US gun debate: Obama unveils gun control proposals

Originally posted by MikeNice81
So, the NRA has been leading the way and Obama is following their lead while demonizing them.

I was with you up til this point.

It's the NRA that has been demonizing Obama...not the other way around.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Obama did not sign ONE Executive Order. These are Executive Actions.

They are listed here:

So hes just tossed a bunch of crap up against the wall.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by WaterBottle

 

With these new executive proposals maybe you all will get the mental health help you need.

You didn't really just say this did you?

Sure he did. Now you have a look at what you are really up against.

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by MikeNice81
So, the NRA has been leading the way and Obama is following their lead while demonizing them.

I was with you up til this point.

It's the NRA that has been demonizing Obama...not the other way around.

Let me rephrase that, Obama is following the lead while his supporters on the left demonize them. The Democratic party and liberals in general have been relentless in attacking the NRA at every turn. Many comments I read at places like Alt Net and other sites went as far as to claim the NRA was racist for disagreeing with Obama.

Now Obama wants to take their ideas and claim credit for them. The liberals want to take the NRA's ideas while they demonize the organization and call for the arrest of their board of directors. The hypocrisy is thick enough to choke on.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin

US gun debate: Obama unveils gun control proposals

www.bbc.co.uk

President Barack Obama has unveiled sweeping gun control proposals, setting the stage for a showdown with firearms rights advocates.

(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 16-1-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-1-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

I agree with every single one of the 23 Executive Orders he signed.. I see nothing restrictive or out of control in any of the 23 EO's he signed. They are all common sense and should have been in effect for decades.

I've tried to ask this before and I've never gotten a legitimate response. Do the people who believe that Obama's proposals infringe on their 2nd amendment rights also believe that ordinary citizens should have the ability to possess RPGs, Hand Grenades, Tanks, Bombers, Missiles, etc..?? I think everyone can agree that the 2nd Amendment was put in place to protect us from an over-reaching, tyrant... people seem to be fine with the restrictions on those type of weapons but for some reason draw the line on 30 round magazines or semi-automatic weapons... if you don't agree that people should possess ANY weapon they would like to protect them against the government.... I call you a complete and total fraud/hypocrite. If you do believe that we should be able to possess these weapons... I suggest one of the new mental health evaluations...

People like to hide behind the 2nd amendment but in reality, the 2nd protects free and regulated militias... not Joe SixPack who wants to own a machine gun.

reply to post by DoubleDNH

and it's ppl like you, who have no realization that those things are already available and have been for decades ... that really shouldn't be voicing any opinion in the matter until they/you, at the very least, learn the basics

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by dollukka

 

Did Finland's law prevent the other 10 school massacres that would have happened without it?

Seriously? I have to say I am disappointed. I expected better from you. What other 10 massacres that would have happened? Proof please. This is absolutely specious speculation, and a complete straw man argument. You would actually try to prove your point with what amounts to a God of The Gaps theory.

"Well... It could have been..."

Oh c'mon now.

I really wish everyone would stop using the term 'assault riffle' - 'assault weapon' when discussing firearms such as the AR-15. A simple handgun is an 'assault weapon' ... it can be used as a weapon, in an assault. ALL FIREARMS are considered a weapon of assault if used in the manner. Adding the word 'assault' to the word 'riffle' just makes the firearm appear 'scary' and it works. Knife + Stabbing = Knife is Assault Weapon. Bat + Clubbing = Bat is Assault Weapon. Do we call a 9mm in a crime, he used an assault handgun ?
The fact that they call the AR-15 a 'Military weapon' is laughable. Some are careful in saying 'Military Style' but only because of how it looks. Imagine if our troops used an AR-15 on the ground. Not sure we would get any upper hand on a bad situation

Lets talk about this need to ban high capacity clips.
Are you kidding me ! What difference does it make to ANYONE who would use a firearm to kill, whether or not he has a 10 round clip or 30. Anyone who knows guns knows that changing out a clip is not some process in which takes too much time away from shooting. I have personally seen regular gun users change clips so fast that there is little time gap between. The only reason a 30 round clip is wanted is to not have to carry around so many clips. Does anyone here think that really matters to ANYONE who wants to do harm such as what we have seen as of late. If someone is intent on killing, it doesn't matter how many rounds or clips, they will get the job done and there is little anyone can do about the situation. An area full of people who have no defense versus a person with 2 - 30 round clips or 6 - 10 round clips. Doesn't matter.

This all comes down to what we have all been told for years. RESPONSIBILITY STARTS IN THE HOME !!!

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by DoubleDNH

 

and it's ppl like you, who have no realization that those things are already available

and have been for decades ... that really shouldn't be voicing any opinion in the matter until they/you, at the very least, learn the basics

Available... maybe
Legal... No

reply to post by DoubleDNH

try again ... decommissioned military type equipment you mentioned is and has been "auctioned" to the highest bidder for years. really man, get a clue.

ETA --> if these items aren't 'legal' as you claim, then explain this or this

reply to post by MikeNice81


yeah you're right.
just don't forget the NRA does a ton of demonizing of their own.

It is the fourth one!

"Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks. "

Next will be, "Returned soldiers are dangerous people."

Hidden in plain sight.

P

**ALERT** It is important that all of you read this thread to fully understand the implications. It is NOT JUST ABOUT GUN CONTROL.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Tw0Sides


Uhhhhhh..... I didn't realize law abiding citizens should give up their guns for something we didn't do. Weird bud.

to ban "military-style" assault weapons such as those used in several recent mass shootings

All guns, at some point, were military-style. Revolvers were used by police and military before the more modern designs were made for them. Will Revolvers be banned? Bullcrap. I'm all for the amendment of the way guns are sold and traded, but there are certain things that they want to involve in this entire proposal that are unnecessary.

And with Sandy Hook, the 'Assault Rifle' wasn't even used. And it wasn't even Automatic.

This entire thing is just infuriating in and of itself.

Awfully funny coming from one of the men behind operation fast and furious.
A scheme in which the united states let fully automatic weapons "walk" into the hands of mexican drug cartel.

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." --Adolf Hitler

Originally posted by GaucheDroite
Initial reactions from the "orders", more mental health 'checks' at the discretion of the GOV health system. Meaning that with all the new "mental disorders" they have come up with in recent years, it will just make it that much easier to "diagnose" someone with a "mental disorder" in-order for them (GOV) to come in and snatch your guns legally through the medical system. Remember ODD (Oppositional defiant disorder), now that can be applied to almost anyone who questions anything coming from "authority" (GOV).

Now add in all of the people on Big Pharma meds that own guns that can easily be diagnosed with some sort of disorder (by anyone much less a doctor) as they ARE on some sort of mind-altering medication. They will be an easy target for Federal/State raids after an order is issued by their primary care physician.

Once this starts to happen, anyone who objects will be labeled with ODD if not already labeled and again the circle starts again, their guns get legally taken, their friends/family think its BS that this would happen and then they can easily be labeled ODD, etc, etc... ad nauseam.

Again all my opinion and initial reaction of how I can see this playing out in the future, now I am sure there will be a legal battle somewhere if they do go down the mental check "confiscation" method I mentioned above.

That is what I gathered from this too, Obama has just declared millions of people to have a "mental illness" and that mental illness is the right to protect ones self.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

people take the right for granted until it is taken away and then it's too late. It's a slippery slope I don't think we should go down.