General Forums >> General Discussions >> Poll: List of Executive Actions ordered by the POTUS on Gun Violence:

Rate

Poll: List of Executive Actions ordered by the POTUS on Gun Violence:

1,772 Views
74 Replies Flag as inappropriate

Poll: Are you overall satisfied with the overall results?

Bluejersey_max50

1771 posts

back to top

Posted almost 2 years ago

 

1/16/2013


ugh, looks like I'm going to have the pleasure of typing this whole thing out.  Please be patient. Thanks so much :)


What doesn't kill me had better start running!

Fall_2007_027__2__max50

201 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

Let me see if I can help...(taken from: msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/Gun-Violence-Reduction-Executive-Actions.pdf


Today, the President is announcing that he and the Administration will:


1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.


2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.


3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.


4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.


5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.


6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.


7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.


8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).


9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.


10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.


11. Nominate an ATF director.


12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.


13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.


14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.


15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.


16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.


17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.


18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers. (edited 1/16/13 @ 1320, earlier version listed this item as "EMBARGOED" but that was a mistake...I copied/pasted from the above link, and EMARGOED referenced all the items - 1 thru 23 - until the President began his speach.)


19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.


20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.


21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.


22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.


23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

Mr-natural_1__max50

2228 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

16 January, 2013


Here is a link to a very informative FB post. It is public, so you do not need an FB login to check it out. (Copy and paste)


https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=152906904859757&id=103922850052


Short URL version (for easier copying and pasting):


http://tinyurl.com/bbgfv6p


(The American Presidency Project posts links to the text of memorandum referenced in today's address, as well a link to a full transcript of the address itself.)




Bessie Braddock: “Sir, you are drunk.”
Churchill: “Madam, you are ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.”

Wredcedar_max50

1243 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

Facebook blocked at work, but list does not seem to bad to me, nothing I noticed on rifle or high cap. mag. bans.  Not sure what # 18 - embargoed means, feel SRO an excellent idea and I would assume the president does as well, after all I have read there are 11 armed security personnel at his daughters' school, though I bet I know who is footing the bill for most of them.  A private school, of course, but I bet taxpayers are footing most of the bill.  Glad to see emphasis on enforcing existing laws,  and federal agency 'ATF' being asked to do it's job.  Nothing about violent movies, but Obama got millions in re-election money form Hollywood mogels, so what did you expect.

Fall_2007_027__2__max50

201 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

1/16/13 @ 1329 hrs


Cedardale:


I found an additional link of more "talking points" from the White House:


(taken from: msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/Gun-Violence-Executive-Summary.pdf)


Here, there is a reference to banning assualt weapons, magazine capacity restrictions, armor piercing ammunition, and study impact of violent media images and games.

Mr-natural_1__max50

2228 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

Cedardale says ...



Facebook blocked at work. [snip]



C, I posted all the links that the FB post links to (which is a non-FB site, so you should be able to access it anywhere) to my comment on this news article here:


http://policelink.monster.com/news/articles/176505-how-criminals-get-guns


The comment is prefaced "Hot off the presses".




Bessie Braddock: “Sir, you are drunk.”
Churchill: “Madam, you are ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.”

Cruise_2014_max50

2575 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

Is it just me or does this list appear to contain more political double-speak and hot air than any meaningful action? Not that I would like to see the President circumvent the Constitution by issuing unlawful edicts, but I expected more. I'm going to have to review this more thoroughly before I decide "yes" or "no". 


PL MENTORING TEAM MEMBER

"Don't underestimate the drawing power of the Garden State." From the film "Dogma"

Trying to stay sane in an insane world...

Wredcedar_max50

1243 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

Seems like smoke and mirrors to me, whay is it so important to deal with this now, maybe to draw attention away from the budget and debt ceiling, how much have you heard about them in the last week or two.

Mr-natural_1__max50

2228 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

The "plan" in a somewhat more digestable PDF. It contains a bit more detail than the executive action list.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf


 




Bessie Braddock: “Sir, you are drunk.”
Churchill: “Madam, you are ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.”

Att179311_max50

972 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

All I know for sure is that we do not need armed guards in the schools that have less training the those wonderful TSA agents we get to observe when we fly.

-2 posts

back to top
+2

Rated +2 | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

Mein Führer using Exective Fiat instead of going through Congress sends up too many red flags. If they would enforce the gun laws already on the books things would be better. The justice system is a revolving door with a large percentage of the crimes being repete offenders. In 2012 I processed extradition paperwork for the same offender to go back to Mississippi DOC 4 times.

Mr-natural_1__max50

2228 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

The Executive Actions are in no way doing anything outside of existing law. Most of the rest of the plan (read PDF above) requires new legislation (i.e. Congress must necessarily be involved). There is no bypass. No red flags. It isn't a question of teeth. There are plenty of positive effects the Executive Actions could have and they stay within the bounds of existing laws. The President doesn't need to consult Congress every time he wants to direct federal agencies to do things within the existing framework.


 




Bessie Braddock: “Sir, you are drunk.”
Churchill: “Madam, you are ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.”

Bluejersey_max50

1771 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

TNDEPUTY says ...



Mein Führer using Exective Fiat instead of going through Congress sends up too many red flags. If they would enforce the gun laws already on the books things would be better. The justice system is a revolving door with a large percentage of the crimes being repete offenders. In 2012 I processed extradition paperwork for the same offender to go back to Mississippi DOC 4 times.



 


You mean to tell me that we have an actual Congre$$ ???


What doesn't kill me had better start running!

Bluejersey_max50

1771 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

Thanks to all wtho contributed to this topic, didn't think it would turn into a debate.  Creating this topic I thought that all the critical thinkers on PL would express their likes/dislikes (of the Executive Order) and would find a nice compromise that resulted in moving forward. 


One other reason for the topic, I've seen some very unhealthy reactions from those that don't know the political climate and are under the assumption that the Redcoats are coming, or an Apache Helicopter is going to land in their backyards demanding their weapons and first born son.


As for Executive Actions=/W Bush/Clinton/Regean.


Mulling Over It, as I'm seeing links to more info.


Guns aren't sacrosanct. The 2nd Amendment is no more important than any other amendment. There are limits on all rights, including free speech and the freedom of the press and the right to assemble. For some reason some of the gun enthusiasts think their rights supersede all others, and some Gun enthusiasts don't.


People, especially children, have a RIGHT to grow up SAFELY.  If this very soft stance(I was looking for more) infringes the right of somebody like the Aurora shooter, or Lanza to purchase enough ammo to hunt down a herd of 200 Buffalo's, well, I'll get them a Tissue. The Right for Kids to be safe  Comes FIRST trumps all.


 


As a compromise, enhance the current laws, great.  I'm good with anything besides letting the dust settle and becoming COMPLACENT!


Since Newton, 30+ young children and Hundreds of people have lost their life due to Gun Violence and it's only 1/17/13.


I hope we can continue to discuss this topic, and share our Ideas.


Just My .02


What doesn't kill me had better start running!

Wredcedar_max50

1243 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

LonnaNJ, how many children have been beaten to death, starved to death, or killed in any myrad of ther ways w/o the use of firearms.  NO child desreves to be murdered, by whatever means, focusing on one of myriad methods only does not deal with the much wider problem of child homocide/death.  How may childred die due to DUI drivers for example, and llok at the PL news for examples of people arrested for multiple DUI's.  Is letting a child die from the flu OK, even if their parents didn't get them a flu shot???  Just food for thought.

1412531174478_max50

1071 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

 I do have one question that I hope someone will answer. I have read this topic and everyones answers several times. Will the government be taking peoples guns away? If they do take them away will they be going house to house? I feel stupid asking but I am just being honest. Please don't judge me too harshly. PL is my main entertainment website and I trust everyones opinions here.


I voted to mull it over for obvious reasons. I think I was hoping they would push more for mental health awareness and the quality of healthcare for the mentally ill. I am not convinced that guns are the main issues. 

Silver_warrior_max50

1468 posts

back to top
-2

Rated -2 | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

LonnaNJ says ...



Thanks to all wtho contributed to this topic, didn't think it would turn into a debate.  Creating this topic I thought that all the critical thinkers on PL would express their likes/dislikes (of the Executive Order) and would find a nice compromise that resulted in moving forward. 


One other reason for the topic, I've seen some very unhealthy reactions from those that don't know the political climate and are under the assumption that the Redcoats are coming, or an Apache Helicopter is going to land in their backyards demanding their weapons and first born son.


As for Executive Actions=/W Bush/Clinton/Regean.


Mulling Over It, as I'm seeing links to more info.


Guns aren't sacrosanct. The 2nd Amendment is no more important than any other amendment. There are limits on all rights, including free speech and the freedom of the press and the right to assemble. For some reason some of the gun enthusiasts think their rights supersede all others, and some Gun enthusiasts don't.


People, especially children, have a RIGHT to grow up SAFELY.  If this very soft stance(I was looking for more) infringes the right of somebody like the Aurora shooter, or Lanza to purchase enough ammo to hunt down a herd of 200 Buffalo's, well, I'll get them a Tissue. The Right for Kids to be safe  Comes FIRST trumps all.


 


As a compromise, enhance the current laws, great.  I'm good with anything besides letting the dust settle and becoming COMPLACENT!


Since Newton, 30+ young children and Hundreds of people have lost their life due to Gun Violence and it's only 1/17/13.


I hope we can continue to discuss this topic, and share our Ideas.


Just My .02



Ben Franklin (remember him?  one of the crafters of our U.S. of A.?) said it best when he articulated:  They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. 


Obama did EXACTLY what Hitler did when Hitler came after the weapons. . . .he encircled himself with children and said that doing away with the weapons (actually talking about reducing magazine capacities and doing away with "assault rifles" for now) for their (children's) benefit.  Did you not see the children standing behind him when all of this came out and he then "hi-fived" them after his little speech?  Same thing Hitler did (maybe minus the "hi-five") not but 80 years before.  Remember what Hitler did shortly after taking the guns away????


I can give you logical example after logical example of why giving up ANY liberty is such a bad idea. . . .but first, other than yelling fire in a movie theatre, what restrictions on free speech are YOU referring to?


Politicians are known for playing games with our sympathies by hiding behind our children and saying that it is for their (children's) benefit. . . .KNOWING that we all want what is best for our children.  YET, they allow tens of thousands of people (many are children) to die in motor vehicle crashes.  IF they were so concerned about the children, they would ban automobiles or at least force people to be responsible with them.  Afterall, owning/driving an automobile is NOT a right. . . . . .it is a PRIVILEDGE!


No, these mass murders are violating more laws than just the simple possession of the weapon illegally. . . . .THEY ARE COMMITTING MURDER!  But the newsmedia and politicians are disregarding this and sticking with their agenda. . . .banning the weapons.  IF they were to actually enforce the laws that are already on the books and leave us peons alone that are abiding by the law. . . . we would not have these mass murders.  WHY?  Because the mass murderer would only get a couple of rounds off before being killed themselves by those law abiding citizens that happened to be carrying that day.


Finally, I am really starting to find it highly offensive for people to say things similar to, "The Right for Kids to be safe Comes FIRST trumps all." Are you going to deliver that tissue to me?  (that was a bit tongue-in-cheek  :)  )  Yes, I believe that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution IS "Sacrosanct" for the reasons given by our forefathers. . . .to provide us a means of protecting ourselves (and liberty) from tyrannical idiots, just as I believe that the 1st Amendment is sacrosanct as that one provides protections for me to believe in a Diety or not and to voice my opinion without fear of retaliation from anyone.  Oh, and by the way. . . . .for those that do take advantage of the 2nd Amendment, they are going to be the ones defending everyone's right to the 1st Amendment.  Even if that threat DOES come from our own government.  Just remember, if they can take one right away from you. . . .the next right will be that much easier to take from you as it will be for the benefit of the children.


I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them.

John Bernard Books, from "The Shootist"

Bluejersey_max50

1771 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

 Thank you Cedar for joining this discussion,.


I'm trying to stay on the topic at hand. Executive Orders/Stopping Gun Violence.  In the latest statistics you'll see I mentioned the 33 children and the over 700 adults who have died from Gun violence since Newton on 12/14/12


Even though "cars" are not the topic, I get your point about Cars/DUI's and such.  But, the problem I have with that analogy is this.  A car is not designed specifically to kill youu, and it is HIGHLY regulated.  Insurance, Tags, Titles, Inspection Bi-yearly ect.  A weapon, designed for sport, hunting and killing, isn't as regulated.


Don't get me wrong, I would love to discuss other subjects anytime with ya!


What doesn't kill me had better start running!

Mr-natural_1__max50

2228 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

I have to bow out of this topic. Too many nutters comparing the President to Hitler.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum


http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/




Bessie Braddock: “Sir, you are drunk.”
Churchill: “Madam, you are ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.”

Newpatch_sq90_max50

6033 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

Most of the items imposed will not change anything.  if all of the 23 actions would have been in effect at the time of the Newtown shooting, none of them would have prevented anything.  All they do is put more burden on Law Enforcement, to the point that some Law Enforcement officials have said they willnot enforce them. 


 


Photobucket
In Memory of the Fallen Officers

MODERATOR 3

Silver_warrior_max50

1468 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

During WWII, one of Yamamoto's officers came to him after the assault on Pearl Harbor was concluded and asked if they were going to invade the U.S. mainland.  Admiral Yamamoto's response was "No".  He went on to explain that they would never get it done and it would be too costly to their military because there would be a gun behind EVERY blade of grass aimed at them.  Our military was not what he was concerned with. . . . .it was the population with the means to repel that invasion.  If we allow our government to reduce magazine capacities or do away with certain type of military types of weapons, what would we use to repel invaders the next time someone decided to approach our sovereign shores?  And to think that we thought we were done with war not but 22 years earlier and were not even worried about an invasion at that time because the war was fought on another shore. . . . .yet we pulled Japanese subs from the harbor of Pearl Harbor and sighted German U-boats just off the shoreline of both coasts during WWII.  We have been lucky due mostly to the strength of our military that we have not had to worry about an invasion since WWII. . . . .yet with the draw down of the military due to budget cuts and all, how long before the next tyrant tries to take us on?


I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them.

John Bernard Books, from "The Shootist"

Bluejersey_max50

1771 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

Beowulf_7 says ...



LonnaNJ says ...



Thanks to all wtho contributed to this topic, didn't think it would turn into a debate.  Creating this topic I thought that all the critical thinkers on PL would express their likes/dislikes (of the Executive Order) and would find a nice compromise that resulted in moving forward. 


One other reason for the topic, I've seen some very unhealthy reactions from those that don't know the political climate and are under the assumption that the Redcoats are coming, or an Apache Helicopter is going to land in their backyards demanding their weapons and first born son.


As for Executive Actions=/W Bush/Clinton/Regean.


Mulling Over It, as I'm seeing links to more info.


Guns aren't sacrosanct. The 2nd Amendment is no more important than any other amendment. There are limits on all rights, including free speech and the freedom of the press and the right to assemble. For some reason some of the gun enthusiasts think their rights supersede all others, and some Gun enthusiasts don't.


People, especially children, have a RIGHT to grow up SAFELY.  If this very soft stance(I was looking for more) infringes the right of somebody like the Aurora shooter, or Lanza to purchase enough ammo to hunt down a herd of 200 Buffalo's, well, I'll get them a Tissue. The Right for Kids to be safe  Comes FIRST trumps all.


 


As a compromise, enhance the current laws, great.  I'm good with anything besides letting the dust settle and becoming COMPLACENT!


Since Newton, 30+ young children and Hundreds of people have lost their lifpoe due to Gun Violence and it's only 1/17/13.


I hope we can continue to discuss this topic, and share our Ideas.


Just My .02


SNIP:

Obama did EXACTLY what Hitler did when Hitler came after the weapons. . . . 


^^^(Really?)


I can give you logical example after logical example of why giving up ANY liberty is such a bad idea. . . .but first, other than yelling fire in a movie theatre, what restrictions on free speech are YOU referring to?


^^^(Like the Article that posted the homes belonging to gun owners-LAWSUIT)


Politicians are known for playing games with our sympathies by hiding behind our children and saying that it is for their (children's) benefit. . . .KNOWING that we all want what is best for our children.  YET, they allow tens of thousands of people (many are children) to die in motor vehicle crashes.  SNIP:


^^^(You think they 'allow' kids to die-What's the seatbelt and Carseat restriction again?)


No, these mass murders are violating more laws than just the simple possession of the weapon illegally. . . . .THEY ARE COMMITTING MURDER!  SNIP


(Displays working backwards: your is the answer, GUN FIRST, theeeeen see if that don't kill anyone??)


Finally, I am really starting to find it highly offensive for people to say things similar to, "The Right for Kids to be safe Comes FIRST trumps all." Are you going to deliver that tissue to me? SNIP:


(@ It offends me that I know it really doesn't offend you, and that is a lame attempt to get some 'teamates'.)


 Yes, I believe that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution IS "Sacrosanct" for the reasons given by our forefathers. . . .to provide us a means of protecting ourselves (and liberty) from tyrannical idiots,  SNIP


(You believe the President is a socialist, Marxist, Hilter, I just think he's simply a little narcassist)


:just as I believe that the 1st Amendment is sacrosanctli SNIP:  Same thing I said, The Amendments in the Constitution are Sacrosent, all of them, not just the one  people want to adhere to.


Now, I'll take that it's a no since Ben F isn't the Prez, but I'm alwfully curious what you would do differently?


Nothing, as long as .........????



 


What doesn't kill me had better start running!

Bluejersey_max50

1771 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

Beowulf_7 says ...



During WWII, one of Yamamoto's officers came to him after the assault on Pearl Harbor was concluded and asked if they were going to invade the U.S. mainland.  Admiral Yamamoto's response was "No".  He went on to explain that they would never get it done and it would be too costly to their military because there would be a gun behind EVERY blade of grass aimed at them.  Our military was not what he was concerned with. . . . .it was the population with the means to repel that invasion.  If we allow our government to reduce magazine capacities or do away with certain type of military types of weapons, what would we use to repel invaders the next time someone decided to approach our sovereign shores?  And to think that we thought we were done with war not but 22 years earlier and were not even worried about an invasion at that time because the war was fought on another shore. . . . .yet we pulled Japanese subs from the harbor of Pearl Harbor and sighted German U-boats just off the shoreline of both coasts during WWII.  We have been lucky due mostly to the strength of our military that we have not had to worry about an invasion since WWII. . . . .yet with the draw down of the military due to budget cuts and all, how long before the next tyrant tries to take us on?


Your well versed in History, and thanks for the excert my g pop served in the Navy btw.  But It's now 2013 and the US own almost %50 of he worlds weaponry, Take China for an instance, it has what, 2 ships, one not even functioning as a war ship?


I'm done, hopefully I'll get some sleep and don't have nightmares about Obama and Biden going threw my closets looking for "Peggy Sue".  sheesh  Good Night/Be Safe.



What doesn't kill me had better start running!

Silver_warrior_max50

1468 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

LonnaNJ says ...



Beowulf_7 says ...



LonnaNJ says ...



Thanks to all wtho contributed to this topic, didn't think it would turn into a debate.  Creating this topic I thought that all the critical thinkers on PL would express their likes/dislikes (of the Executive Order) and would find a nice compromise that resulted in moving forward. 


One other reason for the topic, I've seen some very unhealthy reactions from those that don't know the political climate and are under the assumption that the Redcoats are coming, or an Apache Helicopter is going to land in their backyards demanding their weapons and first born son.


As for Executive Actions=/W Bush/Clinton/Regean.


Mulling Over It, as I'm seeing links to more info.


Guns aren't sacrosanct. The 2nd Amendment is no more important than any other amendment. There are limits on all rights, including free speech and the freedom of the press and the right to assemble. For some reason some of the gun enthusiasts think their rights supersede all others, and some Gun enthusiasts don't.


People, especially children, have a RIGHT to grow up SAFELY.  If this very soft stance(I was looking for more) infringes the right of somebody like the Aurora shooter, or Lanza to purchase enough ammo to hunt down a herd of 200 Buffalo's, well, I'll get them a Tissue. The Right for Kids to be safe  Comes FIRST trumps all.


 


As a compromise, enhance the current laws, great.  I'm good with anything besides letting the dust settle and becoming COMPLACENT!


Since Newton, 30+ young children and Hundreds of people have lost their lifpoe due to Gun Violence and it's only 1/17/13.


I hope we can continue to discuss this topic, and share our Ideas.


Just My .02


SNIP:

Obama did EXACTLY what Hitler did when Hitler came after the weapons. . . . 


^^^(Really?)


I can give you logical example after logical example of why giving up ANY liberty is such a bad idea. . . .but first, other than yelling fire in a movie theatre, what restrictions on free speech are YOU referring to?


^^^(Like the Article that posted the homes belonging to gun owners-LAWSUIT)


Politicians are known for playing games with our sympathies by hiding behind our children and saying that it is for their (children's) benefit. . . .KNOWING that we all want what is best for our children.  YET, they allow tens of thousands of people (many are children) to die in motor vehicle crashes.  SNIP:


^^^(You think they 'allow' kids to die-What's the seatbelt and Carseat restriction again?)


No, these mass murders are violating more laws than just the simple possession of the weapon illegally. . . . .THEY ARE COMMITTING MURDER!  SNIP


(Displays working backwards: your is the answer, GUN FIRST, theeeeen see if that don't kill anyone??)


Finally, I am really starting to find it highly offensive for people to say things similar to, "The Right for Kids to be safe Comes FIRST trumps all." Are you going to deliver that tissue to me? SNIP:


(@ It offends me that I know it really doesn't offend you, and that is a lame attempt to get some 'teamates'.)


 Yes, I believe that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution IS "Sacrosanct" for the reasons given by our forefathers. . . .to provide us a means of protecting ourselves (and liberty) from tyrannical idiots,  SNIP


(You believe the President is a socialist, Marxist, Hilter, I just think he's simply a little narcassist)


:just as I believe that the 1st Amendment is sacrosanctli SNIP:  Same thing I said, The Amendments in the Constitution are Sacrosent, all of them, not just the one  people want to adhere to.


Now, I'll take that it's a no since Ben F isn't the Prez, but I'm alwfully curious what you would do differently?


Nothing, as long as .........????



 



Let's see Lawsuit is a CIVIL action. . . .not criminal.  A CIVIL action is brought about by a person that believes that they have been wronged by another, such as those that were outed as legitimate, law abiding gun owners by a newspaper that was trying to score points for their own agenda.  This LAWSUIT was not brought about by the government.  The Constitution and the Amendments attached to it are only there to keep the government in check, keep them from retaliating against the common person for speaking their minds.  A person that has been maliciously defamed has the right to have a trier of facts determine if they have suffered injury either by monetary or physical, due to some knuckleheads irresponsible use of the 1st Amendment rights.  Rights do require a certain amount of responsibilities.  Unfortunately, many of our fellow "citizens" have forgotten that.


I don't know about you, but I was raised in a time when seatbelts and car seats were "optional".  Lived through a couple of different accidents also.  No, I don't have a problem with seatbelts or car seats.  I do believe that wearing a seatbelt should be a choice just like wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle should be also.  The information is out there as to the effectiveness of helmets and seatbelts and if a person wishes to become an organ donor (as long as it isn't their brain) then so be it.  Kind of goes back to that responsibility thing there.  What I was responding to is that with the laws governing the licensing, insuring and driving of a motor vehicle. . . . .the courts will not hold people responsible for driving suspended, driving without insurance, driving while intoxicated and general driving in particular.  At one time in Germany, a first offense drunk driving was AUTOMATICALLY a 3 year sentence to prison!  No, they did not have to crash into anything, they just went to prison and did not pass "GO" on the way there.


We kill 10's of thousands of people with motor vehicles every year, yet there is no call to ban automobiles.  Many of those people killed are children. . . . yet nothing comes about against the automobile.  Some lunatic decides to kill people in an elementary school and all of a sudden the gun is the bad guy.  Driving a motor vehicle is a PRIVILEDGE. . . .not a right.  Possession of a firearm is a RIGHT THAT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.  While you are more apt to be killed by a motor vehicle than with a firearm, the firearm is the badguy????


As for the words you are attempting to put into my mouth. . . .refer to the last paragraph, I think it will answer your statement/question.  If the paragraph isn't clear enough for you. . . . .YEPPERS!  My gun comes first every day of the week and twice on Sundays!


I don't post to offend you. . . .OR garner "teammates".  I just post the facts that history has parlayed into learning experiences.  If one refuses to learn from history and continue to pursue the same tried and true course that led to failure before and think that it will somehow magically become a good thing. . . . .THAT is the definition of INSANITY!


I see you still insist upon putting things into people's mouth. . . .why is that?  Do you think that you putting something into someone else's mouth will automatically make them think that way?  OR, is it that you are attempting to sway others thinking that they will believe the words you put into someone else's mouth?  I only made an observation of how Obama is following the same path in history as Hitler.  For those that DO know history. . . .it wasn't a pretty sight back then.  Roughly 6 million Jews lost their lives because their government started with the taking away their means of defense.  How many of their own people were killed because they were attempting to stop the government's genocide of it's own people?


You reference my quote of Ben Franklin but you dismiss it because he was neverr president???  WOW!  So, unless a person is President their words don't mean squat?  He was one of the framers of both the Declaration of Independence AND the Constitution of the United States.  He was also one of the signers.  Let's see, I would go through and list all of his contributions to our country like forming the first fire fighter department and putting together the post office but I don't have the space here.  Did I forget to tell you that he was one of the ones that pushed for our form of government to have a resemblance to the Swiss Constitution.  He was also the one that spent a lot of time in Europe getting support for our troops in pushing the British out of what would become our country.  I think the man had some semblance of intelligence and I find his quote right on the mark.  If you don't. . . .that is your opinion and you are welcome to it.


As for the "doing something". . . .let's enforce the laws that we already have instead of writing new laws that won't do a thing except make a whole new class of criminals.  I think that would go a lot further to solving the problem than writing new laws that the criminals won't follow anyways.



I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them.

John Bernard Books, from "The Shootist"

2007-2008_114_max600_max50

368 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America.  Not to support a tyranical dictatorship.


Have ASP will travel.

Justice is the one thing you should always find, you gotta saddle up your boys you gotta draw a hard line.

When the gun smoke settles we'll sing a victory tune and we'll all meet back at the local saloon.

And we'll raise up our glasses against evil forces singing whiskey for my men beer for my horses.

Wredcedar_max50

1243 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

Couple of comments.  In addition to surronding himself with children, Obama was surronded by armed federal officers, suspect some had assault rifles or assault pistols concelaed on their persons, and all have high cap. magazines.  Obama want his right to be protected by firearms, but apparently doesn't care for us to have the same right.


Mz66 is right about Hitler not banning all the populance from having firearms, there were 2 excluded groups 1) government employees and  2) members of the Nazi party.  The rest, such as Jewish people and other minorities or general citizens were not allowed firearms.


The biggest problem is failure to enforce existing federal law, the ATF is much more to blame than anyone else, though the keeping of mental health information out of data bases is another problem.

Att179311_max50

972 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

Wish people would get there facts RIGHT  HItler did not make said gun laws in Germany he did say that OCCUPIED countys should have no guns and run by His people .    If you want to rant about stuff use the facts not stuff someone posts that is not true. anyway who needs a auto matic weapon to hunt I know I dont if you want a cool factor for a weapon the get a winchester 44/40 what can be more cool then that


 

Wredcedar_max50

1243 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

Elite1grey says ...



 if you want a cool factor for a weapon the get a winchester 44/40 what can be more cool then that


 snipped - a 45/70 is much cooler , especially one shot fron a half octogon half rounded barrel.  Saw one but couldn't afford it.


Wredcedar_max50

1243 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 


Since I kinda got off topic with my last post, I thought I would post this, with thanks to NYTRPT1

Bluejersey_max50

1771 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 2 years ago

 

Cedardale says ...




Since I kinda got off topic with my last post, I thought I would post this, with thanks to NYTRPT1


Just a question, what does this Poster or any of your comments have in common with the subect?  In all fairness, the topic was started to have a ""Civil"" discussion on our thoughts re: the TOPIC.  Does it seem fair to start a Left vs Right argument in a topic that wasn't even going there Cederdale, or is this just more convvenient to do it this way??


 



What doesn't kill me had better start running!

Next Page >