A second thread about Obama and gun control. Two different subjects. Let's try to keep them separate.

I don't have the exact outline to copy and paste, so let me lay it out, as I initially understand it. Require more stringent background check for any firearm sale, including private/gunshow, which will create new class of firearm dealer requirements. Some 130 new FBI hires to handle additional background checks, and 200 new ATF hires to handle investigations.

I don't think I could have a problem with more stringent background checks, unless someone can show me where this may be a slippery slope.... Would like to see the minimum requirements for red flagging someone.... Hope party voting record would not have any bearing. How are they going to incorporate mental health history into the equation needs to be explored. I would have to believe there are a number of ranchers in Oregon who are currently adding a black mark to their future background checks.....

Wait a year and it will be nullified
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Has not been infringed ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I are staying out of thiz wun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I are staying out of thiz wun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You'll come around eventually, you have to much knowledge of the topic not to.....super dad ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Please stop the sanity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Please stop the sanity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bigger government and more regulations fixes everything . We all know Bubba at the gun shows is the problem with gun violence in America . Brilliant !!
Brought to you by good people that brought you Operation Fast and Furious
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

AND THESES Steps ARE A BAD THING ?? Please explain how any of theses are bad and restrict your 2A rights?

and please no talking points from your inbox


All sellers must be licensed and conduct background checks, overturning current exemptions to some online and gun show sellers
States must provide information on people disqualified due to mental illness or domestic violence
FBI will increase workforce processing background checks by 50%, hiring more than 230 new examiners
Congress will be asked to invest $500m (£339m) to improve access to mental healthcare
The departments of defence, justice and homeland security will explore "smart gun technology" to improve gun safety

Bigger government and more regulations fixes everything . We all know Bubba at the gun shows is the problem with gun violence in America . Brilliant !!
Brought to you by good people that brought you Operation Fast and Furious
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


your sure dont have many ideas on how to fix the gun problem or are unwilling to admit there is one .. seem you just regurgitate what the NRA tell's you say.. I understand See no evil speak no evil hear no evil

If gun owners got behind some of this common sense stuff and many do.. they get drowned out by the extremes and the Money it would be a Huge PR win But they would rather have the armed guys in oregon be their Flag bearers on 2A rights they do more damage to your cause the then Pres Obama .. And how are things going to change when hes out of office ??? Gun Makers have had a banner few year with no gun law changes .. Sadly Conservatives are the party of Fear

your sure dont have many ideas on how to fix the gun problem or are unwilling to admit there is one .. seem you just regurgitate what the NRA tell's you say.. I understand See no evil speak no evil hear no evil

If gun owners got behind some of this common sense stuff and many do.. they get drowned out by the extremes and the Money it would be a Huge PR win But they would rather have the armed guys in oregon be their Flag bearers on 2A rights they do more damage to your cause the then Pres Obama .. And how are things going to change when hes out of office ??? Gun Makers have had a banner few year with no gun law changes .. Sadly Conservatives are the party of Fear

I have no idea what the NRA says .
Why don't you explain to me why under the Obama administration gun violation prosecutions have seen such a significant drop ? Seeing how he has been the best thing for gun sales and probably personally responsible for more guns being sold in the last 7 years , I would think we would be using the laws that are already on the books to there fullest . Do you have a problem with or even understand how many laws there already are ?? It appears he's only interested in going after the gpod guys.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My understanding is that there is no "gun show loophole " if you occasionally sell a gun you are not required to become a licensed dealer but all license dealers are required to do federal background checks . I have never been to a gun show, even though I would be classified as "a gun nut "by some of you, my understanding is most of them at the shows are licensed gun dealers.
Now if I decide to sell a few guns to a relative do I now have to become a licensed dealer?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Common sense is something the left says but doesn't understand. Anyone with common sense knows Hillary put classified information at risk with her use of an unsecured personal server. Common sense over how Hillary responded to the abuse of women her husband perpetrated against women shows she is not on the side of women.
Common sense over how she dealt with the video lie shows she is not trustworthy.
Common sense points to the speaking fees and donations from foreign governments to the Clinton foundation are nothing more than buying influence.
Common sense is something the left does not have.
Common sense about the war on drugs is that it is a failure.
Common sense would legalize Marijuana and allow people to grow their own without fear of penalty. Common sense is why people never should have put Duval Patrick back in office after he increased the sales tax by 25%.
Common sense would keep the Clintons out of the white house.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why don't you explain to me why under the Obama administration gun violation prosecutions have seen such a significant drop ?

I looked into this and it doesn't look like it's really that significant.

Federal weapons prosecutions are still very high under Obama compared to the last few decades. They did spike a few years after 9/11 but declined steadily under Bush and under Obama have sort of leveled out. It's also just a single statistic that without context doesn't mean a heck of a lot. You could have a shift towards local and state prosecution for instance that doesn't mean anyone is soft on anything.

I'd rate this one as made up talking point nonsense.

I looked into this and it doesn't look like it's really that significant.

Federal weapons prosecutions are still very high under Obama compared to the last few decades. They did spike a few years after 9/11 but declined steadily under Bush and under Obama have sort of leveled out. It's also just a single statistic that without context doesn't mean a heck of a lot. You could have a shift towards local and state prosecution for instance that doesn't mean anyone is soft on anything.

I'd rate this one as made up talking point nonsense.


BS. I take your last line and throw it back at you
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

BS. I take your last line and throw it back at you
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
It's public data, not much to BS.

My understanding is that there is no "gun show loophole " if you occasionally sell a gun you are not required to become a licensed dealer but all license dealers are required to do federal background checks . I have never been to a gun show, even though I would be classified as "a gun nut "by some of you, my understanding is most of them at the shows are licensed gun dealers.
Now if I decide to sell a few guns to a relative do I now have to become a licensed dealer?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The gun show loophole is really the private sale loophole. To your point, all licensed dealers have to run background checks, but private sellers do not. However, in MA there is no private sale loophole because it is illegal to sell to someone who is not properly licensed in MA even in a private sale, so this doesn't matter all that much if you live in MA..

Please stop the sanity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, if I concede that there's no likely constitutional violation to these regulations, can you return the courtesy, and answer a question?

Here it is...let's say 250 get shot in Chicago in an average weekend. If we put these rules in place, how many less shootings can we expect in Chicago in an average weekend, as a direct result of these regulations? 3? 5?

Now, if we can save a few lives and not violate anyone's rights, we should do it.

But what will it take, exactly, for people on your side to agree to have the rest of the conversation that's required if we want to put a real dent in gun violence?

The right doesn't like to upset the NRA by curbing gun sales - that's fact. It's also fact that the left doesn't like to alienate urban blacks by telling them to knock it off, which is exactly what we need to be saying to the people in Chicago. The problem in Chicago isn't that these rules aren't yet law, and the problem obviously isn't white cops. The problem is that our culture is no longer embracing the kinds of values and behaviors that make one less inclined to shoot someone else.

Here's how I know that's true. In places that still embrace those values (or "cling" to them, as your beloved would say), there is very little gun crime.

Yeah when the murders continue in Chicago after all of these new "orders" maybe then Obama will realize that it wasn't the guns that were the problem...

Here's one thing that I struggle with: it seems indisputable that suicides are more prevalent in areas with the most guns. We need to address this mental health issue somehow and the amount of deaths by guns would go down significantly simply because of the suicide factor. Here's a bit of research on the suicide thing: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/

As Ross mentioned though, this mental health thing can go very wrong if done incorrectly. For example, if you were treated for any mental health issue are you excluded from buying a gun? Where does it end?

Yeah when the murders continue in Chicago after all of these new "orders" maybe then Obama will realize that it wasn't the guns that were the problem...

Here's one thing that I struggle with: it seems indisputable that suicides are more prevalent in areas with the most guns. We need to address this mental health issue somehow and the amount of deaths by guns would go down significantly simply because of the suicide factor. Here's a bit of research on the suicide thing: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/

As Ross mentioned though, this mental health thing can go very wrong if done incorrectly. For example, if you were treated for any mental health issue are you excluded from buying a gun? Where does it end?

"the amount of deaths by guns would go down significantly simply because of the suicide factor."

Interesting. I would have thought (and I would have been wrong) that suicide has nothing to do with availability of guns, since there are so many other ways to commit suicide, and many of those are preferable to me over gun.

"We need to address this mental health issue somehow"

I think w eknow how - we need to adopt the rules we used to have, which made it easier to commit someone before they hurt themselves or others. We know how to do that, we just don't have the stomach. Which is fine - if we want to give these people the freedom to walk freely, that means we are agreeing to accept the fact that a small number of them will do horrendous things.

AND THESES Steps ARE A BAD THING ?? Please explain how any of theses are bad and restrict your 2A rights?

and please no talking points from your inbox


1All sellers must be licensed and conduct background checks, overturning current exemptions to some online and gun show sellers
2States must provide information on people disqualified due to mental illness or domestic violence
3FBI will increase workforce processing background checks by 50%, hiring more than 230 new examiners
4Congress will be asked to invest $500m (£339m) to improve access to mental healthcare
5The departments of defence, justice and homeland security will explore "smart gun technology" to improve gun safety

The main policy would not have stopped any recent mass shootings.

225 years of precedent, destroyed–without any legislative due process.
The expansion of background checks is an affront to freedom in general, because it brings private sellers under the purview of the government regardless of whether those sellers sell one gun a year or 100. Americans have been selling guns privately since 1791–that’s 225 years–and now, with a swipe of his pen, Obama is saying a portion of those sales must be handled federally and conducted via background checks.

This is a not-so-subtle slide toward universal background checks–the kind of background checks they have in California and France–and it will eventually require a gun registry database in order to be enforceable–like the registry they have in France and the one they are building in California.
Sounds bad to me.


You can be denied a gun for purely financial reasons or if you are on Social Security.

Sounds horribly bad


It adds more burdens to gun dealers who are already following the law.
This doesn't affect me because we already have it in Mass.


Nobody wants smart guns, they are unreliable and not proven. Bad idea, very bad idea



so stick with the laws we have
If the individual states can legally add laws to have better background checks, then that is a whole other story

smart gun or no smart gun, a stupid irresponsible person is still going to be unsafe with it!
Every single damn accident with a gun is preventable, triggers don't pull themselves, I know Obama wants you to believe they do, but they just don't!

Here's one thing that I struggle with: it seems indisputable that suicides are more prevalent in areas with the most guns. We need to address this mental health issue somehow and the amount of deaths by guns would go down significantly simply because of the suicide factor. Here's a bit of research on the suicide thing: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/


I've personally known 4 people that committed suicide.....none of them shot themselves. They all hung themselves.

Suicide is more prevalent where depression is......not where more guns are.

Suicides by guns are more prevalent where guns are......because it's convenient.

If someone wants to commit suicide they will do it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Suicides by guns are more prevalent where guns are......because it's convenient.

If someone wants to commit suicide they will do it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Studies have shown that if the person fails in the attempt or is prevented from killing themselves, they are not that likely to try again. With a gun they are more likely to succeed in their attempt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn't hear anything on this but what if anything might be against the constitution?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn't hear anything on this but what if anything might be against the constitution?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh you mean that piece of paper;)
I'm no expert but didn't he create a new crime ? I don't think the President can set law .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Studies have shown that if the person fails in the attempt or is prevented from killing themselves, they are not that likely to try again. With a gun they are more likely to succeed in their attempt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The link I posted earlier on Australia found that with fewer guns not only did the suicide rate by firearm go way down but the rate of suicide fell also. I'd wager for exactly the same reason.

The link I posted earlier on Australia found that with fewer guns not only did the suicide rate by firearm go way down but the rate of suicide fell also. I'd wager for exactly the same reason.

We should spend the money on the veterans that are killing themselves if that's his concern
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Studies have shown that if the person fails in the attempt or is prevented from killing themselves, they are not that likely to try again. With a gun they are more likely to succeed in their attempt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did you ever think that is because now people know they need counseling now, where before it came out of nowhere.

People who fail or are prevented probably also didn't want to succeed.....they were looking for help.

If somebody truly wants to die.....they will.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh you mean that piece of paper;)
I'm no expert but didn't he create a new crime ? I don't think the President can set law .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't know anything other than people said what he proposed was unconstitutional. That is why I asked a question.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We should spend the money on the veterans that are killing themselves if that's his concern
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I agree it's a worthy cause but that would require Republicans to stop thwarting VA funding.

Did you ever think that is because now people know they need counseling now, where before it came out of nowhere.

People who fail or are prevented probably also didn't want to succeed.....they were looking for help.

If somebody truly wants to die.....they will.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think it goes back to people making a quick decision (say you unexpectedly get fired and think your life is over). Once you have not succeeded you'll probably get some help. With a gun there are probably few 2nd chances.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree it's a worthy cause but that would require Republicans to stop thwarting VA funding.

Seems to of found the money for this useless Executive Order
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Seems to of found the money for this useless Executive Order
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I'm sure that's going to be another fight the Speaker caves on.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm sure that's going to be another fight the Speaker caves on.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

True
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm no expert but didn't he create a new crime ? I don't think the President can set law .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I still have not found anything that says he created a new law or a new crime. Can you pls. tell me what I should be looking for?

I thought the action just closed the gun show loop hole (which I would have thought the gun store owners would have wanted since I assumed the gun show sales competed against the owners) and added more agents and prevents the mentally ill and those on the terror watch list from getting guns (are those the laws you're talking about).

As Ross mentioned though, this mental health thing can go very wrong if done incorrectly. For example, if you were treated for any mental health issue are you excluded from buying a gun? Where does it end?

This is where it gets interesting. For example, IIRC if you were prescribed Wellbutrin as a smoking cessation aid - which was also an anti-depression drug - you could be listed as having mental health issues. So that is one tiny loophole / gotcha whatever you want to call it. Is this another instance where the devil is in the details?

The way I look at it is if these new rules won't make a difference anyway then no one should have a problem with them. The left were thrown a bone that they think will make a difference - the right say the new orders won't make a difference anyway. No constitutional rights were violated. Everyone wins.

The way I look at it is if these new rules won't make a difference anyway then no one should have a problem with them. The left were thrown a bone that they think will make a difference - the right say the new orders won't make a difference anyway. No constitutional rights were violated. Everyone wins.

It will be interesting to see how this is implemented. This Administration has a history of not being totally upfront .
I would bet all gun sales will now have to go through a licensed dealer which means you won't be able to transfer a gun as an individual . Thats going to cost you money and time but what the hell , we all have plenty of that .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yup, all of us will be paying that fee to an FFL to transfer guns for private sale..

I still have not found anything that says he created a new law or a new crime. Can you pls. tell me what I should be looking for?

I thought the action just closed the gun show loop hole (which I would have thought the gun store owners would have wanted since I assumed the gun show sales competed against the owners) and added more agents and prevents the mentally ill and those on the terror watch list from getting guns (are those the laws you're talking about).

So there's no penalty if you ignore this ? Cool
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The way I look at it is if these new rules won't make a difference anyway then no one should have a problem with them. The left were thrown a bone that they think will make a difference - the right say the new orders won't make a difference anyway. No constitutional rights were violated. Everyone wins.

The only people who don't win, are the law-abiding people in places like Chicago, who deserve better than a few regualations that will allow Obama to spike the football, but do nothing to make those people safer.

So there's no penalty if you ignore this ? Cool
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I've asked a few simple question bc I don't know yet it seems like you either don't know or are just giving snarky responses.

Since Obama got all teared up when discussing Newtown, can someone please explain how any of these new "laws" would have prevented that terrible tragedy?

I mean, this POS stole his mother's guns, killed her, then proceeded with the rest of the atrocity. His mother passed all of the very strict regs in CT to legally obtain her guns (which, like MA, requires one to pass a criminal background check to even be licensed to possess a gun!)

I still have not found anything that says he created a new law or a new crime. Can you pls. tell me what I should be looking for?

I thought the action just closed the gun show loop hole (which I would have thought the gun store owners would have wanted since I assumed the gun show sales competed against the owners) and added more agents and prevents the mentally ill and those on the terror watch list from getting guns (are those the laws you're talking about).


The Action is not an order until it goes thru congress
The conflict is that it is not just about gunshow loopholes, there are 5 things added, some of them slippery slopes.

They need to fix what they have for background checks before the potus tries to appease gun control advocates.

38 states report less than 80% of felonies which allowed mass murderers in the past to get thru the checks. I know we can do better

Since Obama got all teared up when discussing Newtown, can someone please explain how any of these new "laws" would have prevented that terrible tragedy?

I mean, this POS stole his mother's guns, killed her, then proceeded with the rest of the atrocity. His mother passed all of the very strict regs in CT to legally obtain her guns (which, like MA, requires one to pass a criminal background check to even be licensed to possess a gun!)

because he's trying to add in restrictions about mental health


I don't understand why he does this crap, it just drives people away from the left toward the right

I think it goes back to people making a quick decision (say you unexpectedly get fired and think your life is over). Once you have not succeeded you'll probably get some help. With a gun there are probably few 2nd chances.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and sometimes when you fail you're #^&#^&#^&#^&ed up for the rest of your life....

http://frater.com/suicidelist.html

and not a lot of wiggle room on some of these methods either....

http://lostallhope.com/suicide-methods/statistics-most-lethal-methods

9 out of 10 times when you try hanging yourself you succeed....and the other 1 probably doesn't re-try it again because they can only eat soup through a straw due to the irreparable brain damage they suffered...

watch this and learn the truth

https://www.nranews.com/series/wayne-lapierre/video/wayne-lapierre-the-truth-about-background-checks/episode/wayne-lapierre-season-1-episode-5-the-truth-about-background-checks

The Action is not an order until it goes thru congress
The conflict is that it is not just about gunshow loopholes, there are 5 things added, some of them slippery slopes.

They need to fix what they have for background checks before the potus tries to appease gun control advocates.

38 states report less than 80% of felonies which allowed mass murderers in the past to get thru the checks. I know we can do better

So this should have been entitled "executive action" instead of "executive order" since what he did was an executive action. The article I just read quoted Pres. Obama as He noted that many of the actions he's calling for can only be imposed through legislative action.

"Congress still needs to act," Obama said"

And from another article:

In short ...
A presidential executive order "is a directive issued to federal agencies, department heads, or other federal employees by the President of the United States under his statutory or constitutional powers," according to Robert Longley, writing at usgovinfo.about.com. "In many ways, presidential executive orders are similar to written orders, or instructions issued by the president of a corporation to its department heads or directors."
By contrast, a presidential executive action is kind of a catch-all term, writes NBC, which quoted an unnamed administration official in 2011 as saying: "It just means something the executive branch does. The use of any of a number of tools in the executive branch's toolbox."

Political writer Tom Murse says: "[Most] executive actions carry no legal weight. Those that do actually set policy can be invalidated by the courts or undone by legislation passed by Congress."
Murse writes:
"The terms executive action and executive order are not interchangeable. Executive orders are legally binding and published in the Federal Register.

"A good way to think of executive actions is a wish list of policies the president would like to see enacted."

"A good way to think of executive actions is a wish list of policies the president would like to see enacted."

Not to be snarky but if that's his wish , most of this can be done with out a big dog and pony show . What's the point of taking shots at the GOP . Yea we know he "cares " deeply but what has he done . His justice department doesn't care
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

OK,
so if it's an order then congress would need to un-do it

well as I've said before, they should fix the system they have and stop blaming the guns for these tragedies he is crying about and find the real root of the issue

because he's trying to add in restrictions about mental health


I don't understand why he does this crap, it just drives people away from the left toward the right

agreed on the second sentence! But let's say there was a mental health check required to buy a gun, the mother likely would have still passed it and she's the one who bought the guns, not her son who killed her and the everyone else!

Bottom line: It would have done NOTHING to stop Newtown. Obama can cry us all a river, these actions won't stop this kind of thing from happening again.

So the first stuff I quoted meant it was an executive action. I just saw an other article stating it was an executive order:mad:

Just wasting time on a slow day.

agreed on the second sentence! But let's say there was a mental health check required to buy a gun, the mother likely would have still passed it and she's the one who bought the guns, not her son who killed her and the everyone else!

Bottom line: It would have done NOTHING to stop Newtown. Obama can cry us all a river, these actions won't stop this kind of thing from happening again.
Perhaps there's a solution here where liability could be factored in. If you have a son with known mental issues, you should be responsible for preventing that person access to your weapons.

Perhaps there's a solution here where liability could be factored in. If you have a son with known mental issues, you should be responsible for preventing that person access to your weapons.

I forget . Isn't she dead ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I forget . Isn't she dead ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
She likely wouldn't be had she ensured her son didn't have access to her weapons.

Check this out...

http://www.cabelas.com/product/shooting/gun-storage/gun-safes%7C/pc/104792580/c/104730480/sc/104369580/provault-safes-by-liberty/1321022.uts?destination=%2Fcategory%2FGun-Safes%2F104369580.uts%3FWT.srch%3D1%26WT.tsrc%3DPP C%26rid%3D20%26WT.mc_id%3DGOOGLE%257CSho_Gun%252BS afes_Cabelas-General%257CUSA%26WT.z_mc_id1%3D43700005756524241% 26gclid%3DCM2WkuSelsoCFcRffgod8AoABA%26gclsrc%3Daw .ds

Here it is...let's say 250 get shot in Chicago in an average weekend. If we put these rules in place, how many less shootings can we expect in Chicago in an average weekend, as a direct result of these regulations? 3? 5?
Given the number of guns already in the system most of these actions are a longer-term value proposition. If someone from Chicago can drive to a gun show in Texas and load up on handguns without a background check the local laws are never going be effective aside from perhaps increased penalties.

Yes, gang violence is a big issue but the easy availability of illegal guns is a major contributor to that violence. I read the ATF believes a majority of them come from only 8% of dealers but without good data and tracking they're hamstrung to clamp down.

It seems like a solid majority want universal background checks...even NRA membership. It's a piece of the puzzle, not the entire solution.

I had to get fingerprinted for my TSAPreCheck, I believe you have to get fingerprinted for a CCW, I've never owned a car that the Government wasn't aware of the VIN number.

The idea that creating a Federal database is going to make it easier for the Government to confiscate your weapons is just paranoid fearmongering to keep the NRA executives in power.

Perhaps there's a solution here where liability could be factored in. If you have a son with known mental issues, you should be responsible for preventing that person access to your weapons.

.....and this executive order fixes that how???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

.....and this executive order fixes that how???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Well, it would start by removing barriers to mental health reporting. The proposed HR 4269 would provide the law to require grandfathered but newly restricted weapons to be locked up.

She likely wouldn't be had she ensured her son didn't have access to her weapons.

Check this out...

http://www.cabelas.com/product/shooting/gun-storage/gun-safes%7C/pc/104792580/c/104730480/sc/104369580/provault-safes-by-liberty/1321022.uts?destination=%2Fcategory%2FGun-Safes%2F104369580.uts%3FWT.srch%3D1%26WT.tsrc%3DPP C%26rid%3D20%26WT.mc_id%3DGOOGLE%257CSho_Gun%252BS afes_Cabelas-General%257CUSA%26WT.z_mc_id1%3D43700005756524241% 26gclid%3DCM2WkuSelsoCFcRffgod8AoABA%26gclsrc%3Daw .ds

True and that's how mine are stored .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, it would start by removing barriers to mental health reporting. The proposed HR 4269 would provide the law to require grandfathered but newly restricted weapons to be locked up.

I see the liability being shifted to the doctors .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, it would start by removing barriers to mental health reporting. The proposed HR 4269 would provide the law to require grandfathered but newly restricted weapons to be locked up.

I thought HR 4269 prohibits the sale of certain weapons.

And whoopie.....a law that requires them to be locked.....but she trusts her kid and still doesn't lock them up.....no effect on crisis at all....but everybody sure feels better
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She likely wouldn't be had she ensured her son didn't have access to her weapons.

Check this out...

http://www.cabelas.com/product/shooting/gun-storage/gun-safes%7C/pc/104792580/c/104730480/sc/104369580/provault-safes-by-liberty/1321022.uts?destination=%2Fcategory%2FGun-Safes%2F104369580.uts%3FWT.srch%3D1%26WT.tsrc%3DPP C%26rid%3D20%26WT.mc_id%3DGOOGLE%257CSho_Gun%252BS afes_Cabelas-General%257CUSA%26WT.z_mc_id1%3D43700005756524241% 26gclid%3DCM2WkuSelsoCFcRffgod8AoABA%26gclsrc%3Daw .ds

Do we know that they weren't locked up and maybe he surprised her when she unlocked the safe or whatever.
A person would only have to let their guard down once at the wrong time and access to a gun can be had.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Given the number of guns already in the system most of these actions are a longer-term value proposition. If someone from Chicago can drive to a gun show in Texas and load up on handguns without a background check the local laws are never going be effective aside from perhaps increased penalties.

Yes, gang violence is a big issue but the easy availability of illegal guns is a major contributor to that violence. I read the ATF believes a majority of them come from only 8% of dealers but without good data and tracking they're hamstrung to clamp down.

It seems like a solid majority want universal background checks...even NRA membership. It's a piece of the puzzle, not the entire solution.

I had to get fingerprinted for my TSAPreCheck, I believe you have to get fingerprinted for a CCW, I've never owned a car that the Government wasn't aware of the VIN number.

The idea that creating a Federal database is going to make it easier for the Government to confiscate your weapons is just paranoid fearmongering to keep the NRA executives in power.
Problem is that if they do choose to confiscate guns like Australia did they destroy them so family heirlooms and collectoins are gone forever.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

From Wikipedia:

"There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with capitalization or punctuation differences. Differences exist between the drafted and ratified copies, the signed copies on display, and various published transcriptions.[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]

The importance (or lack thereof) of these differences has been the source of debate regarding the meaning and interpretation of the amendment, particularly regarding the importance of the prefatory clause.


One version was passed by the Congress.[24][25][26][27][28]

As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives, with the rest of the original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights prepared by scribe William Lambert:[29]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:[30]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Playing devil's advocate here - my question is: Where does it say you can sell arms (ie guns)?

Playing devil's advocate here - my question is: Where does it say you can sell arms (ie guns)?



why would it?...read the entire Bill Of Rights...it is a list of restrictions on government and guarantees and protections of individual liberty....

I was hoping for a more spirited debate than that.

Given the number of guns already in the system most of these actions are a longer-term value proposition. If someone from Chicago can drive to a gun show in Texas and load up on handguns without a background check the local laws are never going be effective aside from perhaps increased penalties.

Yes, gang violence is a big issue but the easy availability of illegal guns is a major contributor to that violence. I read the ATF believes a majority of them come from only 8% of dealers but without good data and tracking they're hamstrung to clamp down.

It seems like a solid majority want universal background checks...even NRA membership. It's a piece of the puzzle, not the entire solution.

I had to get fingerprinted for my TSAPreCheck, I believe you have to get fingerprinted for a CCW, I've never owned a car that the Government wasn't aware of the VIN number.

The idea that creating a Federal database is going to make it easier for the Government to confiscate your weapons is just paranoid fearmongering to keep the NRA executives in power.

"Given the number of guns already in the system most of these actions are a longer-term value proposition"

Agreed. Those guns in circulation will be there for 100 years. Obama's regs will have no real effectr.

Spence, if someone with a bad background decides they want to kill someone, do you really believe these regs will stop him? There are all kinds of ways for people who would fail background checks, to get guns.

"The idea that creating a Federal database is going to make it easier for the Government to confiscate your weapons is just paranoid "

Agreed on that.

This is such a small thing, in terms of making us safer. The effect on crime rates will barely be a rounding error.

.....and this executive order fixes that how???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It does absolutely NOTHING that would have changed what happened in Newtown. Zip.

I was hoping for a more spirited debate than that.

it was silly question...

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

What is NICS and how does it work?

"Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms. "

Congrats. Hussein obama has given you something thats been in place for quite a bit.

Stay the course maybe he'll give you a pizza party or maybe even taco tuesday 😱


Posted from my

iPhone/Mobile device

She likely wouldn't be had she ensured her son didn't have access to her weapons.

Check this out...

http://www.cabelas.com/product/shooting/gun-storage/gun-safes%7C/pc/104792580/c/104730480/sc/104369580/provault-safes-by-liberty/1321022.uts?destination=%2Fcategory%2FGun-Safes%2F104369580.uts%3FWT.srch%3D1%26WT.tsrc%3DPP C%26rid%3D20%26WT.mc_id%3DGOOGLE%257CSho_Gun%252BS afes_Cabelas-General%257CUSA%26WT.z_mc_id1%3D43700005756524241% 26gclid%3DCM2WkuSelsoCFcRffgod8AoABA%26gclsrc%3Daw .ds

Totally agree with you Spence! (wow!)
I think the negligence of the mother had a lot to do with this tragedy. I don't agree that more laws would have prevented it. A better mental health system that picked up on this kid and a more involved parent that could have picked up on it? Absolutely. It seems like you are implying that if the government knew that the son had a mental illness then they should have not allowed the mother to purchase guns, which seems like a stretch.

Still the fact remains Obama is doing nothing that could have prevented it.

Given the number of guns already in the system most of these actions are a longer-term value proposition. If someone from Chicago can drive to a gun show in Texas and load up on handguns without a background check the local laws are never going be effective aside from perhaps increased penalties.

Yes, gang violence is a big issue but the easy availability of illegal guns is a major contributor to that violence. I read the ATF believes a majority of them come from only 8% of dealers but without good data and tracking they're hamstrung to clamp down.

It seems like a solid majority want universal background checks...even NRA membership. It's a piece of the puzzle, not the entire solution.

I had to get fingerprinted for my TSAPreCheck, I believe you have to get fingerprinted for a CCW, I've never owned a car that the Government wasn't aware of the VIN number.

The idea that creating a Federal database is going to make it easier for the Government to confiscate your weapons is just paranoid fearmongering to keep the NRA executives in power.

Why not hire a few hundred more ATF agents and dedicate them to stopping the gun flow into Chicago? Even if they are purchased legally in texas, they are not be transferred legally in Chicago! Why hasn't Obama done this via executive order, which is fully his right to do? No, instead we are going to hire more people to do background checks, the majority of which will be of law-abiding citizens. Why don't we have law enforcement actually go after the known criminal activity?

Why not hire a few hundred more ATF agents and dedicate them to stopping the gun flow into Chicago? Even if they are purchased legally in texas, they are not be transferred legally in Chicago! Why hasn't Obama done this via executive order, which is fully his right to do? No, instead we are going to hire more people to do background checks, the majority of which will be of law-abiding citizens. Why don't we have law enforcement actually go after the known criminal activity?

Because he doesn't want to put in jail his constituency
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

LOL! true! and I don't think he has ever fake cried about all these kids killed in chicago either

The Virginia Tech shooter was mentally ill.

The Virginia Tech shooter was mentally ill.

I have to assume anyone that takes the life of an innocent person has a screw loose somewhere
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes he was - so the question is how do we prevent someone like that from getting a gun? Do doctors have to become government informants now?

Um. I would think that anyone who shoots anyone not in self defense is considered mentally ill. Or have we all been conditioned into thinking that it's normal human behavior to bust a cap in a few asses ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes he was - so the question is how do we prevent someone like that from getting a gun? Do doctors have to become government informants now?

You mentioned newtown a few times and have said this wouldn't have done anything to prevent it from happening. Maybe it would have prevented VT.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought HR 4269 prohibits the sale of certain weapons.

And whoopie.....a law that requires them to be locked.....but she trusts her kid and still doesn't lock them up.....no effect on crisis at all....but everybody sure feels better
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The sale...I don't think it takes anything away.

As for the rest, this is the boring drum you keep beating. It's like if rules aren't perfect they're worthless. Tell that to the auto regulators.

Do doctors have to become government informants now?
Many states already have statutes to protect health workers from prosecution if they disclose private information when there's a threat against a 3rd party.

Totally agree with you Spence! (wow!)
I think the negligence of the mother had a lot to do with this tragedy. I don't agree that more laws would have prevented it. A better mental health system that picked up on this kid and a more involved parent that could have picked up on it? Absolutely. It seems like you are implying that if the government knew that the son had a mental illness then they should have not allowed the mother to purchase guns, which seems like a stretch.

Still the fact remains Obama is doing nothing that could have prevented it.
If you made the law stronger around liability it would absolutely make it harder for guns to fall into the wrong hands. The executive action wouldn't fix this but it does start to remedy mental health issues.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ShovG383ac

http://danaloeschradio.com/judge-appointed-by-obama-issues-wrist-slap-for-straw-purchaser-in-cops-murd

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ShovG383ac
The context for this isn't Executive overreach, it's Congressional inaction.

The sale...I don't think it takes anything away.

Well didn't you just say it requires people to lock them up???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The context for this isn't Executive overreach, it's Congressional inaction.

The context for this isn't Executive overreach, it's Congressional inaction.

Executive orders or actions are constitutional if they fall within the purview of the Presidents enumerated powers. If they don't,
congressional inaction does not constitutionally give the executive the power to act in the place of Congress. If that were allowed, there would be no need for Congress. If that were the case, the Framers could have eliminated Article One of the Constitution which describes the powers and duties of Congress, and incorporated all of that Article's enumerated powers into Article Two which is the Executives list of duties and powers. There is no magic constitutional "context" in which the executive can simply say "if the Congress won't do it, I will." It is Congress's prerogative to act or not act on something regardless of what the President wants.

I'm pretty sure Obama would be screaming foul play if the Congress went about doing the executive's job when he wouldn't. Yet, there are many instances during Obama's tenure where he didn't, as required, enforce Congressional legislation. So would those instances have given Congress the power to say "if the President won't do it we will?" No. And Obama's administration were all up in a hissy fit when Congress wrote a letter to the Iranian government regarding the negotiations it was making with Obama's surrogates saying that Congress was unconstitutionally overreaching their power with incursion into Executive power. Even though the Congress actually did have a right to do so as they had every right to inform the Iranians what it would do if the deal was struck. Just as the President has a right to say he will veto a bill if it is passed.

The context for this isn't Executive overreach, it's Congressional inaction.

this is idiotic......


we've "progressed" to a point where a significant number of Americans have, either through ignorance, arrogance or obstinance... no regard for Constitutionally enumerated individual rights....Constitutionally designated and limited government powers and separations and often varying interpretations regarding accountability depending on who is in power and which pet issue is at stake....tell me exactly how we reach compromise again?

The Virginia Tech shooter was mentally ill.

I don't recall much about that?

But this kid in Newtown, and absolutely the Jared Loughner kid in Arizona, these were kids that were terribly broken, in desperate need of help, there were plenty of warning signs.

There are 2 things we can do. we can continue to let the mentally ill roam free, until after they hurt someone. If this is what we decide to do, we can't be shocked when they occasionally snap.

Or we can make it easier to commit the mentally ill. If we do that, we will be locking up a lot of people that probably wouldn't ever hurt anyone, but if we stop a very small number from going on killing sprees, maybe it's worth it. Maybe not. That'sthe conversation we need to have, at lesat regarding large-scale shootings by the mentally ill.

Th egarden variety urban violence, which accounts for the vast majority of gun violense, is a completely different issue, requiring a completely different solution.

this is idiotic......


we've "progressed" to a point where a significant number of Americans have, either through ignorance, arrogance or obstinance... no regard for Constitutionally enumerated individual rights....Constitutionally designated and limited government powers and separations and often varying interpretations regarding accountability depending on who is in power and which pet issue is at stake....tell me exactly how we reach compromise again?

yes it is Idiotic the Gun guys have be saying their coming to take our gun's they have been saying this for years and it hasn't happen and it will never happen . but they keep talking about it. 2a Constitutionally enumerated individual rights to bare arms shall no be infringed its a broken record and Americans are becoming tone deaf to the topic.

its just like abortion only the Base's care and climate change 1 side thinks there an issue and the other side says there isn't ...

Just beacuse both parties feel if the R or D are for it we will be against it.. reguardless of Facts or logic or historical examples

And Those who dont own gun do we not have inalienable right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” Via United States Declaration of Independence not be shot by 2a guys stolen guns .. every ones a law abiding citizen until they commit a crime and are Convicted

Good point Jim. It's rare that someone is that disturbed and there are no warning signs.

yes it is Idiotic the Gun guys have be saying their coming to take our gun's they have been saying this for years and it hasn't happen and it will never happen . but they keep talking about it. 2a Constitutionally enumerated individual rights to bare arms shall no be infringed its a broken record and Americans are becoming tone deaf to the topic.

The Second Amendment has been the thorn in the side of gun control advocates and will continue to be until it is repealed. Those who say that can't happen are wrong. All it takes is a majority sentiment in enough states to favor and trust in government's superior wisdom and its faithfulness to always do what is "best" for the American people. The attempt by those who believe that an all powerful Progressive Administrative State ("the government" for those who's eyes glaze over and brain gets fogged by longer unfamiliar abstract titles) knows best and will do the best have been attempting to do just that--to gain favor for "current" government needing unhindered power to solve "current" problems. Emotional pleas over heart wrenching massacres as well as "common sense" arguments that old "rights" don't apply to new problems are constantly plied and convince more people, who are educated in such ways, over time.

Opinions and articles like these chip away at notions of inalienable rights and will most likely, eventually, lead the way to not only the repeal of the Second Amendment, but the total replacement of the Constitution with some new document. You can make your own guess what that document would say. No doubt, you will have faith that it will say good things.:

http://www.salon.com/2007/04/18/Second_Amendment/

And Those who dont own gun do we not have inalienable right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” Via United States Declaration of Independence not be shot by 2a guys stolen guns .. every ones a law abiding citizen until they commit a crime and are Convicted

You have the right to own a gun to protect yourself. But you don't have the right to deny others owning a gun to protect themselves from government as well as from those who do own guns. But you do not have the right to be free of calamity. You don't have the right not to be blown away by a tornado. You may do all the wise things that may prevent that from occurring, but you don't have a right against it happening. We can do whatever we can, so long as it doesn't infringe other's rights, to protect ourselves from being shot by a criminal who doesn't respect our right to life, and government has the responsibility to prosecute those who infringe on our rights.

But when government restricts, or denies rights, in order to prevent a loss of rights, that is not only a contradiction, it is tyranny. And it results from that notion that rights are not merely TO something, but also FROM something. A right TO something can be unalienable. A right FROM something can only be provided by government. And when rights FROM override rights TO, then government controls and owns the giving of all rights. None are then unalienable.

You have the right to own a gun to protect yourself. But you don't have the right to deny others owning a gun to protect themselves from government as well as from those who do own guns. But you do not have the right to be free of calamity. You don't have the right not to be blown away by a tornado. You may do all the wise things that may prevent that from occurring, but you don't have a right against it happening. We can do whatever we can, so long as it doesn't infringe other's rights, to protect ourselves from being shot by a criminal who doesn't respect our right to life, and government has the responsibility to prosecute those who infringe on our rights.

But when government restricts, or denies rights, in order to prevent a loss of rights, that is not only a contradiction, it is tyranny. And it results from that notion that rights are not merely TO something, but also FROM something. A right TO something can be unalienable. A right FROM something can only be provided by government. And when rights FROM override rights TO, then government controls and owns the giving of all rights. None are then unalienable.

If this happens involving 2a or 14a or 1st a
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, Thats how it works
its doubtful to ever happen.. but if I listen to you its already has happen why say something that is untrue I can go buy a gun today why because its my right hasn't been taken as you keep suggesting !

If this happens involving 2a or 14a or 1st a
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, Thats how it works
its doubtful to ever happen..

It would have seemed impossible to happen when the Constitution was drafted and the Second Amendment was added. It is not deemed so impossible now. The Constitution has been amended 27 times, 17 times after the first 10.

I don't think the Framers would have thought it was possible to pass an amendment such as the 18th which prohibited the manufacture, sale, or transportation of alcoholic beverages. But alcohol consumption was characterized and demagogued (by Progressives) as a crisis which was a danger to the country. So enough bad press and political ranting changed the national sentiment to have enough votes for ratification.

And, enough votes were able to be garnered for the repeal the 18th Amendment with the 21st Amendment.

The same type of demagoguery and anti-gun press has been steadily but slowly, mounting (by Progressives) which, if all else fails to "control the epidemic of gun violence" as the mantra goes, there may come a tipping point in opinion which could provide the necessary votes for a new amendment which could repeal the Second.

I don't know if that is as unlikely as most think.

but if I listen to you its already has happen why say something that is untrue I can go buy a gun today why because its my right hasn't been taken as you keep suggesting !

Are you the one being untrue here, or did you merely misread what I said.? When did I say it already happened?