Obama plans curbs on guns

[JonNC]

Jon I work as a substitute teacher in the public schools and I can tell you that they are definitely “soft targets.” Even at the high schools,which are probably the least likely targets for the active shooter from off campus scenarios, there is often only sporadic law enforcement presence. I would give my life to defend the children I’m charged with protecting, but it would be nice if, in such a situation, I at least had a fighting chance. Who knows what the outcome might have been if some of the administrators or teachers at Sandy Hook had been trained and armed? The principal was one of the first to die–what if she had been able to fire first? Anyway, I’m a good citizen and leave my firearms at home. But remember Mississippi high school principal Joel Myrick? The one who had to run to his truck in the parking lot to retrieve his .45 while the crazed teenager continued shooting? And you’re absolutely right with “until they hear the sirens.” That’s usually when they turn the gun on themselves. At the first sign of armed resistance to their cowardly attacks!

The school district I taught in at the time of Sandy Hook responded with increased safety measures in all the schools. Essentially, they were the same measures that were already in place at Sandy Hook when it was attacked.

Jon

 

[ucfengr]

According to AP fact checkers, nothing Obama is proposing would have stopped a single mass shooting.

bigstory.ap.org/article/d0a31a86e9a64d78aaf3213b034993fc/obama-measures-wouldnt-have-kept-guns-mass-shooters

So, is the point of the exercise to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or to allow Obama and his supporters an opportunity to engage in some moral preening?

 

[JonNC]

According to AP fact checkers, nothing Obama is proposing would have stopped a single mass shooting.

bigstory.ap.org/article/d0a31a86e9a64d78aaf3213b034993fc/obama-measures-wouldnt-have-kept-guns-mass-shooters

So, is the point of the exercise to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or to allow Obama and his supporters an opportunity to engage in some moral preening?

Incrementalism

Jon

 

[mary_bobo]

Incrementalism

Jon

 

[zz912]

Heard the regulations are a thousand pages long. Plenty of room to hide worse stuff than people expect, like Obamacare.

So it was written many many months ago and he was waiting for the right political opportunity to unleash it.

 

[zz912]

President Obama taught Constitutional law.

So? I’ve seen nothing to indicate he actually understands it or appreciates it.

He also holds the record for most 9-0 unanimous decisions to go against him from the Supreme Court.

As he said today, he believes in the 2nd amendment.

He’s lying. He’s said exactly the opposite in the past. And he’s on record before the Heller decision came down as saying he disagreed with the idea that the 2nd amendment applies to individuals.

 

[zz912]

I don’t necessarily agree with that. Obama wasn’t one of the Supreme Court justices that upheld Roe v. Wade.

I’m sorry, but these are facts. It’s not up to your opinion. Obama is a vociferous and adamant supporter of abortion and Roe. He even supports allowing children who survive abortions to be killed. If you can’t even admit that Obama is rabidly pro-abortion, your rational thinking skills and moral compass are malfunctioning.

 

[Brendan]

So? I’ve seen nothing to indicate he actually understands it or appreciates it…

Here he is in 2008. He is showing a very good understanding of it

youtube.com/watch?v=a3IWq3CXHyc

here is his quote

I taught constitutional law for ten years. I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m president of the United States of America. (Townhall in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, March 31, 2008)

 

[Theo520]

Here he is in 2008. He is showing a very good understanding of it

youtube.com/watch?v=a3IWq3CXHyc

here is his quote

LOL, perhaps he’s suffering from onset of early dementia.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Sy Noe.

You rhetorically asked . . .

WHY are you putting out this straw man argument?

Nobody here said anything like, “we can’t do more to prevent innocent first grade children from being shot dead in their school”. Nobody.

When I discussed overpowerful Governments and Dr. Rummel’s book “Death By Government” (here), I did NOT suggest . . . .

This is what I DIDN’T say (nor did anyone else say or intimate such a caricature): WHY some of these gun-grabbers NOT want to do more for school children’s lives by preventing mass citizen genocide is beyond me!

(WHY do you do this false emotional appeal?)

The question is, HOW you go about safety . . . not just for schoolchildren, but for ALL the people?

I have discussed this issue before with you. The problem is not too much freedom for the law-abiding citizens.

The defect here in our society that is becoming MORE manifest is the need for a moral change in heart (but few will admit it).

Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta “We must not be surprised when we hear of murders, of killings, of wars, of hatred. If a mother can kill her own child, what is left but for us to kill each other.”

In the meantime there are natural things we can do too—but gun-grabbers have opposed those measures—NOT because they want to see school children “being shot dead” (as you just intimated Second Amendment supporters do) but because it violates gun-grabbers presuppositions about a free society and their inflated love for Government dependence. A free society that ironically, these same gun-grabbers inherited through freedom given to us from our forefathers.

Incidentally. NONE of these “Executive Orders” would impact a criminal and I think we all know that. (So I just don’t understand what all the proverbial pom-pom waving is all about in support of these Executive Orders)

It is NOT OK for the President to be inventing “laws” Sy Noe. Even if you or I happen to AGREE with those “laws” or edicts.

This contributes to undermining our Constitution (which ALSO is a threat to citizens including children). This type of thing is NOT OK.

If you really think, disarming American citizens is the thing to do (or some other such solution), that’s your prerogative. But do it LEGALLY.

If you really think, the Constitution needs to be dramatically re-interpreted, that’s your privilege too. But do it LEGALLY.

If you really want to see the President have such sweeping powers, that’s your call as well. But take it to the people, have the debate, change the Constitution if you think law-abiding fire arm owners should be further infringed concerning bearing arms, but do it LEGALLY.

Abide by the principles you swore an oath to uphold.

The above is a good example of what the President meant by people twisting his words. As he so well explained in his speech yesterday, no one is going to be coming around to Americans’ doorsteps to disarm American citizens and take away their guns. Exactly because we do have 2nd amendment rights.

And Presidents have long taken executive actions. Some more than this one.

 

[Ridgerunner]

So it was written many many months ago and he was waiting for the right political opportunity to unleash it.

Sure. Might have even been written by someone or other before he was elected the first time. But when one is made aware there are 1,000 pages to some new rule governing our lives, one can be pretty sure there are going to be surprises discovered as time goes on. And as with the obamacare surprises, they’re likely to be unpleasant for all but the ideological devotees.

 

[Sy_Noe]

According to AP fact checkers, nothing Obama is proposing would have stopped a single mass shooting.

bigstory.ap.org/article/d0a31a86e9a64d78aaf3213b034993fc/obama-measures-wouldnt-have-kept-guns-mass-shooters

So, is the point of the exercise to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or to allow Obama and his supporters an opportunity to engage in some moral preening?

As the President said, we can not prevent every shooting. But that doesn’t mean we don’t try to prevent even one.

If conservatives think gun legislation won’t stop all criminals, why would you think closing Planned Parenthood and overturning the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of Roe v Wade would stop all abortions?

Yet you try.

 

[Brendan]

As the President said, we can not prevent every shooting. But that doesn’t mean we don’t try to prevent even one. .

Is attempting what is known to be ineffective ‘trying’

If conservatives think gun legislation won’t stop all criminals, why would you think closing Planned Parenthood and overturning the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of Roe v Wade would stop all abortions?

Which is why we seek effective means.

Imagine pro-life movement got a president to declare that only women had blue thumbs could get an abortion, one MIGHT be tempted to think that, since no women had blue thumbs, no one could get a legal abortion.

Of course, Planned Parenthood would then provide a blue glove to every woman who desired an abortion. End result would be that nothing changed. Hence why the pro-life movement is not making such ludicrous attempts and calling it ‘trying to end abortion’

For these new ‘dealer’ rules, the openings are just as wide as the ‘blue thumb’ rule.

Can’t sell a firearm in the original packaging without doing a check, no prob, take it out of the box and sell it that way. If the person really wants the box, sell that to them as well for a penny

Accepting credit cards requires a background check?, deal in cash or certified check. . Considering the number of personal sales that are done via credit card, that would be a minuscule amount anyway. And how many criminals desiring to bypass the background check would put down a credit card anyway

If anything, these measures are going to increase the number of Concealed Pistol Permits, as the Federal background check law exempts those people already

Of course, the end result of that probably WILL be fewer fatalities, as there will be more law abiding people able to defend themselves.

 

[Theo520]

As the President said, we can not prevent every shooting. But that doesn’t mean we don’t try to prevent even one.

If conservatives think gun legislation won’t stop all criminals, why would you think closing Planned Parenthood and overturning the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of Roe v Wade would stop all abortions?

Yet you try.

Obama’s latest action wouldn’t have prevented one past shooting, per the experts. All he does is sell more guns.

WP: On gun control, the president is just pretending
I guess it’s ironic that President Obama, an affirmative gun-control advocate, has presided over the greatest expansion of gun sales in U.S. history. But the whole affair is somewhat robbed of its irony because it’s all so predictable. The president may as well have convened a meeting at the White House to ask his advisers what they could do to increase gun sales in the United States. I don’t see how this White House could have done anything else to more effectively create conditions where more people want to buy a gun.
. . .

Obama’s gun plan: Crocodile tears and a ‘crazy list’

ANALYSIS/OPINION:
When all the hectoring is finished, the professorial lecturing is done, all the political posturing is over, all that is left are tears. And crocodile tears at that. Even for those of us long tired of the false hopes and outright lies from this White House, President Obama’s crude gunplay Tuesday was pretty shocking.

It was shocking for its hollowness. Shocking for its low-mindedness. Shocking for the complete disdain the man has for all the families of victims of gun violence that he trots out to carry his political water. And what for? To save a future life? Prevent a past death?

No. He even admitted on live national television that his raft of meaningless proposals will do nothing to prevent a single gun crime and nor would they have ever prevented one in the past.

“Each time this comes up, we are fed the excuse that common-sense reforms, like background checks, might not have stopped the last massacre. Or the one before that. Or the one before that. So why bother? I reject that thinking.”

In other words, Mr. Obama is saying: “Let’s make up some meaningless new gun laws just ‘cuz.” Or, as his former chief of staff might say, “Never let a tragedy go to waste. Not when you can hector, lecture and grandstand over it. Score some political points.”

No, all of this executive action is designed entirely to create one giant charade that Mr. Obama understands, cares and is offering capable solutions to a problem he wants to fix.

Yet, nothing could be further from the truth.
. . .

In the end, he offered nothing. Nothing that isn’t already the law. More paperwork. More busy work.
And tears. Empty tears. Meaningless tears. Fake tears.
. . .

 

[Erich]

To be consistent, anyone who’s against the private ownership of guns should be against the private ownership of fire extinguishers, too.

I mean, they can always just call the fire department, right?

 

[Erich]

Every politician who wants to ban guns should only be allowed to arm their body guards with cell phones… so they can call the police to come process the crime scene.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[zz912]

As the President said, we can not prevent every shooting. But that doesn’t mean we don’t try to prevent even one.

The justification used by tyrants worldwide. If we can save just ONE life, then taking away your freedoms is worth it!

 

[Brendan]

As an FYI, here is what the BATF recently posted on when an FFL ( dealer licenses) is needed, and when it is not

atf.gov/file/100871/download

For those not in the US, Licensed firearm dealers are required to conduct background checks with every sale. Location does not matter, so a dealer running a table at a gun show must still conduct a background check.

Likewise with any internet purchased firearms, they can only be shipped to a licensed dealer, who must then conduct a background check before releasing the firearm.

If a individual person desired to sell some, or the entirety of their personal collection, they require no license, and there is no Federal requirement that they conduct background checks.

From the BATF document ( which was specifically highlighted)

As a general rule, you will need a license if you repetitively buy and sell firearms
with the principal motive of making a profit. In contrast, if you only make occasional
sales of firearms from your personal collection, you do not need to be licensed.

My basic read is that nothing really changed in this regard. Nor actually could it. Federal firearms law is very specific. There is little wiggle room for an Executive Order.

 

[ucfengr]

As the President said, we can not prevent every shooting. But that doesn’t mean we don’t try to prevent even one.

There’s nothing in any of Obama’s proposals would have stopped a single shooting, and Obama knows it. Even if it did, there’s still a cost to Obama’s proposals, that his supporters refuse to consider. I think Obama relies on his supporters not thinking critically about his proposals, knowing that they’ll prefer to embrace the warm glow of moral preening.

If conservatives think gun legislation won’t stop all criminals, why would you think closing Planned Parenthood and overturning the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of Roe v Wade would stop all abortions?

Yet you try.

I don’t, no more than I think Prohibition ended the consumption of alcohol or that drug criminalization stops the consumption of illegal drugs.

 

[ARSpade]

The only thing that irritates me is that I rushed to get two trust based NFA Forms in last month before the orders went into effect and now they’re not going to start until about June. And the CLEO sign off is gone anyway.

I could’ve spread that $400 out into two hits.