Obama Signs Twenty-Three Executive Orders

[EastCoastNiner]

How this guy got elected twice is unbelievable.

 

Unreal, always overstepping his constitutional boundaries.

 

 

"Oh, I don't want people having guns around children...........just my children because they're more important".

 

 

I can't believe a lot of you voted for this moron.

 

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/16/politics/gun-laws-battle/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

[EastCoastNiner]

How can you support and "assault weapons" ban when the last one failed so miserably?

 

There's no link between assault weapons ban and lower crime. Not one inclination of that.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/18/levy.anti.gun.control/index.html

 

 

Oh, the term "assault weapon" must mean those guns are soooooo scary. Most of you have no clue what classifies and assault weapon.

[Real Deal]

Obama proposed legislative steps he previously has backed, such as reinstating the Clinton-era ban on assault weapons, and also requested that funds be made available to help treat mental illness and provide schools with support to enhance their safety.

President Barack Obama on Wednesday proposed background checks on all gun sales and bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines as part of a package of steps to reduce gun violence in the wake of the Newtown school massacre last month.

So...

 

1) Re-ban on assault weapons (Clinton era)

2) Background checks on all gun purchases

3) More funds for mental illness

4) More funds for school safety

 

I don't see the problem here. Where did he overstep the Constitution? Will you be able to buy a gun?

 

I just find it amusing, that's all...that people think they need 5-10 full automatics, a bazooka and an Uzi to protect themselves from home intruders.

 

I guess if you're Jesse Ventura and Ted Nugent, you'll need an array of weapons, tanks, fighter jets, and drones to overcome that inevitable government hostile takeover.

[EastCoastNiner]

So...

 

1) Re-ban on assault weapons (Clinton era)

2) Background checks on all gun purchases

3) More funds for mental illness

4) More funds for school safety

 

I don't see the problem here. Where did he overstep the Constitution? Will you be able to buy a gun?

 

I just find it amusing, that's all...that people think they need 5-10 full automatics to protect themselves from home intruders.

 

I guess if you're Jesse Ventura and Ted Nugent, you'll need an array of weapons, tanks, fighter jets, and drones to overcome that inevitable government hostile takeover.

 

Well, since you always love to overlook facts and what's actually happening, let me help you.

 

The last ban did absolutely NOTHING. Nothing at all. Please, find me something credible that states otherwise.

 

 

We have the right to bear arms, to protect ourselves from our government, and protect our well-being.

 

 

I hope you don't have multiple people break into your house one day and pop you ten times in the chest because you didn't have a gun or couldn't hold enough bullets in it.

 

 

Do you mind telling me how long most democracies/republics last? You're so keen on believing that no country can be overtaken or turned upside down.

Edited January 16, 2013 by EastCoastNiner

[EastCoastNiner]

http://truthinreligionandpolitics.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/more_people_killed_with_hammers_than_rifles.jpg?w=250&h=300

 

 

And, no, I'm not saying bad hammers, but people like to exaggerate the amount of deaths by "assault weapons".

[JYD]

The proposals were terrific. If the main idea is to help stop national gun tragedies such as Aurora or Netown, a lot of this stuff makes sense to me.

[Lkr]

Ecn you mad?

[JYD]

Ecn you mad?

http://jcolenation.com/board/public/style_emoticons/default/124uf02.png

He mad.

[EastCoastNiner]

The proposals were terrific. If the main idea is to help stop national gun tragedies such as Aurora or Netown, a lot of this stuff makes sense to me.

 

Right, lets focus on incidents that don't happen nearly as often as other more common and deadly incidents.

 

Makes sense.

 

 

Can you please explain to me what constitutes an assault riffle? I'll let you google it because I know you're a typical Obama nut-hugging sheep that actually has no clue what it is.

[EastCoastNiner]

Hey, liberals, explain something to me.

 

If you think this ban and executive orders are going to do anything, why didn't that stop the Columbine shooting?

 

Herp to the derp.

[Real Deal]

If the last ban on assault weapons did nothing at all, why are you so against it? If it does nothing, it shouldn't matter either way, correct?

 

Yeah, a person turns to a hammer if they don't have a gun. I'd rather have an idiot come at me with a hammer. Would you not?

 

You never answered my question from the other topic, by the way...so I'll ask it again: have you ever had to confront an armed man, with your life threatened, or have had to chase one down, like most police officers will have to throughout their careers?

 

Also, yeah...I hope I don't have a gang of people come into my house to gun me down, either. It happens a lot, I hear.

 

------------------

 

Not too long ago, a man I went to school with (well, he was a bit younger than me) decided he was broke and needed to feed his kids...so instead of being smart and looking for a job (since he didn't work), he stole money from family, went to Wal-Mart, and bought a gun. He walked over to a sweeper repair shop early morning, a block from our high school, and tried to rob the place...and he was shot and killed by the old man (owner).

 

I support having a gun. I'm glad the old man had one.

 

I don't support being able to get them as easily as Terrence Clark did.

 

If you have a clean slate, background-wise, you have nothing to worry about. Is it THAT much of an inconvenience?

 

If you don't collect guns, I don't see why you'd have anything to worry about. The ONLY reason that is worth listening to...that would require you to have an assault weapon...is if there was a government takeover, but let's be truthful: you, and everyone else, won't have shit compared to the opposition, so it's really not going to matter.

 

It's one thing to fight against your own country if you live in Libya. You really think people will have the goods to go against the US?

[JYD]

Hey, liberals, explain something to me.

 

If you think this ban and executive orders are going to do anything, why didn't that stop the Columbine shooting?

 

Herp to the derp.

No one is dumb enough to think that you can legislate every single incident. You can't, we get that man. But what we do have the ability to do is make them as rare as possible. These major national incidents are becoming way too common now over the past several years. Any type of weapon that can shoot a lot of people in very little time should not be made available to just any citizen. The guy from Aurora shot 70 people in the matter of minutes. If he had just a simple hand gun where he had to re-load, or as the founding fathers intended, if he had a god damn musket, he isn't shooting 70 people in the matter of minutes.

 

You want to have a hand gun in your house because you feel safer? That's fine. I can understand that, and have no problem with that for self-defense or even if you are a hunter and have guns for that, or a sportsman. That's part of some people's hobby. But making guns more difficult to get into the hands of criminals and limiting high capacity magazine clips that can kill a lot of people in very little time (see Newtown), those need to be banned.

 

And, to act like just because criminals get their hands on guns, we should do nothing .... that's like saying people will drink and drive, so we should not have any type of DUI laws in place. I'm pretty sure alcohol related accidents have dropped quite a bit since 1996. I don't have the statistics right in front of me, but I read about it several months ago that when stricter laws were enacted on Drinking and Driving, the amount of alcohol related auto deaths dropped quite a bit.

[Real Deal]

Hey, liberals, explain something to me.

 

If you think this ban and executive orders are going to do anything, why didn't that stop the Columbine shooting?

 

Herp to the derp.

Nothing will stop every incident from taking place...not even the total removal of guns from US citizens. It's not a means of complete prevention, but an effort to make it more difficult to pull off such acts in the first place.

 

Right, lets focus on incidents that don't happen nearly as often as other more common and deadly incidents.

Fine...what's your proposal to stop all of the hammer-wielding killers out there, if you're so concerned with those? I already know what you're going to say.

[EastCoastNiner]

I'll respond to most of this later, but quickly address the one question you were asking.

 

Yes, I face the potential threat of begin robbed, assaulted, killed, etc. everyday. Police officers face those same threats as well. Just because I'm not "chasing around criminals" doesn't mean that I'm not a potential target for one.

[JYD]

You know who supported gun-control? This guy:

 

http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2013/01/15/you-know-who-else-supported-gun-control/_jcr_content/body/inlineimage.img.503.png/1358266247106.cached.png

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/15/you-know-who-else-supported-gun-control.html

 

Article by [[[sENSIBLE]]] Conservative David Frum:

 

You know who else supported gun control? No, not that guy. He actually loosened gun laws, at least for non-Jews.

 

Ronald Fricking Reagan supported gun control, as Brett Josephe reminds us in an op-ed for the Hartford Courant.

 

While still president in 1986, Reagan signed into law the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which was hailed by gun rights advocates because it included numerous protections for gun owners. However, it also banned ownership of any fully automatic rifles that were not already registered on the day the law was signed.

 

Then, in 1991, four years after the controversial Brady Bill was introduced in Congress and with passage again in doubt, Reagan penned an op-ed in The New York Times titled "Why I'm for the Brady Bill." In it, he expressed support for a seven-day waiting period before a purchaser could take possession of a handgun, an even more stringent restriction than the five day cooling-off period that was included in the final legislation, and less stringent than the 15-day cooling-off period he signed into law as governor of California. Reagan stated that prohibitions on sales to felons, drug addicts and the mentally ill had "no enforcement mechanism" and that "a uniform standard across the country" was necessary.

 

Regarding handguns, Reagan stated, "This level of violence must be stopped … If the passage of the Brady bill were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land."

 

Finally, in 1994, Reagan successfully threw his support behind the Assault Weapons Ban in a joint letter to the Boston Globe, saying, "As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms … I am convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill are absolutely necessary."

[Real Deal]

Yes, I face the potential threat of begin robbed, assaulted, killed, etc. everyday. Police officers face those same threats as well. Just because I'm not "chasing around criminals" doesn't mean that I'm not a potential target for one.

That wasn't the question.

 

That's basically like you saying, "Yeah, I COULD fly an airplane today...and so could an employed pilot."

 

You asked if cops should be able to carry certain weapons and opened the door for a comparison between a cop and a citizen.

 

Truth is, you face the threat of being burned alive in your house every single day...so should you own a firetruck and equipment, just in case your family has trouble making it out?

[JYD]

LOL ECN acting like he live in Compton or something

[Lkr]

LOL ECN acting like he live in Compton or something

Ecn is all about that life don't you know?

[Nitro]

http://jcolenation.com/board/public/style_emoticons/default/124uf02.png

He mad.

 

Killa .gif FTW.

[DunkinDerozan]

Obama is the [expletive]ing man.

[Sħãlïq™]

Killa .gif FTW.

 

http://edge-img.datpiff.com/m8c639db/Dipset_Diplomats_Forever-front.jpg

[His Greatness]

More thorough screening sounds good, but I'm curious about how the mental health programs will be regulated. I'm honestly surprised there wasn't more. And ECN is right, a scary looking guns ban is going to do essentially nothing to curb crime. Our time, effort, and resources are better spent elsewhere—with non-trivial issues—to achieve reform.

 

LOL ECN acting like he live in Compton or something

You never answered my question from the other topic, by the way...so I'll ask it again: have you ever had to confront an armed man, with your life threatened, or have had to chase one down, like most police officers will have to throughout their careers?

 

Also, yeah...I hope I don't have a gang of people come into my house to gun me down, either. It happens a lot, I hear.

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx

Edited January 17, 2013 by His Greatness

[Real Deal]

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx

You weren't following where the initial conversation came from. It was about cops having automatics or assault weapons, and why we should (or shouldn't) have them.

 

You don't need to unleash a thousand rounds into a home intruder. You can put him down with any loaded gun, as long as you know how to shoot it.

 

The comparison between police officers, and us, is what ignited the conversation. There is no comparison. A police officer HAS to have a gun if he's going to do anything more than giving tickets to able-bodied people parked in handicapped stalls. I've never owned a gun, and in 29 years, I've never had a home intruder.

 

I'd be amazed to hear that a 30-year veteran (or longer) police officer has never had to pull his gun once...even for protection in a hostile situation.

 

I'm for guns...but not unnecessary ones. Not a gun you'd use to mow down Iraqi insurgents.

[His Greatness]

You weren't following where the initial conversation came from. It was about cops having automatics or assault weapons, and why we should (or shouldn't) have them.

 

You don't need to unleash a thousand rounds into a home intruder. You can put him down with any loaded gun, as long as you know how to shoot it.

 

The comparison between police officers, and us, is what ignited the conversation. There is no comparison. A police officer HAS to have a gun if he's going to do anything more than giving tickets to able-bodied people parked in handicapped stalls. I've never owned a gun, and in 29 years, I've never had a home intruder.

 

I'd be amazed to hear that a 30-year veteran (or longer) police officer has never had to pull his gun once...even for protection in a hostile situation.

 

I'm for guns...but not unnecessary ones. Not a gun you'd use to mow down Iraqi insurgents.

But where is the line, and who gets to draw it? Who are you (or anyone) to say that I don't need to have an AR-15? It's the principles behind it and the precedent it sets that's concerning.

 

Not a gun you'd use to mow down Iraqi insurgents.

That's exactly why misinformation is perpetuated. People see the stock, the pistol grip, and other cosmetic similarities and get the wrong impression that it's an assault rifle. It's not, and I can assure you no hardcore military shit is available to civilians.

[Real Deal]

Well, part of what I'm saying is geared towards those who think we should legally own automatic weapons. Again, it stemmed from ECN asking me if police should be able to carry fully automatic weapons (just checked, for clarification) and then if we should be able to buy an AR-15.

 

There's no reason for anyone to own a fully automatic weapon.

 

As far as an AR-15 goes, I admitted I didn't know much about them OR guns. But, I always do my research.

 

Okay, 30-100 rounds at the most for a semi-automatic AR-15. Why?

 

I just don't get that. Why do you need to pump 30 rounds into an intruder? Two intruders, 15 each? I still don't understand.

 

------------

 

But let's say I don't even give a damn if someone owns an AR-15. I STILL support background checks on ALL gun purchases...fully support that, 100%.