Gun control

I've been pleased with Obama in terms of his progress with these gun restrictions. It's good to see him approaching it reasonably. It was mentioned a week or two ago that he and Biden would work together to try and limit as much as they could without going too far so to avoid the 2nd amendment and a political (fiscal) war. He's a smart guy even if he is a Kenyan, Muslim extremist trying to ruin the country.

I'm super surprised he didn't do anything with regards to imported weapons/ammo which I think everyone in the pro-gun community figured he would. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but with an EO he has the power to pretty much stop imported shit.

Everything on that executive order list seems reasonable and helpful imo.

The only thing I'm a little on the fence about is whether doctors should be asking if a patient owns a gun. I'm not sure how a mentally ill person would react to a doctor diagnosing them as mentally ill but not ill enough to commit them. Would they go paranoid that Obama is coming for his guns!!

I'm wondering if a safer route might be to just have certain diagnosis's get linked to a federal data base and flagged from there. That way the doctor doesn't have to play gun enforcer. The doctors do their regular diagnosing / treatment and the FBI or whatever can monitor any red flags that get forwarded from a medical database in regards to a specific diagnosis.

Flunklesnarkin_sl said:

Everything on that executive order list seems reasonable and helpful imo.

The only thing I'm a little on the fence about is whether doctors should be asking if a patient owns a gun. I'm not sure how a mentally ill person would react to a doctor diagnosing them as mentally ill but not ill enough to commit them. Would they go paranoid that Obama is coming for his guns!!

I'm wondering if a safer route might be to just have certain diagnosis's get linked to a federal data base and flagged from there. That way the doctor doesn't have to play gun enforcer. The doctors do their regular diagnosing / treatment and the FBI or whatever can monitor any red flags that get forwarded from a medical database in regards to a specific diagnosis.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. They can put a flag on someone w/o denying them a gun outright.

If I recall, the way it works is the FBI has 3-4 days to make a decision before a gunshop will hand over anything. It's not a denial, just a hold.

The catch to that however is that at the end of the 3-4 days, the shop has to surrender the gun over to the buyer if the FBI does not get back to them.

I was thinking more about a person who already owns guns that gets diagnosed as mentally ill.

How does the law handle that? I'd hope they would remove guns from them. I just don't want a doctor setting them off by asking if they have guns.

Flunklesnarkin_sl said:

Everything on that executive order list seems reasonable and helpful imo.

The only thing I'm a little on the fence about is whether doctors should be asking if a patient owns a gun. I'm not sure how a mentally ill person would react to a doctor diagnosing them as mentally ill but not ill enough to commit them. Would they go paranoid that Obama is coming for his guns!!

I'm wondering if a safer route might be to just have certain diagnosis's get linked to a federal data base and flagged from there. That way the doctor doesn't have to play gun enforcer. The doctors do their regular diagnosing / treatment and the FBI or whatever can monitor any red flags that get forwarded from a medical database in regards to a specific diagnosis.

Click to expand...

My friend's wife works at a underprivileged clinic and they were already asking these questions before Newton...

This is in Texas btw.

List of executive orders/actions:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...violence-plan/

Some of his orders/actions are actually pretty decent but others make me question the real reason behind them...

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.

Click to expand...

From the same guy who brought us Operation Fast and Furious....

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

Click to expand...

Could this be because that the Newton shooter actually broke in to the mom's safe to get at the guns?

11. Nominate an ATF director.

Click to expand...

He is going to do his job???

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

Click to expand...

Hmmm:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...64b_story.html

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

Click to expand...

I wonder what these "resource officers" will actually be there to do?

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

Click to expand...

And finally I leave you with:

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

Click to expand...

-Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler, Publ. Houghton Miflin, 1943, Page 403

Any person that compares Obama to Hitler should not be allowed to own a gun.

Well kids are, because without them you go extinct.

Anyways, the NRA ad is supreme derp. "the president protects his kids with guns, but not yours!!!!". Gee whiz, the most powerful man in the world has guards for children that, if kidnapped or held hostage, would essentially create a national security issue because he would be emotionally compromised by the situation???? THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!!

Short Ad.

Longer ad here:

http://nrastandandfight.com/

In regards to the first video: "Is the president's kids more important than your kids ?!" Well, for me, no. But for the country, yes, because if my kids were kidnapped, it wouldn't compromise the nation's security.

Second ad is really slick and while it's over the top, it does have a point. Lots of schools already have armed guards or police in them. Both my high school and middle school had a cop assigned to it, and we treated them like any other teacher. He'd have his own office and basically the only time he got involved is to pass out parking tickets and break up fist fights. Other than that, he stayed out of the way.

Soysauceonrice_sl said:

In regards to the first video: "Is the president's kids more important than your kids ?!" Well, for me, no. But for the country, yes, because if my kids were kidnapped, it wouldn't compromise the nation's security.

Click to expand...

Could you explain why if the President's kids were kidnapped, it would compromise our national security? Other than the symbolism of stealing the President's kids, I fail to see how it would compromise our national security. (This is not intended as a troll, I genuinely want to understand where you are coming from on this statement.)

Tuco_sl said:

That's what Hitler said.

Click to expand...

Hitler was a Kenyan?

Kinner_sl said:

Could you explain why if the President's kids were kidnapped, it would compromise our national security?

Click to expand...

It gives the kidnappers unprecedented leverage over the president.

The NRA is right, what schools need are omnipotent armed guards with Jason Bourne training so that someone can't simply empty their 30 round clip into a classroom of kids before the guard can realistically reach the room and subdue the shooter. We also need John McClain clones to patrol malls and kids soccer games.

NRA's plan or the government's, it doesn't matter: both are ineffective wastes of money and nothing more than a PR campaign.

Remove ALL the guns or just leave it alone, because half measures won't do shit.

Remember, the tards are already clutching their guns and crying for their lost freedom just because Obama signed some orders to help facilitate the background checks that are already law anyway. Do you really think anything effective can possibly happen in a country with that attitude? There are probably a large number of people red-faced with outrage that Obama made any EO that even remotely has anything anti-gun in it, even if the actual EO is practically a checklist of shit that the NRA actually supports.

The NRA that once fought against background checks tooth and nail now admits we need better background checks even though there is no such thing as a simple, cheap test for Potentially Violent Crazy Person. Obama signs some EO to help with background checks, and people lose their fucking minds. wtf?

Kinner_sl said:

Could you explain why if the President's kids were kidnapped, it would compromise our national security? Other than the symbolism of stealing the President's kids, I fail to see how it would compromise our national security. (This is not intended as a troll, I genuinely want to understand where you are coming from on this statement.)

Click to expand...

If you need this demonstrated in entertainment form, tryhttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118571/

Ya, unless the president in question is a robot or a fanatical zealot, it would pretty much be impossible to maintain an uncompromised view of the situation. They arent going to say "We dont deal with terrorists!" if the person is threatening to start cutting off body parts/torture/killing. Presidents still have immense power on their own. You do not allow a person with that type of power to have immediate family unprotected.

Remember, while the NRA itself is not stupid, they prey on the hearts and minds of incredibly stupid people and that's what the ad is targeted at.

At any rate the only law that has a prayer of passing is Universal Background Checks and I don't think BUT GUN SHOW PROFITS is enough of an outcry to stop it.

Assault Rifle and large clip ban has no chance.

How do you enforce universal background checks if there is no firearm registration?