Shared publicly  - 
 
Here is the list of executive actions that President Obama plans to take in order to address gun violence. Do you agree with all 23?
16
5
Greg Curtis's profile photoDavid Hathaway's profile photoRick Ramo's profile photoFrank Lawrence's profile photo
253 comments
 
wtf does half of that have to do with gun violence or gun control? oh, that's right. it doesn't. it has to do with further invasions of our privacy in an effort to mine data on every american citizen....
 
Jeremiah Russell , it has nothing to do with preventing violence. It's about getting more information on the law-abiding gun owners, laying the ground work for a national firearms registry, and expanding the list of "bad" people. In other words it's a slower way to take our guns and make us all dependent on the state.  
 
Hell they should just keep your guns for you at the prison, so when you get out they can give it back to the criminals.
 
They still are JUST proposals, nothing is set in stone yet
 
Like I said before, there are some things that you can't regulate. And trying to regulate guns so that people do not kill other people is one thing that you can not stop. It's going to happen whether you like it or not.
 
rather than trying to write more laws to try and keep people from breaking laws already on the books, how about we change our existing system to effectively prosecute and penalize those breaking gun laws THAT ALREADY EXIST?....None of these "proposed actions" will have any affect on gun violence or the ability of a criminal to acquire a gun. 
 
Just another round of gun laws that only effect LAWFUL people. (And gives the Fed more power)
 
+Jeremiah Russell they aren't trying to stop all gun violence, just mass shootings. Those of you that want to keep your guns and get ready for whatever freedom fighter scenario you want are free to do so. The legislation is trying to stop mass shootings.
 
Cameron, they do 4473 for any purchase from a FFL. They are not required by when doing a Face-Face transfer on a private sale. I'm not sure if this applies to all states but Indiana and the ATF do not require the 4473 (background check) for Face to Face.
Michael, there is a difference between a felon owning a firearm and a law abiding citizen owning one. I REFUSE to let my ability to defend my son be taken away by the government.
 
Depends on what you are defending against. I know that I'd prefer to have a better weapon than an attacker... If the "bad guys" can get an AR-15, then I want something equal or better.
 
+Michael Washington This does NOTHING to stop active shooters. The Sandy Hook shooter attempted to buy a Firearm from a FFL, the 4473 denied him. He STOLE his guns. 
Does it really matter what I use to defend my son's life? 
No it does not. It's my responsibility to defend my son's life and my life with any and all tools available to me. Those tools could be a pistol, and AR, an AK, a knife, or my hands. 
 
So if the AR-15 or high volume rifles are not available to law abiding citizens, they won't be available to the crazie mass shooters either.

And No. You want to be a part of society +Craig Van Tassle you have to live for the good of society, which means that you don't get to have mass shooting weapons available to you, because when they are they are available to someone that can use them against your son, or other children.
 
+Michael Washington following your logic, how do you explain gang bangers and drug dealers carrying fully automatic mac-10s, AKs and other assault rifles that are "illegal" for us law abiding citizens?
 
Banning specific guns does nothing to address the root cause of why these sort of things happen.  Rather, its a "make everyone feel good" move by applying a band aid because no politician has the balls to call out the real problems because heaven forbid it could effect their chances of getting re-elected or because it costs money.
 
Please cite your source (not movies or television) that shows these weapons being used in Crimes in the United States +Jeremiah Russell 
 
+Michael Washington According to your logic, I don't have a right to pick out what I use to defend my self and my son. I don't really care about the "society". They are not my responsibility. My son is. 

Also what makes you think that "high volume"  mags are the issue.  How about if I need to defend my self and my son from a mob, or there are riots in my area? 

Lets also think about stopping the criminals from getting firearms, I used to live in Chicago. It's easy to get a full-auto weapon on the southside. I would rather stop criminals from getting firearms, and allowing law-abiding people to have the right to defend their family.  You can as the 500+ murder victims in Chicago how they feel? Oh wait you can't they are dead. 

If you take away guns from the law-abiding people then they will be unarmed and forced to be at the mercy of the state and the criminals. 

The FBI has a lot of good stats. Also go drive though Chicago.
 
Because those are what are used in Mass Shootings, and when you make them available to everyone they are also availalbe to child killers and mass shooters.
 
+Cyclops Airdawg those are funds that is already allocated to Obamacare he is just directing some of it in other places. For the life of me these proposal seem reasonable. Maybe it is because Obama is proposal them they are some government power grab.. but we didn't hear this when Bush was spying on Americans at will
 
+Michael Washington an AR15 does have its place.  Remember the LA piots and the guy camped on his rooftop with an assualt rifle to defend his family.  He didn't have to use it but the fear that he could kept his family safe.  Crazy is crazy and it has nothing to do with what guns are there.
 
+Michael Washington how about instead you show me how making it more difficult for law abiding citizens to purchase firearms to defend themselves decreases gun violence.
 
+Jeremiah Russell how did your life become more difficult? And by making it more difficult to get weapons it's harder for criminals to get access to guns as well.

Where do you think all those "criminal guns" come from? Because they are easily available to all Americans they are also easily available to criminals.
 
How do most of these active shooter get stopped? They either run out of ammo, or they are stopped by someone with a firearms.  Taking the Sandy Hook example, there were several people who (by law) were unarmed and still charged the shooter. There have been in the last month several active shooters who were stopped by armed citizens.  

You also seem to think that I must give up my rights to make you feel better and "restrict" the availability of AR's and AK and "high cap" mags.  All you are doing is stopping law-abiding people from owning them. A criminal (active shooter) does NOT care about or follow the law.
 
What is the difference if I have 5 mags of 10 on me and I can cycle a new mag within just say 10 seconds.
 
+Cyclops Airdawg You made a statement about Obamacare and I just correcting your statement. Also, it would be paid for by the same people who pays for our wars abroad
 
+Michael Washington I call BS on that.  If he wanted guns he would have got them.  He did not have a criminal record and he wasn't committed even though they wanted him to be.  Your sadly mistaken to think the only route to get a gun is the gun shop or from his mother.  
 
+Chris Ellis It's not an assault rifle. It's a semi-automatic rifle. An Assault rifle is a fully automatic machine gun. 

+Michael Washington I seem to recall something about the shooter. Oh yea that's right he killed his own mother to take them. He was determined to get a firearm and commit the shooting regardless. I pointed out he was denied a purchase because of the 4473 check a few days earlier, also a standard cap for a rifle mag is 30 rounds. 

+Joel Moran  A mag change takes between 1 and 3 seconds.
 
+Craig Van Tassle that is incorrect.  Assault rifles are not just fully automatic.

An assault rifle is a selective fire (selectable among either fully automatic, burst-capable, or, sometimes, semi-automatic modes of operation) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It should be distinguished from the US legal term assault weapons.[1] Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies. Assault rifles are categorized in terms of using an intermediate cartridge power that is between light machine guns firing full power cartridges, which are intended more for sustained automatic fire in a light support role, and submachine guns, which fire a lower powered pistol cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge. Fully automatic fire refers to an ability for a rifle to fire continuously until the magazine is empty and no rounds remain; "burst-capable" fire refers to an ability of a rifle to fire a small yet fixed multiple number of rounds with but one press of the trigger; in contrast, semi-automatic refers to an ability to fire but one round per press of a trigger. The presence of selective fire modes on assault rifles permits more efficient use of rounds to be fired for specific needs, versus having but a single mode of operation, such as fully automatic, thereby conserving ammunition while maximizing on-target accuracy and effectiveness.
 
And did anyone in any shooting in the US use a fully automatic that was discussed in the speech.  NO.  They were all semi automatic
 
+Chris Ellis Correct. An "assault " rifle does need select fire capabilities. However calling an AR-15 an assault rifle is incorrect. It does not have the ability to fire automatically. 

ALL AR-15's are semi-auto only. Adding select fire, makes it either an M-4 or an M-16.

The round fired is independent of the rifle. There are .223 rifles that are both action, semi-auto and full auto. 
 
+Michael Washington 
You anti-gun people know why we gun-lovers want AR-15's? Simply because we can, we want to have them, we like them, and it is our hobby. We don't need a reason to own any certain type of weapon as long as we are a responsible gun owner.

Does a gay person need a reason to be gay? No. If he wants to be gay just 'because' then he will be gay (no, I am not gay and certainly don't support them, but I don't care if someone is either). Does a person need a reason to own knives? No. If he likes knives then he will collect them as he wishes. Does someone need a reason to own a $1 million dollar car? No. He doesn't need a reason. If he likes the car, and can afford it, he will buy it. Us gun owners like guns. Do we need a reason? No. We like them so we buy them.
 
+Cameron Flewellen You know that begs the response of "Why can't I own anthrax, or grenades, or a tank if I'm law abiding?

Because it's the access to it that causes mass shootings. How many mass shootings were caused by illegally obtained firearms?
 
+Cyclops Airdawg I have a question for you. We are both tax-payers so your right should be protected more than mines? I feel I should have right to public safety and not feel threaten by a bunch of civilians running rampant with military style weapons
 
Umm the last elementary school was.  Did he own them no.  Was his mother irresponsible in leaving them unlocked yes, but he still took them.  Whats to stop him from breaking into one of the houses the liberal paper released names of to steal a gun?  Oh wait criminals won't steal or get guns illegally.  I think this is the point your trying to make right?
 
Herein lies the stupidity of those who want gun control:
1. They believe that people intent on killing will obey the law.
2. They believe that if you ban a specific type of gun that suddenly they will no longer be available to anyone (if we ban them, then no one will have them. Really people, use your heads!)
3. They believe that the government is capable of solving the violence problem in this country.
4. They trust government to take care of them when they are in trouble and therefore they don't need to take care of themselves.
5. They believe the 2nd amendment is outdated and has no place in "modern" America.

You will never change the minds of those who have no understanding of history, human behavior, or tyranny. If Congress and the President want to wage a war on guns, then let them give up their own guns, their own private security for themselves and their families first.
 
And if they weren't available to the "Law Abiding Citizen" +Chris Ellis they wouldn't be available to the criminal as well. That's the point. Are you really that selfish that your imaginary need to keep an "assault weapon" trumps the real need to stop mass shootings?
 
Got news for you.  You can have a mass shooting with a 30-06, my shotgun, glock pistol etc...  You can't stop crazy and assault rifles are not the problem.  Wake up out of your dream world.
 
Well these steps will lesen the chance and that is important. You can't do everything but you must do something.
 
How do they lesson?  I can go to any corner in any major city and get drugs.  Guns are just as easy, however I am law abiding and I buy mine legally.  Unlike a lot of criminals.
 
Among others, #14 is just stupid... having the CDC research the causes of gun violence. What?!
 
+Chris Ellis no one has argued that this is the only solution for everything that is violent in our world. But just look at the data among countries that ban these types of weapons. Gun violence is down compared to this Country. Seems like on this issue we are playing caught up rather than Leading the world
 
Address mental health help in this country, not guns.
 
+Michael Washington Can you PROVE they will lessen the chance? Has anyone ever proven anything of the sort? In fact violent crime increases under stricter gun law communities, does it not? 
 
Lets be honest...the American government already knows everything about anybody. They can provide all of the information themselves, they don't need all of these different agencies to do it for them. The moment you go to a doctor, have a Facebook account, own a cell phone, have any type of credit...you are adding to their files on you. I agree with these steps to improve gun control. I want a gun, and I believe that most people should have the right to own a gun, unless that right is forfeited through personal action/choice.

Obama isn't trying to take the guns away, he's trying to make gun ownership safer.

Most people view politics through their own personal beliefs. If the president is democratic, then most democrats will agree with what he says, and most republicans hate him (and vice versa).

There needs to be an independent in the White House, a cabinet of mixed parties, and a nation willing to look at morals and values of the nation with an unbiased viewpoint.
 
We are not talking about Normal Criminal Enterprise. Every single recent mass shooting since columbine, the weapons were available to the mentally unbalanced from legal sources. If those weapons were not legally obtainable, then they would not have been available to the mentally unbalanced invididual. Do you understand the difference?
 
+Michael Washington You fail to grasp the true lesson from CT. The shooter acquired the weapons illegally, after murdering the owner, his mother. You can't legislate your way to safety from gun violence because criminals, by their nature, don't follow the law.

Even if you could guarantee keeping AR15s out of everyone's hands would keep them from criminals, which you can't, is it logical, moral, or permissible to punish the majority for the sins of the criminal minority?

I don't need to cite sources, I have firsthand knowledge on the subject. Criminals steal weapons, and buy/sell them in alleys and dark corners of society. They don't go to bass pro. Many are already felons and would be denied. They know this, so they don't bother. The number of laws on the books is sufficient, you should be clamoring for stiffer penalties on recidivists, not gun control criminals already ignore. 
 
The naivety of those spouting their gun control rhetoric is astounding.
 
 
+Rich Ziegler most laws in place right now are exactly that. The loss of rights for the many because of the criminal acts of the few...
 
OK +Paris Mosley take a look at Chicago and Detroit.  They have real strict gun control policies.  How has that helped the murder rate there?  Actually most of these shootings happen where gun control is the strictest.

And +Michael Washington all of these people could have bought them legally.  The last school shooting and Virginia Tech for example.  People knew they needed to be committed but the laws in this country protect them from being committed against there will.  So under your reality yes they could get them legally.  Is it the gun?  No it is the mental issues that are not addressed period.
 
+Cyclops Airdawg Who has argued against the 2nd Amendment? That is the problem with your side of the debate you look at any debate or conservation as being hostile to your views. Also, the 2nd Amendment doesn't give you the right to own any firearm you want...
 
Actually +Paris Mosley it does.  It does not state we are limited.  The second amendment is not meant for hunting.  A well regulated militia is in force to protect our rights from all enemies of the state foreign and domestic.
 
+Chris Ellis Right. The concept of which was to keep our government in check. The more they restrict guns, keep tabs on its civilians, the more out of control they get. 
 
This is how we stay free from tyrants in government foreign and domestic
 
+Paris Mosley
Found Father responsible for the Constitution 
_Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. _
Gouverneur Morris
 
+Chris Ellis The Average "militia man had better fire power then the British Soldier.
 
OMG Please don't bring that "defense againt government" Crap into this debate.

Waco, Ruby Ridge. Oh and all the criminals that use weapons to defend themselves against the government.

Yeah you can't stop the government with your weapons so stop using that defense.

This is about making things safer for everyone.
 
+Michael Washington The criminals are going to get guns no matter what.  Do you think they are going to go through a background check?  Please join us here in reality. The only people who will get a background check are the law-abiding citizens.
 
If Obama is so good at solving gun ownership, where are the 1400 weapons he sold to the cartels? See what guns killed Brian Terry or Jamie Zapata, Obama's programs are as dangerous as any crazy with a gun.
 
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Quite a few people know the rest.
 
+Michael Washington So you dont want to debate "the crap" about Defense from Tyranny which is why we have a second amendment.. then there is not point in the conversation
 
Adam Lanza committed a crime to get them though right.  He killed his mother.  His mother did nothing wrong in this case.  Is it my fault if someone breaks into my house, steals guns and kills.  See liberal logic makes no sense.
 
+Michael Washington Adam Lanza got his guns from his law abiding mother's house.  They were her guns not his. He obtained them illegally, not unlike most criminals.
 
If you didn't have guns, where would the criminals get their guns?
 
On about any corner in the city.  Maybe from Eric Holders Fast and the Furious?
 
Besides those of us who own guns want to keep them and not get robbed.
 
+Michael Washington okay so you propose to eradicate all guns from the world?  how ridiculous...  and why do you think its okay to take away our rights as Americans because of a few insane people?
 
+Meredith Curtis then take all cars because of drunk drivers, take all hammers because of the murders commited with them, etc etc etc ;)
 
Ok but if the weapons weren't so easily accessible, the mass shootings would not have taken place. When was the last time you went and bought an illegal firearm? It's not as easy as you think.

+Meredith Curtis that argument is strawman, you live in a country full of laws that take away your rights because of the few insane people.
 
There is something else here you're missing, your therapist is obligated to turn you in.
 
+Michael Washington i agree it has gotten very bad since Obama has been elected.  We are closer and closer to socialism.  This is another step.  
 
+Michael Washington By you asking the question, "If you didn't have guns, where would the criminals get their guns?" you imply that your ultimate goal is to remove all guns entirely, which goes against the 2nd amendment and is the main reason why gun supporters are distrustful of like-minded politicians.
 
No there is no implication +Dan McMullan the legislation is to stop another school shooting. You still have access to your guns, but this is to lessen the chance of another mass shooter hitting max casualties. I mean because you still have access to weapons this doesn't stop school shootings, but at least their impact can be lessened.

The fault of the school shootings are in fact the fault of "Law abiding citizens" who made their weapons available to these mass shooters. If appropriate action was taken previously then these guns would not have been available.

Obviously tougher restrictions are necessary to stop this from happening again.
 
+Michael Washington Get real. There are already millions of guns in homes across the country. Sometimes they are stolen or otherwise fall into criminal hands. Every US citizen has a right to own one, and none plan to forfeit their constitutional right because you think it will keep them away from criminals. If you don't like how the constitution was written, the freedom it provides you makes it possible for you to leave any time you wish.

As far as laws on the books, they aren't punishing the many for sins of the few, they are restrictions on your ability to affect the livelihood of others. DUI laws provide an incentive to you not to drive home drunk and kill ME. Smoking laws say you can't smoke in a restaurant and disturb MY meal. I'm not a smoker and I don't drive drunk, so I'm not being punished by those restrictions.

Theft isn't illegal and a punishment for everyone because only a few participate. Most have no interest in it, period. Laws are restrictions on other people's ability to wrong you. Gun control doesn't fit that model. It punishes many, for the sins of the few. 
 
+Rich Ziegler no one is saying you can't own guns, just limiting the kind of guns and the amount of ammo. If you aren't willing to concede this, then I want to legally purchase grenades and a SAW.
 
+brenda dixon-hines   he did not give 1400 guns to the cartels, no more then Bush gave them under WR.  However the exact same people that did it under Bush did it under Obama because they were never originally prosecuted...   :)  Keep fighting the good fight :)
 
+Chris Ellis   the owner of a gun is always responsible for it. IF someone breaks into your house, steals an unsecured gun, or takes one from you car and commits a crime with it (or forceably removes it from your person) , legally you are liable for any damages it causes.....
 
Hey Mike, haven't seen you for awhile! Fast & Furious set up scams w/gun dealers on this side of the border, according to un-named FBI officials, guns were sold to known cartel members, and then they hoped they could trace them in Mexico so they would know who was running drugs.  You are correct, he did not give them away, but 1400 are still unaccounted for.
 
+Michael Washington What weapons were used in the Virginia Tech shooting? A P22 and a Glock 19. Goes to show you do not need an AR-15 or AK-47 to unleash havoc on a school campus. Just a determined (and sick) individual.
 
+brenda dixon-hines   yes, had not seen you for awhile, hope your well.  yes, there are many unaccounted for, and somewhere between 400-700 from WR also that were lost.   Both were a fiasco and F&F really went bad....
 
+Jorge Moran  yes, and it was done right under the noses of a  dedicated campus police force.
 
+Drake Forester - YES! I agree, they are arrogant too, but quite naive to think that if you enact any gun control you will solve the violence in our nation. I especially cannot believe the line that we "must do something" so just start with this or that kind of gun ban. It is naive to believe that gun bans will ever result in anything other than tyranny by a government that believes it knows what is best for its citizenry.
 
Responsible gun ownership and transfer is key to controlling the flow of guns.   Sure criminals can get guns everywhere because there are guns everywhere that no one is accountable for, because years ago we had no gun control. 
Now we have a gun problem....with zero effective control,
and no way to establish responsibility for any guns..

I see a lot of these recommendations as being in place to help start holding gun owners accountable and responsible for the weapons they buy, sell and/or transfer.

Everyone seems to think we should not allow mentally ill and//or known criminals people to have easy access to guns.

How do we help reduce that?  Gun control.

Also, understanding any problem is key to addressing it, asking the CDC to get involved is one way to gather a universe of common data. 

tracing guns back from those who are accountable for them is a start, but I understand the concerns... 

The alternative is to just do nothing, and continue to have 80% of those killed during a crime be killed with a gun....
 
On the surface, the list of actions seem reasonable. I think a little more elaboration and digging into them is needed to make sure there are not any underlying implications for law-biding citizens. Criminals will get guns no matter what and some of you need to realize that. If someone wants to inflict harm on others bad enough, it will happen whether they have a gun or another weapon. As far as the mentally disturbed that had no prior implications, it is going to be tricky to catch those and I wonder if any of these proposed actions would of helped in doing so. People are responsible for their own actions and I hardly can see holding someone accountable for a thief stealing a gun and committing a violent crime. That's like holding you accountable for your car getting stolen with the thief hitting and killing someone. It's practical sense people, you don't impose laws that negatively impact the one's of us that act responsibly, respect life and society.  The mental health of our people is what the problem is in this debate.  Attack that!
 
+Shawn DeCandia   accountability for a gun is a slippery slope.  you mention a car getting stolen as an analogy.  IF you run into a store and leave your car running, someone drives off and gets in a wreck, you are indeed responsible.
Even if you do not have criminal charges against you, anyone injured (or their family) would own you in a civil suit due to your negligence.  Heck, even the person that stole your car could maybe win a civil case against you.  Crappy I know,
but we all have heard about robbers getting hurt inside the house they are robbing and winning suits against the homeowners...

IF a gun owner does not properly secure their gun, they should be responsible...
 
+Mike Mac Agreed and I meant to state "properly secure their gun" for I feel that is an owners responsibility to do so.  Thanks.
 
time to get your affairs in order. the next few months will be the difference between defeat or victory
 
In re-reading the list in detail it is interesting to note that not a single item will prevent any foaming at the mouth  law abiding Republican from acquiring a gun, nor will they in any way take any guns from them....  

However there are provisions try to provide mental health coverage  LOL

Which ironically was a NRA suggestion....

You can't make this crap up...

 
 
I've read a lot of the comments, and the ones from Michael Washington, why on Earth do you think that any gun control law will stop mass shootings?  And the president has no authority to under article II to do this to begin with. Constitutionally, amendments can be changed one way, 2/3 states ratification, not because "well, Johnson did it in '68".  And Statistically there is no arguing that every area on this planet with higher rates of personal firearm ownership has significantly less violent crime.   Some of your comments, "oh just give em out to the prisoners as they get out"  That's just going plain assinine as no one is suggesting that.  The second amendment exists because a lot of people died creating this union and in order to keep the balance of power in the peoples favor.  And then Mike Mac, "foaming at the mouth republican", nor do any of these laws prevent people from killing each other, and you don't pass legislation because of isolated incidents around the country.  This country is a constitutional republic, not a democracy, this president has added more to the national debt than every president before him even adding in the surpluses, all you nonsensical liberals are going to be in bread lines.  And then even the NRA, oh mental health coverage, that's why people kill each other?  You guys are just experts of unfathomable wisdom.  Fiscal cliff, we went over that about $5T ago, We've been robbing peter to pay Paul to keep off what's going to make the great depression look like disney land.  Responsible gun ownership, comparing it to cars.  Ok, we don't have to justify our constitutional right go own guns by comparing them with automobiles.  As stated "In order to maintain a well formed militia", no you don't need a 50 shot clip to kill deer and the framers of the constitution had shooting people, not deer in mind.  Look, this shooting was tragic, but shaping laws govering 350 Million people based on isolated inncidents where .0000000000000243% of the population gets killed with a gun is so far from sound logic in running a country and passing legislation it's goofy.  And all the "logic" I've seen here about supporting this.

Let's let the people that the constitution told us to keep guns to protect ourselves against, THE GOVERNMENT, take them away.  And yeah limiting clip sizes all that, oh no, now some psycho has to carry two guns, and 99 times out of 100  the weapons used in thesse things weren't legally obtained to begin with so said law did not stop anything.  Congress passes about 12,000 - 18,000 laws per year.  Why are most passed?  To control human behavior.  Let's just keep at it till all freedom is gone.  But whatever, have it your way, take them all the way, take the guns away, next will be your free speech, as that one's already being chipped away at.  Rule by ultra minority, that's how every working government works.  We keep followiing Europe, who's completely bankrupt because of their social policies, Britain is calling us morons for the most part because there isn't a government health system in the world that improved health care.  Government is incapable of making rational decisions because as I said the only thing they do are knee jerk reactions. 
 
And yes Michael Washington, you should be able to have your grenade, and then we're letting Joe Biden in on this thing, God donkey kong will be illegal, it's just all ridicoulous and gun control makes no sense any way you dice it, dimmented people kill people, there's never been a gun in all of human history that has picked itself up and shot someone, rational thinking needs to come back into the equation at some point, but I don't see that ever happening again.  Look around, they're starting to talk about taxes on candy, this, that.
 
+Michael Washington Bro, you're all over this post, so I guess I'll sound off to you...

1. The regulation ISN'T about "mass shootings" as you claim. How about you look something up... What is the percentage of "mass shootings" where a tactical weapon (Assault rifle) was used to kill anyone?  (I already know the answer)  Now that you've looked that answer up, tell me again how banning "Assault Weapons" is supposed to do anything?

2. If banning guns actually worked DC and New York would be the safest cities in the US. Are they?

3. Let's talk about the "But you don't NEED a fillintheblank to hunt/protect yourself/target shoot. Why not ban them?"  I will answer that question with another question...
Do you REALLY need a cellphone?" Yet more people are killed every day by inattentive drivers while texting than everyone killed in "mass shootings" in a year in the US.  Should we ban cellphones?

4. What about late term abortions? Those are illegal in most states, yet there are THOUSANDS done every year. Compare that to the what?... 500 or so killed in mass shootings since 1982? A Federal ban on which of these two would "save more children?" (since that whom Obama surrounded himself with when he signed this thing.)

5. How would banning "high capacity magazines" stop anyone from getting shot? Never heard of "reloading?"
Anyone who says "you can stop them during the reload!" doesn't know anything about being shot at. (you're usually taking cover or running away... the Cops don't show up till AFTER the "mass shooting" is usually over and everyone that is going to get shot is shot.

Man, I could go on and on.. the simple fact of the matter is that the logic behind a Gun ban is flawed. Sane, Law abiding people don't commit mass murder, and a gun ban won't stop criminals or crazy folks.  (but wait, if we take away the guns from normal folks, crazy people can't steal them!! Hmmm, would have stopped a crazy person from chaining the doors shut and setting the place on fire?  Quick, Ban chains and lighters!!!)
 
And then there is properly securing your gun.  Look, if I own my house and want my loaded shotgun sitting on the mantle who in the hell is the government or any of you to tell me otherwise. What good is an unloaded gun with a trigger lock that I can't find the damn key for?   And I wouldn't do such a thing but really, keep it up and then they'll come after what you consider your freedoms next. 
 
+Christian Hans in fighting to keep your guns, you're fighting to keep guns available to criminals. Pretty much all their is to it. +Jonnie Grund same for you. Every single one of you fighitng to keep your guns available to you, are fighting on behalf of the criminals for the same right. The reason why gun bans don't work in individual cities is because of the gun laws in the entire country.

So keep fighting to keep your guns available to you, and send apolgies to the parents of the children who died by the guns you fight to keep free. And pray your children or loved ones never have to suffer for your unnecessary right. 


 
 
+Jonnie Grund   good tirade, mostly devoid of facts, the math is not even close to being right, and full of your opinion, but thats ok right?

laws do effect change, they all ways have and they always will.  passing a law does not eliminate a problem, but it does effect change...... most people stop at stop signs.  More stop at them because it is the law and not just some suggestion or a good idea...

as far as your loaded shotgun, people have always been liable for damage or injury caused by their property. This is not a new concept at all, I am pretty sure one of the founders probably had a horse they did not properly secure on a hitching post that got loose and broke down a farmers corn, and they had to pay reparations for the damage.... yes that is corny, but the point is there.  You are responsible for everything you own, and if it is a dangerous item, you are responsible for its safekeeping, and any damage it causes.

even the NRA teaches this... every gun safety class teaches this.
 
God, they actually are blaming video games, Colorodo, Conneticut, why are these killings happening.  What is the surprise here?  Every major metro area has annual murder rates in the hundreds every year and because people have been killing other people since the beginning of time.  I'm sure glad Obama is going to curb this all for us and thank goodness he's got Joe Biden helping him, thought we were screwed there.
 
+Christian Hans 
"If banning guns actually worked DC and New York would be the safest cities in the US. Are they?
"

take chicago.....
No one has ever said that banning guns would eliminate crime, when you take a city with one of the worst crime
 rates in the world,  put gun control in place, and murder rate drops by half.  then gun control is overturned and murder rate is going back up.  coincidence?    maybe

But because we do not know what the rate would be if there was no bans in any of these cities, anything either of us comes up with is pure speculation...., 
 
+Jonnie Grund 
"God, they actually are blaming video games,"

no, they didn't , said study the effects but, they are indeed a factor.  we are all products of our environments, and are conditioned by it.  Was that not a suggestion by the NRA anyway?

if you are suggesting not studying the effects of what psychologists have been raising red flags over for years, then it appears you really don't care to find and address long term root causes of the actual problem.

 
 
Murder rates in cities go up and down by rates of 50% quite often in years,
the facts and statistics are is when gun control laws are put into place
violent crime rises significantly. Chicago has no where's near the worst
crime rate in the world, not even in the top 100 dude. And I'd encourage
you to research this. But, that's not even a concern. We have a
constitutional right to own firearms, this is over the Connecticut
killings, I'm 35, these things are happening because of non-nuclear facts
and teaching our kids they come from monkeys, There are over 100 wars, yes
wars between nations in the world right now. People have and always will
kill each other, my thing is I don't get why people blow these things up
when they happen and then four kids write letters to Obama, great our
president takes advice from four kids with a combined age 15 years my
Junior. Arm everyone in Chicago and you'll see the crime rate go to ZERO
within a month. I don't know you personally, I believe whatever your full
opinion is you are fully entitled to it, and I mean that. I'm more upset
that people don't put real thought into these things. Everyone's we gotta
do something, we gotta do something. What, what I ask is going to
significantly change things that are common place, they are. More people
die in crosswalks each day, the whole discussion is ridiculous. Feel free
to respond, I'm not one of those last word types of people, and I will read
what you have to say but don't plan on discussing it anymore tonight.


Jonnie
 
Murder rates in cities go up and down by rates of 50% quite often in years,  the facts and statistics are is when gun control laws are put into place violent crime rises significantly.  Chicago has no where's near the worst crime rate in the world, not even in the top 100 dude.  And I'd encourage you to research this.  But, that's not even a concern.  We have a constitutional right to own firearms, this is over the Connecticut killings, I'm 35, these things are happening because of non-nuclear facts and teaching our kids they come from monkeys, There are over 100 wars, yes wars between nations in the world right now.  People have and always will kill each other, my thing is I don't get why people blow these things up when they happen and then four kids write letters to Obama, great our president takes advice from four kids with a combined age 15 years my Junior.  Arm everyone in Chicago and you'll see the crime rate go to ZERO within a month.  I don't know you personally, I believe whatever your full opinion is you are fully entitled to it, and I mean that.  I'm more upset that people don't put real thought into these things.  Everyone's we gotta do something, we gotta do something.  What, what I ask is going to significantly change things that are common place, they are.  More people die in crosswalks each day, the whole discussion is ridiculous.  Feel free to respond, I'm not one of those last word types of people, and I will read what you have to say but don't plan on discussing it anymore tonight.
 
America has more in common with the third world than the first. Its a great place to visit but you wouldn't want to live there.
Ron N
 
+Michael Washington. Columbine and a couple other of mass shootings were all done during the last assault weapons ban. That worked well. Can't stop the criminals? Then go after law abiding citizens! That makes a lot of f'ing sense.

 
Where did they come from?, hmmm probably a factory that makes guns I would imagine, not following you there, not trying to be an ass either...
 
+Ron N The thing that blew me away about America is the amount of poverty, you just don't see that in Australia. The poor in Australia are what you classify as the middle class but we don't have the armies of homeless. And I am glad you are happy.
Ron N
 
+Phil Grainger . That would be freedom again. You may be surprised to know that there are many who wish to not be a part of society. That is their right. I'm sure they would not take it to kindly to the way Oz controls the lives of their people.
Ron N
 
+Jonnie Grund . Not sure why you replied to my response to Phil. I'm not 1 of the people attacking law abiding citizens.
 
+Ron N the poverty really shocked me, the social safety net in Australia works really well. If you get sick the government helps you get back to work. No real choice about that. I can't see how having a large number of poor helps build a society.
 

Okay here is the list
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
(This is nothing but a way to grab information and share it with other government agencies) 
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system. 
(Health Insurance what?)
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system. 
(I.E. blackmail if you don't do this you will be fined)
4. 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. 
(Criminals already fall through the cracks... they don't buy guns at stores)
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun. 
(Don't see a problem other than they seized my gun why?)
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers. 
(That already exists)
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign. 
(That is a State issue not for the Federal Government)
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission). 
(Why do we need this again?)
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations. 
(Fast and the .... yea the Government sucks at this)
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement. 
(Okay I don't really see an issue with this one)
11. Nominate an ATF director.
(Why is this in here?) 
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations. 
(Again this is a State responsibility)
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime. 
(What does that even mean?)
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence. 
(They have reports on this already)
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies. 
(Why does the Government need to do this, technologies will not come just because you throw money at it... Solar Panels)
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes. 
(They can ask, I don't have to tell.......)
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities. 
(They already have a responsibility to report this...)
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers. 
(Again not a Federal Government issue to deal with)
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education. 
(Again not a Federal Government issue to deal with)
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover. 
(Again not a Federal Government issue to deal with)
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges. 
(What does that do for this?)
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations. 
(What does that do for this?)
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
(This is about the only thing that might help...)
 
It's almost like the dictator is signing his own death warrant. This kind of abuse in power only works in countries where the people DON'T have the guns to fight back. 
 
+Phil Grainger 

no you don't, Gun & Knife shows do not perform such checks. Also I live in Louisiana, our guns are not required to be registered, and our background checks (performed only at commercial retailers) are simple and effective.
 
I wonder where most criminal weapons come from. Stolen from Gun Owners who did not properly secure their weapons, or from States with no gun laws at all. Would be interesting to find out these statistics.
 
Background checks, ok, registration not a good thing. Think of registration like the things that lead to the dark side. First we register our guns, with serial numbers and descriptions. Some idiot commits a heinous crime with a gun just like the one we all registered. Someone decides that all guns fitting that description are evil. Next thing you know they get the idea all those guns need to be confiscated. The men in the black suits come kicking doors in, and thinking they are justified because they had probable cause.
 
+Dwayne Mattson you realize you need to pass a mental health check to get a weapon right? I don't think paranoid delusions pass the mental health check.
 
+Michael Washington 

>.< no you don't. prior to the dictators executive order you did not need a mental health check up. 

you needed a clean criminal record, and no prior known mental conditions. but they never required a psych evaluation. You are talking out of your ass.
Ward A
+
1
2
1
 
I say ban white parents with fucked up kids from owning guns. And 10% of Korean parents. Given that 99% of mass shootings in America were by them.

Do it +Barack Obama. No regrets. Dealwithit.gif 
Ward A
+
2
3
2
 
+Zander Gavin Done yet? Let's be real: White America and the government could give a fuck less about Minorities. If 80% of murders are black on black "gang" violence. Then why hasn't ever single news agency been talking about it for... oh say, forever? You know what gets em talking (fear Mongering in Fox's case)? Dead white kids. Look at the mass shootings. Look at the cities they happened in. White Cities. THAT'S what gets your attention. Not the 7 murders in a week out here in Oakland. It's the poooooooorrr innocent kids in Sandy Hook or Columbine that gets the ball rolling.

But let's take a look deeper (since you want to bring up the 80% stat). Every mass murder in America is talked about. And who is the person on the screen that did it?  Some White dude 9 times out of 10. You cannot deny that. Then what happens? Oh he wrote in his journal that he was upset.... or His mom was going to send him to a mental hospital and Well he was crazy! Yeah? And yet, we're a Nation that had Jim Crowe laws which were put into place out of fear of black folks. Calling us violent in nature and so forth. Right right... But uhm... I don't recall the last time we picked off kids in a parking lot at 11 years old. Or showed up to school to kill mom because she wanted to get us treatment. Or try to plant pipe bombs in a school while gunning kids down on 4/20. 

You want a correlation on mass killings? White. People. Do it. Be real with yourselves and own up to it. Y'all are just as fucked up as the rest of us. You just have a louder "voice."
Ward A
+
1
2
1
 
+Michael Washington A little more on that: How in the fuck did I know people in Cleveland with Uzi's or AK-47s? Both are made out of the country. Who has the ability to do that? 

Right.
 
+Michael Washington 

PBS? I don't trust any link by a government funded website. They are paid to say what the president wants them to say

+Ward Anderson 

and the same goes to the liberal medias portrayal of gun violence. Never mind that most crimes are committed with stolen, or smuggled weapons. They want to punish law abiding gun owners. Kill Yourself and Have a Nice Day.
Ward A
 
+Zander Gavin That's all you got? Lmfao. Awww poor baby can't have a discussion. Has to result to being angry and telling me to kill myself. You sound like +Fox News right now.
Ward A
 
+Zander Gavin Oh and PBS is primarily funded by people. God damn how deep has The Far Right drilled into your brain
 
Last one for tonight, once we start giving away our freedoms the government will come for the rest. And for the record yes I am part of that government, however lucky for some of you all I made an oath to the Constitution not the "almighty" so you are safe for now...
 
+Ward Anderson 

No. it's not PBS, is funded by TAX dollars, allotted to it by the Federal Government.
Ward A
 
+Zander Gavin Oh my.. you're serious right now aren't you? PBS thrives off donations. 

Had it been 100% or majority funded by the US Government it'd have a .gov tag on it. It's a .org, eg: Non-profit. And lol it gets money from the government as you say, 100% right? So when they were funded under your President, did you trust them then? 
 
+Ward Anderson 

>.< Tell a liberal the truth and they rage like a bitch. thank you for confirming my argument.
Ward A
 
+Zander Gavin Lol I didn't rage, and I'm not a Liberal. I do love how you use the word Liberal as a pejorative. Not sure where you got that idea *cough* Fox. Kid, you raged, you told me to kill myself when I spoke my mind.

How am I raging? Are you mad? 
 
+Michael Washington  

typical Fox Fan?

as opposed to one who believes liberal media stations that regurgitate verbatim, everything the president says, as though it where the truth.

I have no interest in following any link to a source undoubtedly liberal, and as such, false.
 
No +Zander Gavin I back up my claims through facts and research. I am not an identified liberal, I identify with the truth. If you could back up what you're saying with any kind of research, facts, or figures I'd entertain your claims. But as yet you're barely capable of anything more than ad hominem (ineffectually) so please produce something  of value.
 
+Richard Erickson   yes, the guns lost under F&F and those lost under WR by the exact same people that were never held accountable by the Bush Justice Department when they caught them walking guns.

Oh yea....Obama pardoned Bush and his entire administration...  never mind.
 
+Michael Washington 

oh you simple fellow. Regurgitating liberal propaganda and calling it "truth" does not make it such, it's still just liberal propaganda and you sound like a retard. 

blocked and muted.
 
+Ward Anderson   don't feel sorry for him,  today, Obama has issued an Executive Order that should help him get mental health care
 
+Michael Washington
It happened in England, it happened here in 1972 to Kenyon Ballew. So no I'm far from deluded. The Federal Government has never been bashful about stepping on the rights of the people, and this is one of them.
 
+Dwayne Mattson 

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.", Albert Einstein

after all these years, the government still labors under the illusion "banning" or "outlawing" something will actually change anything.

they tried it with alcohol, (that didn't work), tried it with assault weapons before (surprise, nothing changed), weed was outlawed (about a 1/3 if not a full half smokes or has smoked)

banning and outlawing never solves the problem, it just makes what people continue to do as they did before, illegal. but nothing really changes.
 
Thank you for that Zander, the next thing I'm going to hear is "For The Greater Good".
 
+Dwayne Mattson   if you are trying to make a case that the US Federal Government is never bashful about stepping on the rights of the people by citing something unspecified in England, and one obviously Botched ATF raid 40 years ago, its probably quiet because everyone is scratching their heads wondering what you are thinking.......
 
+Dwayne Mattson 

HOLY SHIT! 

XD. That nearly made me piss myself. But you are 100% correct. like every movie, game, or book with a cult in it; their reason is always "For The Greater Good"
 
Well you are using a picture of Simon Pegg, and it was repeated over and over by the cult of the town.
 
Your post gave me the sudden desire to watch Hot Fuzz again
 
ok good examples of what happens when a person, or group of people think US law is not applicable to them... and how it ends really really bad for anyone that thinks they can hold off the government with their "assault weapons"

Yes, the government did make some bad mistakes but had those there complied with the legal search warrants that they refused to honor, neither would have happened the way they did..... 
 
look how things are going in Syria, unless the patriots in the US build an underground arms factory, the US government will wipe them out in a few short weeks. Obama's way or the highway
 
+Michael Washington people if there is a crazy motherfucker with a automatic gun, I like to have one myself...and it's not about gun control! That crazy motherfucker used his mom's gun, and when he tried to get a gun he was turn away...
 
Let's keep it civil shall we? Lets not prove Mr. Washington's point that gun owners are crazy paranoid people. I agree with your sentiment Garry, however, let's not get nasty. There was no automatic nor "assault rifle" used at Sandy Hook, that should be a point that seems to be lost in the wash here.
 
Most all guns used in crimes were used by a criminal who got them from a legal source.

This should prove to you that the more available you make weapons for yourself the more the weapons are available to criminals to be used against you.

Essentially you are fighting to keep criminals armed.
 
Whack ping huh? You mean like the criminals that kept their property from being looted during the LA riots by staying in their businesses with weapons at hand? Or the criminals the mayor of New Orleans illegally confiscated weapons from, and of which most were never returned? I say criminals in that case, because law abiding citizens were treated like criminals. Fear of abuse by Law Enforcement is not an irrational fear by any means. People in positions of power are very good at abusing that power.
 
+Michael Washington you are clueless and delusional.  If your news channel was broadcasting about Obama riding a unicorn you would probably be talking about this.  Sandy Hook was not obtaining guns legally, unless you consider murder and stealing legal.  The firefighters in NY was not legal.  If he tried to buy a gun he would have been rejected.
 
+Chris Ellis if the firearms were not available to his mother, or legally obtainable by another citizen how would he have gotten them?
 
Also the constitution could also be interpreted to allow the federal government to force you to armory your weapons. 
 
As in a community arms rooms? Yeah been there, no thank you. The militia clause was about bringing your own weapon to the fight, there was no "arms room". It was the "arms room" that the British were looking for that started this nation.
 
I am pretty much done in this conversation.  I cannot have a legitimate discussion with someone who has liberal logic.  Much like Obama saying we do not need guns in schools to protect the kids when there kids all go to schools with armed guards + secret service.  
 
+Dwayne Mattson   as there is no gun control in most areas, how could you make a claim that guns "criminals" use are obtained illegally ?  What factual basis do you have for this claim? reality is, there is no gun control measures that have any records anywhere that will help you answer that simple question.

Just because a "criminal" has a weapon does not mean it was obtained illegally....  
 
+Chris Ellis
"I cannot have a legitimate discussion with someone who has liberal logic"

man, that is a lame cop out excuse that means you are too closed minded to accept anything beyond you you think is true as even a possibility.

Obama and his family are required to have SS protection.
Its is not his call, and you know that (or should) IF you don't, you need to go understand it.  If you do know that, then you are being intentionally deceitful.

Anyone that suggests that the highest value target in the entire world does not need a security detail really needs to stop and think about how ignorant what they are saying sounds.

After all, its not for his protection as much as it is for yours.  He is the POTUS, even if you do not like him. The loss of any POTUS would be catastrophic to America....
 
There is gun control nation wide, has been since 1934. It is called the National Firearms Act of 1934. That's the one that set up the tax schedule for fully automatic weapons, destructive devices and other non-weapons such as "silencers", which in point of fact are not firearms. The "criminals" I was referring to weren't criminals at all, just law abiding citizens whose firearms were confiscated because the mayor thought he had the legitimate right to take them. He did not.
 
I understand the SS.  But the school itself has over 15 armed guards.  I don't care if there is a title involved.  How is one childs life more important than mine?  Answer it is not.  Again f-ing hypocrites
 
+Chris Ellis   if you can not be open minded enough to take in the big picture, then I can not explain it to you. reality is, his kids are more important to the security of the United States then are yours, or mine. I do not like it any more then you do,  but I understand the logic... and it is not "liberal logic"...
 
+Dwayne Mattson   so what is your argument?  that the NFA of 1934 is not working because there are machine guns all over the place being routinely used, that explosives are being used to routinely blow up things and kill people in the USA?

That is clearly saying  that Gun Control does indeed work....it is just not inclusive enough, and it has to be strictly enforced..

"set up the tax schedule"

Call it a Tax Schedule but it is more of a processing fee to offset the costs associated with qualifying and registering an individual to be issued a "stamp" and be able to register those items that require a FFL to possess/traffic.
 
+Michael Washington "in fighting to keep your guns, you're fighting to keep guns available to criminals." You keep saying this and yet have said nothing to the effect of how to stop the criminal. Taking away a weapon from a person intent on causing harm will only have them looking for other ways to cause harm. You want that??

We have more crime in part because it is the way of this nation to stomp all over law abiding citizen. The 2nd amendment says it shall not be infringed. Well, this is infringement. And if no one, like you, gives a rip, why should anyone care what you think or anyone else for that matter? What are you going to do if I commit a crime, go punish someone who did nothing? 

Punish the criminal, and teach morals and respect. Instead of breaking the law and endorsing it. 
 
+Michael Washington how about they just set your house on fire? Gonna remove all the matches too? 

Remember the abortion clinic bombings? No guns used there. No one mentioned anything about removing bombs, or making them harder to get. 
 
fewer people use knives.. from a psychological standpoint  they are less of an "impulsive" weapon, and are much more "personal"  weapon..  1..2..3  bang is much less complex then the act of pushing a knife into someone.
 
+Drake Forester I would still rather fire or knives used, and yes bombs are infact harder to make. You don't just "make a bomb". Regardless of what you've seen on TV.
 
Isn't the end of this conversation obvious.  Guns are no the problem people are
 
I mean to say you would rather fire of knives be used is the most mindless comment I have ever seen
 
+Phil Grainger 

I have every intention of fighting back. I may die in the process, but I will take a few of them with me, and I will die fighting for what I believe in.

You can be a pussy when they knock on your door. But that is not in my character.
 
+Mike Mac
The NFA of 1934 and the 1968 amendment are gun control, and the fees were put into place to keep the working class from having access to fully automatic machine guns and silencers. Remember that in 1934 $200 was a pile of cash. At that time it was far from a "reasonable fee".
 
+Dwayne Mattson 

block and mute him. It's pointless to debate Mike Mac, he's a typical liberal, too stupid to understand logic. 
 
Oh I know, but I figure the more facts I put out there, the more he brings his agenda out into the open.
 
+Dwayne Mattson 

tried that several times. the moment he realizes he's been defeated he starts regurgitating the Communist Manifesto.
 
+Dwayne Mattson  first you claim gun control does not work.

Then you provide the best possible example of why it does work as evidence of why you say it does not work.
 
Oh yeah the Gun Control Act works alright, it creates a criminal class where none existed before. The argument could be made that free speech only applies to the un-amplified spoken word or words written with pen and paper, not electrons.
 
No people are still going to commit crimes, it's just how easy access do they have to firearms.

Criminals should thank God for the NRA. Without them owning weapons would be much harder.
 
+Zander Gavin I had to block Michael Washington and Mike Mac.  There is no reason to either one of them.
 
Is a stolen weapon an owned weapon or merely possessed by a person who does evil? Maybe that's part of the problem too. We don't describe crime for what it is,evil.
 
+Dwayne Mattson  like any law, it only creates a "criminal class" for those who feel that the laws of the US do not apply to them.  the Decision is an individual one, but those who selectively choose what laws they will obey and which they will not are subject to the consequences of their decision(s)


You mention "free speech" but there is no unilateral "free speech" either, never has been since even before the ink that penned the 1st was dry. If the founders did not really mean "free speech" then how can all the zealots be so positive they  actually really meant the 2nd as it was written?  It is a justifiable basis for questioning it...

a "stolen" weapon is a stolen weapon.  But not all "criminals" have stolen weapons... and we really do not know what is stolen, what is not, there is no central database (one of the concerns the list addresses) but as many guns were never registered in any traceable manner to anyone in the first place...........
 
+Dwayne Mattson 

well, yes and no my friend.

not everything that's a crime is evil. as we are seeing, the government has a way off declaring anything it doesn't like as a crime and evil.

marijuana for example. a plant, natural, created by God. 

+Chris Ellis 

same here. its funny though when they try to provide "proof" for their arguments, by regurgitating either the Communist Manifesto, or a Liberal news station like MSNBC
 
There are quite a few laws on the books already, how about they get busy and enforce those? It might actually make a difference. Or will it? My guess is they won't be enforced unless it makes someone feel good, and lets face it, most of yesterday's rhetoric was about making people THINK the POTUS is doing something.
 
+Dwayne Mattson   I sure can agree that perception is indeed reality.  Knowing a leader is at least acting like he is doing something does stimulate the "warm-n-fuzzy" factor

I would offer that many of the EO's he outlined do seem to enhance (or reenforce the importance of) existing initiatives, programs and/or laws that we need to push enforcement on.

Don't get me wrong, I am a gun owner myself, and have every intention of staying that way, just like you :)

In my mind, it keeps circling back to holding gun owners accountable for their weapons, every gun owner..  And I can not see any way to do that effectively with the system(s) we have in place today, and the limited documentation of exactly who is responsible for any given gun...  The alternative is to more closely document through forced registration, which I am not really for....

So what do we do?
 
You can always buy guns on the street fuck this Obama bs
 
And where do you think those guns come from +Charissa Calhoun The same place legal folk get their guns. If they are available to legal folk, they are available to illegal folk.
 
So if or when the Government starts lining people up to in-order to search and seize all the weapons from the people in the States those like +Michael Washington and +Mike Mac would have no problem with that at all? That is good to know.... you are the kind of people that tyrants love. You think that the Government is going to do everything for you out of the kindness of their hearts... or you think that the Government or somebody owes you something and anything you want you should have. It is simple not enough people cried when they took rights away after 9-11 because it was for our "safety", again a few years later after more "soft rights" were taken away no one cared. Well guess what most of us are done giving more and more rights away. When I was a child I can remember going out hunting in the morning before school, getting to school and leaving the rifle in the rack visible in the back window of the truck and nobody ever cared or killed anyone. Now if a pre-school child plays cops and robbers and points his finger at another child and goes bang bang he get expelled. That is really stupid, however even worse is the actors saying we need a fix.... and make millions off of violent movies that clearly promote criminal behavior. This is why America is failing... stupid people or the correct term is "Sheepole"
 
Works out well how's the welfare check and free Obama phone?
 
So you volunteered to be the strong arm of the government that you are so opposed to. You know that doesn't make sense right? Are you saying that you would willfully disobey a direct order?
 
+Michael Washington I took an oath to the Constitution not the O. And yes that means if the time comes I will keep my oath and that is lucky for persons like you, the useful idiots will be the first to be lined up and shot, ask the Poles how it worked for them in WWII. And I have been serving this country for well over your age.. it's called pride in my country that I serve. +Mike Mac who are you again oh yea the one who has been muted so many times you must have the record by now. It's the "Obama Phone" because he is in office. He could stop it but then people would be mad at him. And for the record I don't want the Government to hand out anything to anyone leave that to charities and churches. The Federal Government have a few things it must do, the Military is one of those.
 
Soldier I'm a former US Marine and you don't look old enough to have even taken that oath by the time I EAS'ed. So stop running your mouth like you know something.

You want to compare your Commander in Chief to Hitler? That's just disgusting. I thought the Army was doing a better job than that. You can't possibly be Active Duty with views like that. You're just plain disrespectful, and your chain of command has failed to teach you proper respect.

Perhaps you missed the part about Active Duty not being protected by the constitution, you protect it.
 
That is correct I protect it and the "Lawful Orders" not one that are against the Constitution. As far as you ETSing.. means you didn't make it to retirement....so could not hang.
 
plain and simple if the people "outlaws/criminals" are getting illegal weapons now, and are criminals because they don't regard the law; what makes the Government think they will abide by a new LAW? only the law abiding citizens will follow the law. Over reaching of power on the Govs. part.
 
+Elizabeth Huffman so yeah that's been refuted to death. Criminals get their firearms FROM legal sources. The easier you make it for you to get weapons, and law abiding citizens, the easier you're making it for Criminals to get weapons. Ask anyone from the ATF or go through these comments I've already posted a link to an interview with an ATF agent that explains how Criminals in America get their guns. Only ~10% are stolen directly from gun owners homes, the rest are just bought in bulk from places like wyoming that don't care about how many guns you own.
 
+Elizabeth Huffman  you might want to study the gun control act of 1934, it has been very successful.

But when you look at  it with blinders on, your right.  There is very little the government can do to help now that will have results in a short time.  It will take decades to see results.

The real problem is that we should have done something decades ago when we knew this problem was coming, we didn't, and now we have to deal with our failure to proactively  act...  
 
+Michael Washington
You are correct. Ban them all Michael. Guns, bows, arrows, kitchen knives, everything. Let's make it a completely safe world. Ban sticks, rocks, charcoal, gun powder, and water. Gravity too for that matter. They are all far too dangerous for the average American to have in their possession. I bring up the rock because the very first recorded homicide was done with a rock. So ban the rock.
 
So I was thinking what if we just made illegal actives against the law that would make all bad guys and their activities illegal. Wait they already are and bad people still do bad things, so how is disarming good law abiding citizens going to help anyone except the bad guys? As far as assault weapons go ban we do allow citizen of the counties we are fighting in to own them so why not ours? The gun is not the problem it is the criminal that is the problem.
 
Nuh uh. Its those evil inanimate objects. Evil doesn't exist in the hearts of humans, it is all the fault of those inanimate objects like guns, and bullets and sticks and arrows oh my. So we must eliminate access to all these dangerous things. Oh no, I'm typing and thinking evil, they better take awy my keyboard too.
 
+Orion McClurg   no one is going to get "disarmed" , not sure where you are getting that.  hell, the majority of Democrats own guns too.  I hate bringing up Bill Mahar as an example of anything, and only do so because many on the Right consider him the poster child for social liberalism,  but even he is a gun owner......

we do not "ban" those weapons in countries we are fighting in because...well...because it is not our country, we do not make laws for other countries...  The insinuation that we should is one big reason why a lot of people in the world despise us "arrogant, egotistical Americans"

the gun is not the problem,  I agree, but very very few criminals use any weapon of any sort. criminals as a group are not the problem. the subset of "criminals with guns" are the problem.
 
" I agree, but very very few criminals use any weapon of any sort. criminals as a group are not the problem. the subset of "criminals with guns" are the problem." +Mike Mac there is the flawed logic criminals are not the problem only the ones with guns are?? Really so I can go beat the crap out of someone and take their money or life and it is okay as long as I don't use a gun to do this... You are not right in the head.
 
No one is going to get disarmed? I beg to differ, if the Federal Government passes a law like they did in New York, my little Ruger 10/22 will be illegal to own. Guess how many people have been shot with it? Zero.
 
+Orion McClurg 

"Really so I can go beat the crap out of someone and take their money or life and it is okay as long as I don't use a gun to do this"

LOL  No, I said nothing of the kind, why do you insist on changing what I said to make your argument? not sure how you arrived at that brilliant revelation from anything i said.  

"You are not right in the head"

Twisting what I said into that warped statement above proves that you are the one not right in the head and a fucking moron on top of that. Every post you make only serves to reinforce your ignorance.  Keep them coming.
 
+Dwayne Mattson  no one has been disarmed, and you are trying to be like FOX news (if,maybe,might,could, may)

ok, i will bite...

why would the NY law make your Ruger 10/22 illegal to own?
 
Again +Mike Mac your post " I agree, but very very few criminals use any weapon of any sort. criminals as a group are not the problem. the subset of "criminals with guns" are the problem." So being a criminal in your mind is not the problem as long as you do not use a gun.. that does make you not right in the head..... criminals are bad ummm k.
 
+Orion McClurg  hey nimrod,  we are talking statistics here, not what I think is right and wrong, I severely overestimated your ability to comprehend a concept.  Lets make it more simple for you . I will  type very slowly also.

Of course criminals are bad dumbass. but some are more directly related to gun problems, and if those are not focused on...  well I better try another approach, your going to have to think to understand that.....

Let me give you an example a little closer to home.

 take you for example, you disrespect your Commander in Chief in violation of your oath, and the UCMJ.   That is a criminal offence.

you being  Courts Martial`ed did not involce a gun, so it would not even be considered in any gun violence statistics  (remember we were talking about gun violence?) Nor would the prosecution of a shoplifter... Both of you would just still be common ordinary criminals. 

But maybe if we concentrate on the statistics where criminals actually use guns, since guns are the issue, there might be some value there...  I expect I lost you again...

Gosh, imagine that, that is what the POTUS and anyone that has any clue about what to do is actually suggesting.... even the NRA is suggesting that...

is that a little bit clearer for you, or so you need me to draw pictures for you with your crayons?  I swear, much more of this and I will be qualified to claim you as a dependent on my tax return....
 
2014, That is the awnser to this whole problem.Insted of crying about this thug president get your butt down to the voting booths and get rid of every pollitition



 that supports this president
 
+James Dailey 2014 is a long ways off, but if that election was held today those on the right would be shaking in their boots..... if the GOP can't change their image by then, they might as well start packing their stuff right now and prepare themselves to join the shrinking ranks of the unemployed in a country where the deficit has more than been cut in half.... but we'll see :)
 
Wait the deficit has been cut in half? What world are you living in?
 
Unemployment isn't going down, and the deficit is growing. You must be living in some fantastic world. Would that be some alternate reality world where you are always right Mike?
 
+Orion McClurg and  +Dwayne Mattson   read the CBO reports instead of listening to FOX NEWS Entertainment and Rush......  The deficit will be half what it was when Obama took office at the end of his first term budget cycle.... it has already dropped almost 1/3, the deficit decreased $200B last year alone.... $20B some since October.

You can not continue to argue against cold, hard  facts, or you will continue to  look like dumbasses.... 

+Orion McClurg   I never said it was cut in half now, I said 2014, get someone to read things to you if you have such a comprehension problem.
 
Well then I guess we can all bow to the wisdom that is +Mike Mac since in his world everything is all fine and perfect......we will have lots of jobs again and no more crime that will involve guns... What a wonderful place it will be... And as far as UCMJ for me nope not acting as a member of the Military at home thanks anyway, and thanks for your service....
 
+Orion McClurg   lol  its not my information, I am just sharing the facts with you because you seem unaware...
I did not say everything is fine and perfect, your changing what I said to try to argue your point, that will not work with me..

Man up, You are  just wrong as the facts show.  learn from your mistakes and move on.

The UCMJ is applicable for you every second of every minute every hour every day during the term of your enlistment. Your location or duty-status is irrelevant.  it also may apply for the rest of your life after you retire depending on your rank....
If you think that is not true, get a DUI, or smoke that joint off-duty then tell your commander "I was at home, it does not count"
 
How about my enlistment was up a really long time ago, and I am my own commander now?
 
you really think I was talking about you, derp derp

you are appearing more and more like someone that needs frequent and detailed guidance though.....
 
someone has to do it, if you do not like the facts I help gather for you, I will be happy to let someone else do it if you lol
 
Anyone here made any good joints lately? I'm still working on my dovetails. Not perfect but working towards it.
 
+Dwayne Mattson 

bout damn time, surprised you didn't mute the little cocksucker sooner. I tried to tell you debating him for any length was pointless.
 
Yeah well I wanted to see it he really had anything to say that was worth listening to. For awhile it seemed like he might until he started attacking other people and myself in the forum.
 
+Dwayne Mattson 

Liberals never have any actual argument, only school yard taunts, and false accusations of racism.
 
I'm not racist, I like my guns blued, black, brown, I don't care what color they are. If we're talking people, I don't care what color they are either.
Add a comment...