Obama prepares order on guns

Guns themselves should be registered and licensed. And there should be examinations to determine if you can be licensed to use them. And insurance will have to be provided. And if your gun ends up in somebody else's hands and you didn't report it stolen, you go to jail right along with them.

Almost exactly like cars.
 
Whatever Obama winds up doing, it will have a miniscule effect on the buying or selling of guns, and even less of an effect on gun violence.

It will, of course, be trumpeted as a valiant stand against the NRA by one group of people, while another group of people decry it as a crime against the Constitution.

And so it goes...
 
lionking said:
A very small step in the right direction.
Click to expand...

And the above sentiment as expressed is exactly why so many firearms owners will reject any type of gun control measure based on the slippery slope premise.

We've seen two separate laws enacted in California wrt "Assault Weapons" with a 26 year track record of failure, and we're going to end up with a new AW law behind the San Bernardino murders, and whatever new law they can dream up won't be any more successful than the last two.
 
BStrong said:
And the above sentiment as expressed is exactly why so many firearms owners will reject any type of gun control measure based on the slippery slope premise.
Click to expand...
But that 'so many' is only a tiny 15% of all gun owners. 85 percent of gun owners favor universal background checks.

Your 'so many' is less than the number who think the World was created less than 10,000 years ago (18%), and it's only half as many as those (29%) who believe that Obama is a secret Muslim!

Why should we care about the delusions of a few nutjobs?
 
Roger Ramjets said:
Yes, because the president is just a figurehead. We all know who is really in charge - the NRA! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

In the US there is a system of checks and balances that constrain what the president can do. This does not include the NRA. Because of how the president is limited in this case, any unilateral action will have minuscule results.

...and will continue to go, while people continue to have such a defeatist attitude.
Click to expand...

And Trump can get that wall built and make Mexico pay for it. Doubt it? Defeatist!

I doubt Cleon was saying that nothing can be done but that anything done by executive order alone would likely be very limited. If you have an argument as to why that isn't the case, please present it.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
Yes, because the president is just a figurehead. We all know who is really in charge - the NRA! :rolleyes:

...and will continue to go, while people continue to have such a defeatist attitude.
Click to expand...
Because the Constitution begins with "We, the people..." and the NRA, like other groups of its ilk, are made up of people [\b], who have banded together to make sure their voices are heard. ..
 
Roger Ramjets said:
Yes, because the president is just a figurehead. We all know who is really in charge - the NRA! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

More like he's only got so much power via executive order.

But please, do continue taking my quotes out of context and assigning them a strawman conspiracy theory. It's a very convincing argument.

...and will continue to go, while people continue to have such a defeatist attitude.
Click to expand...

:dl:

Sorry, tovarisch.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
85 percent of gun owners favor universal background checks
Click to expand...

Maybe they should try passing a UBC bill that isn't filled with nonsense requiring a B/G check practically every time one person hands a firearm to another or if your roommate is out of town more than a certain number of days his firearms are now legally your firearms.


Or they could have some lawyers try to find their authority for regulating private sales that don't cross state lines. But I guess we're way past the quaint notion that the Constitution is meant to limit the Feds.
 
rwguinn said:
Because the Constitution begins with "We, the people..." and the NRA, like other groups of its ilk, are made up of people [\b], who have banded together to make sure their voices are heard. ..
Click to expand...


I find it really humorous that many idiots think the NRA is some faceless monolithic entity that disturbs their gun grabbing paranoia. As most informed folks know it is millions upon millions of Americans who want their voices heard and they vote with their wallets.
 
lionking said:
The tide is slowly turning.
Click to expand...
Yep...

Rtc.gif


Image created by Jeff Dege at gun-nuttery.com and used with permission.
 
LTC8K6 said:
I would make it a more reasonable time to investigate, like 1 week.
I would also not allow a "non-response" from NICS to mean that the purchase is legal. I would require a definitive yes or no from NICS.
Click to expand...
Then all Obama or another like-minded POTUS would have to do to stop all firearm sales (or just those he doesn't like, like evil black rifles or handguns) is direct the FBI not to process NICS checks.

And that's why that's a horrendously bad idea.
 
crescent said:
Can an Executive Order be used to mandate stricter enforcement if existing laws?
Click to expand...
Of course, all federal prosecutors work for the POTUS and he is free to direct them to prosecute gun crimes to the fullest.

But it's the legal gun owners he wants to go after, the ones who aren't shooting up Chicago and Baltimore and St. Louis and Newark and DC and Oakland every single day.
 
Noztradamus said:
"The 12-gauge auto-loader. The .45 long slide, with laser sighting. Phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range."
Click to expand...
What is 40 watts of plasma going to do to anyone? Isn't that about the same as 30 ft-lbs/s of energy?

Ranb
 
BenBurch said:
.... And if your gun ends up in somebody else's hands and you didn't report it stolen, you go to jail right along with them.

Almost exactly like cars.
Click to expand...
I can go to jail if I don't report my car stolen?

Ranb
 
BStrong said:
And the above sentiment as expressed is exactly why so many firearms owners will reject any type of gun control measure based on the slippery slope premise.

We've seen two separate laws enacted in California wrt "Assault Weapons" with a 26 year track record of failure, and we're going to end up with a new AW law behind the San Bernardino murders, and whatever new law they can dream up won't be any more successful than the last two.
Click to expand...

Well ... I guess you better bail outta' Frisco* while there is still time ...





*Yeah, I know you call it "the city" why do ya' think I said Frisco?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom