T Nation

Gun Control II


#1

Previous thread reached max replies.

White house unveiling new proposals right now.

Children being trotted out at this very moment.

http://live.reuters.com/event/politics


#2
  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.

  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.


#3

Proposed legislation:

Require criminal background checks for all gun sales. (a.k.a. closing the “gun show loophole.”)

Reinstate and strengthen the assault weapons ban.

Restore the 10-round limit on ammunition magazines.

Protect police by finishing the job of getting rid of armor-piercing bullets.

Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime.

End the freeze on gun violence research.

Make our schools safer with more school resource officers and school counselors, safer climates, and better emergency response plans.

Help ensure that young people get the mental health treatment they need.

Ensure health insurance plans cover mental health benefits.


#4

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#5

I love how the white house responded to the NRA ad by saying it’s repugnant and evil 'cuz it’s a “personal attack” on his children.

No kidding it’s a personal attack, that’s how accusations work when you’re [rightfully] calling someone a hypocrite. The fact that there are people that even consider this ad as “disgusting” simply proves how closed-minded they are.


#6

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

I am not against gun ownership but when people start bringing up a “strict” reading of the Constitution and Bill of Rights as though the framers were infallible fortune tellers they are in effect saying that slavery should still exist and women should not vote, among other things. If they were wrong about those things then it means they could have been wrong about others. It’s why they allowed the ability to amend their living document; they didn’t believe in their own infallibility or perfection. They understood the concept of change all too well as they were the embodiment of it. [/quote]

You don’t like the 2nd? Repeal it.

It says what it means and means what it says.

“Infringe” means trespass or encroach, both of which are rampant. More gun control at this point means more trespassing. More encroachment. To return to within constitutional boundaries would require a retreat to pre-1927 regulations.

The National Firearms Act of 1934, the FFA of 1938, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the machine gun ban inserted in the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 ARE all trespasses and encroachments. They ARE infringements.[/quote]

I wouldn’t even bother with zecarlo push, he doesn’t even seem to have READ the 2nd Amendment, let alone other relevant documents.


#7

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
Proposed legislation:

Reinstate and strengthen the assault weapons ban.

Restore the 10-round limit on ammunition magazines.

Protect police by finishing the job of getting rid of armor-piercing bullets.

[/quote]

I’ve got a problem with these 3:

Banning assault weapons doesn’t make any sense. Obama just wants them gone because they are “scary”. Big deal, the next school shooting will just be with 2 hand guns or a shotgun. That’s all it will do. Gangs and other criminals will just buy on the black market. Law abiding citizens will be hurt by this and only law abiding citizens will be hurt by this.

Magazine limits are a joke. I would just tape 2 mags together, there’s 20 rights there. Any asshole that plays COD has seen that trick. It’s really irrelevant anyway because anyone with any experience with a weapon can reload in a matter of seconds.

Armor piercing rounds is another joke. So the guy breaking into my house will know to wear Kevlar is all…Thanks for making me safe Mr. President.

On a side note, the President using kids as an emotional tool is below the office of the President.


#8

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[/quote]

…and then he marches kids out when talking about gun regulation. I don’t think he knows what the word hypocrite means.


#9

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Magazine limits are a joke. I would just tape 2 mags together, there’s 20 rights there.
[/quote]

HEADLINE: Obama to ban assault tape.


#10

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
Proposed legislation:

Reinstate and strengthen the assault weapons ban.

Restore the 10-round limit on ammunition magazines.

Protect police by finishing the job of getting rid of armor-piercing bullets.

[/quote]

I’ve got a problem with these 3:

Banning assault weapons doesn’t make any sense. Obama just wants them gone because they are “scary”. Big deal, the next school shooting will just be with 2 hand guns or a shotgun. That’s all it will do. Gangs and other criminals will just buy on the black market. Law abiding citizens will be hurt by this and only law abiding citizens will be hurt by this.

Magazine limits are a joke. I would just tape 2 mags together, there’s 20 rights there. Any asshole that plays COD has seen that trick. It’s really irrelevant anyway because anyone with any experience with a weapon can reload in a matter of seconds.

Armor piercing rounds is another joke. So the guy breaking into my house will know to wear Kevlar is all…Thanks for making me safe Mr. President.

On a side note, the President using kids as an emotional tool is below the office of the President.
[/quote]

Without a large mag what is their definition of assault weapon? It was vaguely defined to begin with so if you limit to 10 rounds what is the definition?


#11

Proposals are not laws.

It is VERY doubtful that any of these proposals will pass both Houses of Congress.

Flame away.

Mufasa


#12

The very large majority of gun deaths are from handguns, Obama did nothing by bloviating his regal decree.


#13

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Proposals are not laws.

It is VERY doubtful that any of these proposals will pass both Houses of Congress.

Flame away.

Mufasa[/quote]

Why are they calling it “executive” orders then? An executive proposal has no meaning and is barely newsworthy.


#14

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
Proposed legislation:

Reinstate and strengthen the assault weapons ban.

Restore the 10-round limit on ammunition magazines.

Protect police by finishing the job of getting rid of armor-piercing bullets.

[/quote]

I’ve got a problem with these 3:

Banning assault weapons doesn’t make any sense. Obama just wants them gone because they are “scary”. Big deal, the next school shooting will just be with 2 hand guns or a shotgun. That’s all it will do. Gangs and other criminals will just buy on the black market. Law abiding citizens will be hurt by this and only law abiding citizens will be hurt by this.

Magazine limits are a joke. I would just tape 2 mags together, there’s 20 rights there. Any asshole that plays COD has seen that trick. It’s really irrelevant anyway because anyone with any experience with a weapon can reload in a matter of seconds.

Armor piercing rounds is another joke. So the guy breaking into my house will know to wear Kevlar is all…Thanks for making me safe Mr. President.

On a side note, the President using kids as an emotional tool is below the office of the President.
[/quote]

Without a large mag what is their definition of assault weapon? It was vaguely defined to begin with so if you limit to 10 rounds what is the definition?[/quote]

Beats me. Whatever you can assault someone with, so…


#15

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Proposals are not laws.

It is VERY doubtful that any of these proposals will pass both Houses of Congress.

Flame away.

Mufasa[/quote]

Why are they calling it “executive” orders then? An executive proposal has no meaning and is barely newsworthy.[/quote]

I purposefully grouped things the way I did to separate the 23 Executive Actions (Orders?) from the legislation he will propose. The former group is done; he signed the papers at the press conference. The latter will need to go through the usual channels before becoming law.


#16

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

Without a large mag what is their definition of assault weapon? It was vaguely defined to begin with so if you limit to 10 rounds what is the definition?[/quote]

An “assault rifle” is largely a legal construct. For example, this is how the City of Chicago defines it (Pay particular attention to point 2):

A. In addition to the weapons defined as assault weapons in Section 8-20-030 of the Municipal Code of Chicago, the following weapons are defined as assault weapons because the design or operation of the weapons is inappropriate for lawful use:

1.	Any of the firearms, types, replicas, or duplicates in any caliber of the firearms known as:
    a.	Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
    b.	Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
    c.	Beretta AR-70 (SC-70);
    d.	Colt AR-15;
    e.	Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
    f.	SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
    g.	Steyr AUG;
    h.	INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, and TEC-22;
    i.	any shotgun which contains its ammunition in a revolving cylinder, such as (but not limited to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12; and
    j.	any handgun or rifle having a caliber of .50 or greater.

2.	A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:
    a.	a folding or telescoping stock;
    b.	a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
    c.	a bayonet mount;
    d.	a flash suppressor or barrel having a threaded muzzle; or
    e.	a grenade launcher.

3.	A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:
    a.	an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
    b.	a barrel having a threaded muzzle;
    c.	a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles the barrel, and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned;
    d.	a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; or
    e.	a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

4.	A semiautomatic shotgun that has one or more of the following:
    a.	a folding or telescoping stock;
    b.	a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
    c.	a fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds; or
    d.	an ability to accept a detachable magazine.

#17

To continue the conversations I was engaged in in the last thread:

AlphaF: I shoot occasionally. My father owns two shotguns, a 12 and a 20, and I’ve been shooting them since I was a kid. I shoot clay pigeons every now and again as well.

With regard to my debate style not coming from the heart: emotion is rarely productive and never persuasive in this kind of discussion. I just like to hear good arguments.

Sexmachine and Push: tainted by my liberal educators or not, I’m not espousing a radical point of view. In fact, the contention that I’m defending–that exceptions can legally be made even when they might seem to be prohibited by the most literal textual interpretation of the Bill of Rights–is rather banal. It is this maxim that underwrites the ban on MANPADS. Speaking of which, Push, you said you’d think about it: Should MANPADS be available for popular purchase?


#18

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Proposals are not laws.

It is VERY doubtful that any of these proposals will pass both Houses of Congress.

Flame away.

Mufasa[/quote]

Why are they calling it “executive” orders then? An executive proposal has no meaning and is barely newsworthy.[/quote]

I purposefully grouped things the way I did to separate the 23 Executive Actions (Orders?) from the legislation he will propose. The former group is done; he signed the papers at the press conference. The latter will need to go through the usual channels before becoming law.
[/quote]

I think the general idea is that he’s being idiotic by even proposing some of these, and betraying either his ignorance on the subject, a hidden agenda, or both.


#19

Would any of these measures have stopped Adam Lanza?


#20

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Would any of these measures have stopped Adam Lanza?

[/quote]

Maybe the mental health stuff, IF he was properly diagnosed and treated. Otherwise, I don’t think so.

If a ban occurs it will not stop tragedies from occurring. It will just affect weapon choice. That’s it.