questionsreactions to the white house gun agenda?

vote-for13vote-against
vote-for24vote-against

This is very political so no matter what I say, i'll get downvoted -- but who cares.

Making so-called Assault rifles illegal does not fix the problem. We have between 270 and 300 million guns in America and out of all the gun murders, only 0.1% of them were done by rifles of any kind. The weapon of choice in gun murders is the simple hand gun because it's small enough to hide and cheap to purchase. It's not very easy to sneak a rifle into a theater without someone seeing you.

So, unless the president is planning on getting the american people to repeal the 2nd amendment and remove our rights to own any gun, making assault rifles illegal will do little to minimize the gun homicides in America (statistically speaking). If the 2nd amendement was repealed, how would you guarantee the removal of 300,000,000 guns already in circulation and how would you make sure the criminals still cannot get them in the future.

vote-for7vote-against

Cue vitriolic exchange between passionate parties on both sides.
.
.
until mod shutdown
.
.
and still no beer to lubricate the flow.

me not touching ------------------------------------------------------- <-10 foot pole>--------------> topic

j5 j5
vote-for6vote-against

@cengland0: Not all of the proposals were rifle-specific. Many dealt with increased potency of background checks; that would affect all arms.

But even if rifle-specific laws prevented the one or two of these mass killing sprees we're seeing a year now, I think it's worth it. You simply can't kill so many so quickly without high-capacity guns.

vote-for26vote-against

I agree with @cengland0, So the president's solution is to ban a weapon that responsible for the least amount of murders in the US? Is this his attempt to curb gun violence? Bring on the downvotes, but this is just one big publicity act and is in NO WAY going to help anything. I can guarantee that he won't cite the 500 murders in his home-town as a reason for the stricter laws, nor the Red Lake massacre, the NIU massacre, the Virginia Tech massacre, Sihk Temple massacre, Binghamton massacre etc etc; in which no assault weapons were used during the attacks.

Give me a break. This is a media fueled frenzy, telling us that assault weapons are the problem.

If we really wanted drastic change we would outlaw the sales and ownership of .38 special ammunition and guns, considering that is the caliber most commonly used in gun related deaths.

vote-for9vote-against

Looks to me like all the proposals will impact us legal gun owners. Just how many "gun violence" events were accomplished by someone with a legal gun? Criminals will still have and use guns until they are really held accountable.

vote-for8vote-against

I'm never on board with an "Executive Actions." The president's job is to sign or veto laws passed by congress and the senate and appoint people to the supreme court. I know this is not how it works in reality but just because everyone is doing something doesn't make it alright.

vote-for8vote-against

@j5: You didn't even fire up the popcorn machine. I feel like I should downvote on principle, but since that's off topic, yeah.

vote-for4vote-against

@inkycatz: In this case it's microwave. Not as dramatic.

j5 j5
vote-for5vote-against

@eraten: Good job. Your wording of the issue was better than mine.

vote-for6vote-against

Ok... where are the really radical nut jobs who were bringing up gun control in the pellet gun discussion on sport.woot? I thought for sure they would've hijacked this thread.

If you didn't catch that discussion, you really should read through. Some people are wacko.

vote-for4vote-against

While I am unfamilar where it talks about the Presidents power of executive order untill after presidents had been doing it for years, he kept it to where it he should. He only made impacts on preexisting laws or branches of federal government. It is hard to disagree with adding more info to backround checks and/or adding mental health. That being said I am not sure if this causes anything more than an illusion of safety or action for those who are unfamilar with the process for obtaining a firearm. Most of those Orders are just adding harsher penilties to laws already in place, or adding to a background that most americans included the things he is adding.

Cont

vote-for4vote-against

Cont-
The suggestions to congress about the assult rifle ban and 'high cap' magazines are going to be a battle that honestly could go either way. IDK if reducing Mags for rifles is going do mre than garner false safety as well. What is the diffrence if some mayhem causing person can bring two 30 round magazines or six 10 round magazines besides (assuming they are polymer) maybe a pound of carry waight and possibly 2 second of reload time?
cont-

vote-for3vote-against

Almost everything I have read says that most mass shootings (any act of violence where 4 or more people are invloved and one is fataly wounded or killed) are done with hand guns. Cities like Camden, NJ and Detroit, Il are allready in some of teh most gun restricted states in the union and have most of the restrictions suggested and then more extravigant hand gun restrictions. IDK if this is just political posturing but I am happy that the background system is being upgraded to where people thought is already was and mental health issures are on the table as a disquifiling offence.

vote-for8vote-against

soooo....can i still own one of these?

vote-for6vote-against

@j5: I lost my 11' pole.

I got our fifty shades of gray:
This is what I believe:
AMENDMENT II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

vote-for6vote-against

Still won't keep crazies from buying/doing stupid things with guns.

vote-for5vote-against

The problem with checking into one's mental stability through extensive background checks is that lines must be drawn. What is too crazy to own a gun? What conditions should prevent gun purchases? Furthermore, it's improbable that those commiting the violent acts have documented mental conditions. They are usually the ones who do not want help or will not admit they have a problem. It would end up that those with documented, well controlled conditions are the ones getting hosed.

vote-for11vote-against

From the article linked above:

"Nothing the president is proposing would have stopped the massacre at Sandy Hook,” Mr. Rubio said. “President Obama is targeting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens instead of seriously addressing the real underlying causes of such violence."

Cocaine and heroine are illegal in the US. Drug lords still sell it in the US. Making something illegal doesn't make it go away. It just makes it difficult for law abiding citizens (who would probably not use them for criminal purposes anyway) to obtain them.

We don't need more gun control. The NRA isn't the problem. We need better programs for the mentally insane.

vote-for3vote-against

@moondrake: "Regulated" didn't mean the same thing in the 1700s as it does now. If you read the Federalist Papers, you can see that the term "well-regulated" refers to being thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning.

The 2nd Amendment is designed to protect us from a tyrannical government, so the framers would never have allowed that same government to "regulate" it.

vote-for1vote-against

something has to be done, no one will be happy on either side.

vote-for3vote-against

Larry Correia explained why we, Americans, are so against prohibiting guns, and why is it is in our best interest to keep our second amendment right. History has proven that such laws do not work. Read his blog here.

There is not much to be added to his article.

vote-for-1vote-against

Maybe some of you should read the actual proposals the White House sent out here.

Since a lot of people haven't or won't read it, I'll break down what Obama just did yesterday:

- 6 points revolve strictly around strengthening the efficacy and importance of background checks
- Tracing guns used in criminal cases
- Training to prepare first-responders to deal with active shooter situations
- Coming up with standard emergency response plans for schools and religious buildings in case of an shooting
- Everything else revolves around conducting studies and issuing reports on: 1)Gun violence, 2)Gun safety, 3)Lost/stolen guns and 4)Mental health

How are these so bad?

(cont.)

vote-for-1vote-against

(cont.)

There is also a difference between "executive actions" and "executive orders".

The scope of the use of Executive Orders has been severely limited by both District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. Those two rulings are essentially now as good as the US Constitution and Executive Orders cannot be unconstitutional. The President cannot "ban" any type of weapon, regardless of what it is called. Also, the ATF and the DOJ already assigned such classifications to such weapons before Obama took office. He did not invent the term "assault weapons".

The White House also proposed a few things that they would like to see Congress push through with legislation laid out here. That link also delineates the executive actions he just enacted vs. what he thinks Congress should do. Most of those will not pass because Congress is split and if they are feeling vindictive, none of those will pass.

vote-for-3vote-against

No matter what legislation comes out of Congress or the White House re: gun control, I highly doubt it will address any of the root causes of America's gun violence problem.
1. Extremely weak gun control
2. Extremely available supply of guns, high-capacity magazines, and high-power ammunition
3. Terrible mental health system
4. Americans' obsession and practical worshipping of guns

If you strengthen gun control, reduce the sheer amount of guns in circulation in the US, and strengthen mental health care, gun violence could be significantly reduced. The last part isn't really realistically achievable through legislation, as that would require a shift in the culture of the United States.
Unfortunately, the NRA is a very powerful lobbyist presence in Washington, so I doubt that anything will be done about the first two points at any point in the near future, and reforming the mental health system would go over about as well as regular health reform, so I guess we're just SOL.

vote-for2vote-against

@moondrake: I had an answer with my opinion, that mention of the Davy Crockett (nuclear device) vs Davy Crockett's musket (a single shot rifle). I broke down the amendment, as short as it is, but decided this is not the place, so, I deleted my comment and just shared the amendment with the comment shades of grey indicating it is so vague that it could be argued forever. The Constitution changes for a reason thank goodness for the 13th Amendment.

vote-for3vote-against

Certain I'm going to get downvoted, but screw it, don't care. Guns are not the problem. We can make guns illegal and it wont do a single thing. Criminals will always find ways to subvert the laws. I honestly believe if I wanted a hot gun, I could find one with very little difficulty.

As for legally owned guns, those are overwhelmingly NOT the problem. But you know, every once in a while a crazy slips through the cracks. Stricter background checks will be good in this sense, but what's most important is mental evaluation. You want good gun control? Require a strict psyc eval.

This discussion comes up every time there's a tragic shooting and nothing is ever really done. The media loves to complain about guns being bad, or in the alternative, the lack of mental health awareness. Yet despite all the complaints on the latter, nothing is ever done.

I saw a meme yesterday, poking fun at the UK (I think). It was quoting someone who said that since guns were outlawed, there were only [cont]

vote-for2vote-against

58 deaths as a result of gun violence in the past year. That to me perfectly exemplifies the failure of anti-gun laws.

In my opinion, people should be educated about guns. You don't have to learn to shoot one if it's not your thing, but you should know about safety regardless. If we can increase gun education and have a good background check/ psyc eval requirement that would probably curb a lot of violence.

I think Obama's heart is certainly in the right place, but I honestly don't believe that stricter laws will make a major change. That being said, his specific suggestions are definitely a step in the right direction. Civilians don't exactly have much of a need for automatic weaponry.

Stricter gun control should not be the only solution though. I hate how consistently the mental health aspect is ignored.

vote-for-3vote-against

@j5: He didn't use "drive-by media" either. A disappointing troll attempt to be sure.

@thedogma: "I honestly believe if I wanted a hot gun, I could find one with very little difficulty."
And you say the guns aren't the problem? I mean yes, it isn't the guns themselves, but rather the availability of guns that is a problem. If gun production and distribution were more tightly controlled, it wouldn't be as easy for criminals to get a hold of them.

vote-for0vote-against

edit: yeah, there we go.

j5 j5
vote-for0vote-against

@j5: comment. edited. don't. repost. *

*wedit

vote-for0vote-against

@stryker4526: Very fair point. I was moreso addressing the suggestion of banning guns as a general statement. I'm all for tighter control, so long as it's done right. From what I read (I admit, skimmed), Obama's definitely on the right path, but I'm still dissatisfied that the mental health aspect of it all seems to be pushed under the table.

vote-for1vote-against

@pinchecat: @j5: Personal attacks? Come on your better then that!

vote-for0vote-against

@caffeine_dude: well, I didn't think I did, but I guess I was overruled.

j5 j5
vote-for1vote-against

Fun fact learned from this thread: Information gets downvoted. People are literally choosing to be ignorant or to support ignorance.

I think that perfectly embodies the type of people against Obama on his 23 executive actions.

Please continue to read your op-eds and have other people make decisions and filter the news for you rather than consulting primary sources and deciding for yourself. This is why Congress has been so vitriolic and this is why we are failing as a nation. Not everything is partisan; some things are just common sense vs. blatant stupidity.

vote-for1vote-against

@curtisuxor: do you mean the 'Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition' crowd?
And yes I know the song was intended to shine a light on how religion claims peace and love but then is used for war, but I love that line.

vote-for2vote-against

@curtisuxor: I just now read this question and all of the answers, and I think you may have reached a wrong conclusion.

You're simply being downvoted because people disagree with your opinion, not because they are ignorant. Many people in this country still uphold the ideas of our founding fathers (even though some people feel those ideas need to be "updated"). I suspect a lot of the people here support the right to own guns and have open access to guns for the reason that we have the second ammendment: to protect the people from the government.

England attempted a gun control movement on us in 1775. That resulted in a successful revolution. I eager to see just how far congress will go in the next 30+. I would that the freedom-loving people in this country would have the same amount of good sense to revolt again, if such laws got extreme.

vote-for1vote-against

@dmaz: I don't believe you read my posts. The entire thing was information rather than opinion. I linked to a primary source for information (the actual press release from the White House (WH) on NYTimes.com) as opposed to spewing an unfounded opinion on what Obama's WH will do to the country.

We did have a federal assault weapons ban from 1994-2004. No such revolution, or rather rebellion, took place. Don't blow things out of proportion.

The 23 points--also known as "executive actions"--if anyone actually bothered to read them, are almost impossible to argue against, since it increases cooperation and information shared between federal and state authorities regarding firearms and starting a dialogue on mental health and the effect it has on gun violence. My first post broke them down for the people who choose not to read the actual press release into about 5 sentences. Nowhere does it say Obama put forth an Executive Order banning anything, but people would rather not believe that.