Obama acting on executive action

[Redneck_Buddha]

I think he's referring to todays gains on firearm stocks.. :-)

Good for firearms stocks, but the market at large has formed a very ugly head and shoulders pattern. 2016 could be a very bumpy ride.

[Redneck_Buddha]

Perhaps if he showed a willingness to bend on a few things wanted by pro 2a folks, like federal concealed carry to name one, he wouldn't meet such stiff resistance to relatively feckless measures as he proposed today. He said early on that "the losers need to get in the back seat while we drive", so compromise is not even in his vocabulary.

[myntalfloss]

Does anyone else think we're kind of expressing a cognitive dissonance? We have insisted for years that 'guns don't kill people, people do',(which I firmly believe) and yet when Obama, (sorry, Satan) suggests checking out the people, not the guns, we get our panties in a wad. Is there anything that we law-abiding gun owners will accept without defaulting to the ‘black helicopters’ scenario?

[mojo84]

Does anyone else think we're kind of expressing a cognitive dissonance? We have insisted for years that 'guns don't kill people, people do',(which I firmly believe) and yet when Obama, (sorry, Satan) suggests checking out the people, not the guns, we get our panties in a wad. Is there anything that we law-abiding gun owners will accept without defaulting to the ‘black helicopters’ scenario?

They need to focus on enforcing the laws already in effect. There are plenty of known armed criminals that are running lose killing and robbing people. They need to focus on the criminals and leave the law abiding alone.

[cbunt1]

Does anyone else think we're kind of expressing a cognitive dissonance? We have insisted for years that 'guns don't kill people, people do',(which I firmly believe) and yet when Obama, (sorry, Satan) suggests checking out the people, not the guns, we get our panties in a wad. Is there anything that we law-abiding gun owners will accept without defaulting to the ‘black helicopters’ scenario?

Well, using the term "black helicopters" to marginalize the position doesn't do much to move me away from my personal conviction of "No compromise."

Being "reasonable" means that I have to go toward the other side, but with no expectation of the other side coming my way. We've seen how that has worked out for us.

Don't forget that all this will be regulated by an agency who has managed to deem a keyring and a shoestring an illegal weapon in certain circumstances.

The time for compromise is in the past. That got us the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban. Some of us remember how certain representatives and senators sold us down the river back then, and a president who canceled his NRA membership over unpopular but accurate statements.

Lessons learned.

[myntalfloss]

Does anyone else think we're kind of expressing a cognitive dissonance? We have insisted for years that 'guns don't kill people, people do',(which I firmly believe) and yet when Obama, (sorry, Satan) suggests checking out the people, not the guns, we get our panties in a wad. Is there anything that we law-abiding gun owners will accept without defaulting to the ‘black helicopters’ scenario?

They need to focus on enforcing the laws already in effect. There are plenty of known armed criminals that are running lose killing and robbing people. They need to focus on the criminals and leave the law abiding alone

I agree about focusing on laws in effect and known criminals. The problem seems to be with the unknown criminal. Most of these asshats that are giving us a bad name have a history of bad behavior but not until they act out with a gun do they become known. Background checks don't give me heartburn and I'd love to see a mandatory sentence for a crime with a gun to be stacked on top of any other sentences.

[myntalfloss]

Does anyone else think we're kind of expressing a cognitive dissonance? We have insisted for years that 'guns don't kill people, people do',(which I firmly believe) and yet when Obama, (sorry, Satan) suggests checking out the people, not the guns, we get our panties in a wad. Is there anything that we law-abiding gun owners will accept without defaulting to the ‘black helicopters’ scenario?

Well, using the term "black helicopters" to marginalize the position doesn't do much to move me away from my personal conviction of "No compromise."

Being "reasonable" means that I have to go toward the other side, but with no expectation of the other side coming my way. We've seen how that has worked out for us.

Don't forget that all this will be regulated by an agency who has managed to deem a keyring and a shoestring an illegal weapon in certain circumstances.

The time for compromise is in the past. That got us the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban. Some of us remember how certain representatives and senators sold us down the river back then, and a president who canceled his NRA membership over unpopular but accurate statements.

Lessons learned.

Sorry about offending you with the black helicopters but that's kind the response that I've been seeing on this board. (Not from you, mind you.)

And, reasonable to me infers reasonable on both sides. You seem to see reasonable as acquiesence.

Boy, if you're speaking of the TSA, you've got it right. The Thousands Standing Around are the most incompetent gov't agency around and that's a high mark to reach.

As to regard to compromise, compromise is the basis of civilization. If you're looking for a 'my way or the highway' culture, I'm not sure where to go.

[mojo84]

Does anyone else think we're kind of expressing a cognitive dissonance? We have insisted for years that 'guns don't kill people, people do',(which I firmly believe) and yet when Obama, (sorry, Satan) suggests checking out the people, not the guns, we get our panties in a wad. Is there anything that we law-abiding gun owners will accept without defaulting to the ‘black helicopters’ scenario?

They need to focus on enforcing the laws already in effect. There are plenty of known armed criminals that are running lose killing and robbing people. They need to focus on the criminals and leave the law abiding alone

I agree about focusing on laws in effect and known criminals. The problem seems to be with the unknown criminal. Most of these asshats that are giving us a bad name have a history of bad behavior but not until they act out with a gun do they become known. Background checks don't give me heartburn and I'd love to see a mandatory sentence for a crime with a gun to be stacked on top of any other sentences.

Based on your contention-
If they haven't acted out yet, they haven't been arrested yet, therefore, a background check does no good.

Did you watch the video? What is explained there will do more to curb the "gun violence" in American than making more laws or doing more background checks. Just because you don't mind more background checks doesn't mean they would be effective in reducing crime.

[cbunt1]

Does anyone else think we're kind of expressing a cognitive dissonance? We have insisted for years that 'guns don't kill people, people do',(which I firmly believe) and yet when Obama, (sorry, Satan) suggests checking out the people, not the guns, we get our panties in a wad. Is there anything that we law-abiding gun owners will accept without defaulting to the ‘black helicopters’ scenario?

Well, using the term "black helicopters" to marginalize the position doesn't do much to move me away from my personal conviction of "No compromise."

Being "reasonable" means that I have to go toward the other side, but with no expectation of the other side coming my way. We've seen how that has worked out for us.

Don't forget that all this will be regulated by an agency who has managed to deem a keyring and a shoestring an illegal weapon in certain circumstances.

The time for compromise is in the past. That got us the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban. Some of us remember how certain representatives and senators sold us down the river back then, and a president who canceled his NRA membership over unpopular but accurate statements.

Lessons learned.

Sorry about offending you with the black helicopters but that's kind the response that I've been seeing on this board. (Not from you, mind you.)

And, reasonable to me infers reasonable on both sides. You seem to see reasonable as acquiesence.

Boy, if you're speaking of the TSA, you've got it right. The Thousands Standing Around are the most incompetent gov't agency around and that's a high mark to reach.

As to regard to compromise, compromise is the basis of civilization. If you're looking for a 'my way or the highway' culture, I'm not sure where to go.

No offense taken, just frustrated in general. I really don't mean to take it out on anyone.

You are correct that "reasonable" means "reasonable" on both sides. Unfortunately, the other side of these issues are not "reasonable" in the sense we both intend. What we have to realize is that when we're asked to be "reasonable" that really does infer acquiescence, and an unwillingness to comply with their wishes is seen (and more importantly, played in the media) as unreasonable.

So unfortunately, it's the other side of these issues that are pushing to a "my way or the highway" mentality, and when you're up against that mindset, you simply can't afford to back down.

I wasn't speaking of the TSA in this case (although I *LOVE* the Thousands Sitting Around reference, and I ask permission to steal it), I was actually talking about the BATFE. I don't remember the specific details right now, but there was a case a few years ago in which a keyring and shoestring were deemed a full-auto weapon. In the back of my mind, I'm thinking someone had the poor sense to request a ruling from ATF on such a makeshift bumpfire device, but the point is that it was ruled a full-auto weapon.

And of course, the fact that you suggested the TSA actually makes both our points--that as paranoid as it seems, and as well-intentioned as some of these ideas may seem, the opportunity for abuse and misapplication is simply too great.

I'd love to be able to have "reasonable" discussions with the anti's around this, but I won't be lectured to by them anymore.

[Bitter Clinger]

[VMI77]

Does anyone else think we're kind of expressing a cognitive dissonance? We have insisted for years that 'guns don't kill people, people do',(which I firmly believe) and yet when Obama, (sorry, Satan) suggests checking out the people, not the guns, we get our panties in a wad. Is there anything that we law-abiding gun owners will accept without defaulting to the ‘black helicopters’ scenario?

Well, using the term "black helicopters" to marginalize the position doesn't do much to move me away from my personal conviction of "No compromise."

Being "reasonable" means that I have to go toward the other side, but with no expectation of the other side coming my way. We've seen how that has worked out for us.

Don't forget that all this will be regulated by an agency who has managed to deem a keyring and a shoestring an illegal weapon in certain circumstances.

The time for compromise is in the past. That got us the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban. Some of us remember how certain representatives and senators sold us down the river back then, and a president who canceled his NRA membership over unpopular but accurate statements.

Lessons learned.

Sorry about offending you with the black helicopters but that's kind the response that I've been seeing on this board. (Not from you, mind you.)

And, reasonable to me infers reasonable on both sides. You seem to see reasonable as acquiesence.

Boy, if you're speaking of the TSA, you've got it right. The Thousands Standing Around are the most incompetent gov't agency around and that's a high mark to reach.

As to regard to compromise, compromise is the basis of civilization. If you're looking for a 'my way or the highway' culture, I'm not sure where to go.

Both sides....are you kidding? You see reason from the other side?

I don't think you know what the word compromise means. It's not a compromise if I have a cake and you tell me that you're taking half of it. It's not a compromise if someone sticks a gun in my face and says if I hand over my wallet he won't shoot me....it's a mugging. Every battle over gun rights at the national level is either a mugging and ends with us losing more rights, or a stalemate. So just how do you think you're going to get a "compromise?" The ONLY place where this isn't true is at the state level...in SOME states, like Texas.

[Soccerdad1995]

Does anyone else think we're kind of expressing a cognitive dissonance? We have insisted for years that 'guns don't kill people, people do',(which I firmly believe) and yet when Obama, (sorry, Satan) suggests checking out the people, not the guns, we get our panties in a wad. Is there anything that we law-abiding gun owners will accept without defaulting to the ‘black helicopters’ scenario?

It's not the principle that is a problem, it is the implementation.

If we want to make sure that everyone buying a gun is legit, then make it simple, easy, and anonymous (to the government). One way would be to have the states make a notation on drivers licenses indicating if someone is NOT able to own a weapon. Then a private seller (or dealer) could simply ask to see the drivers license, and if they don't see the notation, sell the weapon. Same could be done for other forms of government issued ID if someone does not have a DL. This would accomplish the stated goal, while also ensuring that the government continues to have no record of who does and does not own a firearm.

As others have noted, a reasonable, dare I say "common sense", move in the way of compromise would be to mandate that all states respect CHL's (or equivalent) issued by other states. The liberals made a great argument for why this should happen when they wanted states like Texas to recognize gay marriages that were performed in other states, so clearly they agree that this is a good idea.

Of course, this should all get done through the legislative process, not via executive fiat. I laugh when I am helping my kids do their homework and they are taught that there are 3 branches of government with equal power. The truth is that the Executive has usurped a lot of the Legislative branches' power along with pretty much all of the Judiciaries'.

[Doug.38PR]

The fake tears and crying is what killed me. He needs his boyfriend Larry Sinclair.

[JALLEN]

Does anyone else think we're kind of expressing a cognitive dissonance? We have insisted for years that 'guns don't kill people, people do',(which I firmly believe) and yet when Obama, (sorry, Satan) suggests checking out the people, not the guns, we get our panties in a wad. Is there anything that we law-abiding gun owners will accept without defaulting to the ‘black helicopters’ scenario?

They need to focus on enforcing the laws already in effect. There are plenty of known armed criminals that are running lose killing and robbing people. They need to focus on the criminals and leave the law abiding alone

I agree about focusing on laws in effect and known criminals. The problem seems to be with the unknown criminal. Most of these asshats that are giving us a bad name have a history of bad behavior but not until they act out with a gun do they become known. Background checks don't give me heartburn and I'd love to see a mandatory sentence for a crime with a gun to be stacked on top of any other sentences.

There are laws on the books for that, with mandatory prison time, but these are usually the first to be dropped in plea negotiations, according to many working on both sides of the crime sausage factory.

I don't know how you make it mandatory that filed charges cannot be dropped, or that the prosecution MUST file all possible charges. You can't ban plea bargaining without a hideous increase in judges and courtrooms and court appointed lawyers.

Shooting them in the act is the most efficient, no inefficient trial proceedings, no expensive prison stays, no bogus rehab programs, no recidivism, no probation foolishness, and you are pretty sure to shoot the right perp, no alibis about being in Peoria that night.

[VoiceofReason]

O.jpg (10.27 KiB) Viewed 2447 times

It's nice to be a dictator and bypass legislative system like an irrational child who dosent get their way