Obama's executive actions on gun control

[mrsmaalox]

I think the opposition is not to the specifics, but rather falls under the "camel nose under the tent" fear. It is new regulations that will have nothing to do with stopping crime.

If it stops one crime, is that stopping crime?

[CosmicCowboy]

Just the simplest things of increasing FBI staff by 50% for background checks and tightening some loopholes are a change and a step. You keep saying nothing changes. As far as the outcome, we dont really know what it will accomplish do we? I could say everything will be solved but thats as silly as saying nothing will be solved. I understand that for law abiding gun owners, nothing changes. Those are not the people changes need to be made for.

It really depends how they define the number of transactions and what steps had to be taken. If I wanted to give my son-in-law (who is a cop and would pass with flying colors) a couple of guns and I had to transfer them through a FFL and pay a $25 each transfer fee it would really be an inconvenience and piss me off.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Just the simplest things of increasing FBI staff by 50% for background checks and tightening some loopholes are a change and a step. You keep saying nothing changes. As far as the outcome, we dont really know what it will accomplish do we? I could say everything will be solved but thats as silly as saying nothing will be solved. I understand that for law abiding gun owners, nothing changes. Those are not the people changes need to be made for.

I never said nothing will be solved I said these executive actions will be insignificant in reducing gun violence.

[mrsmaalox]

It really depends how they define the number of transactions and what steps had to be taken. If I wanted to give my son-in-law (who is a cop and would pass with flying colors) a couple of guns and I had to transfer them through a FFL and pay a $25 each transfer fee it would really be an inconvenience and piss me off.

I understand that. But the scenario I'm thinking of is one I've seen play out a couple of times with friends. Responsible, legal gun owners get strapped for cash. I was taught by my dad that you NEVER sell your guns or musical instruments, but everyone knows guns sell quickly and easily. Without the FFL transfer and fee you have no control over who you innocently sell your gun to. Criminals count on that. Its not foolproof but Id sleep a little better at night knowing my gun had a sl. smaller chance of being used in a crime. I think this one may actually plug one of the million+1 holes that are the seive of gun violence in this country.

[boutons_deux]

Fox Host's Absurd Claim About Obama's Tears During Gun Speech



Fox News host Andrea Tantaros suggested on Tuesday President Barack Obama had used a “raw onion” to produce fake tears for shooting victims during his press conference on gun violence.

“What was really upsetting was the tears that he wiped away again and again,” Francis opined. “You want that for — I mean, we feel frighten about what’s going on with ISIS. And he can’t pull that kind of passion for anything about this.”

http://www.alternet.org/media/fox-hosts-absurd-claim-about-obamas-tears-during-gun-speech?akid=13855.187590.b7MaTP&rd=1&src=newslette r1048519&t=16

Fox's pig sty of dumb es as ty as Fox viewers

[mrsmaalox]

Anyway Im just here today because I have a mountain of holiday laundry to do and its boring as I certainly have no solutions but I'm not going to crap on any gun legislation that lets folks keep their legal guns. My only real gun violence/control issue is guns in hands of kids. If only there was legislation that would give mandatory jail time to any adult who leaves a gun, legal or not, unattended where a kid can get it and shoot himself or his baby brother, I'd be happy. Those are not "accidents" and that irresponsible adult has not suffered enough. If that could happen, I'd be fine if nothing else ever changes. Too da loo!

[TheSanityAnnex]

I understand that. But the scenario I'm thinking of is one I've seen play out a couple of times with friends. Responsible, legal gun owners get strapped for cash. I was taught by my dad that you NEVER sell your guns or musical instruments, but everyone knows guns sell quickly and easily. Without the FFL transfer and fee you have no control over who you innocently sell your gun to. Criminals count on that. Its not foolproof but Id sleep a little better at night knowing my gun had a sl. smaller chance of being used in a crime. I think this one may actually plug one of the million+1 holes that are the seive of gun violence in this country.

How do you not have control over who you sell your gun to?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Anyway Im just here today because I have a mountain of holiday laundry to do and its boring as I certainly have no solutions but I'm not going to crap on any gun legislation that lets folks keep their legal guns. My only real gun violence/control issue is guns in hands of kids. If only there was legislation that would give mandatory jail time to any adult who leaves a gun, legal or not, unattended where a kid can get it and shoot himself or his baby brother, I'd be happy. Those are not "accidents" and that irresponsible adult has not suffered enough. If that could happen, I'd be fine if nothing else ever changes. Too da loo!

Agreed on the kid stuff. Shocking how often it happens.

[Spurminator]

Do guns operate on a sort of " le" system like cars do? Transfer of ownership, etc. Nothing's foolproof, but wouldn't that solve a lot of the issues with unregulated sale?

[CosmicCowboy]

Do guns operate on a sort of " le" system like cars do? Transfer of ownership, etc. Nothing's foolproof, but wouldn't that solve a lot of the issues with unregulated sale?

Short answer is they have a serial number but no le. Technically even if a purchaser buys a legal gun and goes through the background check with the federal government, the federal government is prohibited by law from keeping records of the gun or the purchaser.

Now whether ATF etc. is abiding by that law is another question entirely.

[Blizzardwizard]

gun fellators crying cause now they gotta show ID at gun shows

gots

"But muh cons utional rights "

[ChumpDumper]

excellent rebuttal

Explain to me how Democrats pander to gang members to get the gang member vote.

[Spurminator]

Short answer is they have a serial number but no le. Technically even if a purchaser buys a legal gun and goes through the background check with the federal government, the federal government is prohibited by law from keeping records of the gun or the purchaser.

Now whether ATF etc. is abiding by that law is another question entirely.

As is whether that should even be a law.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Explain to me how Democrats pander to gang members to get the gang member vote.

There is no need for me to explain that because it was a stupid comment by the author and was literally five sentences out of the entire thing.

"Chicago’s problem isn’t guns; it’s gangs. Gun control efforts in Chicago or any other major city are doomed because gangs represent organized crime networks which stretch down to Mexico. And Democrats pander to those gangs because it helps them get elected. That's why Federal gun prosecutions in Chicago dropped sharply under Obama. It's why he has set free drug dealers and gang members to deal and kill while convening town halls on gun violence."

Any other problems with the article?

[ChumpDumper]

There is no need for me to explain that because it was a stupid comment by the author and was literally five sentences out of the entire thing.

"Chicago’s problem isn’t guns; it’s gangs. Gun control efforts in Chicago or any other major city are doomed because gangs represent organized crime networks which stretch down to Mexico. And Democrats pander to those gangs because it helps them get elected. That's why Federal gun prosecutions in Chicago dropped sharply under Obama. It's why he has set free drug dealers and gang members to deal and kill while convening town halls on gun violence."

Any other problems with the article?

It was stupid enough to make me dismiss the entire article.

Sorry.

[TeyshaBlue]

It was stupid enough to make me dismiss the entire article.

Sorry.

That was a mistake. The article makes some fair points.

[ChumpDumper]

That was a mistake. The article makes some fair points.

Maybe. A claim like that is a deal breaker for me.

[TheSanityAnnex]

That was a mistake. The article makes some fair points.

He didn't dismiss it and he sees the fair points, he just doesn't want to admit it or discuss it.

[Winehole23]

I think the opposition is not to the specifics, but rather falls under the "camel nose under the tent" fear. It is new regulations that will have nothing to do with stopping crime.

Canard. Death by firearms is a public health problem, not a pure law and order problem. It's reasonable for administrative steps to be taken to meliorate the threat to life and livelihood.

[Winehole23]

it's dishonest to pretend that the riskiness of firearms is restricted to bad guys. it isn't.

[boutons_deux]

it's dishonest to pretend that the riskiness of firearms is restricted to bad guys. it isn't.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, firearms were used in

84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) ^[2] and

11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000),^[3]

21,175 by suicide with a firearm,^[4]

505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm,^[4] and

281 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent"^[5] for a total of

33,169 deaths related to firearms (excluding firearm deaths due to legal intervention).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

Since Obama took office, about 225K deaths by guns.

Above numbers are just for deaths. Figure injuries from firearms are 10x greater, and some of those injuries are serious, permanently disabling.

[boutons_deux]

Paul Ryan captures what’s wrong with the gun debate

One of the more unusual reactions to President Obama’s new measures on gun policy came fromHouse Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). For example, the congressional leader condemned an “executive order” from the White House that doesn’t exist.

But more important was this quote in reference to the president: “His words and actions amount to a form of intimidation that undermines liberty.”

It’s hard not to get the impression that Ryan seems intimidated by the wrong things. Is the Republican leader alarmed by the routinization of deadly mass-shootings? No, what Paul Ryan finds intimidating is presidential rhetoric about background checks. What an odd thing to say.

Part of the problem for the House Speaker is that he may not be fully on board with his own talking points. The Huffington Post had a good catch earlier this week.

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) criticized President Barack Obama on Monday for planning to use his executive authority to implement gun control measures.

But take Obama out of the equation, and Ryan is just fine with tighter background checks on gun sales – the very thing Obama is expected to focus on – and with a president taking executive actions on major policy issues.

As recently as 2013, the Wisconsin lawmaker told the editorial board of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinelefforts to close theso-called gun-show loophole are “reasonable” and “obvious.” Ryan added that the issue arose on Capitol Hill shortly after his first election. “At the time I remember thinking, ‘You know, there is a loophole here. We should address that,’” he said.

This week, however, the GOP leader said, “There is no loophole…. This is a distraction.”
Keep in mind, that interview isn’t from some point in the distant past. It was the year before, in 2012, that Ryan was on his party’s national ticket as the Republican vice presidential nominee.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow

[CosmicCowboy]

Paul Ryan captures what’s wrong with the gun debate

One of the more unusual reactions to President Obama’s new measures on gun policy came fromHouse Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). For example, the congressional leader condemned an “executive order” from the White House that doesn’t exist.

But more important was this quote in reference to the president: “His words and actions amount to a form of intimidation that undermines liberty.”

It’s hard not to get the impression that Ryan seems intimidated by the wrong things. Is the Republican leader alarmed by the routinization of deadly mass-shootings? No, what Paul Ryan finds intimidating is presidential rhetoric about background checks. What an odd thing to say.

Part of the problem for the House Speaker is that he may not be fully on board with his own talking points. The Huffington Post had a good catch earlier this week.

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) criticized President Barack Obama on Monday for planning to use his executive authority to implement gun control measures.

But take Obama out of the equation, and Ryan is just fine with tighter background checks on gun sales – the very thing Obama is expected to focus on – and with a president taking executive actions on major policy issues.

As recently as 2013, the Wisconsin lawmaker told the editorial board of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinelefforts to close theso-called gun-show loophole are “reasonable” and “obvious.” Ryan added that the issue arose on Capitol Hill shortly after his first election. “At the time I remember thinking, ‘You know, there is a loophole here. We should address that,’” he said.

This week, however, the GOP leader said, “There is no loophole…. This is a distraction.”
Keep in mind, that interview isn’t from some point in the distant past. It was the year before, in 2012, that Ryan was on his party’s national ticket as the Republican vice presidential nominee.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow

I guess rachel thinks we are all as dumb as Boutons.

For practical purposes an Executive Memorandum carries the same weight as an Executive Order, it's just not given a number or published in the Federal Register.

His press secretaries love to say Obama has used Executive Orders less than previous Presidents while assuming we are too stupid to understand that he is doing the same thing by issuing more Memoranda than previous Presidents.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...ders/20191805/

[boutons_deux]

I guess rachel thinks we are all as dumb as Boutons.

For practical purposes an Executive Memorandum carries the same weight as an Executive Order, it's just not given a number or published in the Federal Register.

His press secretaries love to say Obama has used Executive Orders less than previous Presidents while assuming we are too stupid to understand that he is doing the same thing by issuing more Memoranda than previous Presidents.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...ders/20191805/

try to stay on topic, ankle biter

the article wasn't about Obama's order, but about slimebag Ryan flip flopping on the loopholes.

[CosmicCowboy]

try to stay on topic, ankle biter

the article wasn't about Obama's order, but about slimebag Ryan flip flopping on the loopholes.

Did you read your article? It was the very first sentence.