Obama's gun proposals / executive orders

[KingOrfeo]

Originally Posted by KRCummings

I didn't say he did. Obama has done next to nothing.

And you would rather he . . . ?

[KingOrfeo]

Originally Posted by eyer

I've already read some staunch pro-gunners say if the 2nd was repealed/modified, they'd obey its constitutional law...

They were lying and you know it.

[about_average]

Originally Posted by KyleW

"your" not "you're"

Classic! That alone is worth reading all the BS.

[about_average]

Originally Posted by CHNOPS

My answers, take them or leave them:

1) Get rid of any gun in civilian hands that can be logically defined as a weapon of mass destruction. No brainer, stop arguing with this one.

Who's logic would be used?

2) Keep the rest, but tax the living shit out of them. Scale the tax by the magazine capacity and power/lethality. You want greater capacity/firepower, you pay more tax on it. We get your money to do other things with.

Well, certainly a way to reduce poverty if only wealthy people can afford to defend themselves.

3) Fingerprint every single person who buys one, anywhere, any time. Yes, I know people steal them. People steal cars too, we still make you take a test and register yours.

Here in GA you get fingerprinted if you want to legally carry a weapon for self defense.

4) Dispense bullets like pharmaceutical drugs or unstable chemicals. Ones you can use without too much danger of "overdosing" on, you can buy OTC. Ones that have potential to do maximum damage to bodies, yours or someone else's, you have to have get a license to buy, and you have to keep renewing it.

We're talking self defense here. You want hollow points, which do the most damage and are the most likely to stop your attacker before they reach you.
I'm assuming you propose this as a way to increase the cost. Another way to reduce poverty by making sure only the wealthy can defend themselves.

So, again, who's logic do we use?

[Sean Renaud]

We have police for defense and the more certain you can be that the attacker doesn't have a gun the less you need one. It's like nobody studied World War 1 and 2 and can't logic out that the exact same thing takes place in America everyday just on a smaller scale.

[Shagly]

Time to hunt turkeys in the white house.

[rockslyde]

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.

You should see a doctor. After you complete the "Do you have any guns" form, (Better say no, otherwise, he'll label you as a nut, not that you aren't one, but you know what I mean).
Ask him for for some anti-deppressants.

[rockslyde]

Originally Posted by islandman

Not so.

He's managed to do absolutely nothing about criminals' access to guns as well as those currently in their possession.

Actually he has done something, He actually sent thousands of guns and purposely delivered them into criminal hands.
The result was thousands of people murdered, (tens of thousands, by Mexican estimates). And, BTW, if he's so dammed concerned for the deaths of children, why does'nt he mention the hundreds or posibly thousands of children murdered by his administration.

Not just the Mexican children, But, the hundreds of Muslim children killed by Obama's predetor drone strikes.

I know, he does'nt mention it, because it would make him look like the racist, killer that he is.

[IrezumiKiss]

[Sean Renaud]

Originally Posted by rockslyde

Actually he has done something, He actually sent thousands of guns and purposely delivered them into criminal hands.
The result was thousands of people murdered, (tens of thousands, by Mexican estimates). And, BTW, if he's so dammed concerned for the deaths of children, why does'nt he mention the hundreds or posibly thousands of children murdered by his administration.

Not just the Mexican children, But, the hundreds of Muslim children killed by Obama's predetor drone strikes.

I know, he does'nt mention it, because it would make him look like the racist, killer that he is.

Will you shut the fuck up? Obama didn't intentionally send guns in, at worst Holder did and even that's BS. Bush did the exact same thing and the only reason you care is because you hate Obama.

Of course he cares about children the idea that he doesn't again is just absurd hate. I wonder where it comes from.

[about_average]

Originally Posted by Sean Renaud

We have police for defense and the more certain you can be that the attacker doesn't have a gun the less you need one.

Yeah, the guy with the wrecking bar ransacking a house, breaking in to a bedroom, then a bathroom, then an attic where a woman was hiding with her children merely wanted to ask them to tea.
Luckily the police defended her by arriving after he'd been shot, stumbled downstairs, made it to his car, drove down the street, wrecked his car and stumbled further down the street and collapsed.
There was absolutely no reason for her to have a gun, she should have just begged him to not hurt her or her kids while she waited for the police.

[KingOrfeo]

Originally Posted by about_average

Who's logic would be used?

Soldiers'. If the Army has a use for it, it is probably something civilians should not have (sidearms excepted).

[about_average]

Originally Posted by KingOrfeo

Soldiers'. If the Army has a use for it, it is probably something civilians should not have (sidearms excepted).

Nice, so you want to prohibit me from owning either of my bolt action rifles. Thanks.

[about_average]

Originally Posted by Liar

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

Maybe it's related to the bullets that can penetrate so called "bullet proof vests" which would mean getting rid of most hunting loads for rifles.

[IrezumiKiss]

New York Magazine: Obama has issued fewer executive orders than any president in the past 100 years



http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ders-guns.html

[rockslyde]

Originally Posted by Sean Renaud

Will you shut the fuck up? Obama didn't intentionally send guns in, at worst Holder did and even that's BS. Bush did the exact same thing and the only reason you care is because you hate Obama.

Of course he cares about children the idea that he doesn't again is just absurd hate. I wonder where it comes from.

Looks like I struck a nerve. You say that, as If Holder and Obama have different philosophical views.
Bush did'nt do the same thing. Bush worked with Mexican Law enforcement, Obama didn't.
Bush's operation tracked the guns, ( that's right, they were actually trying to catch the crooks! Imagine that) Obama's/Holder's operation didn't track th guns.

They didn't track the guns because what they really wanted was a lot of human death (which they got, and its still bearing fruit)

What these killers wanted, was a reason to go after the Second ammendment. I think that has been well established, even in the Left wing news outlets.

To say that these killers care about children is absurd. You say, I'm an Obama hater, because I state a few facts.
You can't deal with the substance, so you call people names. Standard opoerating procedure.

Checkmate!

[JohnnySavage]

Originally Posted by rockslyde

Looks like I struck a nerve. You say that, as If Holder and Obama have different philosophical views.
Bush did'nt do the same thing. Bush worked with Mexican Law enforcement, Obama didn't.
Bush's operation tracked the guns, ( that's right, they were actually trying to catch the crooks! Imagine that) Obama's/Holder's operation didn't track th guns.

They didn't track the guns because what they really wanted was a lot of human death (which they got, and its still bearing fruit)

What these killers wanted, was a reason to go after the Second ammendment. I think that has been well established, even in the Left wing news outlets.

To say that these killers care about children is absurd. You say, I'm an Obama hater, because I state a few facts.
You can't deal with the substance, so you call people names. Standard opoerating procedure.

Checkmate!

Hold on a minute there, Skippy. You're stepping all over your talking points.


Guns don't kill people, bad people kill people.

Is it your position that without guns, the Mexican's wouldn't have killed people? Are you arguing in favor of eliminating guns?

[mercury14]

Originally Posted by JohnnySavage

Hold on a minute there, Skippy. You're stepping all over your talking points.


Guns don't kill people, bad people kill people.

Is it your position that without guns, the Mexican's wouldn't have killed people? Are you arguing in favor of eliminating guns?

He will never recover from this post.

[Sean Renaud]

Originally Posted by about_average

Yeah, the guy with the wrecking bar ransacking a house, breaking in to a bedroom, then a bathroom, then an attic where a woman was hiding with her children merely wanted to ask them to tea.
Luckily the police defended her by arriving after he'd been shot, stumbled downstairs, made it to his car, drove down the street, wrecked his car and stumbled further down the street and collapsed.
There was absolutely no reason for her to have a gun, she should have just begged him to not hurt her or her kids while she waited for the police.

Shit happens. Since you brought up a hypothetical how bought I bring a fact for good measure.

One, and two.

In your fantasy world people have the guns handy when they need em. In reality they generally make a bad situation worse. Sorry.

Originally Posted by rockslyde

Looks like I struck a nerve. You say that, as If Holder and Obama have different philosophical views.
Bush did'nt do the same thing. Bush worked with Mexican Law enforcement, Obama didn't.
Bush's operation tracked the guns, ( that's right, they were actually trying to catch the crooks! Imagine that) Obama's/Holder's operation didn't track th guns.

You struck a nerve because your either so fucking stupid it hurts or more likely a liar. I don't know how much Holder and Obama do and don't have in common and nor do you but that's not the point. Bush did the same thing. Obama was tracking the guns, clearly he because when they turned up we knew exactly what guns they were or do you reckon that's magic?

Originally Posted by about_average

They didn't track the guns because what they really wanted was a lot of human death (which they got, and its still bearing fruit)

Are you an idiot, a racist or a liar. Take your pick, you can even choose two or more but no other options are allowed. No American wishes death on his fellow citizens, least of all our politicians.

Originally Posted by about_average

What these killers wanted, was a reason to go after the Second ammendment. I think that has been well established, even in the Left wing news outlets.

See above. Besides there are easier ways he could have gone about it if that was the goal.

Originally Posted by about_average

To say that these killers care about children is absurd. You say, I'm an Obama hater, because I state a few facts.
You can't deal with the substance, so you call people names. Standard opoerating procedure.

Checkmate!

They aren't killers and of course they care about children. To claim otherwise it absurd. And there is absolutely no substance to deal with. You're offensive but you don't deal in facts.

To claim there is a single elected official in this country who doesn't love America is fucking absurd and you should be ashamed to even joke like that.

[rockslyde]

Originally Posted by JohnnySavage

Hold on a minute there, Skippy. You're stepping all over your talking points.


Guns don't kill people, bad people kill people.

Is it your position that without guns, the Mexican's wouldn't have killed people? Are you arguing in favor of eliminating guns?

You offer a hypothetical. We don't know how many people would have been killed without Obama's/Holder's guns. It's reasonable to assume that less people would have been killed, because Mexico already has very strict gun control laws, thus the citizenry is basically unarmed and unable to defend itself. What Obama/Holder did, was to increase the ratio of armed criminals against unarmed citizens.

Yes I agree, Bad people kill people.
When Bad people supply other bad people, with thousands of guns, in a country where the citizentry is totally disarmed it's quite a mismatch.
Hell, it's a mismatch in large city, much less a country. Look at Chicago, 534 people killed by guns, in "gun free zones", last year.

[vetteman]

Originally Posted by KingOrfeo

Soldiers'. If the Army has a use for it, it is probably something civilians should not have (sidearms excepted).

Read United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

[Sean Renaud]

Originally Posted by rockslyde

You offer a hypothetical. We don't know how many people would have been killed without Obama's/Holder's guns. It's reasonable to assume that less people would have been killed, because Mexico already has very strict gun control laws, thus the citizenry is basically unarmed and unable to defend itself. What Obama/Holder did, was to increase the ratio of armed criminals against unarmed citizens.

Yes I agree, Bad people kill people.
When Bad people supply other bad people, with thousands of guns, in a country where the citizentry is totally disarmed it's quite a mismatch.
Hell, it's a mismatch in large city, much less a country. Look at Chicago, 534 people killed by guns, in "gun free zones", last year.

Nope. Either guns kill or people kill. This bullshit half and half shows you don't actually believe what your saying. Because if the bad people didn't have guns wouldn't they use knives and bombs and cars and even their bare hands to the same effect?

[rockslyde]

Obama was tracking the guns, clearly he because when they turned up we knew exactly what guns they were or do you reckon that's magic?



I did'nt realize that you were this dumb. I guess that you are unaware that there are serial numbers as well as other identifying marks on guns. The only reason that the guns were identified, was because during the gun battle, one or more of the bad guys were killed and the gun was recovered.

Being able to match up serial numbers isn't tracking them.
It's been cleary established that Holder "Let them walk". That's the specific term used. Once they go over the border there is no way to track them. They were delivered to the criminals, for the purpose of being used on people,....period.

No mechanism for recovering them.

In Bush's program, the guns had been fitted with clandestine GPS devices. The program had to be scrapped when someone tipped off the cartel about the GPs devices.

I guess if MSNBC is the only news outlet that you watch, I can understand your ignorance on this subject.

[rockslyde]

Originally Posted by Sean Renaud

Nope. Either guns kill or people kill. This bullshit half and half shows you don't actually believe what your saying. Because if the bad people didn't have guns wouldn't they use knives and bombs and cars and even their bare hands to the same effect?

You're right, I need to clarify this.

Bad people kill people..... period. And yes, they do use a variety of weapons to the same effect.

[BotanyBoy]

Originally Posted by CHNOPS

4) Dispense bullets like pharmaceutical drugs or unstable chemicals. Ones you can use without too much danger of "overdosing" on, you can buy OTC. Ones that have potential to do maximum damage to bodies, yours or someone else's, you have to have get a license to buy, and you have to keep renewing it.

Yes the FMJ/SP .338 lapua mag round is much friendlier when it juices you than a frangible/HPBT

Originally Posted by Sean Renaud

First, Sandy Hook is still the big one and several of the proposals might have helped there. Second, how do you figure more cops would have had no chance of preventing New Town?

Name one you fucking piece of shit.

Originally Posted by Sean Renaud

We have police for defense and the more certain you can be that the attacker doesn't have a gun the less you need one. It's like nobody studied World War 1 and 2 and can't logic out that the exact same thing takes place in America everyday just on a smaller scale.

Oh police are defensive now? Since when? I want one on my front door.

Last I checked cops were reactionary, 99.9999999% they called AFTER a crime you dumb fuck.