Obama May Issue Executive Order On Gun Control
- Thread starter Clean
- Start date
Son of a Son
1,000+ Posts
I believe the bar is set lower than artillery, as I don't believe it is legal for the public to own fully automatic weapons.
The liberals around here really should consider reading the Bill of Rights and other bills/laws before they sign them:
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Infringed means "not encroached upon in any way" per the Merriam Webster Dictionary. The founding fathers knew first hand the misery of living under the control of government and specifically wrote the Constitution to prevent re-creating the tyranny they fought for our independence from.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Infringed means "not encroached upon in any way" per the Merriam Webster Dictionary. The founding fathers knew first hand the misery of living under the control of government and specifically wrote the Constitution to prevent re-creating the tyranny they fought for our independence from.
I watched Red Dawn last night for the first time in about 15 years. The first thing the commies did after landing was get the list of registered gun owners, round them up and shoot them because they were trouble makers.
While we aren't in that situation, I'd hate to be there one day and please don't use the argument that we're insulated by oceans and that would never happen here. You just don't know.
While we aren't in that situation, I'd hate to be there one day and please don't use the argument that we're insulated by oceans and that would never happen here. You just don't know.
Uninformed
5,000+ Posts
Well at least we would have Patrick Swayze to save us. Oh snap, the liberals killed him too.
Uninformed
5,000+ Posts
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
Prodigal Horn, I'm hardly an admirer of the Chinese government. But brave citizens, though mostly non-violent means, are excercising civil liberties at an ever greater rate. To say Chinese or free would be deadly wrong. To say non-communist Chinese are freer, more posperous and exert greater influence on their government and culture is simply acknowledging what is true. (Things were different under Mao; I'm old enough to remember.) For the record I am against despotic government and like and admire those who resist it with intelligence and courage. The United States should maintain pressure for the Chinese to free their own people. The limited expansion of personal freedoms has unleashed an economic boom. Greater freedom would accellerate it.
hornyhoosier
500+ Posts
Yeah Clean. How can folks ike you stand to live in America when you see it pretty much the same as Castro's Cuba? Geesh. A 39 percent tax rate on incomes over $400k vs. and talk of limiting magazine capacity on rifles vs. a government that allows no due process and sends educated folks to the gallows or reeducation camps. I guess I must be one hell of a perceptive individual to be able to tell the difference.
H
Hu_Fan
Guest
This. And Mr. Obama it is not about 'doing the right thing' as a specific thing -- it is about doing the right thing in following all due process and the Constitution as it was written. No one man or woman should ever address this nation as if a Priest or Principal telling the congregation and student body what we all better do.
That's for Church and the Classroom. Not this country.
That's for Church and the Classroom. Not this country.
majorwhiteapples
5,000+ Posts
People's Republic of China, you do know that there was Civil War in the 1940's that along with the Japanese surrender led to Tawain?
Mao killed millions of people for wanting their Freedom or being against the government, that is a helluva peaceful way to be free.
If your talking about one guy lying down in front of a tank, yea that did a lot.
Mao killed millions of people for wanting their Freedom or being against the government, that is a helluva peaceful way to be free.
If your talking about one guy lying down in front of a tank, yea that did a lot.
BrothaHorn
1,000+ Posts
If the President was really interested in slowing down gun violence, he could start by scaling down the WOR(Waste Of Resources) on drugs...especially marijuana.
BrothaHorn
1,000+ Posts
So you think drugs play no part in 100's of murders, especially in urban areas?
Having the DEA stand down on marijuana prosecution would save more lives than limiting the size of a magazine.
Having the DEA stand down on marijuana prosecution would save more lives than limiting the size of a magazine.
BrothaHorn
1,000+ Posts
Let's say CVS and Walgreens both sell weed. But, CVS has a better product, cheaper price and a corner location. The Walgreens manager is not going to shoot up the CVS store or kill the employees for that location or customers.
The Drug WOR is high-risk high reward for certain members of our society. This causes the violence. Remove that risk and reward and you stop a lot of the violence. Walmart employees are not going after Target employees over a pound.
The Drug WOR is high-risk high reward for certain members of our society. This causes the violence. Remove that risk and reward and you stop a lot of the violence. Walmart employees are not going after Target employees over a pound.
H
Hu_Fan
Guest
As far as the government getting more intrusive into people's lives -- doctor's able to ask question about firearm ownership -- take some time to view the film "The Lives of Others." Well-acted, well-produced and directed. German film. Best Foreign Language Film 2006. It's about the East German Stasi.
Yeah I know, it's a stretch and sounds like more conservative fear-babbling about runnamuck government, but the point is that once things start spiraling in a certain direction of eroding freedoms-- and always in the name of security for the state and it's citizens -- where do the lines ever get drawn?
It's like taxes. Usually those implemented are never taken back. Same with regulations. Once in place, hard to ever retreat. Here's one answer on how many regulations are in place (google and look most anywhere).
Yeah I know, it's a stretch and sounds like more conservative fear-babbling about runnamuck government, but the point is that once things start spiraling in a certain direction of eroding freedoms-- and always in the name of security for the state and it's citizens -- where do the lines ever get drawn?
It's like taxes. Usually those implemented are never taken back. Same with regulations. Once in place, hard to ever retreat. Here's one answer on how many regulations are in place (google and look most anywhere).
My goodness this thread is all over the place. I did spy uniformed trying to actually discuss the topic at one point and Roger threw out the gun violence per capita talking point that has been making the rounds in response.
Here is my view on the gun debate. The proposals put forth by Obama and Biden are not serious efforts to curb violence in general or gun violence specifically. They are knee jerk responses to an inflamed base that needs the President to say or do something. I feel this way for the following reasons:
1) As uninformed hinted at, the true scope and nature of gun violence in the United States dwarfs the type of senseless mass killing we saw in Newtown and elsewhere. All of the dead in mass shootings going back to Columbine make up a fraction of 1% of Americans that have died at the hands of guns.
2) The suggestions put forth by Obama and Biden do not address the core issues in how guns get to our streets and why they are being used and instead seem to target mass shootings. I feel this way for the following reasons:
a) background checks have been a toothless measure for decades now because the vast majority of guns used in crimes are procured through theft or by resale from straw buyers that pass background checks. In the Newtown case the weapons were purchased by the perpetrators mother so if we went back in time and these measures were in place he still would have access to these types of guns. I suppose you could argue that the Aurora shooting would have been
b) the focus on Assault Rifles is a pointless distraction both because the majority of "assault rifles" as characterized by the Clinton Era Assault Weapons ban are mechanically and functionally no different than routine hunting rifles, with the only difference being cosmetic features that mimic military weaponry, but also because assault rifles play an extremely small role in our historic gun crime and gun deaths. Banning these makes no difference.
c) Trigger Locks and chamber locks are all based on a trust system and not enforceable unless we resort to Washington DC like civil liberty intrusions from the 90s, which were all deemed by courts unconstitutional.
d) The focus on magazine size is also a distraction as most gun deaths do not result from hundreds of shots being fired. Even in the case of mass shootings, the seconds gained from a shooter having to change our six round cartridges rather than 12 round cartridges could have saved a few lives in theory but do not represent some real solution to preventing these types of killings.
3) While there seems to be a portrayal of gun ownership = gun violence, the larger academic literature on this subject shows and almost inverse relationship between stricter gun control and violent crime. Most developed nations are experiencing increases of violence in concert with increasing government restrictions on guns.
So that is the real discussion here. Would you rather have our decades long trend of lower and lower violent crime statistics be interrupted by a flurry of knee-jerk Washington policy making that is viewed by most folks as counter-productive? The only real argument I have heard is that we need gun deaths to be a smaller percentage of overall deaths and these measures will imply more stabbings and clubbings and fewer shootings.
Lets focus on that discussion if we want to be honest with each other. All the “Gun Nut” talk is just uninformed and shrill political babbling.
Here is my view on the gun debate. The proposals put forth by Obama and Biden are not serious efforts to curb violence in general or gun violence specifically. They are knee jerk responses to an inflamed base that needs the President to say or do something. I feel this way for the following reasons:
1) As uninformed hinted at, the true scope and nature of gun violence in the United States dwarfs the type of senseless mass killing we saw in Newtown and elsewhere. All of the dead in mass shootings going back to Columbine make up a fraction of 1% of Americans that have died at the hands of guns.
2) The suggestions put forth by Obama and Biden do not address the core issues in how guns get to our streets and why they are being used and instead seem to target mass shootings. I feel this way for the following reasons:
a) background checks have been a toothless measure for decades now because the vast majority of guns used in crimes are procured through theft or by resale from straw buyers that pass background checks. In the Newtown case the weapons were purchased by the perpetrators mother so if we went back in time and these measures were in place he still would have access to these types of guns. I suppose you could argue that the Aurora shooting would have been
b) the focus on Assault Rifles is a pointless distraction both because the majority of "assault rifles" as characterized by the Clinton Era Assault Weapons ban are mechanically and functionally no different than routine hunting rifles, with the only difference being cosmetic features that mimic military weaponry, but also because assault rifles play an extremely small role in our historic gun crime and gun deaths. Banning these makes no difference.
c) Trigger Locks and chamber locks are all based on a trust system and not enforceable unless we resort to Washington DC like civil liberty intrusions from the 90s, which were all deemed by courts unconstitutional.
d) The focus on magazine size is also a distraction as most gun deaths do not result from hundreds of shots being fired. Even in the case of mass shootings, the seconds gained from a shooter having to change our six round cartridges rather than 12 round cartridges could have saved a few lives in theory but do not represent some real solution to preventing these types of killings.
3) While there seems to be a portrayal of gun ownership = gun violence, the larger academic literature on this subject shows and almost inverse relationship between stricter gun control and violent crime. Most developed nations are experiencing increases of violence in concert with increasing government restrictions on guns.
So that is the real discussion here. Would you rather have our decades long trend of lower and lower violent crime statistics be interrupted by a flurry of knee-jerk Washington policy making that is viewed by most folks as counter-productive? The only real argument I have heard is that we need gun deaths to be a smaller percentage of overall deaths and these measures will imply more stabbings and clubbings and fewer shootings.
Lets focus on that discussion if we want to be honest with each other. All the “Gun Nut” talk is just uninformed and shrill political babbling.
Recent Threads
-
Elon Musk Stuff
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 509
- West Mall
-
Trump Administration Accomplishments
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 346
- West Mall
