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

[JimBowie1958]

Do something? Stop and Frisk. That worked. And libs demonize it. But it SAVED LIVES. That is the "do something".

I think the full name of the policy was 'Stop, Question, and Frisk'. The frisking was only supposed to follow if the questioning warranted it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

 

[JimBowie1958]

 

[JimBowie1958]

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sadly, our enemies like Putin, the Shah, ISIS, an Al Qaeida were laughing their arses off watching Obama cry like a bitch on tv...

View attachment 58930

Then move there. You obviously want to be his bitch.

You obviously voted for one.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

You mean other than it is a violation of the right to privacy, the fourth amendment and courts have ruled criminals can't be compelled to, or punished for failing to register, because of the fifth amendment. Other than those minor little ditties I can't think of a thing.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Nothing to give the government the authority to require it either, remember the words of your dear leader. The Constitution is a charter of negative powers, is says what the government can't do to you. But of course you regressives only worry about the Constitution to try to bolster one of your lame arguments, otherwise you just squat an shit on it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

man, I am in a damned good mood for some reason.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Damn, you need to read the second again, it about the feds not restricting State militias and guarantees the right of the people to keep and bare arms in order to serve in the State militias.

 

[Rambunctious]

Amazing how he can micro-manage your life down to your local gun shop. No wonder y'all are so afraid of him

Once I figure our what you are saying I'm sure I then can grasp what your point is....I have a liberal moron that lives three doors down. I will run your nonsense past him for enlightenment.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Nothing to give the government the authority to require it either, remember the words of your dear leader. The Constitution is a charter of negative powers, is says what the government can't do to you. But of course you regressives only worry about the Constitution to try to bolster one of your lame arguments, otherwise you just squat an shit on it.

The Supremacy Clause gives the federal government the authority.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Damn, you need to read the second again, it about the feds not restricting State militias and guarantees the right of the people to keep and bare arms in order to serve in the State militias.

When you lose the right to own a gun you want to own, by all means,

tell us, tell us what the gun was, tell us why you were denied the right to own it.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

You want to be like Japan, you'd have to start by shipping virtually all minorities out of the country, you up for that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Nothing to give the government the authority to require it either, remember the words of your dear leader. The Constitution is a charter of negative powers, is says what the government can't do to you. But of course you regressives only worry about the Constitution to try to bolster one of your lame arguments, otherwise you just squat an shit on it.

The Supremacy Clause gives the federal government the authority.

A retarded lib talking like you know the constitution, how precious.

Prove that the Constitution prohibits the licensing of rights. Cite the text. Cite the case law.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The Supremacy Clause gives the federal government the authority.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Damn, you need to read the second again, it about the feds not restricting State militias and guarantees the right of the people to keep and bare arms in order to serve in the State militias.

When you lose the right to own a gun you want to own, by all means,

tell us, tell us what the gun was, tell us why you were denied the right to own it.

Damn you're sounding more like franco every day, what the hell does that tripe have to do with the 2nd A?

 

[westwall]

Last time I checked criminals don't DO background checks. Uhhh, that's one of the things that makes them "criminals" They don't follow laws. Do you understand?

Criminals don't obey laws. That's what makes them criminals you fucking retard.

Exactly. So what on earth makes you think they will follow THIS law? Dumbshit...

Because once background check loopholes are eliminated, then we can jail YOU for making a private sale of a handgun to an ineligible buyer.

Already Can dumbass! It's already a law that you are not allowed to sell guns to anyone who is not legally able to have them. It HAS been a law for over 30 years. I suggest you complain the various DA's who refuse to prosecute the perps.

Not true.

Yes, it is.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Nothing to give the government the authority to require it either, remember the words of your dear leader. The Constitution is a charter of negative powers, is says what the government can't do to you. But of course you regressives only worry about the Constitution to try to bolster one of your lame arguments, otherwise you just squat an shit on it.

The Supremacy Clause gives the federal government the authority.

Bullshit, the supremacy clause only gives the feds supremacy for their specific enumerated powers, nothing else.

 

[westwall]

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.

Nothing to give the government the authority to require it either, remember the words of your dear leader. The Constitution is a charter of negative powers, is says what the government can't do to you. But of course you regressives only worry about the Constitution to try to bolster one of your lame arguments, otherwise you just squat an shit on it.

The Supremacy Clause gives the federal government the authority.

A retarded lib talking like you know the constitution, how precious.

Prove that the Constitution prohibits the licensing of rights. Cite the text. Cite the case law.

it's called the FOURTH AMENDMENT silly boy. You really should read it sometime. Here it is, I highlighted the relevant portion for you. Even a total moron like you should be able to grasp its meaning...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

It's your agenda that people need to worry about. hey, why don't we make it legal for the cops to search your house without a warrant? Think of all the illegal activities they could uncover. you have nothing to worry about if you have nothing to hide, right?

Why don't you come up with an analogy that isn't retarded?

What's "retarded" about it, the fact that it shows you to be an idiot?