White House: Obama ‘Profoundly Frustrated’ — Ready For More Executive Action On Gun Control

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
I think it's interesting that Earnest noted that if the deaths of 49 minute Americans is not enough to convince us, then what will?

Kind of terrifying implication right there.

Look at every school shooting. Even the literal massacre of American kids isn't enough to convince some people. Remember that then-Republican Presidential candidate Ben Carson said "There is no doubt that this senseless violence is breathtaking – but I never saw a body with bullet holes that was more devastating than taking the right to arm ourselves away."
(Here's the full post on his Facebook.)

That's the mindset you're dealing with.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: xuenchen

He still hasn't figured out that the LEGISLATIVE branch MAKES the laws. He just gets to enforce them (which he actually sucks at anyway).

Hey, someone's getting close. Indeed. But the problem is that he does know that and intends to make sure of it. Hence the term "executive action". What will it take to make the legislative branch fold?

I still think it's funny that Obama thinks that we, United States citizens don't need to have guns to defend ourselves, but he gives guns to Mexican Cartels and "moderate Muslim extremists" who in turn kill civilians in their countries and our men and women that serve over seas and on the border.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
I think it's interesting that Earnest noted that if the deaths of 49 minute Americans is not enough to convince us, then what will?

Kind of terrifying implication right there.

Look at every school shooting. Even the literal massacre of American kids isn't enough to convince some people. Remember that then-Republican Presidential candidate Ben Carson said "There is no doubt that this senseless violence is breathtaking – but I never saw a body with bullet holes that was more devastating than taking the right to arm ourselves away."
(Here's the full post on his Facebook.)

That's the mindset you're dealing with.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Fair. But that's because many haven't yet watched those holes be put into their family members.

By the way, talking from a psychological stand point. I don't believe the answer is taking rights away. I believe the answer is critical thinking. John Adams was good at that. Alien Sedition Act.

Made himself wholly unpopular, but in his mind because it was the most reasonable, though most annoying, act he had to perform. He paced without sleeping for days considering the implications of his action before deciding that he represents the people and must take their best interest into account.

a reply to: TheAmazingYeti

first off stop stigmatizing the mentally ill we are far more likely to be victims of crimes then the perpetrator
news.ncsu.edu... and link to the study ajph.aphapublications.org...

Conclusions. Results provided further evidence that adults with mental illnesses experienced violent outcomes at high rates, and that they were more likely to be victims than perpetrators of community violence. There is a critical need for public health interventions designed to reduce violence in this vulnerable population.

second off we can own guns you only get banned from gun ownership as a mentally ill person if you have been adjucated mentally defective www.nami.org... hippa also makes it quite difficult to even access mental health records

www.wsj.com... third off even if you are adjucated mentally defective you can get your rights back according to the US court of appeals (link needs subscription to Wall street journal)

and finally as a protected class(mental illness) it would be very problematic to ban the mentally ill from owning guns in a blanket ban as you cant say women cant own guns,they tried to say black people couldn't own guns for a while and that was ruled unconstitutional and this would also apply to the rest of the protected classes

en.wikipedia.org... some info on case law relating to firearms

a reply to: TarzanBeta

It's not always about taking rights away. Sometimes it's just about common sense. I live in a State that allows guns in bars and restaurants. I was always taught that guns and alcohol don't mix, and yet, apparently I'm in the minority on that.

Allowing suspected terrorists to buy guns is stupid. It's also stupid to put random people on govt watchlists without letting them know why or letting them fight the charge before being placed on it. I think the solution is somewhere in the middle.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

What will it take to make the legislative branch fold?

In my mind the answer to this question is in my first post in this thread:

What happens if attacks like the one in Orlando happen more frequently, much more frequently?

People are already practically screaming for them to just ignore all legal precedent and let Obama ban "assault rifles" by fiat.

What happens when more cells activate?

a reply to: neo96

What's that have to do with my post?

And if arms control laws don't work, why can't I buy one of these shoulder fired rocket launchers to protect my family? They're certainly shorter than some rifles. And who knows when a bunch of criminals might try to attack us.

ETA: In fact, that example is also proof that arms control laws do work. Have you seen how heavily armed some rebel groups and paramilitaries are? They can have howitzers, anti-aircraft weapons, tanks, small attack helicopters, and much more. So why don't American gangs and crime rings have those? they don't have them because our arms control laws have eliminated that threat. Otherwise, gangs would be shooting bazookas at police cars and anti-aircraft weapons at police helicopters.

a reply to: enlightenedservant



Seig Heil.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: enlightenedservant
Seig Heil.

Why am I not surprised you'd type that? And once again, what does that have to do with my post?

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Gee I don't know.

1 check GUN VIOLENCE.
2.Check No FLY,No BUY.
3 Check.
4. Check.
5 .Check.
6. Check.
7. Check.
8. Check.
9. Check.
10. CHECK.
11. CHECK.

But WHO CARES!.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: TarzanBeta

It's not always about taking rights away. Sometimes it's just about common sense. I live in a State that allows guns in bars and restaurants. I was always taught that guns and alcohol don't mix, and yet, apparently I'm in the minority on that.

Allowing suspected terrorists to buy guns is stupid. It's also stupid to put random people on govt watchlists without letting them know why or letting them fight the charge before being placed on it. I think the solution is somewhere in the middle.

I can't disagree with a word here. I am curious what's in the middle for you?

a reply to: xuenchen

Where do I send my letters for Obama control? This one elected sob has destroyed my 222 year old document again and again.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

1 - your arguments are based in emotion and logical fallacies. As far as 'even school shootings don't make us change things' that is a pure appeal to emotion. It is horrible and sad when innocent people die, when kids die, but that doesn't change cold hard facts. There are 5-8 million AR type semi-auto rifles owned in this country. In 2014 alone, there were only 248 homicides committed with a rifle. That means at least 99.995% of these types of rifles were never used to kill another human being. Why should all of those law abiding citizens be punished for the act of a single criminal?

2 - As far as gangs using things like RPGs, crew operated weapons, attack helos, etc. it would boil down to cost and visibility. It would be bad for business if the mafia started lighting up the streets of Jersey with RPGs and tactical ambushes with high caliber machine guns.

To touch on your overall notion of 'doing something' - I don't believe in the need to do something, just to do it. Laws have unintended consequences. For the watch list / no gun buy list - what if Trump gets elected and then puts all Muslims on a watch list? Do they all lose their 2nd amendment rights? Under the proposed law, that is a possibility.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

www.gunbroker.com... you can just not that specific model they have to be pre 1986

www.gunbroker.com... 25 mm anti tank gun for sale on a DD tax stamp

www.gunbroker.com... 81 mm mortar if you feel so inclined also a class 3 tax stamp required

www.gunbroker.com... Perhaps you would prefer a RPG? if you feel your family needs an RPG for protection it is your right after all just fill out the paper work give them a BUTTLOAD of money and she too can be yours in 6-9 months of extensive background checks (note this one is demilled and non functional but real ones can be had just epect to do the process for each round you want)

we can also own tanks! and they too can be armed

i think the only caveats are you cant put weapons on any kind of air craft

but in all seriousness if you want to have maximum firepower to protect your family there is always one of these www.gunsamerica.com...

and note its been close to 20 years since a legally owned class 3 weapon was used in a crime by a civilian (cops like to kill their wives with them though) although they are occasionally used successful in self defense but expect one long drawn out trial

www.afn.org... Beckwith incident TLDR two cars full of criminals tried to rob a gun store,the wrong gun store ,only one fatality though

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Don't forget my personal favorite.

www.urban-armory.com...

a reply to: jadedANDcynical
Good catch, yea......I've been concerned about the CDC thing.

I may well be wrong, but..........my guess is that since the gun laws are for the most part State Regulated, I'd guess that a lot of States will simply not enforce anything Obama does.

Hilary is the real concern for me.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I watched that video. Obama with his oration ability rarely ceases to amaze me.

The issue immediately that I had was that we don't protect our homes or places of business with automobiles, but we do with fire arms.

As well, if the government ends up creating laws which set a precedent for taking fire arms from otherwise innocent people, it could affect the people's right to defense and/or revolution if necessary.

I am not persuaded by him in that speech. I don't think the legislative branch will be.

I think the legislative branch will be persuaded by a People crying uncle.

a reply to: TonyS

Yep, Obama pardons Her of whatever is left of the FBI investigation after they get drug through the mud for failing to stop Omar Mateen.

She becomes POTUS.

He as a, "constitutional scholar" is the perfect fit for the open Supreme Court position (anyone being put forth or discussed for this right now?), and more cells activate, allowing more emotional diatribe pushing a full on panic move to bypass normal constitutional protections on "national health" grounds, by the time any lawsuits arising from such statues hit the top court in the land, hey presto changeo, there is Supreme Court Justice Obama to uphold it.

Slicker than snot.