HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Obama Gun Control Proposa...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:13 PM

Obama Gun Control Proposals Unveiled, Marking Biggest Legislative Effort In A Generation

Source: Huffington Post

The proposal, which comes at the end of a month-long review process spearheaded by Vice President Joe Biden, is broken down into four key subsections: law enforcement, the availability of dangerous firearms and ammunition, school safety and mental health.

In an effort to touch on all four of those elements, the president recommended requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales; reinstating the assault weapons ban; restoring a 10-round limit on ammunition magazines; eliminating armor-piercing bullets; providing mental health services in schools; allocating funds to hire more police officers; and instituting a federal gun trafficking statute, among other policies. The cost of the package, senior officials estimated, would be roughly $500 million, some of which could come from already budgeted funds.

The approach is so sweeping that what would have otherwise been a headline-grabbing announcement received second billing. The president on Wednesday will nominate Byron Todd Jones, the acting director for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, to take over the post permanently.



Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/obama-gun-control-proposals_n_2486919.html



So in other words: "Hey, NRA: Shove your dated ideas where the sun don't shine"

78 replies, 10098 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 78 replies Author Time Post
Reply Obama Gun Control Proposals Unveiled, Marking Biggest Legislative Effort In A Generation (Original post)
Ztolkins Jan 2013 OP
SummerSnow Jan 2013 #1
Ztolkins Jan 2013 #3
Javaman Jan 2013 #18
BeyondGeography Jan 2013 #26
samsingh Jan 2013 #62
samsingh Jan 2013 #61
triplepoint Jan 2013 #2
Ztolkins Jan 2013 #4
Marrah_G Jan 2013 #8
HERVEPA Jan 2013 #15
Marrah_G Jan 2013 #17
HERVEPA Jan 2013 #28
Marrah_G Jan 2013 #30
HERVEPA Jan 2013 #33
Marrah_G Jan 2013 #34
HERVEPA Jan 2013 #35
Marrah_G Jan 2013 #36
HERVEPA Jan 2013 #37
Marrah_G Jan 2013 #39
MIT82 Jan 2013 #73
Jennicut Jan 2013 #46
Marrah_G Jan 2013 #47
samsingh Jan 2013 #64
Marrah_G Jan 2013 #65
samsingh Jan 2013 #70
stultusporcos Jan 2013 #68
TheMadMonk Jan 2013 #74
Zoeisright Jan 2013 #51
Marrah_G Jan 2013 #54
samsingh Jan 2013 #63
hack89 Jan 2013 #13
flamingdem Jan 2013 #22
Plucketeer Jan 2013 #25
Ash_F Jan 2013 #5
nolabear Jan 2013 #6
frylock Jan 2013 #7
Zoonart Jan 2013 #9
Mojorabbit Jan 2013 #10
dixiegrrrrl Jan 2013 #16
Mojorabbit Jan 2013 #38
dixiegrrrrl Jan 2013 #49
Flatulo Jan 2013 #57
dixiegrrrrl Jan 2013 #59
Matilda Jan 2013 #72
tpsbmam Jan 2013 #75
Sunlei Jan 2013 #11
Marrah_G Jan 2013 #12
Botany Jan 2013 #14
grahamhgreen Jan 2013 #19
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #21
grahamhgreen Jan 2013 #50
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #60
grahamhgreen Jan 2013 #66
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #20
thatwhichisnt Jan 2013 #23
IveWornAHundredPants Jan 2013 #27
thatwhichisnt Jan 2013 #32
IveWornAHundredPants Jan 2013 #40
primavera Jan 2013 #69
Mojorabbit Jan 2013 #42
IveWornAHundredPants Jan 2013 #44
primavera Jan 2013 #67
progressoid Jan 2013 #31
maxsolomon Jan 2013 #55
Paladin Jan 2013 #56
cantbeserious Jan 2013 #24
Flatulo Jan 2013 #29
Iwillnevergiveup Jan 2013 #45
Flatulo Jan 2013 #58
Socal31 Jan 2013 #76
Flatulo Jan 2013 #77
Hekate Jan 2013 #41
bvar22 Jan 2013 #43
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #48
oldandhappy Jan 2013 #52
Zen Democrat Jan 2013 #53
Evergreen Emerald Jan 2013 #71
Ter Jan 2013 #78

Response to Ztolkins (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:18 PM

1. Heads are rolling..the gun nuts are reeling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SummerSnow (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:20 PM

3. 2nd term Obama has been quite entertaining thus far.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ztolkins (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:52 PM

18. His 2nd term doesn't begin until Sunday.

This is still part of the first term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #18)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:18 PM

26. That's actually part of the entertainment

The GOP didn't hesitate to start shitting all over him after the election so he has gone full throttle. The most intense post-election politics I've ever seen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #26)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 06:42 PM

62. i think he's trying to save lives

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SummerSnow (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 06:41 PM

61. of course they are - the snivelling morons

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ztolkins (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:20 PM

2. Can This ALL Be Done via Presidential Directive?

 

and not the usual way...going through Congress and then dying in committee?
.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to triplepoint (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:23 PM

4. Not all, but most things

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to triplepoint (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:25 PM

8. This should be done in congress

and not via a presidential directive.

We have 3 branches of government for a reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:41 PM

15. Bull. Anything he can do himself he should.

Not the time to worry about being nice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HERVEPA (Reply #15)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:49 PM

17. I disagree

We have three branches for a reason.

And it seems the President agrees with me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #17)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:24 PM

28. Actually seems he's doing what he can by executive order.

In case you may have missed it, one branch of government is controlled by idiots on the payroll of the NRA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HERVEPA (Reply #28)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:26 PM

30. Yes and we have to fix that branch, not get rid of it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #30)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:31 PM

33. You play the hand your dealt.

Good luck to you in your idealistic world that doesn't exist.
Exactly how do you plan to fix it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HERVEPA (Reply #33)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:36 PM

34. So would you approve of the next republican president being able to change laws all by himself?

The president's exec orders today did not cross a line that you seemed to want them to. He can't ban guns, he can't impliment a ban on assault weapons. Congress must do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #34)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:45 PM

35. He did as much as he could, as I stated. The last Republican president did go further than that.

And nobody stopped him.
We're not in a utopia you know. And we're dealing with thugs, both in congress and the supremes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HERVEPA (Reply #35)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:47 PM

36. I agree with what Obama did

And I definitely think Bush was allowed to go way to far with his.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #36)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:49 PM

37. Excellent. We agree on something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HERVEPA (Reply #37)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:51 PM

39. I think we probably agree on alot of things!

This is just one of those really passionate issues and sometimes people talk past each other

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HERVEPA (Reply #35)


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #34)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:18 PM

46. Obama has actually signed the least amount of EO's in 100 years.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/obama-executive-orders-guns.html




On this issue, he can use EO's justifiably to change some things. He is not overstepping here on the law at all. All that is being changed exists in the executive branch to begin with. He will never get any of it approved of by Congress, anyway. Trying to "fix the House" will not work. It is gerrymandered for a good long while. I doubt we get control of it in 2014. We would need to win by 7% or more over Repubs to even have a shot at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jennicut (Reply #46)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:21 PM

47. I agree, he did not over step

I read through them and every single one seems reasonable and within presidential powers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #34)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 06:46 PM

64. apparently you didn't notice that the last republican president

rammed through legislation through executive order all the time. he started two wars.

and by most accounts definitely stole the 2000 election and probably the 2004 election. In 2004 i remember hearing the Lead Repug in Ohio promising to deliver the state to repugs. problem was that the same person also ran the machines that counted the votes with no audit trails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #64)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 06:49 PM

65. I did notice and it infuriated me

I didn't change my views on them just because a democrat was elected.

I think what Obama did today was fine. I think what some people wanted him to do, is not.

We have 3 branches for a reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #65)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 07:15 PM

70. ok, i respect your opinion

nothing wrong in working to make the checks and balances function properly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #34)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 07:04 PM

68. The Next Pub POTUS will do whatever the F they want to do like usual

 

regardless if Pres Obama does something or not.

They only way the Pubs can fight back is namecall and deny funding to the programs and the BATF and they are doing that already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #34)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 07:37 PM

74. Oh. You mean just like the last one did? /nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:08 PM

51. Dream on.

Like repukes would ever, EVER do anything even remotely approaching what the President has done. When assholes block every reasonable approach, going around them is the ONLY solution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #51)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:12 PM

54. I disagree

There are 3 branches for a reason.

The exec orders Obama did today do not cross the line into things that congress is responsible for. Working on another AWB and some other issues is the domain of the congress. When it comes to that he can propose, but congress must pass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 06:43 PM

63. executive orders are there for a reason - one of the branches won more seats with less votes

due to jerrymandering.

the supreme court has more right wing members because of the 2000 stolen election.

these are not the people we look to for good laws and reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to triplepoint (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:36 PM

13. EOs cannot change or supersede existing law

so an AWB, for example, would require Congressional action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to triplepoint (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:07 PM

22. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to triplepoint (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:15 PM

25. HOW MANY NRA SPOKESMEN DO YOU NEED TO CHANGE A LIGHTBULB???

A: None. We LOVE the dark, so's we have an excuse to break out our night vision goggles!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ztolkins (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:23 PM

5. Everything sounds good.

But at only 500 million, I wonder if the program will not be too small. Isn't that the cost of one fighter jet?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ztolkins (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:24 PM

6. Sounds like a measured and intelligent approach to me. Others will differ.

But "measured and intelligent" aren't their strong suits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ztolkins (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:25 PM

7. every single one of those proposals are completely reasonable..

i'd also like to see maximum penalties for straw buyers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ztolkins (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:26 PM

9. President Obama needs you !

Just a plug for my Pres. He has not even been inaugurated yet and all this is on his plate. He is handling it all, I think, spectacularly well. Let the White House know what you think!

Also... say a prayer or a positive affirmation or send a vibe. I am very concerned by the personal tone of the rhetoric from the Extreme Right. That NRA advert using Sasha and Malia? Way out of bounds!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ztolkins (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:27 PM

10. So congress has to pass the assault weapon and large magazine ban?

Is this correct? I really like the increased funding for mental health care in schools. I think that more than anything will make a difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:45 PM

16. I am not sure what the purpose is of mental health services in schools

in relation to guns.
There are no mental services you can provide to a minor without parental consent.
and crisis counseling is a speciality field ( or damn well should be).


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #16)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:50 PM

38. I am hoping it will be available in the schools

by professionals and well funded and of course with consent. Since a good portion of people shooting up schools are young white males perhaps this might be a resource that would be helpful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #38)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:31 PM

49. Except...

I am playing devil's advocate here, not disagreeing with your comment.

Having worked so many years in the Mental Health field, I have seen several realities which collide with this well intentioned idea of MH staff in schools.

First, in the case of Sandy Hook, the young man's mother was an obvious disturbing influence, and the shooter had been seen by Mental Health people in the past. I do not know of any law which would have allowed discovery and intervention of that disturbed relationship in time to prevent what happened.

Second, that " such a quiet young man " who lives next door may have shown clues to his neighbors, to his school, but there is no law which allows him to be treated against his will on a suspicion of what he MIGHT do.
Exception:
Cal. has a mandatory reporting law, based on what professional think "might happen" in the future ( future is not defined) concerning individuals, but does not provide for any action after the professional makes a report to Dept of Social Services. That's it..only mandatory reporting is required. Having made several of those reports, I have discovered there was no follow up in any of the cases.

I know of at least 6 people within a mile radius of where I live who are "acting weirdly" to my experienced eye, and also know there is no effective intervention possible, until and unless they break a law.
"Poses an immediate danger to self and/or others" is the current standard of legally supported intervention.

It is a sticky wicket, unfortunately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #49)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:37 PM

57. This is a very tough issue, and we can't go off half-cocked. In the past, psychiatrists

could order people institutionalized for what would today be considered merely quirky or antisocial behavior. My kid was always shy and introverted, but he has always been calm and abhors violence. I wouldn't want some shrink locking him away for being the quiet guy in school.

However I do think we have to lower the bar a bit in terms of what they can do as far as removing guns from the home.

In Massachusetts we remove guns routinely whenever a restraining order is drawn up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #57)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:19 PM

59. Pres. Obama's directive # 17 iaddress a law in ..most?..some states.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

Mental Health and Social Workers are required to report all serious threats of harm to self or others, at least in Fla and Ala and Ca. where I have worked.
further more, there is a "duty to warn" law, where you have to contact the threatened person to report the threat against them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #49)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 08:02 PM

72. I'm very interested in your comments.

I feel a great deal of sadness for the young man, because I feel he was also let down by the system, and probably by his mother.

I have read - and this doesn't make it true - that he was a high-performing autistic boy, in the top class throughout his school years, but once an official diagnosis of autism was made, he was demoted from the top class, simply because of his autism, not because he wasn't capable of the work. An arbitrary decision, made without any personal considerations of where and how the boy might function to the best of his ability.

It appears his mother didn't quite know what to do - she tried home schooling, but that didn't work. (It takes particular skills to undertake that, and not everyone is able to. With the best will in the world, I doubt I could.) She was then considering sending him away to another school, which upset him because he thought she was trying to get rid of him. And with all this going on around her, the silly woman had a house full of guns.

And what about the father? Was he not interested in his son, or was he shut out? He apparently paid maintenance, but was he otherwise disengaged, willingly or otherwise?

I feel for all the children who died and their parents, and for all those who will bear the scars for the rest of their lives. But I also feel great sadness for this poor boy and can't help feeling that with a bit more care and thought from those who were supposed to be responsible for his welfare, this might never have happened. It is also an excellent argument for the greater control of guns in private hands – nobody with any sort of psychological problem should ever have access.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Matilda (Reply #72)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:22 PM

75. "Nobody with any sort of psychological problem should ever have access" ???

That would describe pretty much 99% of the population! Now, if you narrow it down to diagnosable psychological problems, that would be more than half the population, frankly, when you add in adjustment disorders, phobias, personality disorders, etc etc. "Psychological problems" means anything -- there are very few people who don't have "psychological problems" of one sort or another, even if they're just the everyday "stuff" that most of us blow past and work through as needed.

The problem is, who decides what "psychological problems" preclude gun ownership? Depression? What level of depression?About 1 of every American 10 teens/adults takes antidepressants. (CDC stats) 23% of women in their 40s and 50s take antidepressants. Should prescribing an antidepressant come with notifying authorities and having to turn in your guns if you own them? Boy, how to make people avoid getting their depression treated -- if it were me, I don't own a gun but I also don't want my name going into some sort of national "mentally ill" database!!! If I were depressed and knew that that's what would happen if I sought treatment, I'd avoid treatment like the plague!

Everyone deserves privacy when it comes to their medical records.....except those with diagnosable "mental illnesses," who then lose their rights and become a separate class of "citizens." Their medical information then become the property of the United States government? Ummmmmm, I have a problem with that.

I, too, am a (retired) professional in the psychology field and I can tell you, this is an incredibly thorny area. Someone who is a danger to self or others must be reported to the appropriate authorities and, if there is specific threat, the person(s) or entity threatened must be notified. That is up to trained professionals to determine. But to somehow classify everyone with a "psychological problem" as unfit for gun ownership is untenable, hugely discriminatory and would set understanding of psychological processes back a century!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ztolkins (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:30 PM

11. Pres. O was just on live signing ex. orders & hands pens to group of children with him. Love you O!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ztolkins (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:32 PM

12. Not one of those things sounds unreasonable

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ztolkins (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:37 PM

14. We had two college shootings yesterday as if Sandy Hook wasn't bad enough

Enough is enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ztolkins (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:56 PM

19. "allocating funds to hire more police officers" - does that mean cops in schools?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #19)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:07 PM

21. Yeah, he spoke about SRO's.

Police officers that work with local schools. Maintain a presence, develop a relationship to the community through the school, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:56 PM

50. That's BS. How bout providing more counselors for troubled youth instead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #50)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:24 PM

60. No reason that can't happen too.

But don't call SRO's 'BS'.

Ours (from the Seattle PD) were very effective in that capacity. It's also an opportunity for a teacher to talk to an officer about a kid that might be dangerous. That happened at our school too. Many hands make light work.

Counselors have their place too, but their reach is limited.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #60)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 06:59 PM

66. I call it a police state. Just my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ztolkins (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:05 PM

20. Only one item I'm wondering about...

The 'eliminating armor-piercing bullets' piece.

Armor-piercing pistol ammo is already prohibited to the public. Only the Military and Law Enforcement can obtain it. (Part of the 1994 CAWB that is still in effect/didn't sunset)

So... that leaves armor piercing rifle ammo. That's pretty much inclusive of ALL center-fire rifle ammo. If it'll go through a deer, it'll go through a LEO III or IIIa vest without a plate in it, like butter. So I'm curious why that was mentioned, or what the specifics of that would be.

Not like we have criminals running around shooting at people with steel-core ammo that makes... a difference. Comes out of a rifle, it's going right through a human, regardless.

In fact, in wound characteristics, armor-piercing ammo doesn't expand, so it imparts less kinetic energy in meat. Whereas a hunting round (like a soft-nose .30-06) will still penetrate that vest, but it'll mushroom, and dump all it's energy into the meat, causing a much worse wound channel.


Where this might be very important, is in the trafficking piece. By all means, make it all kinds of illegal to export it. Mexico will thank you. (But do that for ALL ammo, come to think of it.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ztolkins (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:10 PM

23. As someone who is a gun owner..

I don't mind any of these. They don't change anything substantially. I have those evil AW and high-cap mags (if one more person says clip I will flip).

I can support better mental health screenings and universal firearm background checks. Although I would add the provision that if you already have a concealed carry permit (which you go through a strict background check, and have to renew every couple years) you shouldn't be forced to fill out another form.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thatwhichisnt (Reply #23)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:18 PM

27. I won't say clip, since I don't want somebody with a lot of guns to flip,

but what exactly is the purpose of those big mags aside from not having to reload as often? The only answer I've seen so far is "What if fifteen crackheads invade my house at the same time?," which isn't exactly convincing. Other than straight-up laziness, it's hard to see why you'd really miss something like that if they were outlawed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IveWornAHundredPants (Reply #27)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:30 PM

32. It really doesn't matter

outside of availability. 30 round mags for such sporting rifles are the standard. If a guy wants to commit a mass murder the second it takes to reload really won't change much. It is a feel good proposal more than anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thatwhichisnt (Reply #32)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:51 PM

40. Then I guess what I'm curious about is

why do some gun enthusiasts object so strongly to banning them? It's not the possibility of needless administrative effort being spent on a "feel good proposal," I'm pretty sure of that. You'd think they'd applaud such proposals in any case, since it takes the heat of more meaningful actions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IveWornAHundredPants (Reply #40)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 07:04 PM

69. Welcome to the club

I, too, marvel at the stuff that the gun community is willing to declare civil war over. I can only speculate that they've been radicalized by the NRA over the years to believe that any concession, no matter how minor, is unacceptable; the Grover Norquists of the gun world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IveWornAHundredPants (Reply #27)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:55 PM

42. I look at it another way

I am a good shot at the range but if I am home alone while my hubby is out of town and someone broke in, I probably would have a major adrenalin surge and I would want lots of chances to hit a target as I am sure my accuracy would not be good. I live in a neighborhood with car jackings, home invasions, and an increasing amt of crime which is a shame because when we bought this place which I love it was a nice middle class area. People lost their homes and investors bought them up to rent out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #42)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:10 PM

44. But realistically,

don't you think with ten shots at close quarters, even wild ones, you would a) do a lot of damage to the invaders, and b) scare the fuckers off?

Also, I thought part of the point of training and practice was to maintain control and accuracy even in the midst of an adrenaline surge. If it doesn't work that way, what's the use?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IveWornAHundredPants (Reply #44)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 06:59 PM

67. That thought has struck me as well

I would imagine that, after the first shot was fired, neighbors would be waking up and calling police, dogs would be barking, lights would be going on all over the place, and intruders would be wanting to get the hell out of dodge as quickly as possible. Would anyone really stick around for a protracted firefight in someone's home?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thatwhichisnt (Reply #23)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:27 PM

31. clip.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thatwhichisnt (Reply #23)


Response to thatwhichisnt (Reply #23)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:23 PM

56. Ease Off On The Clip vs. Magazine Terminology Thing.


As you probably realize, the two terms have been used interchangeably in the shooting community for decades. The NRA doesn't drum you out of the regiment if you say "clip" when what you're talking about is a "magazine." I'm a long-time gun owner, and I know the difference between the two items, just as I know damn well it's no big deal to casually use one term for another. The only reason the matter gets brought up now is when a Gun Enthusiast is making a clumsy attempt to make a gun control advocate look ignorant. It's not working anymore, so let it go.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ztolkins (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:10 PM

24. The Long March To Victory Has Begun - Never Forget Newtown

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ztolkins (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:24 PM

29. This is all sensible stuff, but none of it will prevent another Adam Lanza-style massacre.

There are still millions of ARs and AKs out there, and who knows how many crazies. I think funds should have been included for a buy back of assault-style rifles.

I have a feeling we'll be revisiting this issue sooner rather than later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #29)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:15 PM

45. I agree

Buybacks would be an awesome thing - every AR and AK off the streets is a good thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iwillnevergiveup (Reply #45)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:57 PM

58. I don't think we'll ever be rid of all of them, but a buy back makes sense since it won't violate

anyone's privacy or put cops at risk going into people's homes to take them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #58)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:13 PM

76. You are discussing two-different things.

Last edited Sat Jan 19, 2013, 12:23 AM - Edit history (1)

Buy-backs are generally voluntary, so I am not sure how that would be tied into cops going into people's homes to forcibly remove fire arms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Socal31 (Reply #76)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 12:05 AM

77. Sorry if I wasn't clear. A buy back would not require police to go into people's homes.

That makes it safer for everyone.

If guns were to be forcibly confiscated it would put police at risk. I don't think many gun owners would not comply, but there's always a few suicidal nuts out there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ztolkins (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:52 PM

41. KnR

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ztolkins (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:07 PM

43. As a responsible gun owner...

...I support each and every provision.
Kudos to the President!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ztolkins (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:27 PM

48. List of Executive 'Actions/Proposals' and President Obama's announcement VIDEO

Last edited Wed Jan 16, 2013, 09:55 PM - Edit history (1)


President Obama’s Gun Control Announcement (19:33 minutes)
VIDEO: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-president-obamas-gun-control-announcement/


Here Are The 23 Executive Actions Pres. Obama Just Signed To Curb Gun Violence
List: http://www.mediaite.com/online/here-are-the-23-executive-actions-pres-obama-just-signed-to-curb-gun-violence/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ztolkins (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:10 PM

52. Congratulations

to the president. Wheeee!! Gonna be a ride but worth it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ztolkins (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:10 PM

53. These are his proposals, not executive orders. There are 23 exec orders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ztolkins (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 07:33 PM

71. Excellent! Time to pressure our representatives

This is exciting news. We should be pressuring our reps. For legislation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ztolkins (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 08:31 AM

78. Good thing he waited until after the election

 

Because during it, we all said the NRA was nuts (me included) when they said the President would call for strict gun control if he wins reelection. Guess they were right after all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread