Carney: Obama Implementing Executive Actions Following Navy Yard Shooting

Ahabstar
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 true figures may be as low as 1/1000th of a % in the case of weapons used out of total in a criminal action.

FlyersFan

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)

Of I could, I'd give you a thousand stars and a thousand flags for the comment above. This should be the real debate not Syria, not Iran, not guns but Big Pharma and what their "legal" drugs do to the population. But no, everyone will just point at guns and video games.

reply to post by beezzer


Obama cannot deny all firearms to vets with PTSD....


...It would decimate our domestic police departments--not to mention
FEMA, the Deptartment of Homeland Security, the TSA and the newly
empowered IRS....

....who would they get to fire all those billions of stockpiled hollowpoints?

reply to post by rival


You see, in the PPACA, there is a provision that is little known but used. The HHS or Health and Human Services can visit and enter ANY home that meets the following high risk criteria...

Families where mom is not yet 21.
Families where someone is a tobacco user.
Families who home school.
Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities.

AAANNNDDDDD...drum roll please.....
Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States.

Families who served or are currently serving? Why? What is at risk about that. Unless, there is a fear created in the US that servicemen all have PTSD. They should not have weapons as they are a risk.

Also, Part of the program will require massive data collecting of private information including all sources of income and the amount gathered from each source.

mcsandy
. I would imagine the majority of those supporting BOs independent exec actions have NO CLUE as to how they affect our freedom.

So how do executive actions affect the freedoms of slaves? Isn't that a oxymoron?

reply to post by Cabin


I can see them using any excuse to say people have mental issues or are prone to them.
So lets say I'm in a life changing auto accident and have bad nightmares from them once in a while I let my Dr. know and he writes down in my file that I have symptoms of ptsd, should I be worried that the law will come and take my guns from me?

I don't trust my government enough to let them decide who has mental issues.

rival
reply to post by beezzer

 

Obama cannot deny all firearms to vets with PTSD....


...It would decimate our domestic police departments--not to mention
FEMA, the Deptartment of Homeland Security, the TSA and the newly
empowered IRS....

....who would they get to fire all those billions of stockpiled hollowpoints?

Government waivers.

Worked for Obamacare, why not gun ownership?

reply to post by FlyersFan

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

....the fact remains that firearm crimes as a percent of all violent incidents has remained constant, and is only 8%

8%

www.nij.gov

maybe we should focus on the unemployment rate which is, in reality, at 13.7%

13%

21.6 million people!

www.unionofunemployed.com

reply to post by beezzer


It could also be a plot to take away firearms from those who would pose a serious threat to a corrupt government.

Waivers for those who will go along with the "plan." Confiscation for those that would oppose it.

I am sure it is easy to see who falls where with NSA monitoring and the new ACA asking questions on social behavior....

Logarock
The only "good way" of doing this is to make a list of folks that are deemed to be mental cases ...

And who would the Obama dept's Dept of Justice deem as to be 'mental cases' .... returning vets .... Tea Party Members ... anyone who disagrees with their version of reality. That would be an interesting list ....

buster2010
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.

Ok i'm gonna rant here. This information here is based off of an antigun talking point and is a flat out lie thats getting old.

First of all we will establish a basic concept, firearms no matter how much the anti-gun crowd screams and cries are peices of property, nothing more, nothing less. Individuals can transfer property as they see fit in a free society.There is no gunshow loophole or online loophole here.

Second. The websites you see online selling firearms are registered FFL dealers or manufacturers, there are half a dozen various licenses that encompass these types of sellers. All of which are in compliance with federal and state laws. What that means is if i purchase a firearm from an online retailer, they are required by law to transfer that firearm to a local FFL who in turn requires the purchaser to fill out a 4473 background check and if that purchaser passes that background check the firearm is only then transferred to the purchaser.

Third, the "gunshow loophole" is a flat out lie, any FFL operating and selling firearms at a gunshow is required by law to make the purchaser complete the form 4473. There is even a section on the 4473 which requires the FFl to indicate that the transaction took place at a gunshow and not at the FFl's normal business location.


The anti-gun crowd likes to take individual to individual sales of property, which in a free society is legal. And apply that blanket transaction and make it appear that dealers are not making purchasers complete a 4473.

It is a flat out lie an needs to end, if the anti-gun crowd wants to go after something at least have the decency to do so honestly and not prey on ignorance.


I've operated under the FFL of one of the countries largest firearms retailers for five years now, I've personally transferred tens of thousands of firearms over the course of my employment there and I can tell you this, in my time there I've only received a "denied" response from NICS TWICE, In those five years. I've personally denied hundreds based on the shady characteristics, or comments of those attempting to buy firearms. Of those I've personally denied, the ones who managed to get to the point of a NICS submission received a PROCEED from NICS. What does this mean? well it means they don't have a criminal record, It does not mean they aren't criminals.

Background checks serve only one purpose in my experience, and that is to make the ignorant feel good because "bad guys" can't buy guns. Well from my experience I've only had TWO "bad guys" try to buy guns, because if you don't have a "criminal record" NICS doesn't consider you a "bad guy" And based on those TWO experiences in five years It is my opinion that background checks are a waste of time because statistically "bad guys" don't attempt to buy guns through the legal channels. And NICS only infringes on the law abiding citizen.

I think it's time to take control and not let Bush/Obama & friends hurt those that aren't criminal. It's time to take our rights and Country back. Once the little Antz realize that if they stick together.. There's more of us then " them"

Good always prevails... That's why I'm not giving up hope in my people and my " higher power "

buster2010
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.

There are background checks for online sales and gun shows. You cannot go online and order a gun from Ruger, it must be shipped to an FFL who then must do the background check. It is illegal to ship firearms through the mail or UPS except to a FFL holder. If you go to a gun show and buy from a dealer, you must have the same background check that you would if you go to the dealer's shop.

The gun-show loophole myth is one that is perpetuated by the left in attempt to register guns that were purchased before the form 4473 system was put in place. What they want to do is de-facto registry of guns not on the registry and track private sales. Currently, I can sell my neighbor my old shotgun without a background check but I can't sell my handgun--that requires a pistol purchase permit.

So many people do not know much about guns or the laws we already have.

Anyone other than me think the Navy Yard shooting was custom made for Obama? I mean he had two armed handlers bring him into building 197. Of course, these two have disappeared, now. Happened again, damn.

Each time this issue surfaces, gun control advocates in politics cite an unproven "overwhelming majority of sensible Americans", as being in agreement.
This is exemplary of the current state of the US; policy is predetermined by special interests, and imposed upon the public as conventional wisdom. The ignorant or complacent masses will yield considerate personal convictions, to alleged peer opinion and morality.
The illusion of democracy and citizenry's voice evermore thinly veils predetermined political agenda.

In the wake of Mr. Obama's threat to "send a message" to Syria by way of cruise missiles, I feel that it would be much better to keep our armed forces out of the hands of known narcissists.

See ya,
Milt

Obama already made some Eo's regarding guns, now never letting a good crisis go to waste. Here comes another helping of stupid.

Pay attention people to the history here. A certain group just hates guns, and we all know who without mentioning their names.

Now for the history part:

It hasn’t always been the case that only MPs can carry firearms on U.S. military bases. A mere twenty years ago, “gun free zones” made their way to these facilities under the watch of President Bill Clinton.

According to a Washington Times editorial written days after the Nov. 5, 2009 attack on soldiers at Fort Hood, one of Clinton’s “first acts upon taking office… was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases.”

Here is another link that some people are not going to like:

therealrevo.com...

Insanity is the word of the day. They keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect a different result.

Punish those of us who have done nothing wrong.


www.thedailydigest.org...

America the land of the weak..

They love to talk about how strong and brave they are..but cry and whine when mention of gun control comes.

Guns give these fools a sense of power they would not have otherwise. Cry about being defenseless without them...which is pretty friggin`pathetic.

Have the lies begun yet...you know the ones.

Guns prevent crime(rare that a gun is actually used to stop anything..more stories of average people including children stopping some criminal), guns stop tyranny(if true..then you would not be on here claiming your rights are continually be stripped) and the best one if guns are taken then only the bad guys will have them (lie based on the fact of Canada`s law..we don`t have access to all sorts of guns yet the bad guys are not running around with guns and controlling our lives here like they do in America)


So thank the NRA and gun nuts to the latest mass shooting, they will always fight any reasonable gun laws and even think the weak laws in place are too harsh.. As long as these idiots fight any reasonable laws..the mentally ill, and criminals will always have access to guns.

reply to post by Onslaught2996


Gun lawss give these fools a sense of power they would not have otherwise. Cry about being defenseless without them...which is pretty friggin`pathetic.

Fixed for accuracy.

According to the officials at the press conference today, in reply to a question on response time (from initial report to "neutralizing the suspect") it took approx 10 minutes. So, proof positive, that even in an "ideal situation", where armed units are on-the-scene (there were armed units deployed in the area already as part of standard security measures), they were still minutes away from helping people. In this 10 minutes, the suspect killed all of those unarmed people.

Very sad....very sad.