What Is And What Is Not In President Obama’s Gun Package
President Obama’s executive order on gun control contains only mild measures, and doesn’t take the kind of drastic steps the right has feared.
Here are three things that are in the package (according to the White House fact sheet):
• Hiring more people to run the FBI background check system, so the government can be “processing background checks 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.”
• Requesting from Congress an additional $500 million to increase access to mental health care.
• Clarifying that people selling guns over the Internet can still be required to conduct background checks on buyers if they are “engaged in the business” of selling guns, not just a hobbyist.
And here’s the stuff discussed in the days before the announcement that is NOT in the package:
• A requirement that every gun sale in the country is proceeded by a criminal background check.
• A ban on gun sales to people on terrorist “no-fly” lists.
• A ban on large capacity magazines that hold a lot of bullets.
Copyright 2016 Liberaland
126 responses to What Is And What Is Not In President Obama’s Gun Package
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Red Eye Robot January 5th, 2016 at 10:54
• Hiring more people to run the FBI background check system, so the government can be “processing background checks 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.”
With the new gun shopping channel coming, obama is speeding up the background check process to facilitate!
Mensa Member January 5th, 2016 at 11:18
Are you serious about a gun shopping channel?
I have to admit — I’d kind of like to see that. Sort of the way I watch Spanish variety shows and televangelists.
That being said, if backgrounds checks are required, they should not take an unreasonable time.
mistlesuede January 5th, 2016 at 12:33
Yes. When I heard about it before the holidays, I wanted to cry. A couple of former regular shopping channel hosts are starting it. I hope Time Warner does not carry it and I will probably call them soon to express my outrage if they are considering it.
tracey marie January 5th, 2016 at 11:44
I bet you got wet hearing about this debacle.
Hirightnow January 5th, 2016 at 12:26
All three of his listeners do.
tracey marie January 5th, 2016 at 12:27
Amazing how ignorant he is.
Hirightnow January 5th, 2016 at 13:00
Actually, for his type, he’s par for the course.
tracey marie January 5th, 2016 at 13:03
I went to his webcast site…he would not let me on.
MBJR January 5th, 2016 at 13:09
How’d you come up with three? Mommy and ?
MyDogsAreSmarterThanYou January 5th, 2016 at 12:22
Which kind of puts a hole in the argument that Obama wants to A) Keep law-abiding citizens from accessing guns and B) Grab everyone’s guns.
Terri Geer January 7th, 2016 at 17:43
Sane people know this. The problem is that these people are not sane.
Maxx44 January 5th, 2016 at 11:08
From what is spewing out of the hate-radio RWNJs you’d think Obama was ordering everyone to turn in their guns. Gun rights have been expanded under Obama, but the right doesn’t like to confuse their base with facts.
Mensa Member January 5th, 2016 at 11:22
Here’s the executive order I’d like to see:
States can have no more guns stores than abortion clinics, with similar waiting periods, counseling and cautionary videos.
Suzanne McFly January 5th, 2016 at 12:04
I liked the statement in his message where he said something similar to “I am not here to fight about the last gun murder, I am here to prevent the next one”.
trees January 12th, 2016 at 18:57
He can’t prevent a murder, any more than he can lower the sea level, or shrink the moon.
BillPasadena January 5th, 2016 at 12:25
Yet no mention of all the police shootings?
No plan to stop the government from killing Americans in the street?
Hirightnow January 5th, 2016 at 12:28
Nobody took away your precious
substitute penisgun rights, so it’s time to move some goalposts,eh?BillPasadena January 5th, 2016 at 12:36
Obama is not taking any guns out of the hands of criminals with his plan.
Criminals don’t need a background check to buy a gun illegally.
Hirightnow January 5th, 2016 at 12:54
Well, shouldn’t CONGRESS be doing something about that? You know, the people that the RW gun rubbers claim ARE the ones who are supposed to be making the laws?
Either he’s a dictator because he’s doing what Congress is supposed to do, or he’s wrong because he’s NOT doing what Congress is supposed to do.
Make up your mind, assuming you have one, and not just an empty space between your ears where RW rhetoric echoes around until it finds its way out of your mouth or through your fingers.
BillPasadena January 7th, 2016 at 14:00
We already have gun laws.
We lack a government that is willing to use those laws against criminals.
Ten Year Decline in Federal Weapons Convictions
http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/409/
If something needs to be done regarding gun violence, putting criminals into jail is a logical first step.
Hirightnow January 7th, 2016 at 14:29
Deflection.
Some moron robbing a convenience store is NOT a federal crime, it’s a state crime. So unless you want the federal government to step in and prosecute any and all crimes (thought you constimuhtooshunalists were agin’ that sort of thing?), the states will have to continue to do so.
Now, some mouth-breather in magic underwear taking over federal property to protest, using weapons and crossing state borders to do so, DOES fall under federal jurisdiction…but you’ll likely just argue that it is for the “sheriffs” to decide, because(insert wing-nut logic here).
Congress makes the laws, so blame THEM for the crime ( and,no, the DOJ has not stopped any street-level criminal from being prosecuted for any reason, unless there were federal issues).
I restate my previous post:He’s either a tyrannical dictator intent on throwing the white man into chains, or he’s an ineffective leader who keeps getting it wrong: make up your mind; you cannot have it both ways, unless you’re delusional.
(Are you delusional? Do voices come to you at night talking about reclaiming the white man’s place in America through God’s vengeance? If so, ask your psychiatrist to change your meds. )
BillPasadena January 7th, 2016 at 14:54
I never said anything about white people or race.
Like you said, deflection.
Obama measures wouldn’t have kept guns from mass shooters
http://www.chron.com/news/crime/article/Obama-measures-wouldn-t-have-kept-guns-from-mass-6738645.php
Even with hindsight Obama wasn’t able to come up with ideas that would have prevented SandyHook. How crazy.
Red Eye Robot January 7th, 2016 at 17:11
Use of a gun by a convicted felon in any crime is FEDERAL CRIME, punishable by mandatory 10 years in prison. Mere possession of a gun by a convicted felon is punishable by 2 to 10 years in federal prison.
Hirightnow January 8th, 2016 at 06:44
There went the goalposts.
Nowhere did anyone mention “convicted felon” until you needed it to make a point.
And exactly how are these people NOT being prosecuted?
Red Eye Robot January 8th, 2016 at 09:15
Are you under some assumption that people who resort to gun crime are first offenders? People who commit crimes with guns generally already have extensive criminal histories. How is it possible the Bush administration, who did a lousy job prosecuting gun crime offenders on federal charges, prosecuted 5x as many people yearly as the obama administration?
Hirightnow January 8th, 2016 at 09:49
Yeah. Everybody who uses a gun in the commission of a crime is already a felon, because reasons and stuff.
As for your question, crime rates are down under Obama. Maybe the police will need something to do if this trend continues…like rounding up seditious radio hosts.
tracey marie January 5th, 2016 at 12:59
making background cks necessary for “infrequent” sellers says diffrently, as well as making private sales back ground ck necessary. Cop tries to sell 2 guns, they attempt to rob him, shoot out in a park…you are wrong as usual.
Red Eye Robot January 5th, 2016 at 14:23
The 1994 Brady law dictates who must perform background checks, nothing obarkey has said or done changes that law.
tracey marie January 5th, 2016 at 16:06
Nonsense you pos
tracey marie January 5th, 2016 at 13:00
#blacklivesmatter…something you disparage.
BillPasadena January 6th, 2016 at 14:26
Please stop your stalking and replying to me. It’s getting creepy.
tracey marie January 6th, 2016 at 14:29
wah!
Terri Geer January 7th, 2016 at 17:46
lol You are on a public forum. If you don’t want people to respond you shouldn’t post.
mistlesuede January 5th, 2016 at 12:29
I just watched the coverage of President Obama’s plan in it’s entirety. Every time I think I could not be prouder of this President, he proves me wrong.
I see that the effect on you of Sandy Hook devastated you the same as I. I love you President Obama. You are a very good man who wants the best for the innocents in this society and you have shown the weakness of the right wing and their gun humping lobby as human beings. They have no moral character at all.
BillPasadena January 5th, 2016 at 13:17
Why not increased penalties for criminals that use guns?
The people that use guns to harm others should be the focus of gun laws.
Red Eye Robot January 7th, 2016 at 18:04
We don’t even need increased penalties. We just need to vigorously prosecute on the federal level people who use guns in crime. DeEris Brown who should have been serving a 10 year sentence for felony robbery but was on probation when he killed 9 year old Jamyla Golden.
Bunya January 5th, 2016 at 13:36
It’s a good start but IMO, it doesn’t go far enough. When he makes gun and firearm possession illegal except for the military and police, then I’ll be happy.
Jimmy Fleck January 5th, 2016 at 13:55
Do you believe the president has the authority to do that? Does Congress have the authority to do that?
Bunya January 5th, 2016 at 13:58
Why not? Something has to change. There are too many psychotics and “responsible” gun owners out there killing off the population.
Jimmy Fleck January 5th, 2016 at 13:59
What other parts of the Constitution do you feel should just be ignored?
Bunya January 5th, 2016 at 14:04
Since when are a bunch of ammosexual hillbillies considered a “well regulated militia”?
Jimmy Fleck January 5th, 2016 at 14:18
I think the Supreme Court rulings on this recently decided that the 2nd Amendment was indeed an individual right. No militia required.
Bunya January 5th, 2016 at 14:37
You’re right. And that’s why the U.S. leads the world in gun-related deaths. We’re #1! We’re #1!
Red Eye Robot January 7th, 2016 at 18:13
Wow! Not even close, about 9000 gun murders in the US annually.(3.1 per 100,000), 1 in Every 5 of the worlds 437,000 homicides was in Brazil, Columbia, or Venezuela.
Bunya January 8th, 2016 at 09:53
Now THERE’s a good reason to keep firearms in the hands of the public! How did we allow ourselves to fall so behind in gun related fatalities? How dare we let Brazil, Colombia and Venezuela beat us at our own game!
Terri Geer January 7th, 2016 at 17:49
But it isn’t an unlimited right. That is, also, what SCOTUS ruled.
Red Eye Robot January 7th, 2016 at 18:09
I love how this statement is offered with no supporting example of how it could be legally limited Sqwak! Polly want a talking point
Jake January 5th, 2016 at 14:23
You’re prejudiced.
bpollen January 5th, 2016 at 16:03
Are ammosexual hillbillies a protected class?
Homosexual January 5th, 2016 at 14:38
FYI, they embrace the term “ammosexual”. Don’t use that term.
William January 5th, 2016 at 16:26
In 1989, then-President George H.W. Bush halted the importation of some semi-automatic firearms that could be considered “assault weapons” under existing legal authority provided by the 1968 Gun Control Act, under the determination that they were not “particularly suitable for or readily adapting to sporting purposes.”
Bush used his executive powers after a career criminal killed five kids and wounded 29 others with an AK-47 assault rifle on Jan. 27, 1989, in California. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/12/range-executive-actions-possible-on-guns-some-more-controversial-than-others.html#ixzz2I0NThhdu
I’m just wondering if you were similarly outraged.
amongoose January 5th, 2016 at 23:03
Like the “responsible gun owners” in Baltimore that set a new record for gun homicides, or the ones responsible for a few thousand shootings in Chicago?
.
How many of those will abide by any gun laws, they don’t now, why will more laws stop them?
Criminal control would work much better.
.
Actual gun deaths have been falling in proportion to population for several decades according to FBI statistics.
FBI says 8,124 homicides by gun. CDC cites 21,175 suicides by gun.
Those homicides also include defensive shootings, almost a thousand killed by police, most of those murders were committed by people prohibited from owning guns to begin with.
Bunya January 6th, 2016 at 10:40
The reason Chicago shootings are so prevalent is because it’s so easy for one to drive 20 minutes to Indiana and purchase a killing device for practically nothing.
.
“Those homicides also include defensive shootings,…”
You’re right. Everybody should own a killing device. The NRA say we need good guys with guns to counter bad guys with guns. That’s why the U.S. is #1 in gun related deaths.
amongoose January 6th, 2016 at 12:44
So you can buy a handgun without a background check in Indiana?
.
Or would they be “straw buyers” (already illegal) purchasing them there and selling them on the streets?
Bunya January 6th, 2016 at 13:02
They buy them from private owners and/or at gun shows. And since there’s no TSA check at the border of Indiana and Illinois, it’s way too easy to smuggle them in.
amongoose January 6th, 2016 at 16:30
What are the sources of your claim?
Surveys and studies by the Univ. of Chicago found they rarely obtain their weapons from gun shows or the internet. They are from individuals, who are breaking the law by selling to them, or from friends or gang members, also illegal transfers. Those purchasing their weapons through a dealer either had no criminal record at the time of purchase, or were illegally sold a weapon by the dealer.
Those friends, and dealers doing it were violating the law.
Start with prosecution there.
All new and many used weapons sold can be traced to the original buyer by form 4473, and it’s point of sale from manufacturers shipping records as to which FFL dealer they were sent to.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/276724037/Preventive-Medicine-University-of-Chicago-gun-study-August-2015
Only 10% of recently incarcerated state prison inmates who carried a gun indicate that they purchased that gun from a licensed dealer (gun store or pawnbroker).Rather, most of the transactions (70%) are with social connections(friends and family) or with “street” sources. The latter may include fences, drug dealers, brokers who sell guns, and gangs.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html
http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/7/71/915770/university-chicago-survey-finds-crooks-get-guns-from-pals-dont-keep-them-long
In a survey of almost 100 detainees in the Cook county jail, few said they get firearms at gun shows or through the internet
Bunya January 6th, 2016 at 17:26
I stand corrected. They purchase their guns from private owners.
But the result is the same. The results are still the same.
BTW, it’s easier to discharge a loaded firearm than you might think.
amongoose January 6th, 2016 at 17:44
Have had a weapon since age 6, I was taught was gun safety before I was taught to shoot. And that was with a Benjamin .22, single shot, pump charged air rifle.
Dad said having only one shot would make me a better shot, he was right. My childhood learning to shoot was appreciated by my government.
Much more than I appreciate them now, since 1971 actually.
I think we both agree that we need to get guns out of the hands of criminals,
just disagree as to how.
.
Those private owners (and they are traceable) should be prosecuted.
There is also a gun shop near Chicago (Gary’s) that a lot of guns from crime scenes have been traced to. Prosecute the gun dealer if they sold to those who can’t legally own weapons, or the people who bought the weapons and resold them to criminals. Let’s try fully and aggressively enforcing the laws we have.
trees January 12th, 2016 at 12:13
Criminals will always be able to obtain guns, even if you make guns illegal, because guess what, criminals do illegal things…
Like steal guns, for example….
Law abiding citizens are at a disadvantage from the outset, because they are peaceful.
Allowing hateful criminals to have weapons while denying a peaceful population these same instruments is leading sheep to the slaughter.
Except that….
The population is arming themselves.
You can thank your king for that.
Thanks, king Obama.
Bunya January 12th, 2016 at 12:28
“Like steal guns, for example….”
Maybe if there were no guns to steal, we wouldn’t have that problem.
.
“…because they are peaceful.”
Yeah, until their kids get their hands on their loaded firearm.
.
“The population is arming themselves.”
Once again, if the killing devices weren’t available, the population wouldn’t be arming themselves. That includes the criminals.
.
“You can thank your king for that.”
Yes well, we’re all aware of what you think of the black guy in the White House.
trees January 12th, 2016 at 14:44
Bunya, “Maybe if there were no guns to steal, we wouldn’t have that problem.”
Are you going to disarm the police? Do you think it would be difficult to steal a gun from a cop?
Bunya, “Yeah, until their kids get their hands on their loaded firearm.”
Cops are parents, are you talking about them?
Once again, if the killing devices weren’t available, the population wouldn’t be arming themselves. That includes the criminals.
Once again, criminals will always be able to acquire guns, if guns exist at all. Guns exist, being that they exist, there will always be a way to get one, illegally. The only ones who won’t have one, will be those who obey the law.
<strongYes well, we're all aware of what you think of the black guy in the White House.
His race has nothing to do with it. Do you not support Ben Carson because of his race? Do you hate Allen West because he’s black?
Bunya January 12th, 2016 at 14:54
Perhaps you failed to read my post above. I said firearm ownership should be illegal for everyone but cops and the military.
.
“…criminals will always be able to acquire guns, if guns exist at all.”
Hence, if guns weren’t made available to the general public, the number of firearm fatalities , IMO, would drop dramatically.
.
No. I don’t support Ben Carson and Allen West because I don’t support their policies. I’m a liberal. We’re not racist.
trees January 12th, 2016 at 15:34
I don’t support Barack Obama because of his political policies, but you always try to inject race into the discussion.
I said firearm ownership should be illegal for everyone but cops and the military.
Because you mistakenly believe that somehow guns won’t be available to criminals…. we have laws that make drug possession illegal, how’s that working out? Are illicit drugs available to those who want them?
Bunya, “Hence, if guns weren’t made available to the general public, the number of firearm fatalities , IMO, would drop dramatically.”
Cocaine, illegal, but you can get it if you want it and thousands die from using it. Heroin, illegal, but thousands die from it. Drunk driving, illegal, but thousands die from, and kill others with them…
Bunya January 12th, 2016 at 15:57
When was the last time you heard of a 3-year-old overdosing on cocaine, or forcing his friends or siblings to overdose on cocaine? I can tell you how many children have gotten their hands on loaded firearms and killed their friends and family.
.
Cocaine is illegal, but I can’t remember the last time someone was killed from being hit by a bag of cocaine.
.
A vehicle was designed to move someone from one place to another expeditiously and comfortably. A firearm was designed to KILL. If you’re using your car for anything other than for what it was designed, you shouldn’t be driving.
trees January 12th, 2016 at 18:53
Bunya, When was the last time you heard of a 3-year-old overdosing on cocaine
What, you don’t think kids get ahold of their parents stash? Yeah, they don’t ever get into their liquor cabinet either, right?
Bunya January 13th, 2016 at 09:44
How many 3-year-olds got ahold of their parent’s stash and killed their friends and/or family members with it?
Red Eye Robot January 7th, 2016 at 18:14
That must be why 3590 of the guns confiscated by police in chicago came from Illinois
bpollen January 5th, 2016 at 16:02
We’ll see, won’t we?
amongoose January 5th, 2016 at 19:08
The case can be made that the redefining of what constitutes a gun dealer is in violation of’
http://www.atf.gov/file/55456/download
Jake January 5th, 2016 at 14:22
Wow, I’m glad you aren’t president.
Bunya January 5th, 2016 at 14:44
You’re not alone. I’m sure lots and lots of “responsible” gun owners out there are ecstatic over the fact they can buy a killing device almost anywhere in the U.S. for a song.
trees January 12th, 2016 at 13:40
Question, “why do you feel “safe” with a soldier, or cop, having a gun?”
You feel safe with some people having guns, but not others….
That’s interesting.
And you don’t feel safe owning a gun yourself.
Really interesting.
Bunya January 12th, 2016 at 14:45
I feel safe with a cop or a soldier having a firearm because they are trained in the use of the weapon. And yes, I do feel safer with some people having guns, but not other. For example, I don’t feel safe knowing a psychotic or idiot is armed with a lethal weapon.
.
I’ve never owned a gun and have no interest in owning one. And I’ve haven’t been killed by one yet (knock on wood).
trees January 12th, 2016 at 14:58
Bunya, “I’ve never owned a gun and have no interest in owning one. And I’ve haven’t been killed by one yet (knock on wood).”
So, you rely on luck. You are not prepared to defend yourself, you are defenseless in the presence of armed aggressors…. you believe that somehow, because cops exist, that one will ride in on a white horse to save you, should that be necessary.
Cops are very rarely near enough to respond in time. Cops investigate crimes, they don’t prevent them. It’s one of the reasons, if not the reason, why we have the 2nd amendment….
We have the right to defend ourselves. Guns give us this ability.
Liberty is for all.
Bunya January 12th, 2016 at 15:17
So because you have the right to defend yourself, you need to arm yourself with a killing device? Do you drive a Sherman tank? If not, aren’t you afraid you’ll have an accident driving in a measly Toyota?
trees January 12th, 2016 at 15:23
Do you drive a Sherman tank?
No, I don’t own ballistic missiles either, nor do I own an aircraft carrier…
None of those things are what we’re discussing….
We’re talking about gun ownership, and the right to own them as established in our constitution.
Bunya January 12th, 2016 at 15:38
What’s the difference? A killing device is a killing device, regardless of the name you assign it. Dead is dead. As it stands, gun ownership is legal according to the constitution – for the Scott Roeders, George Zimmermans and Adam Lanzas of the world. All “responsible” gun owners, until they’re not, and somebody ends up dead.
Jimmy Fleck January 12th, 2016 at 15:45
Do you believe pesticides should be outlawed? All they are good for is killing things. They could even be used to kill a person if someone crazy enough got a hold of some and went on a spraying rampage. Should Home Depot require background checks on these killing devices or should they just be flat outlawed for civilian uses?
Bunya January 12th, 2016 at 16:05
“Do you believe pesticides should be outlawed?”
Yes. All toxic chemicals used in pesticides should be outlawed. Believe it or not, there are other, safer products that can be used to deter pests.
.
“… if someone crazy enough got a hold of some and went on a spraying rampage.”
Pesticides were designed to kill pests. Guns were designed to kill. Simple as that. If you are using pesticides to kill someone, you are using it for something other than for what it was designed.
Jimmy Fleck January 12th, 2016 at 16:18
Guns were designed to propel an object at a high rate of speed. What a person decides to aim at determines if the shot will kill anything from a pest, food, another person or just hit a target for practice. You claiming guns are intended only for killing people is ridiculous. More people are killed by other objects than guns but you have no qualms about them because they offer other beneficial uses (i.e. cars). Guns are the same. They have beneficial uses that are perfectly legitimate reasons for people owning them.
William January 12th, 2016 at 16:51
Cars were never designed to kill.
…but hey, it’s your analogy. I say go with it.
Jimmy Fleck January 12th, 2016 at 17:13
All of your points about cars are only valid if you intend to operate them on the public roads. Nothing about a car or operator is required to be registered or licensed if it is solely going to be used on private property. Therefore to continue your analogy, if a gun is intended to stay only in the home or on private property there should be no licensing, background check, registration, practice tests, renewals, insurance etc.
Also, even though cars are not “designed” to kill, they do in fact kill more people than guns.
Bunya January 12th, 2016 at 17:24
How many people intentionally kill somebody with their car?
trees January 12th, 2016 at 18:46
Dead is dead. Does it matter what the motivation is, whether it was intended or not? The highways are filled with killing machines, the carnage is unparalleled. The combustion engine kills, it’s emissions are toxic and kill, period. These are metallic missles, and they kill on an hourly, daily basis….
Join with me and demand an end to the private ownership of these death machines.
Bunya January 13th, 2016 at 09:42
Cars are not designed to kill, guns are. Guns are the authentic death machines. I’ll bet they kill (which is what the were DESIGNED to do) more people than cars. Join with me and demand an end to the private ownership of these death machines.
trees January 13th, 2016 at 10:35
Humans are designed to kill. We have binocular vision, we are tool making predators….
A gun has never killed anybody.
It takes a human operating it.
Humans kill.
Weapons were invented.
To defend yourself, to kill someone else…..
All depends on your motivation.
Most people understand this.
Bunya January 13th, 2016 at 10:48
Guns have only one purpose – to kill. It has no other. Humans kill, this is true, so let’s enable more killing by more psychotics by making firearms easier to purchase and easier to use.
.
“A gun has never killed anyone.”
but the bullets have.
.
“Weapons were invented…”
to kill someone else
.
“All depends on your motivation”
Or how irresponsible (or lazy) “responsible” gun owners are.
Most people understand this.
trees January 13th, 2016 at 10:59
Bunya, “so let’s enable more killing by more psychotics by making firearms easier to purchase and easier to use.”
Nobody, except you, has suggested that. You would however, disarm law abiding peaceful people. When the innocent die at the hands of the wicked understand that, your hands have blood on them as well…
Bunya January 13th, 2016 at 11:15
You’re the gun fanatic here, not me. And I would disarm law abiding peaceful people if it means killing devices would not be available to those evil people who claim to be law abiding, peaceful people simply so they can purchase a gun.
There have been 147+ gun related fatalities in the U.S. this year alone. Most of them the result of irresponsibility on the part of the owner. You have more blood on your hands than I have on mine.
trees January 13th, 2016 at 21:45
I’m not a fanatic, I’m a realist.
I understand that a gun is just an inanimate piece of metal, a lot like a knife.
Neither one is deadly of it’s own accord, neither a knife, or a gun, is capable of killing anyone when it’s sitting safely stowed away. Leave a knife laying around, carelessly placed somewhere with the blade exposed….and bad things can happen, get into a car in poor mechanical shape, a wheel not bolted onto the vehicle correctly, or maybe you have a leaky brake cylinder, and really bad things can happen…
I think you get the idea.
I think I understand you well enough, you won’t do anything to defend yourself, and you don’t think anyone else should possess the means to defend themselves either.
Bunya January 14th, 2016 at 10:20
“Neither one is deadly of it’s own accord,…”
I would have nothing against someone owning a firearm if it were as hard to operate as a vehicle, but guns are so easy to use, even a child can do it. And being purposefully negligent is no excuse for someone to unwillingly find themselves on the receiving end of a Saturday Night Special, being held by someone who has no idea of the damage it could cause.
.
I’m a pacifist. I don’t believe in killing, therefore I don’t own gun. However, if you think you need a firearm the event you many need to, or want to, kill someone, have at it. I only hope I’m nowhere around when you fatally “second amendment” someone.
Jimmy Fleck January 13th, 2016 at 09:33
Just one is too many right?
Bunya January 13th, 2016 at 09:45
If you’re using your car for something other than what it was designed, you shouldn’t be driving.
Jimmy Fleck January 13th, 2016 at 09:52
A car is designed to move when you press the gas pedal and stop when you press the brake. Beyond that there is no design on where the car itself is operated, how fast it is driven, who it hits, or who it kills. You seem stuck on this concept of “design.” Objects are designed to perform a certain function. Any object can be used by a person to do something good or something harmful. It has nothing to do with the design of the object but rather the actions of the user.
Bunya January 13th, 2016 at 09:58
I know of nobody who uses their car to kill people (except maybe you). How many 3-year-olds got their hands on their mother’s/father’s car and killed someone while driving on the I-90? I haven’t heard of one case. I have, however, heard of quite a few 3-year-olds getting their hands on the mother’s/father’s gun and killed his/her friend, sibling or parents. The operation of a loaded firearm is so easy to use, even a child can operate it.
Jimmy Fleck January 13th, 2016 at 10:01
Just a few weeks ago a lady in Las Vegas intentionally ran her car into a crowd and killed some people.
As far as children accessing guns, I do believe the responsible adult should be legally responsible for anything that happens. Go ahead and prosecute all of the people that are negligent with their weapons. I am all in favor of that. However, that is not a reason to ban weapons overall.
Bunya January 13th, 2016 at 10:22
Let’s look at the big picture here. This year alone (2016) there have been 147+ killed by gun violence alone, compared to the one that was killed by a psychotic driver who was operating her vehicle in ways for which it was not designed.
.
It doesn’t matter how many rules and regulations are attached to gun ownership. People want them, and they consider themselves “responsible” until someone is killed by a weapon that accidentally discharges. Consider this. It is easier to operate a firearm than it is to operate a car.
whatthe46 January 13th, 2016 at 13:43
much easier to operate a gun than a car. ask any 3 yr old.
Bunya January 12th, 2016 at 17:21
What other uses do guns have other than to kill? You said target practice, but why do people need practice to hit a target? What would their target be?
Jimmy Fleck January 13th, 2016 at 09:35
Deer, elk, wild boar, a fox that is killing their chickens, etc. Or maybe they just like shooting inanimate objects for the fun of it. No harm in that right?
Bunya January 13th, 2016 at 09:48
I don’t intentionally kill living things. I don’t eat meat.
Maybe they just like shooting inanimate objects because, you never know, you may want to kill someone and you’ll need an accurate shot. Sure. There’s no harm in that – until someone is killed.
Jimmy Fleck January 13th, 2016 at 09:58
Assuming you have ever taken antibiotics then you have killed living things. Perhaps you instinctively swatted a mosquito that bit you? Oops killed again. But whatever makes you feel better about yourself just keep on believing.
As far as shooting a gun at a target. I agree – no harm until someone is killed. If someone is killed because of a fired weapon then we have a judicial system to determine if that was a justified homicide or not.
Bunya January 13th, 2016 at 11:10
Maybe we should arm everyone, including children. After all, you never know when they’re going to need it. And if it is accidentally discharged and someone is shot dead, oh well. Shit happens.
Right?
You’re the first person that I’ve heard of that values the life of a deadly virus over that of a living, breathing thing. But whatever makes you feel better about yourself, just keep on believing.
Terri Geer January 7th, 2016 at 17:48
For one thing, that will never happen in this country. Our 2nd Amendment rights are too entrenched to stop.
For another, the President doesn’t have the power to make gun possession illegal.
Bunya January 8th, 2016 at 09:51
I understand that. I was basically saying the president is proposing common-sense changes that will make no difference.
trees January 12th, 2016 at 12:03
No you weren’t, you let your true intentions be known.
Bunya, “When he makes gun and firearm possession illegal except for the military and police, then I’ll be happy.”
Bunya January 12th, 2016 at 12:19
That’s right. I like that the president is implementing stricter gun laws, but they don’t go far enough. If/when it becomes illegal for private citizens to own killing devices, then I’ll be happy.
trees January 11th, 2016 at 20:53
That’s really the goal, isn’t it? Baby steps, just keep chipping away at the 2nd until it’s effectively repealed….
Liberals don’t believe in self preservation and the right to secure it.
tracey marie January 11th, 2016 at 21:12
conspiracies fear, loathing and racism…teabaggers.
trees January 12th, 2016 at 00:20
You have hatred for anyone who believes in the right to self preservation and the private ownership of firearms. Why? Why do you hate law abiding citizens?
tracey marie January 12th, 2016 at 07:05
lol, you are a ridiculous troll
Bunya January 12th, 2016 at 09:41
You have no interest in self preservation. Aren’t you one of those who’s going to be “raptured”. You just want the chance to kill someone, in the name of “self preservation”.
trees January 12th, 2016 at 13:16
Bunya, “You have no interest in self preservation”
I don’t? I don’t do things to insure my own survival? As far as the rapture is concerned, no, I’m not someone who believes in a rapture, and what would that have to do with the rights provided by the 2nd? As far as, just wanting “the chance” to kill someone? I have opportunities to kill people everyday, everywhere…. why would I need a reason to do so, if in my heart the desire to do so already existed?
Bunya January 12th, 2016 at 14:41
So why would you need a killing device? A device designed for no other purpose than to kill someone?
trees January 12th, 2016 at 14:50
Because they exist and others have them.
If you wish to defend yourself, then you arm yourself.
It’s the same thinking that arms police, and nations.
Self-preservation.
Bunya January 12th, 2016 at 14:57
So, you think that because guns exist, that they should be made available to everyone who wants one? Are people so frightened that they need a killing device for protection?
trees January 12th, 2016 at 15:17
Bunya, “So, you think that because guns exist, that they should be made available to everyone who wants one?”
Every law abiding citizen has the right to bear firearms. This is a fundamental right. It is provided by the constitution, and follows the right to free speech….
Are people so frightened that they need a killing device for protection?
Only an idiot doesn’t believe in the fundamental right to self defense.
Bunya January 12th, 2016 at 15:20
I agree. I didn’t say I don’t believe in the right to self defense, but using a lethal weapon to defend myself, IMO, is a little extreme. But then again, I’m not a big fan of killing.
William January 12th, 2016 at 08:01
What exactly do these three steps have to do with the second amendment?
and by the way. If the second amendment is repealed it won’t be because of responsible gun owners. It will be because gun toting idiots continue to accept the slaughter of our population by shrugging their shoulders and muttering “second amendment”.
But I digress.
Which one of these steps is contrary to the second amendment?
trees January 12th, 2016 at 12:00
Bunya, “When he makes gun and firearm possession illegal except for the military and police, then I’ll be happy.”
This is the goal of the left. They represent the thinking of the old British crown. They love the idea of one man acting on his own, as their ruler, creating laws…they see this as necessary, because a group can never be persuaded to give them that which they desire, but one individual with a stroke of a pen can accomplish their goals.
The left desires a king
It was never the intention of those who established this country to disarm it’s populace. It was the armed populace that made the formation of the United States of America possible.
William January 12th, 2016 at 13:05
Yeah that’s nice…again…
What do any of these three steps have to do with the second amendment?
Not: Levine laced rhetoric and NRA bumper stickers…not actually an answer.
Please answer the question. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ca68db62a8e374687f9d20500a19d69434369ff0a43131dc58f8193b3686657e.jpg
allison1050 January 12th, 2016 at 15:53
So tell me trees, why don’t you want to respond to William’s 1st response..could it be because you weren’t an adult when crazy Gov. Ronnie did it and then the irony of all ironies a nut shoots him years down the road?
Bunya January 12th, 2016 at 09:42
Yes. That’s the goal – to get all killing devices out of the hands of crazies.
Jerry January 5th, 2016 at 14:50
This is from the White House itself, so it will be very interesting to see what occurs to “private sellers” on Armslist in the coming weeks…
FACT SHEET: New Executive Actions to Reduce Gun Violence and Make Our Communities Safer: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our
1. Keep guns out of the wrong hands through background checks.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is making clear that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks.
Jimmy Fleck January 13th, 2016 at 16:43
I am not sure where the arm everyone came from in response to my comments, so I will ignore that strawman.
You support disarming everyone such that the strong would have a substantial advantage over the weak in a criminal situation. Why would you value the life of a criminal over that of an innocent victim? Why do you feel that if everyone must was disarmed of guns that violence would go down in any significant way? Guns are not the problem. Criminals are the problem – and yes I would include the criminally negligent in that category i.e. anyone that “accidentally” shoots someone or allows a minor to access their weapon.
Bunya January 14th, 2016 at 10:09
“…where the arm every came from…”
Why not? The NRA claims “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”. Since it seems there are way too many bad guys with guns, we need to arm the good guys. Yeah right! Here’s a fun fact. Yesterday on the Chicago Skyway, a motorist was shot and killed by a supposedly “responsible gun-owning” motorist. He drove up behind him and shot him through the head, killing him instantly. Now how would it have helped if the victim was armed, when he didn’t see the assault coming?
You win again … murder by gun: 1, murder by vehicle, 0.
.
“Why would you value the life of a criminal over that of an innocent victim?”
Is that what you think because I don’t approve of gun violence? If you think you need to prove your manhood by owning a gun, I suggest you join the military.
.
“…I would include the criminally negligent…”
All gun owners claim to be “responsible” until it’s proven they’re not, and somebody ends up dead. Once somebody is dead, there’s no bringing them back.