DescentBB

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:01 pm**

....well, not exactly. But, I wanted to provide a thread, with a nifty, catchy title, to let folks opine on the various parts. I am aiming for specifics, not touchy feely gut feelings, or parrotting of some whackjob from the TV or radio. Your specific opinions, objections, attaboys and such. You see, it seems like everyone I've talked to about this presentation seems to feel that the proposals and orders are pretty sensible, and, well, pretty bland and obvious.
What do you think?
for reference, a link that lists the proposals and orders in summary form without a lot of excess commentary:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/ ... 5620130116

My take? It seems like all the proposed legislation makes some sense, but won't, of course, prevent all possible violent acts. Every proposed law is beyond sensible, although I understand criticism of the working definition of 'assault weapon'. As for the orders the President issued, my opinion falls into two parts: First, several of those orders are things that have long ago been implemented with or without tragedies to propel them. Stuff like studying violent trends, or adding mental health data to the background database, along with re-sending an ATF director nomination to the Senate all seem like no brainers. The rest are all good items, which seemingly don't impinge on anyone's gun ownership of a responsible nature, and at worst might make for a bit more bureaucracy to deal with, but, as was stated, if it saves one life, why not?

I see exactly ZERO 2nd Amendment issues here. None. Although, I'll be willing to bet that the next time it hits the courts, there will be FAR more focus on the words 'well-regulated'.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:11 pm**

I agree. while i haven't read his proposals nothing "APPEARS" to be a "gun grab".

HOWEVER. he is writing law by executive decree. he cannot do that. the Constitution is specific on where laws originate. and the white House isn't it.
and anyone prosecuted under his said decree / law could easily have it dismissed since there is no Constitutionally passed law to prosecute them with.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:21 pm**

None of the 23 items in the executive order alter existing laws or introduce new ones. Those items (mostly along the lines of "clarify legal barrier X", "commit to goal Y", "launch program Z") are all already within executive authority.

The points which do change law (e.g. re-instituting the assault-weapon ban, universal background checks) are separate, and can't be part of the executive order. Basically these are proposals / requests to Congress, and will go through the normal procedures.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:30 pm**

I'll get back to you with some specifics later on, but I would like to remind you of the reason this is all being proposed, and while you're concerned with specifics you may find time to have it dawn on you that all of these "reasonable/sensible" measures are being piggy-backed on unrelated crimes. That ought to make anyone wonder. If the crimes (school shooting) were legitimately and directly preventable by the measures being put forth, I would be inclined to take it all a lot more seriously off the bat. They won the lottery and it's a political spree. They've always been for it, we've always been against it, but now they're claiming it's something else. Way to use the memory of those killed at these school shootings for their own pet political ends.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:47 pm**

CUDA wrote: HOWEVER. he is writing law by executive decree. he cannot do that.

cite an example. I see no law having been made, merely upping enforcement, or sharpening definitions, both of which are Presidential prerogatives.
Bush used to tinker with virtually every bill passed by Congress by Presidential definitions, and Obama isn't even doing that much, IMO. Thus, I would disagree that anyone convicted would have any leg to stand on, as the laws they were convicted of were on the books already.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:49 pm**

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I'll get back to you with some specifics later on, but I would like to remind you of the reason this is all being proposed, and while you're concerned with specifics you may find time to have it dawn on you that all of these "reasonable/sensible" measures are being piggy-backed on unrelated crimes. That ought to make anyone wonder. If the crimes (school shooting) were legitimately and directly preventable by the measures being put forth, I would be inclined to take it all a lot more seriously off the bat. They won the lottery and it's a political spree. They've always been for it, we've always been against it, but now they're claiming it's something else. Way to use the memory of those killed at these school shootings for their own pet political ends.

I tried to address that by suggesting that much was LONG overdue, IMO. Thus, I would agree that it took a tangentally related tragedy to get things rolling. That said, I see nothing wrong that was proposed or enacted.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2013 5:29 pm**

What parts of it exactly are long overdue?

callmeslick wrote:Thus, I would agree that it took a tangentially related tragedy to get things rolling.

I don't think I'm going to let you get away with that. You could justify the devil himself with that kind of flexibility.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:28 pm**

Thorne, it it certainly not the first time a govt would use a crisis to get something done. Happens a lot my obtuse little man.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:38 pm**

Sergeant Thorne wrote:What parts of it exactly are long overdue?

callmeslick wrote:Thus, I would agree that it took a tangentially related tragedy to get things rolling.
I don't think I'm going to let you get away with that. You could justify the devil himself with that kind of flexibility.

long overdue:
Orders--more stringent enforcement and stronger sentence guidelines for straw purchase
allowing mental health professionals to inquire about guns in the home(clarification)
allowing for Federal study of violence within the US

Proposed laws--reinstatement of AW ban
extension of background checks to ALL sales(most long overdue of all, why this hasn't been the case forever is baffling)
restriction on certain types of ammo listed in proposed new laws

the last part, I am not sure what you objecting to.....my wording, or the facts of how events went forward. What's right is right, it shouldn't take a tragedy to do what is right, but sometimes that's how politics works. That is all I'm saying, Thorne.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:47 pm**

"Well regulated" in the context of restrictions on weaponry, and keeping with the spirit and intent of the 2nd amendment, would have to apply to all weapons. What I mean is, if you want to make 10 rounds a limit on magazine capacity you would have to make that apply to all weapons the government uses as well as civilian weapons.

Contrary to the opinion of the governor of New York, it isnt that we need more than 10 bullets for killing a deer. It is that if our government needs more than 10 bullets to keep us in line then however many they need we need as many to keep them in line.
That is the spirit and intent of the 2nd amendment. The amendment says so, the author said so, the contemporary evidence from his time, letters between him and the others involved in the drafting of the document say so, and the SupremeCourt has affirmed the 2nd amendment as an "individuals right" as recently as 2 years ago. It really doesn't matter one bit that you might find the prospect of citizens with rifles a poor match for the US Army. That is the right our Constitution and Bill of Rights preserves for us and it isn't incumbent upon the citizen to prove he needs it or that it is sufficient according to your opinion. It simply and completely IS his right and the documents clearly state that the government shall not infringe upon that right.

So if you let the federal government continue to arbitrarily dictate the type of arms citizens may keep, and that is what the use of the conveniently invented "assault weapon" is, an ever evolving open definition that may encompass all manner of firearms at the whim of the government then you are reducing the right that 'shall not be infringed'.

How far can they push it before it is challenged and who will be on the court to decide it is the interesting part for sure.
The sad thing is we aren't watching this gun grab unfold because the left is mistaken about what causes school shooters or gang bangers murdering like pol pot wannabes. It is simply an attempt to exploit a tragedy for political gain. Give them an inch and they take a mile but if they don't make the mile they take as much as they can and keep coming back for more. The fact that there will be a few decent measures in the legislation doesn't mean the long term goal is any different than it has always been. It's not like they keep it a secret, many of their anti gun groups have included this long term goal in their documentation and in the fund raising materials and many left wing members of Congress openly tell us they think all we need is government to have weapons to be safe.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:56 pm**

Will Robinson wrote:"Well regulated" in the context of restrictions on weaponry, and keeping with the spirit and intent of the 2nd amendment, would have to apply to all weapons. What I mean is, if you want to make 10 rounds a limit on magazine capacity you would have to make that apply to all weapons the government uses as well as civilian weapons.

well, that's your reading. We'll see what the judiciary and lawyers say. My read is that allowing the public to buy unrestricted weaponry, in unchecked amounts, with little regard for public safety is anything but 'well regulated'. I'm no lawyer either, so my take and yours are just amateur exercises.

Contrary to the opinion of the governor of New York, it isnt that we need more than 10 bullets for killing a deer. It is that if our government needs more than 10 bullets to keep us in line then however many they need we need as many to keep them in line.

I remind you, once again.....your government has nuclear weapons, nerve agents, sonic weapons, laser weapons, heat seeking missles and a host of ★■◆● you and I couldn't likely get our heads around. Where do you stand on public possession there? I thought so.....

That is the spirit and intent of the 2nd amendment. The amendment says so, the author said so, the contemporary evidence from his time, letters between him and the others involved in the drafting of the document say so, and the SupremeCourt has affirmed the 2nd amendment as an "individuals right" as recently as 2 years ago. It really doesn't matter one bit that you might find the prospect of citizens with rifles a poor match for the US Army. That is the right our Constitution and Bill of Rights preserves for us and it isn't incumbent upon the citizen to prove he needs it or that it is sufficient according to your opinion. It simply and completely IS his right and the documents clearly state that the government shall not infringe upon that right.

see my response above, and ask if your take is remotely practical.

How far can they push it before it is challenged and who will be on the court to decide it is the interesting part for sure.

I am not, as I said, a lawyer, but I sure hope no court ever embraces your definition. Thus far, none ever has.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:14 pm**

callmeslick wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:"Well regulated" in the context of restrictions on weaponry, and keeping with the spirit and intent of the 2nd amendment, would have to apply to all weapons. What I mean is, if you want to make 10 rounds a limit on magazine capacity you would have to make that apply to all weapons the government uses as well as civilian weapons.

well, that's your reading. We'll see what the judiciary and lawyers say. My read is that allowing the public to buy unrestricted weaponry, in unchecked amounts, with little regard for public safety is anything but 'well regulated'. I'm no lawyer either, so my take and yours are just amateur exercises.

Yes, you and I are but the experts I cite are....well, the experts! The Supreme Court, historians, scholars of law and the period are who the judiciary turn to, and in fact did turn to to decide this issue. So you need them to revisit it and over turn it. Otherwise they will refer their existing position, that the 2nd IS an individual right when deciding other aspects of any new gun control legislation. The city of Chicago was just told to fix their bad legislation. I'm guess the State of New York will be told the same thing..

callmeslick wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:Contrary to the opinion of the governor of New York, it isnt that we need more than 10 bullets for killing a deer. It is that if our government needs more than 10 bullets to keep us in line then however many they need we need as many to keep them in line.
I remind you, once again.....your government has nuclear weapons, nerve agents, sonic weapons, laser weapons, heat seeking missles and a host of **** you and I couldn't likely get our heads around. Where do you stand on public possession there? I thought so.....

Will Robinson wrote:That is the spirit and intent of the 2nd amendment. The amendment says so, the author said so, the contemporary evidence from his time, letters between him and the others involved in the drafting of the document say so, and the SupremeCourt has affirmed the 2nd amendment as an "individuals right" as recently as 2 years ago. It really doesn't matter one bit that you might find the prospect of citizens with rifles a poor match for the US Army. That is the right our Constitution and Bill of Rights preserves for us and it isn't incumbent upon the citizen to prove he needs it or that it is sufficient according to your opinion. It simply and completely IS his right and the documents clearly state that the government shall not infringe upon that right.

callmeslick wrote:see my response above, and ask if your take is remotely practical.

No, you need to retread my original comment on that just above. Your opinion of practical is not a criteria that the Bill of Rights must reconcile with. That is the arrogance of your position shining through. Like the angry befuddled parent screaming 'because I said so" the problem for you there is you are not our Daddy.

callmeslick wrote:
How far can they push it before it is challenged and who will be on the court to decide it is the interesting part for sure.
I am not, as I said, a lawyer, but I sure hope no court ever embraces your definition. Thus far, none ever has.

Your arrogance is impressive.
The Supreme Court has in 2008 and 2010. The way it stands today you can own anything you want. You may be restricted where you can fly your fully armed stealth bomber or build your nuclear weapon and most people are OK with those kind of restrictions. And we will be OK with a few of Obama's too. However, the open category of "assault weapon" is being abused. The more types of weapons you try to capture in it the more seats in Congress you forfeit. That is a lesson your party learned recently and won't soon forget. You got your photo op today now you will see them slowly walk it backwards to an level that re-election remains possible for them. Obama being the wild card but without the votes he just becomes the lame duck. At least that is the most likely and typical outcome. If they go all in then they will become the notorious party.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:28 pm**

“Well regulated” refers to the first part of the amendment, not the second part.

The 2nd amendment has 2 parts the first and the second, the first refers to a militia, and the second refers to the “peoples” right to keep and bear arms.

If you read the amendment as one part only, the result is something awful like…translation…The people have a right to form a well regulated militia, and that militia has the right to have weapons, which I dare say, the founding fathers would never use such awful language, as having weapons is already implied in a militia.

The Supreme Court just recently ruled that the 2nd amendment gives the “individual” the right to bear arms…therefore the requirement “well regulated” does not apply, because any “individual” is not part of a militia.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:31 pm**

did you read my other post about the history of this kind of stuff......you might come to realize that the interpretation has been wildly variable over time.
Oh, and you really didn't address my concerns with your reading, and you assume that all 'experts' concur with your reading. That last part is way wrong.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:35 pm**

Spidey wrote:“Well regulated” refers to the first part of the amendment, not the second part.

The 2nd amendment has 2 parts the first and the second, the first refers to a militia, and the second refers to the “peoples” right to keep and bear arms.

If you read the amendment as one part only, the result is something awful like…translation…The people have a right to form a well regulated militia, and that militia has the right to have weapons, which I dare say, the founding fathers would never use such awful language, as having weapons is already implied in a militia.

The Supreme Court just recently ruled that the 2nd amendment gives the “individual” the right to bear arms…therefore the requirement “well regulated” does not apply, because any “individual” is not part of a militia.

The definition of militia today is one of a formal organization. In the time of drafting the use was to imply the citizens, with their own weapons at hand were armed well enough to equal the standing army and when trouble came, like a fight against tyrants in the government they would form a 'militia' by virtue of their stand against the threat.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:39 pm**

by the way, this expert(freaking liberal scalliwag!) thinks gun regulations are Constitutional:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/scalia-g ... d-20120729

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:39 pm**

Same difference Will, that “militia” still had to be “well regulated” which only applied to the group once assembled.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:42 pm**

Gun regulations are very constitutional, up until the point where they infringe the right to keep and bear.

(as in carry)

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:43 pm**

callmeslick wrote:did you read my other post about the history of this kind of stuff......you might come to realize that the interpretation has been wildly variable over time.
Oh, and you really didn't address my concerns with your reading, and you assume that all 'experts' concur with your reading. That last part is way wrong.

I never said all do but I correctly implied that the important ones, in our time, do. I also said there could be future decisions handed down by a possibly different group of judges.

But your contention that no court sees it my way is dead wrong. The most important court in the land did, and they still do, currently rendering decisions based on that interpretation that you seem to be in denial of. Just because some other lawyer or scholar doesn't see it that way means very very little now that the highest court has ruled on the issue....unless you can place that other scholar in the court and get another challenge heard to overturn the courts recent decision. Not an easy checklist to mark 'done'...but yea, Obama is dreaming of the day I'm sure as many others are.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:47 pm**

Spidey wrote:Same difference Will, that “militia” still had to be “well regulated” which only applied to the group once assembled.

The way it was interpreted was that Madison's point that citizens with their own weapons were "in regulation" comparable to the federal troops of the day. Therefore they would be "well regulated" if they came with their own weapons. The key there is 'regulated' meant equipped in Madisons era, not 'controlled by' which is the modern day use of the term regulated. Back then some one or a group in "good regulation" was someone well prepared for a job....they have the proper tools etc. a sailing ship in good regulation was another variation from that era, meaning the ship was ready for open seas.

This isn't just my opinion this is from a body of historians and other experts who hashed this out for the courts consumption and for the consternation of many on the left

With that in mind read the whole thing again.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:54 pm**

Spidey wrote:Gun regulations are very constitutional, up until the point where they infringe the right to keep and bear.

(as in carry)

actually, Scalia is pretty straightforward, not only can carry areas be limited, but the types of weapons can as well. He, as I, contend that one has to look at the context of the time in which the words were written in the 2nd amendment. Freaking liberal.....
"Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court's most vocal and conservative justices, said on Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons.

"It will have to be decided in future cases," Scalia said on Fox News Sunday. But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also "locational limitations" on where guns could be carried......"

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:57 pm**

callmeslick wrote:[.... Scalia is pretty straightforward, ...
He, as I, contend that one has to look at the context of the time in which the words were written in the 2nd amendment. Freaking liberal.....

I know this Scalia, he is a friend of mine. You sir, are no Scalia!

We already have lots of guns restricted. Full auto, sawed off shotty's etc.

However, if liberals do like we know they will, the "assault weapon" definition will be so stretched and ambiguous as to include plenty of guns Scalia won't agree with restricting and so it will be struck down.

I find the magazine restriction to be offensive. No clue how that by itself would fare in the Supremes court but the argument that a bag of ten 10 rounders is good but a bag of five 20 rounders is bad makes no sense at all to someone who actually uses them. I dont think any massacre to date would have had a lower body count if the shooter only had 10 rounders.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:58 pm**

see above....

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:59 pm**

oh, and should you be wondering HOW LONG AGO he stated these things......the interview was in 2012.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:06 pm**

now, let's get back to my original purpose: What, if anything, that the President did today do you find unreasonable or objectionable, and why?

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:13 pm**

callmeslick wrote:now, let's get back to my original purpose: What, if anything, that the President did today do you find unreasonable or objectionable, and why?

I've been too busy here running my ethereal mouth to find a clear copy of it...nothing but editorial garbage...,waiting for dust to clear.
I don't like the re enlistment of the CDC into the political ranks again and especially the outrageous spin he used to say it was OK to remove the ban by executive order in a gun control moment because he 'wasn't telling them to do gun control related work'....come on! Are you signing flu shot exec orders here or what!
As I said when I posted about it, King of Arrogance.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:16 pm**

Slick, I have no problem with restricted carry areas, but you said in a previous post that you would deny all carry permits.

Keep…as in own or possess
Bear…as in have on person

Let me tell you what that would do…that would prevent me from transporting my sidearm from my home to my workplace every day, forcing me to buy a second gun to keep at work.

Then you would have at least one firearm unattended at all times…one at home while I was at work, and one at work while I was at home, and two of them while I was at neither place.

Great work, you just increased gun ownership by 1 gun.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:16 pm**

Will, my Reuters link in the original post is pretty non-editorial, which is why I linked it. By the way, did you catch that link I posted for you to the PDF copy of the New York law?

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:19 pm**

Spidey wrote:Slick, I have no problem with restricted carry areas, but you said in a previous post that you would deny all carry permits.

Keep…as in own or possess
Bear…as in have on person

Let me tell you what that would do…that would prevent me from transporting my sidearm from my home to my workplace every day, forcing me to buy a second gun to keep at work.

Then you would have at least one firearm unattended at all times…one at home while I was at work, and one at work while I was at home, and two of them while I was at neither place.

Great work, you just increased gun ownership by 1 gun.

um, I didn't say deny, but restrict, carry permits. Oh, and if any rule caused you to leave one weapon 'unattended', my rules would require that it be locked away, or you WOULD be criminally liable. That, I did say.
Now, back to Obama's plan, as mine is unlikely to be enforcable.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:37 pm**

CobGobbler wrote:Thorne, it it certainly not the first time a govt would use a crisis to get something done. Happens a lot my obtuse little man.

How do you think you get off referring to me as "little man", you twerp?

There is a big difference between taking advantage of public awareness surrounding an incident (what a government in America should do), and riding a wave of propaganda and misinformation (a wave that elements of our federal government have contributed to), taking advantage of people's emotions to spite the entirety of the facts underlying the issue. It is sick to see a government's interaction with the people devolved into purely an emotional exchange. It is so absolutely beneath us as Americans. These people have responsibilities to us (respectively)--to our specific interests and rights--and to the constitution.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:54 pm**

The Liar wrote:4. Immediate cessation of all laws allowing for public carry of any firearm in a non-hunting situation
5. Immediate cessation of all concealed carry laws for all civilians

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:43 pm**

callmeslick wrote:
Sergeant Thorne wrote:What parts of it exactly are long overdue?
long overdue:
Orders--more stringent enforcement and stronger sentence guidelines for straw purchase
allowing mental health professionals to inquire about guns in the home(clarification)
allowing for Federal study of violence within the US

Proposed laws--reinstatement of AW ban
extension of background checks to ALL sales(most long overdue of all, why this hasn't been the case forever is baffling)
restriction on certain types of ammo listed in proposed new laws

I don't know that I agree with inquiring about guns in the home. It seems to me that he doesn't need to know for any professional purpose. I would call that an invasion of privacy, I think.

The AW ban was largely superficial, IMO, and the second amendment does not dictate which arms shall not be infringed. I would call restricting my capacity or the operation of my gun infringement. I believe that background checks and effective law-enforcement work could be more than enough to render a fully-armed society safe from dangerous elements, even with the presence of something as effective as a fully-automatic weapon.

The biggest problem I have with your list, which I would like to get across to you, is that there is a good reason not to hamper private sales of firearms, generally speaking. Having the freedom to sell a gun to a friend or acquaintance without having to make a big deal out of it, and incur extra expense is a very nice thing for all law-abiding citizens--it's a boon for us, and it's very much a symptom of the freedom which American's have enjoyed. I'll tell you what, though--I would be willing to compromise with you there. Here is my solution (this would work together with what I've talked about briefly in a recent topic about requiring training leading to licensing for concealed carry)...

A) Make receipts available for private sellers to record buyer's CCW license number.

B) Serious prosecution and fines for gun crimes traced back to a seller where the transaction has taken place in the last... 6 months (or some defined, relatively short length of time) if the seller cannot produce this receipt.

What do you think? Will, Spidey, what do you think? The result is that a seller has an interest in only selling to folks who have either received a background check in the process of getting their CCW, or they're willing to bet prison time that the person is responsible enough to be sold the firearm. That is, IMO, a solution consistent with the greatest good for our country. Not just one where a politician can sell you a line about .keeping us safe"--like they're the ★■◆●ing parents that half of us don't want or need intruding on our lives and liberty.

callmeslick wrote:
Sergeant Thorne wrote:
callmeslick wrote:Thus, I would agree that it took a tangentially related tragedy to get things rolling.
I don't think I'm going to let you get away with that. You could justify the devil himself with that kind of flexibility.

the last part, I am not sure what you objecting to.....my wording, or the facts of how events went forward. What's right is right, it shouldn't take a tragedy to do what is right, but sometimes that's how politics works. That is all I'm saying, Thorne.

I'm saying that when you call this kind of show a "tangent", you are guilty in this case of down-playing something that is irresponsible and outright wrong because you' have an interest in what they're doing. There is no excuse for allowing this kind of one-sided, emotionalistism, and suppression of the facts that are in favor of firearms in what they are touting as a responsible move. These folks have taken advantage of something that is 80-90% unrelated in order to push their bull****/bankrupt agendas. There's nothing innocent about that. They are complicit in the deception of the American people in order to sell them a bill of goods that up to this point they haven't been able to (and there's no legitimate reason they should be able to in light of these school shootings). I was taught, when I was young, that something wrong cannot result in something right. It's an impossibility--it's tainted, it's bad. These people have no appreciation for real freedom--they don't want it (not for everyone). We need laws that are consistent with freedom and for that reason with the constitution. We don't need some social-engineering pipe-dream of a control scheme aimed at creating someone's great society.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:07 pm**

Thorne...

I think you would have a very hard time enforcing any kind of laws where the private sale of weapons are concerned, but I don’t have any objections to such things, as I personally would never buy a firearm from anyone other than a licensed seller.

You never know where that weapon was, or what kind of crime might have been committed with it.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:39 pm**

I don't see anything wrong with any of Obama's orders. All they do is strengthen existing laws, continue the debate and put restrictions and bans in Congressional debate, exactly where they should be. I imagine he knows as well as I that none of it will pass the house, and from what I've heard, even Harry Reid is against such bans. No, he left room for intelligent debate and approached the problem at it's roots. I respect him for directing the debate and not pushing an agenda outside of the authority of his office. He left the ban of assault weapons, ammo restrictions and private sale background checks to Congress.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:13 pm**

slick, I looked at the New York law for a bit. It seems the parts that talk about mental health personnel recommending gun owners to be relieved of their weapons and other similar parts are referring to 'sections' of the law that aren't in the document. Maybe another law or previous version that isn't part of that document but should be.
It's my experience that when they have something controversial they accidently leave it out until someone forces the issue with the FOI process.

************************************

Thorne,
I have bought and sold a number of guns in the last year. all but one was from people who have a concealed carry permit. In my state, if you have a permit they don't have to do the instant check, I think they just verify that your permit is still valid. I figure if it is good enough for the government/gun dealer sales it is good enough for me. I wouldn't sell or buy from a stranger without the permit and I always get and give a signed receipt so if the gun ends up used in a crime I can show who I sold it to.

That said, I'm willing to let local dealers do the background check and even pay 5 or 10 dollars fee for their time.
I think the majority of criminals guns come from private sales and have no problem giving up a little time to plug that conduit. Well worth it.
I always thought it was funny that I had to be tested to drive a car but could buy a weapon with little proof I knew anything about how to use it.

I understand why there is such resistance to any kind of increased scrutiny and regulation because the anti-gun contingent has been extremely dishonest and shamefully manipulates and scares ignorant people into going along with it. I would be opposed to state or national gun registration. they have already proven that they will use it to take your guns in anything they call an emergency. Katrina...

***********************************

slick, how do you feel about the school resource officers Obama recommended? Resource officer is what the policewoman and policeman that work our high school and middle school are called. fully armed and armored. city police car stays right out front to remind everyone who is in there. We love it. The kids in the middle school feel safer in the wake of the recent shooting. High schoolers are too cool to say one way or the other.
Funny, didn't Obama's spokesman ridicule the idea just a week ago?

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:57 am**

Will Robinson wrote:slick, how do you feel about the school resource officers Obama recommended? Resource officer is what the policewoman and policeman that work our high school and middle school are called. fully armed and armored. city police car stays right out front to remind everyone who is in there. We love it. The kids in the middle school feel safer in the wake of the recent shooting. High schoolers are too cool to say one way or the other.
Funny, didn't Obama's spokesman ridicule the idea just a week ago?

I don't think they so much ridiculed it as they suggested that it was hardly the be-all and end-all solution. At any rate, I am still not at all comfortable with guns in my grandkids schools, especially in lower grades. I think the fact that seed money was put up to allow for schools to pursue the option shows the willingness of the Obama administration to look into all options, which is not a bad thing.

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:17 am**

callmeslick wrote:now, let's get back to my original purpose: What, if anything, that the President did today do you find unreasonable or objectionable, and why?

Where is any mention of violent video games and setting up a program to inform parents that too many hours playing them is bad for their kids?

Where is any suggestion that graphic blood filled movies be banned and Hollywood actors be held accountable for appearing in them?

While I can agree with what is in Obama's executive orders, saying that firearms and the possession of them is the problem just ain't cutting it.

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:25 am**

callmeslick wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:slick, how do you feel about the school resource officers Obama recommended? Resource officer is what the policewoman and policeman that work our high school and middle school are called. fully armed and armored. city police car stays right out front to remind everyone who is in there. We love it. The kids in the middle school feel safer in the wake of the recent shooting. High schoolers are too cool to say one way or the other.
Funny, didn't Obama's spokesman ridicule the idea just a week ago?
I don't think they so much ridiculed it as they suggested that it was hardly the be-all and end-all solution. At any rate, I am still not at all comfortable with guns in my grandkids schools, especially in lower grades. I think the fact that seed money was put up to allow for schools to pursue the option shows the willingness of the Obama administration to look into all options, which is not a bad thing.

As I recall it wasn't that they thought of it as a solution at all, they reflexively and vehimently refused a logical safety measure simply because it came from the NRA.

It is the only option that can be put into effect immediately that has a good chance of reducing an attack or stopping one completely. Obama's list of 'executive orders' looks pretty darn weak and bureaucratic-only without its inclusion. And I'll bet they included it because they know another attack is likely and the sensible people would be outraged that there was no 'real' step towards securing schools taken between Sandy Hook and that inevitable next attack.

If your goal truly is to make children safe from the next crazy with a gun then a good guy with a gun is your best defense by far. It is the same defense all the elite and powerful people employ to defend against similar attacks and THE ONLY reason the left took a position against the best defense is their partisan instincts trumped common sense.

And that is why we can't trust them, even when the cause is just their methods are full of self serving motives that impede their performing in our best interest. I'm speaking of all politicians.

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:35 am**

There has been a very important step toward stopping these attacks left out by everyone.
Stop reporting the details, especially any details about the killers!

It is definitely a big part of what they hope to accomplish, to be discussed, to be notorious, to be recognized as powerful, to have their emotions analyzed, etc etc.
Their mention should be limited to anonymously referred to as 'the killer' with little to no mention of anything remarkable at all.

24 hour news programming has a lot of detrimental effects on our culture, this is a big one. There is no reason we should provide these killers with the incentive to be 'prime time', to be the big story. Cable news is the Facebook update / Twitter feed of psycho killers. I bet in their planning these attacks they fantasize about their mention on the news more than anything else. Lets take away that incentive from them.

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:20 am**

woodchip wrote:
callmeslick wrote:now, let's get back to my original purpose: What, if anything, that the President did today do you find unreasonable or objectionable, and why?
Where is any mention of violent video games and setting up a program to inform parents that too many hours playing them is bad for their kids?

that might well be an outcome of the CDC study, which had previously been blocked.

Where is any suggestion that graphic blood filled movies be banned and Hollywood actors be held accountable for appearing in them?

given the First Amendment, who would have such a right to do so? Once again, the studies might point out the dangers and make parental recommendations, but aren't you one of the folks that decries overreach of Presidential power?

While I can agree with what is in Obama's executive orders, saying that firearms and the possession of them is the problem just ain't cutting it.

I think the message, and it was very clearly stated is that gun access is but a PART of a very complex problem.

DescentBB

Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan

Re: Obama's Radical Gun Grabbing Plan