The NRA had a chance to show him up and refused.
In fairness to the NRA, they declined to participate in a media event of a pre-determined outcome.
I dont blame them for not attending. But they had a shot and they did not take it. Make no doubt Obama and the Democrats will be using this for the General. 90% of Americans support background checks and 62% support Obama's executive action.
While the Rs are out there duking it out, the Ds are laying predicates.
This is the huge challenge. If you let your opponent dictate the rules of the fight, you will lose. If you don't fight you lose.
I am open to how they should respond. Get their own air-time on Fox?
Also, do you have a source for that 90% stat?
Cause the CNN poll I just looked at had 75% thinking that tightening the requirements is "too tough".
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/211321-poll-most-gun-owners-support-universal-background-checks 92% for background checks
67% for Obamas executive action.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/politics/poll-obama-gun-action/index.html
We are going to get nothing in return. The NRA could have debated him and said lets negotiate this for that, they did nothing.
Cnn polls are worthless. 52% years of Americans disagree with the president on his handling the gun issue, also a cnn poll.
Keep congress aware of how we feel and take the fight up. We will keep moving the banner forward.
Quote from: Wolfie on January 07 2016 07:34:50 PM MST
The NRA had a chance to show him up and refused.
Attend CNN "townhall" to engauge Barry in front of their handpicked, invitation only audience and moderator....BRILLIANT IDEA!!!! :(
If those couple isolated polls you enjoy quoting so much where
anything but more b.s. propaganda, Barry and his cronies at CNN woulda staged the event in Vegas
next week during Shot Show.
This was another impotent attempt to distract from his failed policies and presidency.
15 most recent "mass killers" (as stated by left leaning NY Daily News) in America
ALL passed background checks for their guns.
Take Barry's hometown of Chicago; as stringent gun laws as can be found
anywhere in US... 11 murders so far in 2016; 487 murders in 2015... Dead last in
federal weapons charges (out of 90 US judicial districts) - 52 prosecutions (2012) out of 5.2 million
population and 522 murders (2012).
How many of them did Barry mention on Tuesday when Mr. Spock cried for us all to show his human side?
Theatre of the absurd..
[attachment deleted by admin]
just on news this morning they were only allowed 1 question that was determined by cnn
Quote from: jal1 on January 08 2016 05:18:41 AM MST
just on news this morning they were only allowed 1 question that was determined by cnn
Chris Cox was on Fox last night and this is true.
The NRA was given the chance at one pre-screened question.
Quote from: Wolfie on January 07 2016 09:01:16 PM MST
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/211321-poll-most-gun-owners-support-universal-background-checks 92% for background checks
67% for Obamas executive action.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/politics/poll-obama-gun-action/index.html
We are going to get nothing in return. The NRA could have debated him and said lets negotiate this for that, they did nothing.
Poll sited (even one published buy completely biased CNN) says lot more than single question reference above: http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/politics/obama-guns-executive-action-poll-results/index.html
Should Barry circumvent Congress: 54% oppose
Will Barry's changes be effective: 57% not effective
My memory is a little foggy, but if I recall correctly, the invite to the NRA for a White House visit was not an invite for discussion, but an invite for a press conference King O was having about gun violence.
I love the polls saying 92% of Americans support background checks.....as with many of the polls, the devil is in the details of who was contacted and where they were contacted, they don't divulge these details. A national poll just means they didn't contact people in NY, Boston, Chicago, LA. We don't know the break down of this poll they quote except to say it was registered voters nationally.
My guess is 95% of Americans don't know they do background checks now. I know several conservative and liberal folks who have purchased a firearm (pistol & long gun) who didn't know they were doing a background check at the time......they thought they were 'registering' their gun. :D
I watched the first hour of the King Obama infomercial.....couldn't stand much more than that.
It was humorous how he told the sniper's wife he wasn't making it harder for her to obtain a gun, then turned around and told the lady who's daughter was killed that he was making it harder to purchase guns.
It seemed painful for him to try and not say he was wanting more restrictions on firearms. He never really answered any questions directly, he gave his story, which was a canned answer, never directly answering a direct question. When the priest wanted to know why we couldn't license/title guns like cars, it seemed all he could do to restrain himself from saying "I agree and it should be done".
This was staged by the Clinton News Network; they tried to appear unbiased, including Anderson Cooper, but the answers provided by the King reflect otherwise. However, when the lady who was raped stood up with her question, that was the only time I saw the president seem off his stride. I got the impression he chastised her for wanting a gun to defend herself because more than likely, she would have been killed by it since she didn't have the "extensive training". :o
We must bow at the thrown of Oh King O! :P
I do not think he should circumvent congress either. But most people are for background checks and reporting lost or stolen guns. I understand why some here do not want the background checks, but not reporting a lost or stolen gun?
Who would be against that?
If your gun was lost or stolen and not reported. And a perp killed someone with your gun and its recovered on the scene, guess who gets a visit.
As for the background checks; individual sales, as well as collectors, shouldn't have to perform back ground checks to sell a personal firearm. People like to compare firearms to cars nowadays, we don't see if they have drivers license to sell the car to them. It's a red-hearing.
Why should I have to report something lost/stolen if it isn't registered? Just because you get a visit does't mean you're guilty of anything.
Too many people want to give up personal freedoms for emotional regulation(s).
Quote from: Wolfie on January 08 2016 02:54:56 PM MST
I do not think he should circumvent congress either. But most people are for background checks and reporting lost or stolen guns. I understand why some here do not want the background checks, but not reporting a lost or stolen gun?
Who would be against that?
If your gun was lost or stolen and not reported. And a perp killed someone with your gun and its recovered on the scene, guess who gets a visit.
I would be.
1. I have a lot of items in my safe that are legally "guns". It would not be unthinkable for one of the 12 AR lowers I have that aren't yet built up to disappear and me not notice. And I may not build some of them for years to come. Should I be a criminal because I don't do inventory and one of my six kids friends had sticky fingers?
2. It is not in harmony with freedom to burden subjects of the government with this kind of requirement. In a truly free country I do not commit a crime until I abrogate the rights, freedoms or privileges of another. Me failing to report a stolen weapon does not intrude on the rights of another.
3. The law would ultimately be struct down on fifth amendment grounds. If I had come into criminal possession of a prohibited gun, that was then stolen, a requirement to report would require me to incriminate myself. Similar cases on gun issues have already been ruled in this way.
I am certain I could go on, but I will stop as I think the point is sufficiently made.
Until there is a plan and the "end game" is clearly portrayed, there will be no step by step compromises. Every instance that the NRA bucks against full background checks (which is a minuscule addition to pretty thorough checks already) or against laws requiring the reporting of known firearm theft it kinda rubs me the wrong way. I'm even ok having to get some worth of psych evaluation and/or basic training before owning a firearm, certainly the latter for before being able to carry. But every time Obama speaks out of one side of the mouth like he respects the 2A and would never confiscate and that everyone creates that fictitious scenario, I get nauseous and react with disgust because I know he does want to get rid of "assault rifles" or any "semi automatic" weapon, has said so before, and perhaps most dishonestly says that we should model the UK or Australia, where they did just that, outlawed firearms almost outright. Don't trust anyone speaking out of all sides of his mouth.
Knowing the latter, I'm not giving an inch, until we see what we can get in return. In exchange for some or all of the above, can we get rid of gun free zones in every instance except where full screening and armed LEO protection is provided for us (e.g. courthouse, some schools, etc...)? Can we get reciprocity across all states? Can I not be presumed a criminal before I am one in terms of where I can possess my firearm in self defense? Can I not have to EVER register all of my firearms with the federal government when I believe that one of the strongest foundations for the 2A is a balance of power with the government and keeping them in check against their abuse of power?
Sorry, this ain't gonna work inch by inch. Too polar a topic, and the fact is, the middle ground is probably possible where we all could be happy AND REAL causes of gun violence might be reduced. But, I'm supporting the NRA until then even when they are a bit ridiculous.
Reading up a bit on this media circus, it sounds like the NRA was right to stand aside. It sounds like Taya Kyle and Kimberly Corbin scored some good solid points with their questions.
Even better these people are faces and personalities that will resonate better with fence sitters than good ole boy NRA talking heads ever would.
The grassroots opportunity here is with your fence sitter democratic friends. They need to understand that even if they vote Hillary, they need to send a message loud and clear that they don't want and aren't supporting a mandate for stricter gun laws.
I agree no compromises and benefits in return walk away.
The NRA could have came in, and said OK, we will be reasonable and this is what we are willing to do.
If Nurse Ratched gets in she will not give anything back.
This NRA should do this and or do that business is rediculous.
It's exactly the language and "straw man" machiaveilian rhetorical Barry and other Libs use to slander, disparage, malign millions, millions and MILLIONS of honest, law abiding, loyal, tax paying, productive citizens and members of society. Whose shared crime is LEGALLY organizing and supporting efforts to protect the rights, privileges and freedoms granted us by God & the Bill Of Rights provision of the Constitution.
The NRA doesn't determine on its own what rights I (we) will sacrifice or trade away. The NRA is me, you and nearly every other good and honorable citizen following this board along with millions and millions of other like minded people who support the NRA with our finances and votes. Even those here that repudiate the organization enjoy the fruits of its and our efforts & resources. No need to look further than the consensus on this particular thread to determine how the NRA will respond to Barry and the Libs. We will continue to fight and freely trade NONE of our birthright.
I for one am proud to be a tiny part of the thorn in the side of all who worship at the alter of Government and centralized power and control. It's the essence of the greatest American tradition as well as reason we enjoy rights and privileges found nowhere else on earth.
Quote from: Rojo27 on January 09 2016 06:26:32 AM MST
This NRA should do this and or do that business is rediculous.
It's exactly the language and "straw man" machiaveilian rhetorical Barry and other Libs use to slander, disparage, malign millions, millions and MILLIONS of honest, law abiding, loyal, tax paying, productive citizens and members of society. Whose shared crime is LEGALLY organizing and supporting efforts to protect the rights, privileges and freedoms granted us by God & the Bill Of Rights provision of the Constitution.
The NRA doesn't determine on its own what rights I (we) will sacrifice or trade away. The NRA is me, you and nearly every other good and honorable citizen following this board along with millions and millions of other like minded people who support the NRA with our finances and votes. Even those here that repudiate the organization enjoy the fruits of its and our efforts & resources. No need to look further than the consensus on this particular thread to determine how the NRA will respond to Barry and the Libs. We will continue to fight and freely trade NONE of our birthright.
I for one am proud to be a tiny part of the thorn in the side of all who worship at the alter of Government and centralized power and control. It's the essence of the greatest American tradition as well as reason we enjoy rights and privileges found nowhere else on earth.
I wasn't exactly thinking of trading away birthrights, only willing to support law that increases responsibility, safety, and accountability (all things we and the NRA claim we are and want to be as gun owners) for freedom to own as many arms and ammunition as I want with as big of magazines as I deem appropriate and to take them with me for my own protection just about wherever I want (e.g. very limited to no gun free zones).
Again, it's almost pointless to mention, as no one will start with this end in mind, so tossing an inch to the other side makes no sense. Country has lost all sense of compromise, while at the same time everyone starts with a political agenda and puts every observation immediately within and behind that agenda regardless of the facts. Miserable.
And, I agree, I'm glad the NRA wasn't there. No one can represent gun rights as well as someone who was raped or who lost a husband to gun violence. They done well. Darned well. Obama was completely and offensively dishonest to them.
Quote from: colt1911fan on January 08 2016 08:10:50 PM MST
Until there is a plan and the "end game" is clearly portrayed, there will be no step by step compromises. Every instance that the NRA bucks against full background checks (which is a minuscule addition to pretty thorough checks already) or against laws requiring the reporting of known firearm theft it kinda rubs me the wrong way. I'm even ok having to get some worth of psych evaluation and/or basic training before owning a firearm, certainly the latter for before being able to carry. But every time Obama speaks out of one side of the mouth like he respects the 2A and would never confiscate and that everyone creates that fictitious scenario, I get nauseous and react with disgust because I know he does want to get rid of "assault rifles" or any "semi automatic" weapon, has said so before, and perhaps most dishonestly says that we should model the UK or Australia, where they did just that, outlawed firearms almost outright. Don't trust anyone speaking out of all sides of his mouth.
Knowing the latter, I'm not giving an inch, until we see what we can get in return. In exchange for some or all of the above, can we get rid of gun free zones in every instance except where full screening and armed LEO protection is provided for us (e.g. courthouse, some schools, etc...)? Can we get reciprocity across all states? Can I not be presumed a criminal before I am one in terms of where I can possess my firearm in self defense? Can I not have to EVER register all of my firearms with the federal government when I believe that one of the strongest foundations for the 2A is a balance of power with the government and keeping them in check against their abuse of power?
Sorry, this ain't gonna work inch by inch. Too polar a topic, and the fact is, the middle ground is probably possible where we all could be happy AND REAL causes of gun violence might be reduced. But, I'm supporting the NRA until then even when they are a bit ridiculous.
No offense......but suggesting more background checks, basic training and psych evaluation to purchase a firearm is not a supporter of the 2nd Amendment and personal freedoms.
Unfortunately, it stances like this that encourage the liberals even more. If King Obama heard this, he'd promote you to Secretary of Gun Confiscation. :D
Respectfully, you don't sound like a supporter, but want to portray yourself as one.....similar to King Obama.
The NRA should continue to spend its time in the courts, fighting unconstitutional regulations and kings who try to rule by fiat. The CNN anti-gun show was a sham. We don't need any more laws or regulations. 99.9% of all firearms are not used in a crime. We are the most law-abiding segment of society, right along with those holding a permit to carry concealed. Enforce existing laws.
Obama is so proud to state that background checks have stopped 1.8 million attempts to purchase a firearm. Where the heck are the 1.8 million arrests? Enforce the laws or get rid of them!
My guns don't cause crime. I don't know anyone who has used a gun to commit a crime, and I'll bet neither do any of you. We don't need mandatory psychological evaluation or mandatory training. The Constitution says nothing about mandatory training or psychological evaluation (or even background checks for that matter).
Unfortunately we live in a violent society. We need more people with guns, not fewer people with guns.
Quote from: Wolfie on January 07 2016 09:01:16 PM MST
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/211321-poll-most-gun-owners-support-universal-background-checks 92% for background checks
67% for Obamas executive action.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/politics/poll-obama-gun-action/index.html
We are going to get nothing in return. The NRA could have debated him and said lets negotiate this for that, they did nothing.
How then would you explain this CNN poll?
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y216/habs21/9b561dd5-e8a7-42af-b757-2b9e2c70670f_zps4kchcedx.jpg)
As far as the NRA not showing up to a CNN "Town Hall"... shouldn't take a genius to understand the reasoning behind that decision.
Quote from: Wolfie on January 07 2016 09:01:16 PM MST
67% for Obamas executive action.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/politics/poll-obama-gun-action/index.html
We are going to get nothing in return. The NRA could have debated him and said lets negotiate this for that, they did nothing.
LOL!!!
Let's really get into the weeds with that poll:
Q1) Policies proposed by Obama, right direction or wrong direction –
57% wrong directionQ2) Approve or disapprove of the way Obama is handling gun policy –
53% disapproveYou mentioned.....
Q3) A complete joke of a question for polling. Reminds me of a run-on sentence. Too many issues cited to get the correct response. Do I want a change in background check laws, NO. Do I want to make it easier for the FBI to do background checks, YES (example - my friend went to buy his son his 1st shotgun for Christmas. The purchase was held up for 3 days... "delayed" after background check... before he could take it from the store. No reason for the delay).
Q4) Do you think the changes will make a difference in reducing gun deaths –
57% will not be effectiveQ5) Do you favor EO for the changes –
54% opposeQ6) Has Obama gone too far, right amount, not far enough to change gun laws – 38% gone to far, 31% right amount, 30% not far enough. I'll take that as
69% believe he's already done enough... Please, sir, STOP ALREADY!
D22) Does anyone in your household own a gun –
40% yes, 51% no. Get the above numbers despite that slant? That's not a good poll for the Anti's.
Yeah, every poll I see clearly shows the America doesn't believe gun control is the answer to our violence problems.
But, from a grass roots level, we can influence a couple of those numbers. Find a 30%'er that thinks we haven't gone far enough. engage them with facts about why gun control won't help violence, and diverts resources from places that will.
Find a 51%'er that doesn't own a gun and take them shooting. Help them find fun in it. One or two of them will buy a gun.
Find a 31%'er that thinks it is the "right amount" and explain the legal quagmire by which you can become a felon depending on how you hold your sig brace equipped AR pistol. Help them understand that the rules are arbitrary and irrational.
You need more cops to enforce the 1.8 million that attempted to buy guns. Just like you need more border cops. Congress needs to allocate the resources to enforce the law.
Two-thirds of Americans support President Obama's initiative, announced this week, that would increase the reach of federal criminal background checks for those purchasing firearms at gun shows or on-line, according to a new national CNN/Opinion Research poll.
The president's bid to close the "gun show loophole" is backed by a 67-32 percent margin, although only 41 percent of those polled believe it will serve to reduce the scourge of gun violence in America.
There's no such thing as a "Gun Show Loophole". Whenever you hear that term they're insulting your intelligence.
Also, they didn't extend any reach. No new rules have been announced. They have just increased attention to the existing rules. More sellers will fall under scrutiny to ensure they aren't violating existing laws.
Quote from: Wolfie on January 10 2016 12:07:22 PM MST
Two-thirds of Americans support President Obama's initiative, announced this week, that would increase the reach of federal criminal background checks for those purchasing firearms at gun shows or on-line, according to a new national CNN/Opinion Research poll.
The president's bid to close the "gun show loophole" is backed by a 67-32 percent margin, although only 41 percent of those polled believe it will serve to reduce the scourge of gun violence in America.
You're just a one trick pony... You appear to continue to cling to that narrative (as it seems to fit your ideological persuasion) in spite of the fact the complete poll you cherry pick from again doesn't support the point your desperately trying to make. Based on polling data from this and several others polls done last week - Barry's EO and WH/CNN publicity circus stunt achieved very, very little. So great, hope they do try and use it in coming election.
Done
Obama did nothing except waste our time while fooling some. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/05/new-atf-guidance-on-gun-sales-is-legally-meaningless-or-else-it-would-be-unlawful/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/05/new-atf-guidance-on-gun-sales-is-legally-meaningless-or-else-it-would-be-unlawful/)
Quote from: Wolfie on January 10 2016 12:07:22 PM MST
Two-thirds of Americans support President Obama's initiative, announced this week, that would increase the reach of federal criminal background checks for those purchasing firearms at gun shows or on-line, according to a new national CNN/Opinion Research poll.
The president's bid to close the "gun show loophole" is backed by a 67-32 percent margin, although only 41 percent of those polled believe it will serve to reduce the scourge of gun violence in America.
Keep perusing the liberal rags (from a Joel Connelly piece in the Seattle Post-Intellegencer) to try and continue to make us believe the liberal line. Please.... ???
I know you've bought into it. Not much of the rest of us here seem to have.
From the linked Washington Post article above: A third potential reason for issuing a guidance of this sort is political: to respond to the political demand for action. Issuing a guidance document with substantial fanfare is a way to create the impression of action and satisfy relevant constituencies. To the typical, rationally ignorant voter, it may appear that the administration is doing something significant.
Quote from: Wolfie on January 10 2016 11:53:15 AM MST
You need more cops to enforce the 1.8 million that attempted to buy guns. Just like you need more border cops. Congress needs to allocate the resources to enforce the law.
Horse hockey!
A better application of "his" DOJ budget would easily cover all of it, including "more border cops". "More money", and "more government" is never the right answer.
There is no "1.8 million unlawful attempts to acquire firearms" stopped by background checks. Most declined applications are not criminal in nature, at all. Many, if not most, of them were for arbitrary, undisclosed reasons, while others were typographical or incomplete application denials, or reasons not previously known by the applicant (such as a tax lien or traffic warrant). Those that are delayed or returned for further/incomplete information are classed as "declined". I had one declined while I was active duty LEO, due to an ink smear, and another recently because the FFL signature "strayed out of the box".
Fact: Anyone who knows they may fail a background check, doesn't want the attention, or whatever reason, simply will not apply. If they want firearms, they will get them another way. Fortunately (for them), and unfortunately (for us), they will not be burdened with background check delays, waiting periods, taxes, firearm registration association, restricted firearms/devices, or excessive retail market pricing. Essentially, due to the "common sense gun control" measures, only criminals have opportunity to fully exercise their Constitutionally protected rights, while non-criminals in the same attempt become criminals due to those laws, and for no other reason.
Someone else mentioned the 1.8 I just responded.
Well, at least Obama is trying to bring everyone together.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/07/obama-tells-pro-gun-democrats-they-arent-welcome-in-his-party/#ixzz3wsSkRiUQ
I have a good friend and 10mm owner who failed a background check. When buying his Witness 10mm in fact.
I am sure he is a statistic now of one of the people that was successfully denied access to a gun.
Heaven help us. A man who had a bench warrant for failure to pay a littering fine was denied access to a gun. In point of fact, he had paid the fine, the court just fouled up the paperwork.
This is one of the reasons I agree that statistics are hard to swallow often, and hard questions need to be asked about the source of the data.
Which brings up the Obama desire to forbid gun purchases by anyone on the "No Fly List". How do you get on this magical list - and how do you get off? If your last name is Smith you're going to have a difficult time aren't you?
In my opinion it's not the guns - it's the people. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE)
Quote from: sqlbullet on January 08 2016 07:49:40 PM MST
Quote from: Wolfie on January 08 2016 02:54:56 PM MST
I do not think he should circumvent congress either. But most people are for background checks and reporting lost or stolen guns. I understand why some here do not want the background checks, but not reporting a lost or stolen gun?
Who would be against that?
If your gun was lost or stolen and not reported. And a perp killed someone with your gun and its recovered on the scene, guess who gets a visit.
I would be.
1. I have a lot of items in my safe that are legally "guns". It would not be unthinkable for one of the 12 AR lowers I have that aren't yet built up to disappear and me not notice. And I may not build some of them for years to come. Should I be a criminal because I don't do inventory and one of my six kids friends had sticky fingers?
2. It is not in harmony with freedom to burden subjects of the government with this kind of requirement. In a truly free country I do not commit a crime until I abrogate the rights, freedoms or privileges of another. Me failing to report a stolen weapon does not intrude on the rights of another.
3. The law would ultimately be struct down on fifth amendment grounds. If I had come into criminal possession of a prohibited gun, that was then stolen, a requirement to report would require me to incriminate myself. Similar cases on gun issues have already been ruled in this way.
I am certain I could go on, but I will stop as I think the point is sufficiently made.
There you have it! His EO is completely unconstitutional and will be overturned. The 'Socialist In Chief" is flying his colors to the full!
His executive brief doesn't extend the law. All he did was restate the existing law and give a directive to increase scrutiny on certain buyers to ensure their acts are legal.
Quote from: Wolfie on January 07 2016 09:01:16 PM MST
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/211321-poll-most-gun-owners-support-universal-background-checks 92% for background checks
67% for Obamas executive action.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/politics/poll-obama-gun-action/index.html
We are going to get nothing in return. The NRA could have debated him and said lets negotiate this for that, they did nothing.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/10/rasmussen-majority-oppose-obamas-executive-action-for-gun-control/
Quote from: 10-4 on January 10 2016 03:12:56 PM MST
Obama did nothing except waste our time while fooling some. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/05/new-atf-guidance-on-gun-sales-is-legally-meaningless-or-else-it-would-be-unlawful/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/05/new-atf-guidance-on-gun-sales-is-legally-meaningless-or-else-it-would-be-unlawful/)
I don't disagree with the this columnist's comments; however, he is writing based upon face value of the directives/guidance. As with many things in politics, the devil is in the details; in these recent actions, the details will be open for interpretation based upon the political party in control. This is the problem with the directives/guidance, we are not sure how they will
interpret these comments in their enforcement processes. This is the great unknown and is troubling.
Read all the comments and links.
Looks like this, a majority of Americans like Obama's plan but a majority does not like him doing it via Executive Action.
Commenters are decidedly NOT an accurate random sample.
http://m.nydailynews.com/news/politics/nra-wayne-lapierre-challenges-obama-gun-debate-article-1.2496953
Quote from: redbaron007 on January 09 2016 05:11:05 PM MST
Quote from: colt1911fan on January 08 2016 08:10:50 PM MST
Until there is a plan and the "end game" is clearly portrayed, there will be no step by step compromises. Every instance that the NRA bucks against full background checks (which is a minuscule addition to pretty thorough checks already) or against laws requiring the reporting of known firearm theft it kinda rubs me the wrong way. I'm even ok having to get some worth of psych evaluation and/or basic training before owning a firearm, certainly the latter for before being able to carry. But every time Obama speaks out of one side of the mouth like he respects the 2A and would never confiscate and that everyone creates that fictitious scenario, I get nauseous and react with disgust because I know he does want to get rid of "assault rifles" or any "semi automatic" weapon, has said so before, and perhaps most dishonestly says that we should model the UK or Australia, where they did just that, outlawed firearms almost outright. Don't trust anyone speaking out of all sides of his mouth.
Knowing the latter, I'm not giving an inch, until we see what we can get in return. In exchange for some or all of the above, can we get rid of gun free zones in every instance except where full screening and armed LEO protection is provided for us (e.g. courthouse, some schools, etc...)? Can we get reciprocity across all states? Can I not be presumed a criminal before I am one in terms of where I can possess my firearm in self defense? Can I not have to EVER register all of my firearms with the federal government when I believe that one of the strongest foundations for the 2A is a balance of power with the government and keeping them in check against their abuse of power?
Sorry, this ain't gonna work inch by inch. Too polar a topic, and the fact is, the middle ground is probably possible where we all could be happy AND REAL causes of gun violence might be reduced. But, I'm supporting the NRA until then even when they are a bit ridiculous.
No offense......but suggesting more background checks, basic training and psych evaluation to purchase a firearm is not a supporter of the 2nd Amendment and personal freedoms.
Unfortunately, it stances like this that encourage the liberals even more. If King Obama heard this, he'd promote you to Secretary of Gun Confiscation. :D
Respectfully, you don't sound like a supporter, but want to portray yourself as one.....similar to King Obama.
Not sure what you're trying to exactly state as you hide behind terms like "no offense" or "respectfully," but I'm no Obama fan of the left.
And, while your position sounds more right handed and pro gun than mine, all I can say is that "bearing arms" for me is much more than being able to buy them with minimal barriers. Consequently, I'd like to support SOME laws that increase the rigor in buying them so that I can BEAR them, in other words carry and possess them outside of my home. Heck, the laws and due diligence I would support really aren't about much more than what the NRA and most gun owners insist we are - responsible and safe gun owners. And to be able to carry a pistol with me all the time is really what I desire.
But whatever. If that makes me way far more left than you and we want to make this about extremes and left and right.... so be it. That's the exact problem with Obama and his executive actions and the polar views of this country that has abandoned all compromise and rational thinking. It's the precise problem with the "pro gun extreme right" all the same.
Quote from: colt1911fan on January 16 2016 08:26:15 PM MST
Quote from: redbaron007 on January 09 2016 05:11:05 PM MST
Quote from: colt1911fan on January 08 2016 08:10:50 PM MST
Until there is a plan and the "end game" is clearly portrayed, there will be no step by step compromises. Every instance that the NRA bucks against full background checks (which is a minuscule addition to pretty thorough checks already) or against laws requiring the reporting of known firearm theft it kinda rubs me the wrong way. I'm even ok having to get some worth of psych evaluation and/or basic training before owning a firearm, certainly the latter for before being able to carry. But every time Obama speaks out of one side of the mouth like he respects the 2A and would never confiscate and that everyone creates that fictitious scenario, I get nauseous and react with disgust because I know he does want to get rid of "assault rifles" or any "semi automatic" weapon, has said so before, and perhaps most dishonestly says that we should model the UK or Australia, where they did just that, outlawed firearms almost outright. Don't trust anyone speaking out of all sides of his mouth.
Knowing the latter, I'm not giving an inch, until we see what we can get in return. In exchange for some or all of the above, can we get rid of gun free zones in every instance except where full screening and armed LEO protection is provided for us (e.g. courthouse, some schools, etc...)? Can we get reciprocity across all states? Can I not be presumed a criminal before I am one in terms of where I can possess my firearm in self defense? Can I not have to EVER register all of my firearms with the federal government when I believe that one of the strongest foundations for the 2A is a balance of power with the government and keeping them in check against their abuse of power?
Sorry, this ain't gonna work inch by inch. Too polar a topic, and the fact is, the middle ground is probably possible where we all could be happy AND REAL causes of gun violence might be reduced. But, I'm supporting the NRA until then even when they are a bit ridiculous.
No offense......but suggesting more background checks, basic training and psych evaluation to purchase a firearm is not a supporter of the 2nd Amendment and personal freedoms.
Unfortunately, it stances like this that encourage the liberals even more. If King Obama heard this, he'd promote you to Secretary of Gun Confiscation. :D
Respectfully, you don't sound like a supporter, but want to portray yourself as one.....similar to King Obama.
Not sure what you're trying to exactly state as you hide behind terms like "no offense" or "respectfully," but I'm no Obama fan of the left.
And, while your position sounds more right handed and pro gun than mine, all I can say is that "bearing arms" for me is much more than being able to buy them with minimal barriers. Consequently, I'd like to support SOME laws that increase the rigor in buying them so that I can BEAR them, in other words carry and possess them outside of my home. Heck, the laws and due diligence I would support really aren't about much more than what the NRA and most gun owners insist we are - responsible and safe gun owners. And to be able to carry a pistol with me all the time is really what I desire.
But whatever. If that makes me way far more left than you and we want to make this about extremes and left and right.... so be it. That's the exact problem with Obama and his executive actions and the polar views of this country that has abandoned all compromise and rational thinking. It's the precise problem with the "pro gun extreme right" all the same.
Guess I'm confused......how does giving more influence/control to the bureaucrats help the bearing of arms in the future? From your comments, I am making an assumption, which you are are more than welcome to correct; but I get the feeling and perception that you are saying, if I give into more/stricter background checks (whatever they will be) you will get something in return that you don't have already. I have never seen the government take something from you and turn around and give you more.
What specifically are you wanting to support; then receive back from the Bureaucrats?
Quote from: redbaron007 on January 20 2016 02:48:10 PM MST
Quote from: colt1911fan on January 16 2016 08:26:15 PM MST
Quote from: redbaron007 on January 09 2016 05:11:05 PM MST
Quote from: colt1911fan on January 08 2016 08:10:50 PM MST
Until there is a plan and the "end game" is clearly portrayed, there will be no step by step compromises. Every instance that the NRA bucks against full background checks (which is a minuscule addition to pretty thorough checks already) or against laws requiring the reporting of known firearm theft it kinda rubs me the wrong way. I'm even ok having to get some worth of psych evaluation and/or basic training before owning a firearm, certainly the latter for before being able to carry. But every time Obama speaks out of one side of the mouth like he respects the 2A and would never confiscate and that everyone creates that fictitious scenario, I get nauseous and react with disgust because I know he does want to get rid of "assault rifles" or any "semi automatic" weapon, has said so before, and perhaps most dishonestly says that we should model the UK or Australia, where they did just that, outlawed firearms almost outright. Don't trust anyone speaking out of all sides of his mouth.
Knowing the latter, I'm not giving an inch, until we see what we can get in return. In exchange for some or all of the above, can we get rid of gun free zones in every instance except where full screening and armed LEO protection is provided for us (e.g. courthouse, some schools, etc...)? Can we get reciprocity across all states? Can I not be presumed a criminal before I am one in terms of where I can possess my firearm in self defense? Can I not have to EVER register all of my firearms with the federal government when I believe that one of the strongest foundations for the 2A is a balance of power with the government and keeping them in check against their abuse of power?
Sorry, this ain't gonna work inch by inch. Too polar a topic, and the fact is, the middle ground is probably possible where we all could be happy AND REAL causes of gun violence might be reduced. But, I'm supporting the NRA until then even when they are a bit ridiculous.
No offense......but suggesting more background checks, basic training and psych evaluation to purchase a firearm is not a supporter of the 2nd Amendment and personal freedoms.
Unfortunately, it stances like this that encourage the liberals even more. If King Obama heard this, he'd promote you to Secretary of Gun Confiscation. :D
Respectfully, you don't sound like a supporter, but want to portray yourself as one.....similar to King Obama.
Not sure what you're trying to exactly state as you hide behind terms like "no offense" or "respectfully," but I'm no Obama fan of the left.
And, while your position sounds more right handed and pro gun than mine, all I can say is that "bearing arms" for me is much more than being able to buy them with minimal barriers. Consequently, I'd like to support SOME laws that increase the rigor in buying them so that I can BEAR them, in other words carry and possess them outside of my home. Heck, the laws and due diligence I would support really aren't about much more than what the NRA and most gun owners insist we are - responsible and safe gun owners. And to be able to carry a pistol with me all the time is really what I desire.
But whatever. If that makes me way far more left than you and we want to make this about extremes and left and right.... so be it. That's the exact problem with Obama and his executive actions and the polar views of this country that has abandoned all compromise and rational thinking. It's the precise problem with the "pro gun extreme right" all the same.
Guess I'm confused......how does giving more influence/control to the bureaucrats help the bearing of arms in the future? From your comments, I am making an assumption, which you are are more than welcome to correct; but I get the feeling and perception that you are saying, if I give into more/stricter background checks (whatever they will be) you will get something in return that you don't have already. I have never seen the government take something from you and turn around and give you more.
What specifically are you wanting to support; then receive back from the Bureaucrats?
A little late to reply, guess I don't monitor the threads enough. But the receive back was in the first post, the right to carry wherever I want with said guns bought with higher standards (and carry means in all states and with limited gun free zones, where each one provides security screening of all and armed security and lockers to store mine). Give me that, and you can control my purchases more strictly.