Obama Announces 23 Executive Orders To Combat Gun Violence

[Mr. Daystar]

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?

Yes. Because they don't have the RIGHT to. Because they work for me...I help pay their salary, and they tend to puff out their chests and act as though, they have come to save the day, when they're the ones that have caused the problems in the first place. Because there is no need for it..if they want our trust, they should earn it, and they need to start, by trusting us. Because they've made ZERO effort to curb the real problems, or make the slightest effort to address clear and present threats to our safety...(gangs, cartels, etc.). But mostly, because they're hypocrites...these restrictions won't apply to them, or their friends, or personal security.

You may have heard of the failed "Fast and Furious" gun running sting, bullshit? They have circumvented the law, lied, got a Federal agent killed, and allowed machine guns to get into the hands of drug cartel members. Personally, I don't think it was a sting operation, I think it's our government backing one cartel, over another, to control the flow, and generate funds for the war on drugs...but that's just my opinion. What isn't opinion is this, the statistics are clear, and indisputable...Chicago has VERY strict gun laws...and one of the highest murder rates by gun of anywhere in the country. California has had some of the strictest restrictions of any state...including a continued ban on type, and capacity. If you look at a gun manufacturers website, they may clearly state that the gun is, or is not "California compliant". But what runs rampant in Cali? Gangs, all armed with AK's, and MP5's. Assault rfles, machine guns, high capacity handguns. Dianne Fuckstien hasn't made effort ONE to deport, or incarcerate these criminals, but she wants us to give up our firearms, that quite frankly, are fucking blast to go shooting with.

I hope that answers your question. If not, I'll do my best to help you out.

 

[twat36975248664224]

The 2nd Amendment gives the United State citizens the right to bare arms in case a militia is needed. Doesn't not state anything about the right to own guns for personal collection, personally protection or for sport. Basically this is all laws in a nut shell, most of them are old and have never been changed to the changing world. You can claim that your freedoms are being destroyed by gun laws but really your freedoms are falling from laws that are old and that are non-existing. The Senate (NOT OBAMA) PASSED a bill that the government can gather and keep information on you forever. Should you be more worried about that or trying to reduce the gun violence in America?

 

[Straight Shooter]

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.

So basically you don't want the government to have any of your information? If that's the case you must be against the DMV, so I suggest you get rid of your car and drivers license. Have a Facebook account? guess how much information is collected from your computer while you're on Facebook. The reason they want to be able to have records of your gun purchases is that it will make it easier to track if for some reason your gun gets stolen and ends up in the wrong hands. If you're a responsible gun owner this legislation shouldn't affect you at all. However if you're a criminal you might have a problem with this. Which are you?

 

[georges]

So basically you don't want the government to have any of your information? If that's the case you must be against the DMV, so I suggest you get rid of your car and drivers license. Have a Facebook account? guess how much information is collected from your computer while you're on Facebook. The reason they want to be able to have records of your gun purchases is that it will make it easier to track if for some reason your gun gets stolen and ends up in the wrong hands. If you're a responsible gun owner this legislation shouldn't affect you at all. However if you're a criminal You Might have a problem with this. Which are you?

So you want a government which is more than very intrusive of your private life, what belongs to you or what or where you plan to go? The fbi has already agents that have made fake profiles on the social networks like twitter, facebook, myspace and even on the professionnal networks like linked in or viadeo so they can find who might be a source of potential threat of terrorism or a potential candidate that may fit their needs. If you were and are really for a democracy, then you wouldn't vouch for this kind of intrusive behavior in your private life.

 

[Rattrap]

I hope that answers your question. If not, I'll do my best to help you out.

All right. This is an excellent reply and I thank you for it.

Yes. Because they don't have the RIGHT to. Because they work for me...I help pay their salary, and they tend to puff out their chests and act as though, they have come to save the day, when they're the ones that have caused the problems in the first place. Because there is no need for it..if they want our trust, they should earn it, and they need to start, by trusting us. Because they've made ZERO effort to curb the real problems, or make the slightest effort to address clear and present threats to our safety...(gangs, cartels, etc.). But mostly, because they're hypocrites...these restrictions won't apply to them, or their friends, or personal security.

I don't take issue with any particular point - I in fact agree with the sentiment. Many of our politicians are next to worthless, and many are even harmful. I suppose my issue with this is the root cause - we elect them. If we're electing officials we don't trust so much that we're stockpiling weapons, what the fuck is wrong with us? Let me try this analogy, and forgive me if it's a stretch: some on the left was to 'solve' our gun problems by removing guns. This of course entirely ignores the root causes of gun violence and is the easier way out. Some on the right want to 'prepare' for their Gov't tyranny problem by stocking up with force of arms, but this also entirely ignores the root causes (for sake of argument, I mean 'tyranny' not in the extreme manner of proper dictators, but actions with usurp or otherwise ignore our rights) - lazy, uninformed, simple voters (I don't mean to demonize here and I'm speaking of the average voter, not anybody specifically - it takes time and effort to educate oneself about politics and many don't have any interest).

In short, I'd argue, one should spend less time and energy arming up for a potential fight with their government and more energy getting people to vote for a government you won't need to fight with (and can trust, actually works on our problems, etc., etc.). I will readily admit that is as difficult and unlikely to achieve as combating the root causes of America's gun violence.

I'm not hopeful, at any rate.

You may have heard of the failed "Fast and Furious" gun running sting, bullshit? They have circumvented the law, lied, got a Federal agent killed, and allowed machine guns to get into the hands of drug cartel members. Personally, I don't think it was a sting operation, I think it's our government backing one cartel, over another, to control the flow, and generate funds for the war on drugs...but that's just my opinion.

I won't dispute this. If half the things I've read and heard in history classes are true, the US Gov't has a pretty good tradition of shit like this. Especially when it comes to our neighbors to the south.

What isn't opinion is this, the statistics are clear, and indisputable...Chicago has VERY strict gun laws...and one of the highest murder rates by gun of anywhere in the country. California has had some of the strictest restrictions of any state...including a continued ban on type, and capacity. If you look at a gun manufacturers website, they may clearly state that the gun is, or is not "California compliant". But what runs rampant in Cali? Gangs, all armed with AK's, and MP5's. Assault rfles, machine guns, high capacity handguns. Dianne Fuckstien hasn't made effort ONE to deport, or incarcerate these criminals, but she wants us to give up our firearms, that quite frankly, are fucking blast to go shooting with.

I do take a little issue with these examples...simply because the statistics I've seen show states with tighter gun laws have lower gun crime. States mind, not cities. But disregarding this, any given state isn't in isolation. Chicago is the third largest city in the country. No matter what its specific gun laws are, if the laws of the states of and the surrounding states are something else, it's not hard to get what you need in one state and drive it over.

Which is not to say I'm disregarding the example outright. Just that, much like both sides of the debate often do, it's a gross oversimplification of things to say "Chicago has X gunlaws and Y gun crimes, so Y is a direct function of X."

 

[larss]

And yes, I am a member.

That statement is a pile of :baconsalt:

What this is saying is that my liberty is on the brink of destruction because I live in a country where "the people" do not have the right to keep and bear arms.
The people in the UK have not have the right to keep and bear arms for centuries (dating back to crossbows), and yet somehow I still have my liberty.

 

[Johan]

What this is saying is that my liberty is on the brink of destruction because I live in a country where "the people" do not have the right to keep and bear arms.
The people in the UK have not have the right to keep and bear arms for centuries (dating back to crossbows), and yet somehow I still have my liberty.

And I live in a country with very strict gun laws but my liberty isn't in danger.
We may not have guns but your guns didn't stop your government fromp assing a the Patriot Act, a law that would never have been passed by my government

 

[Mr. Daystar]

So basically you don't want the government to have any of your information? If that's the case you must be against the DMV, so I suggest you get rid of your car and drivers license. Have a Facebook account? guess how much information is collected from your computer while you're on Facebook. The reason they want to be able to have records of your gun purchases is that it will make it easier to track if for some reason your gun gets stolen and ends up in the wrong hands. If you're a responsible gun owner this legislation shouldn't affect you at all. However if you're a criminal you might have a problem with this. Which are you?

Actually yes, yes I do. I'm not sure how old you are, but I was born in 1965. A new law states that anyone born AFTER 1964, has to get their new drivers license through the mail. Why? Because the new version will have a "smart chip" in it. Just another way to track, and watch every little thing you do. If they're so concerned with safety and security, put a smart chip in the body of every criminal released from prison. Make no mistake, if a responsible, law abiding citizen has a gun(s), he writes the serial numbers down, and stores them in a safe place, away from the gun(s). If it's stolen, he reports it to the police, and gives them that information. As for me, the only place my gun would be stolen is, if I have to lock it in my car, because of a restricted gun free zone, or if I'm killed , or knocked unconscious, and it's taken from my holster, or hand.

In short, I'd argue, one should spend less time and energy arming up for a potential fight with their government and more energy getting people to vote for a government you won't need to fight with (and can trust, actually works on our problems, etc., etc.). I will readily admit that is as difficult and unlikely to achieve as combating the root causes of America's gun violence.

I do make that effort. In fact, I have not missed an election, national, or local since I was 18. I also research the candidates, and do my best to help educate my friends....just in case.

I do take a little issue with these examples...simply because the statistics I've seen show states with tighter gun laws have lower gun crime. States mind, not cities. But disregarding this, any given state isn't in isolation. Chicago is the third largest city in the country. No matter what its specific gun laws are, if the laws of the states of and the surrounding states are something else, it's not hard to get what you need in one state and drive it over.

Which is not to say I'm disregarding the example outright. Just that, much like both sides of the debate often do, it's a gross oversimplification of things to say "Chicago has X gunlaws and Y gun crimes, so Y is a direct function of X."

I think I get your point here...but I would counter with this. Take Illinois, because it is the perfect example. It's not a huge state, but has a huge city, mostly a rural state, lots of farm land...probably a shit load of hunting land, and probably a shit load of hunters. The rest of the state is responsible gun owning sportsmen, that simply enjoy outdoor sports. But the city, is a violent cauldron of criminals, that are willing to shoot you in the head, for a stinking ten dollar bill. The result is, the whole states crime per capita, and gun count is reduced, but the place that needs the right to defend yourself the most, is denied that right. I think that addresses that point, if I got what your meaning was, correctly. As far as the availability of guns, you have a point about driving across the state line, but lets face it, that's usually the petty little thug. When it comes to the major criminal organizations, such as gangs...that shit is coming in by the truck load, and could be coming in by rail, truck, or ship...or all three. Clinton gave China sovereign land in California. How many SKS's came in through that port, and are in the hands of some of the most violent gangs in our country. Tracking chips were in the AK47's that eric holder used for his little fiasco...didn't seem to work very well in my opinion.

By the way, if anyone has an AK/SKS, and it's made by Century Arms...that's the ones holder used, and there are a shit load of them still out there. Be careful if your buying one.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

DOUBLE POST. Please delete.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Well, I did find out that anyone taking the job, as head of the ATF has to go through Senate hearings...so it makes me feel a little better knowing he can't just hand pick a puppet, to run it unchecked, and without repercussion.