B-Man Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Anyone else notice what was missing from Our Glorious Lame-Duck-in-Chief's Executive Orders ? "No fly list." Guess #gunsense gets another #fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Anyone else notice what was missing from Our Glorious Lame-Duck-in-Chief's Executive Orders ? "No fly list." Guess #gunsense gets another #fail. Well you know they can't be expected to remember every talking point du jour. You know there are a lot of jours in a month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Anyone else notice what was missing from Our Glorious Lame-Duck-in-Chief's Executive Orders ? "No fly list." Guess #gunsense gets another #fail. That's a good thing, since the no-fly list is one of the most unreliable sources for background checks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 We Are Way More Scared of Government Than Guns: President Obama’s urgency on gun control is at odds with what people are really worried about. People are 8 times more scared of government than they are of guns, according to Gallup. “Yet Obama pushes forward with measures that even he acknowledges ‘will save few lives,’ almost certainly more out of politics than an interest in dealing with the most serious problems facing the country.” Unlike politicians, the majority of the public is rational . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Do you believe in the US Constitution? He can't even spell Constitution, and I'll bet anything he's never actually read the whole thing, only snippets which he's got about a 50% chance of misinterpreting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) At this point, Obama wiping a tear every time he finishes an applause line - It's time for Smokey : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2kxlZDOHeQ . Edited January 5, 2016 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 At this point, Obama wiping a tear every time he finishes an applause line - It's time for Smokey : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2kxlZDOHeQ . I missed his speech, but his tears are all over the interweb. Did he explain how his executive orders would have stopped San Bernardino? Or Sandy Hook? Or every weekend in Chicago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 I missed his speech, but his tears are all over the interweb. Did he explain how his executive orders would have stopped San Bernardino? Or Sandy Hook? Or every weekend in Chicago? No, but that got me to thinking, Wouldn't the Ex senator of Illinois, a resident of Chicago, been pretty well cried out by now. He reallllllly wants that legacy. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Obama is simply keeping the media attention away from his low approval rating and the really big problems in this country with this gun control and climate change crap. He's irrelevant in the big picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Obama is simply keeping the media attention away from his low approval rating and the really big problems in this country with this gun control and climate change crap. He's irrelevant in the big picture. I think for once you're basically correct. Most of this policy change is strengthening the enforcement of existing laws and regulations (which reasonable people have been saying should be done for ages), but it's being sold as some earth-shattering sea change in gun control legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 What exactly is this law going to change with regard to "the gun show loophole"? As I understand it, private citizens still won't be required to perform background checks on sales at gun shows, and dealers are already required to perform background checks, whether in their store or while at a gun show. Am I missing something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 What exactly is this law going to change with regard to "the gun show loophole"? As I understand it, private citizens still won't be required to perform background checks on sales at gun shows, and dealers are already required to perform background checks, whether in their store or while at a gun show. Am I missing something? Nope. Five Things To Know About Obama’s Executive Action On Guns (Even if you are pro or anti, #5 SHOULD concern you) Today. the President announced the details of the executive action he is taking on guns. The press, wholly in the tank for massive gun control, are pitching this as a major change. The picture is that of a defiant President standing up to the evil NRA and saving America from the scourge of loopholes and absence of background checks which are ultimately responsible for all terrorism and murder in the world . It is, to put it briefly, a ridiculously overblown picture. But even so, people across America are wondering a few things. Every day I see people ask what the “gun show loophole” is, why we don’t have “universal” background checks, and many other questions. Those questions are amplified in light of the President’s executive action. So we are going to break it down for you here at RedState. This way you know exactly what is happening and why. To that end, I’ve borrowed a format often used by the left to put information into bite-sized bits that are easy to remember and share. You will not only understand, but be able to explain. Let’s begin, shall we? 1. The Gun Show Loophole Obama: “Anybody in the business of selling firearms must get a license and conduct background checks or be subject to criminal prosecutions.” Truth: There is no gun show loophole. What people mean is that you have to sell a certain amount of guns before you cross over from private citizen to a dealer requiring a license. A private sale is when a person who owns a gun sells that gun to another person. Some private sales take place at gun shows. But people who are dealers that go to gun shows and sell lots of guns have to be licensed. The sales are legal, and there is a background check on the buyer. This is already the law. There’s no loophole. 2. The Online Loophole Obama: “A violent felon can buy the exact same weapon over the internet with no background check, no questions asked.” Truth: There is no online loophole. Exactly as with the gun show, what happens is that a person might privately sell something. Let’s say you own a gun. You have a friend on Facebook who wants to buy a gun. You sell your friend the gun. Because you are not a retailer, you do not have to be licensed as a dealer, and are not required to conduct a background check. That’s it. Otherwise, online sales are already covered. Retailers that sell guns and have an online presence where you can buy them are licensed and therefore, the sales are legal and there is a background check on the buyer. And you simply can’t sell a gun over the internet and ship it over state liunes without restriction or background check even if it is a private sale. That’s right. Even private online sales cannot transfer the weapon without a check. There’s no loophole. 3. Universal Background Checks Obama: “We know that background checks make a difference.” Truth: There are already background checks. So this statement is a straw man. What the controllers are pitching is who is required to conduct them and under what circumstances. This idea is sold in the press as simple common sense. The idea is that every time a person becomes the owner of a gun, they are vetted by the government. This would even mean temporary transfers of ownership, like say you give your gun to your mother while you are on deployment. Some states, like recently-in-the-news Oregon, have passed laws that are versions of this. That is, a criminal and mental health background check for all gun sales. (In Oregon’s case, even the new law still allows transfers of ownership among family members without a check.) But the requirement for a background check on all private sales of guns is one of the objectives of the gun control lobby and their media allies. So now you know what they mean by this. They mean that you can’t sell your rifle to your Facebook hunting buddy unless a criminal and mental health background check is conducted. 4. Obama’s Executive Action Despite the wishes of the gun-grabbers, Obama’s executive action does not address points one through three above. Instead, it simply “requires” that the ATF should enforce the existing laws about licensing people who sell weapons. To that end they are giving more money to the ATF for people who conduct the background checks that already are conducted and are already required by law. There will also be more federal oversight and enforcement on reporting of lost or stolen guns. As a result of Obama’s action, it is possible that more people will be defined as sellers based on volume as a result of there being more ATF agents, but in reality private sales won’t be changed in any meaningful way, and gun shows and online sales will continue as they do, with only a very few exceptions . 5. Precedent Although the practical effect of the President’s action is relatively minor, it is a message nevertheless. The President is establishing his authority to simply take action curtailing the constitutionally guaranteed right of Americans to own guns, without the legislature, based on his own decisions about what that action should consist of. As a precedent for gun-grabbing, it may not be strong, but it is absolutely applicable. If you value your freedom to purchase and possess guns, this action is an affront. http://www.redstate.com/2016/01/05/obamas-executive-action-guns/ The Media Goes Full “Jesus Wept” Over Obama’s Gun Control Crocodile Tears http://www.redstate.com/2016/01/05/the-media-goes-full-jesus-wept-over-obamas-gun-control-crocodile-tears/ CNN, who made endless fun of John Boehner crying, now lauds Obama's emotional moment. Lovely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 What exactly is this law going to change with regard to "the gun show loophole"? As I understand it, private citizens still won't be required to perform background checks on sales at gun shows, and dealers are already required to perform background checks, whether in their store or while at a gun show. Am I missing something? I'm not really up on this whole gun show thing but maybe having private citizens participate on the sell side at guns shows is going to have to go away. I assume that's what they're referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpberr Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 It's taken nearly eight years but for the first time, I agree with something the President is doing. I do not understand the reluctance to close background check loopholes. I do not understand the reluctance to deny the mentally ill access to weapons. I think the NRA is completely wrong on both these issues and have been for a long time. I know for some the idea of the mentally ill individual going on a rampage is a "newer" phenomena. Sadly, it isn't. The one that sticks in my memory the most is San Ysidro event in July 1984. I read the details of that event in an after action report and never forgot it. I think part of the problem of why some people are tone deaf to this issue is because we sanitize the events so we don't offend sensibilities. If the general citizenry had to face and marinate in the horrific details of these events, I don't think there would be such push back on keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 It's taken nearly eight years but for the first time, I agree with something the President is doing. I do not understand the reluctance to close background check loopholes. I do not understand the reluctance to deny the mentally ill access to weapons. I think the NRA is completely wrong on both these issues and have been for a long time. I know for some the idea of the mentally ill individual going on a rampage is a "newer" phenomena. Sadly, it isn't. The one that sticks in my memory the most is San Ysidro event in July 1984. I read the details of that event in an after action report and never forgot it. I think part of the problem of why some people are tone deaf to this issue is because we sanitize the events so we don't offend sensibilities. If the general citizenry had to face and marinate in the horrific details of these events, I don't think there would be such push back on keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Who defines what mental illness will constitute grounds for gun confiscation? Will being treated for anxiety during loss of a job or divorce cause someone to lose their 2nd ammendment rights? Will people refuse to self seek mental health services for fear of losing their guns or being entered into a database? Clearly most people can agree psychotic mentally ill people should not have weapons, but how is that defined and what is the mechanism? Should we not allow mentally ill people to own vehicles? They can be used as weapons to drive into a crowd. It may not be as "common sense" as you would expect. Unintended consequences are a B word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpberr Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Who defines what mental illness will constitute grounds for gun confiscation? Will being treated for anxiety during loss of a job or divorce cause someone to lose their 2nd ammendment rights? Will people refuse to self seek mental health services for fear of losing their guns or being entered into a database? Clearly most people can agree psychotic mentally ill people should not have weapons, but how is that defined and what is the mechanism? Should we not allow mentally ill people to own vehicles? They can be used as weapons to drive into a crowd. It may not be as "common sense" as you would expect. Unintended consequences are a B word. You've illustrated the problem. We need those definitions. We needed them 30 years ago. Why can't we define it? I personally am not talking about gun "confiscation". I'm talking about the mentally ill not easily obtaining firearms in the first place. I'm talking about having a background check anytime you purchase a firearm. And a waiting period. I don't see the craziness in it. I own dozens of firearms. Needed a background check for every single one of them here in Pennsylvania. "Unintended consequences are a B word." That sounds like a movie soundbyte to me. Please provide me an example of a disastrous consequence of a background check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Obama is simply keeping the media attention away from his low approval rating and the really big problems in this country with this gun control and climate change crap. He's irrelevant in the big picture. Most people want loopholes closed and most people think GW is a problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Most people want loopholes closed and most people think GW is a problem And what both of those have in common is that most people "know" the problem has to be solved, even though they have no idea what the problem is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 You've illustrated the problem. We need those definitions. We needed them 30 years ago. Why can't we define it? I personally am not talking about gun "confiscation". I'm talking about the mentally ill not easily obtaining firearms in the first place. I'm talking about having a background check anytime you purchase a firearm. And a waiting period. I don't see the craziness in it. I own dozens of firearms. Needed a background check for every single one of them here in Pennsylvania. "Unintended consequences are a B word." That sounds like a movie soundbyte to me. Please provide me an example of a disastrous consequence of a background check. Have you applied or are you familiar with the process of applying for a NY pistol permit? Why in the he'll should someone have to have a waiting period after going through that debacle. What does a waiting period accomplish? My concern is pretty simple. I'm worried The government will use minor issues like anxiety and depression to deny citizens 2nd ammendment right. They will get put on the mental health database and have their weapons confiscated and denied the ability to buy new ones. Yes 100% I agree psychotic mentally unstable people should not have access to anything they will use to cause harm to others. But where is the due process? Who determines what that criteria is. That is my objection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Most people want loopholes closed and most people think GW is a problem Oh, please. This is why no one takes the left seriously any more...you all say stupid crap like this because you're all too stupid to think for yourselves. Many may want loopholes closed and many many even think global warming cooling climate change is a problem, but when asked about the most important items that need to be addressed, guns and global warming cooling climate change don't even crack the top dozen. Nonetheless, there's our leftbag elected officials, sucking hind tit going into year eight with a legacy so bad he has to create legislation that already exists just to make it look like he's doing something. There's a better chance Barry was crying because he had to leave Hawaii than because he suddenly is concerned about people being killed by guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts