Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns

Nobody is defending anybody to do such a thing. Don't be ignorant. We like to see people that need it, get the proper mental health care, so that they do not resort to this type of thing.

You don't like "assault weapons" in the hands of people. I don't care what you want. Do you even know what an "assault weapon" is? Adam Lanza did not have one. He had a semi-automatic rifle, that shot one bullet with each trigger pull, that just happened to have some military styling to it that is purely cosmetic. His "assault weapon" is just a rifle with some bells and whistles that did not make it any deadlier.

The NRA is only interested in right-wing policies? I guess you just admitted that the left does not support the Constitution. You guys despise that founding document.

All people should have a background check like the one that has been conducted for years now.

The left is king at spreading misinformation. The left also does not like to talk about all the times each year guns are used to thwart crime.

More garbage that makes no sense. Who are you to determine what people should have? I like military-style weapons. Does that make me a nut just because I like them?

 

An education from you? Now that's a stretch.

So, we need assault weapons because some people want to become expert shooters with these type of weapons? Now that's a novel approach. I suppose if they want to become expert shooters with bazookas and tanks, we should be no means keep them from it!

If these expert non psychopathic criminals are so bent on becoming experts with assault weapons, they need to join the military, I'm sure their skills would be most appreciated and not going to waste on some meaningless match.

 

Like I said, you won't care. I understand that about your ilk.
Many of them are military or ex military. I also understand how your ilk feel about them. Fully understand.

 

Your response sure indicates that.

Heavens, we already have you for that.

That is also necessary, but not necessarily the only thing that is needed.

I'm sure you don't, and likewise, I don't give a crap what you want.

The fact that he was able to fire dozens of high-velocity rounds and kill so many in so little time makes it a type of weapons that does not need to be in the hands of ordinary people, much less people with mental issues. And, your expertise or lack of it on assault weapons doesn't make a bit of difference. The experts know what types of weapons need to be off the streets.
Adam Lanza used a semiautomatic Bushmaster .223 rifle during his rampage through Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday, firing dozens of high-velocity rounds as he killed 20 children and six adults, authorities said Sunday.

Lanza, 20, carried "many high-capacity clips" for the lightweight military-style rifle, Lt. Paul Vance, a spokesman for the Connecticut State Police, told The Huffington Post in an email. Two handguns and a shotgun were also recovered at the scene.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/school-shooter-adam-lanza_n_2312818.html

That's right, the NRA pushes right-wing policies, and right-wingers think they support the Constitution, but they only support their interpretation of it. The Second Amendment does not give anyone the right to own/use assault weapons.

Your delusional knowledge of what really goes on shared by others like you, is one of the main problems we have.

Wiki:
Presently, 17 states regulate private firearm sales at gun shows. Seven states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows (California, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, Illinois and Colorado). Four states (Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) require background checks on all handgun, but not long gun, purchasers at gun shows. Six states require individuals to obtain a permit to purchase handguns that involves a background check (Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska). Certain counties in Florida require background checks on all private sales of handguns at gun shows. The remaining 33 states do not restrict private, intrastate sales of firearms at gun shows in any manner.[16][17]

In 2000, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) published the "Following the Gun" report.[18] The ATF analyzed more than 1,530 trafficking investigations over a two-and-a-half-year period and found gun shows to be the second leading source of illegally diverted guns in the nation. "Straw purchasing was the most common channel in trafficking investigations."[19] These investigations involved a total of 84,128 firearms that had been diverted from legal to illegal commerce. All told, the report identified more than 26,000 firearms that had been illegally trafficked through gun shows in 212 separate investigations. The report stated that: "A prior review of ATF gun show investigations shows that prohibited persons, such as convicted felons and juveniles, do personally buy firearms at gun shows and gun shows are sources of firearms that are trafficked to such prohibited persons. The gun show review found that firearms were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers. Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46 percent of the gun show investigations. Firearms that were illegally diverted at or through gun shows were recovered in subsequent crimes, including homicide and robbery, in more than a third of the gun show investigations."

The right is king at denial. Guns in the hands of sensible people are not problem, it's the nuts that we're worried about. Adam Lanza's mom was a nut. She had a son with mental issues, so she buys a semi-automatic and then takes him to shooting practice. Now that's the kind of people you want to call rational?

Don't be inane. Liking something doesn't equate to owning something and using it to slaughter people. No wonder you don't understand the problem.

 

I wanted to ignore this response, but you still apparently think that someone is OK with the killing of innocent children. You are wrong on that and make no sense.

Yes, we need to make sure everyobody goes through a background check when purchasing firearms and get rid of "gun-free", or as I like to call them, "defense-free" zones so that people can have a fighting chance.

I know you don't. You, and your boy in the WH, couldn't care less about the Bill of Rights.

Once again, you like to dictate what people should and shouldn't have. There are millions of folks out there that use these types of rifles for defense, competition, hunting or just for the hell of it. The experts should be more worried about getting the criminal off the street. We already know banning things does not keep them out of the wrong hands. The key to successfully reducing mass killings, is to get those hands off the street.

The NRA supports what the Founding Fathers have created as individual rights. The SCOTUS has even backed that up. Where does it say in the Second Amendment what type of gun I can and cannot use?

Maybe you should read what I say before going off on a liberal rant. I said in my previous post that all folks should get a bckground check when purchasing firearms.

Yes, we need to get the proper help for the mentally ill.

So if someone owns an "assault weapon", they are a nut?

 

The liberty of A Democracy is not safe unless the people are armed well enough to be able to take the government from possible tyrants and give it back to the people through force.

 

Yeah right.

France, UK, Canada and 90% of the democracies in the West run the risk of becoming dicatures because they don't have a constitutional right of owning gun.

How many of those countries were taken by a dictator since 1945 ?

Gimme just one please....

 

Do they have a means of overthrowing a dictatorship should one arise?

 

All the freedom loving people in those lands immigrated to America long ago.

The peasants and serfs they left behind have no way to stop a dictator when and if he appears.

 

[video=youtube;iuBbLeqZbPA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuBbLeqZbPA[/video]
[video=youtube;k3DKuN2ey80]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DKuN2ey80[/video]

 

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/feinste...ow-urge-arm-yourself-because-thats-what-i-did

 

First, believe that the United States or any other Western countries could switch to a dictatorship is a stupid idea which isn't supported by any argument.

 

Anyone that is offended by the slaughter of innocent children along with the massacres of many with military type weapons would want to find some way to put a stop to it.

Background checks are essential and yet they are not being done in many states and at gun shows.

You're just talking nonsense. Anti-gun control people think that the 2nd Amendment gives them the right to own whatever type of gun/weapon they see fit, and it doesn't.

You don't need a 30 round magazine weapon for defense, unless you are defending yourself against an army. And who gives a crap about competitions. And hunting, that's really funny. This is what an assault weapon will do to game:



As for "just for the hell of it" really shows that you don't really give a crap about the children that were massacred, no matter how much you are trying to convince me. Someone having an assault weapon just for the hell of it is a nut and the least person that should have one.

Adam Lanza was not a criminal. So, how would they have gotten him off the street? If he hadn't had access to the guns, 20 children might be alive today. If his mother hadn't taken him to shooting practice, maybe he wouldn't have known how to use load/shoot the weapon.

The NRA's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and what the Founding Fathers meant by it, is flawed.

Where does it say you can use assault weapons? So, you think if a person wants to use a rocket launcher, mortar launcher or grenade launcher, that should be okay because the 2nd Amendment doesn't specify that you can't? If you wanted to buy a drone, you could because the 2nd Amendment doesn't disqualify it? That's the type of mentality that has gotten us to where we are.

Go back and read your post again, you clearly said "like they've been doing all along" or something along that line.

Not only that, people with mentally ill people in their family that could have access to the guns shouldn't have them.

Assault weapons have one purpose, to kill many people fast. If you can provide me with a reason why anyone that is not fighting in a war needs to have an assault weapon I will retract my comment.

 

Name one state that doesn't require background checks on dealer sales.

If you'd actually used what they call "assault weapons" you'd know why gun people laugh at that picture. If you haven't it makes you look foolish to believe it. As for why to have something, the government's opinion of need should never dictate what people can have. If it did, no car would have more than 100 horsepower and wouldn't go over 50 MPH.

A person should never need to prove why they need something that they have the right to have under the constitution. If so, you would have to prove that you need to post on this forum or your right to free speech will no longer include internet postings. Prove you need e-mail or your right to e-mail will be revoked.

As for the "assault weapons have one purpose" this statement shows that your whole rant and fight is simply based on your irrational fear of an inanimate object. People who know about guns know how wrong that belief is, but you will continue to cling to it, no matter how much evidence is given that your belief is false. Believe what you want, that won't make it true.

 

People would have said the exact same thing about Germany in 1930. Human nature hasn't changed. People still crave power and are willing to do whatever they can to get as much of it as they can. There is always a risk that someone will be creative enough to garner the support of enough people to take full control of a country. A fully armed population increases the number of people required for that to happen.

 

That's why the Second Amendment is so important. I am not that ignorant to believe that our government is infallible.

 

Libs otoh worship big government as long as they are in control of it.

 

We are. We also know that banning things will not stop it. History has proven that. Move on now.

Background checks are required in all 50 States. They are also performed for most transactions at gun shows. I was just at one this weekend, and background checks were being performed. The county police were there as well. In fact, I pointed out some individuals to the police that were trying to buy guns from patrons walking around with guns to sell to dealers. They were trying to purchase without a background check. They were stopped, questioned, and shown the door.

More ignorance that does not warrant a response.

Who are you to say what I need. You never know how many assailants there may be during the commission of a crime. Why would I limit myself to 10 rounds for self-defense. Have you ever thought that hunters pride themselves in being good marksmen, and would not just empty a 30-round magazine on an animal? More ignorance on your part.

Someone wanting something for the hell of it does not, in any way, imply that they wish to massacre children or anyone else. Quit being a fool.

Adam Lanza was denied a gun purchase when he tried to buy a rifle. His Mom should have had her guns inaccessible to him. He should have not fallen through the mental health cracks. Period.

First, quit being ignorant, once again, and find some common sense. The NRA's interpretation is also the SCOTUS's interpretation, not to mention James Madison's interpretation. The Bill of Rights are individual rights. Accept that. Don't you cherish your rights? If one could legally purchase those military items you talk about, then I guess there would be nothing stopping them from carrying them around, but would any sane person really do that?

Background checks have been performed for years. What's your point?

People with mentally ill family members should use common-sense precaution, which may include not having guns at home, but that is not Uncle Sam's job.

First of all, "assault weapons" are blown out of proportion by the media and anti-gunners. They are just hunting rifles with bells and whistles that do not make them any more dangerous. They are designed for self-defense, hunting, competition, etc. They were not designed to kill as many people fast like you would like to think. They are being singled out because of the hype. If you take off the tactical rails, scopes, handles, etc., they are just a basic hunting rifle. They fire the same way. Nothing scary.

 

The second amendment was not written to protect the people against their own government, it was written to prevent an invasion. In a time where musket was the only firearm available for civilians.

If you believe the Constitution can't evolve over time, then you're against the end of slavery. Because 14 of the 21 founders was slaves owners.

 

After he takes all our guns, will we then have to raise our arm and shout Heil Obama?????

 

No it was written to protect citizens from it's own government. Just like we protected ourselves from the British when we were a colony of theirs.

 

Sure you are. The NRA and many Republican/conservatives believe that putting more guns out there will help, common sense proves that it won't.

You obviously didn't read or forgot the article I posted. You are delusional if you think background checks are done in all 50 states. If they were, why would they be considered in the new proposal? Just proves that you don't know what you are talking about.

You meant to say "more responses that you don't know how to respond to due to ignorance?

Oh sure, an army is going to come and rob your house. Cite how many instances where someone has had to use an assault weapon to defend themselves against an army of intruders. You can't, because there aren't such idiotic cases, only in your imaginary world. If you only could see how ignorant your statements sound, you would quit talking.

It doesn't matter what they want it for, assault weapons and multiple round magazines are not necessary for hunting or for defending oneself. You just talk like the rest of the nuts who think they have a right to own tanks and mortar lauchers if they want to.

If they had done a background check on her, thorough enough to find out that she had a mentally ill child, she shouldn't have been allowed to have them, but the NRA and everyone else that idolizes guns more than people think anyone should have the right to buy an assault weapon.

You're the one that is being totally ignorant. Scalia, who happens to be one of the right-most SCOTUS happens to agree that the 2nd Amendment doesn't go against gun control. It's only those who don't really care how many people get slaughtered that insist that the Constitution supports their beliefs.

Scalia, a strict interpreter of the Constitution, said there's an "important limitation" on the right to bear arms.
"We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons'," Scalia wrote, in an opinion first cited by UPI over the weekend.
Scalia reiterated that sentiment in July of this year when he told Fox News Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for federal gun control legislation.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/scalias-2008-second-amendment-opinion-2012-12#ixzz2JK4Ndl4z

Are you totally devoid of the ability to read?I'm going to post it again, so read it, because I'm not going to post it again or deal with someone that doesn't read or understand what is provided for them but instead keeps on printing the same crap and believing it.

Unfortunately, current federal law requires criminal background checks only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for just 60% of all gun sales in the United States. A loophole in the law allows individuals not “engaged in the business” of selling firearms to sell guns without a license—and without processing any paperwork. That means that two out of every five guns sold in the United States change hands without a background check.

Though commonly referred to as the “Gun Show Loophole,” the “private sales” described above include guns sold at gun shows, through classified newspaper ads, the Internet, and between individuals virtually anywhere.

Unfortunately, only six states (CA, CO, IL, NY, OR, RI) require universal background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows. Three more states (CT, MD, PA) require background checks on all handgun sales made at gun shows. Seven other states (HI, IA, MA, MI, NJ, NC, NE) require purchasers to obtain a permit and undergo a background check before buying a handgun. Florida allows its counties to regulate gun shows by requiring background checks on all firearms purchases at these events. 33 states have taken no action whatsoever to close the Gun Show Loophole.
http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/gun-show-loophole

Like that has worked so well. Remember the Virginia Tech massacre, and now Sandyhook? Yeah, the family members used such good common-sense.

Oh, the fact that Lanza was able to empty 33 shots within the scope of the 911 call is being blown out of proportion? I think you fit in well with the gun-nuts and their way of thinking.

 

Good thing no one is trying to take all the guns away. The chance of even the assault weapon ban passing is next to nothing. So all this faux second amendment outrage is for naught.

Why don't you guys focus on real problems instead of the ones the imaginary communists in your head made up?

 

Do you think that Feinstein would have found such opposition or had so much difficulty getting her bill passed if hundreds of thousands of Americans hadn't vocalized their disagreement or shown resistance to her plan? Do you think the outcome would have been the same if pro-gun Americans had just sat there quietly waiting to see what happened?