• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obama to Consider Executive Actions on Gun Violence

UglyCasanova

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Link


I'm curious as to what these actions might be? I don't really care for the notion of these executive orders, and as dysfunctional as it might be Congress is the appropriate body to deal with this (or not deal with it, depending on what they choose).

Short of the police coming door to door taking everyone's guns, I'm honestly not sure what could be done anyways.
 
Violence is violence and guns are just a method, I wonder why we are such a violent nation as it is. I don't think gun "control" will do anything to curtail that.

I would hazard to guess most gun fatalities are suicides and accidents, not violent acts.
 
Honestly, the only two things that really need to be done are universal background checks and limit high capacity magazines.
 
Strk said:
Honestly, the only two things that really need to be done are universal background checks and limit high capacity magazines.
Click to expand...


And, the thousand or so lives a decade that will save (if suburban white kids stop shooting up places) won't amount to a single year of murder by gun deaths in the US.

And since we are banning things and that makes them disappear, why don't we just ban murder?
 
I'm lukewarm on background checks. We all know that criminals buy their guns from legal gun owners, and the logic is that background checks are supposed to stop that, but more likely it will just create a new black market for guns.
OTOH, background checks are not a violation of the 2nd amendment. Keep and bear doesn't include buy and sell.
Is an executive action a legal means to implement background checks? I'm not sure of that, and question Obama's judgment here. The move will certainly be unpopular, and will trigger new fears of government gun-grabbing, even though that seems neither likely nor feasible.
No doubt gun sales (and prices) are going to go up again.
 
Strk said:
Honestly, the only two things that really need to be done are universal background checks and limit high capacity magazines.
Click to expand...

Universal background checks? Absolutely. I've been supporting them forever.

Hi cap magazine ban? No thanks. That's a stupid idea promulgated by people who seem to hate guns and/or don't realize how easily such a measure could be mitigated.
 
kage69 said:
Universal background checks? Absolutely. I've been supporting them forever.

Hi cap magazine ban? No thanks. That's a stupid idea promulgated by people who seem to hate guns and/or don't realize how easily such a measure could be mitigated.
Click to expand...

Wasn't aware that I said ban

Vic said:
I'm lukewarm on background checks. We all know that criminals buy their guns from legal gun owners, and the logic is that background checks are supposed to stop that, but more likely it will just create a new black market for guns.
OTOH, background checks are not a violation of the 2nd amendment. Keep and bear doesn't include buy and sell.
Is an executive action a legal means to implement background checks? I'm not sure of that, and question Obama's judgment here. The move will certainly be unpopular, and will trigger new fears of government gun-grabbing, even though that seems neither likely nor feasible.
No doubt gun sales (and prices) are going to go up again.
Click to expand...

I see nothing wrong with felony murder charges
 
Strk said:
Wasn't aware that I said ban
Click to expand...


What kind of "limit" are you suggesting?




*****

And if anyone would please confirm that "Universal background checks". Refer to sales between 2 people in a private sale?

If so who pays the costs? Of will it be a free online deal? Also, how would that work without a nation wide registration to keep track of what belongs to who?

Thanks for any clarification.

.
 
UglyCasanova said:
For what?
Click to expand...
He already has. Operation choke point. Using the FDIC to restrict bank accounts held by gun /ammo sellers. I know this is true because they also went after payday lenders,which I'm not, but TD Bank shut down my business account after 9 years.

Screw curious george.
 
Every sale or transfer of a gun should require a universal background check. When I purchase a gun, my gun dealer just makes a phone call, gives my social security number and a few other pieces of information, and 30 seconds later, is off the phone with an approval. Why can't/shouldn't private citizens be able to do the same thing?

Banning high capacity magazines is a stupid suggestion that generally comes from people who haven't used guns. There's no significant delay when swapping out magazines if your goal is to continue shooting as quickly as possible. And, wtf is it with worrying about telescoping stocks, or pistol grips anyway?? They don't make even .00001% difference as far as how lethal the weapon is.
 
DrPizza said:
Every sale or transfer of a gun should require a universal background check. When I purchase a gun, my gun dealer just makes a phone call, gives my social security number and a few other pieces of information, and 30 seconds later, is off the phone with an approval. Why can't/shouldn't private citizens be able to do the same thing?

Banning high capacity magazines is a stupid suggestion that generally comes from people who haven't used guns. There's no significant delay when swapping out magazines if your goal is to continue shooting as quickly as possible. And, wtf is it with worrying about telescoping stocks, or pistol grips anyway?? They don't make even .00001% difference as far as how lethal the weapon is.
Click to expand...

Mass shootings dont make up the majority of deaths by guns. High capacity magazines is just a buzzword used by liberals. DV is the real problem. So many murder suicides happen and its ridiculous. But it doesn't grab headlines like mass shootings. Suicide doesn't have an "innocent" victim so its hard to push an agenda on that alone. We need to see what we can do to prevent DV with guns and focus attention there. And like you said, banning HCM is stupid.
 
DrPizza said:
Every sale or transfer of a gun should require a universal background check. When I purchase a gun, my gun dealer just makes a phone call, gives my social security number and a few other pieces of information, and 30 seconds later, is off the phone with an approval. Why can't/shouldn't private citizens be able to do the same thing?
Click to expand...

why?

because it'll make you feel good? because you are 'doing something'?
 
michal1980 said:
why?

because it'll make you feel good? because you are 'doing something'?
Click to expand...
I think a lot of people are very concerned about where criminals are getting their guns. Naturally, there are reasonable 2nd amendment and effectiveness concerns, but then again, a lot more Americans die from crime than terrorism, and the right has no qualms with shitting on the 1st amendment rights of some 7 million Muslim Americans with no ties to terrorism.
 
Didn't Obama have an executive order concerning guns a couple years ago as well? I seem to remember it amounted to basically nothing.
 
The problem is not so much introducing legislation and arguing its merits.

The problem is getting the NRA and gun enthusiasts to support universal registration and other such laws that minimize having guns getting into the wrong hands, while not violating the 2A.

This specious argument about a slippery slope that is used to drum up absolute fear and resistance toward progress in better registration policies is old, is unwarranted and a tool that the NRA uses to scare folks into buying more guns. It has run its course.

Let's turn the page and realize that registration of firearms means being held responsible for their ownership. The risks for owning firearms should rest fully upon the shoulders of the those who choose to own them and not on those that are victimized by their use.

Selling a firearm to a stranger in a private sale should not release the previous owner from selling their weapons to known felons and others who are by law prohibited from owning them. Protecting the seller is as easy as having the buyer provide a renewable background check certified by their municipality and accessible, with proper ID, to the public at large.

All private sales should be registered just as selling a car in a private sale is. In this regard, the process is already a proven one that works. Firearms can be bought and sold using the same licensing and registration processes.

edit - I realize placing trust and faith in the gov't to refrain from over-reach is at the least difficult, but the letter of the laws can be written to avoid such occurrences. I mean, if it's so easy to stuff laws with gifts and loopholes for the rich to take advantage of, it must also be just as easy to prevent gov't from disingenuously abrogating the very laws they pen and sign in their own hand. (?)
 
Last edited:
Vic said:
I think a lot of people are very concerned about where criminals are getting their guns. Naturally, there are reasonable 2nd amendment and effectiveness concerns, but then again, a lot more Americans die from crime than terrorism, and the right has no qualms with shitting on the 1st amendment rights of some 7 million Muslim Americans with no ties to terrorism.
Click to expand...

so basically, because it feels like you are doing something?

And because some on the right shit on the 1st amendment, the left should shit on the 2nd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top