Slickdeals User Survey 2017 We are giving away 200 gift cards worth $25 each! See More
Forum Thread

Obama's 23 Executive Actions on Gun Control

AlfredoGarcia 1,449 19 January 16, 2013 at 12:22 PM
Quote :
Today, the President is announcing that he and the Administration will [foxnewsinsider.com]:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
Does anyone know what data they consider "relevant"?

Quote :
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.
What do you think this will do for mental health care in this country? Do you think people will be more likely to open up to their health care provider if HIPAA no longer protects their privacy and it can be used against them?
Quote :
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
What sort of incentives? Our tax dollars? What information are they not sharing currently that the feds want, and why do the feds want it?

Quote :
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.
Eric Holder is hardly the person to be making any of these decisions. He is as biased and corrupt as they come. We haven't even gotten to the bottom of Fast & Furious, and now we're putting more gun policies in his hands?

Quote :
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
Can't they do this already? Are they changing the prerequisites for seizing a gun?
Quote :
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
Waste of time and tax dollars. It's already federal law for them to do so. They know how to do it as if they don't, they become federal criminals. The ATF has their FFL on file. This is not rocket science. It's a phone # or a web site. Both are easy.

Quote :
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
What does this mean? The NRA and numerous other organizations already do this, which is why accidental gun-related deaths are at an all time low in recorded U.S. history. Unnecessary executive order & waste of tax dollars to solve a problem that has already been solved.

Quote :
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
Redundant waste of time & tax dollars. Gun locks are already handed out with purchased guns. Safes are plenty regulated by the private industry. If a safe fails, people won't buy that company's safes anymore. All safes can be defeated given enough time and the right tools.
Quote :
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
Don't they do this already? Is there evidence to support doing this? Has it been effective in the past, and where are the data to support it?
Quote :
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
How would this have helped in Newtown? He allegedly stole his mothers guns & promptly went to the school.

Quote :
11. Nominate an ATF director.
With Holder as AG, I can only imagine what kind of nut job will be running the ATF.

Quote :
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
They already have this and don't need an executive order to do this.

Quote :
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
Finally! If he actually goes through with this, that would be a huge step in the right direction instead of issuing 23 orders and a bunch of new laws when we don't enforce our current laws. But we shouldn't need an executive order to say, "Pretty please, enforce the existing laws." Our efforts should already have been maximized if any of these gun control advocates truly cared about the purported end game of reducing violent crime. Why would anyone suggest new laws when we don't enforce the 20,000 we have?

Quote :
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
They have done so before. They found that the 10-yr AWB did not reduce violent crime rates. Yet, Obama, Feinstein, et al are proposing another one.

Quote :
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.
There is nothing wrong with current gun safety technologies, and none of them failed to result in Newtown, Aurora, etc. Those were deliberate acts, not failures of safety measures on guns. Again, Holder is one of the last people I'd want doing this, and the private sector has this under control without executive orders.

Quote :
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
What evidence is there that doctors have adequate training with respect to firearms to be doling out advice on them? Should we add another year to residency for this training? We already know the AAP is openly anti-gun. What agenda do you think some of its doctors will push in the weighted doctor-patient relationship?
Quote :
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
Doctors can already involuntarily commit people who are threats to themselves or others.

Quote :
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
Translation: money for armed guards, which is what the NRA recommended and Obama said he was against.

Quote :
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
i.e. gun-free zones. How about we just stop making them gun-free zones and pay attention to where these mass shootings occur?

Quote :
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
Why do we need an executive order for this? Hold a press conference.
Quote :
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
What does this have to do with gun control?

Quote :
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
What does this mean?

Quote :
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
B/c we, the lowly common folk, are incapable of having a national dialogue w/o executive order or the powers that be?

292 Comments

1 2 3 4 5

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Joined Oct 2009
$trange but true
5,545 Posts
170 Reputation
#31
Quote from Radeck View Post :
You have to turn their words back against them....how many lives have been SAVED by guns? how many stories have we seen about someone using a gun to defend their lives and those of their families'? Given the media bias, they don't cover most of those stories, but in spite of that we have had at least 3 such stories posted here.

thus if we can save one life by allowing people to own guns, which has been proven to be the case, then we have an obligation to try to get a gun into the hands of every family.
yes, because the current ratio of about .96 guns per person in the us is just a tad shy of being effective of the necessary 1:1 ratio of completely safeguarding the populace.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Rumble, young man, rumble. These are interesting times we live in. Punctuation is key. Fruit is nature's candy.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZI0kUOu...ding_scene
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Y24E-W4...1-cast.jpg
Joined Mar 2010
L2: Beginner
81 Posts
34 Reputation
#32
No one wants to take away your "guns". Read every law and action carefully. Personally I am a gun owner (.380) and I am in favor of the following restrictions

3 main things.
1. Background checks on everyone / close loopholes where people can purchase guns without one - I have to wait for stuff to come into stock all the time, what is wrong with waiting a bit for a background check? Do you know for sure that you are getting robbed tonight?
2. Restrict high cap clips, every gun owner will probably be grandfathered in so relax, no one is going to take away your 30 round magazines - you just cannot buy more. Personally I don't see why you need more than 10 rounds for the civilian life.
3. Assault weapon ban - which is flawed because you can hurt anyone with any firearm.

People who cry about tyranny and how owning guns will somehow save you from tyrants taking over your suburban boondocks need to relax. You and your 30 magazine clipped AKs and AR-15s will not be stopping drone strikes or tanks, just chill and stop pretending you can do something about a hostile takeover.

There is a middle ground on this, but both sides are just too extreme.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Last edited by YCata January 17, 2013 at 12:21 PM.
Joined Apr 2005
L7: Weenie
21,123 Posts
466 Reputation
#33
Quote from yc525 View Post :
3 main things.
1. Background checks on everyone / close loopholes where people can purchase guns without one - I have to wait for stuff to come into stock all the time, what is wrong with waiting a bit for a background check? Do you know for sure that you are getting robbed tonight?
This impacts and unneeded cost for private sellers and with little to no benefit if guns aren't registered. How many crimes are currently committed from private sales where one would have been not allowed due to a BGC?

Quote :
2. Restrict high cap clips, every gun owner will probably be grandfathered in so relax, no one is going to take away your 30 round magazines - you just cannot buy more. Personally I don't see why you need more than 10 rounds for the civilian life.
Why ban them if there are already so many out there? Just because you don't see a need doesn't mean there isn't one. The whole "need" based arguments are arbitrary at best.

Quote :
People who cry about tyranny and how owning guns will somehow save you from tyrants taking over your suburban boondocks need to relax. You and your 30 magazine clipped AKs and AR-15s will not be stopping drone strikes or tanks, just chill and stop pretending you can do something about a hostile takeover.
1) What's "magazine clipped"

2) You are basing your assumption against tyrants that the military will fall lock step behind and that armed uprisings won't result in expanded weaponry; that's a flawed assumption.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Oct 2007
Not all heroes wear capes
13,366 Posts
1,114 Reputation
#34
Quote from AZVike View Post :
I imagine that one of these times the "tyrant which currently occupies the White House" will actually come knocking on your door to grab your guns, but I'm not losing any sleep over that since I have real threats to concern myself with. Asteroids.
He's doing it right now. As are the tyrants in New York.
Quote from AZVike View Post :
And of course, rattling the "they're gonna take yer guns away" cage is good for business.
He's doing it right now. As are the tyrants in New York.
Quote from yc525 View Post :
No one wants to take away your "guns".
They're doing it right now.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Morons react to Trump winning [youtu.be]

2/16/16 - "If it's Hillary vs. Trump, Trump landslide." - me!
7/25/16 - "Donald Trump wins in a landslide." - me again! Dance13

The hypocrite left: 11/8 "Love Trumps Hate." 11/9 "Kill Trump."

Citizens cheering the destruction of their country by "refugees":

Open Gates: The forced collective suicide of European nations [youtu.be]

"You are witnessing what will be shown to future generations as the reason for the fall of an Empire."
Joined Apr 2009
L6: Expert
1,842 Posts
319 Reputation
#35
Quote from Deusxmachina View Post :
He's doing it right now. As are the tyrants in New York.

He's doing it right now. As are the tyrants in New York.

They're doing it right now.
He's doing it right now? How does that work?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Apr 2007
L10: Grand Master
7,469 Posts
251 Reputation
#36
Quote from thikthird View Post :
yes, because the current ratio of about .96 guns per person in the us is just a tad shy of being effective of the necessary 1:1 ratio of completely safeguarding the populace.
not good enough...that ratio is due to some having multiple guns, while other families have none...we need "gun socialism" to ensure at least EVERY family has at least one gun, if not every individual...Obama and the democrats are excellent at stealing money from the rest of us to give to their activist groups under the guise of fairness and equality. Well, I want gun fairness and gun equality...free government guns to everyone.

Switzerland has that same requirement: every male is REQUIRED to have a FULLY AUTOMATIC weapon (which BTW are banned in the USA for civilians) because their military is essentially the male population as a whole, which forms the military reserve after a compulsory time in military service.

If all the gun-control advocates' lies about guns causing violence, how come the swiss with AUTOMATIC weapons are not mowing each other down on every corner? How come nobody has invaded them in eons, including the Nazi's? could it be because they know EVERY house and EVERY apartment has at least one automatic weapon inside, with people trained how to use them?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Whee Argue Soap Box

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

"The federal government has taken too much tax money from the people, too much authority from the States, and too much liberty with the Constitution" - Ronald Reagan
Joined Mar 2010
L2: Beginner
81 Posts
34 Reputation
#37
Quote from paperboy05 View Post :
This impacts and unneeded cost for private sellers and with little to no benefit if guns aren't registered. How many crimes are currently committed from private sales where one would have been not allowed due to a BGC?


Why ban them if there are already so many out there? Just because you don't see a need doesn't mean there isn't one. The whole "need" based arguments are arbitrary at best.


1) What's "magazine clipped"

2) You are basing your assumption against tyrants that the military will fall lock step behind and that armed uprisings won't result in expanded weaponry; that's a flawed assumption.
BGC are not expensive, any business can pay 300 per month and get instant BGCs for unlimited individuals, one could even use regular legal search engines such as Lexis Nexis or Westlaw. With the way AR-15s are flying off of the shelves I don't see how 300 USD per month for a store will make much of a dent, it is the cost of doing business. Small operations can pay ~10 USD for a check. If you cannot pay 10 dollars extra for a gun, well, you should not own a gun.

Why ban something else that is already out there? Well let us see, why mandate better gas mileage on vehicles when gas guzzlers are already out there? Why ban the possession of drugs when they are already out there? - Do you need 30 rounds in an AR-15 to hunt?

Anyone who actually believes that their government is going to invade their homes need to move out of the country and make room for logical Americans.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Joined Mar 2010
L2: Beginner
81 Posts
34 Reputation
#38
Quote from Deusxmachina View Post :
He's doing it right now. As are the tyrants in New York.

He's doing it right now. As are the tyrants in New York.

They're doing it right now.
Better dig a hole and hide your "assault weapons" when the tyrants roll through with gun jacking agents.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Oct 2007
Not all heroes wear capes
13,366 Posts
1,114 Reputation
#39
Quote from yc525 View Post :
Small operations can pay ~10 USD for a check. If you cannot pay 10 dollars extra for a gun, well, you should not own a gun.
I was thinking of proposing a similar thing to my Congressmen about a voting poll tax. Also considering some kind of First Amendment tax too, but that one's probably going to be $20. Easily affordable to people who care about being able to speak.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Jan 2009
Floor puncher
3,566 Posts
990 Reputation
#40
Quote from yc525 View Post :

Anyone who actually believes that their government is going to invade their homes need to move out of the country and make room for logical Americans.
LOL because the US government hasn't already done that in the past with Native Americans, Japanese Americans in WWII, etc. You can't even say it wouldn't happen in the US because it already has happened in the past.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Like FREE pc games? [cheapassgamer.com]

Want to see how your antivirus stacks up? link [av-comparatives.org]
Joined Apr 2009
L6: Expert
1,842 Posts
319 Reputation
#41
Quote from Thunderpants View Post :
LOL because the US government hasn't already done that in the past with Native Americans, Japanese Americans in WWII, etc. You can't even say it wouldn't happen in the US because it already has happened in the past.
It's all Obama's fault. Damned socialist.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Apr 2005
L7: Weenie
21,123 Posts
466 Reputation
#42
Quote from yc525 View Post :
BGC are not expensive, any business can pay 300 per month and get instant BGCs for unlimited individuals, one could even use regular legal search engines such as Lexis Nexis or Westlaw.
And businesses are going to provide that for free? Is the government going to provide the services for free?

Quote :
With the way AR-15s are flying off of the shelves I don't see how 300 USD per month for a store will make much of a dent, it is the cost of doing business. Small operations can pay ~10 USD for a check. If you cannot pay 10 dollars extra for a gun, well, you should not own a gun.
Currently most FFLs charge at least $20-$25 (minimum) for a firearm transfer under their watch. What basis do you have that the charges will drop? Wishful thinking?

Quote :
Why ban something else that is already out there? Well let us see, why mandate better gas mileage on vehicles when gas guzzlers are already out there? Why ban the possession of drugs when they are already out there?
So, because it's an arbitrary decision? If we are looking to limit high capacity magazines for those that will use them violently, then we should be looking at confiscation because a simple ban and grandfather period will not cause a difference in it.

Quote :
Do you need 30 rounds in an AR-15 to hunt?
Depends what I'm hunting.

Quote :
Anyone who actually believes that their government is going to invade their homes need to move out of the country and make room for logical Americans.
Ah, fall back to ad hominems. If someone wants to protect from tyranny, clearly they aren't logical. Give me a farking break.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Aug 2010
L11: My Level Goes to 11
7,756 Posts
21 Reputation
#43
Quote from yc525 View Post :
No one wants to take away your "guns". Read every law and action carefully. Personally I am a gun owner (.380) and I am in favor of the following restrictions

3 main things.
1. Background checks on everyone / close loopholes where people can purchase guns without one - I have to wait for stuff to come into stock all the time, what is wrong with waiting a bit for a background check? Do you know for sure that you are getting robbed tonight?
2. Restrict high cap clips, every gun owner will probably be grandfathered in so relax, no one is going to take away your 30 round magazines - you just cannot buy more. Personally I don't see why you need more than 10 rounds for the civilian life.
3. Assault weapon ban - which is flawed because you can hurt anyone with any firearm.

People who cry about tyranny and how owning guns will somehow save you from tyrants taking over your suburban boondocks need to relax. You and your 30 magazine clipped AKs and AR-15s will not be stopping drone strikes or tanks, just chill and stop pretending you can do something about a hostile takeover.

There is a middle ground on this, but both sides are just too extreme.
If you want to carry the extremely popular PMR-30 for self defense or home defense, you might want more than 10 rounds (138 ft-lbs x 30 bulllets=4140 ft-lbs). The total energy delivered by a magazine of PMR-30 would be about the same total energy delivered by a 10 round magazine of a typical .45 (~425 ft-lbs per bullet x 10 bullets =4250 ft-lbs).

It has the advantage of being cheaper to practice with and easily handled by people with weak hands.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
If I appear to be ignoring your posts, it's probably because you are on my ignore list.

Xuéxi zhōngwén
Joined Apr 2009
L6: Expert
1,842 Posts
319 Reputation
#44
Quote from paperboy05 View Post :


Currently most FFLs charge at least $20-$25 (minimum) for a firearm transfer under their watch. What basis do you have that the charges will drop? Wishful thinking?





.
Does your FFL charge you for a background check if you buy a FA from them, or just a transfer fee if you bought it elsewhere?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Joined Dec 2004
L10: Grand Master
6,040 Posts
364 Reputation
#45
Quote from OhNoItsDEVO View Post :
Obama needs to step up and address the much more serious problem of gun violance committed by young black males in this country.
But he won't. No one on the left wants to touch that issue...
"violance" lol
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Page 3 of 20
1 2 3 4 5
Join the Conversation
Add a Comment
 
Copyright 1999 - 2017. Slickdeals, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Copyright / Infringement Policy  •  Privacy Policy  •  Terms of Service  •  Acceptable Use Policy (Rules)  •  Interest-Based Ads
Link Copied to Clipboard