Obama signs 23 executive orders on gun control

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

You are still angry, and you still don't know why.

Which Executive Action to you disagree with? It doesn't seem like you, or anyone else, can really answer that question.

When I get home from classes...I have two large multi-page threads I am posting. Your question will be answered in detail by one of them. Patience is a virtue.

You don't need a long thread, it's a simple question.

Long threads are to hide that you have no idea what you are talking about nor any idea why you are angry.

Nothing happened today to make any rational logical thinking person angry.

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by deadeyedick

 

Luckily there are checks and balances with our government. It's this kind of fear mongering about guns that have helped propel gun sales. Look into what companies find the nra and how much the nra benefits from soaring gun sales. ( hint $$)

Demonizing the rights of citizens that have give the gov. the power for this bs will get us nowhere.
Who will protect us from a 16 trillion dollar army hell bent on destruction and total power over everything that consumes oxygen.

Are these requests over-the-top for gun owners? I'm sure many of you are concerned that it will end in the removal of your guns. But are these rules unjust?

Originally posted by deadeyedick

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by deadeyedick

 

Luckily there are checks and balances with our government. It's this kind of fear mongering about guns that have helped propel gun sales. Look into what companies find the nra and how much the nra benefits from soaring gun sales. ( hint $$)

Demonizing the rights of citizens that have give the gov. the power for this bs will get us nowhere.
Who will protect us from a 16 trillion dollar army hell bent on destruction and total power over everything that consumes oxygen.

Not sure about you but the people I know in the military would never take arms against the citizens of the u.s

reply to post by deadeyedick


Under that logic, then citizens should have the right to arm with tanks, rpgs, missiles and nukes.

reply to post by antar
oh this one? www.huffingtonpost.com... from the link

Erich Pratt, Gun Owners Of America: Reagan Supported Gun Control Only 'In His Later Years'

reply to post by bknapple32

Good point.
When we have to wonder if our heroic soldiers will comply with an order that has passed their chain of command then surely then we will realize that a few choices we have made was wrong. It does not have to get that far but that is the direction that we are being herded into.

reply to post by deadeyedick


Glad we could get to a point where we could agree to disagree. See I'm not so bad

B.S. Gun's are not the same as all those devices you mentioned. Those kid's in obamas speech could explain the difference to you if needed.

reply to post by xedocodex

i don't like that information i give to my doctor can be used to spy on me. i don't like the vague wording. how exactly are they going to "Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence"?

Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun

so even if you didn't commit a crime, they're still going to invade your privacy before letting people have THEIR OWN PROPERTY back.

Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

mr. holder, have you been involved in any illegal gun trafficking? you're not under oath, so answer as you please.

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

and what constitutes a "threat of violence? anyone with a gun, or high capacity mags?

Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system

in other words, get rid of some laws that protect personal privacy that were passed in the health care bill (you know, the one we didn't read)

reply to post by deadeyedick


You're right Canada is larger than the US, has more natural resources, 11 million guns(in civilian hands) and no mass shootings, hockey, maple syrup, good beer and hot chicks.

Can't compare that to the US any day. lol

Oh and their economy is good, their national debt isn't half that of the USA, good education, healthcare.... it just goes on and on.

reply to post by Hijinx

You paint a pretty picture compared to my current view.

I hope they don't mind texan's about with unregistered protection.







At this point i'm just looking for a way out

reply to post by deadeyedick


Come on up, I think you'd like BC. This province is pretty much one big forest, the hunting is good, the fishing is awesome and the beer is oh so cold!!!




en.wikipedia.org...

364,764 sq mi, over a quarter million square miles of lakes, forest, mountains, rivers, beach, it's beautiful. If you have not visited, I suggest you consider it.

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

Since it has nothing to do with my medical care i would not tell them i owned any guns.

My take on owning guns is you never tell strangers that you own guns and only tell very close friends that you trust.
this is just good security.

reply to post by Katharos62191


Hey Katharos
Obama isn't very big on going through congress, he does try that first, but he has lawyers and staff that let him do whatever he wants through executive order.

reply to post by stutteringp0et

Sorry I didn't read all eight pages here. The top of the list is usually the most important that government can agree on and all three:

1. "Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system."

2. "Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system."

3. "Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system."

...seem to want to establish a single data base on all guns registered (so far) in the US. That data would rise to the top to "federal agencies" from the states (read that from gun sales) and the medical arena ("Does Daddy have a gun?"). Background checks are lists with buyers complete information logged in connection with the purchase of any firearms. Existing records at the state level would also be forwarded.

They want to know ever more about who has the guns and where they are.

For now.

reply to post by sonnny1


I'd like to know where these came from. These run from 10990 through 11921 which, if my maths are correct, would equal a startling 931 Executive Orders.

Problem is, Obama's very first EO was #13489. 13594 was just after christmas. That would be 105. The entire list is a lie.

EO#10990 was signed by JFK on February 2nd, 1962 and has exactly NOTHING to do with transportation or ports or anything else. It only concerns safety of civilian employees of the government in DC.

EO#10995 was signed by JFK on February 16th, 1962 and has nothing to do with seizing communications. It's for the standardization of government communication, efficiency in resources, developing telecommunication satellites, etc.

EO#10997 also signed by JFK on February 16th, 1962 deals with disaster preparedness or the possibility that the US is attacked.

...I'd continue, but I'd rather watch the basketball game playing on my TV.

Originally posted by deadeyedick
reply to post by metaldemon2000

 

In Canada we have tougher laws than what is being signed here and guess what? We still own guns.

You can't really compare canada to the us.
It does seem that the world has much to lose if the u.s. citizens give up our 2nd amendment vs how the world changed when canada gave up the fight.

What does the world lose? please elaborate. Because you have to lock em up a little tighter? Because your putting in a smaller magazine? Because maybe its not a good idea to sell a guy a gun who just got out of prison for murder?

I'm not seeing your point here.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for freedom and rights and fighting the good fight' but I fail to see how a few teeny regulations are going to have earth shattering effects.

And don't give me the "we won't be able to defend ourselves nonsense, because "they" could still subjegate you even if everyone owned a tank. Bigger ammo clips wont help you.

Fortunately it is only regulations to keep guns out of certain people hands - namely law abiding citizens. Not criminals though they get their guns from underground anyway.

but this is only a step and most of our second amendment rights were stripped away years ago.

The second amendment was for bearing arms to fight off a foreign force or tyrannical govt. those arms include missiles, laws rockets, grande launchers, 50 cal machine guns, Night vision, smart bullets, bulletproof vests, protective wear, tear gas, tanks, drones, helicopters and planes fitted with weapon systems, war ships and other sea craft designed for war.

Does anyone bear any of these? No, that right was taken long ago. you are fighting only for small arms now and they wont do well in a real fire fight in an active battle.

to see a possible peaceful solution go www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by stutteringp0et


These aren't really that big of a deal.

I only really reject 5 and 16.

18 is a rather good idea.

Why is this such an argument again?