Obama plans curbs on guns

[Lily_Bernans]

Lily Bernans. Based upon your comments. . . .

Congratulations on your shooting awards.

I don’t want to diminish your achievement here at all, but I have to ask you about inconsistencies in your replies that call in to question some issues you raised.

I asked you WHY you think the Military and law enforcement community “need” assault rifles and what you called “ultra-lethal bullets”?

You did not answer.

I asked what the “ultra-lethal bullets” you mentioned were alluding to.

I have yet to see an answer. I tried looking it up but I didn’t come across anything so if you don’t mind clarifying it would be appreciated.

I asked you what you thought an “assault rifle” was (as the definition has been fluid and seems to change depending upon who you are talking to and the “politics” de jour).

You said (to Theo520 here) that an “assault rifle” is (emphasis mine) . . . .

QUOTE:
A rapid-fire, magazine-led automatic rifle designed for use by the military like the XM25.

DO you understand that automatic rifles have been outlawed in the United States for citizens since the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 (except under very extreme exceptions-see here)?

No automatic weapons since 1934 in these circumstances Lily Bernans.

I looked up the XM25 you alluded to. It is not a “rifle” in the sense of a fire arm but rather a dedicated grenade launcher (here).

Wikipedia mentions . . . .

QUOTE:
The XM25 . . . .was planned to officially enter service in late 2015, but malfunctions and program budget cuts pushed planned fielding to early 2017.

So far the XM25 you mentioned doesn’t appear ready for use in the military and there is at least some doubt whether it ever will be.

The XM25 you mentioned isn’t even in service yet (except under a trial)!

The XM25 you mentioned isn’t a rifle at all (at least in the usual sense). The XM25 you mentioned is a dedicated grenade launcher.

If you think any rifle SHAPE = a “rifle” . . . then WHY not just explain that to the readers of the thread who may otherwise read what you said is a standard fire arm and be misled?

But the PRINCIPLE here that I’d really like you to address is WHY you think the military and law enforcement community “need” ANY assault rifles or ANY fire arms at all?

(Incidentally. I think the law enforcement community DOES need firearms.)

I would also like to ask you WHERE the rights of the citizens come from?

Do rights come from “the creator”? (And are merely recognized by the Government)?

Or do you think these “rights” emanate and/or are bestowed upon citizens from Government?

I use a middle “family” name as my screen name so people can’t look me up on the Internet. It’s fruitless; don’t waste your time. I take it your actual legal name is not Cathoholic? Thanks for understanding.

Despite my uncle I am far from an expert on firearms and will stay that way. I believe I corrected my mistakes in a subsequent post when they were pointed out by another poster.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You do realize Obama doesn’t want to actually disarm people, he just wants to close some loopholes. And even that is far from a “done deal.”

But do the “loopholes” really need to be closed, or is there more to this?

As has been shown here on CAF many times, there is no evidence that gun shows result in shootings. Criminals, it appears, don’t get their guns at gun shows. But Obama wants private sales by ordinary citizens more closely regulated. Why?

I wouldn’t buy a gun at a gun show, period. Most of them are used, and if you aren’t an expert, you can’t know very well what you’re buying. So why would I care? I care because the ostensible purpose is a falsehood, and we know what happens when this administration starts lying to the public about what it’s doing. “If you like your doctor…” and so on. They’re just not trustworthy people, and they put unexpected land mines in the things they do.

What do they mean by people “physically or mentally disabled” from having guns? Do they mean people who should actually be institutionalized, or do they mean your cousin who takes Prozac for serotonin uptake deficiency, but is otherwise okay?

Remember how some USCCB spokespersons initially endorsed Obamacare? Then, oops, the administration sues the Little Sisters of the Poor to make them cover themselves for abortifacients and contraceptives.

At some point, we just have to admit it’s foolish to favor anything this administration does and be grateful that Congress manages to block most of it. Once bitten, twice shy.

But it isn’t just this administration. Such are the vagaries of voters that we can never be sure what kind of executive we’re going to have at any particular time. Best to distrust them all, and that’s why the Second Amendment was enacted. Better not to “trust in kings”.

 

[Theo520]

As someone writing from outside the United States, can someone explain to me not the inherent benefits (for want of a better word) of being able safely to use a gun - but why whenever any level of gun law is mooted, those who oppose it tend to automatically assume that it inherently represents a government conspiracy to cow its population, rather than (say) an entirely well-meaning (if slightly hamfisted?) desire to protect the population from a very clear and present and continuing threat?

When you want a candid discussion, it’s best to leave the hyperbole off the page and not lead with ‘a grand conspiracy to cow the population’ as your claim. Nevertheless, I’ll try address the underlying issues.

Resisting all new laws? We’ve been implementing gun laws since the beginning of the last century.

• Probably the one that has demonstrably improved safety is banning automatic weapons from regular purchase (circa 1930’s). Most of the other laws are knee jerk reactions that feel good but don’t affect the level of violence. Neither banning nor lifting the ban on “assault rifles” had any effect on gun usage and crime, etc etc.
• For the past 20 years (my experience) none of the proposed/implemented “new laws” were actually targeted at preventing the crimes they were a knee jerk reaction towards. None of Obama’s Executive Orders would have prevented any of the mass shootings in recent memory. Statistics show that areas with high gun control haven’t experienced reduced gun crime.
• Many many gun control advocates are on record in stating their ultimate goal is gun confiscation. It’s also the only logical solution that definitely reduces the use of guns in crime, suicide, etc.
  .
  This makes many of the proposed changes insincere, with proponents working to slowly increase control towards an eventual registration and then ban. It’s logical to resist all such efforts to tighten the noose on this constitutional right.

Why do you think it’s reasonable to implement knee jerk legislation that panders to the latest crisis, but will have no impact?

 

[styrgwillidar]

freebeacon.com/issues/obama-executive-order-may-require-those-selling-even-a-single-firearm-become-licensed-dealers/

“Jarret then said that selling as few as “two firearms” could require somebody to obtain a federal firearms license. However, later in the call, Attorney General Lynch revised that number down further. “It can be as few as one or two depending upon the circumstances under which the person sells the gun,” Lynch said.”

So, it used to be that you could get an FFL but operate your business out of the home part time. I’ve been told be several folks that ATF for quite few years now has required you have a physical store. Getting an FFL is an expensive proposition. So this is kind of like requiring you to become a licensed car dealer to sell your car.

My main objection is vagueness. Under what exact circumstances will the license be required? Can you sell it on consignment via a licensed dealer? Can you sell it to a friend but take it to a licensed FFL for the actual transfer including background check? (the required process for any transfer in California, has to go through an FFL). I’d be curious if any consideration was given to making the NICS database available to the general public and requiring it be used for any private sales.

 

[JonNC]

You do realize Obama doesn’t want to actually disarm people, he just wants to close some loopholes. And even that is far from a “done deal.”

Actually, I’m not convinced of anything of the sort. I believe that if he thought it was possible with his pen and his phone to confiscate all civilian owned firearms, he would do so with any amount of force necessary.

Jon

 

[Lily_Bernans]

So, it’s ok to accuse an entire party of partisan gamesmanship, but it’s an insult to challenge this kind of overreaching, unprovable statement? Yeah, that sounds fair…

Oh, I accuse both parties of that kind of gamesmanship. At least most of the time. Democrats and Republicans. I’m not prejudiced.

 

[Theo520]

Remember how some USCCB spokespersons initially endorsed Obamacare? Then, oops, the administration sues the Little Sisters of the Poor to make them cover themselves for abortifacients and contraceptives.

At some point, we just have to admit it’s foolish to favor anything this administration does and be grateful that Congress manages to block most of it. Once bitten, twice shy…

How they implemented ACA is a superb indicator that Obama is an incompetent politician, more fascist ideologue than leader.

Instead of being loose with religious exceptions as originally promised, they cracked the whip based on principle (?). They intentionally poked religious groups in the eye for a very limited potential increase in coverage for BC. Also any moron could have guessed the requirement would lose a sincere challenge with SCOTUS.

“Jarret then said that selling as few as “two firearms” could require somebody to obtain a federal firearms license. However, later in the call, Attorney General Lynch revised that number down further. “It can be as few as one or two depending upon the circumstances under which the person sells the gun,” Lynch said.”

So, it used to be that you could get an FFL but operate your business out of the home part time. I’ve been told be several folks that ATF for quite few years now has required you have a physical store. Getting an FFL is an expensive proposition. So this is kind of like requiring you to become a licensed car dealer to sell your car.

My main objection is vagueness. Under what exact circumstances will the license be required? Can you sell it on consignment via a licensed dealer? Can you sell it to a friend but take it to a licensed FFL for the actual transfer including background check? (the required process for any transfer in California, has to go through an FFL). I’d be curious if any consideration was given to making the NICS database available to the general public and requiring it be used for any private sales.

It seems a regulation they want to use when it suits them, they’ll pull it out to punish somebody when they can’t get other charges to stick. I don’t see how it can stand up upon review.

 

[zz912]

Actually, I’m not convinced of anything of the sort. I believe that if he thought it was possible with his pen and his phone to confiscate all civilian owned firearms, he would do so with any amount of force necessary.

Jon

Exactly. This is a man who supports butchering babies in the womb. Why would anyone with any moral fiber believe a word out of his mouth?

 

[DeniseNY]

If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan

Fool me once, shame on me…

 

[styrgwillidar]

Yes, using RFID technology is exactly where so called smart guns have been heading.
Don’t forget the watch, don’t get it wet, and pray they won’t jam your device. Also, remember to keep the batteries fresh

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-BY999_SMARTG_G_20131120184205.jpg

The fingerprint option is also fraught with risks. Hope you don’t have to swipe the finger print pad repeatedly, like with my PC. Keep your fingers clean and uninjured. Do you think they will have a disclaimer that you can’t use it in muddy conditions or cold weather (gloves)?

americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2015/11/12/exclusive-we-test-the-armatix-ip1-the-not-so-smart-gun/

The manufacturer of the smart gun in Germany, Armatix, has filed the patents for the remote shut off capability which the software in the system supports. That functionality was confirmed in independent range testing. So it can be disabled by anyone who can send the appropriate signal to the system- be it the manufacturer, government agency, or hacker. It is also possible to simply jam the signal via broadcast.

Currently, it is only used with .22 caliber pistol as it can’t handle weapons with heavier recoil. The time for the watch and pistol’s initial synch takes 20 minutes, after that it takes 12 seconds (assuming you push the 7 buttons required to activate the weapon in the correct order…) and keep the gun and watch within 10 inches of each other. Assuming you get it to activate-- it’s unreliable with 3 to 4 misfires per magazine (10 round magazine).

And all of this comes at a cost-- the Armatix watch and gun cost $1,798.00.

 

[Gorgias]

I use a middle “family” name as my screen name so people can’t look me up on the Internet. It’s fruitless; don’t waste your time.

I think you misunderstood him, Lily. He wasn’t looking up your identity; he was looking up the facts on the claims you’ve made in this thread.

I also think that his post was a call for you to provide more clarity around the terms you were using, and what those terms mean to you.

I believe I corrected my mistakes in a subsequent post when they were pointed out by another poster.

Yep. Thank you for that.

I was a little put off that you seemed to be making claims that just weren’t true, but were sticking to them in the fact of counter-examples. Thanks for playing fair.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Actually, I’m not convinced of anything of the sort. I believe that if he thought it was possible with his pen and his phone to confiscate all civilian owned firearms, he would do so with any amount of force necessary.

Jon

I’m sure if you’d been the parent of a Sandy Hook student, or the husband of a woman in San Bernardino, you’d want him to do just that. And Lanza’s mom bough her guns legally. Granted, he was mentally ill and she should have secured her weapons, knowing her son was mentally ill, but even with the loopholes closed, it won’t keep mentally ill people from obtaining guns.

I hate guns, and even I don’t agree with expanding access to mental health. The people who really need it won’t get it. I think Lanza would have passed a background check, if I recall correctly.

 

[Peebo]

Personally I don’t care if the Gov. knows how many guns I have…I have 4…and I don’t care if I have to register them neither…I also don’t get hysterical that the Gov.is coming to take my weapons or that we are about to be taken over by some mythical tyrant…the NRA sure knows how to stir up paranoid conspiracy theorists with its propaganda ****…the only reason all of this has come up is because Obama ( who I didn’t vote for…nor am I a Democrat ) has at least tried to get something done to stop the slaughter of innocent children…but not to worry…after the gutless Republicans take office they will bow down to their NRA masters and repeal anything Obama does and NRA supporters will give a cheer while children will continue to get slaughtered and all will be well with the world

 

[Theo520]

Personally I don’t care if the Gov. knows how many guns I have…I have 4…and I don’t care if I have to register them neither…I also don’t get hysterical that the Gov.is coming to take my weapons or that we are about to be taken over by some mythical tyrant…the NRA sure knows how to stir up paranoid conspiracy theorists with its propaganda ****…the only reason all of this has come up is because Obama ( who I didn’t vote for…nor am I a Democrat ) has at least tried to get something done to stop the slaughter of innocent children…but not to worry…after the gutless Republicans take office they will bow down to their NRA masters and repeal anything Obama does and NRA supporters will give a cheer while children will continue to get slaughtered and all will be well with the world

Not one of Obama’s changes would have reduced/prevented any of the “slaughter of innocent children” you reference.

Why don’t you see the illogic and pandering of it all?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I think you misunderstood him, Lily. He wasn’t looking up your identity; he was looking up the facts on the claims you’ve made in this thread.

I also think that his post was a call for you to provide more clarity around the terms you were using, and what those terms mean to you.

Yep. Thank you for that.

I was a little put off that you seemed to be making claims that just weren’t true, but were sticking to them in the fact of counter-examples. Thanks for playing fair.

You’re welcome, Gorgias. I have no problem admitting when I’m wrong, and I’m wrong more often than I should be here. I try to do two or three things at one time, and I’m terrible at multitasking, and I’m also a reflective thinker, so my quick answers sometimes don’t come out as they would if I’d thought about them for a while. I also have no “street smarts.” I’m good at academics, but take me away from that, and I’m not the greatest by a long shot.

I know little about the Swiss Army, but I do know the men who lived in that house only went to the Army for a short time in the summer. They were not regular Army members.

I realize the poster was questioning what I wrote but wouldn’t someone need my actual name to look up my details? I wouldn’t put my actual surname on the Internet.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Not one of Obama’s changes would have reduced/prevented any of the “slaughter of innocent children” you reference.

Why don’t you see the illogic and pandering of it all?

It probably wouldn’t have, but if it saves one life in the future it’s worth it.

I firmly believe people on the “no fly” list should not be able to buy a gun. Also people being treated for mental illnesses.

I know you weren’t addressing me, so sorry to butt in.

 

[Gorgias]

I realize the poster was questioning what I wrote but wouldn’t someone need my actual name to look up my details? I wouldn’t put my actual surname on the Internet.

I guess I need another cup of coffee; for the life of me, I can’t find (in the post you quoted) where he said he was looking up your details.

p.s., I’m with you; putting up personally identifying info on the Internet is not good mojo.

 

[Peebo]

Not one of Obama’s changes would have reduced/prevented any of the “slaughter of innocent children” you reference.

Why don’t you see the illogic and pandering of it all?

So the logical thing to do is to do absolutely nothing…I’m sure that will stop more children being saughtered

 

[styrgwillidar]

Personally I don’t care if the Gov. knows how many guns I have…I have 4…and I don’t care if I have to register them neither…I also don’t get hysterical that the Gov.is coming to take my weapons or that we are about to be taken over by some mythical tyrant…the NRA sure knows how to stir up paranoid conspiracy theorists with its propaganda ****…the only reason all of this has come up is because Obama ( who I didn’t vote for…nor am I a Democrat ) has at least tried to get something done to stop the slaughter of innocent children…but not to worry…after the gutless Republicans take office they will bow down to their NRA masters and repeal anything Obama does and NRA supporters will give a cheer while children will continue to get slaughtered and all will be well with the world

The only reason the NRA has any influence is they represent the views of tens of millions of Americans across the country. And those tens of millions vote. Kind of how are political system is supposed to work. Among most gun owners the NRA are viewed as the moderates on gun rights and historically been too compromising. A lot folks won’t join it as this individual states, because they’re ‘squishy’ on gun rights. But Obama and the current push for restrictions aren’t just pushing gun sales, they’re pushing more folks to join the NRA. A lot of them minorities, the gun store recognized as signing the most new NRA members up over the past year was the one just outside of Chicago with primarily African American clients. (FWIW, I am not a member of the NRA)

esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6965

"After 20 years of evading joining the NRA, I finally did it last week.

I’ve never been a huge fan of the NRA because, despite the fearsome extremist image the mainstream media tries to hang on it, the NRA is actually rather squishy about gun rights. A major symptom of this is its lack of interest in pursuing Second Amendment court cases. Alan Gura, the civil-rights warrior who fought Heller vs. DC and several other key cases to a successful conclusion, was funded not by the NRA but by the Second Amendment Foundation. Also, in the past, the NRA has been too willing to acquiesce to unconstitutional legislation like the 1986 ban on sales of new automatic weapons to civilians."

 

[Gorgias]

I firmly believe people on the “no fly” list should not be able to buy a gun. Also people being treated for mental illnesses.

On the face of it, these are both reasonable suggestions. Until you look more closely at it, that is – after all, “the devil in the details” and all that!

The really important questions I would have in response, keeping in mind 2nd amendment rights, are:

• who determines whether a person gets placed on the ‘no fly’ list?
• what criteria must be met in order to be placed on the list, if loss of 2nd amendment rights automatically attaches?
• by what process may one be removed from the list? By whom? And would the prohibition against firearm purchases automatically be lifted?
• would the prohibition to buy also imply a prohibition to continue to possess any firearms previously purchased?
• similarly, with respect to mental illness: who decides? what criteria? which illnesses? what provisions for removal from this status?

After all, if we were talking about rescinding a driver’s license, that’s one thing – after all, the ability to drive a car isn’t a right guaranteed constitutionally. However, the right to “keep and bear” is. Anything that has the power to take away that right needs to be very carefully vetted, so that there is not the ability to abuse this power to the detriment of individual citizens.