• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Obama to Announce New Executive Action concerning guns:

SpaceCritter said:
I cannot recall watching CNN since Gulf War I
Click to expand...

I usually watch Fox and Friends in the AM, but today they were calling what 0bama did "New Legislation" and were focused more on him crying than the facts of how this Executive Action is illegal and Un-Constitutional on top of that fact that it will not save lives it will actually cost them on top of infringing on 2A rights.

For example, less people (ex-military vets with PTSD) will seek treatment for PTSD and other mental issues for fear of having their guns taken away. This will likely lead to more suicides, which the gun-grabbers LOVE to add to their "Gun Violence" statistics.
 
drgrant said:
That's funny but she can't change MGL just by braying and bitching about it. They would have to create an entire framework of garbage in MGL to block that. Not happening absent some other gun issue coming up in the legislature.

-Mike
Click to expand...

Malloy is trying to use his own version of EO's to ban people on the no-fly list from buying guns. These idiots are using Obama's playbook to re-write the rules. http://www.rep-am.com/news/local/931465.txt
 
QckkGxX.jpg
 
drgrant said:
That's funny but she can't change MGL just by braying and bitching about it. They would have to create an entire framework of garbage in MGL to block that. Not happening absent some other gun issue coming up in the legislature.

-Mike
Click to expand...

"Braying" I love it
 
Last edited by a moderator:
One bit from yesterday's "performance" that I haven't really seen discussed was Obama's use on an anecdote about losing his iPad and being able to find it via a tracking app. he then said we should be able to do the same thing with guns. It would certainly help with confiscation when someone claims a boating accident took their guns.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=688_1452029247&comments=1
 
I have worked in the mental health field for quite some time and and its not as easy to commit or adjudicate someone mentally defective, as people think.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that it is extremely difficult thanks to the ACLU and various patients' rights groups who brought many lawsuits in the 60's and 70's to make commitment nearly impossible. First, the person has to be an immediate danger to himself or others (which is an extremely high standard). Second -- and this really was the killer -- if the state forces commitment then it has to provide treatment to the patient. States couldn't afford the extremely high costs of running mental health institutions in which they had to do more than simply care for the patients but instead had to provide treatment. The end result was that the states had no choice but to close mental health hospitals and turn all the patients on to the streets. Thus, when you look at mass shootings you will find that a substantial majority involve patients with some form of mental illness. Additional reasons for the transition away from state-provided mental health care for those with severe mental illnesses include (1) psychiatrists realized that there is far more money to make in the private sector treating affluent soccer moms and their entitled children who require perpetual "therapy" and (2) negativity against state mental health institutions that grew out of some high profile abuse incidents coupled with negative portrayal of mental institutions by the media and Hollywood.

But, hey, why bother trying to address the real problems in America when you can just attack the 2A? Way more politically expedient to bray about gun control, and the average person doesn't have the ability to understand or even care about the real problems.

- - - Updated - - -

In 2007, Missouri’s homicide rate was .000065. By 2014, Missouri’s homicide rate had soared to .000066.
Click to expand...

How do you get 50% increase out of this? More like 1%-ish.
 
Last edited:
I hate how this "mentally ill" game is playing out. It is extremely evil to allow government to imprison people or otherwise take away their freedom because some special people declare them mentally ill. That is just fundamentally wrong. I don't care about safety or consequences. A just society does not infringe on the liberty of those who have committed no crime. The pragmatism thrown at this is just out of control.
 
Did anyone know that dirty clam Amy Schumer was there sitting there in the room? What a tool! I would love to see a list of everyone that attended that horn party.
 
Last edited:
LittleCalm said:
How do you get 50% increase out of this? More like 1%-ish.
Click to expand...

You use word pasta to make people hear something you didn't say. Obama told the truth, but in a very sneaky way. Due to St Louis, Missouri has a murder rate approximately 50% higher than the national average. This number only changed by a tiny bit when the Missouri murder rate increases by a tiny amount, but it's still an increase up to the total of 50% higher. By leaving out the fact that it was close to 50% higher at the time of the repeal, people subconsciously assume it was originally closer to the national average
 
LittleCalm said:
How do you get 50% increase out of this? More like 1%-ish.
Click to expand...

It said it said it's risen to 50% higher than the national average. It makes no mention of the fact that in 2007, it started out significantly higher than the national average to begin with. Missouri's suicide rate has always been higher than the national average, which accounts for a large part of it. It rose slightly more than the national average did between 2007 and 2014, with firearms making up a consistent percentage over that time period (about 50%). Overall, the murder rate nationally dropped over that same period, from 5.6 per 100k in 2007 to 4.5 per 100k in 2014. MO went from 6.5 t 6.6 per 100k over this same time period.

Source: Google search for Suicide rates and Homicide rates by year.
 
I just wonder if this crock weeps himself to sleep at night thinking about the hundreds of thousands Syrian men women and children that have died this past year in his ILLEGAL war and at the hands of the terrorists funded by HIS office.....oh wait...that doesn't quite fit his agenda.
 
Does anyone else remember the Clinton years, when the ATF started tightening the definitions and standards required to get an FFL? Back then, the big deal was how many gun dealers America had, and how much better it would be if all of the hobbyist gun dealers lost their FFL. Now we have the vilification of these hobbyists for not requiring a background check (which they would do if they were FFLs). Clearly, Obama and company want both: to limit FFL licenses and to prosecute hobbyists for dealing guns. Of course, none of this has anything to do with recent mass shootings or gun crime with actual victims. It's just a little amusing how the gun grabbers can't keep their story straight or even explain how their policy desires relate to reality.
 
Try and remember the last time they pushed so hard for gun control - it cost them the presidency. I have a feeling this will be something that really hurts the left come November.

In my experience, there are many non gun owners who are fence sitters on the issue....but they know their civics -- they'd prefer more to less rights and will tend to vote for candidates, even the ones they may not necessarily love, just to preserve those rights.
 
It said it said it's risen to 50% higher than the national average. It makes no mention of the fact that in 2007, it started out significantly higher than the national average to begin with.
Click to expand...

Awesome, thx. So basically it started in 2007 at 48% and now has risen to be at 50% above the national average -- big deal. Real slimy way to manipulate but not surprising. And it had to start somewhere pretty high -- like 48% -- in 2007. If it started at 25% higher in 2007 and now is at 50%, they would have (correctly) said that this is a 100% increase over the national average and they didn't say that.
 
In my experience, there are many non gun owners who are fence sitters on the issue....but they know their civics -- they'd prefer more to less rights and will tend to vote for candidates, even the ones they may not necessarily love, just to preserve those rights.
Click to expand...

Hope you're right but in MA that hasn't been my experience. I find even the most educated people here just don't care about 2A and are completely ambivalent to the constitutional abuse going on in this country.
 
economist said:
Does anyone else remember the Clinton years, when the ATF started tightening the definitions and standards required to get an FFL? Back then, the big deal was how many gun dealers America had, and how much better it would be if all of the hobbyist gun dealers lost their FFL. Now we have the vilification of these hobbyists for not requiring a background check (which they would do if they were FFLs). Clearly, Obama and company want both: to limit FFL licenses and to prosecute hobbyists for dealing guns. Of course, none of this has anything to do with recent mass shootings or gun crime with actual victims. It's just a little amusing how the gun grabbers can't keep their story straight or even explain how their policy desires relate to reality.
Click to expand...

By closing the walls in both directions, the room gets smaller quickly. The idea is to make gun ownership nearly impossible or too tough for the average person to figure out so that the number of gun owners dramatically decreases. Devious fu(ks they are.

Funny, though, how it is having the opposite effect! Everytime the Kenyan gets on TV spewing his non-sense, S&W's stock goes through the roof and people rush to their local gun shops!
 
Mass is a very weird state. My guess is most non gun owners have no idea what the laws are, but assume Mass has the most enlightened (i.e., restrictive) gun laws imaginable. If you told the typical Cambridge voter that mere commoners from all over Mass can legally be licensed to carry, and come to their city and carry concealed weapons they would be aghast. They have no idea. All they know is that guns are bad, and more anti-gun laws are better.
 
LittleCalm said:
Hope you're right but in MA that hasn't been my experience. I find even the most educated people here just don't care about 2A and are completely ambivalent to the constitutional abuse going on in this country.
Click to expand...

People in the northeast have been indoctrinated to think that guns are scary and that nobody needs them, b/c the COPS are always there to protect them. They always bust through the door and shoot the perp a second before your about to get murdered. I've seen it on EVERY COP show on TV, so it must be true.

People have been indoctrinated to think that everything the govt does is perfect, solves all problems, unicorns and gumdrops. Hopefully people are starting to wake up to the fact that they have been fed a bunch of propaganda. I know that this POTUS has certainly helped with waking people up a rapid rate.
 
economist said:
Mass is a very weird state. My guess is most non gun owners have no idea what the laws are, but assume Mass has the most enlightened (i.e., restrictive) gun laws imaginable. If you told the typical Cambridge voter that mere commoners from all over Mass can legally be licensed to carry, and come to their city and carry concealed weapons they would be aghast. They have no idea. All they know is that guns are bad, and more anti-gun laws are better.
Click to expand...

I like to think that I saved at least one soul from "Federal pound me in the a$$" prison. About 5 years ago, I was having a casual conversation with a new co-working and the subject of guns came up. He proceeded to tell me that he had guns in his basement that he has had for years and was thankful for his lifetime FID card after I told him how much fun I had applying for his license!

Safe to say, he started the application process for his LTC shortly after that conversation. I work with a few other guys that moved into MA from neighboring states that were going to bring a few felonies with them as well :)
 
economist said:
Mass is a very weird state. My guess is most non gun owners have no idea what the laws are, but assume Mass has the most enlightened (i.e., restrictive) gun laws imaginable. If you told the typical Cambridge voter that mere commoners from all over Mass can legally be licensed to carry, and come to their city and carry concealed weapons they would be aghast. They have no idea. All they know is that guns are bad, and more anti-gun laws are better.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've had that conversation with flaming liberals, all the way up to 'I wouldn't feel safe being around someone who had a gun.' I so wanted to say, 'Lady, you've been bitching at me about everything under the sun for 3 hours and I haven't shot you yet.' This was at the house of the same friend who is hyper-anti, but thinks it's okay for him to have an illegal Blackhawk even though he doesn't think I should have legal Glocks or AR's.

Clueless, just ****ing clueless.
 
NewGuyRay said:
One bit from yesterday's "performance" that I haven't really seen discussed was Obama's use on an anecdote about losing his iPad and being able to find it via a tracking app. he then said we should be able to do the same thing with guns. It would certainly help with confiscation when someone claims a boating accident took their guns.
Click to expand...

Or a cop that leaves his gun in the bathroom at the courthouse. [thinking]
 
NewGuyRay said:
One bit from yesterday's "performance" that I haven't really seen discussed was Obama's use on an anecdote about losing his iPad and being able to find it via a tracking app. he then said we should be able to do the same thing with guns. It would certainly help with confiscation when someone claims a boating accident took their guns.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=688_1452029247&comments=1
Click to expand...
One of the big problems that any smart gun is going to face is that guns, unlike ipads, are not electronic devices. Since a gun is mechanical, it doesn't require any electronic component, so it would be hard to create an integral electronic, nearly foolproof controller that wouldn't be fairly easy to remove or disable. To surmount this obstacle, you would need to move to some sort of completely new ammunition with cryptographic electronic ignition or something like that.

It's technically feasible, but there is no market for it. Look at all the electronic ignition systems that have come to market (very few). Regular ammo works too well for there to be demand for a new, more complicated, probably buggy, system
 
Last edited:
AngelKing said:
Try and remember the last time they pushed so hard for gun control - it cost them the presidency. I have a feeling this will be something that really hurts the left come November.

In my experience, there are many non gun owners who are fence sitters on the issue....but they know their civics -- they'd prefer more to less rights and will tend to vote for candidates, even the ones they may not necessarily love, just to preserve those rights.
Click to expand...

Let's hope Clinton makes this the central tenant of her campaign.
 

Similar threads

Is this a new term? Zombie guns.
Replies
9
Views
334
hminsky
H
Woburn Action Shooters 2024 Intro To Action Shooting and IDPA
Replies
0
Views
151
Amputee Marksman
Amputee Marksman
CT: HB-5467 An Act Concerning Firearms Background Checks (2024)
Replies
2
Views
212
sbhaven
S
Cleaning your guns
2 3
Replies
66
Views
1K
Buck F
Buck F
Pennsylvania Court Upholds Right of Young People to Carry Guns in Public
Replies
6
Views
204
Coyote33
Coyote33
Back
Top Bottom