Obama's order simplified

[rgraham]

This might be worthy of it's own thread, but this is the end game. Always has been. You want your guns? You can keep your guns..... Not.

DC Media Cover-Up: Actually, Obama and Hillary Have Said They Want to Confiscate Guns

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/06/dc-media-cover-up-actually-obama-and-hillary-have-said-they-want-to-confiscate-guns/

[kapache]

Finally! Someone that agrees with me!

I wish ALL the states had our handgun roster, 10-round capacity magazines, 1 handgun purchase per month limit, 10-day waiting period, bullet buttons for evil rifles, and non CCW-issuing counties. After all, that's just a common sense approach!

[madjack956]

I have to go through a background check when I purchase a firearm, I don't see why someone else should be exempt just because they live in a free state. I get the counter-argument about incremental encroachment but I see this as a common sense approach. If you can pass a background check then no worries.

WTF Wes

[teflondog]

Unfortunately there's no emoticon for sarcasm.

[kapache]

Unfortunately there's no emoticon for sarcasm.

LOL I had a feeling it was sarcasm, had me going there.

[aklon]

I have to go through a background check when I purchase a firearm, I don't see why someone else should be exempt just because they live in a free state. I get the counter-argument about incremental encroachment but I see this as a common sense approach. If you can pass a background check then no worries.

WRONG! The proper attitude is "the free state people don't have to do this, so why do I have to?"

Forcing someone to do a background check is tacitly agreeing with the government that you are a criminal until such time as you prove to them that you aren't. "You've got nothing to worry about if you have nothing to hide."

Nuts to that.

[meaty-btz]

I would disagree. Rights can be removed via due process. Imho, I have no issue with some annual (?) bg check...then when I pass let me me buy any gun I want with no further impingment.

If I was selling, I have no interest in selling to a prohibited person.

Anyone who is unfit (had their rights removed by due process as you say) is, under any regime where the laws are rational, unfit to be in common society.

Period.

No gun law has EVER stopped a single shooter (I am including gangs, criminals, and suicides here). Those who wish to get one can, even in places with insanely tight gun laws and the balls to enforce them... like France or even Japan. Those who desire to do harm to another WILL DO SO.

Which is where the concept of "unfit" to be in general society. Since we cannot stop them or restrain them by any law such people should be removed from the general population for the good of the society.

The argument over the death penalty over the years has of course submerged the "other reason" nations had it, to permanently remove those unfit and harmful to general society. Not about prevention through fear but prevention in as removing their ability to cause harm.

A wolf attacks a flock of sheep, do you put that wolf in a cage for a few years then release it back right in the MIDDLE of the flock? No. Only a crazy person would do that. You kill the wolf.

All gun laws are infringements that extend beyond penalty for a harmful act done on another. Even the concepts of enhancements is shaky as the issue here is that our punishment system is ineffectual and so we think that more of an ineffectual punishment system will help, so it falls under the laws only someone who isn't mentally all there can find logical considering all crimes with gun enhancements are the crimes of a predator of society who should be dealt with as one deals with a rabid or dangerous known man eater. You remove them from society. Be that life or death is rather irrelevant. The idea is to cut the cancer from society before it metastasises and kills the host, as it has done in this country where the current dominant social order is one that glorifies all things criminal.

Since I don't believe in "pre-crime" no one should have rights removed until crime or due process has occurred.

I'd rather live with the dangers of too much freedom than the dangers posed by too little freedom.

[Wherryj]

I have to go through a background check when I purchase a firearm, I don't see why someone else should be exempt just because they live in a free state. I get the counter-argument about incremental encroachment but I see this as a common sense approach. If you can pass a background check then no worries.

Does that also apply to paying ludicrous fees for not only 2A activities, but for things like "special formula gas" that actually does more environmental damage, having restrictions on items such as car parts/stains/lacquers and the like in all states because ONE state has a serious case of cranial-rectal inversion, etc.?

[Sierra57]

Will these new FBI hires be boots on the ground in Chicago, Detroit, Compton, Oakland, Phily, NYC, SF and other bastions of liberal gun control?

You know what the racial demographics are in those areas, right? All I can say is "DAT'S RAYCIS!!!!"

If they do put boots on they ground, they will ignore the obvious areas where gun violence is rampant, and troll areas filled with US inbred, wife' beatin', gun totin' rednecks.

[SonofWWIIDI]

I have to go through a background check when I purchase a firearm, I don't see why someone else should be exempt just because they live in a free state. I get the counter-argument about incremental encroachment but I see this as a common sense approach. If you can pass a background check then no worries.

Stay in California Move to Chicago, DC, New York or some other bastion of the liberal ideaology outside of California. We don't want you in our free states.

FIFUC.

(Fixed it for us Californians)

[ttshooter]

A friend of mine emailed me this "Did some research on the Obama Exec Orders..........apparently, the effect will be that as a
citizen I cannot sell a gun without a FFL. Apparently, if I sell on gunbroker.com and ship the
weapon to an FFL in the purchasers state for transfer that is NOT good enough. I would still
be considered the seller and would require an FFL. From what I gather if I walk into a FFL dealer
with the gun and the buyer I would still be considered a "dealer".....no sale!
So the dirty little part of this BULL **** is my weapons are not marketable................
Once again, you wake up and find that government has changed the rules and diminished
my freedoms. There is a reason I despise Democrats...............BKA Communists/Socialists."

[Wherryj]

Wouldn't the simplest version be:
"Give me all of your guns or I'll cry and have a hissy fit."?

[Mute]

I have to go through a background check when I purchase a firearm, I don't see why someone else should be exempt just because they live in a free state. I get the counter-argument about incremental encroachment but I see this as a common sense approach. If you can pass a background check then no worries.

Yes, let's make sure everyone is equally miserable. Don't use the phrase "common sense" if you have no idea what it means.

[TRICKSTER]

A friend of mine emailed me this "Did some research on the Obama Exec Orders..........apparently, the effect will be that as a
citizen I cannot sell a gun without a FFL. Apparently, if I sell on gunbroker.com and ship the
weapon to an FFL in the purchasers state for transfer that is NOT good enough. I would still
be considered the seller and would require an FFL. From what I gather if I walk into a FFL dealer
with the gun and the buyer I would still be considered a "dealer".....no sale!
So the dirty little part of this BULL **** is my weapons are not marketable................
Once again, you wake up and find that government has changed the rules and diminished
my freedoms. There is a reason I despise Democrats...............BKA Communists/Socialists."

Wow, talk about FUD.

[Wherryj]

Wow, talk about FUD.

Yeah, who in their right mind would EVER want to SELL a firearm? (other than an FFL)

The idea is to collect them, right?