It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BREAKING - Obama to use Executive actions, bypassing Congress, to force gun control measures.

page: 9
44
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Baltazar84

No one has proposed a ten day waiting period on the background check, either. It usually takes about ten minutes. And no, I don't have an issue with the basic idea of a background check on sales, as long as that's all it is. If it ties in temporary transfers among friends at the range, on hunting trips, or, in particular, inheritance among close family, then I take issue with it.




posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   
This entire thing is just fluff. Obama is not ordering new rules or restrictions that make drastic changes to what is already required.

All he is doing is making it appear as though he is doing something about the problem.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I tend to agree with that, introvert. I didn't think it would amount to much more than Obama trying to convince his supporters that he was doing something meaningful when all he's really doing is putting on a dog and pony show. Sure enough, that appears to the case.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: vor78

That's all he can do. Anything more would be unconstitutional and would be quickly challenged.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
This entire thing is just fluff. Obama is not ordering new rules or restrictions that make drastic changes to what is already required.

All he is doing is making it appear as though he is doing something about the problem.


Except for the HIPAA changes...





The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS or “the Department”) is issuing this final rule to modify the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy Rule to expressly permit certain HIPAA covered entities to disclose to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) the identities of individuals who are subject to a Federal “mental health prohibitor” that disqualifies them from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving a firearm.

ACTION:Final rule





posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Agreed, and even then, I expect the legal challenges to what little he has done to begin soon enough.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: vor78
Maybe this has something to do with it as well.

I just don't like how everything is about going Biometrics. I see no good future at the end of this path.


Along with President Obama’s executive action on gun control, the White House is looking into new ways to control its own firearms by looking into new smart-gun technology. In a statement issued Wednesday, the White House directed the departments of Justice, Defense, and Homeland Security to examine ways to implement guns that use biometrics—a person’s unique biological characteristics, like fingerprints—to make sure only the gun’s owner can fire the weapon. Smart guns aren’t new, but not now there are dozens of start-up companies, with a handful of different systems, trying to break into the marketplace. Radio Frequency Identification (RDIF) systems are used on some guns that can only be authenticated when in close proximity to a token, like a ring or a wristwatch, worn by the user. Others systems use fingerprint sensors to unlock the safety. In the Memorandum, President Obama gave the agencies 90 days to prepare a report outlining a strategy to “expedite real-world deployment.” Advocates say these new technologies could be life-saving in situations where guns are taken from police officers in violent struggles. Or, in instances where guns are stolen from law enforcement: for example, the fatal shooting of 32-year-old Kate Steinle, in San Francisco, last July, when a gun stolen from a Bureau of Land Management officer just days earlier was accidently discharged on a busy tourist pier. However, the technologies are not yet fool proof, and critics say they might be too cumbersome and unreliable in life-and-death situations. Unlike other biometrics systems—like the fingerprint scanner used to unlock your iPhone—these biometrics need to work the first time, every time. In an emotional press conference on Tuesday, Obama reiterated the necessity for such smart weapons: “If we can set it up so you can't unlock your phone unless you've got the right fingerprint, why can't we do the same thing for our guns? If there's an app that can help us find a missing tablet ... there's no reason we can't do it with a stolen gun.”



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

For a number of reasons, I don't like it, either, but while he can commission studies and research into the technology and try to pressure the industry, he has no authority whatsoever to mandate such a thing. That would require an act of Congress.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: JacKatMtn
a reply to: SoulSurfer

It wasn't only Holder's "deep web" Fast & Furious deal... Bush approved that earlier...

This is more about the law abiding folks... DEM or REP.. who choose to own, properly train, understand and secure firearms in their home...

What the President is doing.. does not make us safer, does not encourage responsible firearm ownership, does not one iota in preventing the tragedies that happen when one loses control and takes it out on innocents...

What the President IS doing, is increasing dossiers on law abiding citizens, who have no issue with buying a firearm LEGALLY, and safely respecting said firearm, in the mean time.. criminals will continue to buy their firearms illegally and continue to commit crimes, to the level of murder.... yet fall short of FED scrutiny...

Since the target is squarely placed on those who have committed NO CRIME...

Welcome to the new America....



You hit the bullseye pretty much.
Though I will add, it goes beyond bush, but sadly thats a rabbit hole that goes "too deep" and dwelling within it can result in either depression or insanity.

Its not just the new america. Its the "new/old world". At this point, im not sure what can be done. What we are really fighting against is "Globalization". And we are already down that road as we speak. There is no winning against globalization, but... there is still a slight chance we can shape that world into the future we desire.

But that depends on whether or not america wakes up on time. But for that, people need to stop listening to mainstream, since MSM been caught lying time and time again.

Dark times are ahead my friend. But I am glad that you see what many others do not.




posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Social Security? What does that mean? Are they going to take guns away from you because you're too old and feeble? Remove the guns from the elders and they can't transfer them to the youth. Propagandize the youth and they won't have a desire to buy a new gun. 100 years later... no guns. Total take over.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Generation9
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Social Security? What does that mean? Are they going to take guns away from you because you're too old and feeble? Remove the guns from the elders and they can't transfer them to the youth. Propagandize the youth and they won't have a desire to buy a new gun. 100 years later... no guns. Total take over.


As soon as they start confiscating or denying guns to vigorous elders of sound mind and independent means, this goes up for legal challenge.

It won't stand or it shouldn't.

Because, you know, I remember all those mass shooting done by old farts in their WWII gear ... don't you?



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Baltazar84

LOL... really?... Humm, I wonder why is it that Obama and his administration have tried to pass legislation banning "semi-automatic rifles that look like assault rifles" among other weapons... I wonder why that same legislation has tried to even ban all clips that hold more than 10 bullets...

www.factcheck.org...

What makes it even more ironic is that we have people claiming that anyone pointing this out, and what Obama says he wants to do, "must be a mentally deranged person" which goes to show that "gun-grabbers do think those who want to keep our second amendment intact should be barred from owning firearms...
edit on 6-1-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 01:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Baltazar84

LOL... really?... Humm, I wonder why is it that Obama and his administration have tried to pass legislation banning "semi-automatic rifles that look like assault rifles" among other weapons... I wonder why that same legislation has tried to even ban all clips that hold more than 10 bullets...

www.factcheck.org...

What makes it even more ironic is that we have people claiming that anyone pointing this out, and what Obama says he wants to do, "must be a mentally deranged person" which goes to show that "gun-grabbers do think those who want to keep our second amendment intact should be barred from owning firearms...


I have a different point of view if you guys want to keep your guns you need to reconsider your position on this. If you don't the moment someone buys a gun at a gun show and uses it for a mass shooting there will be bans put in place thr people will demand it. If someone attending a gun show can't submit to a background check then there is a problem. It's simple if he went to a gun store and tried to purchase a firearm it requires a background check. Why do people feel this shouldn't happen at a gun show why should they be different??

Truth is its really no big deal if someone wants to avoid a background check buy it off craigslist. Many gun owners are not responsible enough to change thr registration. I sold a gun and I sent in form to transfer it to them. I don't want to be responsibke if they did something stupid. And if I could identify do a background check the next one I sell. I would feel terrible if I found out I sold a gun to someone just so he could comit murder. I'd feel responsible because I gave them thr means to do it.

Fighting to make it so you don't have to get a background check at a gun show is silly. Especially since thr people that go to gun shows purchase them from dealers as well. In fact the vendors are required to do background checks. What I would like to see is better control of people selling to others. There would be reasons I would chose not to well a gun to someone. However other fools may not care at least with a background check you can at least say you did everything you could to insure it wasn't misused. And why the double standard should be the same no matter where you purchase a gun. If I buy a car from a person or a dealer thr paperwork is thr same. Have to transfer the title pay taxes and get thr vehicle registered. There is no difference yet buying a gun the process is different based on who you but it from why is this ok?????
edit on 1/7/16 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)


(post by Moegotti removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 02:09 AM
link   
So if criminals are always going to get guns, how are they getting these guns after they've been made in the factory? Is S&W and Ruger just selling them to the black market? Obviously not.

I find it impossible to believe that all the guns on the black market are stolen out of people's cars and homes.

I think a smart way to fight gun crime would be to clamp down on the black market gun trade. Anyone have any ideas how we could do that?



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 02:17 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

fingerprint triggers or biometrics which falls into the hands of the NWO scenario or just give everyone a gun there will be very little crime then you also need to legalise all drugs this would drop crime by 80 odd percent.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 02:21 AM
link   


I have a different point of view if you guys want to keep your guns you need to reconsider your position on this. If you don't the moment someone buys a gun at a gun show and uses it for a mass shooting there will be bans put in place thr people will demand it
a reply to: dragonridr

do you not think virtually all the shootings are not being done by your governments/ruling classes
I read so I don't know if its true but virtually all the kids were on pharmaceutical medication that have done these shootings truth is stranger than fiction sometimes.


edit on 7-1-2016 by jinni73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 06:35 AM
link   
King Obama will have to give up the throne soon, in the meantime antics like this just cause firearms sales to skyrocket through the roof.

Go get yourselves one to defy the King, it's trendy, it's hip, it's patriotic and makes the gun grabbing commie libs squirm.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 06:48 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

For a start, sever all ties between the intelligence services and all criminal cartels. That would reduce an awful lot of the lubrication in the machinery which moves the things around under the radar, and would also reduce the porosity of the southern border, where a great deal of drugs and guns come in.




top topics



 
44
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join