Obama Demands Suggestions for Gun Law Changes by January

Saniflush · « **Reply #20 on:** December 20, 2012, 06:51:14 AM »

I know this. If they come asking for any of my firearms they can all kiss my rebel dick!

Vandy Vol · « **Reply #21 on:** December 20, 2012, 11:49:05 AM »

Quote from: GH2001 on December 20, 2012, 01:37:47 AM

It's a "gun control task force". You really think there are any other solutions he has in mind here?

Sure, lots of them. "Gun control" doesn't necessarily mean "take away their weapons." Again, that's a knee jerk reaction that people have when nothing has even been proposed yet.

Stricter background checks. This may or may not be an issue that needs to be addressed; we'd have to review how they're currently being handled and whether any improvements would be useful. Can/should background checks include information on mental illness? Should we create a database of the mentally ill for this purpose? Can we do so without an invasion of privacy or HIPAA violations?

Aside from how the background checks are done, there is the issue of when background checks should be done. My understanding is that they're not done at many gun shows. That's a problem.

Gun ownership training. We require people to take hunter's safety classes in some states before being able to hunt, why not require classes/training prior to gun ownership? Much of the gun violence we see is allowed to be taken due to the improper storage of weapons, not reporting weapons as stolen in a timely fashion, etc. We can't guarantee that training would prevent weapons from being stolen and used for violent crimes, but it would be a helpful step.

Again, you're simply not going to fix stupidity or prevent everything; I'm not proposing the above as ideal solutions that will lead to a violence-free world. However, if we're talking about alterations to our current systems that could help, I think the above needs to be considered, and I don't think any of the above has anything to do with the knee jerk reaction of taking away guns.

Will they address the above issues instead of simply trying to take away guns? I don't know if they'll address these issues specifically, but I seriously doubt they're going to take away people's guns. Recent Supreme Court rulings have made it clear that the federal government does not have the ability to do that. However, they did rule that the federal government could alter the requirements for purchasing weapons (such as the stricter background checks), as well as ban or place additional limitations on "dangerous and unusual weapons."

bottomfeeder · « **Reply #22 on:** December 20, 2012, 12:48:32 PM »

If they make the gun laws regarding purchases stricter, then the Black Market would boom. Especially with the Russians bringing their far superior weapons to the market. Any rim fire weapon can be made into automatic machine gun.

http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2006-2.pdf

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/importation-verification/firearms-verification-nfa-aow.html

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/importation-verification/firearms-verification-nfa-destructive-device.html

http://hellboxarmory.com/Common%20Questions.htm

Tarheel · « **Reply #23 on:** December 20, 2012, 01:02:50 PM »

Nutrition training, smaller spoons, and limited/restricted portions would help end the obesity problem too.

Snaggletiger · « **Reply #24 on:** December 20, 2012, 01:10:34 PM »

Quote from: Tarheel on December 20, 2012, 01:02:50 PM

Nutrition training, smaller spoons, and limited/restricted portions would help end the obesity problem too.

Stop with your facts and sound logic. It has no place in this discussion.

bottomfeeder · « **Reply #25 on:** December 20, 2012, 05:38:14 PM »

Quote from: Tarheel on December 20, 2012, 01:02:50 PM

Nutrition training, smaller spoons, and limited/restricted portions would help end the obesity problem too.

Isn't that what Aunt Michele Obama said?

Obama is nothing but a fucking lowlife bloodsucker who has no patience. We are stilling burying the dead and he's pushing his useless agenda. Fuck you Obama.

Quote

Little Daniel Barden, age 7, was laid to rest today in Newtown, CT. He wanted so badly to be a fireman some day like his uncle and cousin, who his family said he idolized and who are firefighters with the New York City Fire Department. So, look who showed up today to honor himâ€”hundreds of firefighters, in their dress blues, from the FDNY and all across the country. Great Americans, every one of them.

Vandy Vol · « **Reply #26 on:** December 21, 2012, 01:23:49 AM »

Quote from: Tarheel on December 20, 2012, 01:02:50 PM

Nutrition training, smaller spoons, and limited/restricted portions would help end the obesity problem too.

Eating poorly doesn't endanger someone else's life; storing guns improperly around children and the mentally incompetent can. Apples and oranges.

Snaggletiger · « **Reply #27 on:** December 21, 2012, 10:00:01 AM »

Quote from: Vandy Vol on December 21, 2012, 01:23:49 AM

Eating poorly doesn't endanger someone else's life; storing guns improperly around children and the mentally incompetent can. Apples and oranges.

Apples and oranges. A good, nutritious start to your day.

Tarheel · « **Reply #28 on:** December 21, 2012, 12:37:09 PM »

Quote from: Vandy Vol on December 21, 2012, 01:23:49 AM

Eating poorly doesn't endanger someone else's life; storing guns improperly around children and the mentally incompetent can. Apples and oranges.

What the fuck ever Mr. Smarty-pants-know-it-all-TL;DR-posting-gotto-have-the-last-fucking-word...just a gorram observation made for gorram humor.

The whole problem is NOT a gun problem or a gun storage problem or a mandatory gun-training problem; it's a mental illness problem in my OPINION...hopefully ObamaCare will solve that.

Obama-voting yutes...try not to choke on any apples and oranges.

Tarheel · « **Reply #29 on:** December 21, 2012, 12:41:09 PM »

Quote from: bottomfeeder on December 20, 2012, 05:38:14 PM

Isn't that what Aunt Michele Obama said?

Obama is nothing but a fucking lowlife bloodsucker who has no patience. We are stilling burying the dead and he's pushing his useless agenda. Fuck you Obama.

It's not useless, it's the exact agenda that he and his minions want to push and the Obama-bot Zombies are buying into it; The Pharaoh is always right. Fuck him.

Vandy Vol · « **Reply #30 on:** December 21, 2012, 12:46:42 PM »

Quote from: Snaggletiger on December 21, 2012, 10:00:01 AM

Apples and oranges. A good, nutritious start to your day.

Unless they're trying to take your apples and oranges away. Then it becomes an illegal start to your day.

Vandy Vol · « **Reply #31 on:** December 21, 2012, 12:57:59 PM »

Quote from: Tarheel on December 21, 2012, 12:37:09 PM

The whole problem is NOT a gun problem or a gun storage problem or a mandatory gun-training problem; it's a mental illness problem in my OPINION...hopefully ObamaCare will solve that.

Mental illness is not the whole gun problem. It's not just the mentally ill who are involved in gun violence. That is why I simply suggested, in my opinion, what all could be addressed for the gun violence issue as a whole, not just this one incident.

Feel free to disagree and sling obscenities as you see fit.

Saniflush · « **Reply #32 on:** December 21, 2012, 01:31:55 PM »

Quote from: Vandy Vol on December 21, 2012, 12:57:59 PM

Mental illness is not the whole gun problem. It's not just the mentally ill who are involved in gun violence. That is why I simply suggested, in my opinion, what all could be addressed for the gun violence issue as a whole, not just this one incident.

Feel free to disagree and sling obscenities as you see fit.

Ok. Fuck you hobbit.

Vandy Vol · « **Reply #33 on:** December 21, 2012, 05:53:37 PM »

Quote from: Saniflush on December 21, 2012, 01:31:55 PM

Ok. Fuck you hobbit.

Is that a promise? I'm tingling with excitement.

bottomfeeder · « **Reply #34 on:** December 21, 2012, 05:55:14 PM »

Don't we have mentally ill soldiers carrying weapons in foreign lands? I know I was mental back in my service days and I had the key to the arms room at one time for about four months. I was so bored sometimes I use rub one out in there from time to time.

Saniflush · « **Reply #35 on:** December 22, 2012, 08:05:24 AM »

Quote from: Vandy Vol on December 21, 2012, 05:53:37 PM

Is that a promise? I'm tingling with excitement.

GH2001 · « **Reply #36 on:** December 22, 2012, 10:52:32 PM »

Quote from: Vandy Vol on December 20, 2012, 11:49:05 AM

Sure, lots of them. "Gun control" doesn't necessarily mean "take away their weapons." Again, that's a knee jerk reaction that people have when nothing has even been proposed yet.

Stricter background checks. This may or may not be an issue that needs to be addressed; we'd have to review how they're currently being handled and whether any improvements would be useful. Can/should background checks include information on mental illness? Should we create a database of the mentally ill for this purpose? Can we do so without an invasion of privacy or HIPAA violations?

Aside from how the background checks are done, there is the issue of when background checks should be done. My understanding is that they're not done at many gun shows. That's a problem.

Gun ownership training. We require people to take hunter's safety classes in some states before being able to hunt, why not require classes/training prior to gun ownership? Much of the gun violence we see is allowed to be taken due to the improper storage of weapons, not reporting weapons as stolen in a timely fashion, etc. We can't guarantee that training would prevent weapons from being stolen and used for violent crimes, but it would be a helpful step.

Again, you're simply not going to fix stupidity or prevent everything; I'm not proposing the above as ideal solutions that will lead to a violence-free world. However, if we're talking about alterations to our current systems that could help, I think the above needs to be considered, and I don't think any of the above has anything to do with the knee jerk reaction of taking away guns.

Will they address the above issues instead of simply trying to take away guns? I don't know if they'll address these issues specifically, but I seriously doubt they're going to take away people's guns. Recent Supreme Court rulings have made it clear that the federal government does not have the ability to do that. However, they did rule that the federal government could alter the requirements for purchasing weapons (such as the stricter background checks), as well as ban or place additional limitations on "dangerous and unusual weapons."

You are lacking common sense if you really believe anything this guy or any other gun hating politician says in re to gun control and "really wanting to solve the issue".

Vandy Vol · « **Reply #37 on:** December 22, 2012, 11:19:26 PM »

Quote from: GH2001 on December 22, 2012, 10:52:32 PM

You are lacking common sense if you really believe anything this guy or any other gun hating politician says in re to gun control and "really wanting to solve the issue".

The only anti-gun legislation that Obama has endorsed is bringing back the assault rifle ban, although he's never actually attempted to get it passed. He supports closing the gun show loophole, although he hasn't actively pushed for action on that, and he signed into law bills which allow people to carry concealed weapons onto Amtrak trains and in national parks and wildlife refuges.

I don't see Obama as a "gun hating politician," based on his prior record and present actions. If Obama hates guns based on his political record on the issue, then Romney is in the same boat. He advocated for and signed an assault rifle ban in Massachusetts, declaring assault weapons to be "instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."

But his record or personal stance on guns is neither here nor there, as he's not creating any legislation; he's delegated that task to other politicians. Will they try to pass legislation that simply takes guns away? I doubt it. If you've been watching the news at all recently and listening to what these politicians are saying, they are fully aware of the court decisions that have been handed down since the 2008 Supreme Court opinion in Heller. The highest court in the land has confirmed the nature and scope of our 2nd amendment rights, and politicians know that they are not going to be able to pass any laws which outright violate those. Laws which ban concealed weapons have been overturned in various states. I just don't think anyone is going to waste time on attempting to pass a law that is clearly going to be repealed due to recent judicial rulings.

Maybe they ultimately do nothing, because they can't pass laws which take away our guns and they don't want to entertain any other options. Maybe they do actually entertain other options. I don't really know, but I think it's a premature knee jerk reaction to assume that they're just going to take away people's weapons when there's no legal precedent which will allow them to do so.

CCTAU · « **Reply #38 on:** December 23, 2012, 09:04:21 AM »

Quote from: Vandy Vol on December 22, 2012, 11:19:26 PM

I don't see Obama as a "gun hating politician," based on his prior record and present

Then you sir, are a fool.

He has NEVER voted pro guns!

And the reason he has not created any anti gun legislation, is because the country has overwhelmingly been pro gun....until now. Now is his chance. And he will seize it!

Vandy Vol · « **Reply #39 on:** December 23, 2012, 11:51:29 AM »

Quote from: CCTAU on December 23, 2012, 09:04:21 AM

Then you sir, are a fool.

He has NEVER voted pro guns!

He has never voted anti-gun in my opinion, either. The only thing on his voting record of which I am aware which would suggest he is "anti-gun" is his vote to reinstate the assault weapons ban...which didn't pass, and which he hasn't pushed, despite the opportunity to do so with the various violent attacks that have occurred over the past two years.

After the Aurora shooting, he simply stated that we need to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill and criminals. Justice Kagan, appointed by Obama, goes hunting with Justice Scalia. Justice Sotomayor may be arguably anti-gun, although she's only had one case to rule on, and the argument she made was more of a procedural issue related to applying the federal right to bear arms to the states. Obama refused the ATF's request to expedite gun reporting requirements as violent acts increased at the Mexican border.

Have you had a personal conversation with President Obama about his anti-gun stance? Because I can't find anything in his voting record or speaking points that makes him out to be as anti-gun as you're claiming. Other than he's an evil Democrat, and thus must be anti-gun by default no matter what he says or actually does.

Quote from: CCTAU on December 23, 2012, 09:04:21 AM

And the reason he has not created any anti gun legislation, is because the country has overwhelmingly been pro gun....until now. Now is his chance. And he will seize it!

I think the gap has been closing, and as of right now, slightly more people are putting more emphasis on controlling guns instead of protecting gun ownership rights. A lot of that has to do with recent incidents of extreme gun violence which have upset the public and maybe made them less rational than normal.

But, as mentioned before, the Supreme Court has made it very difficult for politicians to pass anti-gun legislation. Even if they wanted to try to pass legislation which takes away people's guns, it just won't hold up constitutionally based on numerous judicial opinions that address the 2nd amendment.

Politicians can be stupid, so I'm not going to say that with 100% certainty that they won't pass a stupid law that is unconstitutional or that takes away rights. However, I think it's highly unlikely given the recent court decisions on the topic, and I think it's even more unlikely to be upheld for any length of time if such a law is idiotically passed.