Obama Announces 23 Executive Orders To Combat Gun Violence
- Thread starter xfire
- Start date
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
And Reagan was a nut, who tried to join the Communist party and they rejected him because they said he was too dim. :1orglaugh
Scalia was simply a traitor.
Mr. Daystar
In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
But the problem is WHO'S going to put the person in place. If there are fair, and just hearings, and voting on the director, that's one thing, but if obama is just going to pick his own little spoon feed personal bitch, I have a major problem with it. As I've said, directors can make REGULATIONS...no one votes on these, they're rules he just puts in place, at his discretion. I have to see how this plays out. I just can't put faith and trust in this guy, he hasn't earned it, he doesn't deserve it. Plain and simple.
bobjustbob said:
Which number do you see registration of each transaction...because I have a MAJOR problem with gun registration, on any and every level. I must have missed it, please give me a number, maybe I'm not reading it right.
And finally to HappyHapyJoyJoy. It's obvious you are a well thought out, and intelligent individual. It's clear you are making an effort to make well thought out posts, but if you've read most of my posts on this subject, you will clearly see that, 3 out of 23 items is a fucking STELLAR number for me. I have no doubt your efforts were to point out reasonable thoughts you feel I have over reacted to, but these are my opinions, and if you put a gun to my head, I would steadfastly remain true to my points. It's who and what I am....I can't change, because I don't want to. Ask most anyone I've interacted with in these gun control threads...I would bet my left nut when they saw I was only concerned with 3 things, the shit a brick. Hell, I would bet both nuts. You keep up the good work, because I probably won't...I'm like arguing with a rock, and twice as stubborn.
twat36975248664224
Closed Account
Mr. Daystar
In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
They may take some responsibility, but the government has to take their fair share to. For years you've been able to go on line and see if you have a sexual predator living near you, it's fine to make their crimes public, but not violent offenders? I'm glad a family can check to see if their new neighbor isn't a kiddie diddler, but it sickens me, that they won't provide me with a way to see if the guy I work with is legally allowed to purchase a firearm I might have for sale. Cities like Cleveland make pathetic efforts to get guns off of the streets, by sponsoring "gun buy back" programs. Bring them a gun, they'll give you a gift card, NO QUESTIONS ASKED. They act appalled that there is no law that prevents anyone from cruising that line, and buying guns without identification, no questions asked....yet the person turning in the gun can turn in a weapon used to murder numerous people, with impunity, and the city will then destroy the evidence for him. The NRA uses fear to whore it's payroll....but the government is twice as bad, because they do the same thing, and then bitch about others doing it.
bobjustbob
Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
Rervidfum,"Which number do you see registration of each transaction...because I have a MAJOR problem with gun registration, on any and every level. I must have missed it, please give me a number, maybe I'm not reading it right."
I have never owned a gun other than a Daisy BB back in the 70's. Neighbors had 22s, shot guns, and over and unders. I don't know if you could just walk into the local K-Mart and buy one like a quart of motor oil. I thought that these things had to be registered with numbers engraved. Sold by someone that checked for ID or a hunting license of some sort. I may be wrong. I'm guessing that you know more about this than I do.
That being said, should firearms be of a free and easy market for exchange just like buying a microwave oven? I've said this a hundred times already, I would be devastated if anyone got hurt or threatened with my gun. I would keep that thing as safe and secure as possible. If it comes up missing I want to report it and trace it's whereabouts.
I have never owned a gun other than a Daisy BB back in the 70's. Neighbors had 22s, shot guns, and over and unders. I don't know if you could just walk into the local K-Mart and buy one like a quart of motor oil. I thought that these things had to be registered with numbers engraved. Sold by someone that checked for ID or a hunting license of some sort. I may be wrong. I'm guessing that you know more about this than I do.
That being said, should firearms be of a free and easy market for exchange just like buying a microwave oven? I've said this a hundred times already, I would be devastated if anyone got hurt or threatened with my gun. I would keep that thing as safe and secure as possible. If it comes up missing I want to report it and trace it's whereabouts.
twat36975248664224
Closed Account
I'm gonna have to disagree with you there, comparing a microwave and guns doesn't seem comparable. Although people can die from stupid from microwaves they aren't as deadly as guns and not everyone should own a gun. I would compare guns to children, some people may want them, they are gonna cost a lot of money but yet not everyone is fit to be in charge of one.
Also revidffum, government has been really just about worthless and laws have been slow to adapt to the every changing world we have. It has been a mess even before our time and people have been doing it for years turning a blind eye to crimes that a person has been involved with. The plea deal is suppose to be a sorry I promise never to commit a crime again but has turned into a loop-hole to serve less jail time. Think of all the people that get put in the witness protection, how many of those people have been parts of crimes but because they rat someone bigger then them self out they can start a new life without being trialed for their crimes. There is so much that has to be done and changed that finding a area to start would be a nightmare. I don't know if you have seen but look at every presidents hair when they first take office and when they leave office. I mean even Obama went from a full head of black hair to grey and loosing it. It is a shitty job to have.
1. So apparently executive orders are considered "executive overreach" now
2. The right is calling Obama a dictator. Usually dictators don't present bills for Congress to pass
:2 cents:
2. The right is calling Obama a dictator. Usually dictators don't present bills for Congress to pass
:2 cents:
Mr. Daystar
In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
As it stands now, if I go into a gun shop, they take my license, and run it through an FBI database, run a back round check that takes a few minutes, if I pass, I get the gun, and the records of my purchase are NOT SUPPOSED to be sent to a national database, where the government can see everything I own, and how many hairs are on my ass. The legislation they want, would require that EVERY person that owns a gun would be kept on file, so if they wanted to come and confiscate them, they know who owns what. At least that's how I understood what I have heard so far. Not 100% clear yet.
larss
I'm watching some specialist videos
Handguns, no. However, farmers may have licensed shotguns, and some criminals have firearms.I thought guns weren't allowed in the UK. How then, was it possible to have gun-related deaths in the UK?
I case you did not notice, gun control is not attempting to take away guns from the responsible citizen, it is attempting in some way, to remove access to those who are mentally unstable or obviously should not have access. So far, access to guns has not helped in these massacre situations. It has only caused them in the first place. If you look at Australia, there have been zero mass killings since gun controls were enacted. Not to say that this method would work in the US, but surely something should be done, and increasing access is not it.
Just making a reference to your banal, racist, factually incorrect and offensive reference to your President.
Rattrap
Doesn't feed trolls and would appreciate it if you
I don't mean any disrespect, but this line of thinking - which you've stated many times in many threads - is in my opinion paranoia, and part of the heel-digging problem that causes the conversation at the national level to go nowhere. In short, I think it's part of the problem.
It's not that I think the government can be entirely trusted to respect our rights - it's that, as I argued with Mayhem ad nauseam, our government doesn't need to touch your guns to take your rights. All those in power need to be is patient and a little clever.
So I ask this: other than the perception that the government is out to get you (or will be in the near future), is there another reason to take the 'absolutely no restrictions/databases/etc' position?
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
I believe that the gun laws need to be changed. However, these actions are unconstitutional and should be struck down by judicial review. Proponents of gun control should petition to amend the constitution if they want to change it, not circumvent it in order to meet their own immediate goals.
Scalia is simply the most dangerous person in America today. You desire an anti-christ look no further.
I'm an advocate of the laws being changed and restrictions being put on gun ownership. However, not without the law being changed. Doing an end run around the Constitution diminishes it.
I heard and interesting argument yesterday. Gun ownership and unrestricted ownership of arms is a Civil Rights issue. Interesting point of view. I'm assuming this was because the 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution. Not quite the definition I found on bing dictionary.
civil rights
Definition
civ·il rights
PLURAL NOUN
1.
basic rights: rights that all citizens of a society are supposed to have, e.g. the right to vote or to receive fair treatment from the law. These rights as conceived in U.S. law are set forth in the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and in some congressional acts.
I heard and interesting argument yesterday. Gun ownership and unrestricted ownership of arms is a Civil Rights issue. Interesting point of view. I'm assuming this was because the 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution. Not quite the definition I found on bing dictionary.
civil rights
Definition
civ·il rights
PLURAL NOUN
1.
basic rights: rights that all citizens of a society are supposed to have, e.g. the right to vote or to receive fair treatment from the law. These rights as conceived in U.S. law are set forth in the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and in some congressional acts.
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Congress can't do anything about executive orders, Georges. It's a judicial responsibility.
Sam Fisher
Banned
And yes, I am a member.
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Revision....I stand corrected. Technically, congress can overturn an EO with a 2/3 majority vote (in much the same manner as a veto). Since that will never happen, the judiciary is almost always the way they are overturned (and that doesn't happen very often either). In this case, it should IMO.
You're the only one here talking about prohibiting guns. We're talking about passing laws to make sure that criminals or mentally ill people cannot buy guns legally and to fight against illegal guns.
But I see why you're against such laws : as a mentally ill person, you're directly targeted by these laws.
Similar threads
