LIVE: Obama giving a splendid lecture/scolding to American peasants on guns! BANNED private sales!

[jon_berzerk]

This thread really proves that nobody can stir the shit up like the president can. The gun grabbers actually think they've won something and they haven't and the "You Ain't Takin' Ma Guns!" crowd actually believes they've lost something here and they haven't. This will effect such few people that it's negligible.

Really, from what I'm hearing you will need a FFL to sell a couple of your own guns. That's $300 plus a bunch of paperwork and possibly months in processing. Oh and add other fees for fingerprinting and photos. Nope, no one will lose a thing. LMAO

no not really

good read over at legal insurrection by Andrew Branca

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Sure they will. Thousands of criminals/ psychos get denied gun approval every year.

Columbine School Shooting

Harris and Klebold acquired their firearms through a friend, Robyn Anderson, who bought a rifle and the two shotguns at a gun show. Philip Duran, another friend, bought a handgun from Mark Manes for $500.
How would these new gun regulations have kept these firearms from coming into the hands of Harris and Klebold?


Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting

Adam Lanza, who had signs of schizophrenia and psychotic behavior, as well as autism, acquired a gun from his mother. He would never see a background check either.



Per capita, the city of Baltimore reaches its highest ever homicide rate in 2015

Yet, democrat lawmakers in that state said President Obama's executive order would have no effect on concerned gun owners, because they are already among those states with the most strict gun laws.

What happened?

Per capita, Baltimore reaches its highest ever homicide rate

difference is that 99% of the people that are killed in Baltimore are doing society a favor by leaving the gene pool

 

[Timmy]

Your right lass .

We should have guns available out of vending machines for anyone to buy! Is that what you want ?

No but an American should not have to register a gun, that's the first step in confiscation

Hold up. President Obama has not said anything about a registry.



Yet.

Hold up, if people have to register and pass an application to purchase a gun, does that not create a registry by default?

What's wrong with a registry? What is on your agenda that a registry might threaten?

People are already licensed . What's the biggy?

 

[forbegos]

OKTexas
1. For national and local standards to be consistent I recommend the basics here:
ethics-commission.net

2. For issues of belief, creed, that are NOT shared by all people
I absolutely INSIST that people keep their religions private.
the Hindus have equal exercise in private of their cultural rituals
as the Muslims and Buddhists.
As the Protestants and Catholics who don't agree on communion rites.
So why not have separate marriages in churches with different policies?
Who says "all people in all churches have to follow the same rules for marriage"
That is religious imposition to try to establish a national religion
that all people would be compelled to follow. Beliefs by nature must remain free choice.

3. People already fund their own religious schools that teach God and whatever
separately from public schools.
There are already Christian health share ministries with different rules for their members
than other insurance options are required to follow.

Why not give people EQUAL choice?
Why allow govt to regulate and dictate and try to make it the same for all people
where people have different beliefs?

4. If you are afraid this will be abused to create "separate but equal segregation" to deny rights,
why not discuss this and address it Constitutionally?

How do we manage the bakers and wedding services for people of conflicting beliefs?
Why can't businesses issue a "mediation" agreement to sign in order to conduct business together,
and if people can't agree on terms of arbitration or mediation, then they agree NOT to do business.

Why can't we agree on a safe process that protects people
but doesn't force us all to follow the same beliefs where we are naturally different?

Alaska has different laws from Texas, does that mean they aren't under the same national laws?

Sounds nice on paper, wouldn't work in a community of 300 much less in a country of 300 million.

We have to get rid of crime and abuse by working in communities of 300
before 3500 (the size of Rice U) and then 60,000 (the campus at UT).

If we are ever going to get govt in a manageable structure to represent whoever is paying the taxes.

By using a campus model for developing democratically managed infrastructure, businesses
and services http://www.houstonprogressive.org
this can accommodate any size, and string communities together to form a cohesive network,
that retains BOTH the advantages of collective larger govt AND the local accountability and participation in democratic processes.

The Parties already do this: have local elected leaders and conventions on Precinct scales, all the way to state and national. Why can't that structure be used to support health care coops and discounts FOR MEMBERS WHO AGREE instead of trying to establish one policy for the whole nation.

Don't want to sound crude, but screw the collective. The very foundation of this country is individual freedom. Are there responsibilities that go along with that freedom, sure, they should be kept to the bare minimum. I should be able to chose who I do business with using my own standards and not the fantasies of the collective, the market will determine if the business remains and flourishes or dies, but if the business dies it will be at the hand of the owner and not due to the whims of the collective. The same standards should be applied to all facets of life, what ever happened to live and let live?

Dear OKTexas
You are talking about people who are already so self-reliant we can run our own finances and programs.

But what about people with no social or financial training or education to be independent.
Look at students in schools. the learning takes place by working in classes, in groups, clubs and on teams,
like baseball or theatre, to deal with the individual responsibility and the collective goals BOTH.

People start off as freshman and maybe do part time work during studies.
Then move up to college, and take on internships,
or graduate school with residencies before moving on to professional levels.

Why can't we set up a tiered structure so people at ALL levels can start where they are comfortable
and work their way up the scale?

Nobody can be expected to move from kindergarten to college alone.
The govt does not need to micromanage this, each community should
work with parents and teachers to agree how to set it up to work for their district and represent them.

The parties and govt can be used to organize the facilities or districting
to house the process by which ppl can govern themselves and organize their own community resources.

Use the structure as the shell, and let the people use that to facilitate their own self-government
and education/training to younger members so the upward movement is sustainable.
new students and trainees come in while the mentors and elders move up and help the next class to grow up.

And what do you do with the folks that refuse to study or work, kill them?

Folks who refuse to study or work, do not need to be killed, they will wither and die on their own. Why should we care them if they don't want to care for themselves? It's just not logical.

 

[TNHarley]

And people reference hitler to trump LMAO

 

[TNHarley]

At last, a politician offering more than "thoughts and prayers". Background checks work. More stringent checks will work better. Makes sense.

Apparently not. We've had murders right ? Background checks didn't stop them.

We also have speeders. Should we let anyone drive whatever speed their car can reach? We've had shoplifters too..should we just allow anyone to take whatever they want off of shelves at a store?

Nobody has a constitutional right to drive a car or steal, asswipe

 

[hjmick]

Your right lass .

We should have guns available out of vending machines for anyone to buy! Is that what you want ?

No but an American should not have to register a gun, that's the first step in confiscation

Hold up. President Obama has not said anything about a registry.



Yet.

Hold up, if people have to register and pass an application to purchase a gun, does that not create a registry by default?

What's wrong with a registry? What is on your agenda that a registry might threaten?

People are already licensed . What's the biggy?

Licensed for what? I have a driver's license, but driving is not a right protected by the Constitution.


I have more than one firearm, not a single license among them.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Your right lass .

We should have guns available out of vending machines for anyone to buy! Is that what you want ?

No but an American should not have to register a gun, that's the first step in confiscation

Hold up. President Obama has not said anything about a registry.



Yet.

Hold up, if people have to register and pass an application to purchase a gun, does that not create a registry by default?

What's wrong with a registry? What is on your agenda that a registry might threaten?

People are already licensed . What's the biggy?

the biggy is that you should not have to obtain permission and a license to utilize a right
permission and licensing are for privileges.
If its unconstitutional to require any type of restrictions to vote, then the same goes for the right to arms

 

[jon_berzerk]

And people reference hitler to trump LMAO

--LOL

 

[NYcarbineer]

No but an American should not have to register a gun, that's the first step in confiscation

Hold up. President Obama has not said anything about a registry.



Yet.

Hold up, if people have to register and pass an application to purchase a gun, does that not create a registry by default?

What's wrong with a registry? What is on your agenda that a registry might threaten?

People are already licensed . What's the biggy?

Licensed for what? I have a driver's license, but driving is not a right protected by the Constitution.


I have more than one firearm, not a single license among them.

There is nothing explicit or implicit in the Constitution that prohibits the requirement to license something that you have the right to do or to own.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No but an American should not have to register a gun, that's the first step in confiscation

Hold up. President Obama has not said anything about a registry.



Yet.

Hold up, if people have to register and pass an application to purchase a gun, does that not create a registry by default?

What's wrong with a registry? What is on your agenda that a registry might threaten?

People are already licensed . What's the biggy?

the biggy is that you should not have to obtain permission and a license to utilize a right
permission and licensing are for privileges.
If its unconstitutional to require any type of restrictions to vote, then the same goes for the right to arms

You have the right to vote but you can be required to register.

You have the right to marry but you can be required to obtain a license.

 

[Fishlore]

Obama is not going to keep us safe. We aren't safe. We have gun homicide rates that are through the roof, right up there with place like Uruguay or Somalia. Obama is going to try and make us safer. It will help, although nobody knows how much. If it saves the lives of just a few dozen of the thousands who die from guns each year, it is probably a plus.

How will this EO help? Please be specific.

It will expand the number of gun sellers registered with the government and reduce the number of guns sold without a background check. Currently some 40% of gun sales do not have a background check. Guns that travel through this loophole are disproportionately involved in crimes. Happy now?

 

[rcfieldz]

30 Deadliest Mass Shootings in U.S. History Fast Facts - CNN.com

 

[TNHarley]

He is pulling a Lincoln.bi knew he was his favorite president for a reason..
Shit on our constitution for what "feels right"..

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Hold up. President Obama has not said anything about a registry.



Yet.

Hold up, if people have to register and pass an application to purchase a gun, does that not create a registry by default?

What's wrong with a registry? What is on your agenda that a registry might threaten?

People are already licensed . What's the biggy?

Licensed for what? I have a driver's license, but driving is not a right protected by the Constitution.


I have more than one firearm, not a single license among them.

There is nothing explicit or implicit in the Constitution that prohibits the requirement to license something that you have the right to do or to own.

then there is nothing unconstitutional about voter ID either.

 

[hjmick]

Obama is not going to keep us safe. We aren't safe. We have gun homicide rates that are through the roof, right up there with place like Uruguay or Somalia. Obama is going to try and make us safer. It will help, although nobody knows how much. If it saves the lives of just a few dozen of the thousands who die from guns each year, it is probably a plus.

How will this EO help? Please be specific.

It will expand the number of gun sellers registered with the government and reduce the number of guns sold without a background check. Currently some 40% of gun sales do not have a background check. Guns that travel through this loophole are disproportionately involved in crimes. Happy now?

...But that figure is based on an analysis of a nearly two-decade-old survey of less than 300 people that essentially asked participants whether they thought the guns they had acquired — and not necessarily purchased — came from a federally licensed dealer. And one of the authors of the report often cited as a source for the claim — Philip Cook of Duke University — told our friends at Politifact.com that he has “no idea” whether the “very old number” applies today or not. Even Vice President Joe Biden acknowledged that the statistic may not be accurate in a speech at a mayoral conference on Jan. 17. Biden prefaced his claim that “about 40 percent of the people who buy guns today do so outside the … background check system” by saying that “because of the lack of the ability of federal agencies to be able to even keep records, we can’t say with absolute certainty what I’m about to say is correct.”

The basis for the claim is a 1997 report from professors Cook and Jens Ludwig for the National Institute of Justice. The authors concluded that “approximately 60 percent of gun acquisitions involved [federally licensed firearms dealers] and hence were subject to Federal regulations on such matters as out-of-State sales, criminal history checks, and record keeping.” They similarly concluded in a more detailed report published earlier that year that “approximately 60 to 70 percent of gun acquisitions occur in the primary market” from a licensed dealer.

Both of those statements were based on a single 1994 telephone survey on private gun ownership conducted by the Police Foundation and funded by the Justice Department. The survey asked the 251 participants who had acquired guns in the previous two years, “Was the person you acquired this gun from a licensed firearm dealer?” The answer choices were “yes,” “probably was/think so,” “probably not,” “no/definitely not,” “don’t know” and refuse to report. Cook and Ludwig found that 64.3 percent of those surveyed (Table 3.14) said that they had purchased or traded for a gun that came from a licensed dealer or “probably” did. The 40 percent figure comes from assuming that the remaining 35.7 percent — which has been rounded up — did not.

Guns Acquired Without Background Checks

Oops...

 

[Fishlore]

Like many Americans, I have no use for the Second Amendment. I believe the amendment is about federal restriction on state militias and contains no right of possession for individuals. That right it up to the states. But even more, I really don't care. I don't want an America where some deranged guy can murder a first grade class or shoot up a movie theater or a prayer meeting in church. I joined the NRA in the fifth grade and owned a gun all my life, but enough is enough. Whatever it takes, but no more slaughter of innocent citizens. That isn't what our Constitution is about.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Hold up. President Obama has not said anything about a registry.



Yet.

Hold up, if people have to register and pass an application to purchase a gun, does that not create a registry by default?

What's wrong with a registry? What is on your agenda that a registry might threaten?

People are already licensed . What's the biggy?

the biggy is that you should not have to obtain permission and a license to utilize a right
permission and licensing are for privileges.
If its unconstitutional to require any type of restrictions to vote, then the same goes for the right to arms

You have the right to vote but you can be required to register.

You have the right to marry but you can be required to obtain a license.

You do not have to prove competent in order to vote. remember the poll tax? would you agree that a test to demonstrate your knowledge of the candidates and issues is a good idea prior to being allowed to vote?
Marriage is NOT a right given anyone in the constitution, straight or gay. It is a privilege that is regulated by the states.

 

[TNHarley]

Like many Americans, I have no use for the Second Amendment. I believe the amendment is about federal restriction on state militias and contains no right of possession for individuals. That right it up to the states. But even more, I really don't care. I don't want an America where some deranged guy can murder a first grade class or shoot up a movie theater or a prayer meeting in church. I joined the NRA in the fifth grade and owned a gun all my life, but enough is enough. Whatever it takes, but no more slaughter of innocent citizens. That isn't what our Constitution is about.

what makes you think that?

 

[Fishlore]

Obama is not going to keep us safe. We aren't safe. We have gun homicide rates that are through the roof, right up there with place like Uruguay or Somalia. Obama is going to try and make us safer. It will help, although nobody knows how much. If it saves the lives of just a few dozen of the thousands who die from guns each year, it is probably a plus.

How will this EO help? Please be specific.

It will expand the number of gun sellers registered with the government and reduce the number of guns sold without a background check. Currently some 40% of gun sales do not have a background check. Guns that travel through this loophole are disproportionately involved in crimes. Happy now?

...But that figure is based on an analysis of a nearly two-decade-old survey of less than 300 people that essentially asked participants whether they thought the guns they had acquired — and not necessarily purchased — came from a federally licensed dealer. And one of the authors of the report often cited as a source for the claim — Philip Cook of Duke University — told our friends at Politifact.com that he has “no idea” whether the “very old number” applies today or not. Even Vice President Joe Biden acknowledged that the statistic may not be accurate in a speech at a mayoral conference on Jan. 17. Biden prefaced his claim that “about 40 percent of the people who buy guns today do so outside the … background check system” by saying that “because of the lack of the ability of federal agencies to be able to even keep records, we can’t say with absolute certainty what I’m about to say is correct.”

The basis for the claim is a 1997 report from professors Cook and Jens Ludwig for the National Institute of Justice. The authors concluded that “approximately 60 percent of gun acquisitions involved [federally licensed firearms dealers] and hence were subject to Federal regulations on such matters as out-of-State sales, criminal history checks, and record keeping.” They similarly concluded in a more detailed report published earlier that year that “approximately 60 to 70 percent of gun acquisitions occur in the primary market” from a licensed dealer.

Both of those statements were based on a single 1994 telephone survey on private gun ownership conducted by the Police Foundation and funded by the Justice Department. The survey asked the 251 participants who had acquired guns in the previous two years, “Was the person you acquired this gun from a licensed firearm dealer?” The answer choices were “yes,” “probably was/think so,” “probably not,” “no/definitely not,” “don’t know” and refuse to report. Cook and Ludwig found that 64.3 percent of those surveyed (Table 3.14) said that they had purchased or traded for a gun that came from a licensed dealer or “probably” did. The 40 percent figure comes from assuming that the remaining 35.7 percent — which has been rounded up — did not.

Guns Acquired Without Background Checks

Oops...

If your citation is accurate I don't care. I want gun control law like Japan's. I want the sort of background check you get in Japan. I want the gun death rate they have in Japan. I'm sick of the slaughter and the horror and I don't care what that tiny minority of gun nuts drooling over their closet full of guns thinks about the issue. If our government were acting constitutionally this debate would have been over years ago. Politicians whoring for the gun industry is un-American.