"With the stroke of a pen." "Rick Perry will be your next President."
Clown on, my friend. Clown on.
I explained the potential EO action that could be taken to turn most law abiding gun owners into felons. that was the analysis of the time on what he COULD accomplish.
It has since been found that legislative action would be required to declare AWB and magazines NFA items. But make no mistake that's what he wants. Take a look at what NY state did.
I will continueally knock your dick in the dirt with fact and logic. You are WRONG AGAIN!
No, it doesn't read as that at all. You are yet again inventing words and thoughts that are not there, perverting the obvious meaning into a caricature supporting your paranoia. The only thing that says is this will be a tough fight in Congress (which I'm certain is quite true, and I frankly hope the Obama administration loses that fight, at least on most points). It suggests nothing whatsoever about the Obama administration changing plans due to nutter outrage. That spin is pure fantasy.Say what you want but " Acknowledging the difficulty of the Congressional fight ahead, Obama appealed for public support, slamming - as he did in a press conference earlier this week - conservative commentators and the most vocal pro-gun activists for "ginning up" opposition to gun reforms for political reasons.*" reads as a tacit admission that they modified their course of action based on the amount of resistance.
We'll have to see what's in the proposed legislation. For now, just like this thread, all we have is speculationI support universal background checks if they're opening NICS to everyone. I doubt it. If this is a ploy to require FFL only transfers, fuck that unless they are going to mandate free transfers.
So, for all the hysterics about this, Obama's plan announced today strikes me as mostly a bunch of vague, meaningless pablum.
I don't know why there's really opposition to universal background checks. It just seems like common sense to me. If I were to ever sell a gun, I'd want to make sure it wasn't going to someone who couldn't legally own it, even if I had no liability for whatever they did with it. Gun shows and private sellers will work out a way to make it happen. It's as simple as finding an FFL holder with a computer and phone.
There should be a national mental health registry that can prevent someone from purchasing a gun. It should be somewhat difficult to get people on the registry and they should have a process that they can go through to get off of it.
There should be an armed police officer at each school. We already have one at each high school and middle school in my area. I see absolutely no reason to not do this, other than having to fund an extra officer's salary each year, which is a drop in the bucket compared to the salaries of all faculty and staff at each school.
Semi-automatic weapons with various features (ex. bayonet lug, detachable magazine, flash suppressor, pistol grip, second hand grip, etc.) should not be banned. There is no proof that this will affect crime at all and limiting the rights of people to own scary looking guns is just a security theater type action, similar to TSA screenings. I feel like a majority of the people on the other side of the AWB debate just don't have a lot of knowledge on the topic.
Limiting magazine sizes will also do nothing. This only impacts mass shootings, which are a ridiculously small percentage of shootings in the US. Swapping a magazine only takes a couple of seconds. People talk about rushing an active shooter while they reload, but it just doesn't happen. Mass shootings almost always end with either the shooter killing himself or being shot by a citizen or officer.
Guns are not just for hunting and sport. The argument that you don't need a semi-automatic gun for those types of things has no bearing. Read the 2nd amendment for the major reason that the right to bear arms exists.
Using children and tragedy to play on people's emotions - people who don't even have the requisite knowledge to know what they are opposing or supporting - is despicable. The left and most sensible people said this about the Patriot Act. Some of these renewed gun control proposals are in the same vein - overreaching measures that have no demonstrable effect other than to infringe on the liberty of citizens.
So, for all the hysterics about this, Obama's plan announced today strikes me as mostly a bunch of vague, meaningless pablum.
We'll have to see what's in the proposed legislation. For now, just like this thread, all we have is speculation
So, for all the hysterics about this, Obama's plan announced today strikes me as mostly a bunch of vague, meaningless pablum.
I don't know why there's really opposition to universal background checks.
There should be a national mental health registry that can prevent someone from purchasing a gun.
There should be an armed police officer at each school.
Semi-automatic weapons with various features (ex. bayonet lug, detachable magazine, flash suppressor, pistol grip, second hand grip, etc.) should not be banned.
Limiting magazine sizes will also do nothing.
No, it doesn't read as that at all. You are yet again inventing words and thoughts that are not there, perverting the obvious meaning into a caricature supporting your paranoia. The only thing that says is this will be a tough fight in Congress (which I'm certain is quite true, and I frankly hope the Obama administration loses that fight, at least on most points). It suggests nothing whatsoever about the Obama administration changing plans due to nutter outrage. That spin is pure fantasy.
We'll have to see what's in the proposed legislation. For now, just like this thread, all we have is speculation
You're quite welcome to tell your Congressman whatever you want. I suggested nothing to the contrary. I was responding specifically to your comment, "If this is a ploy to require FFL only transfers, fuck that unless they are going to mandate free transfers." That is, for now, merely speculation.No, we don't. I guess that's the breakdown here. There is nothing wrong or improper with saying, telling my congressman, etc. that i would support expanding the availability of NICS but not ending FTF in-state transfers.
That's the difference between being proactive and reactive.
Yes, dear. We're talking about Obama and the proposals he will submit based on the work of Biden's task force. Do try to keep up.Feinsteins AWB is PROPOSED LEGISLATION!!!
Are you not paying attention nor listening to this president or democrats?
This is a huge win for gun manufacturers, hopefully now they don't rush those AR builds that have been preordered at a obamasurcharge lol
Yes, dear. We're talking about Obama and the proposals he will submit based on the work of Biden's task force. Do try to keep up.
Yeah, those executive orders totally repealed the 2nd amendment. I hope all the hysterics feel a little silly now.
Obama has stated he wants, nay, DEMANDS an assault weapons ban stronger and more restrictive than the last one.
They'll double down on the paranoia.
"He didn't do it today...but he'll do it...I can feel it in my bones."
As a Liberal who also happens to enjoy firearms and shooting, it is an interesting time.
I have no problem with anything he proposed. Most of those were "you mean we're not doing that already?" worthy.
I don't know why there's really opposition to universal background checks. It just seems like common sense to me. If I were to ever sell a gun, I'd want to make sure it wasn't going to someone who couldn't legally own it, even if I had no liability for whatever they did with it. Gun shows and private sellers will work out a way to make it happen. It's as simple as finding an FFL holder with a computer and phone.
There should be a national mental health registry that can prevent someone from purchasing a gun. It should be somewhat difficult to get people on the registry and they should have a process that they can go through to get off of it.
There should be an armed police officer at each school. We already have one at each high school and middle school in my area. I see absolutely no reason to not do this, other than having to fund an extra officer's salary each year, which is a drop in the bucket compared to the salaries of all faculty and staff at each school.
Semi-automatic weapons with various features (ex. bayonet lug, detachable magazine, flash suppressor, pistol grip, second hand grip, etc.) should not be banned. There is no proof that this will affect crime at all and limiting the rights of people to own scary looking guns is just a security theater type action, similar to TSA screenings. I feel like a majority of the people on the other side of the AWB debate just don't have a lot of knowledge on the topic.
Limiting magazine sizes will also do nothing. This only impacts mass shootings, which are a ridiculously small percentage of shootings in the US. Swapping a magazine only takes a couple of seconds. People talk about rushing an active shooter while they reload, but it just doesn't happen. Mass shootings almost always end with either the shooter killing himself or being shot by a citizen or officer.
Guns are not just for hunting and sport. The argument that you don't need a semi-automatic gun for those types of things has no bearing. Read the 2nd amendment for the major reason that the right to bear arms exists.
Using children and tragedy to play on people's emotions - people who don't even have the requisite knowledge to know what they are opposing or supporting - is despicable. The left and most sensible people said this about the Patriot Act. Some of these renewed gun control proposals are in the same vein - overreaching measures that have no demonstrable effect other than to infringe on the liberty of citizens.
You're quite welcome to tell your Congressman whatever you want. I suggested nothing to the contrary. I was responding specifically to your comment, "If this is a ploy to require FFL only transfers, fuck that unless they are going to mandate free transfers." That is, for now, merely speculation.
As a liberal as well, I'm frustrated with the standard capacity ban and the "AW" ban part. The background checks and the mental health things, fine by me.
The assault weapons ban and high capacity magazines ban are silly.
The rest of it seems to be well thought out common sense initiatives.
Yes, I do see that. That is what I said. You are arguing a straw man. I simply stated, factually, that your statement is speculation. You are free to speak out based on that speculation. The First Amendment doesn't limit free speech to certainties. Simply recognize that it is speculation.But you are wrong in that we do NOT have to wait and see what is in the bill first. By speaking out, we can shape the policy. Don't you see that?