Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns

Yes.

10char.

 

I disagree. You have far more trust in officials than I do. I think that they would have taken silence as tacit approval and let the ban pass.

 

You're wrong. The 2nd Amendment was written to give The People a tool to protect themselves against a tyrannical government.

The 2nd Amendment also does not mention specific types of weapons. Sure muskets were used at the time, but they are not what is ued today.

 

At the time, the war with England was just over.

And who cares the real reason why it was written. If any american who consider Obama's a communist can legally do a militia, how democracy is protected ?

Founders couldn't see how powerful firearms would become.

As they haven't foresee blacks would be considered human beings...

 

Maybe your kind of common sense. The statistics prove otherwise.

Background checks are federal law. They may not be performed for every transaction, but they are mandated in all 50 States. As far as why are they being proposed? There is a lot I don't understand coming from Sen. Feinstein and the Obama Admin. They just throw stuff out there as an emotional response without any merit.

It really doesn't matter. I like being able to have 30 rounds at my immediate disposal, and so do millions of other law-abiding gun owners that use them to hunt, sport-shoot, and protect themselves. I would say that a law-abiding citizen with 30 rounds at his/her disposal that could be used against murderers at these mass killings may have done some good, but almost all of them occur in "gun-free" zones.

Once again, who made you in charge of the necessity of "assault weapons" and 30 round magazines?

She was buying the gun(s). She passed the background check. It was up to her to keep the guns away from her son.

An AR-15 is no more dangerous than any other semi-automatic hunting rifle. Scalia can say all he wants. Civilians are already prohibited from purchasing and using military-grade weapons. Nobody is against all gun control. There are already 20,000 gun regulations on the books. Perhaps they need to be enforced. We do not need to start banning things. It doesn't work. Common sense.

First of all, who's the pot calling the kettle black? Second, the 40% number that you are regurgitating is false. It is more like 14-22 percent. Also, I really don't have an aversion to everyone being subjected to an NICS check prior to purchasing a firearm, as long as there is no registration. Read more: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338735/40-percent-myth-john-lott.

All crime and stupidity cannot be legislated away. It is a fact of life, no matter how terrible it is.

I could have fired that many rounds with a pistol in the time-span it took for police to arrive.

- - - Updated - - -

Democracy is protected by not acting like a communist.

That's why they didn't mention specific weapons in the 2nd Amendment.

 

I forgot that you surely consider Obama as a dictator already.

My mistake.

 

Sure they do, but that's only the statistics put out by gun nuts and the NRA? Here are the real statistics.


From 1994 to 2004, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was in place (CRS report here). Here is that period, shown on a graph of people killed or wounded in mass shootings since 1982.
The data came from an extensive tabulation by Mark Follman at Mother Jones. Except for 1999, a year of five shootings (including the Columbine massacre), the assault ban period was peaceful by US standards:

Years............Shootings.....Per year...........People shot/year
1982-1994.........19.................1.5.....................25.5
1995-2004.........16.................1.6.....................20.9
2005-2012........ 27..................3.4*...................54.8*
http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/14/did-the-federal-ban-on-assault-weapons-matter/

Link please, cause that's nothing but BS. FYI, NRA LaPierre does not evensupport for background checks. You need to keep up, if you want to appear informed. If background checks were already being done in all 50 states, you think that LaPierre would be worried about it leading to a list of gun-owners. You don't know what you are saying.
WASHINGTON -- The National Rifle Association's executive vice president continued to oppose background checks for all gun purchases despite polls indicating that most NRA members don't share his position.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/03/nra-background-checks_n_2611890.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Ha,ha, you hunt with an assault weapon? You just showed how ridiculous you really are, probably don't even know how to shoot a gun.

I'm not in charge, if I was, there wouldn't be access to them by nuts who claim they hunt with them. Here, this is what your game looks like when you hunt with an assault weapon.

Do you have proof that she passed a background check? And, that would just prove that the background check was not thorough, and that gun-nuts don't have the best judgment.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it, but the majority of Americans don't agree with your opinion.

From your own link: The Brady Act background checks currently prevent someone who buys from a federally licensed dealer from buying a gun if he has a felony, or in many cases a misdemeanor conviction, or has been involuntarily committed for mental illness.

How about all the guns that are not bought from a federally licensed dealer? And that is really funny, because your link claims it's 36% - yeah, that's a lot lower than 40%.

Not all, that's true, but a lot more than doing nothing.

Ha,ha, sure you could've.

Your interpretation of people trying to influence common sense? We don't need a bunch of gun-nuts misinterpreting the Constitution and demanding they be allowed to own tanks, rocket launchers and whatever they want because they think the Constitution grants them that right.

Did one of the Founding Fathers leave you an explanation?

 

Mass killings are not on the rise. The use of assault weapons in crime is around 2%. All the numbers are relatively low. There is no evidence that the assault weapons ban from 1994 worked. All the reputable sources come to the conclusion that there is no conclusion. Check this out, and tell me if the assualt weapons ban stopped killings: http://townhall.com/columnists/doug...ork-then-and-it-wont-work-now-n1476009/page/2

It is federal law that anyone holding an FFL and selling firearms, must perform a background check on the individual. This happens in all states. You show me which state does not do this. The NRA is against any background check that is going to maintain a database of firearms that individuals purchase, which would amount to registration.

I have never hunted with an AR-15, although it would be no different than any other semi-automatic rifle. Just because it may have a 30-round magazines, does not mean they all have to be fired. I have plenty of weapons experience. No respectable hunter would want to empty 30 rounds into an animal. Good thing you are not in charge of the law.

I'm sure she passed a background check because thay said she owned those firearms legally. I have no access to background checks.

Too many Americans watch the MSM, and do not look at statistics. For the longest time Americans were fine with our laws, but many are not enforced. I'd say that the media is doing a good job at brainwashing people.

The number of gun transfers that do not get a check is very low. Your numbers are jaded. Read my link again. However, I have no problem with everyone having a background check.

Most rational people would know better. Civilians cannot own those types of military weapons.

Why would they mention specific weapons? They knew better.