Obama considering an executive order on gun control (Page 8)

Yet, they have not.  See how *that* works? 

Our founding fathers made it pretty clear in the 2nd Amendment and with the writings by those who drafted the 2nd that they wanted us to have the same or similar guns/firearms as the military of the times back when they wrote it. I've not heard a logical argument to persuade me that wouldn't be true today. If anything, I think an argument could be made for the citizens to have the M16 with it's selective fire capabilities or similar weapons.

Name an instance where full auto weapons were used.

Please list your "actual fact" showing magazine capacity correlated to deaths.

So now it is not just "assault weapon"... it is "military STYLE" assault weapon. Semi-auto pistols and rifles have been in the hands of citizens for a 100 years... why is it all of a sudden a problem now?

And here they are!

Go Joe,,,

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/biden-guns-executive-actions-86187.html?hp=t1_3

Now your getting it.

Our founding father never envisioned the internet and the speed of communication today either. Why does the 1A apply to that?

I do not remember seeing an expiration date on the Bill of Rights.

And let's be clear on this...

Before everyone jumps in with "nuclear weapons".

"ARMS".. as in "firearms"... as in "personal fire arms". Every legal scholar/justice has defined "arms" to mean just that... not cannons, rocket launchers, bazookas, not frigates, not war ships, fighter jets, or even nuclear weapons... personal firearms consistent with what was in common use.

Ridiculous.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-hold-press-conference-11-15-m-141554262--politics.html

One month to the day after the elementary school slaughter in Connecticut, the president said he had received recommendations from Vice President Joe Biden's task force for curbing a national epidemic of gun violence. Those proposals are expected to face opposition from gun-rights groups like the NRA and its allies in Congress.... I oppose it. I'm not a member of the NRA, but it looks like I'm going to be.

...But will Congress adopt proposals like renewing the assault weapons ban? “I don’t know,” Obama acknowledged. Lawmakers opposed to such steps must "examine their own conscience." In some cases, Congress won't act but he will, the president said.

“I’m confident that there are some steps that we can take that don’t require legislation and are within my authority as president," he said. "How we are gathering data, for example, on guns that fall into the hands of criminals and how we track that more effectively.”

Asked about the surge in gun and ammunition sales, Obama blamed "a fear that's been fanned" by opponents of gun control.

“We’ve seen—for some time now—that those who oppose any common-sense gun-control or gun-safety measures have a pretty effective way of ginning up fear on the part of gun owners that somehow the federal government’s about to take all your guns away...

Wow. A "National epidemic of gun violence"... when gun CRIMES and violent crimes are the lowest in decades. When every news outlet talks as if anyone that gets their hands on a gun is going to go on a shooting spree. Ya, seems like gun control advocates are pretty good at "ginning up" irrational unfounded fear of inanimate objects.

I doubt the founding fathers had any idea about the speed and content with which information can be disseminated.  In the 18th century agrarian society, sparcely populated it is a stretch to believe that the fouding fathers envisioned instantaneous access to written and visual ideas....

So, given that truism, does that mean, or should that mean that the 1st Amendment doesn't or shouldn't protect the forms of speech not envisioned by the founders?  Like how we are communicating right now...

The argument of some pro-gun control people that the 2nd Amendment has outlived it's usefulness because the founders could not have envisioned the types of weapons of modern society should send a chill down the spine of everyone.  That argument should freighten you to your core. 

For if that argument holds water, then the Constitution, and the protections found in the other AMendments, mean nothing today.  Think about the protections guaranteed under the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th Amendments.  Do you believe that the founders could have envisioned any of the modern advances that impact those rights?  Are you willing to say that because the founders could not have envisioned advances in survaliance or electronic media that the 1st or 4th amendments have outlived their usefulness, or that the protections guaranteed only extend to what the founders envisoned.

I'm not.  And it horrifies me that some are.

OK, true the President has not said he wants to take all guns away.  However.....lets look at some of the proposals that since Newton have come out....

1.  NY is proposing banning ALL magazines with capacities of over 7 rounds.

2.  An Ill. bill that proposes making it illegal to posses ANY semi automatic weapon. (That's 80% of all handguns and 40% of all long guns)

3.  The Feinstein bill which along with banning high capacity magazines and "assualt weapons" would require all current owners of "assualt weapons" to register those weapons with the Federal government, and would prevent their future transfer and upon the death of the registered owner would require the surrender of the legally owned firearm to the Federal government for distruction. (Are you aware of any other type or catagory of legally owned personal property that must be turned over to the government upon the death of the owner?)

The pro- gun control side keeps screaming that the anti=gun control side is being "chicken little" and claiming that "no one" is calling for taking guns away.  But the reality is that the President hasn't called for that, but others have.  Read the law that prompted the Constitutional challenge in Heller.

The purposes of some of the laws that have been challenged and are also currently being proposed is to make gun ownership so onerous as to discourage it in its entirity.

Especially when you have people in the government, at both the Federal and State levels, calling for a ban on not just the difficult to define "assualt weapon" but also semi-automatic weapons.  These weapons make up approximately 80% of all modern handguns and about 40% of all modern long guns.

But you're technically correct, calling for the banning of 80% of a class of previously legal weapons isn't calling for taking all guns away....just 80% of them.

I'm liking Texas and Wyoming for introducing legislation that would nullify any executive ordered gun ban.

http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/tomball/news/state-rep-steve-toth-to-file-firearm-protection-act/article_78f7dbd4-5d11-11e2-8a9d-0019bb2963f4.html

I just wrote my state rep and senator and asked them to introduce similar legislation in FL.  Happy to share the text of the email if any one else would like to do the same.

ditto. 

The plot thickens:

GOP congressman threatens impeachment if Obama uses executive action for gun control

He concluded by claiming that an executive order would be not just “not just an attack on the Constitution,” but also an “attack on Americans.”

“If the president is allowed to suspend constitutional rights on his own personal whims, our free republic has effectively ceased to exist,” he said.

I know both parties do executive orders, but when it crosses into altering or restricting the bill of rights, I have to agree that it absolutely should pass through congress.

Tealeaf - you realize that none of the weaponsused at Sandyhook were legally owned by the person responsible for those murders, right?  See how well some of the most strict gun-control laws in the country worked there?

Using  full-auto weapons in the gun-control debate makes no sense from either side of the aisle...there just aren't enough of them out there to make a difference in the discussion.  Talking about the 300,000,000 guns that ARE out there and are not full-auto makes sense....because they aren't going anywhere.  And,in case you aren't paying attention, tey are being bought right now in record numbers. 

This is much simpler than many people realize, but nobody has the stomach for it.  Just enforce the laws already on the books.  Put people who use guns to commit a crime in prison....make the sentences strong enough to keep those people locked up.  There are more than enough gun laws on the books now.....they are rarely enforced.'

I know. The weapons used at Sandy Hook were legally owned by a "responsible gun owner."

Or

The weapons used at Sandy Hook were stolen from a responsible gun owner after she was murdered.

Yup. Either way, they were guns that were legally purchased and found their way into the hands of a criminal.

Right, so the only logical choice is to crack down on law abiding citizens. By that logic, we should lock up everyone in prison instead of murderers so we can protect people from getting murdered.

1. I should have used quotes for the "responsible gun owner" I was trying to use tealeafs statement.

2. Was she a responsible gun owner. I don't know?

3. I hadn't seen any reports on how her firearms were secured or stored. What source did your statement come from?

4. What medications was he on, has that been reported yet?

And the stupidity starts...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/14/cuomo-new-york-guns/1833271/

Really??? 10 rounds is too many but 7 is not. Yep, that'll do a lot. 

And so do you know how she stored her weapons? Do you think that she left her weapons unsecured knowing her son was going to go on a homicidal shooting spree... or that he would shoot her in the face 4 times? Do you think she just left them laying around in fear that her son was going to kill her?

What is your answer for the say: ~100,000 potentially homicidal kids out there right now to their parents... that the state has to come in and take their kids freedoms to protect society from potential harm... or, restrict the freedoms of 300,000,000 Americans on what they can and can't do regarding the 2A?

Ya... you can have grandfathered 10 round magazine, but you can only load 7.

You can legally own a revolver... but you can only load one bullet at a time.

I can't begin to tell you how relieved I am knowing an intruder breaking into my house will only have 7 rounds in his 10 round mag.

I'm just glad that all the criminals who don't turn in or modify their 10 round mags in the first year will be rotting in jail where they belong, brazen outlaws that they are.