Obama Administration restricts guns with new Executive Orders

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


I see your point and agree but that is nothing more than a scare tactic. I mean, this would mean some of the senate and congress cannot own them either.
If someone wants to get a gun, they get a gun.
edit on 29-8-2013 by matafuchs because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   
So the same guy that seems to have no problem with giving full automatics to drug cartels, surface to air missiles to to groups backed by al-qaeda splinter groups that killed an ambassador because they couldn't get more. And is currently planning on some missile strikes on Syria without congressional approval. That man thinks that US citizens with no criminal record cannot own 70 year old rifles?


Sounds like par for the course for this administration. Let me know when the country is America again.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   

A Harvard Study titled "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?" looks at figures for "intentional deaths" throughout continental Europe and juxtaposes them with the U.S. to show that more gun control does not necessarily lead to lower death rates or violent crime.

Because the findings so clearly demonstrate that more gun laws may in fact increase death rates, the study says that "the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths" is wrong.

For example, when the study shows numbers for Eastern European gun ownership and corresponding murder rates, it is readily apparent that less guns to do not mean less death. In Russia, where the rate of gun ownership is 4,000 per 100,000 inhabitants, the murder rate was 20.52 per 100,000 in 2002. That same year in Finland, where the rater of gun ownership is exceedingly higher--39,000 per 100,000--the murder rate was almost nill, at 1.98 per 100,000.



The murder rate in Russia, where handguns are banned, is 30.6; the rate in the U.S. is 7.8


Study: No Correlation Between Gun Control and Less Violent Crime
 


The Study pdf

The detailed statistics are in the pdf link



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by matafuchs
 




If someone wants to get a gun, they get a gun.


So just let anyone regardless of their age or past have any gun they want even full military weapons?

edit on 29-8-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by matafuchs
 




If someone wants to get a gun, they get a gun.


So just let anyone regardless of their age or past have any gun they want even full military weapons?

edit on 29-8-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)


1. I believe you should be 18 to purchase a firearm. If you can go to war you can walk into Wal-Mart and buy a gun.
2. Someones past. We all make mistakes. if someone gets a DUI it should not exempt them from owning a firearm. If someone is convicted of murder or a crime using a handgun, then no, I do not feel they should have the right to purchase a firearm. However, not allowing someone to buy one does not mean they cannot gain access to one. Background checks for any gun purchase to me is fair but you should not have to register your weapons with the government.

I also believe that you should, as a citizen, have access to ANY type of weapon. One bullet from an old POS 38 is just as dangerous as a fully auto AK-47. It only takes one. I do not like the infringement of any right and this is just another power play by an administration.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienScience
 


But, but, corperations are people too!!!



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhoenixOD

However, felons, domestic abusers, and others prohibited from having guns can easily evade the required background check and gain access to machine guns or other particularly dangerous weapons by registering the weapon to a trust or corporation. At present, when the weapon is registered to a trust or corporation, no background check is run. ATF reports that last year alone, it received more than 39,000 requests for transfers of these restricted firearms to trusts or corporations.


Seems like a good idea


Unless you want these criminals to be able to use a loophole to get military grade weapons.


For starters, it's illegal for felons to possess firearms. It doesn't matter who owns it. If a felon went to the gun range with his friend and wanted to shoot his gun, he cannot, as it is illegal...
As for "machine guns" or "military grade weapons" these are illegal in many states, and if not, all fully automatic weapons require class 3 registration and tax stamp. I believe the typical cost of an automatic weapon is over $20,000, basically the tax stamp makes them too expensive for most people to buy. The class 3 registration has many requirements, including safe keeping and handling of the weapon, and while I have not read up on it in a while, it used to be that the cops could search the home of a class 3 weapons owner if there were ever a crime involving an automatic weapon near their home.

So really...this is all moot and almost proves that laws do nothing to keep criminals from doing harm and committing crime. There are deeper issues at stake, such as poverty, gangs, and mental illness, that needs to be addressed!



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by AnonymousMoose
 




For starters, it's illegal for felons to possess firearms. It doesn't matter who owns it. If a felon went to the gun range with his friend and wanted to shoot his gun, he cannot, as it is illegal...


Yes i think that is the point of the new law. Its illegal for felons to own firearms but at the moment there is a loophole that allows them to do so by evading background checks.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by matafuchs
 




I also believe that you should, as a citizen, have access to ANY type of weapon. One bullet from an old POS 38 is just as dangerous as a fully auto AK-47. It only takes one.


I agree one bullet is as dangerous and another ..kind of. But certain weapons make the mass killing of people from a distance much easier. A bolt action rifle wouldn't be able as effective at killing a lot of people in a movie theater or school as an ak47 with a 100 round drum and amour piercing bullets.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
Seems like a good idea


Unless you want these criminals to be able to use a loophole to get military grade weapons.


Except that these haven't been 'military grade weapons' since the Korean War. They're mostly M-1 Garands and M-1 Carbines sold through the CMP. They've been obsolete as military weapons for decades. Both are on the expensive side these days and of little interest to anyone but collectors.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienScience
 


yes I actually disagree.

first because this will do NOTHING to reduce crime as it is that criminals who commit violent crime don't register their weapons to do so.

second Obama is dividing the nation over his own personal agenda. He is the sort of leader that acts according to his own mindset regardless of the will of those he supposedly serves.

Gun restrictions have been proven to be ineffective in reducing crime by all sorts of studies from Harvard to the FBI.

This needs to stop. Everything he is doing will be recalled because the people don't want it.

History will remember him as a complete failure. Everything he is doing now from Obamacare to gun reform will be undone. He is wasting our time and money on his personal ideals while ignoring the majority of people who ARE NOT silent and the issues which actually effect us.

We are pissed. Not quiet.
edit on 29-8-2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlienScience
The other is just a stupid side effect of Citizens United where a CORPORATION can register a gun. Now, that is just dumb. The 2nd amendment doesn't protect Corporations rights to bear arms.


Ah, but it does. The supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporations are individuals, therefore they are protected by the U.S. Constitution, and that would include The 2nd Amendment, would it not?

I believe that Obama's executive order ruling would lose if it were to go to The Supreme Court.
edit on 8/29/2013 by AntiNWO because: no reason, I just like editing.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by tadaman
reply to post by AlienScience
 

History will remember him as a complete failure. Everything he is doing now from Obamacare to gun reform will be undone.

And then Santa Claus and The Tooth Fairy will be elected President and Vice President of the Moon.

Kidding, of course, but I wish I had your optimism, I really do. My life would be so much easier. Until the big disappointment anyway.



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by AntiNWO

Originally posted by AlienScience
The other is just a stupid side effect of Citizens United where a CORPORATION can register a gun. Now, that is just dumb. The 2nd amendment doesn't protect Corporations rights to bear arms.


Ah, but it does. The supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporations are individuals, therefore they are protected by the U.S. Constitution, and that would include The 2nd Amendment, would it not?

I believe that Obama's executive order ruling would lose if it were to go to The Supreme Court.
edit on 8/29/2013 by AntiNWO because: no reason, I just like editing.


Then if Corporations are people, then they need to have a background check. And who is the Corporation if not the people involved in it?

Also, let's start having Corporations pay income taxes on their profits on top of their corporate taxes....after all...Corporations are people.



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by AlienScience



Then if Corporations are people, then they need to have a background check. And who is the Corporation if not the people involved in it?

Also, let's start having Corporations pay income taxes on their profits on top of their corporate taxes....after all...Corporations are people.

 


How many criminals use the corp 'loophole' to get guns and then commit crimes ?

How does that affect crime rates overall ?

I thought corps do pay tax ?

And, what would 'disqualify' a corp from owning guns ?



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


So what's your deal? You just dont read or you just cherry pick what you want and dont want to believe?

THERE IS NO LOOPHOLE!!!!!


Next, prohibited persons and felons cannot easily evade the requirement of a background check to gain access to machine guns anymore than they can with a regular firearm. Most dealers will do a NICS check on anyone purchasing a Machine Gun. As far as transfers from non firearms dealers, there are stricter requirements on transfers to individuals and the same requirements as regular firearms to trusts or corporations. No criminal would subject themselves to notifying the ATF of their intent to purchase a machine gun, wait 6-12 month to be able to receive the firearm, pay a $200 tax, and pay an extra $10,000 - $20,000 to purchase a legal machine gun when illegal machine guns can be purchased or made easily without waiting or notifying the ATF. This logic is flawed.


The use of a trust does not negate a background check. What it negates is the need for a sheriff to sign off. The NFA never should have been written to permit one individual to play judge over whomever he pleases and using a trust is an attempt to right this wrong.

If Obama wanted less people to use trusts all he had to do was strike the sheriff's sign off as a requirement. The background check still occurs. The ATF check and the NICS check are the same things. Just one is done by 6 people in a Washington office and takes a year or more. The other accesses a database (the same database those ATF inspectors are accessing) and takes a few minutes.

The entire NFA ATF check thing is complete bull designed to discourage owning NFA items.

What's the saying that comes to mind? Oh yeah, a right delayed is a right denied. Funny we should be remembering that man this week. Like a sick joke.



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 08:24 AM
link   


These executive actions build on the 23 executive actions that the Vice President recommended as part of the comprehensive gun violence reduction plan


24 and counting. Effective?

He might do better to walk around Chicago doing meet and greets in the gang infested neighborhoods and asking to borrow their gun.

Could it be that politicians just might not really understand reality or be capable of creating real solutions? They do seem to be a poor lot for sense.
edit on 8/30/2013 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


cherry pick? it was stated in the op


Today, ATF is issuing a new proposed regulation to close this loophole. The proposed rule requires individuals associated with trusts or corporations that acquire these types of weapons to undergo background checks, just as these individuals would if the weapons were registered to them individually. By closing this loophole, the regulation will ensure that machine guns and other particularly dangerous weapons do not end up in the wrong hands.


Your unsited quote was not in the op so there is no cherry picking just an analysis of the presented material.

Maybe your unwarranted aggression should be directed at the person who wrote what was quoted in the source article.

edit on 30-8-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


I've plenty of anger directed toward the administration clerk who released a bold lie as a statement of fact.

On the first page I responded to your "it's a good thing" post telling you it was a lie.

Later you repeated that it was a good thing based on that lie.

Misinfo and outright lies that dupe ignorant people into agreeing with and submitting to arbitrary rules and regulations drive me nuts.

I dont know which is worse, the originator of the lie or the public who just accepts it without looking anything up.

Of course there are people who want to believe it because they have some hard-on for gun bans so they'll buy whatever lie is told as long as it fits their world view. To them I say just be honest about it instead of looking like fools believing lies. Come out and say "I dont like guns and anything that chips away at gun ownership, even if it's completely fictional, is good to me."
edit on 30-8-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 




On the first page I responded to your "it's a good thing" post telling you it was a lie.

Later you repeated that it was a good thing based on that lie.


Sure but all you said was its a lie. You didn't back up your claim by presenting any credible information or reasons for your way of thinking in that post. If you had bothered to say anything more intelligent than "yah boo not true" then i would have considered what you had written.

So no cherry picking, just discussion of the presented facts.





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join