Obama prepares order on guns

I think that is just "feel good" stuff that changes nothing.

I think it won't affect criminals, and it won't affect anyone else, either.

I can't see it having any effect at all on the "gun show loophole". Private sales in-state are still private sales in-state.

I don't see anything that would have prevented someone like Adam Lanza from buying a gun. I don't think he was diagnosed with anything that would have prevented a gun purchase.

The only interesting thing is the push to try to develop "smart guns", including a push to get gov't agencies to see if they can adopt them.

I just can't see law enforcement agencies switching to smart guns.

This looks like a relief for gun owners, and it looks underwhelming for gun control.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...tive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our
 
Last edited:
LTC8K6 said:
I think that is just "feel good" stuff that changes nothing.

I think it won't affect criminals, and it won't affect anyone else, either.

I can't see it having any effect at all on the "gun show loophole". Private sales in-state are still private sales in-state.

I don't see anything that would have prevented someone like Adam Lanza from buying a gun. I don't think he was diagnosed with anything that would have prevented a gun purchase.

The only interesting thing is the push to try to develop "smart guns", including a push to get gov't agencies to see if they can adopt them.

I just can't see law enforcement agencies switching to smart guns.

This looks like a relief for gun owners, and it looks underwhelming for gun control.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...tive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our
Click to expand...

100% correct on all counts.

That is not stopping the NAGR and other clowns from whining that it's a backdoor gun registry, gun grab, etc.

And of course liberals think it's the greatest slap in the face to the NRA since the AWB.
 
Adam Lanza from buying a gun. I don't think he was diagnosed with anything that would have prevented a gun purchase.
Click to expand...

He shot his mother with her legally purchased .22LR rimfire plinking rifle while she slept and took her guns to shoot children.

And the Oregon kid who failed in his quest to shoot up a mall a few days before Lanza stole the legally-owned rifle from his friend.
 
It doesn't seem to say anything about doctors reporting the "mentally ill" either. It seems to just say that such health data can legally be shared now.

IOW, if I were banned from buying in NC for health reasons, it wouldn't necessarily be shared with the feds due to HIPAA. Now it can be shared, and it will show up on a background check.

The NFA stuff is odd. NFA weapons are not used in crimes, and the reason trusts or corporations are used to buy them is almost certainly because they cost a fortune, not to avoid background checks.
 
How are we going to handle guns that are 3D printed at home? This will be a real game changer soon, especially as technology improves. Even countries with tough gun control will have to figure this one out.

Video of a guy firing a 3D printed gun. This was done with a half-million dollar printer though.



Bullets made specifically for plastic guns - it is designed to handle more of the explosive force by embedding the bullet deeper into the casing.
http://www.wired.com/2014/11/atlas-314-3-d-printed-guns-bullets/

not my bolding:
His ammunition uses a thicker steel shell with a lead bullet inserted an inch inside, deep enough that the shell can contain the explosion of the round’s gunpowder instead of transferring that force to the plastic body or barrel of the gun. Crumling says that allows a home-printed firearm made from even the cheapest materials to be fired again and again without cracking or deformation.
Click to expand...
 
mgidm86 said:
How are we going to handle guns that are 3D printed at home? This will be a real game changer soon, especially as technology improves. Even countries with tough gun control will have to figure this one out.

Video of a guy firing a 3D printed gun. This was done with a half-million dollar printer though.



Bullets made specifically for plastic guns - it is designed to handle more of the explosive force by embedding the bullet deeper into the casing.
http://www.wired.com/2014/11/atlas-314-3-d-printed-guns-bullets/

not my bolding:
Click to expand...

Guns have to be detectable by a metal detector to be legal. A totally plastic gun is illegal.

If 3D printed guns become a criminal problem, it might be able to be handled the way they handle copiers/printers and banknotes. Most high res copiers/scanners/printers have some method of foiling banknote reproduction.

http://www.rulesforuse.org/pub/index.php?currency=usd&lang=en
 
"A violent felon can buy the exact same weapon over the internet with no background check, no questions asked."

Obama apparently did say that.

I just can't understand why this keeps getting repeated as if it's true.
 
LTC8K6 said:
"A violent felon can buy the exact same weapon over the internet with no background check, no questions asked."

Obama apparently did say that.

I just can't understand why this keeps getting repeated as if it's true.
Click to expand...

Because most people aren't remotely familiar with how buying guns online works, so they have no reason to doubt it.
 
Cleon said:
Because most people aren't remotely familiar with how buying guns online works, so they have no reason to doubt it.
Click to expand...

Well, some should figure it out when no such new rule is enacted after Obama said that...

They should wonder what happened to the new rule banning felons from online gun purchases...
 
LTC8K6 said:
Well, some should figure it out when no such new rule is enacted after Obama said that...

They should wonder what happened to the new rule banning felons from online gun purchases...
Click to expand...

Should, but won't.
 
LTC8K6 said:
"A violent felon can buy the exact same weapon over the internet with no background check, no questions asked."

Obama apparently did say that.

I just can't understand why this keeps getting repeated as if it's true.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the knee jerk right wing blogosphere echo. They are fast.

Guess it depends on the color your glasses are tinted.
Want to Buy a Gun Without a Background Check? Armslist Can Help
Armslist quickly took off. By 2011, it was one of the largest online gun sites in the country, with more than 13,000 active listings for firearms. ... An undercover New York City investigation (PDF) found that the site likely was a major conduit for illegal gun sales. Investigators discovered that 54 percent of the sellers they contacted through the site were openly willing to sell firearms to people who admitted they couldn't pass a background check (which is a felony, incidentally).
Click to expand...

Through the tint of my glasses it sounds like Obama is taking an enforcement step (within his POTUS scope) not a legislative step:
These sorts of online operations are a primary target of proposals from President Obama that would require background checks for every gun sale, even private ones. When New York City took a look at the online gun marketplace in 2011, it found more than 25,000 weapons for sale on just 10 websites, making the internet a significant component of gun industry. The report suggested that the internet sales were likely tied to a fair amount of crime.
Click to expand...

There must be a problem given Congress talked about doing something about it:
The site may be forced to change. A move by Congress to require universal background checks would put a crimp in its business. In addition, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is representing Jetka Vesel's family in a lawsuit against the site, filed in December. But Armslist and other similar sites aren't likely to go down without a fight. They represent a significant market share for the gun industry.
Click to expand...

But being the cowards the political middle is and the fanatics the political far right are I can see why they never got anything done.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Ah yes, the knee jerk right wing blogosphere echo. They are fast.

Guess it depends on the color your glasses are tinted.
Want to Buy a Gun Without a Background Check? Armslist Can Help
Click to expand...

Your glasses are tinted poorly. The example mentioned is from Armslist, a site I know well:

But through Armslist, he connected with Benedict Ladera, a 31-year-old Seattle man who sold him a .40-caliber handgun outside a Washington casino. Ladera charged Smirnov an extra $200 because he couldn't prove he lived in the state.
Click to expand...

He didn't buy the gun online, he bought it in person. Armslist is just a classified site. Obama's statement is false.
 
It's going to take an act by Congress to change the HIPPA laws.

And while it sounds like the definition of "in the business of dealing guns" might get tighter, it won't be absolute either. And it has current limits too.

So a big zip.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Ah yes, the knee jerk right wing blogosphere echo. They are fast.

Guess it depends on the color your glasses are tinted.
Want to Buy a Gun Without a Background Check? Armslist Can Help

Through the tint of my glasses it sounds like Obama is taking an enforcement step (within his POTUS scope) not a legislative step:


There must be a problem given Congress talked about doing something about it:

But being the cowards the political middle is and the fanatics the political far right are I can see why they never got anything done.
Click to expand...

People may actually think that's what an online sale is I guess, two people making arrangements to meet and sell a gun? But that's just a private sale, the same as if you called someone on the phone, who wanted to sell a gun, and arranged to meet them for the sale.

The new rules wouldn't do anything about a "Craig's List" for gun sales. Those are private party sales and will be the same as they always were.

Only a universal background check law would affect such private party sales.

All states already ban private party sales to people you know are not allowed to possess a firearm. Or should have known. Such as someone who has basically said that they can't pass the check, and who can't prove they reside in the same state. So that transaction was already illegal on several levels, I think.

It's illegal under federal law, too.
 
Last edited:
Jrrarglblarg said:
I've posted my proposals for gun violence prevention before, but I'll reiterate:
2) training and licensing are gradiated, such as rim fire, smoothbore, rifle, handgun, with some internal gradation (ie, caliber or muzzle energy) within each category. Concealed carry permits fall into this licensing.
Click to expand...
I hope my military training and shooting coach certification counts as some sort of "grandfather clause".

3) the sales counter is the control point. Sales of weapons continue to require background check; ammo purchase would not but does require buyer to have a license with certification for specific ammo class being purchased.
Click to expand...
Ammo class? That is rather vague; would it be DD vs non-DD or something else. Hopefully not handgun ammo vs rifle ammo.

4) no loopholes - reloading supplies are considered components of ammunition and must be purchased by licensed persons. Include "reloading" with training/licensing requirement.
Click to expand...
The federal license for ammunition manufacturing is $30/3 years. The much worse part is the ITAR; $2250.00 each year even if you're not an exporter. There has to be a better way.

Firearm components and parts must be bought and sold in the same manner as complete weapons. No more "80%" receivers.
Click to expand...
Will we need a new legal definition of a "firearm component"? Surely you don't want to include screws, scopes, mounts, rings and other minor parts. I make firearms from tubing and bar stock; no way I want to have controls on the metal stock I purchase from OnlineMetals.com in Seattle.

Ranb
 
LTC8K6 said:
The only interesting thing is the push to try to develop "smart guns", including a push to get gov't agencies to see if they can adopt them.

I just can't see law enforcement agencies switching to smart guns.
Click to expand...
I think the only way to get the general public to embrace smart gun tech is to let them see how well it works for the police and military. It's obvious that many American gun owners like to adopt military tech for their own uses.

The way New Jersey is trying to do things is just plain stupid. They want to ban the sale (police and others exempt of course) of any gun without personalized technology after smart guns are available for sale. This virtually assures that the acceptance of smart guns will be delayed; but they don't blame themselves as authors of the stupid law. It is the fault of the NRA and others.

Ranb
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom