47 States Revolt Against Obama Gun Control

page: 4
245
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by dogstar23
 


Manditory background checks simply means that gun ownership is no longer a right, but a privilege granted by the government.


So to be clear, you are against background checks


YES!

As, criminals should NOT be allowed in public, and therefore would not have access to gun stores....

On a side note, I sold guns for 15 years, and only had 1...ONE...denial from the background check....
Criminals....don't....buy....guns.....from.....Dealers!

Any other ideas?




posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReVoLuTiOn76
reply to post by Ghost375
 


In those "orders" he bans assault rifles and mags with more than 10 rounds, which is more than some studies no matter how you spin it.


Seriously? Where?

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.
4. 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.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17, Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

These are the 23 Executive Orders. I don't see a ban on large clips or an assault rifle ban in here.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 





4. 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.



OR, WALKING ACROSS THE BORDER.....Oh wait...what???


LOL....I had to....Forgive me...!



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   
About ten years ago I listened to 101.1 The Source in Birmingham, Alabama, a local talk radio show, while going to work in the morning. The morning host would play an intro that really grabbed my attention and has stayed with me to this day. The intro was of Red Skelton reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. If you are not familiar with this, then you are in luck because I have provided it below. So, I decided to breakdown the 2nd Amendment the same way Mr. Skelton did so that we can truly wrap our intellect around the wording and true meaning of this Amendment.

The Pledge of Allegiance:

I: Me, an individual, a committee of one.

PLEDGE: Dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self pity.

ALLEGIANCE: My love and my devotion.

TO THE FLAG: Our standard, Old Glory, a symbol of freedom. Wherever she waves, there's respect because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts freedom is everybody's job.

UNITED: That means that we have all come together.

STATES: Individual communities that have united into 48 great states. Forty-eight individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose; all divided with imaginary boundaries yet united to a common purpose, and that's love for country.

AND TO THE REPUBLIC: A state in which sovereign power is invested in representatives chosen by the people to govern. And government is the people, and it's from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people.

FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION: One nation, meaning "so blessed by God."

INDIVISIBLE: Incapable of being divided.

WITH LIBERTY: Which is freedom, the right of power to live one's own life without threats, fear, or some sort of retaliation.

AND JUSTICE: The principle or quality of dealing fairly with others.

FOR ALL: For all, which means, boys and girls, it's as much your country as it is mine.

And now, boys and girls, let me hear you recite the Pledge of Allegiance:

Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country, and two words have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance: "under God." Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer, and that would be eliminated from schools too?

Author: Red Skelton
The Video

2nd Amendment: 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.

A WELL: Someone or something in a good or satisfactory way.

REGULATED: control or direct by a rule, principle, method.

MILITIA: A military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

BEING NECESSARY: Existence is required to be done, achieved, or present; essential.

TO THE SECURITY: The state of being free from danger or threat.

OF A FREE: Not under the control or in the power of another.

STATE: A condition of being in a stage or form.

THE RIGHT: Free from error; in accordance with fact or truth.

OF THE PEOPLE: The citizens of a country.

TO KEEP: Have or retain possession of.

AND BEAR: (of a person) carry.

ARMS: Weapons and ammunition; armaments.

SHALL NOT BE: To not exist.

INFRINGED: Actively break the terms thereof.

Author: Martin Taylor



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein
 


I thought that the point of the Second Amendment was for those people in the Militia to have guns? For heavens sake, Obama just injected a note of sanity into the US political world and he's being attacked for being sane???


And just who in the hell do you think the militia is made up of? The citizens of the United States. It's all good, if the SHTF just get behind me, and an insane amount of other patriots.
edit on 17-1-2013 by T4NG0 because: just had more to say.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by dogstar23
 


Manditory background checks simply means that gun ownership is no longer a right, but a privilege granted by the government.


Understood, and again, I am pro-gun. Our Illinois FOID cards are on the way, and we're saving for our gun purchases while we wait, but, I'm sorry to say, I am not opposed to background checks. I realize they can end up going too far, which is unfortunate, but, if the Founding Fathers had forseen airplanes and automobiles, isn't it reasonable to think they would have treated the right to vehicular travel as an inalienable right as well? We would then allow people who can barely see, and who have a history of running over pedestrians on purpose while driving. Would we keep allowing them to drive because they have an inalienable right to drive?

No, I'm sorry, not everyone is of sound enough mind to be a gun owner, and I think it is entirely reasonable to keep guns from psychotics who believe that anyone with blue eyes is an agent of Satan who must be shot and killed with their magic gun, blessed by the angel who talks to them in their mind. Why would someone like that be given legal access to guns? It just doesn't make sense to me. Certain things were assumed in the late 18th century - you certainly wouldn't give a gun to a crazy person back then. The Founding Fathers probably always figured nutcases would be locked up and kept away from weapons, not wandering the streets taking prescription drugs with aide effects that amplify aggression and depression.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 



What do you suggest? Violence?


Absolutely not.. I suggest relocating.

If the Occupy movement taught us one thing its that peaceful protest no longer solves anything.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by dogstar23
 


Manditory background checks simply means that gun ownership is no longer a right, but a privilege granted by the government.


So to be clear, you are against background checks


YES!

As, criminals should NOT be allowed in public, and therefore would not have access to gun stores....

On a side note, I sold guns for 15 years, and only had 1...ONE...denial from the background check....
Criminals....don't....buy....guns.....from.....Dealers!

Any other ideas?


You realize background checks are just as much for mentally un fit people as they are criminals. What's wrong with that idea



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1/2 Nephilim
reply to post by bknapple32
 



What do you suggest? Violence?


Absolutely not.. I suggest relocating.

If the Occupy movement taught us one thing its that peaceful protest no longer solves anything.


I see. Relocating where?



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


Australia



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


Until "mentally unfit" is defined specifically, it's nothing but a magic catchall.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   

47 States Revolt Against Obama Gun Control


47 states are not rebelling, at least not yet. When I read this headline I thought in terms of Texas where a bill has been introduced to "rebel" against gun laws. I believe Montana, Missouri, Alabama, and a couple of others are considering similar legislation. Several sheriffs around the contry (including one in Oregon! Shock! A very blue state.) have said they won;t enforce any new legislation. These are all examples if other governmental jurisdictions defying the feds, and that's what this headline sounds like.

But the truth is far different.

All that is happening a "call for a rally" of citizens to appear at their state capitols on Saturday to wave some signs. There's nothing official about it. It's a very quick grass roots effort.

Now i hope it works, but I fear it will not because "organizers" are moving very quickly here and not establishing their baselines. It has the potential to fizzle. For one thing, it's cold out in the northern half of the country. If it DOES fizzle, this will be seen as evidence of absence. And being misleading on the issue does not help.

Schuyler
NRA Member



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
What's wrong with those people?

He didn't actually pass any gun "control" legislation.
He just passed orders for some studies on gun issues or strengthened laws already on the books.
edit on 17-1-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)



Look, an Obama supporter who has no problem with the 2nd OR 1st Amendments being taken away from Americans....



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by dogstar23
 


Manditory background checks simply means that gun ownership is no longer a right, but a privilege granted by the government.


So to be clear, you are against background checks


YES!

As, criminals should NOT be allowed in public, and therefore would not have access to gun stores....

On a side note, I sold guns for 15 years, and only had 1...ONE...denial from the background check....
Criminals....don't....buy....guns.....from.....Dealers!

Any other ideas?


You realize background checks are just as much for mentally un fit people as they are criminals. What's wrong with that idea



Sure! But, the BATFE requires us to call in a "criminal background check"...And the number rings at a state or federal law enforcement agency....Not, the state mental hospital...

SO, how do you determine who is "mentally unfit"...??? (this, I have to hear...er...read!)
edit on 1/17/2013 by GoOfYFoOt because: lol



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:22 PM
link   
All organizers must be audited and intimidated until they abandon their futile cause.

Dissent and subversion will not be tolerated.




posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein
 


Thanks OP..at last it seems Americans are becoming motivated...it's about time.



That is not the point! We have the RIGHT to own whatever arms we want.....That is the purpose of the 2nd amendment and NOBODY can take that away! If I want an assault rifle, the forefathers gave me that RIGHT forever!! No ifs, ands, or BUTTS about it......


Don't take this the wrong way Chris, i wholeheartedly support the 2nd and as an Englishman, i'm proud of you for standing up for your rights.

But, i will say that there has to be a line that should not be crossed with regards to Civillian gun ownership...nobody would argue it would be unwise to think the people should be able to own WMD's (of any sort) or fully functioning tanks and so on...that's the line.

The bottom line in my view is fairly simple regarding gun ownership in America and it's this;

If the Civillian government or any of it's agencies have full auto rifles, in keeping with the purpose and spirit of the 2nd Amendment, the people can have full auto rifles.

If they have 20 round mags, the people can have 20 round mags.

If they suddenly decide they need rocket launchers, the people can have rocket launchers.

This is the whole point...to keep the people safe from a possible insane government at some point, the people need to match a civillian governments weapons.

If the government doesn't want the people to have military style weaponry, then the government should not be equipping itself with the sorts of weapons they wish to bar from the public.

It's not particle physics really is it.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by dogstar23
 

Thank you dogstar23, your sain post is a sight for sore eyes in a sea of insanity and ignorance. I find it beyond belief how many people are incapable of understanding english. Our guns are not being banned nor is the 2nd being infringed upon in this case, at least not yet. There are 23 Executive Actions that were signed to help already existing laws.

The controversy is in the recommendation to congress to ban assault rifles and >10 round clips. If anyone objects to this recommendation then the best coarse of action is to persuade congress to not write these bans into law.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler

47 States Revolt Against Obama Gun Control


47 states are not rebelling, at least not yet. When I read this headline I thought in terms of Texas where a bill has been introduced to "rebel" against gun laws. I believe Montana, Missouri, Alabama, and a couple of others are considering similar legislation. Several sheriffs around the contry (including one in Oregon! Shock! A very blue state.) have said they won;t enforce any new legislation. These are all examples if other governmental jurisdictions defying the feds, and that's what this headline sounds like.

But the truth is far different.

All that is happening a "call for a rally" of citizens to appear at their state capitols on Saturday to wave some signs. There's nothing official about it. It's a very quick grass roots effort.

Now i hope it works, but I fear it will not because "organizers" are moving very quickly here and not establishing their baselines. It has the potential to fizzle. For one thing, it's cold out in the northern half of the country. If it DOES fizzle, this will be seen as evidence of absence. And being misleading on the issue does not help.

Schuyler
NRA Member



I dunno man, while you have a minor point, born from your own expectations of what you were going to see when you clicked the thread, the truth is not that "far different" at all. I mean, yes, people from 47 states, and probably many from the other three, are gathering to protest and "revolt" against these further attempts to pry weapons from warm, alive, law abiding hands. It IS a revolt of sorts. I mean look at all the attention the issue has attracted. A revolt doesn't necessarily have to be violent.

But people are visibly angry about this. Even many LEO's, sheriffs, and the like. It's just making me want one again, just to have it- before I can't have one at all.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
What's wrong with those people?

He didn't actually pass any gun "control" legislation.
He just passed orders for some studies on gun issues or strengthened laws already on the books.
edit on 17-1-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)


So we're suppose to wait around until they pass something to then protest?



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by dogstar23
 

please explain how the 'black market' that is used to obtain illegal weapons by criminals is going to be "subject" to performing background checks ??

how would that work ?
TPTB cannot even identify the 'black market' ... how are they going to regulate it ?

and, since the regularly decommissioned military weapons are not destroyed, how do you propose we regulate them to stay out of the hands of either the mentally ill, the psychopaths or the criminals ??

and lastly, where is the EA that is going to stop or prevent more cases of Fast & Furious ???
without one of those, the others have -0- standing.





new topics
top topics
 
245
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join