Biden hints at Obama executive order (concerning guns)

[techie81]

OK a real plan is beginning to take shape from our Administration

The vice president said earlier that "an emerging set of recommendations" focuses on launching "universal" background checks, restricting high-capacity magazines and allowing federal agencies to do more research on gun violence.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...er-executive-order-gun-control/#ixzz2Hc7ocl8W

Universal background Checks
restricting high capacity mags
MORE GUN SAFETY RESEARCH

I'm liking the plan so far...Seems to me the 2nd Amendment is and always has been, safe.

So really its like living in CA because we have to do all the stuff already.

 

[Matt1970]

OK a real plan is beginning to take shape from our Administration

The vice president said earlier that "an emerging set of recommendations" focuses on launching "universal" background checks, restricting high-capacity magazines and allowing federal agencies to do more research on gun violence.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...er-executive-order-gun-control/#ixzz2Hc7ocl8W

Universal background Checks
restricting high capacity mags
MORE GUN SAFETY RESEARCH

I'm liking the plan so far...Seems to me the 2nd Amendment is and always has been, safe.

Well there ya go.

Universal background Checks - We already have the Brady Bill
restricting high capacity mags - We did that for 10 years, didn't help much
MORE GUN SAFETY RESEARCH - Mass shooting are not the result of unsafe gun use.

Pass a bunch of useless laws that doesn't address the problem and just sweeps it under the rug, then make it look like you did everything you could for political purposes.

 

[monovillage]

OK a real plan is beginning to take shape from our Administration

The vice president said earlier that "an emerging set of recommendations" focuses on launching "universal" background checks, restricting high-capacity magazines and allowing federal agencies to do more research on gun violence.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...er-executive-order-gun-control/#ixzz2Hc7ocl8W

Universal background Checks
restricting high capacity mags
MORE GUN SAFETY RESEARCH

I'm liking the plan so far...Seems to me the 2nd Amendment is and always has been, safe.

From your link:

"Vice President Biden would do well to read the 2nd Amendment and revisit the meaning of the phrase 'shall not be infringed,'" Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., said in a statement. "Bypassing Congress to implement radical policies is never acceptable."

Doesn't sound like the Republicans and some pro-gun Democrats agree with you.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

From your link:

Doesn't sound like the Republicans and some pro-gun Democrats agree with you.

Those two quotes/articles are talking about two different things. The FN article is referring to recommendations that would presumably be implemented through legislative action, not executive order, and God knows there is nothing "radical" about the recommendations referenced in the FN article.

 

[spidey07]

Magazine ban = he's trying to circumvent congress. It's a worthless ban anyway as the last one did nothing to reduce gun violence and only hurts legitimate defense uses.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Magazine ban = he's trying to circumvent congress. It's a worthless ban anyway as the last one did nothing to reduce gun violence and only hurts legitimate defense uses.

There is no reason to believe he is trying to implement such a ban by executive action. You guys are conflating two different concepts. I agree with you that the last magazine ban was pointless and this one would be too, for whatever that's worth.

 

[irishScott]

OK a real plan is beginning to take shape from our Administration

The vice president said earlier that "an emerging set of recommendations" focuses on launching "universal" background checks, restricting high-capacity magazines and allowing federal agencies to do more research on gun violence.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...er-executive-order-gun-control/#ixzz2Hc7ocl8W

Universal background Checks
restricting high capacity mags
MORE GUN SAFETY RESEARCH

I'm liking the plan so far...Seems to me the 2nd Amendment is and always has been, safe.

1. "Universal background checks." I support in principle, but I doubt the government will implement properly.

2. Restricting standard-spec capacity magazines: The deadliest mass shooting in America (Virginia Tech) was done with one 10 round pistol and one 15 round pistol. There is no evidence that restricting high capacity magazines will do anything to stop or limit mass shootings.

3. More gun safety research. Good idea, just make sure it's fair and unbiased; because right now there's an epidemic of "study until we get the answer we want."


The second amendment would be safe if our lawmakers focused on solving problems as opposed to promoting cultural agendas. As it stands, this could very well be the first step in broader restrictions; as can be seen over the last week with states such as New York and New Jersey. They are among the seven states with the most draconian gun laws, and despite this status they are proposing further, severe restrictions on guns.

The agenda is clear, and frankly it saps my will to compromise.

 

[corwin]

OK a real plan is beginning to take shape from our Administration

The vice president said earlier that "an emerging set of recommendations" focuses on launching "universal" background checks, restricting high-capacity magazines and allowing federal agencies to do more research on gun violence.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...er-executive-order-gun-control/#ixzz2Hc7ocl8W

Universal background Checks
restricting high capacity mags
MORE GUN SAFETY RESEARCH

I'm liking the plan so far...Seems to me the 2nd Amendment is and always has been, safe.

Hmm...so my biggest question would be who is NOT allowing them to do research?

Other than that they basically want to outlaw private sales of firearms and a pointless ban on high-cap magazines...don't really see either flying, not sure how private sales could be outlawed and the mag ban was is and always will be useless

 

[Londo_Jowo]

only hurts legitimate defense uses.

How many rounds do you need to protect yourself? Typically all it takes is 1 or 2 rounds to incapacitate an attacker. I feel quite safe with my 17 round Glock 17 or 13 round Baretta PX4 Storm. The highest capacity rifle I use for hunting is 5 rounds (Winchester Model 70).

 

[corwin]

How many rounds do you need to protect yourself? Typically all it takes is 1 or 2 rounds to incapacitate an attacker. I feel quite safe with my 17 round Glock 17 or 13 round Baretta PX4 Storm. The highest capacity rifle I use for hunting is 5 rounds (Winchester Model 70).

You do know handgun magazines would be restricted as well right? This isn't just rifle magazines...

 

[spidey07]

You do know handgun magazines would be restricted as well right? This isn't just rifle magazines...

Yep.

Against 4+ attackers a rifle with 30 rounds is the best defense choice. Also a fine choice against tyranny. Defend against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

 

[ultimatebob]

It's better than the crap that I see New York and Connecticut trying to do. One of the ideas I see being brandied about is requiring background checks before buying ammunition. Ugh, I can only imagine the bureaucratic nightmare that would be.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Yep.

Against 4+ attackers a rifle with 30 rounds is the best defense choice. Also a fine choice against tyranny. Defend against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Quit living in fantasy land. What are the odds you would face 4 + attackers?

 

[OrByte]

Hmm...so my biggest question would be who is NOT allowing them to do research?

Other than that they basically want to outlaw private sales of firearms and a pointless ban on high-cap magazines...don't really see either flying, not sure how private sales could be outlawed and the mag ban was is and always will be useless

there was actually a pretty thorough article about that a few weeks back and I'd like to find it again.

basically the CDC and other government agencies are no longer allowed to document gun safety measures and research. Another thing, funding for research was pulled...by the Republican congress of the late 90s.

Also - in some states (and in some current state bills) medical doctors are not allowed to document how gun safety (or lack of) may have contributed to a possible injury or outcome...or something along those lines I'm having a terrible memory lapse about that.

I will have to find that article

 

[Londo_Jowo]

You do know handgun magazines would be restricted as well right? This isn't just rifle magazines...

I understand that. My 1911 Colt only takes 5 rounds and I can still incapacitate an attacker in 1 to 2 rounds.

 

[OrByte]

Hmm...so my biggest question would be who is NOT allowing them to do research?

Other than that they basically want to outlaw private sales of firearms and a pointless ban on high-cap magazines...don't really see either flying, not sure how private sales could be outlawed and the mag ban was is and always will be useless

Here is a recent article that explains somewhat.

http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-urge-end-limits-gun-safety-research-194015136.html

and here is the important part that was passed by our congress in the late 90s

"None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control,"

 

[corwin]

I understand that. My 1911 Colt only takes 5 rounds and I can still incapacitate an attacker in 1 to 2 rounds.

Just pointing out the little flaw in your post talking about not needing high-cap magazines then listing that's what you are comfortable with

there was actually a pretty thorough article about that a few weeks back and I'd like to find it again.

basically the CDC and other government agencies are no longer allowed to document gun safety measures and research. Another thing, funding for research was pulled...by the Republican congress of the late 90s.

Also - in some states (and in some current state bills) medical doctors are not allowed to document how gun safety (or lack of) may have contributed to a possible injury or outcome...or something along those lines I'm having a terrible memory lapse about that.

I will have to find that article

I'd be curious as well, it sounds a little fishy to me...wanting "gun safety" has been used as cover for making guns effectively useless, kind of like how you used to have your gun disassembled and locked in a safe in DC, if you could even get a permit to own one

 

[corwin]

Here is a recent article that explains somewhat.

http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-urge-end-limits-gun-safety-research-194015136.html

and here is the important part that was passed by our congress in the late 90s

"None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control,"

Gun control != gun safety

I'd also like to add that even in the absence of this "gun safety" research gun crimes have been dropping for decades...the article linked mentions that homicide rates are the same as the 50's, they just fail to mention that is way down from what it was in the 80's

And that would be why these "studies" are opposed, they were being done with an agenda and distorting facts to get the results they wanted

 

[irishScott]

Quit living in fantasy land. What are the odds you would face 4 + attackers?

Depends on if you live in a Hurricane zone or not.

 

[Silver Prime]

yeah, I know that's the problem, and that's why I pointed it out. Which is why I have my doubts about anything super significant happening.


as to the earlier hilarity:

are you honestly trying to claim that the use of "fuhrer" is completely general and innocent, and in no way is meant to liken Obama to Hitler?

why, exactly, do you think it is apt? What "fuhrer," outside of Hitler, in German history, was known for instituting nationalistic seizures of public property?

Honestly, the onus is on you to explain your assertion that the use of "fuhrer" is so apt. Please, enlighten us as to why the use of a particular german word, which in your mind never references Hitler, is so fucking "apt" at this moment? I am giddy with anticipation at this resounding history lesson with which you are about to distill upon us all.

But honestly, I know why you think it is apt. Your conservatard echo chamber is already tossing this shit out there.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/drudge-features-hitler-stalin-with-link-to-gun?ref=fpblg

Crack is whack buddie, put the pipe down.

 

[NoStateofMind]

So ahhhh where's Biden and Obama on the mental stability issue? Seems like this is at the heart of the past two mass shootings and I would think the President would want this addressed.

*Crickets*

 

[irishScott]

Here is a recent article that explains somewhat.

http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-urge-end-limits-gun-safety-research-194015136.html

and here is the important part that was passed by our congress in the late 90s

"None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control,"

Well that sounds stupid. Especially since a 2002 CDC report said this:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)

 

[irishScott]

So ahhhh where's Biden and Obama on the mental stability issue? Seems like this is at the heart of the past two mass shootings and I would think the President would want this addressed.

*Crickets*

Oh it'll be given lip service and some money, but that's about it. Solving real problems always takes second fiddle to promoting cultural agendas.

 

[jstern01]

Depends on if you live in a Hurricane zone or not.

38 years in Florida, been thru more hurricanes, tropical storms and tornadoes then most will ever face in a life time. And never even came close to need a assault weapon, even in Liberty City (probably the worst area in Miami) or Homestead in 1992. Look nobody is facing 4+ attackers unless they are a LEO or soldier, which means they would have a legitimate reason for such a weapon.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Depends on if you live in a Hurricane zone or not.

I do live in a hurricane zone and I never saw gangs of people roaming around. Maybe that was due to police and national guard presence after the hurricane struck