see a increase of violence from the "militia" types like we had in the 90's.

This is a really complicated issue for me to digest, on every other issue I am a libby liber. I own guns but I do not have an assault rifle and honestly can not justify why I would need one. However, given the fact that very few gun crimes are committed with assault riffles as well as previous issue we were discussing about the lunatics, is a ban a good idea? Is it going to make much of a difference? What about the millions of these guns already out there, is a another law banning them going to prevent someone willing to shoot little kids from getting there hands on one? Someone with a little training/practice could just as easily cause as much death with a semi-auto shot gun with buck shot or a couple of hand guns (Virgina Tech). Where does it stop, are handguns and shotguns next? I don't know, Sucks being a liberal born in gun country.
2013-01-16 07:27:44 PM
1 votes:

Grand_Moff_Joseph: I highly doubt that any civilian needs one of those. Or a silencer.


I have a silencer for my .22LR rifle. It's quite a bit of fun, it's useful when teaching new shooters, and it helps protect my hearing and that of people around me. It's a comfort and safety thing.

If anything, I consider it a matter of politeness: I'd love to have more of the really loud guns have silencers to reduce the massive noise they produce. It'd be particularly useful in hunting seasons, as that way other people shooting in the distance doesn't alarm game near other hunters. They don't silence the gun like in the movies, but they do reduce the sound level below that where it's hazardous without hearing protection.

In Europe, many countries that have very strict gun control laws have quite liberal laws regarding silencers from a politeness/noise pollution/noise safety standpoint. It's not like there's tons of assassins creeping around shooting people with silenced guns.
2013-01-16 07:15:24 PM
1 votes:

Mi-5: The Southern Dandy: If civies don't need military style weapons, what's the purpose of the 2nd amendment? The British didn't include the right to bear arms in their bill of rights because the crown could supply all the arms needs once they conscripted an army. Why would the founding fathers feel a need for the 2nd amendment?

The founders wrote the 2nd Amendment at a much different time in this country's history. Your logic is a slippery slope, because surely they HAD NO IDEA of the advance in the lethal capabilities of weapons. They certainly didn't want cannon cockers to roll home with howitzers, did they? Of course not. Same thing with aircraft today. They had no clue of airplanes back then, but do you think a person in your "well-regulated militia" should have the ability to purchase an F-15E with 15,000 Kg of smart weapons?


You obviously don't know your history. They certainly did want people with cannons. How the f*ck do you think they pushed the Brits out of Boston harbor? Vermont would not be a state right now, if it weren't for civies with guns, big guns. They had to fight militias from New York and New Hampshire just to survive.

With regards to it being a "different time"....well, that's why we have a mechanism to amend the constitution, but we can't just ignore it because it was a different time.

Also, I'm not clear on your point about fighter jets? Just because the weapons of war have improved means that only the govt should have them? Why is that?
2013-01-16 07:14:15 PM
1 votes:

Corvus: the ha ha guy: Mi-5: 5. Civvies don't need military style weapons. Period. Full stop.

"Military style" refers to the cosmetic appearance, not the functionality.

Banning a weapon over it's appearance quite literally falls under the right-wingers claims of "the gun grabbers just want to ban anything that looks scary".

But I have never heard one person who claims this that they are then ok with banning all weapons that fire over certain rate or other non-cosmetic regulations.


That would be ludicrous considering that all of these semi-automatic weapons fire at the same rate. They fire a single shot as fast as you can pull the trigger. What are you going to do? Have every gun owner come in and get their finger speed tested. The ones with super fast fingers are not going to be allowed to own semi-automatic weapons?

The "rate of fire" specifications on these firearms is theoretical and based on the mechanical limitations of it. You are not going to fire 900 rounds a minute with a semi-automatic. Your finger just can't move that fast. Realistically, if you are actually aiming, it's more like one shot per 1-2 seconds.
2013-01-16 07:03:10 PM
1 votes:

Corvus: Corvus: GoSlash27: If such a ban was passed tomorrow (it won't be), the guns would still exist and the criminals would still use them.

Yes but then those criminals could then be arrested for having those guns in their possession before a crime is actually committed.

People get arrested for carrying illegal weapons every day. Pretending no one does is ignoring reality.

FTFM


You're suggesting that they can't be arrested for that now?
People aren't randomly pulled over and searched/ frisked as part of their daily lives. Unless you propose changing that fact (a gross violation of the 4th Amdt), the situation will remain as it is now.
2013-01-16 06:58:35 PM
1 votes:
Nothing like typing a rant in an infinite entry topic guaranteeing that approximately 5 people will probably read it, but here goes:

1. Decide which particular issue your 'legislation' needs to address.The recent NY change reducing magazine capacity from 10 to 7 addresses... what in particular? How can it be looked at in any rational way other than a knee jerk reaction that accomplishes nothing? (other than increased sales of large capacity magazines in adjoining states.) Hell, look up the definition of irony after looking up 'New York reload'.

2. Are we talking violent crime? The FBI got approval to arm themselves (including Thompson machine guns) after the '33 Kansas City Massacre. And not surprisingly the very next year the precursor to the ATF required those self-same weapons to be registered to be owned. Setting aside the argument on whether this was right/wrong... was it effective? Ask the Brits since the Tommy was used by the IRA well into the '70's. You could make the claim that in the long term the weapon has been removed from the streets, but I would submit that they primarily disappeared because of their relatively poor performance and cost compared to more modern weapons. Ask Mexico how effective our current laws have been at restricting the flood of weapons crossing their border.

I'm not saying it's hopeless, but damn - pick a problem, narrow your focus, and fix the problem, not the symptom. Unfortunately fixing problems is hard and typically costs boatloads of money, whereas garnering profits while appearing to deal with the symptoms of the problem (cough, prison system, TSA) is the American way.

for example...

3. Are we talking mental illness? Good luck. Pick a particular flavor. I'm a Vet, and I'm amazed... AMAZED there haven't been several 'climb a tower and start shooting people' incidents considering we've been sending poor bastages into the grinder over and over again for a decade. Where do you draw the line regarding private ownership? Seems reasonable to require a gun owner to be sane - do we require checkups, like renewing a driver's license? In the case of Newtown, what about creepy relatives who reside or visit? Their neighbors? Who gets to determine 'crazy', since I know 'educated' people who think owning/having a weapon in your house is a good start down the road to Crazytown.

4. School shootings? For the sake of argument let's narrow it down to just the US even though they've occurred all over the world (there's wiki for that too if you care to look):
Link

If you look prior to recent decades, it was mostly unstable, jilted, disgruntled - pick your label. But even if access to all guns were removed those individuals will find another way - drive their car through a playground, propane tank from their bbq, knife/axe to a kindergarten... the question is what program (read money & effort) are we as a society willing to support for the - in any given year (according to NIMH) - the roughly 1 in 4 Americans who have mental health issues. Again, I'm amazed it doesn't happen more often considering that the US spends dick on it.

If you look at recent decades, the label tends to shift more towards outcast, bullied, etc. Since this is the particular problem that currently occupies the spotlight - let's talk about what should be done regarding this problem.

IN MY OPINION:
Why the change/increase? I'm looking at you mass media. Unhappy kids/young adults, see a chance for - in their eyes - eternal 'glory'. Every shooting, the camera/internet pores over the victims' fear, pain, loss; the fundamental change in so many lives - it's like a moth to the flame.

If you're thinking BS - this goes back a ways. The Temple of Artemis - one of the Seven Wonders of the World - was burned to the ground by someone who wanted to be: famous. Remembered. (It worked too, despite their efforts to excise his name).

While censorship is a slippery slope, I believe a serious, concerted effort must be taken to stop this kind of coverage; legislation and real punishment will be required. This is the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater times a million. No more stories covering kids pretending to be dead, holding a loved one in their arms while they died, etc. Positive stories - all day long. Community coming together. Widow getting training/new job, etc; but all the 'victim' crap needs to go.

No more talking to the neighbors, family members, pre/post trial coverage, hours and hours of gratuitous carnage and suffering. I have no problem with the names of the perpetrator on a wiki or in public transcripts, but there should be a conscious effort to not use it on TV/Internet. Zero mention of them and their actions except where it's humiliating - Autopsy revealed they had a one inch dick. Peed his pants and cried like a little girl when arrested. Got the living shiat beat out of him by kids/teachers.

So in order of importance the three steps to address this problem are:
1. Remove the 'flame'.
2. Kids and teachers need to be taught how to defend themselves and not be victims.
3. Initiate programs to help 'troubled' individuals.

Gun control has nothing to do with this particular problem.
2013-01-16 06:44:51 PM
1 votes:

GoSlash27: I don't think any of his executive orders are unconstitutional. None of them do squat to address the problem, but they're not unconstitutional.

The legislative proposals are also completely useless, but they're not going to get passed anyways.


I agree completely. Executive orders are allowed by the President to formulate policy and rules for executive agencies. That's just what he did. Useless grandstanding, but lawful. I wonder how much the CDC report that concludes "Guns are bad" is going to cost.

Congress won't fund most of them, but WTH, he "tried".

Legislation proposed by a lame duck President is DOA, if history is any guide.

I am loving my Ruger stock though.
2013-01-16 06:40:59 PM
1 votes:
In 1973, someone murdered 32 people in a bar in New Orleans. Nobody talked about banning the tool he used because people were familiar with that tool. They use it every day and weren't scared of it.

People are afraid of the unknown. Too many people are unfamiliar with guns, so they're scared of guns. When a crime is committed using a gun they cry "OMG! Ban the scary, unfamiliar thing!" When a crime is committed with a tool they use every day they cry "That murderer should be in jail and we should try to help people from going insane like that".
2013-01-16 06:39:01 PM
1 votes:
I don't think any of his executive orders are unconstitutional. None of them do squat to address the problem, but they're not unconstitutional.

The legislative proposals are also completely useless, but they're not going to get passed anyways.
2013-01-16 06:38:49 PM
1 votes:

djh0101010: ProfessorOhki: djh0101010: Same as smart-guns and microstamping ideas, where you have the gun stamp the serial number of the gun onto the shell as it fires...yeah, people actually came up with that. What do you do with the millions of guns that aren't set up for that? How do you convince Johnny Gang-Banger to use one of those?

You just require it on new manufacture and use it on the gangsters who are too stupid to file the stamp off?

So, is it your belief that gang-bangers buy guns from legal sources? Really?


Protip: Even if a Glock is "lost," stolen, moved through 10 parties, picked up at a show, and sold to a gangster, it was still manufactured by Glock Inc. Sure, they'd get altered just like serial numbers get filed off, but it'd probably catch a couple of idiots and not so much as inconvenience a legal owner.
2013-01-16 06:35:45 PM
1 votes:

ReverendJynxed: Uranus Is Huge!: CD_Ridge: What do these executive orders do about criminals that have guns?

There are already laws that address this.

Exactly, this law push is to make sure more people qualify as criminals before breaking a law, so those laws can be used against them.

The previous system was lacking because it wasn't streamlined. You had to wait for the criminals to show themselves you see. This way, we can declare them a criminal first and round them up in one swoop without having to have them lift a finger. Win-win right?

They are creating a literal criminal class and declaring anyone with a "mental illness" a criminal for existing. It's amazing how it's the people that stand up for themselves, not following like sheep that are labeled first.

We should just do away with due process while we're at it. That shiat gets in the way of the system too.


Man, these are some serious potential problems...

...that you created with your imagination.
2013-01-16 06:18:37 PM
1 votes:

angry bunny: Uranus Is Huge!: angry bunny: Everyone is aware that plenty of "assualt weapons" were sold during the last assualt rifle ban right? In fact the Violence Policy Center freely admitted that the ban did nothing to stop the sale of assualt weapons

Which means I'm laughing at the "took our rights" folks just as hard as I am the people that think this will somehow prevent a mass shooting.

lol, lol I say. A pox on both your houses.

Wait. Are you suggesting that both sides might be bad?

Bad? No just unbelievably dumb. It's like my dog. I've watched the lovable idiot eat cat poop as if it were some rare delicacy. I refer to my cat box as a buffet. I still love my dog I'm just aware that she's not the sharpest knife in the drawer. By extention there are many dull knives floating about in the drawer that is fark, but they occasionaly make me chortle so let's keep them around.


The important thing is the sense of superiority you gain. So you've got that goin' for ya.
2013-01-16 06:18:34 PM
1 votes:

ArmanTanzarian: In 2009, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 66.9% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm.[5] There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.[6] Just over half of all gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides.[7] Of the 30,470 firearm-related deaths in the United States in 2010, 19,392 (63.6%) were suicide deaths, and 11,078 (36.4%) homicide deaths.[8]


So what happened right before that sudden dip in 1993... "The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act ... was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 30, 1993," oh.

The 1999-2001 plateau is interesting though. Theories?
2013-01-16 06:12:27 PM
1 votes:

Magnanimous_J: CynicalLA: Magnanimous_J: CynicalLA: People like you are why I want more regulations. You gun nuts are seriously deranged and should have to be checked out for mental problems. Not trolling.

You should be checked out for low testosterone.

Another coward projecting. Only pussies need weapons to feel safe. You have it backwards.

I'm the coward? You're the one getting your panties in a bunch because other people like things that you don't like. Only a coward would want to stop people from doing something just because it makes him uncomfortable.

And by the way, you need weapons to feel safe too. You're just content letting other people carry them for you.


Nicely put. Of course all of farkdum (myself included) doesn't really care for the po po's.
2013-01-16 06:12:11 PM
1 votes:

CynicalLA: Magnanimous_J: And by the way, you need weapons to feel safe too. You're just content letting other people carry them for you.

You guys are seriously delusional and live in constant fear. That makes you the coward, genius.


I don't live in constant fear, but I recognize certain realities of life.

But you are obviously one of those guys who kinda gets off on being passive, like being a victim is somehow noble. I'm not going to convince you of anything.

So go on living you life, and I hope for your sake that god forbid, violence ever finds you, a stronger man than you are is there to help you out.

Because all your empty-headed progressiveness isn't going to mean a goddamn thing when that happens.
2013-01-16 06:12:00 PM
1 votes:
In 2009, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 66.9% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm.[5] There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.[6] Just over half of all gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides.[7] Of the 30,470 firearm-related deaths in the United States in 2010, 19,392 (63.6%) were suicide deaths, and 11,078 (36.4%) homicide deaths.[8]

upload.wikimedia.org
2013-01-16 06:06:30 PM
1 votes:
The implications of making mental health screening a component of acquiring firearms are slowly dawning on the Fark Militia.

It's amusing.
2013-01-16 06:05:08 PM
1 votes:

Pincy: Magnanimous_J: Pincy: So you are saying she should have never been allowed to have weapons in her house because her kid was autistic?

I'm saying she should have known better than to fill a kid's, who due to his disability, already has a hard time making interpersonal connections, with survivalist bullshiat and taught him how to use a rifle.

If she hadn't been killed as well, the country would be placing a lot more blame at her feet for her irresponsibility.

Trouble is, you can't legislate responsibility on those who are not interested in practicing it.

So basically you are saying there is nothing we can do about it? At least that's what it sounds like to me.


There are a bunch of things that Lanza's mother could have done. As far as "we" (I assume you mean through legislation), not really.

Sure, you could outlaw all guns, go door to door gathering them all up, and impose draconian punishments on those who would violate gun laws, and you might save a few lives. But you could make the same argument for banning corn syrup and chewing tobacco and sports cars and kitchen knives.

Frankly, banning assault weapons would not save enough lives to be worth the violation of freedom that it would cost. Sorry, sounds harsh but it's the truth.
2013-01-16 06:01:03 PM
1 votes:
Non-nut gun owner, my impressions:

Oh, man. The way things looked, I was expecting a colossal knee-jerk reaction that broke things rather than fixed them. I am pleasantly surprised. This seems reasonable. Sensible. I don't think it'll be *enough* to *fix* things, but it's for certain a step in the right direction.

Additionally, I wonder if some NRA nuts aren't having aneurysms right now. I don't see anything they can really bite down on. They've been building up with "second civil war" and "obammer wants our guns" to "nobama wants the u.n. to invade". I imagine they're pissed now, because they were left without a leg to stand on.

Not only was something shockingly reasonable drafted, but it was done without the NRA because they petulantly stormed off before things even began. I wonder if there will be fallout of some sort from this.
2013-01-16 06:00:49 PM
1 votes:

Ow! That was my feelings!: People_are_Idiots: Allright, since this thread is full of a wide-range of gun nuts and anti-gun nuts, let's put a definition to the term "assault" weapon.

Assault Weapon:
A fully automatic, select fire rifle used by militaries around the world. Not to be confused with the semi-automatic knock-offs that look like assault rifles and have become extremely popular sporting rifles

and look scary to non-gun people.

FTFY

It looks scary! IT'S AN ASSAULT RIFLE! BAN IT!
2013-01-16 05:59:19 PM
1 votes:

drewsclues: the money is in the banana stand: Pincy: Magnanimous_J: Pincy: So you are saying she should have never been allowed to have weapons in her house because her kid was autistic?

I'm saying she should have known better than to fill a kid's, who due to his disability, already has a hard time making interpersonal connections, with survivalist bullshiat and taught him how to use a rifle.

If she hadn't been killed as well, the country would be placing a lot more blame at her feet for her irresponsibility.

Trouble is, you can't legislate responsibility on those who are not interested in practicing it.

So basically you are saying there is nothing we can do about it? At least that's what it sounds like to me.

You cannot stop things from happening. You cannot eliminate crime. You could make it mandatory that gun owners have gun safes. How exactly do you ensure that and ensure that they keep them in it? Responsible gun owners will continue to be responsible, irresponsible ones will be irresponsible. There is almost no way to decipher who falls into what category.

The gun laws in this country are so lax that being a "responsible" gun owner in the eyes of the law is damn near "irresponsible." No background check at gun shows? insanity. Responsible gun owners should want more ways to make guns safer and get into less foolish hands. Not less.


I don't disagree with that, but what is the background check going to show? All we are talking about is denying this ownership to felons. I agree that should happen. What about non-felons? There is no way to ensure those people are responsible except penalize them AFTER the fact.
2013-01-16 05:59:14 PM
1 votes:

Magnanimous_J: CynicalLA: Magnanimous_J: CynicalLA: People like you are why I want more regulations. You gun nuts are seriously deranged and should have to be checked out for mental problems. Not trolling.

You should be checked out for low testosterone.

Another coward projecting. Only pussies need weapons to feel safe. You have it backwards.

I'm the coward? You're the one getting your panties in a bunch because other people like things that you don't like. Only a coward would want to stop people from doing something just because it makes him uncomfortable.

And by the way, you need weapons to feel safe too. You're just content letting other people carry them for you.


Maybe he has good reason not to trust himself with one, and is projecting his fears on everyone else.

CynicalLA: muck4doo: CynicalLA: Another coward projecting. Only pussies need weapons to feel safe. You have it backwards.

This is intelligent discussion according To CowardLA

How would you know about intelligent discussion? You are just a low class troll.


I'm not the one in this thread calling people pussies, am I?
2013-01-16 05:46:12 PM
1 votes:
The Obama administration is clearly putting a bandaid on a sucking chest wound. In fact, they are putting the bandaid on the forehead of the man with a sucking chest wound, because they are nowhere near the ballpark on the issue of mass shootings. They are simply taking advantage of another mass shooting by pushing a gun control agenda. They are not attempting to solve the real problem. In nearly all of the school mass shootings in recent history, the shooter was on anti-depressent drugs (http://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/). Obama's solution is to put more restrictions on guns. A better solution is to the get guns out of the hands of people on anti-depressents, which he did address. But that's not addressing the real problem of mass shootings, which is the state of mental health care in this country. The current cure is to give them a pill and send them back out into society, but you will never hear this in the mass media because Big Pharm won't allow the debate to even occur. If we as a people don't like the trend of these mass shootings, then we should insist on better mental health care for those who need it - and a pill is a far cry from proper mental health care. But even that doesn't address the real problem, which is WHY are so many people becoming depressed and mentally ill? It's our society. It's sick and it needs a complete overhaul, but since that seems like an unrealistic, monumental task, let's put some restrictions on guns instead.
// gun-owning lib-tard
2013-01-16 05:45:00 PM
1 votes:
Everyone is aware that plenty of "assualt weapons" were sold during the last assualt rifle ban right? In fact the Violence Policy Center freely admitted that the ban did nothing to stop the sale of assualt weapons

Which means I'm laughing at the "took our rights" folks just as hard as I am the people that think this will somehow prevent a mass shooting.

lol, lol I say. A pox on both your houses.
2013-01-16 05:42:34 PM
1 votes:

Fail in Human Form: CynicalLA: Fail in Human Form: People_are_Idiots: Allright, since this thread is full of a wide-range of gun nuts and anti-gun nuts, let's put a definition to the term "assault" weapon.

"Anything we feel like banning" sums it up for the gun grabbers

/It's a moving target

People like you are why I want more regulations. You gun nuts are seriously deranged and should have to be checked out for mental problems. Not trolling.

Why?

/Honestly curious


Are you serious? You morans have been in every thread trying to derail any conversation dealing with guns. Nothing but shiatty analogies and rambo fantasies with you people. Most of you are paranoid as well and live in a world of delusion where people are coming to take your guns. You obviously are not right in the head.
2013-01-16 05:41:24 PM
1 votes:
The great thing about a thread like this is all those coming out saying they will fight back with their guns, blah blah blah. The FBI is LOVING this thread. Every person who made similar comments can rest assured they'll be Bush-era warrantless wiretap targets. Enjoy!
2013-01-16 05:40:34 PM
1 votes:

CynicalLA: People like you are why I want more regulations. You gun nuts are seriously deranged and should have to be checked out for mental problems. Not trolling.

You

should be checked out for low testosterone.
2013-01-16 05:38:46 PM
1 votes:

Uranus Is Huge!: MythDragon: How's this for a scary gun?
[world.guns.ru image 597x168]

9mm Calico Carbine. Magazine holds 100 rounds. Standard

Also make a pistol version
[calicolightweaponsystems.com image 444x184]

Calico: Because scaring libs with range toys is fun!

Anybody that thinks scaring others with guns (although those pics are more absurd than frightening) should probably not have guns.


THIS.

If the sole reason you want something is to 'piss off group X' then you should be forever banned form having it. Same should apply to runnign for office.
2013-01-16 05:27:14 PM
1 votes:
Tell you what....I'll give up my AR's, handguns etc....when you can guarantee
100%, that the criminals who have possession of ILLEGAL guns, turn them in &
promise not to get another one, until legal to do so.

Otherwise forget it!
2013-01-16 05:20:31 PM
1 votes:
This is not grandstanding or attempting to distract from the economy. There was a mass public call for a response to the gun issue following Sandy Hook, Obama has responded with completely reasonable reform attempts. Should there be any questionable aspects, constitutionally, it will eventually fall to the Supreme Court to rule on. I'd love to see stronger attempts at actual gun control (I think many weapons should be legal but some not- much like I think marijuana should be legal but not heroin. Call me crazy for not wanting either extreme. ) but if the American people, through their elected representatives, disagree with me so be it. That's how America works. I am capable of respecting much of Obama's work and detesting last year's NDAA. I am vast. I contain multitudes. Why is the ability to have differing views on differing subjects, instead of a us/them party line attitude, impossible these? Man I wish there were more parties in the states. I am probably overly optimistic but I feel like it would help dial back the crazy if we had multiple viable parties. Man, reading political threads while I drink makes me sad and long winded.
2013-01-16 05:19:00 PM
1 votes:
3.bp.blogspot.com
2013-01-16 05:13:30 PM
1 votes:

Farkage: "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)


It's not about the kids, it's about control. THEY'RE not comfortable with you exercising your rights so they want someone to take those evil black rifles away from you. The kids are just a convenient excuse for some and the issue of the day for others.
2013-01-16 05:09:01 PM
1 votes:
Also, is it safe to assume they are counting your voluntarily giving up your HIPPA rights to apply for a gun? Doesn't it go against the ADA to have folks with mental disabilities singleled out, put in a database, etc.

I could have swore someone else in history did this kind of crap. Yay class warfare! Can't control the people so we'll call them crazy which will give us the ability to throw on some collars.

Question though. Who decides who is "too crazy" to own a firearm? You? Me? The rich white a-holes in power? What makes you think the next mental health label isn't the one thrown at you? I mean, we have oppositional defiance disorder to cover anyone that they can't legally control because they disagree with them. Maybe we'll see a passive aggressive douche-nozzle disorder, or angry impotent and unimportant disorder.

They are creating specific classes of people for control. We fought to get away from the classes, and ass-hats without forethought are handing them back the reins.

So who decides? Why is that line drawn sufficient? Why shouldn't the line be drawn elsewhere? It is a damn slippery slope and you farkers are running down it in a race to the septic tank.
2013-01-16 05:05:10 PM
1 votes:

NightOwl2255: CliChe Guevara: We don't have it for hunting or sport, we have the amendment for defense from invaders and because our own government can't be trusted otherwise. That was the idea; no coups or invasions or dictatorial governments. Can't recall that happening 200+ years of our history.

Lisa Simpson has a rock you would just love.


Not sure why people are so butthurt by the assertion this is why we have the 2nd amendment. Its pretty cut and dried fact. Agree with the reasoning behind it or not, thats fine, but you can't deny that was indeed the express original intent. The idea that an armed population is a self-determinant population goes back to the renaissance, it was nothing new even in the 1770's. We weren't the only country to adopt it, either, though in subtly differing ways.
As for Lisa's rock, I think the historical and current number of revolts worldwide would make your specious argument, well, rather specious.
2013-01-16 05:04:11 PM
1 votes:

LoveAllServeAll: "oh you should hear Limbaugh today."

I heard someone fart today. Same thing.


It must have been a really wet one.
2013-01-16 05:01:33 PM
1 votes:

Vegan Meat Popsicle: 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.


Um . . . duty to report is not the same as revealing information in a routine background check.

A clinician or clinical social worker has a duty to report child abuse and a likelihood to harm others. They do not have a duty to report the fact that someone saw a mental health professional during routine background checks.

There is a longstanding precedent for patient information to be private, except under some very, very specific circumstances. Revealing patient information to any police officer performing a background check is way, way outside this precedent.
2013-01-16 05:00:48 PM
1 votes:

Uranus Is Huge!: Anybody that thinks scaring others with guns (although those pics are more absurd than frightening) should probably not have guns.


It's not scaring others *with* guns, it's scaring others with *pictures* of guns.

Unless you are one of those people who think that pictures of guns, and fingers pointed to vaguely look like a gun are deadly, then I apologize for threatening your life.
2013-01-16 04:58:39 PM
1 votes:
The first white doctor who notifies the Government that a black patient would be 'unacceptable' for gun ownership will be sued and labeled a racist.
2013-01-16 04:58:28 PM
1 votes:

manimal2878: Many if not most secondary schools already have a resource office AKA cop in the school, so you'd have to subtract those from the total.


I'd say it's pretty questionable as to whether this would even help in a lot of places. My high school had 2000 students come and go every day and one resource officer. That's like asking a single cop to police a small town that's constantly shifting every few hours. We probably had 10 different entry points to the school, and probably a dozen more ways to get in (windows, etc.) It takes five minutes just to RUN across the school, much less be notified, locate the source of gunfire and approach it in a way that keeps you alive. According to Wikipedia the Sandy Hook shooting took between 11 and 14 minutes.

Sounds like more security theater.
2013-01-16 04:57:55 PM
1 votes:
Liberals in 2009: "You are paranoid for thinking Obama will take your guns."
Liberals in 2013: "Thank God Obama is finally getting around to taking your guns."
2013-01-16 04:57:41 PM
1 votes:
I'm in favor of more controls over who can have a gun, because I'll pass them all. However, once that threshold has passed, I expect to be allowed to have pretty much anything I want that can be used safely. I know; I live in a fantasy world.

/Boston gun owner. Licensed to carry a concealed .45 on the street. Not allowed to use a suppressed .22 at the range. Farkin' stupid rules.
2013-01-16 04:57:32 PM
1 votes:
Loadmaster: Of Obama's 23 orders, exactly zero of them would have prevented the Newtown massacre.

TheOther: That pleases you?


Why would that please me? Totally ineffective executive orders should please no one, be they liberal, conservative, moderate, or whatever.
2013-01-16 04:55:16 PM
1 votes:

Loadmaster: Of Obama's 23 orders, exactly zero of them would have prevented the Newtown massacre.


He is more interested in looking like he is doing something while pissing off the law abiding gun owners who will and have consistently voted against him and his party.
It's really more about keeping the country divided and fighting each other so he can use the excuse of executive orders.
2013-01-16 04:54:55 PM
1 votes:

ha-ha-guy: TellarHK: MythDragon:
How weird is the balance on it with 100 9mm rounds loaded?


Awkward as hell from the get-go. I think the balance is almost better with the 100 round magazine, but I cannot stand the way it feels to try and shoot the thing. The weight of it makes you want to brace the underside of the front grip with your free hand, but the "magwell" looking bit in front of the trigger guard is actually the case eject port. So you need to be damn careful with stance to avoid getting hot brass on your arm. I've never liked shooting it, but it is one HELL of a thing to show off.
2013-01-16 04:54:20 PM
1 votes:
Folks know how erosion works yes?

First it begins like so... farm1.staticflickr.com

Not so bad.

Then...

media.away.com

You folks are just handing them the keys to your chains. This must be how the blacks felt when their own people sold them into slavery.
/hot like the the barrel of an assault weapon at daycare.
2013-01-16 04:54:09 PM
1 votes:
The plan (from this link, along with my comments:

1 - Require background checks for all gun sales: Good in theory, probably won't work in practice. If they make it free and either require firearm shops to offer the service for free, maybe. I don't like requiring it (I'd likely do this voluntarily if I could if I were to sell to someone I didn't know well), but as long as both parties had to be present, submit ID, and have the check done for no cost, I might be able to support this. I'd still rather see it as voluntary and I still think it'll do absolutely nothing to stop homicides. Enough firearms exist from prior sales that people won't bother with the check, especially if it's a hassle.
2 - Strengthen the background check system for gun sales: Again, good in theory. Especially if not everyone is submitting the data they're supposed to. Devil's in the details, though - do those submitters actually have quality data to submit? More needs to be explored here, but if it's limited to what currently exists this could be supportable. Probably will have absolutely minimal impact on homicide rates, though.
3 - Pass a new, stronger ban on assault weapons: And now the stupid starts. They actually call the recent firearms used assault rifles when they are not. Period. This isn't a discussion - it's factually incorrect. They used semi-automatic rifles that do not have the capability for automatic or burst fire. Lying is absolutely not an acceptable tactic to use and they are doing that. What this should be labeled as is "ban scary looking black rifles because they scare us". This will have no impact on homicide rates whatsoever and will do nothing but inconvenience legal shooters. Two points to that - enough of these rifles exist that they won't dry up anytime soon. Secondly, many non-black rifles have exactly the same capacity (and sometimes in even more powerful calibers), so folks will just switch over to those. Straight up idiocy, this.
4 - Limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds: Another non-shooter coming up with silliness. Yes, they have been used in these shootings, however, now they're legislating to the exception rather than the rule. Also, enforcement. If they were legal before, you can't make them illegal (in spite of what NY thinks). Enough of these exist that they'll be highly available for quite some time.
5 - Finish the job of getting armor-piercing bullets off the streets: Is this actually a problem? Did any of the recent shootings us "armor-piercing" bullets or is this some sort of nonsense? How are they defining armor-piercing. Devil in the details here - would a fully-jacketed round be considered AP by their standards? This worries me as the details are lacking.
6 - Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime: What the shiat? Since when did LE lack the tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime? I'm pretty sure we do a good job of prosecuting this all of the time. Another very worrisome issue here. What restrictions exist that they want to eliminate? Does this violate 4th Amendment? Also, this sounds like a cry for more funding (something about keeping 15K cops on the street).
7 - End the freeze on gun violence research: A bit of a misnomer. Anyone who wanted was free to research the hell out of this subject if they desired. The only difference is that they couldn't use Federal funds to do so. It'll be interesting to see if the POTUS can actually issue the directive to do the research or if he's going to run into a legal wall. The only thing that's prevented those who want to introduce additional controls from doing the research is their own lack of funding. Those who support firearm rights have no real problem getting the money.
8 - Make our schools safer with new resource officers and counselors, better emergency response plans, and more nurturing school climates: Maybe having new folks would be good, but nothing about allowing teachers who've taken CCW classes to actually carry in school. My guess is that this is more "feel good" stuff that will do nothing to actually stop a mass shooting, but will cost more.
9 - Ensure quality coverage of mental health treatment, particularly for young people: Sounds great in theory, but what are the details?


On the overall, I have to rate this a D-. It's got some potentially good points, but much of it isn't enforceable and some of it is plainly asinine, including one point that has absolutely nothing to do with recent history. Nor does it look like anything that would actually impact the homicide rate one iota.
2013-01-16 04:51:20 PM
1 votes:

MythDragon: How's this for a scary gun?
[world.guns.ru image 597x168]

9mm Calico Carbine. Magazine holds 100 rounds. Standard

Also make a pistol version
[calicolightweaponsystems.com image 444x184]

Calico: Because scaring libs with range toys is fun!


No one is afraid of your toys moran. You are pussies that have to be armed to feel safe. Stop with all the projection coward. We are afraid of mentally deranged gun nuts like the ones that have been showing up in all the gun threads.
2013-01-16 04:41:26 PM
1 votes:

MythDragon: How's this for a scary gun?
[world.guns.ru image 597x168]

9mm Calico Carbine. Magazine holds 100 rounds. Standard

Also make a pistol version
[calicolightweaponsystems.com image 444x184]

Calico: Because scaring libs with range toys is fun!


Anybody that thinks scaring others with guns (although those pics are more absurd than frightening) should probably not have guns.
2013-01-16 04:40:44 PM
1 votes:
Yeah, good luck with all of that, farkiing moron.

/If any thing this has taught us why the government should not be allowed to collect any information on law abiding citizens exercising their human and Constitutional rights.
//Punish law abiding citizens.
///Then I'm done being a law abiding citizen.
IXFark you you sick fark so-called-progressives.
2013-01-16 04:36:12 PM
1 votes:

grumpyoldmann: Excuse me 2nd amendment douche bags but it doesn't say a thing about allowing possession of automatic weapons and large capacity magazines. Muzzle loaders and flintlocks satisfy the constitution.


Meanwhile, you're a 1st Amendment douchebag.

Let me send some electrons your way before there is an executive order limiting electronic communication, because ink and parchment satisfy the constitution.

Here goes...

www.theantiliberalzone.com
2013-01-16 04:25:36 PM
1 votes:

plewis: Yes, armed guards at school are stupid. Cops, who are armed, at schools are not.


What's amusing is watching anti- NRA partisans pretend that these two proposals are entirely different, with one of them being allegedly moronic and beneath contempt, and the other one absolutely brilliant -- even though the cops would, by definition, be guarding the schools.
2013-01-16 04:16:28 PM
1 votes:

Xcott: dmax: Fart_Machine: Sandy

And, this is not a joke. Those folks at the Sandy Hook school massacre? They were actors, so Fartbongo could start taking away our guns.

Sadly, these twerps are actually harassing people in Newtown, directly accusing them of being "crisis actors," which is a real term that means something in English so study it out. I can't imagine how that helps people who have just lost their child.

/Good to know that 9/11 truthers are keeping themselves busy with new projects, though.


I actually know first hand of some gun control activists who moved to Newtown that day, in order to establish residence and start the grass roots movement of Sandy Hook sympathy.

I know it's not the same as the false flag theorists, but I think it's telling and quite dishonest.
2013-01-16 04:16:14 PM
1 votes:

Corvus: ha-ha-guy: On the flip side, wasn't everyone saying the NRA's idea of armed guards at the school was the dumbest idea on the face of the earth? Yet he included incentives to help schools hire police officers to protect the school.

Oh and the NRA positions was armed VOLUNTEERS not ARMED GUARDS.


Volunteers with guns guarding kids. That sounds like a dandy idea to me. This from a country that can't seem to keep its teacher from farking students.
2013-01-16 04:16:13 PM
1 votes:

muck4doo: So are vets who get treated for PTSD going to not be allowed to have fire arms?



What have I been telling the gun derpers all along??? This "mental health" deflection you were handed by the NRA was a self-inflicted trojan horse, and it will never be accepted in its full implication by the gun lobby once they realize that it could mean THEY may not have access to guns based on their own plan. There's still this naive idealism (and bias) that "crazy people" are "the other", and all we have to do is exclude them somehow.

Right now we're in the uncertain period where the footsoldiers haven't been given their talking points and buzzwords for the Daily Outrage. Some are saying they're OK with the plan, others are cautious, some are picking at a few of the details.

By this time next week every single one of them will have amnesia and have forgotten what they've said today, and they'll all be in lockstep again with some new complaint/barrier.
2013-01-16 04:15:56 PM
1 votes:

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?


How about requiring a title? That way, if it turns out, you sell a gun to a criminal and that gun is used in a crime, it's on you too.

It's a crime for a felon to possess a gun, so why shouldn't there be a penalty against selling a felon one?

Doesn't even have to cost anything. Consider it the "responsible" part of responsible gun ownership.
2013-01-16 04:10:25 PM
1 votes:
The problems they're going to have (at least here in NYS) in implementing any kind of database/registration system are going to be as follows:
1. The job is going to go to a donor or family member who may or may not have a clue as to what a database is.
2. Whoever gets the job is virtually guaranteed to abuse the office for their own personal gain in one way or the other.
3. Six months to a year after getting this plum job, they will have nothing to show for their efforts except for a largely empty database which they'll have either stolen outright from some company and refaced as state property, or they'll outsource it to another patronage crony who will in turn misappropriate the information for personal gain.
4. There will be a hue and cry, an 'investigation' will be announced, emotional statements will be made to 'protect citizen's rights' and yet another state government job(s) will be created.
5. The investigation will conveniently take just long enough so as not to interfere with Stahalter Cuomo's reelection or Presidential run.
6. After either event, it will sputter and die. Nothing of consequence will be found. Another investigation will be 'suggested', but will go nowhere.
7. The investigation team and the database team will eventually have lifetime employment, the right to join the public-sector unions, and proceed to bloat like every other agency and authority we have in this state.
8. Homicide levels will continue to rise among minorities, there will still be the occasional spree killings, only this time, they'll probably be using either firearms brought over from Africa, the Middle East, or our good buddies, the Chinese.

Welcome to the People's Republic of New York, comrade!

I could probably come up with more, but why spoil the non-surprise.
2013-01-16 04:09:31 PM
1 votes:

ha-ha-guy: Corvus: Wait I though Obama was going to ban armed guards at schools. That was what the NRA was telling me.

You mean it was a false dichotomy?

On the flip side, wasn't everyone saying the NRA's idea of armed guards at the school was the dumbest idea on the face of the earth? Yet he included incentives to help schools hire police officers to protect the school.


It is dumb when the NRA said it because no one want's to pay for it. If the NRA is willing to tax guns and bullets to pay for this? If not then it's a BS position because they know it won't happen.
2013-01-16 04:08:45 PM
1 votes:

dahmers love zombie: PanicMan: moanerific: I just find it amazing how anti-gun Fark is and how pro-gun Reddit is.

That's because Reddit is full of degenerates and assholes.

Just for the record, Fark is also full of degenerates and assholes.

Yes, but we're relatively nice.  And it's not goddamn impossible to follow a discussion thread over here.


I just can't get used to Reddit. I can't find anything or follow the discussions. Plus Fark isn't blocked at work.
2013-01-16 04:08:37 PM
1 votes:

ha-ha-guy: As in I buy a pallet of bullets, ten rifles, and go to the store. When I come home my garage door has been ripped open and the items are gone.


Lets collect data. If that scenario is REALLY where the bulk of guns used by thugs is coming from, it's not hard to say "ten of your rifles have been used to kill random people on the East Coast, no more farking guns for your careless ass". Basic attractive menace sort of stuff.

But we need data. Getting a gun stolen is one thing, if you're regularly reporting having an arsenal stolen you are not a responsible gun owner and should not be treated as such.

It's about accountability. And many gun owners seem to take a deep pride in avoiding ever having to take any.
2013-01-16 04:00:24 PM
1 votes:

PanicMan: moanerific: I just find it amazing how anti-gun Fark is and how pro-gun Reddit is.

That's because Reddit is full of degenerates and assholes.

Just for the record, Fark is also full of degenerates and assholes.


Yes, but we're relatively nice.  And it's not goddamn impossible to follow a discussion thread over here.
2013-01-16 03:52:57 PM
1 votes:

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?


Like many other gun control ideas, it makes sense until you see how they wanted it implemented. They tried it years ago and iirc they also wanted listed in the bill very specific taggants for the powder, all of them listed being chemically unstable. The effect of this would have been to cause a degradation in the powder leaving ammo with a shelf life of only a couple of years. It would also have eliminated handloading, which was another big bugaboo of theirs.
Neither of these items limited crime or even really gave a credible tracking tool for that matter, but they did eliminate the ability to store ammo or remake it - a good first step to restricting ammo in civilian hands in the future.

If you listen to most of these groups ideas, they are very open about the fact that they are simply steps toward total elimination. Hence why gun owners are pretty rightfully suspicious of them.
2013-01-16 03:50:42 PM
1 votes:

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.


Only on public land.  I can have as many people over to my house as I want as long as we don't disturb the neighbors.  What's being discussed is registration and licensing prior to any exercise of a second amendment right.  If I can't even possess never mind use a firearm without a government permission slip it's not a right, it's a privilege.
2013-01-16 03:46:52 PM
1 votes:

Fart_Machine: Sandy


And, this is not a joke. Those folks at the Sandy Hook school massacre? They were actors, so Fartbongo could start taking away our guns.
2013-01-16 03:44:42 PM
1 votes:
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 03:44:12 PM
1 votes:

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 03:42:45 PM
1 votes:

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 03:41:13 PM
1 votes:

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 03:40:53 PM
1 votes:

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 03:38:52 PM
1 votes:

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 03:38:30 PM
1 votes:

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 03:35:05 PM
1 votes:
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 03:34:06 PM
1 votes:

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 03:27:15 PM
1 votes:

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 03:26:49 PM
1 votes:

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 03:26:10 PM
1 votes:

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 03:25:49 PM
1 votes:

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 03:25:22 PM
1 votes:

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 03:25:08 PM
1 votes:
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 03:23:33 PM
1 votes:

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 03:21:50 PM
1 votes:

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 03:21:47 PM
1 votes:

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 03:21:28 PM
1 votes:

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 03:19:30 PM
1 votes:

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 03:17:47 PM
1 votes:

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 03:11:18 PM
1 votes:

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 03:06:44 PM
1 votes:

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 03:06:11 PM
1 votes:

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 03:05:29 PM
1 votes:

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 03:02:54 PM
1 votes:

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 02:59:44 PM
1 votes:

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 02:59:44 PM
1 votes:
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 02:59:42 PM
1 votes:
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 02:59:23 PM
1 votes:

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 02:59:05 PM
1 votes:

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 02:58:16 PM
1 votes:

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 02:57:58 PM
1 votes:
says who, subby? obama?

fark him. Worst president in history. I can't believe you farktards voted for him.
2013-01-16 02:57:24 PM
1 votes:
So how do these new rules stop someone from using a gun to kill someone without a gun.
2013-01-16 02:57:14 PM
1 votes:

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 02:57:10 PM
1 votes:

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
Bf+
2013-01-16 02:57:06 PM
1 votes:

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 02:54:23 PM
1 votes:

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


static.someecards.com
2013-01-16 02:53:28 PM
1 votes:

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 02:52:42 PM
1 votes:

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 02:52:35 PM
1 votes:
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 02:51:20 PM
1 votes:
i.imgur.com

Lest we forget.
2013-01-16 02:51:08 PM
1 votes:
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 02:50:11 PM
1 votes:

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 02:50:00 PM
1 votes:

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 02:49:55 PM
1 votes:
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 02:49:09 PM
1 votes:
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 02:48:38 PM
1 votes:

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 02:48:08 PM
1 votes:

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 02:46:20 PM
1 votes:
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 02:44:54 PM
1 votes:

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 02:44:34 PM
1 votes:
img.youtube.com
I am the NRA!
2013-01-16 02:44:11 PM
1 votes:

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 02:44:03 PM
1 votes:

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 02:42:57 PM
1 votes:

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 02:42:39 PM
1 votes:

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 02:41:56 PM
1 votes:

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 02:40:18 PM
1 votes:

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 02:40:01 PM
1 votes:

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 02:40:00 PM
1 votes:
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 02:39:10 PM
1 votes:
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 02:39:07 PM
1 votes:

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 02:38:36 PM
1 votes:

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 02:37:46 PM
1 votes:

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 02:37:25 PM
1 votes:

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 02:36:11 PM
1 votes:
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 02:36:10 PM
1 votes:
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 02:36:10 PM
1 votes:

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 02:36:05 PM
1 votes:
Telling Republicans not to be outraged is like telling them they cant breathe through their mouth.

img151.imageshack.us
2013-01-16 02:35:49 PM
1 votes:

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 02:35:45 PM
1 votes:
The outrage wasn't based on facts in the first place.
2013-01-16 02:33:39 PM
1 votes:

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 02:33:10 PM
1 votes:

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 02:31:28 PM
1 votes:

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 02:31:28 PM
1 votes:
Paranoid bedshiatters were wrong AGAIN?

Well, I'm sure the next thing will REALLY push us over the edge into oblivion.
2013-01-16 02:30:37 PM
1 votes:
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 02:28:18 PM
1 votes:

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 02:27:52 PM
1 votes:

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 02:27:45 PM
1 votes:

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


fixed.
2013-01-16 02:27:44 PM
1 votes:

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 02:26:44 PM
1 votes:
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 02:26:32 PM
1 votes:

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 02:25:03 PM
1 votes:
Gun ownership should be limited to the types of weapons available when the 2nd amendment was written.
2013-01-16 02:24:32 PM
1 votes:

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 02:23:42 PM
1 votes:
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 02:23:00 PM
1 votes:

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 02:22:10 PM
1 votes:

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 02:21:50 PM
1 votes:

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 02:21:48 PM
1 votes:
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 02:21:16 PM
1 votes:

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 02:20:56 PM
1 votes:

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 02:18:43 PM
1 votes:
So....is it finally time to crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside?
2013-01-16 02:18:25 PM
1 votes:

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 02:10:31 PM
1 votes:

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 02:08:40 PM
1 votes:

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 02:01:23 PM
1 votes:

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 01:56:59 PM
1 votes:

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 01:56:52 PM
1 votes:

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 01:55:50 PM
1 votes:

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 01:49:17 PM
1 votes:

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 01:45:49 PM
1 votes:

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 01:44:50 PM
1 votes:

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


How?
2013-01-16 01:43:08 PM
1 votes:

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 01:42:20 PM
1 votes:

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 01:41:18 PM
1 votes:
#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 01:36:55 PM
1 votes:
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 01:32:45 PM
1 votes:
That was a lot more tempered than I was expecting.  Almost all of it pretty negligible.
2013-01-16 01:27:20 PM
1 votes:
COMMENCE THE IMPEACHMENT!!11,!!
2013-01-16 01:24:28 PM
1 votes:

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 01:19:14 PM
1 votes:

Diogenes: Backdoor maneuver to eliminate the 2nd Amendment!


heh. Backdoor maneuver.
2013-01-16 01:17:59 PM
1 votes:
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 01:14:27 PM
1 votes:
I'm a bit concerned that this may make it less likely for people to get help from therapists, but other than that...
 
Displayed 301 of 301 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report