Archive

Obama and gun control

  • FatHobbit
    dwccrew;712899 wrote:I'm pretty sure you have to be a resident within the state you are purchasing the gun, at least for handguns. I live in Ohio, I can't go to Michigan and buy a handgun (legally). I'd have to have a licensed Ohio dealer buy it for me and have it delivered to their store. If I am too loony to do so, that dealer will refuse to have the gun delivered and I can't get my gun.

    Again, leave it to the states to handle this.
    LJ;713010 wrote:It's true. You have to be a resident of the state you are buying in to buy any gun

    Seems like dwcrew's solution is a simple one then.
  • tsst_fballfan
    stlouiedipalma;713011 wrote:I remember hearing in 2008 that Obama would take everyone's guns away if he were elected. Now you want to keep that myth running for 2012. What happens if Obama is re-elected and none of your "chicken little" prophecy comes to pass?


    This is a bullshit issue, always has been and always will be. The gun lobby has been saying things like this for years and it never happens. The simple truth is that the gun lobby has too much money and too many of our elected officials in their pocket. Like any other special interest group, all they have to do is pull the strings and let the dance begin.
    Perhaps it did not happen BECAUSE of the "chicken littles". The bullshit here is the liberal left selective amnesia with regard to his past factual history towards gun control issues. Without the gun lobby and everyday citizens thwarting attempts he would have pushed thru as much as he possibly could without affecting his political ambitions.


    O-Trap;713014 wrote:I don't think Obama will do it even in a second term. I think he knows it would ruin his perceived legacy for many in the population.
    You are quite possibly right. He is not a dumb man. Although on the proverbial flip side it would solidify his legacy with the gun control inane left. I would far rather cluck "the sky is falling" to keep his ideology at bay than trust an unopposed enacting of his personal gun control agenda. :shrugs:

    stlouiedipalma;713021 wrote:Not to the degree that some would have you think.

    Bottom line: I can get a gun if I want one, and I can get it legally. End of discussion.

    When I cannot make that statement, then you can say that gun control is here.
    How about SBR and SBS? What about class 3?
  • O-Trap
    tsst_fballfan;713148 wrote:You are quite possibly right. He is not a dumb man. Although on the proverbial flip side it would solidify his legacy with the gun control inane left. I would far rather cluck "the sky is falling" to keep his ideology at bay than trust an unopposed enacting of his personal gun control agenda.
    If one thing seems to have held true about President Obama thus far, he appears to care a great deal about his image as perceived by the general audience (read: not the fringe elements).

    In a strange way, I feel as though a lot of trust can be placed in the idea that he is going to do what makes him look the best to the greatest number of people in a lot of ways. Greed, arrogance, pride, or any combination of the three can always be trusted if a person is not intentionally trying to deny them, and that's in all people.

    I don't think he's an exception.
  • Bigdogg
  • O-Trap
    BigDogg, that does happen ...

    ... but it could also be used for the paranoia surrounding "evil big business" or any one of a host of things that any political party seems to vilify.

    "The Board of Education is coming to take our benefits away, and pay us minimum wage."
    "Oh my ... What next?"

    It can be applied ad nauseum.
  • tsst_fballfan
    O-Trap;713157 wrote:If one thing seems to have held true about President Obama thus far, he appears to care a great deal about his image as perceived by the general audience (read: not the fringe elements).

    In a strange way, I feel as though a lot of trust can be placed in the idea that he is going to do what makes him look the best to the greatest number of people in a lot of ways. Greed, arrogance, pride, or any combination of the three can always be trusted if a person is not intentionally trying to deny them, and that's in all people.

    I don't think he's an exception.
    I agree his narcissism as it relates to the image he wants cast has served well to curb a following of his past contrivances. I also believe it's at least in part due to the "chicken littles" feeding him the majority belief. I think if he perceived his anti-gun ideology were more widely tolerated he would not hesitate to follow in the steps of his past agenda. The NRA and every citizen advocating for gun rights needs to continue to yell "the sky is falling".

    Bigdogg;713173 wrote:
    Yes because there is no history of such a thing. cough ... alcohol ... cough!!!
  • Glory Days
    FatHobbit;713077 wrote:Seems like dwcrew's solution is a simple one then.

    Except for when you dont buy a gun from a dealer and instead buy it from the back of some guy's truck.
  • O-Trap
    Glory Days;713275 wrote:Except for when you dont buy a gun from a dealer and instead buy it from the back of some guy's truck.

    No amount of gun restriction will prevent this, so dwcrew's option is no more or less viable as a result of this fact.
  • dwccrew
    Glory Days;713275 wrote:Except for when you dont buy a gun from a dealer and instead buy it from the back of some guy's truck.

    Pretty sure I covered this. I stated that you can't legally cross state borders without having an authorized dealer act on your behalf. No amount of government intervention is going to stop a guy from selling guns out of the back of his truck. The best way to regulate the sale of guns is to leave it up to the states to regulate it. The federal government is too big to oversee everything, the states will do a better job than the federal gov't can.
  • Belly35
    So the Community Fucking Organizer want to have better back ground check on gun owners and the purchasing of guns.

    But it was his fucking Administration that OK the selling of guns (Napolitano gun running ATF Plan) to Mexico…. WTF

    Hey! Obama talk to Napolitano and fill her in on the back ground checks asshole…

    Let me make this simple for you … Obama those that buy a weapon at a retail operation are not the criminals… using the guns


    Do yourself a favor Obama an check to see who is using those guns to commit crimes ......
  • FatHobbit
    Belly35;713785 wrote:Let me make this simple for you … Obama those that buy a weapon at a retail operation are not the criminals… using the guns

    I think the guy who shot up virginia tech and the other guy who shot the senator bought their firearms legally through a gun store. I would not be upset if people who are off their rocker are denied the right to buy firearms. (I can agree that who gets to decide that is a slippery slope.)
  • LJ
    FatHobbit;713833 wrote:I think the guy who shot up virginia tech and the other guy who shot the senator bought their firearms legally through a gun store. I would not be upset if people who are off their rocker are denied the right to buy firearms. (I can agree that who gets to decide that is a slippery slope.)

    The law is already in place and those 2 WERE deemed mentally unstable, but it was never reported to the proper authorities.
  • BGFalcons82
    LJ;713836 wrote:The law is already in place and those 2 WERE deemed mentally unstable, but it was never reported to the proper authorities.

    If they were mentally unstable, then shouldn't they have been in an institution?
    Why were there mentally unstable people allowed to walk the streets alone?
    Or is just being under the care of a psychiatrist or psychologist enough to qualify as unstable?
    Or is it if you take pills to help you sleep...or anti-depressants....or Ritalin?
    Or is it if you spouse says you are nuts?

    Where does it end? Or more importantly...where does it START?
  • O-Trap
    BGFalcons82;713846 wrote:If they were mentally unstable, then shouldn't they have been in an institution?
    Why were there mentally unstable people allowed to walk the streets alone?
    Or is just being under the care of a psychiatrist or psychologist enough to qualify as unstable?
    Or is it if you take pills to help you sleep...or anti-depressants....or Ritalin?
    Or is it if you spouse says you are nuts?

    Where does it end? Or more importantly...where does it START?
    Ask the shrinks. :D
  • LJ
    BGFalcons82;713846 wrote:If they were mentally unstable, then shouldn't they have been in an institution?
    Why were there mentally unstable people allowed to walk the streets alone?
    Or is just being under the care of a psychiatrist or psychologist enough to qualify as unstable?
    Or is it if you take pills to help you sleep...or anti-depressants....or Ritalin?
    Or is it if you spouse says you are nuts?

    Where does it end? Or more importantly...where does it START?

    You have to be deemed so under certain guidelines. Both of these people were, and were never reported to the NICS system so they were able to buy firearms. I believe there is a very defined set of rules on this.
  • tsst_fballfan
    I think if we are to rely on the 'unstable rating' it should be totally independent. The fedgov should not have any control or input. It should also require multiple doctors to share that opinion. It cannot be easy to have someone determined unstable because if it is it will be abused by our fedgov.
  • LJ
    tsst_fballfan;713871 wrote:I think if we are to rely on the 'unstable rating' it should be totally independent. The fedgov should not have any control or input. It should also require multiple doctors to share that opinion. It cannot be easy to have someone determined unstable because if it is it will be abused by our fedgov.

    They have to be determined a threat to harm themselves or others. That determination is completely independant of the gov. The types of unstable DO need to be determined by the gov because then you just have dr's running around just taking people's rights.
  • FatHobbit
    LJ;713836 wrote:The law is already in place and those 2 WERE deemed mentally unstable, but it was never reported to the proper authorities.

    I agree. And Obama said he wants to do a better job sharing info and enforcing existing laws. In this case I think he has it right. (If that's what he really wants to do and he doesn't have a hidden agenda to push through more later.)
  • tsst_fballfan
    LJ;713876 wrote:They have to be determined a threat to harm themselves or others. That determination is completely independant of the gov. The types of unstable DO need to be determined by the gov because then you just have dr's running around just taking people's rights.
    I can agree with the fedgov setting the type but they should not have input into the medical determination. Also I think it must be multiple doctors agreeing with the determination. I don't want doctors or the fedgov running around taking people's rights. It should not be an easy process to label someone as unstable. But when it is absolute I have no issues with them having no easy access to guns.
  • CenterBHSFan
    tsst_fballfan;713951 wrote:I can agree with the fedgov setting the type but they should not have input into the medical determination.
    I'm still leary of even that much fed.gov. involvement. Government can easily set the type that "quick-tempered" is unstable/unable to be responsible to own guns. I mean, that may or may not ever happen, but I wouldn't put it past a stacked "house" activist congress, either.
  • tsst_fballfan
    CenterBHSFan;714295 wrote:I'm still leary of even that much fed.gov. involvement. Government can easily set the type that "quick-tempered" is unstable/unable to be responsible to own guns. I mean, that may or may not ever happen, but I wouldn't put it past a stacked "house" activist congress, either.
    Very true. Like I said in a past post, very slippery slope.
  • stlouiedipalma
    I've got a serious question. If possible, I would like to hear serious, rational answers to it.

    We've had some pretty liberal Congresses and pretty liberal Presidents during our history. If they didn't take your guns away from you before, what makes you think they will do it in the future?
  • LJ
    stlouiedipalma;714567 wrote:I've got a serious question. If possible, I would like to hear serious, rational answers to it.

    We've had some pretty liberal Congresses and pretty liberal Presidents during our history. If they didn't take your guns away from you before, what makes you think they will do it in the future?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
  • stlouiedipalma

    You really need these weapons?

    The law expired and it hasn't been brought back, so I would guess that I can still buy one of these.
  • LJ
    stlouiedipalma;714730 wrote:You really need these weapons?

    The law expired and it hasn't been brought back, so I would guess that I can still buy one of these.

    The law expired because a republican congress and president let it. You asked when democrats had banned guns, I showed you.

    Also, instead of asking if I need these weapons (which why wouldnt I?) Why dont you tell me what makes them so dangerous?