Obama signs 23 executive orders on gun control

page: 6
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   
If anything, these 23 orders prove Obama is nowhere near going after your guns. End of story.




posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by stutteringp0et
 


I think that those Executive Orders are an excellent start. Bravo Mr President!



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
If anything, these 23 orders prove Obama is nowhere near going after your guns. End of story.


No, but as always the left will never let an opportunity to expand government powers, add new levels of regulations and build new bureaucracies pass without fully exploiting that opportunity. This only the beginning, they aren't done here yet.
edit on 16-1-2013 by ausername because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
reply to post by stutteringp0et
 


I think that those Executive Orders are an excellent start. Bravo Mr President!





Would you bow down to a king? Our founding fathers fought and died so we would not have to bow down to a king.



Progressives liberals need to wake up and see this path is leading them in the wrong direction. You have been fooled just like the conservatives under Bush. You are being used and abused using your fear.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ausername
 


So are you against more thorough background checks?



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


This is not about more thorough checks it is about getting second hand sales of guns to go through the same procedures as new guns. In the past Americans have been able to give or sale a used gun to anyone they deem worthy. It seems now that we are no longer trusted.

Currently anyone that has been diagnosed with a mental condition can not buy or own firearms. These new measures will allow a doctor to deem one unworthy of 2nd amendment rights without ever being evaluated for competency properly.
edit on 16-1-2013 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by deadeyedick
 


Just think of the gun stores who will love charging people to sell there guns to someone else. All they do is a back ground check and sign a paper and make money. Gun stores just got 40 percent more business with no investment to make it.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


Currently walmart is the biggest retailer and they helped bring us these measures through participation in meetings with biden las week.t



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


There is an angle I never thought of. Things that make you go hmmmmmmm........
I wonder if Obama owns stock, or maybe even owns a few gun shops himself through some front companies.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by deadeyedick
 


I am talking about person to person sales now forced to go to a gun store to make it official with a background check and papers notarized. That is a whole new market for gun stores. With the new deal they are not selling guns just the background check and filing of paper work. I guess the clerk of the court or the sheriffs department would also do it for a fee.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


Most likely - all of the guns that are in circulation but currently undocumented (my guess is more than half of them) will continue to be sold without background checks.

Additionally, it will increase the black market for firearms. When a person can't buy a gun from a private seller at a gun show, he'll find a black market dealer. Guns will find their way into the country in the say way drugs and illegal immigrants do. People who want them will still be able to get them.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by stutteringp0et
 


You forget the US was selling guns to the cartels. Mexico has been finding them and destroying them on massive scale. So who is going to ship guns to Mexico to cartels to ship to the US. China? China does sell the chemicals to the Cartels.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by stutteringp0et
 


I see that in the shortterm but over time all these measures will be fully enforced. Their goal is to have every gun accounted for then get what is left. imo
edit on 16-1-2013 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Destinyone

Originally posted by Putyournamehere
16. "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."

So are these doctors supposed to report this, and to whom?


Since Doctors and our Health Care industry are now under Obamacare guidelines. Doctors can legally ask if you have a gun in your home, before treatment. It won't be long until that question becomes mandatory for treatment. It's another way to pinpoint where guns are located, and who has them.

Des


Just put your guns in your garage or a shed before you go to the doctor then you can honestly answer and so no there are no guns in my home.


most people wont be using obamacare anyway thats just for the poor and they dont own legal guns so they will just lie about having a gun in their home anyway.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy

Originally posted by ObjectZero

Originally posted by stutteringp0et


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



13 to 17 worry or confuse me the most, that or both.

"Maximize enforcement efforts" I hope they put more behind that to prevent abuse of new power.


Again only my opinion but I think 17 is to clarify that if psychiatrist is told by a patient that he or she may be thinking about committing an act of violence, there is no law against them reporting that to law enforcement. No legal ramifications for breaking doctor/patient privilege.


I agree, but, it was already the law for them to report. Even for an attorney, if you vocalize intent to do future harm, it is the law already to report. It is redudant.

The Aurora incident is a good example. He voiced future intent, and his pschiatrist acted. It was the school that blocked the action. She did, by law, what she was required to do.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by deadeyedick
reply to post by bknapple32
 


This is not about more thorough checks it is about getting second hand sales of guns to go through the same procedures as new guns. In the past Americans have been able to give or sale a used gun to anyone they deem worthy. It seems now that we are no longer trusted.


The biggest problem with private gun sales, going through licensed FFLs, is that the FFL will be REQUIRED to log the gun in and out of their books in the course of the transaction. This REMOVES the seller from liability and places it SQUARELY on the FFL...Would you want to be responsible for EVERY gun that Joe Blow brings in to flip to his customer? He makes the real money, while you just get the transfer fee and ALL of the responsibility of providing a SAFE weapon....

I don't think this will fly...



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


Your posts on this have been comical Background checks? Remember how they were skipped under Fast & Furious? And you think I am going to trust that assertion made by the potus who hid the details of F&F behind Executive privilege? On top of that, all this BS and we hear how it's bad to place labels on people. But the past few weeks have seen nothing but a PC bit of labeling. Heaven forbid we label someone black, gay or mentally unsound. Now it's okay to label law abiding gun owners as threats? The only consolation I take in this is that the self proclaimed intellectuals will be the next to suffer from gov't social engineering.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Tardacus
 


Sorry but most people will be using obummercare because most people are poor.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Tardacus
 


Obamacare encompasses all healthcare. It affects private insurers, as well. Such as thecrequirement that all health records be available online by a certain date, etc.





new topics
top topics
 
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join