dinger wrote: IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!! WHY DO YOU WANT TO KILL CHILDREN?!?!?
Because their all so much smarter than adults.
dinger wrote: IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!! WHY DO YOU WANT TO KILL CHILDREN?!?!?
Because their all so much smarter than adults.
N Sperlo wrote:dinger wrote: IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!! WHY DO YOU WANT TO KILL CHILDREN?!?!?Because their all so much smarter than adults.
It's like eating pistachios that come already shelled. They go down so easy... you lose track and just keep going and going until the shame of what you have just done overwhelms you and you take your own life.
I blame Sam's Club.
N Sperlo wrote:yamaha wrote: In reply to N Sperlo: I still think that's in ill taste considering the current happenings. If I were president, I'd probably drive myself around incogneto though.....tell the secret service, "Go enjoy your parade, I'm going that way by myself."I don't think he exactly gets to make that decision. I don't know though. There is a lot about the Secret Service that the public doesn't know.
He doesn't get to make that decision- in the interview Biden gave with Car and Driver I believe it was one of his biggest laments was that the SS didn't allow him to drive anything, anywhere. Which would be pretty high up on the list of reasons why I wouldn't want to be President or VP... 
In reply to Ashyukun:
I wouldn't care.....they'd be disavowed as an agency or fired on the spot for that BS.....
yamaha wrote: In reply to Ashyukun: I wouldn't care.....they'd be disavowed as an agency or fired on the spot for that BS.....
They are controlled by the StoneCutters. So, on equal footing with Obama, Putin, Hu Jintao, and other character actors playing parts in the grand illusion. They are like the rogue agents in the Matrix. I do wish we could have the metric system though.
dinger wrote: flanked by children who wrote him letters after the Newtown shooting.
Biggest crock of E36-M3 ever.
Children write letters only because liberally biased teachers make it a class activity. Utilizing their position of authority to A: Implant their beliefs upon the children, and B: coherce into acting upon the beliefs of the teacher should be criminal.
I do not think that teachers political views have any place in a classroom. This is something that is rampantly happening.
Apexcarver wrote: I do not think that teachers political views have any place in a classroom. This is something that is rampantly happening.
This times eleventy-billion.
anyone else watching the POTUS announcing his intentions?
where does everyone get this statistic that 40% of gun purchases don't go through background checks? i keep hearing it parroted all over with no study to back it up, just that the Brady campaign said so.
I was just listening. The 40% is going to be hard to back up.
Hungary Bill wrote:Apexcarver wrote: I do not think that teachers political views have any place in a classroom. This is something that is rampantly happening.This times eleventy-billion.
It needs to be stated thrice. We don't allow religion in school. Why are children being pushed in political directions? I'm not going to say politics have no place in school, though.
N Sperlo wrote: I was just listening. The 40% is going to be hard to back up.
yet i've seen it in several places. is this a case of "lie repeated enough times becomes the truth"?
In reply to Strizzo:
I doubt it. Its probably just not accurate. How can you get a count on something that isn't tracked?
So... Its an attempt at the truth, I would guess. Think about all the private sales that take place.
So here's an interesting twist, especially the part about the proposed Texas legislation that would make it a felony for anyone (apparently, including Federal Agents) to enforce any firearms restrictions issued by executive order.
Insert: "It's about to get real in here" meme here.
In reply to kazoospec:
see also: when keepin' it real goes wrong
I could see it as plausible, but unlikely. As most firearms once purchased new, can sometimes find their way to 5-6 different owners via private party, but the govt shouldn't know about those anyways. Granted, I know some people who would rather sell via gunbroker through a dealer just to be "covered" instead of the risk of trusting someone, I just ask a few questions(to judge by responses), and take a look at a valid weapons license....only then will I sell private party. I have nixed one sale due to the guy refusing to answer questions. I do not make out bills of sale for anything, but I do mark down in my safe's log the date, location, price, description, and serial # of the weapon sold. I've done this mainly due to home insurance purposes, but it was more than enough to prove I didn't throw a former browning hipower in the ohio river outside of Louisville one time.....
kazoospec wrote: So here's an interesting twist, especially the part about the proposed Texas legislation that would make it a felony for anyone (apparently, including Federal Agents) to enforce any firearms restrictions issued by executive order. Insert: "It's about to get real in here" meme here.
Same in Wyoming and Montana. I want a law like that.
Beer Baron wrote:tuna55 wrote: Changing the law to strengthen a penalty for an existing law (which should have a penalty written into said law) is a function of the legislature.I absolutely agree that changing the law is a function of the legislature. I suspect the president does too. I know that most crimes usually carry a range of possible penalties. I suspect he plans to play more within that leeway. I'll leave out response to my other readings and yours because... it's all supposition on both our parts and we'll have to wait and see what he actually comes out with. I suspect he is floating ideas that go beyond the scope of his office to see what does and does not fly, and that he will end up with something that falls within the scope of his power.
Well, the 23 point list is out. I think you were right. As long as he doesn't get creative with interpretations of some of these, nothing here really kills the second amendment. I was wrong.
Nick, same humble-pie to you. I expected carnage, I got a lot of talk. I'll take talk.
N Sperlo wrote:Hungary Bill wrote:It needs to be stated thrice. We don't allow religion in school. Why are children being pushed in political directions? I'm not going to say politics have no place in school, though.Apexcarver wrote: I do not think that teachers political views have any place in a classroom. This is something that is rampantly happening.This times eleventy-billion.
Catholic schools push Catholicism. Christian schools push Christianity. Government schools push Government; specifically, the party of more Government/Teacher's Unions.
Tuna, Link?
Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
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.
Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
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.
Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
Nominate an ATF director.
Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
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.
Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/16/obama-using-gun-issue-advance-health-law/
I have to say it clearer, because I can't quite believe it, but if they stick to what those points actually say, and don't expand it to go crazy, those are actually reasonable things to do, and they all seem reasonably constitutional as well. I don't know how else to say it.
tuna55 wrote: I have to say it clearer, because I can't quite believe it, but if they stick to what those points actually say, and don't expand it to go crazy, those are actually reasonable things to do, and they all seem reasonably constitutional as well. I don't know how else to say it.
well, that is just the executive order portion, he did also say that he wants congress to pass laws to require background checks on all gun transactions, dealer-to person, and person-to-person (this i have no problem with, covers my backside as well if i'm selling to an individual)
pass a strengthened AWB (if he's referring to Feinstein's bill, it WOULD include confiscation by disallowing transfers even within family, upon death the AW would be surrendered to the govt, and would classify nearly every semiauto as an "assault weapon")
limit detachable magazine capacity to 10 rounds (also if this is feinsteins bill it would not grandfather "pre-ban" mags).
some other lip service to mental health issues.
In reply to tuna55:
4.Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun. 15.Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
These are the only two issues I can come up with, #4 My issue is, WTF was it seized for? Evidence in a personal protection case? #15 Would allow doctors to inflict their personal views upon others......Its probably worrying too much, but they're human, and can indeed falsify things quite easily.
yamaha wrote: In reply to tuna55: 4.Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun. 15.Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes. These are the only two issues I can come up with, #4 My issue is, WTF was it seized for? Evidence in a personal protection case? #15 Would allow doctors to inflict their personal views upon others......Its probably worrying too much, but they're human, and can indeed falsify things quite easily.
From what I understand of these, it means this:
Your gun was found in a gun crime scene, maybe a home defense, maybe a stolen gun, whatever. Before they give it back, they want to find out who you are. Sounds fine by me if it's the same background check you needed to buy it in the first place.
Dr.s is a broad statement. If my Dr gives me heck when I bring my kid in for strep throat, sure, I'd have an issue, but I think they mean phychological Drs. In that sense he's saying: if the patient is on meds or something, you can ask about guns they may have. That sounds reasonable too.
Strizzo wrote:tuna55 wrote: I have to say it clearer, because I can't quite believe it, but if they stick to what those points actually say, and don't expand it to go crazy, those are actually reasonable things to do, and they all seem reasonably constitutional as well. I don't know how else to say it.well, that is just the executive order portion, he did also say that he wants congress to pass laws to require background checks on all gun transactions, dealer-to person, and person-to-person (this i have no problem with, covers my backside as well if i'm selling to an individual) pass a strengthened AWB (if he's referring to Feinstein's bill, it WOULD include confiscation by disallowing transfers even within family, upon death the AW would be surrendered to the govt, and would classify nearly every semiauto as an "assault weapon") limit detachable magazine capacity to 10 rounds (also if this is feinsteins bill it would not grandfather "pre-ban" mags). some other lip service to mental health issues.
Agreed fully, I will/would have an issue if congress were to pass any of those, but I thought the executive branch would grab that power and shove it down our throats. I will rally against any bill like that, but I don't think a bill like that stands a chance in the house or senate.
You'll need to log in to post.
