Looks like Obama finally getting ready to do something about guns

[pablow]

Under Obama's Justice Department, prosecutions for federal gun offenses are way, way down. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...c-gun-prosecutions-plummet-under-ob/?page=all
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/02/obama-federal-gun-crimes

 

[ahawkfan91]

Pretty simple, like I have said. If the Dems want gun control you tie it with an abortion bill limiting abortions to XXX amount of weeks. Then the NRA folks are not happy and neither are the Planned Parenthood types and both are pissing off their base.

That is, literally, the stupidest idea that I have ever seen.

Legislation should be based on whether or not it's good for the country, and not with the intent to "piss off" any particular group people. Your kind of thinking is exactly what's wrong with this country right now.

 

[The Tradition]

Are you a NYC police officer? I ask because tougher gun laws, coupled with a mayor that works with the police and keeps the dept well funded has shown that tougher gun laws can have a substantial impact. It isn't easy because a lot of factions have to work together.
Unfortunately unless a federal plan is put in place gun laws wont change in a great number of places. I do agree with you on the overall view of that many want more guns in the system- albeit legally- and that the police need to be better armed. After San Bern it was almost all you heard from the 'experts' they had reporting.

NYC has "stop and frisk" practices! I don't think you can say for sure whether any "substantial impact" is from gun regulations or unlawful body searches.

http://www.nyclu.org/issues/racial-justice/stop-and-frisk-practices

 

[Trevor4Iowa]

He has about 6 months to try to do anything. He's already a total joke and most sane people know it and ignore the man. Meanwhile, good luck getting law enforcement to follow whatever decree he tries to pull off.

So it's ok for law enforcement to not enforce the law, but it's horrible for Obama to try to protect American citizens from

So the 2nd Amendment is open to interpretation but the 14th Amendment is off limits to discussion?

One involves people getting killed and having their rights trampled by others not qualified to have a gun.

The other is about all people having equal rights and due process (another thing gun wielding cowboys think we don't need).

They are nothing alike and only one is important to having a good, forward moving society.

 

[Trevor4Iowa]

So he's going to close loopholes around background checks, even though none of the recent mass shootings can be linked to a gun that was purchased via said loopholes?

Brilliant. Way to really get out there and "do something", Mr. President.

So it's ok that those not in your "Most" category got killed? Hey, no problem. I know you got killed, but a lot of people didn't in spite of our weak, backward 18th century laws.

 

[DrVenkman]

NYC has "stop and frisk" practices! I don't think you can say for sure whether any "substantial impact" is from gun regulations or unlawful body searches.

http://www.nyclu.org/issues/racial-justice/stop-and-frisk-practices

I am very familiar with the NYCLU. Mayor Diblasio's pet.
Is stop and frisk something I am fan of? No. Was there an extremely serious reason to at least discuss it ? Yes there was.

 

[BelemNole]

I wish he would do something about National Security.

After all, this last issue was a Terrorist attack on American soil.

But, let's blame our laws and our citizens instead.

I find this type of post comical. The week before there was another religious wingnut shooting up innocent people and the consensus was "meh, shit happens, nothing we can do - don't touch out guns." But a week later and the American religious wingnut doing the killing this time is a different flavor of religion and suddenly everyone on the right thinks this is the most important topic of the election cycle...but still don't touch our guns!
You people are nuts. We average what, over 30k deaths a year by guns but the 14 killed by a muslim wingnut are suddenly important to you. Forget the nearly daily multiple shooting victims, those weren't done by scary people, (although some of you will be happy to blame them all on black people) THIS one requires a new war, tearing up the bill or rights, ignoring who we are as Americans.
Nuts, freaking nuts.

 

[The Tradition]

I am very familiar with the NYCLU. Mayor Diblasio's pet.
Is stop and frisk something I am fan of? No. Was there an extremely serious reason to at least discuss it ? Yes there was.

You sound like Donald Trump.

 

[DrVenkman]

You sound like Donald Trump.

I haven't heard Trump say he was in favor of gun control. If he has would you please link?

 

[Huey Grey]

Someone's mad their cartoon backfired.

 

[22*43*51]

I find this type of post comical. The week before there was another religious wingnut shooting up innocent people and the consensus was "meh, shit happens, nothing we can do - don't touch out guns." But a week later and the American religious wingnut doing the killing this time is a different flavor of religion and suddenly everyone on the right thinks this is the most important topic of the election cycle...but still don't touch our guns!
You people are nuts. We average what, over 30k deaths a year by guns but the 14 killed by a muslim wingnut are suddenly important to you. Forget the nearly daily multiple shooting victims, those weren't done by scary people, (although some of you will be happy to blame them all on black people) THIS one requires a new war, tearing up the bill or rights, ignoring who we are as Americans.
Nuts, freaking nuts.

So foreign Terrorist killing within our borders is a non-starter for you.

...And you played the race card.

Got it.

 

[22*43*51]

Someone's mad their cartoon backfired.

How so?

I got likes and I got you to respond to it.

 

[The Tradition]

I haven't heard Trump say he was in favor of gun control. If he has would you please link?

 

[Huey Grey]

All eleven attackers were incubated for years by Clinton national security policy.(or lack thereof)

There weren't 11 attackers. There were 19. And 15 of them came from Saudi Arabia. Not one was from Iraq. So why did Bush lie to get us into Iraq again?

 

[22*43*51]

There weren't 11 attackers. There were 19. And 15 of them came from Saudi Arabia. Not one was from Iraq. So why did Bush lie to get us into Iraq again?

The pilots learned to fly commercial airliners in Clinton's lax America.

 

[The Tradition]

There weren't 11 attackers. There were 19. And 15 of them came from Saudi Arabia. Not one was from Iraq. So why did Bush lie to get us into Iraq again?

To finish the job that his father failed to finish the first time.

 

[BelemNole]

So foreign Terrorist killing within our borders is a non-starter for you.

...And you played the race card.

Got it.

Guy was American born. His wife was an internet bride, but the guy who talked to his neighbor about killing people for years was a born and bred American. Just like the idiot in Colorado. You see them as different because you see a boogeyman coming to get you and this fits the bill. Ties into your fears. The other guy you just accept as the cost of business. Truth is they're the same, nuts that think that killing others will prove something.

 

[22*43*51]

Guy was American born. His wife was an internet bride, but the guy who talked to his neighbor about killing people for years was a born and bred American. Just like the idiot in Colorado. You see them as different because you see a boogeyman coming to get you and this fits the bill. Ties into your fears. The other guy you just accept as the cost of business. Truth is they're the same, nuts that think that killing others will prove something.

Wife was a terrorist from a terrorist sponsored state. Not a citizen.

 

[The Tradition]

Guy was American born. His wife was an internet bride, but the guy who talked to his neighbor about killing people for years was a born and bred American. Just like the idiot in Colorado. You see them as different because you see a boogeyman coming to get you and this fits the bill. Ties into your fears. The other guy you just accept as the cost of business. Truth is they're the same, nuts that think that killing others will prove something.

Except the Muslim guy brought a partner here to commit terror with.

People forming squads of attackers is worse than the lone nut scenario.

 

[BelemNole]

Wife was a terrorist from a terrorist sponsored state. Not a citizen.

Right, sure, whatever. Those 14 people are somehow more dead that the others killed by the nut bags you find less scary then?

 

[22*43*51]

Right, sure, whatever. Those 14 people are somehow more dead that the others killed by the nut bags you find less scary then?

Yes. Because she went through a two year vetting process and the government didn't ask important questions out of fear of being PC.

If the government can screw up a two year process, then what is a superficial EO going to do but score political points.

Why aren't you asking for an EO on our Visa vetting?

 

[herkyhawk00]

To the OP, do you know how many lives this will save in inner city Chicago? Zero. None of them have legal guns anyways.

 

[Nat Algren]

So, we have a dictator now? You lefties might cheer now. Let's hear from you if Trump wins.

 

[BelemNole]

Yes. Because she went through a two year vetting process and the government didn't ask important questions out of fear of being PC.

If the government can screw up a two year process, then what is a superficial EO going to do but score political points.

Why aren't you asking for an EO on our Visa vetting?

She didn't go thru a 2 year screening process. She wasn't a Syrian war refugee. She was admitted on a K-1 fiancee visa. Totally different program.

 

[Huey Grey]

To finish the job that his father failed to finish the first time.

Sounds like a 1990's action movie

 

[The Tradition]

Sounds like a 1990's action movie

Yeah, if you say it out loud using the deep "In a world where..." announcer voice, it sounds really cool.

 

[jscott78]

Bout time he shove it up the arse of gun loving death cultists.

It's about time. With bullets flying everywhere in this country, I hope he is heavy handed on this topic. Gun violence is out of control in this country.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/16/politics/obama-mike-bloomberg-gun-control/index.html



What could Obama do?


In his executive action, Obama could alter the government's definition of who is "in the business" of selling guns, expanding it to include private dealers and others who can currently sell without completing a background check. Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has already said she would take such action if elected to the White House.


But the legal hurdles in moving unilaterally have proven difficult for the administration to surmount. If he does move forward with executive actions, they would almost certainly be challenged in court by Republicans and groups like the NRA.


And like previous executive actions, Obama's move on guns could be overturned by his successor.


Valerie Jarrett, Obama's senior adviser who also attended the meeting with Bloomberg Wednesday, said this week that the executive orders would be revealed in "short order," but refused to offer any more detailed timelines.

 

[Gimmered]

It's about time. With bullets flying everywhere in this country, I hope he is heavy handed on this topic. Gun violence is out of control in this country.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/16/politics/obama-mike-bloomberg-gun-control/index.html



What could Obama do?


In his executive action, Obama could alter the government's definition of who is "in the business" of selling guns, expanding it to include private dealers and others who can currently sell without completing a background check. Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has already said she would take such action if elected to the White House.


But the legal hurdles in moving unilaterally have proven difficult for the administration to surmount. If he does move forward with executive actions, they would almost certainly be challenged in court by Republicans and groups like the NRA.


And like previous executive actions, Obama's move on guns could be overturned by his successor.


Valerie Jarrett, Obama's senior adviser who also attended the meeting with Bloomberg Wednesday, said this week that the executive orders would be revealed in "short order," but refused to offer any more detailed timelines.

Hey dumbass. there is no such thing as a private dealer. You are a FFL dealer or a private individual. That is why the hurdles have proven to be so difficult.

Also I don't know what country you live in but there are no bullets flying here, and violent crime and all gun crime is at a 20 year low. You might want to move back here in the real world where it is safer.

 

[rocketclone]

That is, literally, the stupidest idea that I have ever seen.

Legislation should be based on whether or not it's good for the country, and not with the intent to "piss off" any particular group people. Your kind of thinking is exactly what's wrong with this country right now.

I don't disagree it is stupid but it is the way it works anymore. The dems try and change something they are gun grabbers the pubs try something on abortion they are anit woman. Unfortunately that is the way it works nowadays.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

All eleven attackers were incubated for years by Clinton national security policy.(or lack thereof)

Hmmm. You're only a card or 2 short of the full OiT deck on this one. I know what you mean (but think you are overstating it), yet it sounds like something OiT would get from Alex Jones.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Whatever, Poindexter.

Oh, so it was a WOB. I was giving you the benefit of doubt that your fingers or spell checker went off on their own.

 

[22*43*51]

She didn't go thru a 2 year screening process. She wasn't a Syrian war refugee. She was admitted on a K-1 fiancee visa. Totally different program.

I didn't say she was a Syrian refugee.

The process is not totally different. Very similar in fact.

They didn't uncover her fabricated Pakistani address. Though it took reporters less than a day.

"Applicants are subject to a vetting process that includes at least one in-person interview, fingerprints, checks against U.S. terrorist watch lists and reviews of family members, travel history and places where a person has lived and worked. But checks for information about an applicant against entries in intelligence databases and criminal records can be hampered if the underlying information is incomplete."

"The vetting process is similar to but less stringent than the process used to approve refugees from Syria. It is far more extensive than checks made for traditional tourist visas, Rosenblum said."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/u-s-reviewing-fiance-visa-program-after-san-bernardino-shooting/

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

They didn't uncover her fabricated Pakistani address. Though it took reporters less than a day.

It's a lot easier to find what you are looking for once you know for sure that there's something to look for.

 

[22*43*51]

It's a lot easier to find what you are looking for once you know for sure that there's something to look for.

Maybe the government should hire reporters?

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

Are you a NYC police officer? I ask because tougher gun laws, coupled with a mayor that works with the police and keeps the dept well funded has shown that tougher gun laws can have a substantial impact. It isn't easy because a lot of factions have to work together.
Unfortunately unless a federal plan is put in place gun laws wont change in a great number of places. I do agree with you on the overall view of that many want more guns in the system- albeit legally- and that the police need to be better armed. After San Bern it was almost all you heard from the 'experts' they had reporting.

If gun violence is dropping and at a 40-50 year low........why the rush to enact more regulations an laws? It wouldn't have to do with the Gov't and the media dry humping every gun related event and blowing everything out of proportion, would it?

Think about this for a second. Or don't. Our gun deaths.......that some say is "out of control", and "bullets flying everywhere".......can be condensed Nationally.......to the population of Mason City, Iowa. Take that in for a moment. Out of 325,ooo,ooo people.....31,ooo(0.00009538%) of the populace.....and 61% of that is suicides..... and 4% accidents......meaning that the criminal gun violence(the real threat to society in this country) is approximately 11,000 people.The population of Clear Lake, Iowa in the summer time.(0.00003385% of our total population)......3% of those deaths, being caused by rifles(not assault......ALL rifles)

So tell me again..........how is it "out of control"? Stop making the US sound like a war zone. Because it's not. Violence is dropping despite legal gun ownership being at historical highs. You're simply buying into the media and gov't anti-gun hype.

 

[cruhawk]

Gun violence is down overall.

And "gun violence" (is it any worse than any other kind of violence?) has nothing to do with legal gun ownership.

O.P. is a knothead, but then, he already knows that.

 

[cruhawk]

If gun violence is dropping and at a 40-50 year low........why the rush to enact more regulations an laws? It wouldn't have to do with the Gov't and the media dry humping every gun related event and blowing everything out of proportion, would it?

Think about this for a second. Or don't. Our gun deaths.......that some say is "out of control", and "bullets flying everywhere".......can be condensed Nationally.......to the population of Mason City, Iowa. Take that in for a moment. Out of 325,ooo,ooo people.....31,ooo(0.00009538%) of the populace.....and 61% of that is suicides..... and 4% accidents......meaning that the criminal gun violence(the real threat to society in this country) is approximately 11,000 people.The population of Clear Lake, Iowa in the summer time.(0.00003385% of our total population)......3% of those deaths, being caused by rifles(not assault......ALL rifles)

So tell me again..........how is it "out of control"? Stop making the US sound like a war zone. Because it's not. Violence is dropping despite legal gun ownership being at historical highs. You're simply buying into the media and gov't anti-gun hype.

Some more thoughtful & intelligent observers would even say that violent crime is down (and it is) because of legal gun ownership--and, not coincidentally, because NRA memberships are at an all time high.

 

[LuckyNed]

It's about time. With bullets flying everywhere in this country, I hope he is heavy handed on this topic. Gun violence is out of control in this country.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/16/politics/obama-mike-bloomberg-gun-control/index.html



What could Obama do?


In his executive action, Obama could alter the government's definition of who is "in the business" of selling guns, expanding it to include private dealers and others who can currently sell without completing a background check. Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has already said she would take such action if elected to the White House.


But the legal hurdles in moving unilaterally have proven difficult for the administration to surmount. If he does move forward with executive actions, they would almost certainly be challenged in court by Republicans and groups like the NRA.


And like previous executive actions, Obama's move on guns could be overturned by his successor.


Valerie Jarrett, Obama's senior adviser who also attended the meeting with Bloomberg Wednesday, said this week that the executive orders would be revealed in "short order," but refused to offer any more detailed timelines.

 

[LuckyNed]

My understanding is that law enforcement generally wants tougher gun control.

Besides, the action suggested in the OP would presumably be handled by ATF, not beat cops.

If all he's doing is modifying the definition of "dealer" so that those who can currently skate around background checks and such have less license, is that really a bad thing? Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

If you were following the discussion in another gun thread, Gimmered regularly made the point that dealers have to do background checks. That was an argument against being too worried about end-run gun deals at gun shows. But it also makes the point that some people are dealing without being counted as dealers.

I don't claim to know what the proper definition of "dealer" should be. Would it be based on the number of gun deals you are involved in per year or something like that? But whatever it is, it seems like a perfectly reasonable approach to expanding background checking - which is something nearly all Americans favor.

And no, OiT, it wouldn't even slightly violate the constitution. Modifying the definition of "dealer" in no way changes your ability to keep or bear arms. As long as the definition doesn't make it unreasonably hard for eligible purchasers to get guns, it's fair sailing from a constitutional perspective.

 

[Nat Algren]

It's about time. With bullets flying everywhere in this country, I hope he is heavy handed on this topic. Gun violence is out of control in this country.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/16/politics/obama-mike-bloomberg-gun-control/index.html



What could Obama do?


In his executive action, Obama could alter the government's definition of who is "in the business" of selling guns, expanding it to include private dealers and others who can currently sell without completing a background check. Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has already said she would take such action if elected to the White House.


But the legal hurdles in moving unilaterally have proven difficult for the administration to surmount. If he does move forward with executive actions, they would almost certainly be challenged in court by Republicans and groups like the NRA.


And like previous executive actions, Obama's move on guns could be overturned by his successor.


Valerie Jarrett, Obama's senior adviser who also attended the meeting with Bloomberg Wednesday, said this week that the executive orders would be revealed in "short order," but refused to offer any more detailed timelines.

I thought this guy was a Constitutional scholar? Now, he wants to go all Hitler on us. Like they say, each prez leaves us nostalgic for his predecessor.