17
   

What do you think of the gun control Obama is proposing?

 
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2016 10:48 pm
@oralloy,
The people on the no-fly list not being able to fly seems like a much bigger infringement on their freedom than not being able to buy guns to me, but thanks for answering.
roger
 
  2  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2016 10:49 pm
@FBM,
My work on this thread is finished.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2016 10:53 pm
@roger,
You're welcome.
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2016 11:29 pm
@FBM,
I think I know. You were dumbfounded that someone tried to portray any research the CDC does to insure the safety and heath of the American people, as a subversive plot to sicken or demonize our citizens.

Those government hacks track epidemics and try to freaking help. Do we want to return to 1915-17 and just let flu decimate huge hunks of our population. My husband I have great grandparents who died during that pandemic. But voila, health professionals, medical researchers and others were and will be assisted by huge federal government money infusions. Even those delusional folks who refuse to trust anything considered 'government' have to wonder why 'Government' would want to decimate millions of folks and deprive itself of the revenue those folks pay when they are employed and healthy.

You will have to excuse me for a few hours, I signed up for the Intergalactic alien peace keepers watch and the Border patrol of concerned citizens of Annapolis who scour the Chesapeake waterfront to prevent alien rapists from Virginia and other foreign entities. I just can't remember which nutbag duty I'm supposed to fulfill. Gotta check with the Council of Patriotic Patriots who love America more than the rest of you love your mothers.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2016 11:31 pm
@glitterbag,
I think maybe it's time for me to turn off my computer for a while. Some parts of that made sense to me. I just don't know which parts. Confused
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2016 11:44 pm
@FBM,
Sorry, most of it was supposed to be outlandish satire. Maybe I over did it.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2016 11:50 pm
@glitterbag,
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/hehe.gif Nah. My brain just needed a time out and refused to do one more lap.
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2016 11:56 pm
@FBM,
Thanks, just sorry I was your tipping point. If it helps, the comment that CDC tried to make guns a disease.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 07:17 am
@Robert Gentel,
Obama really wanted to make "meaningful" gun restrictions while he was President. It's the vagueness of "meaningful" that always worries me when government officials get together in the backrooms of Washington.

Now that Obama has brought his Executive Orders to light, I am happy to see they have no teeth and that I actually have no problem with most of it. I do believe in background checks, but they have to be reasonable. A federal database of felony criminals and other miscreants should not be as hard to create and maintain as it is. I guess the reason I have no issues with it is that I live in New York State and to live by the draconian state gun laws here.

Obama's action have exactly zero difference here. We already have to do all the things he wants.
revelette2
 
  3  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 07:22 am
Quote:
Obama's executive actions do not close this loophole. Instead, the president issued a guidance that attempts to narrow the loophole by limiting who can sell guns without a federal license (which requires background checks on sales), and warns gun sellers of the risks if they try to use the private sales loophole to avoid carrying out a background check. White House officials said their primary interest is to go after for-profit dealers who are posing as hobbyists or one-time sellers when they are in fact "engaged in the business" of selling guns.

The idea is, essentially, to make enforcement of existing federal laws stricter so fewer people — whether gun sellers or buyers — take advantage of the loophole. So a better way to look at the move is that it's narrowing, rather than closing, the loophole.

In fact, Obama's executive actions can't completely close this loophole. It's written into law, so it would take congressional action to completely close it. (The White House was clear on this point in a call with reporters, stating multiple times that the executive actions should not let Congress "off the hook" of passing gun control legislation.)

So Obama is taking some steps to narrow the gaps in federal law, and it's certainly the biggest action he's taken yet on guns. But that mostly reflects his inability to do much on guns without Congress, not that these tweaks will add up to enormous changes.


source
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  4  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 10:39 am
@McGentrix,
There is no political capital for anything "meaningful" (or substantial in any way) right now and pro-gun advocates have nothing to worry about there (though they are right to worry long term, eventually laws on guns will modernize in America too).
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 11:05 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
Now that Obama has brought his Executive Orders to light, I am happy to see they have no teeth and that I actually have no problem with most of it. I do believe in background checks, but they have to be reasonable. A federal database of felony criminals and other miscreants should not be as hard to create and maintain as it is. I guess the reason I have no issues with it is that I live in New York State and to live by the draconian state gun laws here.

Obama's action have exactly zero difference here. We already have to do all the things he wants.

You are mistaken on the impact of his executive orders. When he first entered the White House, he placed disabled war veterans on the list of people who are prohibited from owning guns. Now he is expanding this to include disabled people in general.

He is placing more and more law abiding Americans on the list of people who are barred from owning a gun.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 11:08 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
There is no political capital for anything "meaningful" (or substantial in any way) right now and pro-gun advocates have nothing to worry about there (though they are right to worry long term, eventually laws on guns will modernize in America too).

The NRA is never going to allow Congress to pass any more laws that violate the Second Amendment.

However, these executive orders placing law abiding Americans on the list of people who are prohibited from owning guns are an outrage.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 11:45 am
@Robert Gentel,
I think I read someplace recently that our country had some 84,000 injuries and 11,000 deaths from guns in one year. If that's true, anything that reduces those numbers seems like a good idea.
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 12:38 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

You are mistaken on the impact of his executive orders. When he first entered the White House, he placed disabled war veterans on the list of people who are prohibited from owning guns. Now he is expanding this to include disabled people in general.


I've not seen this, where can I read more?

Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 01:41 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Should we apply that theory to all cases of safety? If we keep just one American citizen from being killed by an illegal immigrant then wouldn't it be worth removing all the illegal immigrants from the US. Because saving just one life is worth whatever the cost?
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 02:11 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
I've not seen this, where can I read more?

Here is an article from 2011 about the Obama Administration blocking disabled veterans:
http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/18/senators-va-has-denied-gun-rights-to-more-than-100000-veterans/

Here is an article from 2015 about the new move to expand this to disabled people in general:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-gun-law-20150718-story.html
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 03:25 pm
@Baldimo,
No. Americans kill more Americans than immigrants. Why don't we ship all Americans to another country; that'll prevent Americans from killing our own.
Maybe, follow Trump's suggestion to build a wall between the US and Mexico.
All stupid ideas.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 03:32 pm
@cicerone imposter,
But according to yours and Obama's, logic if we can keep one more citizen alive, then we should do whatever it takes. That means to keep illegal immigrants from killing another US citizen they should all be shipped to their home countries. It will keep more Americans from getting killed, the ends justify the means.
Robert Gentel
 
  5  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 03:37 pm
@oralloy,
These are mentally disabled people, not all disabled veterans. It's a tricky issue (one aspect is that it can discourage people from coming forward) but not what you make it out to be.

I for one see no problem with denying guns to people legally declared mentally unfit to manage their own legal affairs. If they aren't declared mentally capable of being responsible for their own affairs I don't think they should be entrusted with the responsibility of carrying a firearm.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/18/2021 at 09:35:41