Obama prepares order on guns

[The Fool]

They supported SB5956, the registration of short barreled rifles and did not oppose HB1840 which placed additional controls on people with restraining orders. Both bills passed in 2014 in WA. They supported the Manchin-Toomey background check bill S.649 in 2013. They also backed the Gun Control Act and supported the bill which ended civilian ownership of machine guns registered after May 1986.

Ranb

Why wouldn't they support SB5956 as it is appears to be a bill allowing more gun types so I would hardly call it a gun control measure.

They did not oppose 1840? This is the same as supporting a measure?

As to S649. which you say the NRA supported. here is the letter from NRA on this bill. please pay particular attention to "The NRA is unequivocally opposed to S. 649."

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...the-united-states-senate-on-background-checks

Dear Senator,

I am writing regarding the National Rifle Association’s position on several firearms-related proposals under consideration in the Senate.

S. 649, the “Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013”, introduced on March 21, contains a number of provisions that would unfairly infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners. This legislation would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by honest citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution. The NRA is unequivocally opposed to S. 649.

In addition, the NRA will oppose any amendments offered to S. 649 that restrict fundamental Second Amendment freedoms; including, but not limited to, proposals that would ban commonly and lawfully owned firearms and magazines or criminalize the private transfer of firearms through an expansion of background checks. This includes the misguided “compromise” proposal drafted by Senators Joe Manchin, Pat Toomey and Chuck Schumer. As we have noted previously, expanding background checks, at gun shows or elsewhere, will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in their schools. Given the importance of these issues, votes on all anti-gun amendments or proposals will be considered in NRA’s future candidate evaluations.

Rather than focus its efforts on restricting the rights of America’s 100 million law-abiding gun owners, there are things Congress can do to fix our broken mental health system; increase prosecutions of violent criminals; and make our schools safer. During consideration of S. 649, should one or more amendments be offered that adequately address these important issues while protecting the fundamental rights of law-abiding gun owners, the NRA will offer our enthusiastic support and consider those votes in our future candidate evaluations as well.

We hope the Senate will replace the current provisions of S. 649 with language that is properly focused on addressing mental health inadequacies; prosecuting violent criminals; and keeping our kids safe in their schools. Should it fail to do so, the NRA will make an exception to our standard policy of not “scoring” procedural votes and strongly oppose a cloture motion to move to final passage of S. 649.

Sincerely,
Chris W. Cox



Honestly can't see much in the way of support anywhere.....

 

[quadraginta]

Why wouldn't they support SB5956 as it is appears to be a bill allowing more gun types so I would hardly call it a gun control measure.

They did not oppose 1840? This is the same as supporting a measure?

As to S649. which you say the NRA supported. here is the letter from NRA on this bill. please pay particular attention to "The NRA is unequivocally opposed to S. 649."

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...the-united-states-senate-on-background-checks

Dear Senator,

I am writing regarding the National Rifle Association’s position on several firearms-related proposals under consideration in the Senate.

S. 649, the “Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013”, introduced on March 21, contains a number of provisions that would unfairly infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners. This legislation would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by honest citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution. The NRA is unequivocally opposed to S. 649.

In addition, the NRA will oppose any amendments offered to S. 649 that restrict fundamental Second Amendment freedoms; including, but not limited to, proposals that would ban commonly and lawfully owned firearms and magazines or criminalize the private transfer of firearms through an expansion of background checks. This includes the misguided “compromise” proposal drafted by Senators Joe Manchin, Pat Toomey and Chuck Schumer. As we have noted previously, expanding background checks, at gun shows or elsewhere, will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in their schools. Given the importance of these issues, votes on all anti-gun amendments or proposals will be considered in NRA’s future candidate evaluations.

Rather than focus its efforts on restricting the rights of America’s 100 million law-abiding gun owners, there are things Congress can do to fix our broken mental health system; increase prosecutions of violent criminals; and make our schools safer. During consideration of S. 649, should one or more amendments be offered that adequately address these important issues while protecting the fundamental rights of law-abiding gun owners, the NRA will offer our enthusiastic support and consider those votes in our future candidate evaluations as well.

We hope the Senate will replace the current provisions of S. 649 with language that is properly focused on addressing mental health inadequacies; prosecuting violent criminals; and keeping our kids safe in their schools. Should it fail to do so, the NRA will make an exception to our standard policy of not “scoring” procedural votes and strongly oppose a cloture motion to move to final passage of S. 649.

Sincerely,
Chris W. Cox



Honestly can't see much in the way of support anywhere.....

Surely he's just one of the fringe. It's not like he speaks for everyone in the NRA.

Oh. Wait.

Chris W. Cox has been the chief lobbyist and principal political strategist for the lobbying arm of the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) since April 2002. He is the executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA),[1] and chairman of NRA's Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF), the NRA’s Political Action Committee.
He oversees eight divisions within the NRA-ILA, including Federal Affairs; State & Local Government Affairs; Public Affairs; Grassroots; Finance; Research; Conservation; Wildlife & Natural Resources; and Office of Legislative Counsel. Cox is also chairman of NRA’s Political Victory Fund,[2] the association's political action committee.

​

Okay. Maybe he speaks for a couple of them.

 

[The Fool]

I feel like the word confiscation woud flow more freely if this was about some other object such as books.

In Australia we prefer to burn books rather than confiscate them.

 

[Ranb]

Why wouldn't they support SB5956 as it is appears to be a bill allowing more gun types so I would hardly call it a gun control measure.

It changes the control scheme, therefore it is a gun control bill. So a gun control bill is only a gun control bill if it further restricts guns and makes them harder to get?

As to S649. which you say the NRA supported. here is the letter from NRA on this bill. please pay particular attention to "The NRA is unequivocally opposed to S. 649."

I was in error. As far as I know the NRA supported 649 until it was amended by Manchin.

Honestly can't see much in the way of support anywhere.....

What about this one? http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/nra-supported-background-gun-check-john-cornyn-121035

Ranb

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

In Australia we prefer to burn books rather than confiscate them.

And it shows.

 

[The Fool]

It changes the control scheme, therefore it is a gun control bill. So a gun control bill is only a gun control bill if it further restricts guns and makes them harder to get?

Yes, otherwise it's a gun less control bill rather than a gun control bill.

I was in error. As far as I know the NRA supported 649 until it was amended by Manchin.

Fair enough but they still appear to be batting zero.

What about this one? http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/nra-supported-background-gun-check-john-cornyn-121035

Ranb

Can you clarify what Bill you are referring to because if it's this one

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...nator-cornyn-s-bill-to-halt-obama-nics-abuses


They sure do support it because this is what they believe it does.

On August 5th, U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) introduced S. 2002, a bill to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens from continued bureaucratic abuse by the Obama Administration. As we reported on July 18th, Obama’s latest gun grabbing ploy was to forward all individuals receiving Social Security Administration (SSA) benefits through a representative payee to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) as “prohibited persons” under federal firearms law. This is estimated to impact over 4 million Americans.

Seems they support it because it resist Obamas next gun grabbing ploy

I really do have to say they still appear to be batting zero in supporting gun control bills.

 

[The Fool]

And it shows.

Come on Chuck. Don't be so cruel

 

[theprestige]

I feel like the word confiscation woud flow more freely if this was about some other object such as books.

Or drugs.

Ban tobacco, give everyone an amnesty period to turn in their cigarettes, then criminalize anyone still holding and seize the stash of anyone caught at it.

Confiscation.

 

[The Fool]

Or drugs.

Ban tobacco, give everyone an amnesty period to turn in their cigarettes, then criminalize anyone still holding and seize the stash of anyone caught at it.

Confiscation.

You will take my tobacco from my cold dead hand.

Actually it would go something like this. In order for you to keep smoking you would have to obtain a cigarette sucker licence. You would need to store your tobacco in a safe. If you don,t wish to comply with the new regulations then you can either sell your cigarettes to someone who has complied or the government will give you an agreed price.

People who want to be left alone to smoke what they want where an when they want will call it a cigarette grab. If they prefer not to sound like a hillbilly they may prefer to use longer words than grab...maybe confiscate?

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

You will take my tobacco from my cold dead hand.

Actually it would go something like this. In order for you to keep smoking you would have to obtain a cigarette sucker licence. You would need to store your tobacco in a safe. If you don,t wish to comply with the new regulations then you can either sell your cigarettes to someone who has complied or the government will give you an agreed price.

People who want to be left alone to smoke what they want where an when they want will call it a cigarette grab. If they prefer not to sound like a hillbilly they may prefer to use longer words than grab...maybe confiscate?

How about ethyl alcohol? We wouldn't need to "ban" it or "confiscate" it, just restrict the sale and possession. People who had a proven need could get a doctors prescription for small amounts, but otherwise it would be illegal.
No reason to think that wouldn't work.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Guns are very, very controlled in Australia, yet there is not a huge influx of gun crimes in Australia due to those restrictions. Try again, Chuck, comparing gun control to alcohol prohibition is stupid.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Guns are very, very controlled in Australia, yet there is not a huge influx of gun crimes in Australia due to those restrictions. Try again, Chuck, comparing gun control to alcohol prohibition is stupid.

There weren't many gun crimes in Australia before the restrictions either, TBK.
In case you've forgotten the thread is about gun control in the US. If you want to bring up Australia as a model, you've got to first show where those restrictions made any substantive difference.
Then, you've got to show why this would be applicable to the US.
So far, no one has even established the first (and the resident Aussie on this thread admits he has no acceptable evidence to back up this assertion, let alone the second).
If you want to talk about stupid, demanding the acceptance of liberal dogma without providing evidence on a skeptics forum seems to fit the bill quite nicely.

 

[Elagabalus]

How about ethyl alcohol? We wouldn't need to "ban" it or "confiscate" it, just restrict the sale and possession. People who had a proven need could get a doctors prescription for small amounts, but otherwise it would be illegal.
No reason to think that wouldn't work.

Dude, in NZ, you can make your own hooch ...! Think about the possibilities ...

 

[thaiboxerken]

There weren't many gun crimes in Australia before the restrictions either, TBK.
In case you've forgotten the thread is about gun control in the US. If you want to bring up Australia as a model, you've got to first show where those restrictions made any substantive difference.
Then, you've got to show why this would be applicable to the US.
So far, no one has even established the first (and the resident Aussie on this thread admits he has no acceptable evidence to back up this assertion, let alone the second).
If you want to talk about stupid, demanding the acceptance of liberal dogma without providing evidence on a skeptics forum seems to fit the bill quite nicely.

You seem to be peddling conservative dogma without any evidence, and you are making stupid comparisons on top of it. Next, you'll be bringing up concealed swimming pool permits.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

You seem to be peddling conservative dogma without any evidence, and you are making stupid comparisons on top of it. Next, you'll be bringing up concealed swimming pool permits.

Sorry, Ken, but what you are calling "conservative dogma" is actually the law of the land, and has been for quite some time.
If you want to change the law, it is up to you to provide evidence that it needs to be changed.
So far, all that you've done is wail, "I am rubber, and you are glue...".
Provide your evidence, or regurgitate leftist dogma, your choice.

 

[The Fool]

How about ethyl alcohol? We wouldn't need to "ban" it or "confiscate" it, just restrict the sale and possession. People who had a proven need could get a doctors prescription for small amounts, but otherwise it would be illegal.
No reason to think that wouldn't work.

I completely support your proposals on alcohol. We should restrict its sale and possession. But isn,t that what we already do? I,m not sure what point you are making.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I completely support your proposals on alcohol. We should restrict its sale and possession. But isn,t that what we already do? I,m not sure what point you are making.

His point is that restricting freedom is bad! We should be able to sell beer to children.

 

[The Fool]

There weren't many gun crimes in Australia before the restrictions either, TBK.

Just our worst mass shooting which included children being chased through woods and executed in front of each other. Even one of our most right wing leaders in our history took action. This action was backed by massive public opinion. This is a path the US is inevitably going to follow Australia down. The Wild West can,t last forever.

In case you've forgotten the thread is about gun control in the US. If you want to bring up Australia as a model, you've got to first show where those restrictions made any substantive difference.
Then, you've got to show why this would be applicable to the US.
So far, no one has even established the first (and the resident Aussie on this thread admits he has no acceptable evidence to back up this assertion, let alone the second).
If you want to talk about stupid, demanding the acceptance of liberal dogma without providing evidence on a skeptics forum seems to fit the bill quite nicely.

I said not acceptable to you chuck, not unacceptable in any general sense so if you are referring to me you are misrepresenting what I said.

You may believe that reducing the numbers of guns is not a rational reaction to large numbers of bullet holes but you represent a shrinking and ever more marginal viewpoint. I just hope it doesn't get to the grab your guns and head for the hills point. You may think of the USA as a rational and stable society but unfortunately you have people like the NRA seemingly happy to stonewall the issue and stir up extremists.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Just our worst mass shooting which included children being chased through woods and executed in front of each other. Even one of our most right wing leaders in our history took action. This action was backed by massive public opinion. This is a path the US is inevitably going to follow Australia down. The Wild West can,t last forever.

Yet another appeal to emotion ( But the babies! Think about them dead babies!) Port Arthur was an aberration that your politicians used to further their own ends. The fact is that mass murders are very rare in Australia's history. Since you stopped trying to wipe out the Indigenous Aborigines there haven't been more than a handfull that could even be termed "mass murders", with a number of those occurring after the NFA.

I said not acceptable to you chuck, not unacceptable in any general sense so if you are referring to me you are misrepresenting what I said.

Then in the future, should you decide to be disingenuous again, try to be more specific.
Unless you have somehow acquired a talent for telepathy you have no way to discern what I would accept other than what I have previously stated would be acceptable. Obviously you don't have that or you would have posted it instead.

You may believe that reducing the numbers of guns is not a rational reaction to large numbers of bullet holes but you represent a shrinking and ever more marginal viewpoint. I just hope it doesn't get to the grab your guns and head for the hills point. You may think of the USA as a rational and stable society but unfortunately you have people like the NRA seemingly happy to stonewall the issue and stir up extremists.

Reducing the number of guns is not a rational way to reduce the number of bullet holes. One single shot firearm can make bullet holes all day long, day in and day out. Your statement is an epic fail, and you might as well say that reducing the number of bulls on a farm would reduce the number of calves born. In order to do either you must reduce the number to zero, a position you have repeatedly claimed is not your intent.
If, OTOH, by "bullet holes" you are referring to violent crimes against persons, then A) don't use such evasive language, and B) we await your evidence that mere lawful ownership of firearms causes violence.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

I completely support your proposals on alcohol. We should restrict its sale and possession. But isn,t that what we already do? I,m not sure what point you are making.

I can't speak for Australia, but the US tried that between 1920 -1933. It didn't work out too well.