It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Carney: Obama Implementing Executive Actions Following Navy Yard Shooting

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 09:35 AM

There should be background checks for online sales and for gun shows. If I were to go into a gun store and buy a weapon I have to go through a background check so why shouldn't these other ways of obtaining weapons have the same rules.

That is reasonable but it said "one of his actions would be'. Did this shooter buy his gun at a gun show? How is this going to help? How will it reduce the incidents of people losing it and shooting others? I have not heard "how'.

It is the beginning to infringing on rights. Next it will be - "we get to see your medical records because background checks aren't enough" or "everyone must have a psyc eval". Right now felons can't have them. Usually they are a felon because they have already committed a serious crime. What will expanded background checks accomplish? Would it have prevented this crime? The Sandy Hook crime? It will never be enough. That's the point.

posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 09:38 AM
So we have to show our ID's to vote, why shouldn't a background check be required for every gun purchase at gun shows, online..etc?

posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 09:43 AM
reply to post by 727Sky

There you go! Angry Monkey's egging on other Angry Monkey's and your off to the races! I'm not really worried about the government taking peoples guns. I can't recall anything the government has done in recent memory that they actually got right! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 09:44 AM
reply to post by muse7

The online purchase loophole is a myth. You cannot order a firearm online without having it sent directly to an FFL dealer, where you then have to submit to a background check in order to take possession of said firearm. The only exception is if you are purchasing from an individual in certain states that allow long guns to be shipped in state to an individual. In which case is a person to person transaction that does not require a background check anyway.

The gun show loophole is also a half truth, if you purchase a firearm from an individual at a gun show that is selling their own personal firearm (varies by state) you do not have to submit to a background check, but if you are purchasing from a dealer you do have to submit to a background check.
edit on 9/17/2013 by SpaDe_ because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 09:49 AM
The POS has far too much power anyway, i suggest it be removed, includung the man himself
On the grounds that the US govt is in ca·hoots
with Al-Qaeda,and other national enemies, the very reason for the Patriot act.
edit on 17-9-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 09:51 AM

I mean, come on.

Every day, in every country, someone is shot by someone.
Does Obama wake up with a broken heart every morning, knowing that guns have hurt so many people?

Why does he pick out a shooting (as if it were fine cotton) to focus on?
Sure, more people than usual were killed in the incident, but, come on.

He's a scum-bag, and I'm sorry that my American Brothers and Sisters have to put up with him.

Last year 2012 saw a two decades low for homicides, in the District of Columbia. This has certainly been affected by the new gun laws allowing citizens to own handguns. No body wants to say it naturally. Law enforcement is getting all the credit.

posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 09:56 AM

The president has far too much power, i suggest it be removed, includung the man himself
On the grounds that the US govt is in ca·hoots
with Al-Qaeda, other national enemies, the very reason for the Patriot act.
edit on 17-9-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)

Yea the way he uses these orders makes them look as cheep as toilet paper. Also looks very very desperate and arbitrary. looks more like an exertion of personal will rather than executive prudence.

One would think that a person who wishes so desperately to aid some in their struggle against tyranny would understand what the 2nd amendment is there for and protect it as well.
edit on 17-9-2013 by Logarock because: more

posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 09:56 AM
To bad an AR was not used in the shooting...Really? What about eyewitness and video accts of a rifle?

It has been called the most popular rifle in America, and it briefly returned to the spotlight after Monday's shooting at the Navy Yard: the AR-15.
A U.S. law enforcement official said Monday that gunman Aaron Alexis unleashed a barrage of bullets using an AR-15, a rifle and a semi-automatic handgun. Authorities believed the AR-15 was used for most of the shooting, the official said. The news prompted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, one of the strongest proponents of a ban on assault weapons like the AR-15, to issue a statement the same day asking, "When will enough be enough?"
However, federal law enforcement sources told CNN Tuesday that authorities have recovered three weapons from the scene of the mass shooting, including one -- a shotgun -- that investigators believe Alexis brought in to the compound. The other two weapons, which sources say were handguns, may have been taken from guards at the Navy complex.
The sources, who have detailed knowledge of the investigation, cautioned that initial information that an AR-15 was used in the shootings may have been incorrect. It is believed that Alexis had rented an AR-15, but returned it before Monday morning's shootings. Authorities are still investigating precisely how many weapons Alexis had access to and when.

What happened to the 'rifle'?

posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 10:02 AM
reply to post by matafuchs
Some reliable sources, whatever that may mean, are saying that he brought only a shotgun and gained the rifle at the facility as well as the handgun.

posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 10:02 AM
reply to post by buster2010

There *IS* background check to online sales. 100% background check to online firearm sales. Unless you are a current holder of a Federal License to sell firearms yourself, no outlet can legally ship a gun directly to you. It has to go to an FFL, like a local gun store (and many offer the service these days) where a $30 fee is what they charge around here to complete the NICS check required by the Feds. Thats how a huge gun auction site like Gunbroker can work.

Same with Gunshows ...and if some states have weird laws with true loopholes like ridiculous definitions to collectors class guns or whatever to avoid NICS requirements, those do need addressed. My state has no such shortcut to buying a gun from a dealer or point of sale, of any kind.

On the other hand, I can meet a friend in a parking lot and sell him one of my firearms. I can also sell them at a garage sale...and have. I'm just a private citizen...which is all the difference and really IS a giant one. I get a photo ID copied, but I'm not legally required to under my state law and we rather like it that way in Missouri.

What right has Obama to say diddly about how my state likes it's affairs run? I don't think he has any more right than a pro-gun President would in saying states like California or Illinois have to radically change.

That's the joy of our system. Our states can be different. Very much, in some cases. At least until someone who fancies himself above going through the people's representatives comes along. Err...

posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 10:04 AM
This is a tragic event. However, I think they are going to play the PTSD and "mental disorder", and I am using that loosely here for all that it is worth and here is what I can see them push for and we already have seen this in the making with obamacare:

1. Anyone with any record of mental illness or treatment for any form of mental cannot own a firearm. This includes seeing a grief councilor for the loss of a loved one, will be regarded as a mental illness and unfit for owning a firearm.

2. The increase in early detection of mental illness and disorders, screen children as early as they can, for "preventive medication" of course. Of course this now is done with ADD and ADHD, which will be considered a mental illness, no future firearm ownership when the children come of age because of the "metal health" treatment as a child.

3. This is a two fold plan, it classifies everyone with some form of "mental illness" ends firearm ownership in one generation, or two tops, as well as bolsters the increase of profits for big pharma.


posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 10:06 AM

So we have to show our ID's to vote, why shouldn't a background check be required for every gun purchase at gun shows, online..etc?

Two separate issues there. I have to show ID to vote so someone cant come in and say they are me and vote in my place or to keep someone from voting several times. No relationship here with gun purchases.
edit on 17-9-2013 by Logarock because: n

posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 10:10 AM


Gee .. wanna' bet there won't be any mention about MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES and the need
to help people with mental health issues (which is what these shootings are really about)
.. but instead Obama will focus on taking away guns from law abiding citizens???

I agree people with mental health issues should be helped, although there should also be no way for them to gain access to firearms...

Having stronger background checks which require also mental health certificates from professionals is one of the few ways to deal with them. If you want a gun, you have to bring a paper signed by your psychiatrist or some mental health doctor, that says that in their eyes you are mentally stable to get a firearm.

Here for example, if I wanted to get a firearm I could, although it would be quite long process. I would need to go through a couple-of-month safety training on firearms (unless I go to military), get certificates from my GP and some mental health doctor, that my health and mental health are fine. They will take a look into my known "associates", ask around my family and/or known friends about my lifestyle etc. That is how it goes the first time. I need to get a new licence every couple of years, although the second time it only requires bringing in paperwork from my doctors. Although the amount of gun violence round here is also pretty much near zero, so at least round here such laws work.

In US there would be issues with such laws due to very different gun laws varying by state. The black market flourishes as in some areas people can get very easy access to firearms, while in others it is a bit more complicated process. In EU criminals would need to pass all the border safeties and overally getting a gun inside is a risky process, which drives up the black market prices. For most people, it is easier to go through the legal process of getting a firearm rather than paying the high price in the black market. Many would not even be able to afford getting a firearm from the black market, which lessens the amount of firearms a lot, especially in the hands of lower-levwl criminals. At least, in my area, nearly no criminal (assault/burglar and other low level) have a gun. Overally people though are not supportive towards firearms as most do not see a reason why to own them, when criminals don´t.

posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 10:22 AM
reply to post by Cabin

The only "good way" of doing this is to make a list of folks that are deemed to be mental cases otherwise, during the course of regular life.

Making folks that want to buy a weapon get a stamp of mental fitness before buying is downright opening the door wide for evil. Not only would it create a pure money pit bureaucracy, windfall for some, it also opens the door for an institutionalized area of social/political corruption that could circumvent the constitution and spread to other areas outside the gun issue.

posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 10:33 AM
reply to post by FlyersFan

The question is, what are they going to do about 'yards'. I am always hearing about falls, animal attacks, drownings in pools, etc.

It seems to me we have identified a major cause to nearly all misfortune, ban yards!

posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 10:37 AM
reply to post by FlyersFan

who didn't see this coming?!
Obama is chomping at the bits to enslave Americans- all in the name of "social justice"

When will we learn?!

posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 10:38 AM
In my state you do not need a background check to sell firearms privately between citizens. Whenever I've done this in the past getting a driver license number and a bill of sale is due diligence. Also any gun shows I've attended here require background checks if you're going to purchase. This in my mind is to restrictive, what part of "shall not be infringed" do people not get.

As far as the emperor's coming executive decrees they mean diddlly-squat personally. On a national scale not so good though. Pretty soon if the traitors get their way we'll be like the UK and the biggest rifle allowed will be a .22 and no handguns allowed. Then only criminals and patriots will have guns... Oh wait, in Obama's mind they are the same thing.

posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 10:59 AM

Here it comes .... Rule by executive action. AKA ... rule by executive order.
Take away the rights of law abiding citizens. Take away 2nd Amendment rights.
More power to the government. More power to criminals who ignore the rule of law.
Weaken citizens rights to defend themselves.
Make citizens depend upon the government to take care of them. (and govt always fails)

Gee .. wanna' bet there won't be any mention about MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES and the need
to help people with mental health issues (which is what these shootings are really about)
.. but instead Obama will focus on taking away guns from law abiding citizens???

Washington - CBS - Carney: Obama Implementing Executive Actions Following Navy Yard Shooting

In the wake of the shooting at the Navy Yard, Obama spokesman Jay Carney said the president is implementing executive actions and reiterated his commitment to strengthening gun laws, including expanding background checks to sales online and at gun shows.

“The president supports, as do an overwhelming majority of Americans, common-sense measures to reduce gun violence,” Carney said.

What can you expect. It's a rotating door of deminishing liberties. Side note! LETS GO FLYERS!

posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 11:00 AM
Having a firearm is irrelevant. I would say that 95%-97% of the privately owned firearms will never stop nor be part of a crime. The important part is the possibility that you own a firearm and that it might be on you at the time and location of a crime being committed.

If a criminal thinks that there is a high chance that you might have a gun and might use it, then you are not selected to be a victim. Think of it as a small scale version of Mutually Assured Destruction. If the odds are low that you have one and the odds are low that someone will intervene that has a gun, you are going to be a victim. It is just that simple.

In mass shootings like this, the shooter isn't overly concerned with surviving the encounter. They just want to take as many with them as they can.

Why do the gun grabbers in government want to take away your guns? Dependence. It makes you dependent upon their whims. Without firearms, you cannot go out and live off the land easily. You have to accept their form of society, jump their hoops to get their scraps of welfare.

Anyone with enough intelligence that can wipe their own butt after going to the bathroom without supervision can tell you that Obamacare is going to cost many people jobs and reduced income. It will hit those that make the least the most. That means more people will be dependent. Those without the means to provide for themselves will be forced to become part of the system. Support the system or you will get by on less. That is control. That is tyranny. That is the very thing that 1/3 of the people founded this country to avoid in the first place.

But then a funny thing happened back in the mid to late 1800's. A few tried to stand up for their right to self-govern and the Civil War was fought. The defeated were subjugated and made dependent as punishment during Reconstruction. After a few decades of being broken, money and power was centralized under the Federal Reserve Act and The New Deal (which was Reconstruction on a National level). Progressive ideas continued into the 60's and 70's from the New Deal that undermined social and family structures. The people were sold on the idea that they could act without responsibility because their good old Uncle Sam would be there to fix the messes made.

Well, that rich uncle is broke now. Oh, he still puts on airs and says the same old things to save face. But four or five generations of irresponsibility have him broke just the same. And when the time comes that he can no longer fix your messes, you will be left to fend for yourself. The choice is to be left a babe in the woods or to be able to provide for you and yours.

Banning firearms means that only those that do not comply will have them. Well except that old broke uncle, he will have his and has been stockpiling the ammo so you cannot.

posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 11:08 AM
reply to post by FlyersFan

Amazingly enough, no mention at all of the effects of taking Big Pharms psychological drugs and how they can cause events such as yesterdays.........

The gun is nothing more than a prop in incidents like these. If they really cared about the safety of people they would shut down Big Pharm for start!

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in