RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control

RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/8/2016 9:59:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic bloody hell now how would you feel if I told you that the most recent poll from CNN said that 67% support President Obama's executive action on guns. ALl the ball aching and creeching before he actually announced his plan, about him "writing laws" and chicken littling like pussies at a catnip burning since..omg he isnt doing anything... Paul Ryan WOULD love the changes, but he wanted the republicans to do it, not obama... or rather, he will only accept a republican plan. Like the replacement for the ACA< its been seven years, wheres this magical plan. They just partied the night away cos they finally managed to get a repeal thru a vote, only took them how many years and how many attempts, 62, bunch of wankers .... and the pres aint gonna sign it.... Talk about premature bullshit. He included things that Congress had specifically refused to pass, that means he is trying to pass a law that couldn't pass congress, that is unconstitutional. Much of the support is based on lies, such as being able to buy guns via the internet without background checks, the gun has to be shipped to a dealer who then does the background check.

Lucylastic -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/8/2016 10:00:33 AM)
The republicans are doing an amazing job of differentiating themselves beyond believability, without obamas help. quote: He's stumping, mostly to DIFFERENTIATE the democrats from the republicans.

KenDckey -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/8/2016 10:45:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic bloody hell now how would you feel if I told you that the most recent poll from CNN said that 67% support President Obama's executive action on guns. ALl the ball aching and creeching before he actually announced his plan, about him "writing laws" and chicken littling like pussies at a catnip burning since..omg he isnt doing anything... Paul Ryan WOULD love the changes, but he wanted the republicans to do it, not obama... or rather, he will only accept a republican plan. Like the replacement for the ACA< its been seven years, wheres this magical plan. They just partied the night away cos they finally managed to get a repeal thru a vote, only took them how many years and how many attempts, 62, bunch of wankers .... and the pres aint gonna sign it.... Talk about premature bullshit. Lucy But what has he done? There is only one executive memorandum https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/05/memorandum-promoting-smart-gun-technology No executive orders or procllamations. He made a speech. He didn't do anything of substance. There are a great many of his points already in the law. He can't take away a constitutional right without due process. He can't mandate from the lecturn, If thia is the case, then it would make him a dictator, king, queen emperor or something that grants him those rights. He can ask congress. He can ask the people to petition their congressman, but he has to do somethimg more than make a speech

Aylee -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/8/2016 12:09:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic no, that would be the perps fault. my question is how did he get the gun... Stole it from a LEO.

mnottertail -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/8/2016 12:12:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic bloody hell now how would you feel if I told you that the most recent poll from CNN said that 67% support President Obama's executive action on guns. ALl the ball aching and creeching before he actually announced his plan, about him "writing laws" and chicken littling like pussies at a catnip burning since..omg he isnt doing anything... Paul Ryan WOULD love the changes, but he wanted the republicans to do it, not obama... or rather, he will only accept a republican plan. Like the replacement for the ACA< its been seven years, wheres this magical plan. They just partied the night away cos they finally managed to get a repeal thru a vote, only took them how many years and how many attempts, 62, bunch of wankers .... and the pres aint gonna sign it.... Talk about premature bullshit. He included things that Congress had specifically refused to pass, that means he is trying to pass a law that couldn't pass congress, that is unconstitutional. Much of the support is based on lies, such as being able to buy guns via the internet without background checks, the gun has to be shipped to a dealer who then does the background check. You need to take some basic civics courses, aboslutely nothing unconstitutional about it. Insofar as lies go, you go eat your fuckin pizza you got with your gun, because guns have been sold on Facebook groups and Craigslist in my area, and everyone elses. (Thats the internet, PizzaMan Cain BamaD) no dealers involved. http://www.shopsellorswap.com/Classifieds/xcClassified.asp

itsSIRtou -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/8/2016 12:23:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets I must apologize that I haven't logged in for more than a month, due to bugs implemented in the captcha challenge for people who care about their privacy, some of which still exist on the collarchat site (but most or all of which were fixed in the collarspace site). But on topic, I must say that most people do not understand what is REALLY going on here with Obama's executive action. 1. He's stumping for the democratic party. 2. He's circumventing Congress. 3. He's trying to break the Constitution. Really, it's all about #1 above. The other two are merely consequences of #1 above. The proof is legion, and obvious, crocodile tears being one of the indications, as is the idiotic assemblage of people with dead children (whenever a politician either kisses a baby or holds up a dead one, you can rest assured he's being "political"). If he really wanted to do the executive action he just did, he could have done it 7 years ago. And, the "epidemic" he's discussing is far far far far far far far far less than the number of people killed in a whole host of other activities. He's stumping, mostly to DIFFERENTIATE the democrats from the republicans. Most of the democrats are stupid, and they won't see through his maneuver, while most of the republicans are just as stupid and they will fall into the trap which Obama cleverly set of talking about "THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL" (which is DESIGNED to make the republicans LOOK stupid - which will work - because they are). Let's get on to #2, which is merely a consequence. If this went through the normal process, it would get nowhere. So why does Obama do it? See #1 above. Now let's get to #3. This is really the crux of the issue, other than #1. What really is happening, for the most part, is that democrats, on the whole, want to CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION. Specifically they want to reduce or limit or eliminate one of our rights. But they can't do that, directly. So, what do they do? They put up barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after barrier after ... and so on. ... against the right. This is merely yet another barrier. So, what do the republicans do? They fall into the trap cleverly set by Obama, which is to "discuss" this particular barrier (as if it matters)! Then, what happens? They look stupid! Yup. Because the barrier is so tiny that it "seems" reasonable. (It's only when you notice that the barriers will NEVER STOP that you realize that it's not reasonable, on the whole. What REALLY is happening is the age-old process of eliminating a constitutional right by putting up a series of miniscule barriers that never end. So one side finally draws a line in the sand, saying NO MORE BARRIERS! And, that's where the idiots start chiming in. They THINK the argument is about that silly particular barrier. And that EXACTLY what Obama wants to happen! It's beautifully clever. But it only works because people are stupid. [PS] Collarchata is still stupidly broken, because it took a half-dozen attempts just to get this post to take. Sigh. The admins don't know what they're doing, or, they never tested it, probably both at the same time. geez....tell us how ya really feel..... you should repost this in: http://www.collarchat.com/m_4870909/mpage_5/key_/tm.htm#4872333 ( RE: Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? ) cuz it looks like your answer is yes!! LOL! just say'n...

mnottertail -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/8/2016 12:38:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic no, that would be the perps fault. my question is how did he get the gun... Stole it from a LEO. LOL.

mnottertail -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/8/2016 1:44:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I notice a lot of people are upset about the mentally ill issue:) mind you they were more furious before the announcement. no regs, thats the best. yaay The law already says that anyone declared a danger due to mental problems is prohibited from buying firearms. The problem here is that Obama oked violation of HIPPA and other laws. Of course I would love to see Congress make putting the legally obtained information into the database, too many states, VA for example, refuses to. This needs to be done by law, not by the President changing law with an unconstitutional EO. Nope.not unconstituional, thats fucking stupid. The Nics preceded Hippa, and this would be a agency rule (yeah, read executive order) to allow it. There is no strict prohibition about releasing that information to authorized agencies. Here is some reading for you: https://scripted.com/cpt_experts/the-role-of-hipaa-in-gun-control/ The good news, we can find out which gun nuts are nuts. Oh, try and get one right per decade, Bama.

BamaD -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/8/2016 3:33:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic bloody hell now how would you feel if I told you that the most recent poll from CNN said that 67% support President Obama's executive action on guns. ALl the ball aching and creeching before he actually announced his plan, about him "writing laws" and chicken littling like pussies at a catnip burning since..omg he isnt doing anything... Paul Ryan WOULD love the changes, but he wanted the republicans to do it, not obama... or rather, he will only accept a republican plan. Like the replacement for the ACA< its been seven years, wheres this magical plan. They just partied the night away cos they finally managed to get a repeal thru a vote, only took them how many years and how many attempts, 62, bunch of wankers .... and the pres aint gonna sign it.... Talk about premature bullshit. He included things that Congress had specifically refused to pass, that means he is trying to pass a law that couldn't pass congress, that is unconstitutional. Much of the support is based on lies, such as being able to buy guns via the internet without background checks, the gun has to be shipped to a dealer who then does the background check. You need to take some basic civics courses, aboslutely nothing unconstitutional about it. Insofar as lies go, you go eat your fuckin pizza you got with your gun, because guns have been sold on Facebook groups and Craigslist in my area, and everyone elses. (Thats the internet, PizzaMan Cain BamaD) no dealers involved. http://www.shopsellorswap.com/Classifieds/xcClassified.asp Private citizens are requied to ship them to a dealer. You know that.

BamaD -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/8/2016 3:35:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I notice a lot of people are upset about the mentally ill issue:) mind you they were more furious before the announcement. no regs, thats the best. yaay The law already says that anyone declared a danger due to mental problems is prohibited from buying firearms. The problem here is that Obama oked violation of HIPPA and other laws. Of course I would love to see Congress make putting the legally obtained information into the database, too many states, VA for example, refuses to. This needs to be done by law, not by the President changing law with an unconstitutional EO. Nope.not unconstituional, thats fucking stupid. The Nics preceded Hippa, and this would be a agency rule (yeah, read executive order) to allow it. There is no strict prohibition about releasing that information to authorized agencies. Here is some reading for you: https://scripted.com/cpt_experts/the-role-of-hipaa-in-gun-control/ The good news, we can find out which gun nuts are nuts. Oh, try and get one right per decade, Bama. You, oh all knowing one, should know that doctors are prohibited, by law, from sharing patient information.

KenDckey -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/8/2016 4:36:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I notice a lot of people are upset about the mentally ill issue:) mind you they were more furious before the announcement. no regs, thats the best. yaay The law already says that anyone declared a danger due to mental problems is prohibited from buying firearms. The problem here is that Obama oked violation of HIPPA and other laws. Of course I would love to see Congress make putting the legally obtained information into the database, too many states, VA for example, refuses to. This needs to be done by law, not by the President changing law with an unconstitutional EO. Nope.not unconstituional, thats fucking stupid. The Nics preceded Hippa, and this would be a agency rule (yeah, read executive order) to allow it. There is no strict prohibition about releasing that information to authorized agencies. Here is some reading for you: https://scripted.com/cpt_experts/the-role-of-hipaa-in-gun-control/ The good news, we can find out which gun nuts are nuts. Oh, try and get one right per decade, Bama. You, oh all knowing one, should know that doctors are prohibited, by law, from sharing patient information. There are some exceptions. I believe that they are required to report those that represent a hazard to themselves or others.

MercTech -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/8/2016 5:34:16 PM)
A lot of misconceptions in this thread. The Obama press release on gun control contains a lot of smoke and mirrors as it states we "need" controls for things that are already in federal law. Making a new law to do things that are already done is trying to claim political credit for past legislation. If you are doing business dealing with firearms you must obtain a Federal Firearms License and perform all the paperwork and controls required for such. This is already in place. The AFT website has a plethora of information on who is allowed to sell what types of firearms to whom and where. Other than certain types of exempt, antique, or replica antique firearms (specifically defined by the ATF) you must have a FFL to be selling commercially. The majority of dealers selling firearms at gun shows are FFL holders. The "Gun Show Loophole" is a buzzword that doesn't exist in reality. RE: http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/summary-president-obama-gun-proposals.aspx If you look at the Obama gun control proposal; there are only a few bullets in his proposal that are not already in force. Increased funding for programs already in place is something I'm not including in the NEW proposals. * Diluting the HIPA laws so mental health information medical information can be shared with the criminal database for background checks. This is a problem of implementation as, if implementation is draconian, anyone who sought help for depression after loss of a loved one or treatment for post partum depression would evermore be forbidden from purchasing a firearm. (Currently, the mental health disqualification only is entered in the background check database if a court has ordered psychiatric treatment or a court has found the person mentally incompetent.) Banning the mythical "assault weapon" and making magazine size limitations a federal issue. Banning "military style assault weapons" is banning something based on cosmetic appearance. (look up a picture of an "AR-15" then look up a picture of an "A1A National Match". The AR-15 is considered an "assault weapon" but the A1A is not even though the A1A is the civilian version of the M-14 "assault rifle". If it looks "scifi" like it becomes an "assault weapon" with no consideration of actual function) Magazine size limitations will only apply to people who habitually follow regulations. Replacing a 10 round legal magazine with larger magazines can be done in seconds and any competent tin-bender can turn out high capacity magazines in their garage making such laws unenforceable in reality. All the rest of the proposed legislation is re-iterating programs already in place but calling for increased funding and staffing for some. ____________________________________________________ Some historical points for those on the lists that aren't from the U.S. Fully automatic weapons points: The Tommy Gun (Thompson Sub Machine Gun - "sub" refers to a fully automatic weapon that fires a pistol cartridge instead of a rifle cartridge as fires by a "machine gun") was originally designed and marketed for ranch defense where few numbers of defenders could be assaulted by large numbers of attackers. Modern versions of the the same genre of weapon are the UZI Machine Pistol and H&K machine pistols you can see carried by police forces in many European countries. * After the use of submachine guns became extremely prevalent in the mob violence during prohibition; additional limitations on sales and possession of fully automatic weapons were put into U.S. Federal law. U.S. Citizens can still purchase and own fully automatic weapons but the sale of "Class 3" firearms (see ATF web page for exact definitions). A class 3 weapon can only be owned by a civilian with a federal license for ONE PARTICULAR weapon. (It is very expensive and requires a comprehensive background check) You can only sell the weapon to a person or Class 3 FFL holder that has obtained a federal permit to acquire that weapon. Interstate firearms sales and mail order. * Mail order firearms procedures were changed in reaction to the fact that Oswald purchased the rifle used to kill John Kennedy from Sears Roebuck by mail order. (1960s) Before the changes, you took your federal form to a Notary for signature under oath with verification of identity and mailed it in with your order and it was shipped to your residence. The change made requires a mail order pre-paid weapon to be delivered to a FFL holder local to you who who will process the forms and background check and personally verify your identification, form completion, and background check prior to you taking possession of the weapon. (Around a $50 fee for the paperwork hassle done by the local FFL holder seems about average. After all, the local shopkeeper deserves recompense for his time.) * Interstate firearms sales must be done through FFL holders. (Licensed gun dealers). You cannot go to another state and purchase a firearm. You must purchase your firearms in your own state of residence. Paying a local resident to purchase a firearm for you is a "straw man" purchase and violates federal law. * There is absolutely no requirement under federal law to "register" a firearm. If you watch American television you can get the warped idea that this is required. Only a very few areas require firearm "registration" and, oddly enough, the areas that require "registration" are those with some of the highest rates of gun violence. ___________________________________________ My personal objection to most for the legislation proposed by gun phobic politicians stems from the fact that the proposals are often unenforceable or are calling for measures already in law that are poorly enforced. i.e. The database for background checks not being updated in a timely manner allowing a convicted felon to purchase a firearm and shoot up a church. Placing a higher priority on enforcement of laws already in place would have much more effect on curbing unlawful weapons transfers and criminal use of firearms (gun violence if you prefer) than creating new legislation. The only real "loophole" in firearms transfers is the lack of requirement of documentation of "private sales" at the federal level. (Some states actually do require reporting to local law enforcement) In actual practice, if a co-worker likes my old shotgun, I can just sell or trade it to him. I have a feeling that in a few years I will have to go down to the local FFL licensed shop and document the trade and have a background check on the recipient of the firearm. I would consider this a pain in the ass but understandable as a deterrent to straw man purchases getting firearms into criminal hands.

LadyConstanze -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/8/2016 5:37:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I notice a lot of people are upset about the mentally ill issue:) mind you they were more furious before the announcement. no regs, thats the best. yaay The law already says that anyone declared a danger due to mental problems is prohibited from buying firearms. The problem here is that Obama oked violation of HIPPA and other laws. Of course I would love to see Congress make putting the legally obtained information into the database, too many states, VA for example, refuses to. This needs to be done by law, not by the President changing law with an unconstitutional EO. Nope.not unconstituional, thats fucking stupid. The Nics preceded Hippa, and this would be a agency rule (yeah, read executive order) to allow it. There is no strict prohibition about releasing that information to authorized agencies. Here is some reading for you: https://scripted.com/cpt_experts/the-role-of-hipaa-in-gun-control/ The good news, we can find out which gun nuts are nuts. Oh, try and get one right per decade, Bama. You, oh all knowing one, should know that doctors are prohibited, by law, from sharing patient information. There are some exceptions. I believe that they are required to report those that represent a hazard to themselves or others. OK, if they are and the tightening down is not required, then why all the reports of how people with mental health issues could buy guns? Hold on, Ted Nugent and Wayne LaPierre, both have a history of mental health disorders, that's how both got out of being drafted (though only Ted shat his pants), both are spokesmen for the NRA, yeah, obviously that one doesn't need a looking into, move along, nothing to see....

BamaD -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/8/2016 5:40:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I notice a lot of people are upset about the mentally ill issue:) mind you they were more furious before the announcement. no regs, thats the best. yaay The law already says that anyone declared a danger due to mental problems is prohibited from buying firearms. The problem here is that Obama oked violation of HIPPA and other laws. Of course I would love to see Congress make putting the legally obtained information into the database, too many states, VA for example, refuses to. This needs to be done by law, not by the President changing law with an unconstitutional EO. Nope.not unconstituional, thats fucking stupid. The Nics preceded Hippa, and this would be a agency rule (yeah, read executive order) to allow it. There is no strict prohibition about releasing that information to authorized agencies. Here is some reading for you: https://scripted.com/cpt_experts/the-role-of-hipaa-in-gun-control/ The good news, we can find out which gun nuts are nuts. Oh, try and get one right per decade, Bama. You, oh all knowing one, should know that doctors are prohibited, by law, from sharing patient information. There are some exceptions. I believe that they are required to report those that represent a hazard to themselves or others. Yes, but a GP isn't allowed to make that determination. And he certainly can't do it because he found out that they own a gun and he considers that a sign of paranoia.

BamaD -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/8/2016 5:45:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I notice a lot of people are upset about the mentally ill issue:) mind you they were more furious before the announcement. no regs, thats the best. yaay The law already says that anyone declared a danger due to mental problems is prohibited from buying firearms. The problem here is that Obama oked violation of HIPPA and other laws. Of course I would love to see Congress make putting the legally obtained information into the database, too many states, VA for example, refuses to. This needs to be done by law, not by the President changing law with an unconstitutional EO. Nope.not unconstituional, thats fucking stupid. The Nics preceded Hippa, and this would be a agency rule (yeah, read executive order) to allow it. There is no strict prohibition about releasing that information to authorized agencies. Here is some reading for you: https://scripted.com/cpt_experts/the-role-of-hipaa-in-gun-control/ The good news, we can find out which gun nuts are nuts. Oh, try and get one right per decade, Bama. You, oh all knowing one, should know that doctors are prohibited, by law, from sharing patient information. There are some exceptions. I believe that they are required to report those that represent a hazard to themselves or others. OK, if they are and the tightening down is not required, then why all the reports of how people with mental health issues could buy guns? Hold on, Ted Nugent and Wayne LaPierre, both have a history of mental health disorders, that's how both got out of being drafted (though only Ted shat his pants), both are spokesmen for the NRA, yeah, obviously that one doesn't need a looking into, move along, nothing to see.... Because neither has been ajudicated as a danger to anyone. What mental health disorder are they alleged to have? And,BTW, how did someone get this alleged information legally?

BamaD -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/8/2016 5:57:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I notice a lot of people are upset about the mentally ill issue:) mind you they were more furious before the announcement. no regs, thats the best. yaay The law already says that anyone declared a danger due to mental problems is prohibited from buying firearms. The problem here is that Obama oked violation of HIPPA and other laws. Of course I would love to see Congress make putting the legally obtained information into the database, too many states, VA for example, refuses to. This needs to be done by law, not by the President changing law with an unconstitutional EO. Nope.not unconstituional, thats fucking stupid. The Nics preceded Hippa, and this would be a agency rule (yeah, read executive order) to allow it. There is no strict prohibition about releasing that information to authorized agencies. Here is some reading for you: https://scripted.com/cpt_experts/the-role-of-hipaa-in-gun-control/ The good news, we can find out which gun nuts are nuts. Oh, try and get one right per decade, Bama. You, oh all knowing one, should know that doctors are prohibited, by law, from sharing patient information. There are some exceptions. I believe that they are required to report those that represent a hazard to themselves or others. OK, if they are and the tightening down is not required, then why all the reports of how people with mental health issues could buy guns? Hold on, Ted Nugent and Wayne LaPierre, both have a history of mental ,health disorders, that's how both got out of being drafted (though only Ted shat his pants), both are spokesmen for the NRA, yeah, obviously that one doesn't need a looking into, move along, nothing to see.... Don't you believe in treatment? That was decades ago, think maybe they have been cured by now?

ifmaz -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/8/2016 6:19:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze OK, if they are and the tightening down is not required, then why all the reports of how people with mental health issues could buy guns? ... It's because of the way states report (or neglect to report) mental health issues to NICS. The National Shooting Sports Foundation created a campaign to fix NICS but it remains woefully underfunded. If the feds can't fund NICS properly the states certainly aren't going to allocate funds either. Supposedly the president's plan will increase funding to NICS and add investigatory agents. NPR did a story on NICS and the gaps in NICS. The last paragraph is especially interesting: quote: In 2009, the FBI ran 10.8 million background checks on potential gun buyers. About 150,000 people were rejected. Most had felony or domestic violence convictions, or a restraining order, on their records. Less than 2 percent were rejected because of a mental illness. Of those 150,000 people who were rejected only 77 were prosecuted. Bear in mind these are people who knowingly lied on their ATF-4473 form and are potentially dangerous people trying to obtain a firearm. Why only 77 prosecutions? You'll note that Mr. Bloomberg's Everytown USA has once again neglected to do anything with regards to fixing NICS.

crumpets -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/8/2016 8:09:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic The republicans are doing an amazing job of differentiating themselves beyond believability, without obamas help. I really tried hard to NOT make my post a political post. I take no sides. In actuality, the Democrats are extremely clever, as are the Republicans. They KNOW what game they're all playing - it's a game of political chess. In this case, the Democrats cleverly maneuvered the Republicans into rebutting what 'seems' (to stupid people, of which there are legions) to be a 'reasonable' barrier. The problem is that the real problem isn't this particular barrier. The real problem is that the barriers will never stop until either the Constitutional right is obliterated (which is what the Democrats want, for the most part), or, until the Republicans (for the most part) finally draw a line in the sand to stop the incessant increasingly trite barriers preventing exercising of our Constitutional rights. The Democrats know this is what the Republicans MUST DO! So, they very cleverly boxed the republicans into a corner. The Democrats are on the offense, while the Republicans can only defend. (BTW, in plenty of other issues, it works in the reverse - so - this is just your classic game of chess, with the idiots only being the stupid populace who actually thinks (they really do!) that the issue is this particular action by Obama!) My main point is that it's the populace who is innately stupid, because the people discussing this particularly miniscule barrier to exercising our Constitutional rights actually think it's about the particular action Obama instituted. It's not. It's all done so cleverly, that almost everyone who is an idiot falls into the trap of thinking that the issue has ANYTHING to do with the particular barrier Obama inserted oh-so-cleverly into his executive action. This is classic crocodile-tears politics, very cleverly executed, as if Obama sheds a single tear for the US Constitution, which he's actually effectively circumventing by his action (he doesn't care - because this is pure politics). NOTE: I take no political side here; I'm just explaining, at arms length, what is actually going on for anyone who can see the forest for the trees.

crumpets -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/8/2016 8:21:41 PM)
Stupid CollarChat insanely badly implemented captcha challenge broke my reply again, so here is a cut and paste (the idiots running this web site never ever test their own software to see if it works!). quote: ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou geez....tell us how ya really feel It's hard to understand you, but it should be easy to understand what I'm trying to teach you. 1. This is nothing more than a political ploy to differentiate Democrats from Republicans in an election year. 2. The Democrats, on the offensive, KNOW exactly what they're doing (it's a common political ploy both sides often use), just as the Republicans are forced to react in an extremely predictable manner. 3. Worse, the POPULACE (who is basically as stupid as a rock) will fall for this trick. Not a single politician falls for it - they know EXACTLY what is going on - but they're helpless because they must react (that's why it's a political trick). The people I fault are the idiots who actually THINK this is about the trivial barrier that Obama wants to erect on the way to destroying our Constitutional rights. (BTW, the Republicans do the same on other issues - so - I'm not taking sides.) Doesn't anyone else see what is REALLY going on here? It's one of the oldest tricks in the book.

BamaD -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/9/2016 2:59:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic bloody hell now how would you feel if I told you that the most recent poll from CNN said that 67% support President Obama's executive action on guns. ALl the ball aching and creeching before he actually announced his plan, about him "writing laws" and chicken littling like pussies at a catnip burning since..omg he isnt doing anything... Paul Ryan WOULD love the changes, but he wanted the republicans to do it, not obama... or rather, he will only accept a republican plan. Like the replacement for the ACA< its been seven years, wheres this magical plan. They just partied the night away cos they finally managed to get a repeal thru a vote, only took them how many years and how many attempts, 62, bunch of wankers .... and the pres aint gonna sign it.... Talk about premature bullshit. He included things that Congress had specifically refused to pass, that means he is trying to pass a law that couldn't pass congress, that is unconstitutional. Much of the support is based on lies, such as being able to buy guns via the internet without background checks, the gun has to be shipped to a dealer who then does the background check. You need to take some basic civics courses, aboslutely nothing unconstitutional about it. Insofar as lies go, you go eat your fuckin pizza you got with your gun, because guns have been sold on Facebook groups and Craigslist in my area, and everyone elses. (Thats the internet, PizzaMan Cain BamaD) no dealers involved. http://www.shopsellorswap.com/Classifieds/xcClassified.asp A Where in the Constitution does it allow the President to re-write laws. B I never got pizza with a gun, but they wouldn't deliever unless I had one to protect the drivers.

Page: << < prev 5 6 7 [8] 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125