Obama Exercises Executive Actions

[Grizzly Willy]

But the Obama resource officer is a disabled lesbian who sleeps on the job...

What does this have to do with anything?

This sounds good, but the issue is there's no way to tell who's a responsible gun owner and who isn't, beyond "well, I haven't murdered a bunch of people, yet". Nobody's talking about banning all guns. Just maybe the ones that are the most murder-friendly.

You mean pistols?

[WarFalcon1]

So if the kid at Newtown only had 10 round clips, somehow in your mind, less people would have died? You do know that pants have pockets right? You can put magazines in your pockets. It takes less than 10 seconds . . I'm sorry, 3 seconds to reload a firearm with a clip/magazine. So do you think Obama should outlaw pockets on Jeans and Slacks and Shorts too?? Or just Jeans? Or just shorts. . . . Or capris? or all of the above?

3 Seconds of having to pay attention to reloading the weapon can make all the difference. Im not saying that I agree with limiting clip sizes, but 3 seconds can make a difference.

[ptwonline]

Pretty simple. My article had a direct comparison between australia and USA...USA experienced more growth than australia during that time and had better %s...so of the stats can be interpreted as only a slight change, but change is change. There was an increase in other violent crimes. And year by year the numbers have changed some years going up some going down. The chart shows it go up and down. The fact remains though that even with destroying that many guns and investing 500 million bucks crime rates have gone up. Whether it be 10 deaths or 20 its still going up.

ARGH. The misunderstanding of statistics going on here is very frustrating.

If you have 1 stabbing death a year and then the next year you have 2 stabbing deaths, you can't just say "AHHH! Stabbings are up 100%! It's an epidemic!" The change is not statistically significant. That is the point that the Snopes article is trying to point out: you have to take the numbers in context.

[vaeevictiss]

And their purpose is only one thing: to end the life of something

They are a technology whose only purpose is to bring about death and whose origin is specifically the killing of other human beings.

http://www.3gunnation.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_pigeon_shooting

http://www.palma.org/palma-basics

http://www.ruger.com/micros/rugerRimfire/index.html

i can keep going....you were saying?

[Noomz]

Has he ever done anything else?

Worst leader the free world has ever seen.

You must've been on some other planet when George W Bush junior was president.

[Endus]

Do you own or use any handguns? THere are several models designed specifically for sports shooting. Most of the lowest caliber lines won't even do enough damage to kill someone. I myself love my glock .22 and that would only be capable of killing someone at very close range. I also would never use it like that. Also you have to take into account the type of ammo people are using with those guns. Gun owners arent all bloodthirsty killers like people in this thread are making us out to be.

Nobody's claiming you're a bloodthirsty killer.

We're pointing out that handguns are weapons. Weapons are designed to kill. Handguns in particular work at short enough ranges that they're not really any good for hunting, so their main use is against other people. There are legitimate reasons for this, like self defense and policework.

Nobody's saying you're a psycho for wanting one. I've got a sword. It's also designed to kill people. That doesn't mean I wander around killing people with my sword. But I don't pretend it's something it's not; that's a disservice to the weapon and a dangerous attitude in general.

If you were really into it just for the "sport", you'd have no issue using an airsoft pistol or a paintball gun instead.

[Noomz]

http://www.3gunnation.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_pigeon_shooting

http://www.palma.org/palma-basics

http://www.ruger.com/micros/rugerRimfire/index.html

i can keep going....you were saying?

Not sure how that counters his argument, at all.

[Jaingo]

...Because we all saw this coming from him right?

Yes actually, it has been talked about for 4 years already. Now it is here. 22 of the 23 listed are absolute propoganda just like the children he used as emotional fodder. However, 3. "Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system." is just one more step towards a national database of citizens.

Government health, socialized wealth, and the potential for citizens to be unarmed.

I'm not a gun nut by any means. And to be honest, I am no more moved by children being killed than any other innocent human being regardless of age or gender. The steps this president is taking are very alarming when compared to our basic liberties and rights afforded by our constitution. 2nd ammendment was never meant for hunting/sport, it was meant to protect the US citizens from potential tyrannical rule.

[Belize]

Could somebody from the USA clarify what that one means?

Some schools have private security or uses police department officers. I know my High School had two policemen on campus.

[Endus]

You mean pistols?

I would, but that probably won't fly in the US. They're clearly leading to more deaths than semi-automatic scary-looking "assault weapons", though.

[Requiem4aDr3am]

This sounds good, but the issue is there's no way to tell who's a responsible gun owner and who isn't, beyond "well, I haven't murdered a bunch of people, yet". Nobody's talking about banning all guns. Just maybe the ones that are the most murder-friendly.

Its a slippery slope. I'm for mental health checks...I dont like them prying into my other medical records though. I also don't like the fact that taxpayers are going to have to pay for the extra officers, training, and research.
As for the potential banning of guns that isn't going to benefit anyone but the criminals. Ban the "murder-friendly" guns isn't going to change much. People will just carry more weapons to make up for say the extra long clip that fires more bullets. Criminals will always find a way to harm others so why disarm the people that actually obey the laws?

[Raidenx]

Another uneducated person who thinks Socialism is a bad word and has any affect on liberties. Do we have to bring up the article which ranks the countries in the world by the amount of freedom they have, where I believe a few of the socialist Scandinavian countries were leading the pack?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2440620.html


Socialism is not free if you don't believe in economic freedom

[Skroe]

Once again you demonstrate your ignorance of guns and use. Sure guns originated for battlefield use, but look at the guns we have today. The ones regular citizens own are not used for war. They are used for sports and recreation. Sure people hunt with guns, but they also use guns to relax. I myself have never shot an animal or person with any of the guns I own. Responsible gun owners know how to use their guns and avoid the type of bloodthirsty rampaging you are describing. Guns don't kill people...bad people with guns do.

Use is irrelevant. Their design, their purpose is for one thing and one thing alone.

Let me ask you, a maybe extreme but salient question that will make my point. Would you be okay with oil companies detonating nuclear explosives underground, routinely , in order to enable the search for oil and shale gas? Because strictly speaking, there is no difference between a nuclear explosion and a chemical explosion besides the scale and the composition of the explosive (that causes radiation and all that). If a miner or an oil company uses TNT, shouldn't it be okay they legally and safely use Plutonium based explosives as well?

Under your line of reasoning it would be perfectly rationale because even though Nuclear Weapons are the ultimate source of any nuclear explosion, because they were being used for a peaceful purpose and not for war, they would be okay.

So I ask you, would you be okay if say, BP started looking for oil deep underground in your county by blow up cavities using a nuclear bomb a mile underground? Would you be fine having your children drink that water? Would you be fine living above those sites?

Because unless you're making a special exception for nuclear bombs because they are nuclear bombs and it's self-evident how dangerous they are no matter their use, then you absolutely have to be okay with it.

That should demonstrate the insanity of your point. There is no such thing is a completely responsible gun owner just the same as there is no such thing as a a completely responsible Gas and Oil company armed with nuclear explosives for peaceful purposes. You think you're responsible by locking up your guns? A pissed off teenager, or hell and adventurous one could look up on the internet how to pick it with a fork and a wire in a couple of minutes. Or hell if he's lazy, he can use buy a lockpicking kit on Ebay.

You're basically saying that because Gun Owners are responsible, gun ownership should be permissible because their purpose is not that of war. Are you ready for their to be Private Business Oriented Nuclear Explosion? Or what about more realistically, Private drones?

[Klutzington]

Take a look at history and see for yourself hat happens when Guns are banned? Things always get worse, every single time. You cannot argue against that unless you choose to remain ignorant. In extreme cases like Hitler, Stalin, etc. Things got really bad. All these gun proposals and laws like this only serve to push it in that direction, this is what is pissing people off and scaring many. People who know history know to be concerned.

Excuse me. But do you really think guns will be banned? It's called regulation, not banning. We will have the second amendment, a.k.a. have a pistol at your house if you want, just don't have 25 automatic rifles.

[Twotonsteak]

You have to start somewhere. And when the opposing side would rather clean their guns with the tears of the dead children than give up 30 round magazines, it's a little tough to get the support needed. He can't do anything on his own.

Sorry but I prefer facts over playing on emotions.

I know that more people die each year from hammers over assault weapons.
I know that more people die each year from knives over assault rifles.
I know that our Government, as authorized by Obama, has killed more children with drone strikes than every mass shooter in the last ten years.
I know that Chicago has some of the strictest gun-control laws in the country and some of the highest rates of gun violence.
I know that I can turn on the news, on any given night, and see felons arrested on gun charges when the law says they shouldn't even be able to buy a gun.

Obama spent thirty minutes pimping out children and pointing the finger of blame on the Republicans. (Much like you are now.) However he never addressed the disparity between the way he paints assault rifles and the reality of gun-violence.

[Reg]

So if the kid at Newtown only had 10 round clips, somehow in your mind, less people would have died? You do know that pants have pockets right? You can put magazines in your pockets. It takes less than 10 seconds . . I'm sorry, 3 seconds to reload a firearm with a clip/magazine. So do you think Obama should outlaw pockets on Jeans and Slacks and Shorts too?? Or just Jeans? Or just shorts. . . . Or capris? or all of the above?

10 extra seconds that one teacher would have had to hide after hiding her students. One saved life is worth it. If something MIGHT work, just MIGHT save a life, is it not worth trying? What the fuck is wrong with gun advocates? If all you want your guns for is personal protection and "sport shooting", then you have ZERO reason for a magazine that size. Stop being a pussy and hiding behind the constitution when we all know the only reason you want guns is because you can.

[Requiem4aDr3am]

Nobody's claiming you're a bloodthirsty killer.

We're pointing out that handguns are weapons. Weapons are designed to kill. Handguns in particular work at short enough ranges that they're not really any good for hunting, so their main use is against other people. There are legitimate reasons for this, like self defense and policework.

Nobody's saying you're a psycho for wanting one. I've got a sword. It's also designed to kill people. That doesn't mean I wander around killing people with my sword. But I don't pretend it's something it's not; that's a disservice to the weapon and a dangerous attitude in general.

If you were really into it just for the "sport", you'd have no issue using an airsoft pistol or a paintball gun instead.

My issue is that firearms are not all designed specifically to kill. THey have that capacity if used wrong, but a majority of gun owners today don't own guns so they can kill others if need be. Its the sport and relaxation. I don't practice shooting so I can kill someone or something I do it to blow off steam at the end of the day or compete with my friends just like a game. And yes I do own airsoft pistols and rifles as well. Paintball guns I dislike howver because you don't get a true aim and have to compensate for ball drop.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Has he ever done anything else?

Worst leader the free world has ever seen.

Bush administration started an illegal war by executive order, turned a successful economy into one of the worst nose dives we've seen in decades, made a laughing stock of America and its people, took away more freedoms and liberties than any president in history (Patriot Act anyone?) and systematically destroyed most of the good will our government had with other countries.

But sure, Obama cleaning up that mess has made him the worst president ever.

[Endus]

Its a slippery slope.

There's no such thing as a "slippery slope", that's just a fearmongering buzzword that effectively boils down to "I don't actually have any valid argument against what you're saying, but if I make up a bunch of garbage about how I think things might go in the future, I can pretend you were talking about those wild baseless fantasies rather than your actual argument that I can't find any legitimate issue with".

In practice, any argument that includes the words "slippery slope" as support/justification can be totally and completely discarded. They have as much validity as saying "yes, but if we were all pandas . . ."

---------- Post added 2013-01-16 at 03:26 PM ----------

My issue is that firearms are not all designed specifically to kill.

As long as we're talking about firearms that shoot bullets rather than paintballs, yes, that is what guns are designed to do. Just like swords are designed to cut and stab people.

Not respecting the firearm for what it is, is irresponsible and and a disservice to the weapon.

[ptwonline]

Its a slippery slope. I'm for mental health checks...I dont like them prying into my other medical records though. I also don't like the fact that taxpayers are going to have to pay for the extra officers, training, and research.
As for the potential banning of guns that isn't going to benefit anyone but the criminals. Ban the "murder-friendly" guns isn't going to change much. People will just carry more weapons to make up for say the extra long clip that fires more bullets. Criminals will always find a way to harm others so why disarm the people that actually obey the laws?

There are all sorts of rules and regulations that "punish" the law-abiding. The reason is because the chance of potential harm is so high or the actual harm done by wrong-doers is so great that we want to try to stop at least some of it.

For example, look at the requirements to have companies audited. This is time intensive and expensive. Why are we punishing all of the law-abiding companies by forcing them to get audits? Companies that cheat can always find ways around it, right? Enron was audited too.

What an audit does is take out some of the systemic risks from both the willful abusers and those making mistakes out of ignorance. It also means that for someone to break the law it requires a lot more effort on their part to hide it, and the additional risk of getting caught may deter them.