CNN to host Obama town hall on guns in America

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Obama just wants to make it harder for criminals to obtain them...

Is it legal for criminals to obtain them now?

What is the answer?

Make it more illegal?

No, the answer isn't to make it 'more' illegal. The answer is to make guns harder for criminals to obtain, by making current regulations more efficient.

People complain about the number of criminals given the death penalty in Texas.

Commit first degree murder in Texas and you might get the death penalty.

Do murders still happen in Texas?

The only thing that deters crimes from occurring, is actually been caught in the first place.

Its an established fact that the penalty for a crime doesn't deter criminals from committing said crime, since people usually commit crimes on the premise they won't be busted in the first place.

So by creating more efficient regulations, which make it more likely people who purchase guns legally to sell on the black market will be caught, you will obviously reduce the amount of illegal guns in circulation.

Are you opposed to the death penalty?

Yes, I am opposed to the death penalty... Since as I have already mentioned, its the chances of being caught which deters people from committing a crime, not the penalty.

originally posted by: Informer1958
They need to enforce the existing gun laws that are already on the books and leave us law biding citizens alone.

Enough..

The government are not going to get all our guns, to many of us have learned what other countries did after they disarmed their citizens.

What Obama is wanting to do is illegal and goes against the Constitutions.

When you have people who are afraid of their government you have Tyranny. We are afraid of our government and don't trust them any longer.

When the government is afraid of the people you have Liberty.

Did you actually understand the proposal is to make background checks mandatory when buying from sources such as gun shows where today they are not mandatory - why is that illegal or tyrannical? Instead of reading what is actually proposed why does every American auto translate it into "They're gonna come and try and take my guns"? Is that what the NRA drills into peoples brains that means they no longer have the ability to try and understand the actual facts?

a reply to: uncommitted

Except they are mandatory at gun shows.

What everyone refers to there is when two individuals decide between themselves to pass a gun off. That doesn't just happen at gun shows. It happens everywhere, including on the street between criminals, and making it more illegal won't stop it.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

In other words, your argument is that by taking them away from people who own them legally, it will make them harder for criminals to get?

Brilliant!

And absolutely not going to happen. So long as criminals and the government, but I repeat myself, can be armed, then the law abiding should also be able to arm themselves just as easily. That is what the 2nd Amendment says, so the only legal way to stop it is to take THAT away.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

In other words, your argument is that by taking them away from people who own them legally, it will make them harder for criminals to get?

Yeah, well actually I never said anything that even resembles what your claiming.

To be totally honest, I'm starting to think that 'American gun confiscation paranoia' could easily be recognized as a legitimate and very serious mental illness.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: uncommitted

Except they are mandatory at gun shows.

What everyone refers to there is when two individuals decide between themselves to pass a gun off. That doesn't just happen at gun shows. It happens everywhere, including on the street between criminals, and making it more illegal won't stop it.

My understanding is that it's only mandatory if the seller sells a 'high volume' of guns - what is classed as high volume I wouldn't know, but if the seller doesn't reach that limit then they do not - currently - have to ensure a background check has taken place.

originally posted by: greencmp

Besides there being no qualifications to the second amendment, allowing the academy to specify the parameters for sanity and, therefore, capability and authorization to defend oneself is not acceptable.

I see your point

a reply to: xuenchen

Yeah, well, good luck with that. Somehow, I don't think that a televised meeting of Obama, Cooper and a few hundred hand-selected supporters and staffers in an echo chamber against a few fake pro-2A plants thrown in to make bad arguments is going to be particularly persuasive.

Put this in a pro-2A setting with a pro-2A host with Obama open to any and all criticism and critique and where he's really pressed to defend his policy and he might at least earn a shred of respect and credibility. He has precisely zero of either one at the moment.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa
Up to 75% of crimes are never solved.

I think the problem is with criminals.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: uncommitted

Except they are mandatory at gun shows.

What everyone refers to there is when two individuals decide between themselves to pass a gun off. That doesn't just happen at gun shows. It happens everywhere, including on the street between criminals, and making it more illegal won't stop it.

My understanding is that it's only mandatory if the seller sells a 'high volume' of guns - what is classed as high volume I wouldn't know, but if the seller doesn't reach that limit then they do not - currently - have to ensure a background check has taken place.

Its mandatory for licensed dealers, including at gun shows. At the federal level, private citizens can buy and sell among each other without need of a background check regardless of venue. Technically, there's no upper limit on how many they can sell from a private collection, though Obama's executive order, legal or not, is rumored to change that into something such as you describe, where a certain number or sales triggers a need for a dealer's license. Personally, I don't have a problem with that. If you're selling 50 firearms every year, you're a dealer, IMO. For me, the background check proposals usually run into trouble by trying to extend that to all circumstances, including temporary transfers between family and close friends even at a gun range, for instance, as well as inheritance.

Of course, no one mentions that part of the problem here lies in the fact that the Clinton administration made it more difficult to acquire an FFL license back in the late 90s. Further, the whole issue could probably be solved with less drama and partisanship by allowing some sort of access to the NICS system by private citizens.

originally posted by: vor78

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: uncommitted

Except they are mandatory at gun shows.

What everyone refers to there is when two individuals decide between themselves to pass a gun off. That doesn't just happen at gun shows. It happens everywhere, including on the street between criminals, and making it more illegal won't stop it.

My understanding is that it's only mandatory if the seller sells a 'high volume' of guns - what is classed as high volume I wouldn't know, but if the seller doesn't reach that limit then they do not - currently - have to ensure a background check has taken place.

Its mandatory for licensed dealers, including at gun shows. At the federal level, private citizens can buy and sell among each other without need of a background check regardless of venue. Technically, there's no upper limit on how many they can sell from a private collection, though Obama's executive order, legal or not, is rumored to change that into something such as you describe, where a certain number or sales triggers a need for a dealer's license. Personally, I don't have a problem with that. If you're selling 50 firearms every year, you're a dealer, IMO. For me, the background check proposals usually run into trouble by trying to extend that to all circumstances, including temporary transfers between family and close friends even at a gun range, for instance, as well as inheritance.

Of course, no one mentions that part of the problem here lies in the fact that the Clinton administration made it more difficult to acquire an FFL license back in the late 90s. Further, the whole issue could probably be solved with less drama and partisanship by allowing some sort of access to the NICS system by private citizens.

Thanks for the clarification.

Speaking of NICS checks, I see that the FBI has the December numbers out this morning. Obama ain't gonna like what he sees. At 3.3 million, December didn't just break the previous monthly record, it blew it completely out of the water, exceeding the old record set in Dec. 2012 by over half a million. Further, 2015 was a yearly record as well, beating the old record set in 2013 by more than 2 million at over 23.1 million. You can find those numbers here.

Perhaps its time for Obama to quit kicking this hornet's nest.

a reply to: reldra

Oh are you kidding me??

So, since Congress hasn't acted, unConstitutionally, to circumvent the 2nd, you are okay with 0bama passing EOs which infringe on the Rights of the People...

Have you actually read the 2nd?

a reply to: vor78

They just had a report on the BBC and a seller not licensed said he had to ask for Id and then ask if they are a felon or if they have any idea on why he shouldn't sell them a gun. He said anyone can lie and that is why the loophole should be closed.
I can't see a problem closing the loophole and neither did the seller in the report.

a reply to: reldra

You clearly have no clue as to the founding of the federal Govt and how it was established.

Gridlock was built into the framework to slow down govt. Instead of this moronic Progressive ideals of a Govt running everything and being used to protect us from ourselves, it was designed to have any change be slow and with many roadblocks. The founding fathers knew the people would make rash/knee jerk reactions towards life, but those reactions would be fleeting and go against the rights stated in the documents.


But....screw it. I mean, since Congress has dragged its feet and not worked to INFRINGE upon the rights of the people, then by all means, allow Lord 0bama, or the next president (can't wait for it to be Trump) and then have people like you scream about how unfair this side of the coin is.

a reply to: reldra

This is about as clear as it gets. "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"
How is this difficult to understand?

Only lawyers and Progressives could manage to convince themselves that this is not exact and detailed in just what is meant.

a reply to: FamCore

I have a prescription for mild anti-depressants. Any liberal-leaning anti-gun law would automatically disqualify me from owning a firearm. The fact that I own more than one, and have for many years, and have not yet "gone postal" on anyone with them wouldn't matter a damn...

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

"efficient" and "Govt" don't work and was never intended on being mutual.

Since criminals don't go directly to gun dealers and/or FFLs to procure their firearms, introducing more laws for those FFLs does nothing.

What does the 2nd amendment state? Just wondering if you can provide that. Read it out loud as you find the direct statement, and maybe as you type it.

a reply to: uncommitted

Infringement is infringement.

a reply to: macman

Look who is back.

Good to see you around.