View Full Version : President Obama's Press Conference Thread
I thought it might be a good idea to try to get everyone posting about the press conference in one thread versus all the numerous AWB type threads we have going.
2 minutes til show time...
Biden sat down with 229 groups...
Biden - "We should do as much as we can as soon as we can..."
Of course we need the children who wrote letters
Doc Safari
01-16-13, 10:58
I agree with the premise of this thread.
Somebody please post all 23 (according to Drudge) executive orders as soon as you know them.
Just sayin'...
I'm surfing about ten different sites from Politico to the local paper and it's easy to get information overload.
Of course we need the children who wrote letters
A regular Benetton ad of 8 year olds should determine the fate of our country.
I'm tuned in. Here it is live
http://www.cnn.com/
Awesome, a signing table on site.
Magic_Salad0892
01-16-13, 11:00
Let's see what the Politburo has to offer.
Schools hire resource officers, more stringent background checks, reporting threats of violence.
Magic_Salad0892
01-16-13, 11:04
23 EXECUTIVE ORDERS!!!
What. The. ****.
Supporting Congress put AWB back in place, restrict mags to 10 rounds.
As expected, shameless emotional dancing on the graves of the Newtown victims, and illogical milking of the gun death statistics.
Key proposals he is pushing on Congress to pass through legislation:
* Universal background check.
* AWB
* 10rd mag cap limit.
Undoubtedly more, but at least these proposals initially are being (correctly) run through the Congress.
One other note, he cites a letter from Reagan in 1994 that urged Congress to ban the manufacture of "assault weapons."
Shit just got real folks.
Ban further manufacturer! :eek: better reconsider those EE sales folks.
He wants them to prosecute people who buy guns with the express intention of selling them to criminals.
So why aren't the folks responsible for Fast and Furious doing serious federal prison time??
Todd Jones to be nominated as ATF director. Not heard of him before, thoughts?
Shit just got real folks.
My words exactly:mad: I cant believe this is f**king happening.
List of the EO's
23 now
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/16/list-executive-actions-obama-plans-to-take-as-part-anti-gun-violence-plan/
It's just amazing to me how easily he lies.
#16.
Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients
about guns in their homes.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-executive-actions-on-gun-control-2013-1#ixzz2I9xQ1c78
The key now is to ensure Congress does not go along with Der Obama.
Doc Safari
01-16-13, 11:14
From DRUDGE:
'Health care providers' to offer gun safety tips...
'Counselors' in schools...
At least $4.5 billion in new spending...
Press doctors to ask patients about guns in homes
I read an article a little while ago that said neither the Senate or House is going to even think about guns for at least three months. You guys hear anything like that?
#16.
Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients
about guns in their homes.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-executive-actions-on-gun-control-2013-1#ixzz2I9xQ1c78
Noticed that as well. New tip for gun owners: don't discuss personal business, what you own, or what you do in your spare time with doctors who will become forced snitches in the Obamacare collective.
Is anything contained referencing the importation of ammo or firearms that could be hidden in the fine print?
Doc Safari
01-16-13, 11:17
List of the EO's
23 now
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/16/list-executive-actions-obama-plans-to-take-as-part-anti-gun-violence-plan/
From the article:
The following is a list, provided by the White House, of executive actions President Obama plans to take to address gun violence.
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
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.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
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.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
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.
Todd Jones
http://www.justice.gov/usao/mn/meetattorney.html
Notice how none of the 23 EOs list mag capacity or ban of assault weapons. Like discussed on here he knows it not EO material.
Notice how none of the 23 EOs list mag capacity or ban of assault weapons. Like discussed on here he knows it not EO material.
Agreed. Looks like his efforts are going to be legislative. Fight's back on boys....
Voodoo_Man
01-16-13, 11:22
Start writing your Congress and Senator rep's immediately.
More letters going to reps and senators. I don't think there is enough support for an AWB or Hi-cap mag ban but we have to keep up the pressure.
More letters going to reps and senators. I don't think there is enough support for an AWB or Hi-cap mag ban but we have to keep up the pressure.
75% of NRA members favor a ban on "assault weapons?"
Notice how none of the 23 EOs list mag capacity or ban of assault weapons. Like discussed on here he knows it not EO material.
Remember New York and how easily it can happen in your own, individual state.
Doc Safari
01-16-13, 11:27
I'm actually seeing the glass as half full. It's nothing but a bunch of feel-good horseshit.
Barry the Conqueror didn't have the nads to rule as a dictator after all.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Time to fight in Congress.
Notice how none of the 23 EOs list mag capacity or ban of assault weapons. Like discussed on here he knows it not EO material.
Yep. Most of these aren't too bad.
montanadave
01-16-13, 11:28
I don't see anything here that wasn't anticipated.
Given the current animosity between the White House and the Republican leadership, I think it's going to be tough sledding passing anything. The only thing that stands a real chance is universal background checks which, admittedly, has broad popular support.
The AWB is DOA. High-capacity mags is going to be ugly, but I don't see a Republican house "banning" OEM mags for firearms that have to account for a significant portion of the market.
Anybody have industry sales figures on how many handguns sold come with over a ten-round factory mag?
Magic_Salad0892
01-16-13, 11:28
Shit just got ****ing real. He's paving the way to ****ing registration.
We need to push back. Hard, and fast.
Magic_Salad0892
01-16-13, 11:29
Anybody have industry sales figures on how many handguns sold come with over a ten-round factory mag?
Shit. More than 75%, I'd guess.
I'm actually seeing the glass as half full. It's nothing but a bunch of feel-good horseshit.
Barry the Conqueror didn't have the nads to rule as a dictator after all.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Time to fight in Congress.
This is correct. He just made a bunch of BS moves and passed the buck to Congress.
We are in no different shape than yesterday
Magic_Salad0892
01-16-13, 11:32
This is correct. He just made a bunch of BS moves and passed the buck to Congress.
We are in no different shape than yesterday
Didn't NY say the same thing?
Maybe Costa will make a video doing some quick change 10rnd mag changes to show how ridiculous a 30rnd mag ban would be.
The ball is in our court guys. If you don't write to anyone and everyone at least once a week ( a real paper letter in the US mail ) we will lose this.
To show you what you are up against..... Just shown on CSPAN.. a twitter post.
Krista: Machine guns are not needed for hunting they should be made illegal.....
We not only need to fight for the 2A we need to fight ignorance.
This is correct. He just made a bunch of BS moves and passed the buck to Congress.
We are in no different shape than yesterday
Except that this is where Barry is in his element. He is going to use this as a giant hammer against the Republican senators and representatives. Look forward to him on every major news outlet talking about how if it wasn't for the Republican Congress that we would have safe kids now. But as it stands those evil Republicans are fighting this and wanting kids to be injured by those evil assault weapons.
Remember New York and how easily it can happen in your own, individual state.
Which is why I'm glad I live in the Gunshine State of Florida. Come join us (except New Yorkers, we have **** tons already lol)
I'm actually seeing the glass as half full. It's nothing but a bunch of feel-good horseshit.
Barry the Conqueror didn't have the nads to rule as a dictator after all.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Time to fight in Congress.
I pretty much agree with this. Congress is going to be the battle ground.
Doc Safari
01-16-13, 11:35
This is correct. He just made a bunch of BS moves and passed the buck to Congress.
We are in no different shape than yesterday
I have to admit I posted a bunch of stuff on this forum about what I thought he might do and I was dead wrong.
There, I said it.
Thank God I was dead wrong. :D
Maybe Costa will make a video doing some quick change 10rnd mag changes to show how ridiculous a 30rnd mag ban would be.
"And then we'll need to reduce your magazine capacity to 3 rounds."
Which is why I'm glad I live in the Gunshine State of Florida. Come join us (except New Yorkers, we have **** tons already lol)
I'm in Nevada and our laws aren't too bad. I don't like Harry Reid in any sense of the word but he is pro-2nd for the most part.
Didn't NY say the same thing?
As much as I hate it for New Yorkers, at least it was done by the STATE congress. That is where issues like these belong, at the STATE level, not the federal level.
Thanks for that, Abraham Lincoln, you ****ing Imperialist Piece of Shit! Preserve the Union my Ass!:rolleyes:
Magic_Salad0892
01-16-13, 11:42
As much as I hate it for New Yorkers, at least it was done by the STATE congress. That is where issues like these belong, at the STATE level, not the federal level.
Thanks for that, Abraham Lincoln, you ****ing Imperialist Piece of Shit! Preserve the Union my Ass!:rolleyes:
As much as I don't want to say anything bad about Lincoln...
Yeah. He ****ed up on that one.
Diane Feinstien should take a look at this and tell us if she still feels a 10 round mag limit will change things
This is fast.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GsmUzSBaUQ
if you have made it this far in the thread and you haven't stopped to contact your reps, sign a petition, make o few phone calls , or SOMETHING.....
.....THEN YOU ARE WRONG!
Except that this is where Barry is in his element. He is going to use this as a giant hammer against the Republican senators and representatives. Look forward to him on every major news outlet talking about how if it wasn't for the Republican Congress that we would have safe kids now. But as it stands those evil Republicans are fighting this and wanting kids to be injured by those evil assault weapons.
Exactly! That is his MO. He looks like a Saint. There is no way he can be looked at as being wrong. No failure on his part. Now he sits back and says the republicans want to kill your children. That will be the 2014 mid-term cry and the 2016 General election cry.
To be honest with you though.... some of those health care related items seem like new laws to me. Or law changes. Which seems to me would be an overstep of his realm.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/16/list-executive-actions-obama-plans-to-take-as-part-anti-gun-violence-plan/
Just a bunch of feel good band aids treating the symptoms and they do nothing to stop the cause. They all know they will fail and they know they will be back asking for more, reasonable and modest gun control laws when there is another mass shooting. I wonder how this will play out for the Democrats in the next election ?
IMHO, most of the Democratic leadership is not only anti-gun but anti country and anti God.
caelumatra
01-16-13, 11:47
I don't see anything here that wasn't anticipated.
Given the current animosity between the White House and the Republican leadership, I think it's going to be tough sledding passing anything. The only thing that stands a real chance is universal background checks which, admittedly, has broad popular support.
The AWB is DOA. High-capacity mags is going to be ugly, but I don't see a Republican house "banning" OEM mags for firearms that have to account for a significant portion of the market.
Anybody have industry sales figures on how many handguns sold come with over a ten-round factory mag?
Here's the total list from 2011 and we could probably make some assumptions but that's all they'd be
http://www.atf.gov/statistics/download/afmer/2011-final-firearms-manufacturing-export-report.pdf
Wow this thread moved really fast lol
Doc Safari
01-16-13, 11:48
Moving right along...
To quote the likely vernacular that is popular in Barry's old neighborhood: "It's ON, Bitch!"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/01/16/nra-planning-the-fight-of-the-century-against-obama/
NRA planning ‘the fight of the century’ against Obama
On Wednesday, the brass from the NRA and other gun-advocacy groups spent the day in closed-door sessions planning a response to Obama’s proposals, according to people close to the groups who spoke on condition their names not be used in describing internal deliberations.
As much as I hate it for New Yorkers, at least it was done by the STATE congress. That is where issues like these belong, at the STATE level, not the federal level.
Thanks for that, Abraham Lincoln, you ****ing Imperialist Piece of Shit! Preserve the Union my Ass!:rolleyes:
As much as I don't want to say anything bad about Lincoln...
Yeah. He ****ed up on that one.
Yep, been saying that for a long time (about Lincoln). If he hadn't had several of the STATE Representatives arresting in Maryland when they were meeting to vote on secession, then Washington D.C. would have been behind "enemy lines". The outcome of the (what I call "the second American Revolution") Civil War probably would have been very different.
caelumatra
01-16-13, 11:52
Maybe Costa will make a video doing some quick change 10rnd mag changes to show how ridiculous a 30rnd mag ban would be.
Military Arms channel did that a few days ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXrAt7-ij2k
Skip ahead to around 9:10 or so
To be honest with you though.... some of those health care related items seem like new laws to me. Or law changes. Which seems to me would be an overstep of his realm.
I don't know if that's an overstep or not. I do know that, as a physician, I have never felt legally constrained from a)asking my patients if they have guns in the house (I've never done so) and b) calling the cops about anyone that I thought represented a danger to themselves or others (I have done so).
montanadave
01-16-13, 11:52
I think the White House strategy regarding gun control is going to play out much like the "fiscal cliff" standoff several weeks ago. The White House is looking to drive a wedge between Republican members of the House. Just as there were a substantial number of GOP members standing firm with a "never give a goddamn inch" position on taxes, regardless of the potential economic fallout, there will be a large number of GOP representatives who will refuse to sanction any and all new gun control legislation, including universal background checks.
President Obama and the gun-control groups (funded by deep pockets like Bloomberg) will launch a media blitzkrieg characterizing GOP resistance to something as seemingly innocuous as universal background checks as attributable to fringe "gun nuts" who are more concerned about protecting their precious guns than protecting America's children. They'll win the PR campaign with the general public and potentially force GOP representatives from some districts to waffle.
Fortunately, due to the way current congressional districts are drawn, there are a minimum number of districts which are seriously in play. And there aren't that many "single issue" voters that would switch parties. But the GOP is losing the mommy vote and this is an emotional issue for women, who typically aren't huge firearm enthusiasts in the first place. There will be enough GOP representatives feeling pressured on gun control to create a real problem for Cantor and Boehner in holding the line.
Which is exactly what the White House wants. If you can't "divide and conquer," at least create enough internal dissent and distrust to keep the House GOP off balance and incapable of closing ranks on other significant legislative issues.
This is hard ball political gamesmanship. Gun control is just one more hand to be dealt and played.
VooDoo6Actual
01-16-13, 11:52
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/teehee321/Untitled2.png
if you have made it this far in the thread and you haven't stopped to contact your reps, sign a petition, make o few phone calls , or SOMETHING.....
.....THEN YOU ARE WRONG!
Actually stopped as soon as the press conference was over and wrote Udall and Tipton. Udall is a follow the leader democrat and will vote for the AWB in the senate. Tipton will be voting against in the house if history is any guide.
Crow Hunter
01-16-13, 11:55
Really? That is all?
I am genuinely surprised at this. I figured that he would have banned the importation of at least "assault weapon" parts kits and high capacity magazines at the very minimum. He could have stopped SCARs, Arsenal AKs, AK magazines, and I am sure quite a few other weapons, parts, kits and magazines.
But he didn't.
Why?
That would have certainly been more "meaningful" than spending money to get the CDC to look at gun crime again. (I guess they think if they keep looking they will get a different statistical result).
So far Bush #1 has been more restrictive that Odumbo.
What does he have up his sleeve....?
Yep. Most of these aren't too bad.
That's what I was thinking. The Mental Health ones are good. The others could be over reaching if took to an extreme.
In no way do I think they they are going to punt on 4th down, I think they will try to push something through Congress but won't convert to a 1st down.
crowkiller
01-16-13, 12:01
What does he have up his sleeve....?
I am wondering the same thing
wetidlerjr
01-16-13, 12:01
Notice how none of the 23 EOs list mag capacity or ban of assault weapons. Like discussed on here he knows it not EO material.
I noticed that but the "Doc as a snitch" is something to watch out for. Some (I said SOME) doctors tend to want to nose into your private life.
We will need to ramp up contacts with our Senators and Reps.
shaneinhisroom
01-16-13, 12:02
I actually think this is kind of a best case scenario for us...I'm going to say right off the bat that I am not affiliated with either political party and I agree and disagree (sometimes strongly) with issues on both sides.
I agree with many of the measures on the EO list. Mental health resolve, universal background checks, giving schools more resources for armed protection, etc. The prez knows AWB and any magazine bans would have to go through the House and Senate- he was out there pleading today, and as far as I know, there just is not enough support, I suspect even with his upcoming campaigns. I also think Steve Toth represented himself well on CNN with Wolf right after the speech.
Fingers crossed, but it could have been so much worse.
wetidlerjr
01-16-13, 12:03
...
What does he have up his sleeve....?
I am wondering the same thing
As am I.
Waiting for the (possible) other shoe...
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/teehee321/Untitled2.png
Magneto helmet on pres. limo?
Magic_Salad0892
01-16-13, 12:08
Magneto helmet on pres. limo?
Spartan Helmet. As in "Come and take them."
Crow Hunter
01-16-13, 12:08
Magneto helmet on pres. limo?
:D
I was thinking Leonidas, but Obama as Magneto is better.
caelumatra
01-16-13, 12:08
Really? That is all?
I am genuinely surprised at this. I figured that he would have banned the importation of at least "assault weapon" parts kits and high capacity magazines at the very minimum. He could have stopped SCARs, Arsenal AKs, AK magazines, and I am sure quite a few other weapons, parts, kits and magazines.
But he didn't.
Why?
That would have certainly been more "meaningful" than spending money to get the CDC to look at gun crime again. (I guess they think if they keep looking they will get a different statistical result).
So far Bush #1 has been more restrictive that Odumbo.
What does he have up his sleeve....?
I agree entirely. But I think what others have mentioned previously are likely. Him making this decision would be him making any decision and leading even if completely in the wrong. However doing this and having no ban or similar action taken, he is letting it rest with Congress and when the next shooting happens he will have more public opinion in his corner because nothing has gotten done in Congress the right way.
"I gave Congress a chance but now we'll just have to do it my way"
polymorpheous
01-16-13, 12:10
Spartan Helmet. As in "Come and take them."
Photoshopped.
Crow Hunter
01-16-13, 12:12
I agree entirely. But I think what others have mentioned previously are likely. Him making this decision would be him making any decision and leading even if completely in the wrong. However doing this and having no ban or similar action taken, he is letting it rest with Congress and when the next shooting happens he will have more public opinion in his corner because nothing has gotten done in Congress the right way.
"I gave Congress a chance but now we'll just have to do it my way"
Good point.
Very good point.
when the next shooting happens
"I gave Congress a chance but now we'll just have to do it my way"
Makes you wonder if there is already a plan in the works....:(
DreadPirateMoyer
01-16-13, 12:18
Did anyone notice that one of the EOs added incentives...to implement the NRA's plan?
Hahahaha.
Actually stopped as soon as the press conference was over and wrote Udall and Tipton. Udall is a follow the leader democrat and will vote for the AWB in the senate. Tipton will be voting against in the house if history is any guide.
Awesome. You are NOT part of the problem. EVERYONE of us needs to take action NOW. There is not one more minute, hour, day to procrastinate.
DreadPirateMoyer
01-16-13, 12:29
Double
NoveskeFan
01-16-13, 12:33
if you have made it this far in the thread and you haven't stopped to contact your reps, sign a petition, make o few phone calls , or SOMETHING.....
.....THEN YOU ARE WRONG!
Agreed. I used the NRA Make Your Voice Heard link to contact my state and federal "representatives". I'm thinking of doing this daily from here on out.
Katy bar the door, they're coming for them.
brickboy240
01-16-13, 12:39
So we still don't know WHEN the ban will come to be?
What are these pressers and meeting really for?
We still don't know anything concrete...do we?
-brickboy240
How many of our nation's veterans will now have their guns confiscated?
Perry: 2nd Amendment trumps Obama, any president
AUSTIN, Texas — Gov. Rick Perry says he's disgusted by the left using the massacre in Newtown, Conn., to advance a pro-gun control agenda
Perry added in a statement: "The Second Amendment to the Constitution is a basic right of free people" and can't be limited by the president.
More at: http://www.statesman.com/ap/ap/crime/perry-2nd-amendment-trumps-obama-any-president/nTyMM/
So we still don't know WHEN the ban will come to be?
-brickboy240
Why would you say "when"?
I would suggest anyone really worried about this stuff to spend some time on Google researching the latest news concerning the ability to pass something through Congress.
An AWB CAN NOT pass the House and probably can't pass the Dem controlled Senate as of right now.
We need to keep the pressure up for sure because we don't know what may happen in the next few months. Another shooting would certainly help them.
A mag ban seems to be the only thing that may have a chance so I think we really need to put forth more effort to debunk these myths.
Check this article out regarding the chance of various gun Legislation passing. It was posted today.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/16/obamas-gun-control-proposals-assessing-the-odds-of-passage/
So we still don't know WHEN the ban will come to be?
What are these pressers and meeting really for?
We still don't know anything concrete...do we?
-brickboy240
We don't even know IF the ban will come to be.
This press conference was a light, and not very effective, artillery barrage preparatory to the full-on ground assault.
The game's back on the table.
.
buckshot1220
01-16-13, 13:12
Maybe Costa will make a video doing some quick change 10rnd mag changes to show how ridiculous a 30rnd mag ban would be.
This is a double edged sword for us. Keep reminding them that we can shoot just as much ammo in a simlar time span and we are likely to at some point wind up with bullet buttons like CA, or worse, fixed mags.
An AWB CAN NOT pass the House and probably can't pass the Dem controlled Senate as of right now.
One more wingnut decides to go blitzkrieg on a bunch of unarmed victims will change that real quickly.
One more wingnut decides to go blitzkrieg on a bunch of unarmed victims will change that real quickly.
I predict another event happening if an AWB doesn't pass.
ffhounddog
01-16-13, 13:20
How many of our nation's veterans will now have their guns confiscated?
This is what I am afraid of.
Mauser KAR98K
01-16-13, 13:27
Though some of these look like putting heavier enforcement on the rules, this is also a run-up to illegal registration. Lets wait to see what how the lawyers interpret this.
Guys, start focusing on a mag ban. That one is crucial at this point.
Alaskapopo
01-16-13, 13:37
List of the EO's
23 now
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/16/list-executive-actions-obama-plans-to-take-as-part-anti-gun-violence-plan/
Strangely missing are all the chicken little fears of a EO pushed through AWB or a magazine ban. Unless I am missed it somewhere.
Pat
You need to re-contact you senators-reps, governor, state reps etc etc etc
You need to have your parents, spouses and voting age children do the same
You have to press your friends to do the same.
We're screwed. Contact your representatives daily.
Doc Safari
01-16-13, 13:42
Strangely missing are all the chicken little fears of a EO pushed through AWB or a magazine ban. Unless I am missed it somewhere.
Pat
Hey, I admitted earlier I was wrong about what Barry might pull.
I was loaded for bear and out limped......a puppy.
I predict another event happening if an AWB doesn't pass.
I predict another event happening if an AWB does pass.
Alaskapopo
01-16-13, 13:46
Hey, I admitted earlier I was wrong about what Barry might pull.
I was loaded for bear and out limped......a puppy.
Some of the things on the list are good like providing incentive for more SRO's. Kind of what the NRA was saying more good guys with guns in our schools.
Pat
You need to re-contact you senators-reps, governor, state reps etc etc etc
You need to have your parents, spouses and voting age children do the same
You have to press your friends to do the same.
This right here! If your not doing theese things on a daily basis ..... Then you are not in the fight.
Doc Safari
01-16-13, 13:54
I may get tomatoes thrown at me, but a lot of his executive orders aren't such a bad idea (but I still don't trust him).
Rush Limbaugh had an interesting take on it: Barry isn't so concerned with gun violence; he just wants to destroy the opposition (Republicans), and so the real fight will be in Congress with Barry doing his thing like he did on the fiscal cliff.
ffhounddog
01-16-13, 13:58
Is he flying back to Hawaii for a vacation after he is sworn in?
Maybe Costa will make a video doing some quick change 10rnd mag changes to show how ridiculous a 30rnd mag ban would be.
That would be the perfect video for the left to make to prove what really needs to banned is semi auto's (or at least detachable mags) and that mag bans are not effective.
What powers will the new ATF Director have? What is his background and how can he influence things?
Don't overlook who is being nominated and what their intentions are.
Hey, I admitted earlier I was wrong about what Barry might pull.
I was loaded for bear and out limped......a puppy.
Same here. The good news is that we have at least gotten a peek at his cards. For the last month, we've all been in the dark, left to our own worst fears. Maybe this will settle down the panic a little.
What powers will the new ATF Director have? What is his background and how can he influence things?
Don't overlook who is being nominated and what their intentions are.
Exactly my thoughts. I'm sure we will have another Eric holder running this branch.......
I just sent my 3rd set of letters in the last month to my State and National Reps and Senators via the NRA ILA link. It is SUPER easy!!
This is what I wrote...I'm sure some could improve on it:
Most of proposals the President made today unfortunately will do absolutely nothing to prevent further tragedies like that at Sandy Hook.
Instead of focusing on the real issues, the administration chose to focus on banning and restricting common and popular rifles and magazines that are used in less than 1% of US gun crimes.
Vote NO on any "feel good" legislation that infringes on the rights of law abiding gun owners while doing nothing to prevent gun crimes.
The American public will remember those politicians that chose to exploit this tragedy to forward a decades old gun agenda when they go to the voting booth.
Strangely missing are all the chicken little fears of a EO pushed through AWB or a magazine ban. Unless I am missed it somewhere.
Pat
Hey if wasn't for those chicken little's I would not be getting $30 for a $12 PMAG.
Strangely missing are all the chicken little fears of a EO pushed through AWB or a magazine ban. Unless I am missed it somewhere.
Pat
This is only round one. Just wait untill there is another school shooting.........
They've laid the ground work. Thats all this was intended to do.
Notice how none of the 23 EOs list mag capacity or ban of assault weapons. Like discussed on here he knows it not EO material.
Of maybe he's not as anti-gun as many claim?
Exactly my thoughts. I'm sure we will have another Eric holder running this branch.......
Interesting directive by Todd Jones - http://youtu.be/JSON_YYpxoM
Of maybe he's not as anti-gun as many claim?
He actually did propose a mag limit and AWB, so yes he is very anti-gun.
He actually did propose a mag limit and AWB, so yes he is very anti-gun.
Yes, he is asking Congress to do this as law, and he will sign it. If Fast & Furious doesn't seal his anti-gun, anti-law, anti-America agenda for someone than probably nothing more will.
Doc Safari
01-16-13, 14:45
The ATF letter encouraging background checks for private sales:
http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2013/01/011613-ffl-open-letter-facilitating-transfers-of-firearms-between-private-individuals.pdf
The ATF letter encouraging background checks for private sales:
http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2013/01/011613-ffl-open-letter-facilitating-transfers-of-firearms-between-private-individuals.pdf
Encouragement is not the same as requiring, in fact anyone can go to an FFL now and do this and pay them a transfer fee. What is different from before other than the ATF is encouraging it?
Same here. The good news is that we have at least gotten a peek at his cards. For the last month, we've all been in the dark, left to our own worst fears. Maybe this will settle down the panic a little.
Naw dealers will keep the fear rolling because it's good for their bottom line. People will keep buying out every round of ammo and mag that they can and keep supply low so they can Day Trade on them at gun shows.
Alaskapopo
01-16-13, 14:50
The ATF letter encouraging background checks for private sales:
http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2013/01/011613-ffl-open-letter-facilitating-transfers-of-firearms-between-private-individuals.pdf
I would actually like all private sales to go through a background check.
Pat
montanadave
01-16-13, 14:50
I predict another event happening if an AWB doesn't pass.
I predict another event happening regardless of whether it passes or not.
You can't outlaw crazy and you can't make 300 million firearms magically go POOF in the night.
Alaskapopo
01-16-13, 14:51
This is only round one. Just wait untill there is another school shooting.........
They've laid the ground work. Thats all this was intended to do.
Regardless if we have another shooting he simply can not make an EO banning domestic guns. In fact I am happy that he did not do what he could with further import restrictions.
Pat
montanadave
01-16-13, 14:53
I may get tomatoes thrown at me, but a lot of his executive orders aren't such a bad idea (but I still don't trust him).
Rush Limbaugh had an interesting take on it: Barry isn't so concerned with gun violence; he just wants to destroy the opposition (Republicans), and so the real fight will be in Congress with Barry doing his thing like he did on the fiscal cliff.
See post #60 this thread.
God help me, I'm thinking like Limbaugh now. :D
CarlosDJackal
01-16-13, 14:57
Of maybe he's not as anti-gun as many claim?
WTF? Seriously?
Obama declaring his beliefs about gun ownership. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHmMzAcKCUg)
Obama talking about people's rights to own guns. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB4ew09eoeQ)
Having lived through a dictatorship myself, the steps that dictators take just before firearms confiscation is the registration of legally-owned firearms in order to "differentiate them fro the ones that are n the possession of criminals". Sound familiar?
Some of the things on the list are good like providing incentive for more SRO's. Kind of what the NRA was saying more good guys with guns in our schools.
Pat
Now there is some irony there. He and congress defund federal programs meant to put SRO's & training into schools and now he is a hero for suggesting we fund a program to put more SRO's in schools. How ****ing gullible are we?? Stupid question I know.
As far as legislation not making it through the House; I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. They are all politicians first and foremost. We need to keep the pressure up so they understand fully that the consequences of voting for any idiotic crap is loss of employment.
Doc Safari
01-16-13, 15:00
I would actually like all private sales to go through a background check.
Pat
Frankly, I do too. I used to not have that attitude, but when I worked in law enforcement I really did see some people cruising the gun shows that I know were "prohibited persons."
CarlosDJackal
01-16-13, 15:00
I predict another event happening regardless of whether it passes or not.
You can't outlaw crazy and you can't make 300 million firearms magically go POOF in the night.
AMEN!!
People seem to forget that behind 9/11/2001, the worse mass murder in recent history killed 87 people, was perpetrated using a can of gasoline.
Doc Safari
01-16-13, 15:03
See post #60 this thread.
God help me, I'm thinking like Limbaugh now. :D
I noticed that. I was afraid to call attention to it for fear of undoing the positive trend in your development. :D
The Royal Decrees just seem like a massive list of 4th Amendment violations.
Frankly, I do too. I used to not have that attitude, but when I worked in law enforcement I really did see some people cruising the gun shows that I know were "prohibited persons."
Such a great idea!
Let's require a background check before we let folks buy meth or crack too. Surely that will stop them from getting it!
montanadave
01-16-13, 15:13
Such a great idea!
Let's require a background check before we let folks buy meth or crack too. Surely that will stop them from getting it!
Don't be facetious.
No one expects new background check regulations to stop criminals from selling guns to other criminals. That's why there is a proposal to strengthen gun trafficking laws.
But it would clearly reduce the number of firearms sold be legitimate sellers to persons prohibited under current law.
Alaskapopo
01-16-13, 15:14
Such a great idea!
Let's require a background check before we let folks buy meth or crack too. Surely that will stop them from getting it!
Stupid argument. But we have been able to cut back on meth by having stores not allow customers to buy multiple packs of certain over the counter medication used to make meth and notifying law enforcement when they try. The reality is background checks for private sales would make it harder for criminals to get guns. Would it stop them entirely no but it would do some good without compromising the rights of law abiding citizens.
Pat
I would actually like all private sales to go through a background check.
Pat
So if I want to sell a gun to my brother in law or my neighbor we would need the government's permission? **** that.
Alaskapopo
01-16-13, 15:18
So if I want to sell a gun to my brother in law or my neighbor we would need the government's permission? **** that.
That is about how that guy shot the firefighters got his rifle. Through his sister. Its not permission its just making sure your brother in law is not a prohibited person. If we continue to ignore actual good ideas to address the problem we will lose more and more support of the public at large. Background checks does not hurt your right to own a firearm in one degree.
Pat
Stupid argument.
No it is not.
Background checks on firearms do not prevent anyone from getting a gun. It merely delays them. I got all the beer I wanted when I was underage, no problem. Drug addicts get all the drugs they want despite total prohibition.
The only way to keep bad guys from getting guns is to keep them in jail. 15 million folks have failed NICS check. How many have been prosecuted? Less than .01%.
That is about how that guy shot the firefighters got his rifle. Through his sister.
If you are talking about the NY Firefighter, No. He got it from his neighbor who passed the background check, since he could not. Only proving my point, background check does not prevent anyone from getting a firearm.
Alaskapopo
01-16-13, 15:23
No it is not.
Background checks on firearms do not prevent anyone from getting a gun. It merely delays them. I got all the beer I wanted when I was underage, no problem. Drug addicts get all the drugs they want despite total prohibition.
The only way to keep bad guys from getting guns is to keep them in jail. 15 million folks have failed NICS check. How many have been prosecuted? Less than .01%.
No that is false it does prevent some people from getting a gun. Furthermore if we prosecute the hell out of those who do knowingly violate the law by selling to felons or the mentally ill we can stop even more. By requiring private person sales to get a background check done the person selling will have full knowledge that the person they are about to sell to is legitimate or not. If they sell to them anyway make it a felony with serious time. If they fail to get the background check done and they sell to a felon make it a felony as well.
That is about how that guy shot the firefighters got his rifle. Through his sister. Its not permission its just making sure your brother in law is not a prohibited person. If we continue to ignore actual good ideas to address the problem we will lose more and more support of the public at large. Background checks does not hurt your right to own a firearm in one degree.
Pat
My brother in law is a firefighter in Upstate NY, seriously, and even if he were to have been the one who got shot I wouldn't want a law like you're proposing. I want less government intrusion in my life, not more.
Doc Safari
01-16-13, 15:24
So if I want to sell a gun to my brother in law or my neighbor we would need the government's permission? **** that.
I can't speak for Alaskapopo, but that's not what I'm after. Clearly those are persons "known to you" that you can vouch for (hopefully).
I'm just talking about the anonymous sales at gun shows where the seller has a sign out saying "I'm not a dealer. No background check here." Clearly that individual is encouraging prohibited persons to visit his table.
No that is false it does prevent some people from getting a gun. Furthermore if we prosecute the hell out of those who do knowingly violate the law by selling to felons or the mentally ill we can stop even more. By requiring private person sales to get a background check done the person selling will have full knowledge that the person they are about to sell to is legitimate or not. If they sell to them anyway make it a felony with serious time. If they fail to get the background check done and they sell to a felon make it a felony as well.
Like I said, nobody is prevented, only delayed. Even 10 year olds get guns.
We have had 19 years to prosecute failed NICS checks, I say it is a safe bet we have no intention of ever doing this.
One EO that worries me is where he has given the CDC authority to study gun violence. Doesn't make sense to me and I wonder what is behind that. If these so-called studies happen to show that a certain class of weapons is the root cause of all of this violence what happens at that point? Maybe I'm reading too much into that but it just makes me wonder.
Alaskapopo
01-16-13, 15:27
If you are talking about the NY Firefighter, No. He got it from his neighbor who passed the background check, since he could not. Only proving my point, background check does not prevent anyone from getting a firearm.
I read he got the rifle from his sister. Regardless its the same. Require background checks on all sales if the neighbor failed to do that or ignored the information he got that the person was a felon. Then charge his ass and lock him up.
Pat
Alaskapopo
01-16-13, 15:28
Like I said, nobody is prevented, only delayed. Even 10 year olds get guns.
We have had 19 years to prosecute failed NICS checks, I say it is a safe bet we have no intention of ever doing this.
That is just a reason to beef up law enforcement in that area.
I'm just talking about the anonymous sales at gun shows where the seller has a sign out saying "I'm not a dealer. No background check here." Clearly that individual is encouraging prohibited persons to visit his table.
Of course not. He is trying to sell to folks with too much tin foil and do not want registered guns, or pay sales tax or a NICS fee, if applicable.
Been there, done that. You would be surprised how much money you can get off these folks.
Belmont31R
01-16-13, 15:29
That is about how that guy shot the firefighters got his rifle. Through his sister. Its not permission its just making sure your brother in law is not a prohibited person. If we continue to ignore actual good ideas to address the problem we will lose more and more support of the public at large. Background checks does not hurt your right to own a firearm in one degree.
Pat
That transfer was already illegal. Straw purchase.
Alaskapopo
01-16-13, 15:31
That transfer was already illegal. Straw purchase.
True but it could have happened through a private transfer under our current laws with the same result only you would not be able to prosecute the seller. Make it a law so you have to have a background check run on all sales period and like I said go after those that go around the system or knowingly sell to felons or the mentally ill.
Pat
Alaskapopo
01-16-13, 15:33
Of course not. He is trying to sell to folks with too much tin foil and do not want registered guns, or pay sales tax or a NICS fee, if applicable.
Been there, done that. You would be surprised how much money you can get off these folks.
Yep and a lot are probably felons or the mentally ill and allowing this to happen is irresponsible and it it continues the rest of us gun owners will pay by losing our rights when society has said it has had enough.
Pat
Mauser KAR98K
01-16-13, 15:34
If we are going to do private back ground checks through the NCIS, we need some guarantees first:
No national registration with every gun purchased privately or from the dealer.
Hold 4473s for two years for law enforcement purposes to trace a weapon after the commission of a crime, and to keep the seller liability free.
Issue a receipt to the private seller upon completion of the background check that the seller can hold onto for liability purposes.
A permit ban on the government to create a national gun registry. A registration will violent on key provisions in the Bill of Rights and congress needs a backstop to remind them they cannot do this.
Make it that out of state face-to-face private sells are not classified as gun trafficking if a background check is done. The seller or buyer must be resident of one of the states that the transaction is being done in. I.E. A seller from Florida is selling a gun to a gun in Georgia. They can only sell it in one of the two states, not in Nevada. *This is a compromise from that it can be done anywhere as long as the background check is done.
Allow both private parties to approach a FFL dealer for a background check without the dealer recording the firearm in their logs. This prevents a defacto registration if the FFL dealer closes shop.
FFLs cannot place an unreasonable price for a back ground check for private sells. This would not encourage the intent of the idea. (They will be getting walk in business anyways with what this idea will produce--win for the LGS).
Thoughts
Alaskapopo
01-16-13, 15:37
If we are going to do private back ground checks through the NCIS, we need some guarantees first:
No national registration with every gun purchased privately or from the dealer.
Hold 4473s for two years for law enforcement purposes to trace a weapon after the commission of a crime, and to keep the seller liability free.
Issue a receipt to the private seller upon completion of the background check that the seller can hold onto for liability purposes.
A permit ban on the government to create a national gun registry. A registration will violent on key provisions in the Bill of Rights and congress needs a backstop to remind them they cannot do this.
Make it that face-to-face private sells are not classified as gun trafficking if a background check is done.
Allow both private parties to approach a FFL dealer for a background check without the dealer recording the firearm in their logs. This prevents a defacto registration if the FFL dealer closes shop.
FFLs cannot place an unreasonable price for a back ground check for private sells. This would not encourage the intent of the idea. (They will be getting walk in business anyways with what this idea will produce--win for the LGS).
Thoughts
I can agree with all that.
Pat
I'm just talking about the anonymous sales at gun shows where the seller has a sign out saying "I'm not a dealer. No background check here." Clearly that individual is encouraging prohibited persons to visit his table.
We have a difference of opinion and I'm OK with that. I don't agree with AKPopo either and I'm fine with that. It's nothing worth me getting heated about.
I'm also of the opinion that there are a lot of prohibited persons who shouldn't be denied their Constitutional rights either. It's far too easy to be deemed a felon these days or to have some broad call the cops and say you smacked her, etc.
Belmont31R
01-16-13, 15:40
I don't want to see 100% background checks but if they do pass it, the GOP should make it a felony for the ATF or any LE to make photo copies of 4473's or obtain any information on them without a warrant.
No more rifling through records looking for people who are buying AR's and handguns like a decentralized gun registry they use under the guise of industry inspections and compliance checks. Then, if they get a warrant because they found a firearm at a crime scene, and the dealer cannot product the records then nail their ass. I get tired of talking to dealers who have to deal with inspections and the ATF hassling people who aren't doing anything wrong. My local dealer, after I got my ATF visit, told me about how ****ed up his inspections are. No reason to doubt him. He is a C3 dealer who has been in business for years. They came in and sat down copying people's forms then compiled a database on people from multiple dealer's. That should be illegal under the FOPA protections against a database.
If they pass this without getting anything in return then they are useless.
I have worked at many gun shows in many different aspects. I have worked security, sold firearms for a dealer friend or built rifles in front of a crowd of people for another friend of mine. I have been doing this for several years, 15 or so. I can relate with everyone's opinion on the private sale aspect.
I have seen the old timers walking around with some very nice rifles for sale. I am sure that their intent is to sell this to a law abiding citizen.
I have seen a group of individuals walking around on their cell phones walking up to people with rifles strapped on their backs. The individuals purchased the weapon and walked it out to another group sitting in the parking lot and then went back in and started speaking with other guys walking around selling rifles. How much more shady can you get?
It is my standard practice to only sell any of my weapons to someone I know or put it out for sale in my friend's shop. It is my right as an American to be able to sell my property if I feel like it. It is my own personal moral responsibility to sell any of my firearms to someone who will not use them to commit a crime.
I do not trust the ATF, period. To claim a shoestring is a machine gun, scrubbing pads require a tax stamp and to orchestrate the debacle known as Fast & Furious and there to be absolutely no repercussions doesn't justify me having any faith in the organization. The list goes on but I'm sure you've read it before...
Mauser KAR98K
01-16-13, 15:43
I can agree with all that.
Pat
I amended point 5. Recheck.
Pulled a New York bill :p
Alaskapopo
01-16-13, 15:45
I amended point 5. Recheck.
Pulled a New York bill :p
Looks fine to me.
Pat
TurretGunner
01-16-13, 15:46
I have worked at many gun shows in many different aspects. I have worked security, sold firearms for a dealer friend or built rifles in front of a crowd of people for another friend of mine. I have been doing this for several years, 15 or so. I can relate with everyone's opinion on the private sale aspect.
I have seen the old timers walking around with some very nice rifles for sale. I am sure that their intent is to sell this to a law abiding citizen.
I have seen a group of individuals walking around on their cell phones walking up to people with rifles strapped on their backs. The individuals purchased the weapon and walked it out to another group sitting in the parking lot and then went back in and started speaking with other guys walking around selling rifles. How much more shady can you get?
It is my standard practice to only sell any of my weapons to someone I know or put it out for sale in my friend's shop. It is my right as an American to be able to sell my property if I feel like it. It is my own personal moral responsibility to sell any of my firearms to someone who will not use them to commit a crime.
I propose........**** IT ALL
You know what the consittuition says........ You going to let some bullshit law trample your rights?
The line has been drawn, Decide what side your on.
Alaskapopo
01-16-13, 15:46
I do not trust the ATF, period. To claim a shoestring is a machine gun, scrubbing pads require a tax stamp and to orchestrate the debacle known as Fast & Furious and there to be absolutely no repercussions doesn't justify me having any faith in the organization. The list goes on but I'm sure you've read it before...
I agree that BATFE has messed up and that needs to be fixed.
Pat
Alaskapopo
01-16-13, 15:48
I propose........**** IT ALL
You know what the consittuition says........ You going to let some bullshit law trample your rights?
The line has been drawn, Decide what side your on.
I know what side I am on however I am not for making it as easy as possible for criminals and the mentally ill to get guns. I would imagine you are not either. There are ways to have checks in place to make it harder for felons and the mentally ill from getting guns while not infringing on the 2nd amendment rights of law abiding citizens.
Pat
How about when somebody is a prohibited person, we just prohibit them from ever re-entering the general population of the United States.
Doc Safari
01-16-13, 15:50
We have a difference of opinion and I'm OK with that. I don't agree with AKPopo either and I'm fine with that. It's nothing worth me getting heated about.
I'm also of the opinion that there are a lot of prohibited persons who shouldn't be denied their Constitutional rights either. It's far too easy to be deemed a felon these days or to have some broad call the cops and say you smacked her, etc.
It's because I knew the people wanting to buy guns illegally were exactly the type of people who would use them criminally that led to my stance on private sales at gun shows.
I'm hip to the fact that certain people are deprived of their rights unjustly, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.
I have worked at many gun shows in many different aspects. I have worked security, sold firearms for a dealer friend or built rifles in front of a crowd of people for another friend of mine. I have been doing this for several years, 15 or so. I can relate with everyone's opinion on the private sale aspect.
I have seen the old timers walking around with some very nice rifles for sale. I am sure that their intent is to sell this to a law abiding citizen.
I have seen a group of individuals walking around on their cell phones walking up to people with rifles strapped on their backs. The individuals purchased the weapon and walked it out to another group sitting in the parking lot and then went back in and started speaking with other guys walking around selling rifles. How much more shady can you get?
It is my standard practice to only sell any of my weapons to someone I know or put it out for sale in my friend's shop. It is my right as an American to be able to sell my property if I feel like it. It is my own personal moral responsibility to sell any of my firearms to someone who will not use them to commit a crime.
My sentiment exactly. I only buy from a licensed FFL and would only sell to a personal friend or gunstore. Thus, I'm not all that worried about a gun show loop hole or a law that requires that I use a FFL to complete a private sell to a friend or relative. I imagine we might see an industry built around FFL's completing bulk transfers of multiple firearms in instances where firearms are changing hands as part of an estate.
Alaskapopo
01-16-13, 15:52
We have a difference of opinion and I'm OK with that. I don't agree with AKPopo either and I'm fine with that. It's nothing worth me getting heated about.
I'm also of the opinion that there are a lot of prohibited persons who shouldn't be denied their Constitutional rights either. It's far too easy to be deemed a felon these days or to have some broad call the cops and say you smacked her, etc.
Which crimes that are felonies do you think should not be?
Pat
Doc Safari
01-16-13, 15:55
I have seen a group of individuals walking around on their cell phones walking up to people with rifles strapped on their backs. The individuals purchased the weapon and walked it out to another group sitting in the parking lot and then went back in and started speaking with other guys walking around selling rifles. How much more shady can you get?
I have seen this too. When a guy walks around with a wad of $100 bills and asks to buy someone's gun without wanting to examine it, ask questions about it, or even enquire about the price, you gotta think he's just reselling it on the black market.
Mostly though, what I saw was convicted felons now back on the street cruising the gun shows, talking to the "non-licensed" vendors.
Should we do the same to the 1st?
In light of the NY “assault weapon” ban, and whereas it is universally acknowledged that the pen is mightier than the sword, I have some reasonable, common-sense restrictions to place on the First Amendment. These measures will keep Americans and their children safe from disinformation, misinformation, and hate speech:
1. All photocopiers and printers shall be registered with the Federal government. Any sale or transfer of a photocopier or printer will require fingerprinting, photographing, permission from the chief law enforcement officer of the city/county, a $200 fee, and a permission slip from the Federal government. Possessing an unregistered photocopier or printer shall result in up to 10 years in Federal PMITA Prison.
2. Photocopier and printer paper trays shall only hold 7 sheets of paper. Possessing a paper tray of over 7 sheets of paper shall result in up to 10 years in Federal PMITA Prison.
3. All pens and pencils shall be registered with the Federal government. Possession of an unregistered pen or pencil shall result in up to 10 years in Federal PMITA Prison
4. ALL purchasers of pens and pencils shall be subject to a background check (this will close the infamous “OfficeMax Loophole”). Willful evasion of this shall result in up to 5 years in Federal PMITA Prison.
5. All sales of printer/copier/looseleaf/construction paper over 1000 sheets will be reported to the Federal government.
6. Anyone who wants to post on facebook or any other Internet discussion forum must apply for a license that puts their real name and address, username, and password into a registry with the Federal Government, and re-apply for that license every 5 years. Failure to do so or providing false information shall result in up to 10 years in Federal PMITA prison.
Now, you may say this sounds extreme. But when you look at the costs to society of libel and slander, and the children whose lives have been lost to cyberbullying, those who oppose these common-sense reasonable restrictions must examine their consciences. Besides, these rules still preserve Americans’ rights to “free speech” meaning verbal speech, as the Founding Fathers did not intend for civilians to own such Weapons of Mass Deception that copiers and printers can become in the wrong hands. And of course, in the interests of preserving the “freedom of the press,” (which does not include bloggers, as the Founding Fathers had no concept of the Internet), accredited journalists and members of the national media shall be exempted from these laws.
Alaskapopo
01-16-13, 15:58
Should we do the same to the 1st?
I understand your frustration but in general people abusing their first amendment rights is not getting people killed.
Pat
Belmont31R
01-16-13, 15:59
I have worked at many gun shows in many different aspects. I have worked security, sold firearms for a dealer friend or built rifles in front of a crowd of people for another friend of mine. I have been doing this for several years, 15 or so. I can relate with everyone's opinion on the private sale aspect.
I have seen the old timers walking around with some very nice rifles for sale. I am sure that their intent is to sell this to a law abiding citizen.
I have seen a group of individuals walking around on their cell phones walking up to people with rifles strapped on their backs. The individuals purchased the weapon and walked it out to another group sitting in the parking lot and then went back in and started speaking with other guys walking around selling rifles. How much more shady can you get?
It is my standard practice to only sell any of my weapons to someone I know or put it out for sale in my friend's shop. It is my right as an American to be able to sell my property if I feel like it. It is my own personal moral responsibility to sell any of my firearms to someone who will not use them to commit a crime.
No matter what you do you aren't going to stop criminals from getting guns, and I don't want this turn into a slippery slope to a centralized registry under a police state.
In any case a lot of the crime problems we have is because we have become soft on crime, and give prosecutors too much leeway in charging people with crimes. A lot of times these firearms laws get turned into bargaining chips to get people to plead guilty, and then they end up serving a lot less time than they should. On top of that we have early release programs, coddle people in jail, and it's nothing more than a revolving door justice system where known violent offenders are let out to terrorize society.
Alaskapopo mentioned the guy who shot at the firefighters, and no one is asking why a guy who killed his grandma with hammer was ever released from jail to begin with. Then since he was released we have to have more firearms restrictions? I place 100% of the blame on that shooting on NYS who released a violent murderer, and many of the other crime problems we have on similar circumstances. We used to hang horse thief's, and now people who beat family members heads in with hammers spend a few years in jail all the while it's us non-criminal people who have to pay the price with not only dealing with these violent people when they are let out but losing our rights over them, too.
Littlelebowski
01-16-13, 16:01
Of course we need the children who wrote letters
Notice how they were carefully chosen for diversity?
An Asian female, black male, and whites of both sexes. Shit, I think I saw a rainbow over them!
Doc Safari
01-16-13, 16:01
Ironically, I have to concede that requiring background checks for private sales at gun shows will probably increase the number of guns stolen in burglaries.
Criminals will get guns no matter what. The idea is to just make it as difficult as possible.
Notice how they were carefully chosen for diversity?
An Asian female, black male, and whites of both sexes. Shit, I think I saw a rainbow over them!
Hilarious.
Really? What is requiring background checks for private sales at gunshows going to accomplish? Meet in the show, leave the show and go to the parking lot, do the sale there. How has anyone prevented anything?
Mauser KAR98K
01-16-13, 16:05
This should be nothing more than a NCIS check. Nothing like getting a SBR or suppressor. A phone call, or interweb check, clear, shake hands, exchange money, here is your liability receipt.
Now, getting information to be placed in NCIS for people who are mentally unstable is going to be tricky. This NEEDS to be done considering most of the shooters were clinically disturbed in some form or fashion (except the Lanza kid, who shot his murdered his mother, whom was going to committed his ass, and took her legal weapons). Lanza is proof that we cannot stop all bad guys from getting weapons to do their twisted fantasies and gain infamy. But VT, AZ, and possibly Aurora could have been prevented if they had been reported.
The country also needs to make it a tad bit easier to commit someone before they go off their rocker, but prevent someone fingering a person for, as the French termed it in the early 1800s, being counter-revolutionary, because their neighbor's cat peed on their prized bush, though the owner had a dog. Paris was a river of blood because of that.
Course, the government won't do a thing because all this makes some sort of damn sense.
Online ammo sales and bulk buying: don't touch! The modern techniques of self-defense, competition and recreation shooting have been demanding a high ammunition volume for shooters, civilian and law enforcement. Enacting a ban on online ammunition sales, which are cheaper for many consumers, even after shipping, or enacting a back ground check will hamper majority of law abiding citizen's means to practice and train for self-defense purposes and proper gun responsibilities. This will also hamper law enforcement officers who seek to train when their department's budgets run out for training ammo. If you want more responsible gun owners, don't restrict their means to train as they please, when they please. A background check will violate the 4th amendment clause of unreasonable search and seizure for a 20 round box of .22s that a law abiding citizen can only afford that day.
No federal ammunition tax. Period.
Last thing, start restricting the intimidation of the federal law enforcement agencies' tactics in gathering information of legal gun owners, and business owners.
brickboy240
01-16-13, 16:06
None of this is meant to "accomplish" a damn thing.
This is mostly symbolism over substance.
This is also how liberals operate....nothing new, really.
-brickboy240
Belmont31R
01-16-13, 16:06
I understand your frustration but in general people abusing their first amendment rights is not getting people killed.
Pat
Marx printed out his ideological theory and communism killed over 150,000,000 million just in the 20th Century.
Marx printed out his ideological theory and communism killed over 150,000,000 million just in the 20th Century.
So therefore we shouldn't have the right to free speech?
Alaskapopo
01-16-13, 16:09
No matter what you do you aren't going to stop criminals from getting guns, and I don't want this turn into a slippery slope to a centralized registry under a police state.
In any case a lot of the crime problems we have is because we have become soft on crime, and give prosecutors too much leeway in charging people with crimes. A lot of times these firearms laws get turned into bargaining chips to get people to plead guilty, and then they end up serving a lot less time than they should. On top of that we have early release programs, coddle people in jail, and it's nothing more than a revolving door justice system where known violent offenders are let out to terrorize society.
Alaskapopo mentioned the guy who shot at the firefighters, and no one is asking why a guy who killed his grandma with hammer was ever released from jail to begin with. Then since he was released we have to have more firearms restrictions? I place 100% of the blame on that shooting on NYS who released a violent murderer, and many of the other crime problems we have on similar circumstances. We used to hang horse thief's, and now people who beat family members heads in with hammers spend a few years in jail all the while it's us non-criminal people who have to pay the price with not only dealing with these violent people when they are let out but losing our rights over them, too.
I don't think many here are going to argue with you over the flaws in our criminal justice system. Personally I support the death penalty and that guy should have been put to death for killing his grandmother. But I still believe we can help the problem of criminals and the mentally ill getting guns with the background check system proposed on all private sales.
Pat
Belmont31R
01-16-13, 16:09
Ironically, I have to concede that requiring background checks for private sales at gun shows will probably increase the number of guns stolen in burglaries.
Criminals will get guns no matter what. The idea is to just make it as difficult as possible.
Then there will be storage laws, and so forth and so on. Incrementalism...
We are dealing with the SAME people who don't think we have a right to self defense. Read the dissenting opinions in Heller, and McDonald.
Really? What is requiring background checks for private sales at gunshows going to accomplish? Meet in the show, leave the show and go to the parking lot, do the sale there. How has anyone prevented anything?
Some states ban gun sales right outside gun shows and run stings as both buyer and seller to catch people who would do that kind of behavior.
No matter what you do you aren't going to stop criminals from getting guns, and I don't want this turn into a slippery slope to a centralized registry under a police state.
In any case a lot of the crime problems we have is because we have become soft on crime, and give prosecutors too much leeway in charging people with crimes. A lot of times these firearms laws get turned into bargaining chips to get people to plead guilty, and then they end up serving a lot less time than they should. On top of that we have early release programs, coddle people in jail, and it's nothing more than a revolving door justice system where known violent offenders are let out to terrorize society.
Alaskapopo mentioned the guy who shot at the firefighters, and no one is asking why a guy who killed his grandma with hammer was ever released from jail to begin with. Then since he was released we have to have more firearms restrictions? I place 100% of the blame on that shooting on NYS who released a violent murderer, and many of the other crime problems we have on similar circumstances. We used to hang horse thief's, and now people who beat family members heads in with hammers spend a few years in jail all the while it's us non-criminal people who have to pay the price with not only dealing with these violent people when they are let out but losing our rights over them, too.
My statement was how I personally do business. I am not going to sit here and say that this is how it should be (just to be clear). I think that if every responsible gun owner followed this, less guns would get in the hands of criminals.
As far as your statement about being soft on crime, I could not agree with you more. Only ONE of the gun crimes that I have arrested someone for has ever gone federal. That is a serious problem with our DA/ADA system in this country. We have MANDATORY sentencing for felons using guns in the commission of a crime. When I started as a police officer, the ADA would say "What do you think about dropping the gun charge for a guilty plea on the robbery?". Now, it's " We are dropping the gun charge so we can get a guilty plea on the robbery to speed the process up". This is absolute bullshit if you ask me!
There are very few murders that do not already have a serious criminal history...... That, my friends, is what we call a clue....
Alaskapopo
01-16-13, 16:10
Marx printed out his ideological theory and communism killed over 150,000,000 million just in the 20th Century.
People killed those people not Marx's writings.
Pat
People killed those people not Marx's writings.
Pat
Probably with guns too...
Belmont31R
01-16-13, 16:13
I don't think many here are going to argue with you over the flaws in our criminal justice system. Personally I support the death penalty and that guy should have been put to death for killing his grandmother. But I still believe we can help the problem of criminals and the mentally ill getting guns with the background check system proposed on all private sales.
Pat
I don't think the benefits you claim are worth giving the ATF anymore ability to compile a database on gun owners, and if you don't think they are not they showed up at my house with a Excel type spreadsheet of every firearm I'd bought for years from multiple dealers.
None of these gun control measures should be adopted before the ATF is reigned in and gun owners are given meaningful protections against government abuse. But of course that is not going to happen, and all we are going to get is more restrictive laws while the government is not corrected. So I won't support a single more gun law, and would rather deal with whatever imagined consequences people throw out there.
Which crimes that are felonies do you think should not be?
Pat
I think non-violent felons should retain their rights to protect themselves and their families. If a felon is too violent to have a gun then they're probably too violent to be in society at all. If that violent felon decides they want a gun, they're gonna get one.
As an example, I don't think marijuana possession should be a felony.
Alaskapopo
01-16-13, 16:16
I think non-violent felons should retain their rights to protect themselves and their families. If a felon is too violent to have a gun then they're probably too violent to be in society at all. If that violent felon decides they want a gun, they're gonna get one.
As an example, I don't think marijuana possession should be a felony.
I can agree with the marijuana part and generally its not a felony unless you have a lot of it. But I think that being a felon should come with some lasting costs because in most cases you broke the social contract in a bad way. I don't think felons should be able to vote either. I agree we need to make sure felonies are worthy of that title.
Pat
Belmont31R
01-16-13, 16:16
People killed those people not Marx's writings.
Pat
The pen is mightier than the sword, and promoting revolution IS getting people killed. That's why inciting a riot is illegal. :rolleyes:
Doc Safari
01-16-13, 16:17
I think non-violent felons should retain their rights to protect themselves and their families. If a felon is too violent to have a gun then they're probably too violent to be in society at all. If that violent felon decides they want a gun, they're gonna get one.
As an example, I don't think marijuana possession should be a felony.
Agreed. Legalize and tax pot like liquor. Prohibition of alcohol didn't work and neither does the war on drugs. I draw the line at coke, meth, heroin, and worse, though.
In my perfect world there should be no crimes without a victim.
There would be two punishments:
1. For crimes of theft: pay the victim back double
2. For crimes of violence: bullet in the back of the head.
Done deal.
Alaskapopo
01-16-13, 16:23
The pen is mightier than the sword, and promoting revolution IS getting people killed. That's why inciting a riot is illegal. :rolleyes:
Inciting a riot is an immediate threat. Writing down political beliefs no matter how extreme is not the same thing. Yelling fire in a theater is illegal or fighting words as well. But take the deaths from these abuses and stack them against 2nd amendment rights abuses and its not even close.
Pat
Doc Safari
01-16-13, 16:24
Gents, I've got it.
Just like the liberals think they should be pro-choice on abortions, we should be allowed to be pro-choice on the types of firearms we own.
I can agree with the marijuana part and generally its not a felony unless you have a lot of it. But I think that being a felon should come with some lasting costs because in most cases you broke the social contract in a bad way. I don't think felons should be able to vote either. I agree we need to make sure felonies are worthy of that title.Pat
In some places it's less than 30 grams and I'm sure less even others that I don't know about but I don't want to get hung up on the pot drug debate cause everybody has an opinion and it's probably not gonna change. Although a quick search showed this Houston Astros dipshit driving around burning a joint and getting stuck with a felony for 25 grams. http://aol.sportingnews.com/mlb/story/2011-10-04/astros-jordan-schafer-charged-with-felony-marijuana-possession Please no more drug talk, sorry I started it.
A person who cheated on their taxes or a regulatory deal isn't someone who needs to be disbarred the use of firearms after they've finished their incarceration. I think getting hung up on the word "felon" is the problem. If the ****er's violent than I would say it's a no-go but then how are we rehabilitating them and turning them loose if they're still a threat?
No easy answer but I don't think just because someone has the label "felon" that they automatically lose their rights. The majority of our Founding Fathers would be considered felons for their various "crimes" against the crown.
Which crimes that are felonies do you think should not be?
Pat
It is not felonies epr se, just non-violent felonies like tax evasion that allow people to lose their rights for a long time. I know you can petition the court at a later date to show that you have been good, but white collar crimes shouldn't have you loose the ability to protect yourself. Violent offenses, sure. Hell, I think gross misdemeanor offenses that involve aggravated assault or the serious bodily harm of another should remove firearm rights.
In my perfect world there should be no crimes without a victim.
I agree, malum prohibitum VS malum in se.
Now, getting information to be placed in NCIS for people who are mentally unstable is going to be tricky.
Well, from my point of view, this is never going to happen for one glaring reason: HIPAA
Privacy Rule
The effective compliance date of the Privacy Rule was April 14, 2003 with a one-year extension for certain "small plans". The HIPAA Privacy Rule regulates the use and disclosure of Protected Health Information (PHI) held by "covered entities" (generally, health care clearinghouses, employer sponsored health plans, health insurers, and medical service providers that engage in certain transactions.)[12] By regulation, the Department of Health and Human Services extended the HIPAA privacy rule to independent contractors of covered entities who fit within the definition of "business associates".[13] PHI is any information held by a covered entity which concerns health status, provision of health care, or payment for health care that can be linked to an individual.[14] This is interpreted rather broadly and includes any part of an individual's medical record or payment history. Covered entities must disclose PHI to the individual within 30 days upon request.[15] They also must disclose PHI when required to do so by law such as reporting suspected child abuse to state child welfare agencies.[16]
A covered entity may disclose PHI (Protected Health Information) to facilitate treatment, payment, or health care operations without a patient's express written authorization.[17] Any other disclosures of PHI (Protected Health Information) require the covered entity to obtain written authorization from the individual for the disclosure.[18] However, when a covered entity discloses any PHI, it must make a reasonable effort to disclose only the minimum necessary information required to achieve its purpose.[19]
The Privacy Rule gives individuals the right to request that a covered entity correct any inaccurate PHI.[20] It also requires covered entities to take reasonable steps to ensure the confidentiality of communications with individuals.[21] For example, an individual can ask to be called at his or her work number instead of home or cell phone numbers.
The Privacy Rule requires covered entities to notify individuals of uses of their PHI. Covered entities must also keep track of disclosures of PHI and document privacy policies and procedures.[22] They must appoint a Privacy Official and a contact person[23] responsible for receiving complaints and train all members of their workforce in procedures regarding PHI.[24]
An individual who believes that the Privacy Rule is not being upheld can file a complaint with the Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR).[25][26] However, according to the Wall Street Journal, the OCR has a long backlog and ignores most complaints. "Complaints of privacy violations have been piling up at the Department of Health and Human Services. Between April of 2003 and November 2006, the agency fielded 23,886 complaints related to medical-privacy rules, but it has not yet taken any enforcement actions against hospitals, doctors, insurers or anyone else for rule violations. A spokesman for the agency says it has closed three-quarters of the complaints, typically because it found no violation or after it provided informal guidance to the parties involved."[27] However, in July 2011, UCLA agreed to pay $865,500 in a settlement regarding potential HIPAA violations. An HHS Office for Civil Rights investigation showed that from 2005 to 2008 unauthorized employees repeatedly and without legitimate cause looked at the electronic protected health information of numerous UCLAHS patients.[28]
Yeah yeah I know, wikipedia, but here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_and_Accountability_Act
Belmont31R
01-16-13, 16:37
Inciting a riot is an immediate threat. Writing down political beliefs no matter how extreme is not the same thing. Yelling fire in a theater is illegal or fighting words as well. But take the deaths from these abuses and stack them against 2nd amendment rights abuses and its not even close.
Pat
Are you familiar with the various sedition acts? We have thrown thousands of people in jail over it because Congress deemed words which interfere with the national interest were criminal. Inciting a revolution via written words DOES have consequences, and Marx's published ideology led to over 150,000,000 deaths.
threeheadeddog
01-16-13, 16:40
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
This one scares me. It makes me think of the DC ban. They were allowed guns but only if in pieces in a locked safe. A safe gun is a useless gun.
Belmont31R
01-16-13, 16:49
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
This one scares me. It makes me think of the DC ban. They were allowed guns but only if in pieces in a locked safe. A safe gun is a useless gun.
Heller decision already ruled requiring disassembly or storage where a person cannot readily use a gun for self defense unconstitutional.
threeheadeddog
01-16-13, 16:49
Also, as I have stated in other threads I dont believe in removing rights of anyone including felons either. If you are free to rome the country you should be free to protect yourself or vote. If not that stay in jail until the death penalty can be implimented.
This entire direction of thinking though, I admit, hinges on the justice system actually dealing with violent criminals. Since IMHO they dont, than you cannot act in my wonderful fantasy world.
I do think that it should be pointed out though, that IMHO the entire point of incarceration for non-violent crimes is to punish people for the crimes the committed and hopelfully prevent them from commitning them again. If when they get out they are still hanging on to things that prevent them from being excepted by society(in general terms) or are prevented the basic right of protection, than what incentive do they have to live within the law from then on.
I believe most here would have a hard time not taking all the action you can to protect your family. If it was illegal to do so it makes staying legal difficult.
brickboy240
01-16-13, 16:56
Other than the ovens and swastika...what is really the difference in Obama and that other guy?
...only their skin color, really.
-brickboy240
montanadave
01-16-13, 16:59
http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/2301/628x471m.jpg http://www.standrewsblantyre.com/images/stories/blog/hitler-and-child.jpg http://farm1.static.flickr.com/138/328574440_d06e3e5012.jpghttp://img833.imageshack.us/img833/5480/2jesusandthechildrensha.jpg
And your point is?
Enough with this kind of stupid shit already.
shaneinhisroom
01-16-13, 17:03
^Agreed.
polydeuces
01-16-13, 17:05
Gents, I've got it.
Just like the liberals think they should be pro-choice on abortions, we should be allowed to be pro-choice on the types of firearms we own.
Ha... funny, but a very viable and real argument.
Disliking the use of labels and generalizations but for the sake of making my point..
Just as "conservatives" tend to be fanatically anti-abortion, "liberals" tend to be fanatically anti gun.
There's no reasonable thought, nor balanced argument, no educated opinion, and no lack of prejudice what-so-ever!
That boundless display of ignorance when arguing why they think fire-arms are bad is staggering but nevertheless in their mind ever so right;
The very same "ignorant" behavior they've always accused conservatives of, that claiming of moral high-ground, is now very much being displayed by those considering themselves more enlightened - as liberals tend to.....
Sustaining an old argument, with new terminology as it's being applied - and, pay attention here:
Its no longer "fire-arms" or "guns" - it is "GUN-VIOLENCE" - The new term you will find being used by that media.
Want to see the real picture? Start paying attention to less familiar voices. It may seem a strange idea, but the only way you know what they really want is by listening to their radio, TV internet and all other media.
It will become loud and clear - they will not quit.
This was nothing more than round one, a warm-up where all are testing the water and a few soft punches have been thrown.
The real bruising is yet to begin - and it will come from angles we never knew existed.
Looking at most of Europe as a model, anything short of that would be considered a lost battle to them.
Anyone not understanding this will be up for a very rude awakening. Its a real fight, and one where we can not afford to compromise, get distracted or get soft - or we'll lose.
QuickStrike
01-16-13, 17:07
And your point is?
Enough with this kind of stupid shit already.
lol, don't you see??? He also murdered MILLIONS of people! :rolleyes:
Yes, he is an anti-gun turd... and we need to be wary of what he pulls next. But damn...
Mauser KAR98K
01-16-13, 17:10
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/138/328574440_d06e3e5012.jpg
And your point is?
Enough with this kind of stupid shit already.
That little girl that Stalin is holding saw her mother taken and murdered by order of Joseph Stalin. No it is not stupid shit considering what their agenda is.
Belmont31R
01-16-13, 17:12
lol, don't you see??? He also murdered MILLIONS of people! :rolleyes:
Yes, he is an anti-gun turd... and we need to be wary of what he pulls next. But damn...
I don't think it's all that unreasonable when they are putting Mao ornaments on the White House Christmas tree.
Business_Casual
01-16-13, 17:12
Alaskapopo
Which crimes that are felonies do you think should not be?
Pat
Process crimes.
The bible already lists all the felonies we need - murder, theft, etc.
bc
Moose-Knuckle
01-16-13, 17:57
And your point is?
Enough with this kind of stupid shit already.
Well for starters Jesus of Nazareth never disarmed or attempted to disarm a nation. In fact he told his followers to sell their cloaks (expensive garments of that day) and buy a sword to protect themselves.
And I don't think it's stupid shit to remember things that transpired less than a hundred years ago.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." ~ George Santayana
TurretGunner
01-16-13, 18:10
I know what side I am on however I am not for making it as easy as possible for criminals and the mentally ill to get guns. I would imagine you are not either. There are ways to have checks in place to make it harder for felons and the mentally ill from getting guns while not infringing on the 2nd amendment rights of law abiding citizens.
Pat
There are already crimes for what you have said. No law is going to stop some criminal from getting a gun, same as it will keep moonshone, weed and meth out of peoples hands.
Furthermore I encourage felons to become armed. If they have already paid their debt to society, then their rights should be restored in full. If you cant trust them with guns or being able to vote, then they should still be in a cage. Most have paid their debts and owe nothing more to you , me or anyone.
TurretGunner
01-16-13, 18:12
Process crimes.
The bible already lists all the felonies we need - murder, theft, etc.
bc
Thank god for the seperation of church and state. For a second I thought you cited the bible as the justification for law......
TurretGunner
01-16-13, 18:14
It is not felonies epr se, just non-violent felonies like tax evasion that allow people to lose their rights for a long time. I know you can petition the court at a later date to show that you have been good, but white collar crimes shouldn't have you loose the ability to protect yourself. Violent offenses, sure. Hell, I think gross misdemeanor offenses that involve aggravated assault or the serious bodily harm of another should remove firearm rights.
Anyone who is a free citizen should be able to own firearms. Everyone else should be locked in a cage, an institution or euthenized. There consitituion says nothing of second class citizenry.
Alaskapopo
01-16-13, 18:18
There are already crimes for what you have said. No law is going to stop some criminal from getting a gun, same as it will keep moonshone, weed and meth out of peoples hands.
Furthermore I encourage felons to become armed. If they have already paid their debt to society, then their rights should be restored in full. If you cant trust them with guns or being able to vote, then they should still be in a cage. Most have paid their debts and owe nothing more to you , me or anyone.
That is crazy. Their debt is not paid just because they got out of jail.
Pat
Yep and a lot are probably felons or the mentally ill
Pat
It is amazing how you can just make up stuff like that without a single fact in the world to back it up.
He wants them to prosecute people who buy guns with the express intention of selling them to criminals.
So why aren't the folks responsible for Fast and Furious doing serious federal prison time??Because no one is holding them responsible.
As much as I don't want to say anything bad about Lincoln...
Yeah. He ****ed up on that one.
Lincoln is responsible for 600,000 lost american lives. He is one of the worst presidents the U.S has ever had . What is good to say about lincoln.
Alaskapopo
01-16-13, 18:40
It is amazing how you can just make up stuff like that without a single fact in the world to back it up.
How about common sense. Wink wink nudge nunge nundge buy from me because I don't do background checks. Yea that's not shady!:rolleyes:
Alaskapopo
01-16-13, 18:41
Lincoln is responsible for 600,000 lost american lives. He is one of the worst presidents the U.S has ever had . What is good to say about lincoln.
What? He freed the slaves united the country. He was the BEST president we have ever had.
Pat
He may be saving the gun cconfiscation for his possible third term.
What? He freed the slaves united the country. He was the BEST president we have ever had.
Pat
Sarcasm?
What? He freed the slaves united the country. He was the BEST president we have ever had.
Pat
Just about every country in the world has had, or does have, slavery. No other country has had to have a civil war to end slavery. He's responsible for the rape, torture and mass murder of countless many women, children and innocent civilians to further his political ends of centralized government.
What? He freed the slaves united the country. He was the BEST president we have ever had.
Pat
There was slavery in Texas long after Lincoln was dead.
WTF? Seriously?
Obama declaring his beliefs about gun ownership. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHmMzAcKCUg)
Obama talking about people's rights to own guns. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB4ew09eoeQ)
Having lived through a dictatorship myself, the steps that dictators take just before firearms confiscation is the registration of legally-owned firearms in order to "differentiate them fro the ones that are n the possession of criminals". Sound familiar?
No, seriously.
"Everybody" has expected "gun control" from this guy and we have not seen it.
"Everybody" expected FAR worse.
A shooter he is not.
This "started" back in 1961 with JFK signing Nat'l Security Memorandum 7277 also known as "Freedom from War".
All presidents since JFK knew this and NONE of them rescinded it.
Bush stated that he would sign the AWB if it came across HIS desk.
Some of you talk about "tin foil" but the man had an opportunity to so FAR worse and he chose not to. Surely, pissing off the Globalist Elite Banksters who claim to win this nation (by not doing more) has to count for something, no?
Maybe he knows what follows a complete confiscation. Maybe he got "tin foil" letters and emails from some of our very own...
Just sayin'
Belmont31R
01-16-13, 18:53
Lincoln destroyed the Founder's vision of a limited centralized government who acted on the consent of the governed with sovereign member States, and turned it into an all powerful centralized government with subservient states.
He did not end slavery. That was the 13 Amendment.
TurretGunner
01-16-13, 18:55
That is crazy. Their debt is not paid just because they got out of jail.
Pat
Actually, that is exactly what it means.
They were punished for their crimes and now expected to become members of society. We wonder why the Recidivism rate is so high when they are basically 3rd class citizens, unable to get a decent job, vote, or defend themselves. Shit, I would be selling drugs or commiting crimes if that was the only way I could make a decent living for myself or my family.
If someone paid their debt, then it is paid.
By you logic, I should be able to punch you in the face for talking back to your mother when you were 8.
Lincoln is responsible for 600,000 lost american lives. He is one of the worst presidents the U.S has ever had . What is good to say about lincoln.
Yep. Us Southerners (or more correctly, our Southern leadership) had NOTHING to do with it.
Siding with the god damned British Crown ain't worth an ass whipping - exactly no where.
They were "reds" (redcoats) then and they are Red (communist) now and are STILL an enemy to the American form of gov't and the American people.
What? He freed the slaves united the country. He was the BEST president we have ever had.
Pat
One of the worst. And lets get one thing straight, anyone that knows anything about history knows that the Civil War had almost nothing to do with Slavery.
Lincoln was a turd and they are trying to paint Barry as the second coming.
Littlelebowski
01-16-13, 18:59
What? He freed the slaves united the country. He was the BEST president we have ever had.
Pat
Your libertarian journey is just beginning.
Unsubscribed.
That is crazy. Their debt is not paid just because they got out of jail.
Pat
I beg to differ. If they are released from prison and parole they are free and thy have liberty. As such they are Unorganized Militia of the State in which they reside.
Your libertarian journey is just beginning.
Unsubscribed.
LOL that post made my day.......lol
How about when somebody is a prohibited person, we just prohibit them from ever re-entering the general population of the United States.
Agreed.
TurretGunner
01-16-13, 19:00
Lincoln destroyed the Founder's vision of a limited centralized government who acted on the consent of the governed with sovereign member States, and turned it into an all powerful centralized government with subservient states.
He did not end slavery. That was the 13 Amendment.
It's funny how people fail to rememeber that his efforts would have (as they did post war) destroyed the south's economy. It would be like going through the rust belt in 1910 and outlawing the production of steel or any manufacturing. You think they would just sit by while their economy is destroyed?
You can tell who the closet liberal statists are. They out themselves easily.
One of the worst. And lets get one thing straight, anyone that knows anything about history knows that the Civil War had almost nothing to do with Slavery.
Lincoln was a turd and they are trying to paint Barry as the second coming.
It was about the British Crown and her Agents trying (unsuccessfully) dividing a nation that was (and remains) a threat to the Crowned Heads of EUrope.
Actually, we don't know WHAT Lincoln WOULD HAVE DONE as conspirators killed him leaving us with an interpretation of his aims.
No, seriously.
"Everybody" has expected "gun control" from this guy and we have not seen it.
"Everybody" expected FAR worse.
A shooter he is not.
This "started" back in 1961 with JFK signing Nat'l Security Memorandum 7277 also known as "Freedom from War".
All presidents since JFK knew this and NONE of them rescinded it.
Bush stated that he would sign the AWB if it came across HIS desk.
Some of you talk about "tin foil" but the man had an opportunity to so FAR worse and he chose not to. Surely, pissing off the Globalist Elite Banksters who claim to win this nation (by not doing more) has to count for something, no?
Maybe he knows what follows a complete confiscation. Maybe he got "tin foil" letters and emails from some of our very own...
Just sayin'I thought I was the only one aware of the freedom from war bill!!!!! All should read the bill and see how it is being implimented step by step, The John Birch Society which by the way is a great source of information about happenings is our government and the world has gotten in great detail on this and other bills http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/freedom_war.html look up the JBS right now http://www.jbs.org/
From DRUDGE:
'Health care providers' to offer gun safety tips...
'Counselors' in schools...
At least $4.5 billion in new spending...
Press doctors to ask patients about guns in homes
This perked my interest today, as a nurse came for a home visit/checkup for our 1 month old. Which was nice, until she started asking about guns in the home.
GTFO.
Actually, we don't know WHAT Lincoln WOULD HAVE DONE as patriots killed him leaving us with an interpretation of his aims.
fixed
A lot of people were shitting on the NRA for supporting Harry Reid's re-election. The NRA doesn't seem so dumb now.
http://www.redstate.com/2013/01/14/harry-reids-priorities-immigration-not-assault-weapons/
and are STILL an enemy to the American form of gov't and the American people.
So the Brits and their form of Gov't are our enemies? Please tell me you're not that ignorant.
I beg to differ. If they are released from prison and parole they are free and thy have liberty. As such they are Unorganized Militia of the State in which they reside.
A blanket statement like that is without merit.
Much like Obama, Lincoln issued an executive order for political purposes that that did absolutely nothing. He "freed" slaves under the control of the Confederate Government, while those in slave states under Federal control were still slaves.
Meanwhile, prior to the first shots of the war Lincoln supported a Constitutional Amend guaranteeing the existence of slavery.
It's the same crap they pull today. Lincoln is 75% myth. Obama is 95% percent myth
This perked my interest today, as a nurse came for a home visit/checkup for our 1 month old. Which was nice, until she started asking about guns in the home.
GTFO.
Simple response to that: Guns? What guns?
Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2
Cagemonkey
01-16-13, 19:47
It was about the British Crown and her Agents trying (unsuccessfully) dividing a nation that was (and remains) a threat to the Crowned Heads of EUrope.I agree the British would have liked to take advantage of a divided USA. However, the seeds of conflict between North and South existed before the USA ratified the Constitution. The differences between the Agrarian Planter Society of the South with their anti-federalist views vs the Industrial Merchant Society of the North and their federalist point of view had always existed. Slavery was an after thought. It wasn't that the North was morally superior regarding slavery and race. It was that slavery didn't fit into the economic paradigm for the North and that the North had an almost nonexistent Black population. Remember the Emancipation Proclamation only freed Slaves in the South. Any Slaves in territories loyal to the Union were still bound to their Master's. Lincoln was a Dictator. The rights to Succeed was always understood.
montanadave
01-16-13, 19:59
A lot of people were shitting on the NRA for supporting Harry Reid's re-election. The NRA doesn't seem so dumb now.
http://www.redstate.com/2013/01/14/harry-reids-priorities-immigration-not-assault-weapons/
The House is going to sit tight and wait for the Senate to bring them something on gun control. After all, Senator Feinstein is running point on this issue, right? And Harry Reid has a big problem because he has a significant number of Democratic senators (particularly from the West) who have a strong record on gun rights and know that passing more federal gun control laws is the kiss of death.
Senator Heitkamp from North Dakota has already gone on record saying the White House recommendations are too extreme and Senator Baucus from Montana (also ranking member and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee) is up for reelection in 2014. Reid is NEVER going to force these senators to vote on any gun control measures which could be a career-killer when the same legislation hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of passing the House.
From the article cited above:
“Let’s be realistic,” Reid said. “In the Senate, we’re going to do what we think can get through the House and I’m not going to go through a bunch of these gyrations just to say we’ve done something. If we’re really legislators, the purpose of it is to pass legislation.”
Translation:
"I ain't going to hang my guys out to dry and risk our majority in the Senate on a ceremonial vote just to make the president look good."
Alaskapopo
01-16-13, 20:02
I beg to differ. If they are released from prison and parole they are free and thy have liberty. As such they are Unorganized Militia of the State in which they reside.
That is your right to believe that but that is crazy. It would be different if we truly re-habilitated people in prision or even kept them there long enough but we don't . Allowing felons to own guns is reckless as we know what they will do with them.
Pat
Moose-Knuckle
01-16-13, 20:11
Allowing felons to own guns is reckless as we know what they will do with them.
Pat
How many law abiding gun owners were made into felons in NYS overnight?
In a perfect world we would start taking out the trash and not have to contend with such notions as "repeat offenders" or career criminals (i.e. murderes, robbers, rapist, child molesters, etc.).
This perked my interest today, as a nurse came for a home visit/checkup for our 1 month old. Which was nice, until she started asking about guns in the home.
GTFO.
1)The answer is I hate guns!!!
2) the answer I give is none of you ****ing business . You have enough trouble being a doctor.Yes they aren't happy to see me. When I was a Kaiser member through work . Calling the doctor lazy ass Kaiser doctors really offended them because they get paid more for doing less.
There are already crimes for what you have said. No law is going to stop some criminal from getting a gun, same as it will keep moonshone, weed and meth out of peoples hands.
Furthermore I encourage felons to become armed. If they have already paid their debt to society, then their rights should be restored in full. If you cant trust them with guns or being able to vote, then they should still be in a cage. Most have paid their debts and owe nothing more to you , me or anyone.
Anyone who is a free citizen should be able to own firearms. Everyone else should be locked in a cage, an institution or euthenized. There consitituion says nothing of second class citizenry.
Actually, that is exactly what it means.
They were punished for their crimes and now expected to become members of society. We wonder why the Recidivism rate is so high when they are basically 3rd class citizens, unable to get a decent job, vote, or defend themselves. Shit, I would be selling drugs or commiting crimes if that was the only way I could make a decent living for myself or my family.
If someone paid their debt, then it is paid.
By you logic, I should be able to punch you in the face for talking back to your mother when you were 8.
No to all of this and the recidivism rate is so high because they're career criminals. It's what they do. The majority of them can't get a decent job because crime is their job. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Btw, the membership of this and other firearms forums have been screaming for the government to blame the people, not the implement. The EOs that the President signed today is expressly to control the very people that most of you have been screaming are responsible for this rather lengthy debate.
We got what we wanted and yet many are still finding ways to turn this into some type of conspiracy. That's bullshit. The measures to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally unstable and the criminals is just and fair. Background checks equal good for the majority of the citizens in this country.
And the fact that the President is pro AW/Hi cap mag ban isn't a revelation. It isn't these incidents that have pushed him in that direction; he's always been in favor of this.
Belmont31R
01-16-13, 20:32
Senator Rand Paul is going to introduce legislation in the senate to combat some of the EO's Obama signed today, and said gun control is most likely a no-go in Congress.
Moose-Knuckle
01-16-13, 20:37
1)The answer is I hate guns!!!
2) the answer I give is none of you ****ing business . You have enough trouble being a doctor.Yes they aren't happy to see me. When I was a Kaiser member through work . Calling the doctor lazy ass Kaiser doctors really offended them because they get paid more for doing less.
I just had this convo with my wife AGAIN this very afternoon. The answer is not just no "but hell no, we hate guns, they scare us to death". Scouts honor. :ph34r:
She then told me about a colleague who went with his wife to take their two flu stricken kiddos to their pediatrician. The nurse asked the father to go down the hall and get a cup of ice. When he came back in the room with the ice the nurse stepped out. His wife then told him, "Do you know what the nurse asked me when you left the room? She asked me if you abuse me!" When they confronted the office staff about questioning the wife if she is abused or not they replied its state law.
We haven't seen anything yet . . .
TurretGunner
01-16-13, 20:37
No to all of this and the recidivism rate is so high because they're career criminals. It's what they do. The majority of them can't get a decent job because crime is their job. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Btw, the membership of this and other firearms forums have been screaming for the government to blame the people, not the implement. The EOs that the President signed today is expressly to control the very people that most of you have been screaming are responsible for this rather lengthy debate.
We got what we wanted and yet many are still finding ways to turn this into some type of conspiracy. That's bullshit. The measures to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally unstable and the criminals is just and fair. Background checks equal good for the majority of the citizens in this country.
And the fact that the President is pro AW/Hi cap mag ban isn't a revelation. It isn't these incidents that have pushed him in that direction; he's always been in favor of this.
Your right. After serving a few years.... all they can think about is commiting another crime so they can go right back to the cell block.
"It has been suggested that for many decades, correctional observers did not give priority to the reality that offenders who reenter society face a varied assortment of daunting challenges that predictably lead to high recidivism rates. Various researchers also noted that prisoners are stripped of civil rights and are reluctantly absorbed into communities which leads to their further alienation and isolation. A final factor when looking at the causes of recidivism is the difficulty of a released offender when faced with finding a job, renting an apartment or getting an education.
Owners of business will often refuse to hire a convicted felon and are at best hesitant, especially in any position that entails even minor responsibility or the handling of money (note that this includes most work), especially to those convicted of thievery, such as larceny, or drug addicts.[22] Many leasing corporations (those organisations and/or people who own and rent apartments) now routinely perform criminal background checks and disqualify ex-convicts (although many apartments, especially in the inner city or in areas with high crime rates, even if having such an official policy, do not follow it, or it leads to a situation where apartments are held in the name of a someone other than the occupant without a felony record).
People with criminal records report difficulty or the inability to find educational opportunities, and are often denied financial aid based on their records. In America, those found guilty of even a minor misdemeanor (in some states, a citation offense, such as a traffic ticket) or misdemeanour drug offence (for example, simple possession of marijuana or heroin, respectively) are disqualified from receiving all government-funded educational loans and financial aid"
You know not what you speak of. You are as bad as the ignorant liberals trying to make gun policy yet not even know which end of the stick goes bang.
You are a closet liberal, who has the inability to think for yourself. If you think any of this latest gun scare shit is about keeping little johnny and sally safe, then you need to schedule a psychological evaluation.
Alaskapopo
01-16-13, 20:42
Your right. After serving a few years.... all they can think about is commiting another crime so they can go right back to the cell block.
"It has been suggested that for many decades, correctional observers did not give priority to the reality that offenders who reenter society face a varied assortment of daunting challenges that predictably lead to high recidivism rates. Various researchers also noted that prisoners are stripped of civil rights and are reluctantly absorbed into communities which leads to their further alienation and isolation. A final factor when looking at the causes of recidivism is the difficulty of a released offender when faced with finding a job, renting an apartment or getting an education.
Owners of business will often refuse to hire a convicted felon and are at best hesitant, especially in any position that entails even minor responsibility or the handling of money (note that this includes most work), especially to those convicted of thievery, such as larceny, or drug addicts.[22] Many leasing corporations (those organisations and/or people who own and rent apartments) now routinely perform criminal background checks and disqualify ex-convicts (although many apartments, especially in the inner city or in areas with high crime rates, even if having such an official policy, do not follow it, or it leads to a situation where apartments are held in the name of a someone other than the occupant without a felony record).
People with criminal records report difficulty or the inability to find educational opportunities, and are often denied financial aid based on their records. In America, those found guilty of even a minor misdemeanor (in some states, a citation offense, such as a traffic ticket) or misdemeanour drug offence (for example, simple possession of marijuana or heroin, respectively) are disqualified from receiving all government-funded educational loans and financial aid"
You know not what you speak of. You are as bad as the ignorant liberals trying to make gun policy yet not even know which end of the stick goes bang.
Can you blame a buisness owner for not wanting to hire a convicted felon. The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior. I would never hire one. That is part of the price they pay for what they did. They will have to settle for shit jobs until they have proven themselves to their community and earned that trust back and it will be a long and hard road.
You talk of education loans but you don't seem to realize the various education programs in prison that they can take advantage of. In some prisions they can even get a college degree. My heart does not bleed for felons but it does for their victims.
Pat
Alaskapopo
01-16-13, 20:43
Your right. After serving a few years.... all they can think about is commiting another crime so they can go right back to the cell block.
You are a closet liberal, who has the inability to think for yourself. If you think any of this latest gun scare shit is about keeping little johnny and sally safe, then you need to schedule a psychological evaluation.
Why is that some need to label others when they don't agree with them. Striker and I don't always agree but I can tell you he is very far from the lable you gave him there.
Pat
Alaskapopo
01-16-13, 20:45
How many law abiding gun owners were made into felons in NYS overnight?
In a perfect world we would start taking out the trash and not have to contend with such notions as "repeat offenders" or career criminals (i.e. murderes, robbers, rapist, child molesters, etc.).
There not felons yet. They have a year to do what the law requires and hopefully that gives them enough time to fight this in court. Like I said before I think we need to go over what crimes are felonies to make sure they deserve the title.
Pat
TurretGunner
01-16-13, 20:45
No to all of this and the recidivism rate is so high because they're career criminals. It's what they do. The majority of them can't get a decent job because crime is their job. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Btw, the membership of this and other firearms forums have been screaming for the government to blame the people, not the implement. The EOs that the President signed today is expressly to control the very people that most of you have been screaming are responsible for this rather lengthy debate.
We got what we wanted and yet many are still finding ways to turn this into some type of conspiracy. That's bullshit. The measures to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally unstable and the criminals is just and fair. Background checks equal good for the majority of the citizens in this country.
And the fact that the President is pro AW/Hi cap mag ban isn't a revelation. It isn't these incidents that have pushed him in that direction; he's always been in favor of this.
So tell me this ****ing genius, How is one supposed to become a productive member of society when you cant find a job, cant find a place to live, are stuck on public assitance and in the event you do find a legit job, its guarenteed to be minimum wage. Since you are destined to live in a low income and most likely crime riddle area, you arent even allowed to defend yourself or your familly.
With cards stacked against someone like that, its amazing ALL of them don't return to a life a crime.
And please explain how everyone who is released from prison is a career criminal? They must defy the laws of logic since none of them are first time offenders.
Alaskapopo
01-16-13, 20:49
So tell me this ****ing genius, How is one supposed to become a productive member of society when you cant find a job, cant find a place to live, are stuck on public assitance and in the event you do find a legit job, its guarenteed to be minimum wage. Since you are destined to live in a low income and most likely crime riddle area, you arent even allowed to defend yourself or your familly.
With cards stacked against someone like that, its amazing ALL of them don't return to a life a crime.
And please explain how everyone who is released from prison is a career criminal? They must defy the laws of logic since none of them are first time offenders.
Yea those are things to think about before committing a felony. Life will suck afterwards so what. Yes they will have to take crap jobs and work at them until they have enough work history and good references to get a better job. Actions have consequences.
Pat
I don't know if you should be so sure we got what we wanted yet. I am not saying hellfire is coming but I would think its way to early to think he is done. He hates guns, don't kid yourself.
No to all of this and the recidivism rate is so high because they're career criminals. It's what they do. The majority of them can't get a decent job because crime is their job. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Btw, the membership of this and other firearms forums have been screaming for the government to blame the people, not the implement. The EOs that the President signed today is expressly to control the very people that most of you have been screaming are responsible for this rather lengthy debate.
We got what we wanted and yet many are still finding ways to turn this into some type of conspiracy. That's bullshit. The measures to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally unstable and the criminals is just and fair. Background checks equal good for the majority of the citizens in this country.
And the fact that the President is pro AW/Hi cap mag ban isn't a revelation. It isn't these incidents that have pushed him in that direction; he's always been in favor of this.
TurretGunner
01-16-13, 20:53
Can you blame a buisness owner for not wanting to hire a convicted felon. The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior. I would never hire one. That is part of the price they pay for what they did. They will have to settle for shit jobs until they have proven themselves to their community and earned that trust back and it will be a long and hard road.
You talk of education loans but you don't seem to realize the various education programs in prison that they can take advantage of. In some prisions they can even get a college degree. My heart does not bleed for felons but it does for their victims.
Pat
So you have just said you would refuse to hire a felon reguardless. How can someone earn a spot in society when there is no oppertunity to.
If they are deemed safe enough to roam free in society, then they should have all of their civil rights restored. Despite they fact that they have already paid their debt to society and should be made whole, they still are punished throughout their life.
Might as well put a bullet in their head and save everyone the trouble. It would be cheaper.
Then it would really suck to have some woman claim you raped her after a night of consensual drunk sex, or when a girl who claimed to be 20, turns out to be 16. Don't make a mistake on your taxes, Chop down the wrong tree on your property, or have a AR15 malfunction and go auto infront of a overzealous LEO. Since the justice system is infalible and no one has ever been executed who has later been found to be innocent.......I think this plan is just dandy.
TurretGunner
01-16-13, 20:59
Yea those are things to think about before committing a felony. Life will suck afterwards so what. Yes they will have to take crap jobs and work at them until they have enough work history and good references to get a better job. Actions have consequences.
Pat
Whats Ironic is there is a high probability you have committed a multitude of felonies, weather you know it or not.
Easy to paint everything with a broad brush. You sit there and say all they have to do is suck shit for years, struggle without little chance for advancement, and everything will work itself out. You forget to mention how unrealistic this is, and is not how the world is. All the evidence proves the system does not work and is a large part of the problem.
I'm not a religion person, but it's comical how people one hand claim to be christians yet want to judge, chastise, and refuse to forgive people for their past mistakes. Hypocrisy at its finest.
Like I said to the last gentleman, by your logic I should get to punch you in the face for something stupid you did when you were 9 years old.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.