The Guns thread

[Webfoot Hero]

Most of the stuff he is calling for just seems like a re-emphasis of laws (similar to how the NFL and NBA focus on certain rules that'll be enforced more) that are already on the books. About the only major thing he called for was more mental health checks, which is what most in the NRA and on the right have been calling for.

http://www.redstate.com/2016/01/05/obamas-executive-action-guns/

 

[samsnee]

NRA aside, I don't see how anyone could oppose Obama's executive orders. None of it is terribly unreasonable. It is the opposite. It is incredibly reasonable.

Even the NRA thinks it's benign.

Surprisingly, the National Rifle Association was completely underwhelmed by Obama's plan (though they said they'll carefully consider its legality). "This is it, really?" asked Jennifer Baker, who works for the NRA's D.C. lobbying arm. "This is what they’ve been hyping for how long now? This is the proposal they’ve spent seven years putting together? They’re not really doing anything."

Of course every Republican candidate thinks this is a step toward taking away guns. Even Obama knows that will never happen.

I'm torn about it. Because while I'm not against these reforms, none of these changes would have stopped Newton or San Bernadino. That's not to say we shouldn't do it. But next time there is another shooting, and it's sadly inevitable, pro-NRA people will say these laws did nothing.

 

[DarkKnight]

Even the NRA thinks it's benign.



Of course every Republican candidate thinks this is a step toward taking away guns. Even Obama knows that will never happen.

I'm torn about it. Because while I'm not against these reforms, none of these changes would have stopped Newton or San Bernadino. That's not to say we shouldn't do it. But next time there is another shooting, and it's sadly inevitable, pro-NRA people will say these laws did nothing.

It's a good thing I think. It will help. But unfortunately nothing will ever fully stop it. There are evil people in this world. No law, restriction or even a 100% gun ban will keep guns out of bad guys hands. But if the new background checks help cut the number down that is a huge win in itself.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Most of the stuff he is calling for just seems like a re-emphasis of laws (similar to how the NFL and NBA focus on certain rules that'll be enforced more) that are already on the books. About the only major thing he called for was more mental health checks, which is what most in the NRA and on the right have been calling for.

http://www.redstate.com/2016/01/05/obamas-executive-action-guns/

And the NRA is pitching a fit. What else is new.

 

[king666]

Even the NRA thinks it's benign.



Of course every Republican candidate thinks this is a step toward taking away guns. Even Obama knows that will never happen.

I'm torn about it. Because while I'm not against these reforms, none of these changes would have stopped Newton or San Bernadino. That's not to say we shouldn't do it. But next time there is another shooting, and it's sadly inevitable, pro-NRA people will say these laws did nothing.

Pro-gun people will say these laws did nothing, anti-gun people will say these laws are not enough.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Gun laws that do nothing will do nothing.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Obama just wants to be able to say he did something about gun violence.

Even if it was mostly symbolic.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Obama just wants to be able to say he did something about gun violence.

Even if it was mostly symbolic.

What is this? The presidential version of the half-assed "go to the gym" new years resolution?

 

[DarkKnight]

What is this? The presidential version of the half-assed "go to the gym" new years resolution?

What would you propose? Not being snide with that comment. Truly curious as I know we both have different views and opinions in the matter.

 

[Thundercrack85]

What would you propose? Not being snide with that comment. Truly curious as I know we both have different views and opinions in the matter.

Honestly? Denounce the NRA. Hammer them for an hour on national television. Talk about how they stall popular legislation, quote Wayne Lapierre, talk about the money, etc.

The only way to get real, meaningful (and popular) gun control laws passed is to destroy the NRA.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

What is this? The presidential version of the half-assed "go to the gym" new years resolution?

If he did something extreme the backlash would a thousand times worse than Obamacare.

 

[Thundercrack85]

If he did something extreme the backlash would a thousand times worse than Obamacare.

Obamacare is still the law of the land.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Honestly? Denounce the NRA. Hammer them for an hour on national television. Talk about how they stall popular legislation, quote Wayne Lapierre, talk about the money, etc.

The only way to get real, meaningful (and popular) gun control laws passed is to destroy the NRA.

The problem is half the country is right wing, so those people would just unite behind the NRA to spite the president.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Obamacare is still the law of the land.

It might not be if the backlash for Obamacare was many times worse.

 

[DarkKnight]

Honestly? Denounce the NRA. Hammer them for an hour on national television. Talk about how they stall popular legislation, quote Wayne Lapierre, talk about the money, etc.

The only way to get real, meaningful (and popular) gun control laws passed is to destroy the NRA.

No I mean what do you propose as "gun control" not talking about the NRA when I asked that. But since you brought up the NRA. There is also 2 more big gun rights groups that are growing fast and even more than that are up and coming. Denounce or destroy the NRA if you want. But there are more groups just as big and growing and just as active. In fact the Gun Owners of America group was one of the bigger groups that did more for pro-gun this past year than any other.

And again Thundercrack. I'm honestly just curious of your idea as I know you are anti-gun and I know you are aware I am pro-gun. Just curious. I'm not trying to start trouble or make enemies. Just legitimately curious.

 

[Thundercrack85]

No I mean what do you propose as "gun control" not talking about the NRA when I asked that. But since you brought up the NRA. There is also 2 more big gun rights groups that are growing fast and even more than that are up and coming. Denounce or destroy the NRA if you want. But there are more groups just as big and growing and just as active. In fact the Gun Owners of America group was one of the bigger groups that did more for pro-gun this past year than any other.

And again Thundercrack. I'm honestly just curious of your idea as I know you are anti-gun and I know you are aware I am pro-gun. Just curious. I'm not trying to start trouble or make enemies. Just legitimately curious.

As long as the NRA has the entire Republican party by the balls, nothing will be done. I can suggest all the gun legislation in the world, nothing will change as long as the NRA has one of the country's two parties (and some of the other as well) under its thumb.

The NRA is the most powerful lobbying group in the US. I'm sure something would take its place, but it's nonetheless the largest obstacle.

If you want to know what I would do if for some reason all the Republicans decided to abstain... Let's see, federal database, mandatory background checks (with psych evaluations), limit magazine sizes, and possibly mandatory training (works for the Swiss). Also close all those loopholes (gun shows, online buying, etc).

 

[Victarion]

So wait - do we now have more robust background checks? If that's what all the fuss was over on the pro-gun side, I don't get what there is to get upset about.

 

[chaseter]

Remember when Democrats applauded NYPD stop and frisk shutdown? Guess what: http://m.nydailynews.com/new-york/n...-and-frisk-criminals-bolder-article-1.2247406

How is Chicago doing with gun laws?

We need gun reform but the Democrats are just as delusional as the gun loving Republicans.

 

[DarkKnight]

As long as the NRA has the entire Republican party by the balls, nothing will be done. I can suggest all the gun legislation in the world, nothing will change as long as the NRA has one of the country's two parties (and some of the other as well) under its thumb.

The NRA is the most powerful lobbying group in the US. I'm sure something would take its place, but it's nonetheless the largest obstacle.

If you want to know what I would do if for some reason all the Republicans decided to abstain... Let's see, federal database, mandatory background checks (with psych evaluations), limit magazine sizes, and possibly mandatory training (works for the Swiss). Also close all those loopholes (gun shows, online buying, etc).

While we differ greatly on opinions I appreciate your civil manner in this discussion. Though we do not agree I also respect your opinions.

Just a couple points I'd like to add. There is really no online buying loophole. For example: if someone is looking online for a gun they want and find the cheapest price let's say at cheaper than dirt.com. They pay for that gun there. It is then shipped to a FFL licensed firearms dealer where the purchaser must go. Fill out paperwork, show proper ID then be processed and put through a background check after paying a fee to do so. If that person passes the gun is theirs. If not they do not get that gun. Buying online is no different than going to your local dealer and buying one there (all with same paperwork and processing of background checks. Firearms purchased online do not ship to the buyers door step.

Secondly the only "loop hole" at gun shows are private 2nd hand sales where a individual sells another individuals a firearm, this does not go through background check and processing. Which Obamas new law will no longer allow, at that point point there is no more a gun show loop hole. All other purchases done at the gun show is done through FFL licensed dealers which have always been at the gun shows.

 

[DarkKnight]

So wait - do we now have more robust background checks? If that's what all the fuss was over on the pro-gun side, I don't get what there is to get upset about.

No, most pro-gun law abiding citizens are fine with the background checks as we have always gone through background checks. (Unless purchasing from a another individual) which around here. Most of the time a individual refuses to sell to another individual unless they have a CWP permit. Why? Because if you have a CWP you already passed a background check and that background check stay current and updated though the CWP holders valid time period. Most pro-gun people were more worried about specific gun bans, ammo regulation/limits, capacity cut backs etc.

 

[DarkKnight]

Remember when Democrats applauded NYPD stop and frisk shutdown? Guess what: http://m.nydailynews.com/new-york/n...-and-frisk-criminals-bolder-article-1.2247406

How is Chicago doing with gun laws?

We need gun reform but the Democrats are just as delusional as the gun loving Republicans.

I agree with this. As a pro-gun Conservative even I can admit the extremists on both sides of this debate do no good at all.

 

[Marvolo]

Im just curious where yall stand with mental health.

My medical records show that I am on anti-depressants (for anxiety). Ive owned guns for 8 years. My medicine doesnt effect my ability to use my guns nor does my condition stop me from knowing how to use a gun responsibly, but anti-deppressants and those on them do carry a stigma that we are unstable or potentially suicidal. If state or federal governments start doing mental health background checks and its not done well or with only a cursory glance then people like me could see our rights reduced or stripped due to the medication we take or conditions we have. I dont want the government to see that Im on an anti-depressant and jump to the conclusion that Im suicidal and decide that Im too unstable to own a gun. And what about the millions of other americans who suffer from psychological conditions but with medication are fully functioning members of society. Does the government just tell them that they can never own firearms again?

Shouldnt the government spend more time understanding mental health and its various forms and conditions before it starts deciding who is mentally healthy enough to own a gun?

 

[TheCommissioner]

Stop and frisk is inherently racist, I can speak to that because I got stopped twice when visiting NYC and I live in Connecticut

come up with a better solution

or maybe I should just not be a 6'3 black man

 

[TheCommissioner]

Im just curious where yall stand with mental health.

My medical records show that I am on anti-depressants (for anxiety). Ive owned guns for 8 years. My medicine doesnt effect my ability to use my guns nor does my condition stop me from knowing how to use a gun responsibly, but anti-deppressants and those on them do carry a stigma that we are unstable or potentially suicidal. If state or federal governments start doing mental health background checks and its not done well or with only a cursory glance then people like me could see our rights reduced or stripped due to the medication we take or conditions we have. I dont want the government to see that Im on an anti-depressant and jump to the conclusion that Im suicidal and decide that Im too unstable to own a gun. And what about the millions of other americans who suffer from psychological conditions but with medication are fully functioning members of society. Does the government just tell them that they can never own firearms again?

Shouldnt the government spend more time understanding mental health and its various forms and conditions before it starts deciding who is mentally healthy enough to own a gun?

at some point yes, but Im sorry, if you are on meds, you shouldn't have access to deadly weapons UNTIL a deeper evaluation can happen

 

[DarkKnight]

Im just curious where yall stand with mental health.

My medical records show that I am on anti-depressants (for anxiety). Ive owned guns for 8 years. My medicine doesnt effect my ability to use my guns nor does my condition stop me from knowing how to use a gun responsibly, but anti-deppressants and those on them do carry a stigma that we are unstable or potentially suicidal. If state or federal governments start doing mental health background checks and its not done well or with only a cursory glance then people like me could see our rights reduced or stripped due to the medication we take or conditions we have. I dont want the government to see that Im on an anti-depressant and jump to the conclusion that Im suicidal and decide that Im too unstable to own a gun. And what about the millions of other americans who suffer from psychological conditions but with medication are fully functioning members of society. Does the government just tell them that they can never own firearms again?

Shouldnt the government spend more time understanding mental health and its various forms and conditions before it starts deciding who is mentally healthy enough to own a gun?

This is a good point Marvolo. This is also not the first time I have heard this issue brought up in a gun group I'm a member of. There is a fine line when getting down to it. If this ever were to become reality they need to know that determining if a individual can own a gun or not is not as Day vs night as it seems. There are more things to consider.