Obama's gun proposals / executive orders

[KyleW]

Okay gun people. He announced his proposals and orders.

After all the hand-wringing about the President's feverish desire to take all your guns away, what are your thoughts on what President Obama announced?

[islandman]

Evidently he's empowered my primary care physician to both check my prostate and fit me for a gun.

Something in a nice folding stock, please, Dr. Seaburn.

[Sean Renaud]

The ten round clip is a bit annoying but nothing on there is particularly bad. At worst they are a bit annoying.

[sufisaint]

Same "assault weapon" ban and magazine bullshit that has nothing to do with actual significant crime rates reductions and everything to do with more governmental power...and to use kids is a new low...

[LiFeNdEaTh]

i don't care.. he doesn't pay my taxes lmfao

[KRCummings]

I think Obama, Democrats, Republicans, the NRA and numerous people on this board (and the internet in general) use the mass murder of babies to further political ideals. They're all scum. I have no faith in a country where this is the norm.

[Sean Renaud]

You should have less faith in a country where the mass murder of babies is frequent enough that people can have a premade battle strategy built around it because they know one is coming.

[KyleW]

Originally Posted by KRCummings

I think Obama, Democrats, Republicans, the NRA and numerous people on this board (and the internet in general) use the mass murder of babies to further political ideals. They're all scum. I have no faith in a country where this is the norm.

he did almost nothing with these orders, and the rest are just proposals.
yet he should be impeached according to many on these forums.

and when can a politician act in response to a tragedy or natural disaster, etc., without it being seen as politically motivated? just curious. we should establish time frames for these matters

[Liar]

For the Google Impaired:

Executive actions:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

Anything egregious enough in there for conservatives to go full retard over, constitution wise? Looks pretty milquetoast to me.

Proposed legislation:

1. Require criminal background checks for all gun sales. (a.k.a. closing the "gun show loophole.")

2. Reinstate and strengthen the assault weapons ban.

3. Restore the 10-round limit on ammunition magazines.

4. Protect police by finishing the job of getting rid of armor-piercing bullets.

5. Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime.

6. End the freeze on gun violence research.

7. Make our schools safer with more school resource officers and school counselors, safer climates, and better emergency response plans.

8. Help ensure that young people get the mental health treatment they need.

9. Ensure health insurance plans cover mental health benefits.

#2, #3 and probably #9 are gonna go nowhere. He proposes them to give progressives that warm fuzzy feeling.

I don't know what the deal is with #4. What does "finishing the job of getting rid of" mean?

5-8 sounds doable, in the right form. As policy goes, bipartisan enough. Doesn't mean it will happen though, given the current state of the House.

If Obama can get #1, that would be the big scalp, politically.

[LiFeNdEaTh]

Originally Posted by sufisaint

Same "assault weapon" ban and magazine bullshit that has nothing to do with actual significant crime rates reductions and everything to do with more governmental power...and to use kids is a new low...

word..

[eyer]

So, exactly what conclusions which came out of the VP's super duper committee, and/or from the President's orders today...

...would've prevented the 27 murders in CT?

Anyone?

[KRCummings]

Originally Posted by KyleW

he did almost nothing with these orders, and the rest are just proposals.
yet he should be impeached according to many on these forums.

and when can a politician act in response to a tragedy or natural disaster, etc., without it being seen as politically motivated? just curious. we should establish time frames for these matters

I would have no problem with a legitimate response. Let me know when someone has one.

[LiFeNdEaTh]

Originally Posted by eyer

So, exactly what conclusions which came out of the VP's super duper committee, and/or from the President's orders today...

...would've prevented the 27 murders in CT?

Anyone?

go ahead eyer... become a hero, turn back into hands of time!! hahah

[Liar]

Originally Posted by KRCummings

I would have no problem with a legitimate response. Let me know when someone has one.

What would one of those look like to meet your litmus test for legitimacy?

[KRCummings]

Originally Posted by Liar

What would one of those look like to meet your litmus test for legitimacy?

One of what?

[Liar]

Originally Posted by KRCummings

One of what?

The noun in the post that I quoted.

I would have no problem with a legitimate response. Let me know when someone has one.

One of those legitimate responses.

[KingOrfeo]

Originally Posted by KRCummings

I would have no problem with a legitimate response. Let me know when someone has one.

You'll find one in post #8.

[vetteman]

Being a law abiding citizen I'm a bit incensed at having to listen to a demagogic harangue about how we're all responsible when somebody goes off his rocker and starts killing people; so much so that we have to surrender rights and suffer restrictions on our liberty, which by extension has no relationship with any solution for, or prevention against, the tragedy being addressed.

Not a single thing he advanced would have stopped what happened in Newtown. All he did was exploit the tragedy to drag up debunked liberal gun control schemes that have no effect on crime. The aim of course is not to do anything about crime or violence. The aim is to deprive law abiding citizens of their rights to self defense, as the only people affected by the orders are people who do not violate the law.

If the President really wanted to address the tragedy in NewTown he would have mentioned violent video games and it's effects on our young people. He would have mentioned the wave of violent movies produced in Hollywood and their effect on the young and the violence prone. Instead of having agencies studying the law abiding against the wishes of Congress he might study these other things instead. He might study how absolute gun control in Chicago is working for the idiot Mayor running that town

He might start talking to Americans in their own language and mentioned more armed teachers and cops in school zones instead of using goofy left-speak terms like "resource Officers."

[KRCummings]

Originally Posted by Liar

The noun in the post that I quoted.



One of those legitimate responses.

I thought you meant something someone has done.
I have no idea since I can't remember the last time I've seen one. W had a good response to 9/11 at first. I liked him for that. Went downhill and got political really fast though. Bummer about that. Coulda been something.
I've never seen a good response to a mass shooting in this country.

[Disgustipated]

Originally Posted by vetteman

Being a law abiding citizen I'm a bit incensed at having to listen to a demagogic harangue about how we're all responsible when somebody goes off his rocker and starts killing people; so much so that we have to surrender rights and suffer restrictions on our liberty, which by extension has no relationship with any solution for, or prevention against, the tragedy being addressed.

Not a single thing he advanced would have stopped what happened in Newtown. All he did was exploit the tragedy to drag up debunked liberal gun control schemes that have no effect on crime. The aim of course is not to do anything about crime or violence. The aim is to deprive law abiding citizens of their rights to self defense, as the only people affected by the orders are people who do not violate the law.

If the President really wanted to address the tragedy in NewTown he would have mentioned violent video games and it's effects on our young people. He would have mentioned the wave of violent movies produced in Hollywood and their effect on the young and the violence prone. Instead of having agencies studying the law abiding against the wishes of Congress he might study these other things instead. He might study how absolute gun control in Chicago is working for the idiot Mayor running that town

He might start talking to Americans in their own language and mentioned more armed teachers and cops in school zones instead of using goofy left-speak terms like "resource Officers."

Does your therapist know you're nuts?

[KingOrfeo]

Originally Posted by vetteman

If the President really wanted to address the tragedy in NewTown he would have mentioned violent video games and it's effects on our young people. He would have mentioned the wave of violent movies produced in Hollywood and their effect on the young and the violence prone.

Indeed.

The president's plan does little to address violent images in video games, movies and entertainment, beyond asking the CDC to study their impact on gun crimes. Some pro-gun lawmakers who are open to addressing stricter arms legislation have insisted they would do so only in tandem with recommendations for addressing violence in entertainment.

Y'know, assholes, they watch the same movies and play the same games in Canada. It does not turn Canucks into killers. And a lot of those games come from Japan, not much real-life violence there. Adam Lanza's gun-nut Mom did his young mind a lot more damage than X-Box ever did.

[KyleW]

Originally Posted by vetteman

Being a law abiding citizen I'm a bit incensed at having to listen to a demagogic harangue about how we're all responsible when somebody goes off his rocker and starts killing people; so much so that we have to surrender rights and suffer restrictions on our liberty, which by extension has no relationship with any solution for, or prevention against, the tragedy being addressed.

Not a single thing he advanced would have stopped what happened in Newtown. All he did was exploit the tragedy to drag up debunked liberal gun control schemes that have no effect on crime. The aim of course is not to do anything about crime or violence. The aim is to deprive law abiding citizens of their rights to self defense, as the only people affected by the orders are people who do not violate the law.

If the President really wanted to address the tragedy in NewTown he would have mentioned violent video games and it's effects on our young people. He would have mentioned the wave of violent movies produced in Hollywood and their effect on the young and the violence prone. Instead of having agencies studying the law abiding against the wishes of Congress he might study these other things instead. He might study how absolute gun control in Chicago is working for the idiot Mayor running that town

He might start talking to Americans in their own language and mentioned more armed teachers and cops in school zones instead of using goofy left-speak terms like "resource Officers."

Was there a confiscated gun put to your head? You didnt have to listen to anything. what rights is he making you surrender?

[islandman]

Originally Posted by vetteman

Being a law abiding citizen I'm a bit incensed at having to listen to a demagogic harangue about how we're all responsible when somebody goes off his rocker and starts killing people; so much so that we have to surrender rights and suffer restrictions on our liberty, which by extension has no relationship with any solution for, or prevention against, the tragedy being addressed.

Not a single thing he advanced would have stopped what happened in Newtown. All he did was exploit the tragedy to drag up debunked liberal gun control schemes that have no effect on crime. The aim of course is not to do anything about crime or violence. The aim is to deprive law abiding citizens of their rights to self defense, as the only people affected by the orders are people who do not violate the law.

If the President really wanted to address the tragedy in NewTown he would have mentioned violent video games and it's effects on our young people. He would have mentioned the wave of violent movies produced in Hollywood and their effect on the young and the violence prone. Instead of having agencies studying the law abiding against the wishes of Congress he might study these other things instead. He might study how absolute gun control in Chicago is working for the idiot Mayor running that town

He might start talking to Americans in their own language and mentioned more armed teachers and cops in school zones instead of using goofy left-speak terms like "resource Officers."

Dear NRA PR,

When did you start posting as Vetteman?



Regards,

Everyone else

[KRCummings]

Originally Posted by vetteman

Being a law abiding citizen I'm a bit incensed at having to listen to a demagogic harangue about how we're all responsible when somebody goes off his rocker and starts killing people; so much so that we have to surrender rights and suffer restrictions on our liberty, which by extension has no relationship with any solution for, or prevention against, the tragedy being addressed.

Not a single thing he advanced would have stopped what happened in Newtown. All he did was exploit the tragedy to drag up debunked liberal gun control schemes that have no effect on crime. The aim of course is not to do anything about crime or violence. The aim is to deprive law abiding citizens of their rights to self defense, as the only people affected by the orders are people who do not violate the law.

If the President really wanted to address the tragedy in NewTown he would have mentioned violent video games and it's effects on our young people. He would have mentioned the wave of violent movies produced in Hollywood and their effect on the young and the violence prone. Instead of having agencies studying the law abiding against the wishes of Congress he might study these other things instead. He might study how absolute gun control in Chicago is working for the idiot Mayor running that town

He might start talking to Americans in their own language and mentioned more armed teachers and cops in school zones instead of using goofy left-speak terms like "resource Officers."

See. He doesn't actually care about anything other than his guns. It's disgusting.
Same goes for the other side who don't care about anything but taking guns away. There's no real concern for anyone.
People make me sick.

[KyleW]

Originally Posted by KRCummings

See. He doesn't actually care about anything other than his guns. It's disgusting.
Same goes for the other side who don't care about anything but taking guns away. There's no real concern for anyone.
People make me sick.

he made no executive order to take your gun away