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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Obama and Biden to talk guns with Local LEOs. Biden misunderstood originally and asked Paul Ryan to join after seeing his workout photos   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 49
    More: Interesting, Biden  
•       •       •

495 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Jan 2013 at 10:11 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-01-28 10:14:44 AM
GUN THREAD!
 
2013-01-28 10:17:51 AM
Do you even lift?
 
2013-01-28 10:18:03 AM
I'm certain minds will be changed this time.
 
2013-01-28 10:18:34 AM
Color me shocked but count me in.

assets.flavorwire.com
 
2013-01-28 10:23:28 AM
Obama and Biden will meet in the Roosevelt Room with representatives from the Major Cities Chiefs Association and Major County Sheriffs Association. Police chiefs of Aurora, Colorado, Oak Creek, Wisconsin, and Newtown, Connecticut - all cities that experienced mass shootings last year - will attend.

Wow Obama and Biden formed their own choir. I wonder what songs they are going to teach them?
 
2013-01-28 10:27:41 AM
Obama just needs to hold a press conference and publicly state "I will not sign any legislation that requires seizure of property from any US citizen." Just to deflate all these 'gun grabbn gubmit' blowhards.
Unless he actually wants to seize weapons, but I find that highly unlikely.
 
2013-01-28 10:31:13 AM

Sensual Tyrannosaurus: Obama just needs to hold a press conference and publicly state "I will not sign any legislation that requires seizure of property from any US citizen." Just to deflate all these 'gun grabbn gubmit' blowhards.
Unless he actually wants to seize weapons, but I find that highly unlikely.


Why would he do that? It literally filters the people he should take seriously from the idiots. It also gives them an easy list of who to watch for future potential gun crimes.
 
2013-01-28 10:33:24 AM
You know you've been reading too much Bad Astronomy when you see "LEO" and think "Low Earth Orbit".
 
2013-01-28 10:34:01 AM

Sensual Tyrannosaurus: Obama just needs to hold a press conference and publicly state "I will not sign any legislation that requires seizure of property from any US citizen." Just to deflate all these 'gun grabbn gubmit' blowhards.
Unless he actually wants to seize weapons, but I find that highly unlikely.


I would prefer that Tea Party and Fox News anchors not begin to advocate firearm confiscation.
 
2013-01-28 10:34:08 AM

Sensual Tyrannosaurus: Obama just needs to hold a press conference and publicly state "I will not sign any legislation that requires seizure of property from any US citizen." Just to deflate all these 'gun grabbn gubmit' blowhards.
Unless he actually wants to seize weapons, but I find that highly unlikely.


Feinstein's already said it, AND Biden's already said it - that NO legislation they've yet seen has called for siezing currently lawfully-owned firearms. If you can legally own it now, neither Feinstein nor Biden's proposals would take it from you, and they've made it clear.

What would one more lie from one more gun-grabbin' librul do?
 
2013-01-28 10:35:38 AM

Rapmaster2000: GUN THREAD!


Gun thread fark yea!
oi46.tinypic.com

/this reminds me that I need to vacuum.
 
2013-01-28 10:35:52 AM
Obama can't even get laws passed that 99% of people want, what makes you think he can get a law passed that only a few people want?
 
2013-01-28 10:38:26 AM

Dr Dreidel: Sensual Tyrannosaurus: Obama just needs to hold a press conference and publicly state "I will not sign any legislation that requires seizure of property from any US citizen." Just to deflate all these 'gun grabbn gubmit' blowhards.
Unless he actually wants to seize weapons, but I find that highly unlikely.

Feinstein's already said it, AND Biden's already said it - that NO legislation they've yet seen has called for siezing currently lawfully-owned firearms. If you can legally own it now, neither Feinstein nor Biden's proposals would take it from you, and they've made it clear.

What would one more lie from one more gun-grabbin' librul do?


Still, any sort of firearm (or accessory) ban even with a grandfather clause is unacceptable, IMO
 
2013-01-28 10:41:55 AM

Frank N Stein: Rapmaster2000: GUN THREAD!

Gun thread fark yea!
[oi46.tinypic.com image 640x480]

/this reminds me that I need to vacuum.


I like it! Knifery!
 
2013-01-28 10:43:34 AM

Rapmaster2000: I like it! Knifery!


That knife is just a shiatty grab-bag christmas present. But I have a thing for knives. I'm currently in the market for a good chef's knife.
 
2013-01-28 10:43:38 AM

Frank N Stein: Still, any sort of firearm (or accessory) ban even with a grandfather clause is unacceptable, IMO


I'm largely with you - the focus needs to be on mental health and on gun-fetishization in general. However, that's a separate discussion.
 
2013-01-28 10:49:40 AM

Frank N Stein: Dr Dreidel: Sensual Tyrannosaurus: Obama just needs to hold a press conference and publicly state "I will not sign any legislation that requires seizure of property from any US citizen." Just to deflate all these 'gun grabbn gubmit' blowhards.
Unless he actually wants to seize weapons, but I find that highly unlikely.

Feinstein's already said it, AND Biden's already said it - that NO legislation they've yet seen has called for siezing currently lawfully-owned firearms. If you can legally own it now, neither Feinstein nor Biden's proposals would take it from you, and they've made it clear.

What would one more lie from one more gun-grabbin' librul do?

Still, any sort of firearm (or accessory) ban even with a grandfather clause is unacceptable, IMO


I disagree with this sentiment though. I don't think the government can ban and confiscate guns but I believe they can regulate the capacity, caliber etc of guns sold to the public, with public response via voting and petitioning dictating to officials what level of regulation the populace finds acceptable.

The 'assault weapons bans are unconstitutional' arguments just don't hold water with current precedents. History shows that the government clearly has the capacity to limit weaponry available to civilians. I'm not allowed to own a flamethrower, a howitzer or a nuclear weapon. Obviously the 2nd amendment cannot be interpreted as an absolute.
 
2013-01-28 10:53:22 AM
Will Biden suggest that the cops give up their semi-auto rifles in favor of the much more useful shotgun?
 
2013-01-28 10:53:45 AM

Dr Dreidel: Frank N Stein: Still, any sort of firearm (or accessory) ban even with a grandfather clause is unacceptable, IMO

I'm largely with you - the focus needs to be on mental health and on gun-fetishization in general. However, that's a separate discussion.


It won't be.  Just wait a few posts.
 
2013-01-28 10:55:09 AM

Sensual Tyrannosaurus: The 'assault weapons bans are unconstitutional' arguments just don't hold water with current precedents. History shows that the government clearly has the capacity to limit weaponry available to civilians.


Heller ruled that banning weapons "in common use" is unconstitutional. So-called "assault weapons" are some of the most common rifles.
 
2013-01-28 11:04:48 AM

Sensual Tyrannosaurus: The 'assault weapons bans are unconstitutional' arguments just don't hold water with current precedents. History shows that the government clearly has the capacity to limit weaponry available to civilians. I'm not allowed to own a flamethrower, a howitzer or a nuclear weapon. Obviously the 2nd amendment cannot be interpreted as an absolute.


Actually, you can most likely own a flamethrower. Check here for an entertaining read.

/Just saying
 
2013-01-28 11:05:30 AM

Sensual Tyrannosaurus: History shows that the government clearly has the capacity to limit weaponry available to civilians. I'm not allowed to own a flamethrower, a howitzer or a nuclear weapon. Obviously the 2nd amendment cannot be interpreted as an absolute.


Except that you can buy a howitzer or a flame thrower (and if you can afford the item you can probably afford a man to do your paperwork with the ATF and a destructive device tax stamp).
The nuclear weapon is considered more of a national strategic asset and its use its limited by international treaties we are signatories to, so I don't see where that straw-man argument is even going.

The purpose of the second amendment is to protect the state and individual from being disarmed by the federal government. So, as a historical precedent, it is very different way of thinking. It was a base rule of the American experiment.
Infringing on it means rolling up on the rules we all agreed to without us all agreeing to your changes... which is serious business.

The Assault weapons ban, by Biden's own admission, isn't about safety. He thinks shotguns are more dangerous and admits that Assault weapons are rarely used in crimes.
This is about enhancing the democrats image as being tough on "gun owners".

What they are doing is blowing a golden opportunity for rethinking how we deal with mental health and crime, and they are doing it for a piece of vanity legislation.

That is pretty sad no matter where you stand on gun rights.
 
2013-01-28 11:06:33 AM

Frank N Stein: Sensual Tyrannosaurus: The 'assault weapons bans are unconstitutional' arguments just don't hold water with current precedents. History shows that the government clearly has the capacity to limit weaponry available to civilians.

Heller ruled that banning weapons "in common use" is unconstitutional. So-called "assault weapons" are some of the most common rifles.


Maybe for people with terrible aim.
/CSB
I don't keep a lot of guns around but my father has 14-15 in his home. Every single rifle is a bolt-action or muzzle-load, and every shotgun is pump or lever action.
We were discussing these at length the other day and I inquired about a rifle he used to have that was semi-auto (it was a mini-30 btw). He said he got rid oft because it makes you less careful about the shots you take.
/end CSB

Personally I tend to agree. Handguns or a shotgun would be much more practical for home defense and an accurate, high powered rifle preferable for hunting.
Unless you plan on open warfare in the streets you really don't need a semi-auto rifle.
/"Its my RIGHT! I don't need a 'reason'" amirite?
 
2013-01-28 11:10:28 AM

Frank N Stein: Heller ruled that banning weapons "in common use" is unconstitutional. So-called "assault weapons" are some of the most common rifles.


I never quite got that line of reasoning, but maybe that's just me. Does that ruling mean that if people started designing their own fully automatic weapons in their garage or modifying existing semi-autos to make them fully automatic, even though I imagine that this isn't legal, and that became "common," would the ban on fully automatic weapons suddenly become unconstitutional at the point where they became common?
 
2013-01-28 11:11:29 AM

way south: Sensual Tyrannosaurus: History shows that the government clearly has the capacity to limit weaponry available to civilians. I'm not allowed to own a flamethrower, a howitzer or a nuclear weapon. Obviously the 2nd amendment cannot be interpreted as an absolute.

Except that you can buy a howitzer or a flame thrower (and if you can afford the item you can probably afford a man to do your paperwork with the ATF and a destructive device tax stamp).
The nuclear weapon is considered more of a national strategic asset and its use its limited by international treaties we are signatories to, so I don't see where that straw-man argument is even going.

The purpose of the second amendment is to protect the state and individual from being disarmed by the federal government. So, as a historical precedent, it is very different way of thinking. It was a base rule of the American experiment.
Infringing on it means rolling up on the rules we all agreed to without us all agreeing to your changes... which is serious business.

The Assault weapons ban, by Biden's own admission, isn't about safety. He thinks shotguns are more dangerous and admits that Assault weapons are rarely used in crimes.
This is about enhancing the democrats image as being tough on "gun owners".

What they are doing is blowing a golden opportunity for rethinking how we deal with mental health and crime, and they are doing it for a piece of vanity legislation.

That is pretty sad no matter where you stand on gun rights.


I should probably also disclaim that I don't actively support an 'AW' ban, but I won't dissent to one either. I do agree that it would be of minor consequence to dealing with the gun violence we currently have issues with. Mental health is where we should be focusing and weapons licensing and registration doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
 
2013-01-28 11:11:53 AM

jigger: Will Biden suggest that the cops give up their semi-auto rifles in favor of the much more useful shotgun?


For defending their own homes? Sure.
 
2013-01-28 11:15:17 AM

Sensual Tyrannosaurus: I'm not allowed to own a flamethrower, a howitzer or a nuclear weapon.


Flamethrowers are not federally restricted devices. Some howitzer models are legally available with the correct permitting.
 
2013-01-28 11:20:07 AM
LEO: You will meet a tall, dark stranger. And a shorter white guy with a Trans Am, who will flirt with your wife.
 
2013-01-28 11:21:56 AM

Sensual Tyrannosaurus: /"Its my RIGHT! I don't need a 'reason'" amirite?


You may not believe that the 2nd contrues a personal right but don't you believe that in order for the govt to ban something that they should be forced to hold the burden of proof that their actions better society instead of having people prove a need. Currently the govt is not doing that. The Feinstein bills backing is sophistic at best, hey after a ban elapsed these items became more prevalent... Ya think?
 
2013-01-28 11:22:53 AM

runin800m: Frank N Stein: Heller ruled that banning weapons "in common use" is unconstitutional. So-called "assault weapons" are some of the most common rifles.

I never quite got that line of reasoning, but maybe that's just me. Does that ruling mean that if people started designing their own fully automatic weapons in their garage or modifying existing semi-autos to make them fully automatic, even though I imagine that this isn't legal, and that became "common," would the ban on fully automatic weapons suddenly become unconstitutional at the point where they became common?


What you just listed is essentially illegal, so no. While yes, gun laws are a patchwork and at times confusing, there has to be a dividing line between what's legal and what's not. This dividing line is, of course, where the disagreements come into play. I believe that it's more legally sound to look at the guns currently available and common place as a good starting point on what can be described as "in common use". Severely restricting and regulating anything, gun or otherwise, and then using that scarcity causing regulation as a basis for a ban sets a bad precedence for governance.

What does "I'm common use" hold for future weapons development and laws? I don't know.

Responding on my phone, btw, so I apologize that this isn't the most refined response. Hopefully you understand my point though.
 
2013-01-28 11:25:42 AM

Sensual Tyrannosaurus: The 'assault weapons bans are unconstitutional' arguments just don't hold water with current precedents. History shows that the government clearly has the capacity to limit weaponry available to civilians. I'm not allowed to own a flamethrower, a howitzer or a nuclear weapon. Obviously the 2nd amendment cannot be interpreted as an absolute.


The Supreme Court has ruled only on one amendment in the Bill of Rights less frequently than the second - the third.  And the rulings do not support an assault weapons ban at the federal level.  (Most of the others state the states can ban what they want, but the most recent two - Heller and Chicago - incorporated that right to the states, so states can't do it either.)

This is actually a rather sticky issue, and one which Heller and Chicago should actually piss off not only gun control advocates, but NRA originalists, because the second amendment was intended to create conditions where the militia could stand toe-to-toe with the standing army of a tyrant.  Admitting that the second amendment was so limited that even infantry support weapons could be banned while also talking about it protecting hunting and self-defense is about a twisted an interpretation of history as one can find outside an Ann Coulter or Noam Chomsky book.
 
2013-01-28 11:26:53 AM

Sensual Tyrannosaurus: Frank N Stein: Sensual Tyrannosaurus: The 'assault weapons bans are unconstitutional' arguments just don't hold water with current precedents. History shows that the government clearly has the capacity to limit weaponry available to civilians.

Heller ruled that banning weapons "in common use" is unconstitutional. So-called "assault weapons" are some of the most common rifles.

Maybe for people with terrible aim.
/CSB
I don't keep a lot of guns around but my father has 14-15 in his home. Every single rifle is a bolt-action or muzzle-load, and every shotgun is pump or lever action.
We were discussing these at length the other day and I inquired about a rifle he used to have that was semi-auto (it was a mini-30 btw). He said he got rid oft because it makes you less careful about the shots you take.
/end CSB

Personally I tend to agree. Handguns or a shotgun would be much more practical for home defense and an accurate, high powered rifle preferable for hunting.
Unless you plan on open warfare in the streets you really don't need a semi-auto rifle.
/"Its my RIGHT! I don't need a 'reason'" amirite?


I know you're being snarky, but...yes, actually. It IS a right, specifically OUR rights, yours included (presuming you're American), and not just some othered group of 'gun nuts'. And no, you don't need to validate your constitutional rights by explaining why you need to exercise them.

Your dad may have thought poorly of semiautomatic weapons, and it is his right to. That doesn't mean millions and millions of law-abiding Americans should be stripped of one of the most commonly owned, and least criminally utilized, firearms in the States.
 
2013-01-28 11:27:42 AM

Dimensio: Sensual Tyrannosaurus: I'm not allowed to own a flamethrower, a howitzer or a nuclear weapon.

Flamethrowers are not federally restricted devices. Some howitzer models are legally available with the correct permitting.


Japanese 75mm pack-howitzer, for example, though I don't know where you would get one.
 
2013-01-28 01:06:35 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: jigger: Will Biden suggest that the cops give up their semi-auto rifles in favor of the much more useful shotgun?

For defending their own homes? Sure.


Biden suggested that the Korean store owners should have used shotguns instead of rifles to keep gangs of looters at bay during the LA riots, which is retarded.
 
2013-01-28 01:36:27 PM

jigger: Philip Francis Queeg: jigger: Will Biden suggest that the cops give up their semi-auto rifles in favor of the much more useful shotgun?

For defending their own homes? Sure.

Biden suggested that the Korean store owners should have used shotguns instead of rifles to keep gangs of looters at bay during the LA riots, which is retarded.


Yep, those guys should have hand hand grenades and heavy machine guns for mowing dpown the attacking hordes. Why does the Obama Administration refuse to accept that simple wisdom? Nothing quells a riot like increased bloodshed.
 
2013-01-28 01:37:37 PM

PanicMan: Obama can't even get laws passed that 99% of people want, what makes you think he can get a law passed that only a few people want?


This tells me something about the state of our country.... that we aren't smart enough to fix this.  shiat. I know shiat's bad right now, with all that starving bullshiat, and the dust storms, and we are running out of french fries and burrito coverings.
 
2013-01-28 02:19:02 PM
I don't think anyone thinks that this will get passed, but I don't believe Obama is worried about that at all. He is doing it to make Congress look bad. When they fail to pass it, he can sign an executive order to reclassify semi-auto rifles as "Type II" weapons (like full auto is now) with the ATF, and point to Congress saying that he gave them the opportunity to do what is right, but they didn't do it, so he took care of the problem himself. (The fact that this is not really "the problem" in the first place is beside the point.)

Anyhoo, I think it amusing that he is seeking input from LEOs when all across the country it is the LEOs telling him that the issue is mental health, and that they aren't going to be enforcing anything Congress passes anyway. And by amusing I mean stupid as all fark.
 
2013-01-28 02:22:52 PM

MikeSass: I don't think anyone thinks that this will get passed, but I don't believe Obama is worried about that at all. He is doing it to make Congress look bad. When they fail to pass it, he can sign an executive order to reclassify semi-auto rifles as "Type II" weapons (like full auto is now) with the ATF, and point to Congress saying that he gave them the opportunity to do what is right, but they didn't do it, so he took care of the problem himself. (The fact that this is not really "the problem" in the first place is beside the point.)


I am uncertain that the President is legally able to reclassify all semi-automatic firearms as you suggest.
 
2013-01-28 02:57:32 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: jigger: Philip Francis Queeg: jigger: Will Biden suggest that the cops give up their semi-auto rifles in favor of the much more useful shotgun?

For defending their own homes? Sure.

Biden suggested that the Korean store owners should have used shotguns instead of rifles to keep gangs of looters at bay during the LA riots, which is retarded.

Yep, those guys should have hand hand grenades and heavy machine guns for mowing dpown the attacking hordes. Why does the Obama Administration refuse to accept that simple wisdom? Nothing quells a riot like increased bloodshed.


The storeowners interests were primarily to protect their lives and property. "Quelling a riot" would have been nice, but that's not their job. They could have rigged up some fire hoses to the roofs of their shops or had a sound cannon. But god forbid they own semi-automatic rifles.
 
2013-01-28 03:11:41 PM

jigger: Philip Francis Queeg: jigger: Philip Francis Queeg: jigger: Will Biden suggest that the cops give up their semi-auto rifles in favor of the much more useful shotgun?

For defending their own homes? Sure.

Biden suggested that the Korean store owners should have used shotguns instead of rifles to keep gangs of looters at bay during the LA riots, which is retarded.

Yep, those guys should have hand hand grenades and heavy machine guns for mowing dpown the attacking hordes. Why does the Obama Administration refuse to accept that simple wisdom? Nothing quells a riot like increased bloodshed.

The storeowners interests were primarily to protect their lives and property. "Quelling a riot" would have been nice, but that's not their job. They could have rigged up some fire hoses to the roofs of their shops or had a sound cannon. But god forbid they own semi-automatic rifles.


No, it would have been tragic if they had not be able to kill as many people as possible. We must ensure that vigilantes are fully prepared to impose the death penalty as easily as possible. No commercial business should be without a well armed sniper on it's rooftop. Any infraction must be immediately met with deadly force from a concerned citizen.
 
2013-01-28 03:58:30 PM

jigger: Philip Francis Queeg: jigger: Philip Francis Queeg: jigger: Will Biden suggest that the cops give up their semi-auto rifles in favor of the much more useful shotgun?

For defending their own homes? Sure.

Biden suggested that the Korean store owners should have used shotguns instead of rifles to keep gangs of looters at bay during the LA riots, which is retarded.

Yep, those guys should have hand hand grenades and heavy machine guns for mowing dpown the attacking hordes. Why does the Obama Administration refuse to accept that simple wisdom? Nothing quells a riot like increased bloodshed.

The storeowners interests were primarily to protect their lives and property. "Quelling a riot" would have been nice, but that's not their job. They could have rigged up some fire hoses to the roofs of their shops or had a sound cannon. But god forbid they own semi-automatic rifles.


Philip Francis Queeg believes all firearm owners to be "barbarians" and "cowards". He believes the suggestion that individuals be permitted to use deadly force to defend their lives and their livelihoods to be abhorrent, and that criminals should be permitted to destroy businesses without fear of injury.
 
2013-01-28 04:44:35 PM

Dimensio: jigger: Philip Francis Queeg: jigger: Philip Francis Queeg: jigger: Will Biden suggest that the cops give up their semi-auto rifles in favor of the much more useful shotgun?

For defending their own homes? Sure.

Biden suggested that the Korean store owners should have used shotguns instead of rifles to keep gangs of looters at bay during the LA riots, which is retarded.

Yep, those guys should have hand hand grenades and heavy machine guns for mowing dpown the attacking hordes. Why does the Obama Administration refuse to accept that simple wisdom? Nothing quells a riot like increased bloodshed.

The storeowners interests were primarily to protect their lives and property. "Quelling a riot" would have been nice, but that's not their job. They could have rigged up some fire hoses to the roofs of their shops or had a sound cannon. But god forbid they own semi-automatic rifles.

Philip Francis Queeg believes all firearm owners to be "barbarians" and "cowards". He believes the suggestion that individuals be permitted to use deadly force to defend their lives and their livelihoods to be abhorrent, and that criminals should be permitted to destroy businesses without fear of injury.


Yep, the ability to kill people blocks away is critical to protecting your business.

I know a civilized, brave person like you will kill without hesitation to protect any inanimate object from harm.
 
2013-01-28 06:10:36 PM

Sensual Tyrannosaurus: Saiga410: Sensual Tyrannosaurus: /"Its my RIGHT! I don't need a 'reason'" amirite?

You may not believe that the 2nd contrues a personal right but don't you believe that in order for the govt to ban something that they should be forced to hold the burden of proof that their actions better society instead of having people prove a need. Currently the govt is not doing that. The Feinstein bills backing is sophistic at best, hey after a ban elapsed these items became more prevalent... Ya think?

I suppose it's not so much the weapons themselves but the sheer lack of accountability in their sale and usage. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as a nonfelon I could walk into my local Walmart and buy say, an AR-15 today. No questions asked, no permits to have that level of firepower needed.
I suppose what I'm expressing is that the potential damage of the weapons is too high to let them continue in their current form. If a ban is unconstitutional then their should be more regulation on their acquisition. It's just a dangerous level of destructive capacity to place in one persons hands without that person proving themselves capable of being trustworthy.


You are wrong, at least here in Michigan. A background check is done no matter what kind of firearm you are buying. You can usually get a long gun or shotgun same day, after the phone call is made. Handguns need a permit to buy, issued after your local PD who does a background check themselves before issuing. Although I've heard that has changed and the permit to buy from the PD is no longer needed, but the background check will still have to be done by the seller.

Not sure that any firearms can be bought without a background check of some sort in any states, but I haven't been to them all. Maybe someone else can chime in with an instance where no check is needed somewhere.
 
2013-01-28 06:51:59 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: No, it would have been tragic if they had not be able to kill as many people as possible. We must ensure that vigilantes are fully prepared to impose the death penalty as easily as possible. No commercial business should be without a well armed sniper on it's rooftop. Any infraction must be immediately met with deadly force from a concerned citizen.


Biden suggested taking them out with shotguns. I went and looked up the video again and the question was actually about defending yourself after a major earthquake. The actual number of assailants did not come up in the question. So, Biden was suggesting the use of deadly force by "vigilantes" (protecting themselves and their own property) and making the point that a shotgun is easier to use, ie it's easier to kill someone (or at least put them on the ground) using a shotgun than it is to use an "assault weapon." Ok, so he should suggest to the cops that they should lay down their "assault weapons" and replace them with shotguns instead.
 
2013-01-28 07:25:13 PM

Dimensio: MikeSass: I don't think anyone thinks that this will get passed, but I don't believe Obama is worried about that at all. He is doing it to make Congress look bad. When they fail to pass it, he can sign an executive order to reclassify semi-auto rifles as "Type II" weapons (like full auto is now) with the ATF, and point to Congress saying that he gave them the opportunity to do what is right, but they didn't do it, so he took care of the problem himself. (The fact that this is not really "the problem" in the first place is beside the point.)

I am uncertain that the President is legally able to reclassify all semi-automatic firearms as you suggest.


Yes, he could, which is why it is one of the things on the long list of possible options that Biden put together for him. Not many people think it likely, but not many people think he would have much to lose by doing it either. It is currently a possibility, as it is not one of the things on the list that he has outright dismissed. That right there should tell you something.
 
2013-01-28 07:42:46 PM

Sensual Tyrannosaurus: Obama just needs to hold a press conference and publicly state "I will not sign any legislation that requires seizure of property from any US citizen." Just to deflate all these 'gun grabbn gubmit' blowhards.
Unless he actually wants to seize weapons, but I find that highly unlikely.


He wouldn't need to. Just make a special class of firearms called "assault weapons," ban them, then make the class ever more inclusive every time someone shoots up a school. Eventually the class starts eating up hunting rifles. Then mass shootings will be conducted with pistols and shotguns, so those get banned then. Guns would be removed from people's hands over years, and in such a way that's Constitutionally valid.

There is no reason for Obama to seriously consider confiscation when you can go the safe, easy, and quiet route.
 
2013-01-28 08:22:38 PM

Cottage Cheesecake: Dimensio: MikeSass: I don't think anyone thinks that this will get passed, but I don't believe Obama is worried about that at all. He is doing it to make Congress look bad. When they fail to pass it, he can sign an executive order to reclassify semi-auto rifles as "Type II" weapons (like full auto is now) with the ATF, and point to Congress saying that he gave them the opportunity to do what is right, but they didn't do it, so he took care of the problem himself. (The fact that this is not really "the problem" in the first place is beside the point.)

I am uncertain that the President is legally able to reclassify all semi-automatic firearms as you suggest.

Yes, he could, which is why it is one of the things on the long list of possible options that Biden put together for him. Not many people think it likely, but not many people think he would have much to lose by doing it either. It is currently a possibility, as it is not one of the things on the list that he has outright dismissed. That right there should tell you something.


Cite?

And why is no one on the left calling for Obama to do this if it is within his power?
 
2013-01-28 09:02:02 PM

Sensual Tyrannosaurus: Frank N Stein: Dr Dreidel: Sensual Tyrannosaurus: Obama just needs to hold a press conference and publicly state "I will not sign any legislation that requires seizure of property from any US citizen." Just to deflate all these 'gun grabbn gubmit' blowhards.
Unless he actually wants to seize weapons, but I find that highly unlikely.

Feinstein's already said it, AND Biden's already said it - that NO legislation they've yet seen has called for siezing currently lawfully-owned firearms. If you can legally own it now, neither Feinstein nor Biden's proposals would take it from you, and they've made it clear.

What would one more lie from one more gun-grabbin' librul do?

Still, any sort of firearm (or accessory) ban even with a grandfather clause is unacceptable, IMO

I disagree with this sentiment though. I don't think the government can ban and confiscate guns but I believe they can regulate the capacity, caliber etc of guns sold to the public, with public response via voting and petitioning dictating to officials what level of regulation the populace finds acceptable.

The 'assault weapons bans are unconstitutional' arguments just don't hold water with current precedents. History shows that the government clearly has the capacity to limit weaponry available to civilians. I'm not allowed to own a flamethrower, a howitzer or a nuclear weapon. Obviously the 2nd amendment cannot be interpreted as an absolute.


Actually the ATF doesn't even regulate flamethrowers because they aren't firearms. You can also freely own a howitzer provided the gun is disabled.
 
2013-01-28 09:08:07 PM

Cottage Cheesecake: Dimensio: MikeSass: I don't think anyone thinks that this will get passed, but I don't believe Obama is worried about that at all. He is doing it to make Congress look bad. When they fail to pass it, he can sign an executive order to reclassify semi-auto rifles as "Type II" weapons (like full auto is now) with the ATF, and point to Congress saying that he gave them the opportunity to do what is right, but they didn't do it, so he took care of the problem himself. (The fact that this is not really "the problem" in the first place is beside the point.)

I am uncertain that the President is legally able to reclassify all semi-automatic firearms as you suggest.

Yes, he could, which is why it is one of the things on the long list of possible options that Biden put together for him. Not many people think it likely, but not many people think he would have much to lose by doing it either. It is currently a possibility, as it is not one of the things on the list that he has outright dismissed. That right there should tell you something.


You do realize the NFA dictates what constitutes a "title 2" firearm, right? The only signing into law the president can do is put his signature on a bill. He can't just open up the pdf, edit the text, and then click "Save."
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report