President Obama's 23 orders concerning firearms

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Its not on the list of the 23, Check the article and it clearly mentions this along with banning "assault weapons"

People should still be worried about what he tries to do because he has made his views on this issue well known. Why would he say he wants those things? Because he wants them banned

what you are saying doesn't mean anything.

People would be wise to not take positions and attitudes like yours seriously.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
By not even addressing one single cause of previous mass shootings.

If you gave a definitive list of exactly what causes mass shootings then I'd say lets address it specifically

absent such hard, concrete data, you give it your best, most reasoned, sensible response and go from there.

Notice, no 2nd amendment rights were harmed in the making of that list of 23 executive orders.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
545124_4477320764075_496268925_n.jpg

ha!!
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,039
48,034
136
The left bashes the NRA for saying "Good Guy with a gun" but then praises Obama for using one of it's suggestions.

And you bash Obama's suggestions while advocating for 'good guys with guns'.

Armed guards at schools is one of the worst ideas of Obama's 23 EO's. Then again, you're the guy who made the dumb comment in this thread to begin with.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
Why didn't he do these things 4 years ago instead of waiting till now and standing on the graves of children to do them? Could it be that he wanted to wait till after his election? Could it be that he was a bit worried that a push for these gun control items might cost him and his political allies an election? Could it be that this is/was a cynical political ploy?

Why yes, yes it is and it's pretty routine for Obama and his lickspittle supporters to act this way.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,039
48,034
136
Why didn't he do these things 4 years ago instead of waiting till now and standing on the graves of children to do them? Could it be that he wanted to wait till after his election? Could it be that he was a bit worried that a push for these gun control items might cost him and his political allies an election? Could it be that this is/was a cynical political ploy? Why yes, yes it is and it's pretty routine for Obama and his lickspittle supporters to act this way.

Can you guys make up your minds? Half of the time it's OMG HE'S TAKING AWAY OUR GUNS. FU OBAMA.

Then he does this and it's OMG WHY NOT SOONER. FU OBAMA.

I genuinely cannot think of any policy Obama might enact that will not send you into a blind rage. ODS at its finest.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
And you bash Obama's suggestions while advocating for 'good guys with guns'.

Armed guards at schools is one of the worst ideas of Obama's 23 EO's. Then again, you're the guy who made the dumb comment in this thread to begin with.

Once again your ignorance of my views leaves you having to make shit up about what I have said. A “Good guy with a gun” may be a way to end the situation but that is the last ditch effort and if truly needed then we have failed.

If you think the mass shootings are blamed on mental illness, just remember we have had mentally ill people since day one, and they weren’t picking up guns and murdering kids in schools. Ban all the high capacity magazines you want and lock up all the mentally ill people and the mass killings will still not end.
 

highland145

Lifer
Oct 12, 2009
43,340
5,767
136
I, for one, am very happy he's tackled and called out the violence from hollywood and the video game industry.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
This one is rich.

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

He had to have had a smirk on his face when writing that one. Of course you can only trace it up to Eric Holder and after that you will hear nothing but crickets. Bastard.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
I, for one, am very happy he's tackled and called out the violence from hollywood and the video game industry.

yeah, I mean look at us all. We are so violent from our young days shooting monsters in a video game on up until now when we assault people daily. Heck everytime I sideswipe someone on the road I yell out the window "Blame GTA"!. :rolleyes:
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
14
81
]Here's the funny thing, this is exactly what the NRA calls for: enforcing existing laws more stringently[/B].

Meaning that they're not really serious when they propose something. It's all distractions for them.

Then why is the NRA going out of their fricking minds?
 
Last edited:

styroe

Member
Jan 29, 2005
126
0
0
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/16/obama-to-announce-gun-control-proposals-shortly/?hpt=hp_c1

I don't see anything in the list that takes rights away from law abiding citizens.

They seem sensible to me and should have been enacted long ago.

I wish he would do more stuff like this on other issues.

I agree with a great deal with them. However, one of the is enormously ambiguous.

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."

Define dangerous people and we will talk. Is Julian Assange dangerous? Is the Dali Lama Dangerous? Is Jesus dangerous? Am I dangerous?
 

highland145

Lifer
Oct 12, 2009
43,340
5,767
136
yeah, I mean look at us all. We are so violent from our young days shooting monsters in a video game on up until now when we assault people daily. Heck everytime I sideswipe someone on the road I yell out the window "Blame GTA"!. :rolleyes:

While I don't blame video games that's closer to the mark than blaming it on mental illness.
Man, you guys are spot on.:thumbsup::thumbsup:
 

*kjm

Platinum Member
Oct 11, 1999
2,223
6
81
Not that I support Obama in any way, but most of those seem agreeable. But sadly even if I can agree with some of them, none of them would have stopped the CT shooting had they been in place beforehand, so in the end, it's still nothing more than political chest beating. They weren't his guns, and the mother who owned them wasn't convicted or committed and would still have had them.

I do agree with the ones for educating the public on gun violence and keeping guns away from family members who you know to have "issues". That might have struck a nerve with the shooter's mother to keep a tighter watch on her weapons. Provided they don't completely spin any kind of "reeducation" campaign to brainwash people into demonizing guns like Eric Holder's grand plan.

Obama may say he wants a weapons ban but hes going to leave that to congress where he knows it doesn't have a chance in hell at passing.

It's the only reason Bush W "supported" the ban. Not really, but he gets to say he did while knowing it will never get to his desk and play both sides of the fence.

A couple of those 23 though are questionable. Allowing AG Eric Holder to classify new groups of people to who shouldn't have guns and submit them to the check system so "nobody falls through the cracks"... we know how his dumb ass feels about guns, he could arbitrarily say any group of people he wants. Anybody of any religion, state, opposing political party, etc could be considered "dangerous" on a whim and added to the NICS block list.

It's easy to say something easily agreeable on like "only mentally ill people shouldn't have access to guns" until you realize they can just change the criteria of "mentally ill" to fit anyone they want. :sneaky:

It's like how you can call anyone a terrorist and due process goes out the window.

It was just an excuse to spend like a whore and then the next time something happens they will say Obummer gave his all..... look at the costs and what its going for:'(

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/least-45-billion-new-spending-gun-control_696120.html
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Why didn't he do these things 4 years ago instead of waiting till now and standing on the graves of children to do them? Could it be that he wanted to wait till after his election? Could it be that he was a bit worried that a push for these gun control items might cost him and his political allies an election? Could it be that this is/was a cynical political ploy?

Why yes, yes it is and it's pretty routine for Obama and his lickspittle supporters to act this way.
Could it be a horrific mass murder changed America's focus and priorities? Idiot.
 

*kjm

Platinum Member
Oct 11, 1999
2,223
6
81
Man, you guys are spot on.:thumbsup::thumbsup:

“$10 million for the Centers for Disease Control to conduct further research, including investigating the relationship between video games, media images, and violence.”

They should pay them $1000 for what they found out:cool:
 

highland145

Lifer
Oct 12, 2009
43,340
5,767
136
I agree with a great deal with them. However, one of the is enormously ambiguous.

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."

Define dangerous people and we will talk. Is Julian Assange dangerous? Is the Dali Lama Dangerous? Is Jesus dangerous? Am I dangerous?
#4...agree.

Jesus was dangerous to the those under the Law, all prior to him. Since, you're under Grace or the Law, if you're believer in scripture.

Yes. I am dangerous. I'm an American and I freely use the rights I have. And I use the privileges I've earned.

Hi, Styroe, :highfive;
 

highland145

Lifer
Oct 12, 2009
43,340
5,767
136
“$10 million for the Centers for Disease Control to conduct further research, including investigating the relationship between video games, media images, and violence.”

They should pay them $1000 for what they found out:cool:
You think they'll take test subjects? You know, older gamers?
 

colonel

Golden Member
Apr 22, 2001
1,777
18
81
While I don't blame video games that's closer to the mark than blaming it on mental illness.
However, your first response left a lot to be desired. You demontrate a blind spot when it comes to escessive violence in games. The escalation of game graphic violence is going to draw a political response just as it did with assault arms Minors buying and immersing in games that glorify violence andt the despersonalization of other human beings. All the game industry had done is use the old three monkeys -see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil since Sandy Hook. Violence in modern games is a serious issue and deserves airing but nobody wants to take a litte heat.
 

highland145

Lifer
Oct 12, 2009
43,340
5,767
136
However, your first response left a lot to be desired. You demontrate a blind spot when it comes to escessive violence in games. The escalation of game graphic violence is going to draw a political response just as it did with assault arms Minors buying and immersing in games that glorify violence andt the despersonalization of other human beings. All the game industry had done is use the old three monkeys -see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil since Sandy Hook. Violence in modern games is a serious issue and deserves airing but nobody wants to take a litte heat.
So that's been addressed by the POTUS, right? Same with hollywood?