PDA

View Full Version : NY passes new state gun laws


Fire Haley
01-15-2013, 11:25 AM
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — New York lawmakers agreed to pass the toughest gun control law in the nation

Under current state law, assault weapons are defined by having two "military rifle" features, such as folding stock, muzzle flash suppressor or bayonet mount. The proposal would reduce that to one feature, including the popular pistol grip. The language specifically targeted the military-style rifle used in the Newtown shootings.

Current owners of those guns will have to register them.

Private sales of assault weapons to someone other than an immediate family would be subject to a background check through a dealer. New Yorkers also would be barred from buying assault weapons over the Internet, and failing to safely store a weapon could lead to a misdemeanor charge.

Ammunition magazines would be restricted to seven bullets, from the current 10, and current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. An owner caught at home with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge.

Stores that sell ammunition will have to register with the state, run background checks on buyers of bullets and keep an electronic database of bullet sales.

The measure passed the Senate 43-18 on the strength of support from Democrats, many of whom previously sponsored bills that were once blocked by Republicans. The Democrat-led Assembly gaveled out before midnight and planned to take the issue up at 10 a.m. Tuesday. It is expected to pass easily.

The governor confirmed the proposal, previously worked out in closed session, also would mandate a police registry of assault weapons, grandfathering in assault weapons already in private hands.

http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/NY-seals-1st-state-gun-laws-since-Newtown-massacre-4194149.php

-------------------------------


and so it begins

No one makes 7 rd mags. So in effect, it makes any gun with 10+ rd. mags illegal

Vis
01-15-2013, 11:38 AM
BS. There will be 7 rd magazines available in 10 minutes if there is a market.

MACH1
01-15-2013, 11:46 AM
BS. There will be 7 rd magazines available in 10 minutes if there is a market.

Not likely. The manufactures aren't going to change the assembly line to cater to one state. What they may do is make some kind of plug that can be installed in them.

Fire Haley
01-15-2013, 11:58 AM
Per the New York Senate website, the limitation of 7 rounds in a magazine is being addressed by grandfathering 10-round magazines possessed up to 90 days after the bill becomes law.

However, you can have no more than 7 rounds in the magazine on the 91st day onward.

So police will be knocking at the door of hundreds of thousands of citizens to check to see if they are complying?

Vis
01-15-2013, 11:58 AM
Not likely. The manufactures aren't going to change the assembly line to cater to one state. What they may do is make some kind of plug that can be installed in them.


After market mags will be available. Besides, if they are cheaper, 7 rd mags will sell everywhere.

The problem with the plug is ease of removal.

Fire Haley
01-15-2013, 12:01 PM
and so it begins

All gunowners in NY will next be required to wear a large yellow Jewish Star patch with the words 'Gun Owner' in the middle of it.



We have more than enough New Yorkers in FL already - please consider alternative states when moving.

Fire Haley
01-15-2013, 12:19 PM
Obama Plans 19 Executive Orders on Gun Control

President Barack Obama plans this week to present 19 separate executive orders on gun control and will press for comprehensive legislation to expand gun-purchase background checks, lawmakers made privy to the president’s agenda said Monday, according to the New York Times.

The biggest congressional fight on gun control in early 20 years—which also includes efforts to ban assault weapons and high-capacity clips—could be launched as soon as Wednesday, the Times reports.

But considering the president’s expected inability to get acceptance for his plan through Congress, Obama will not shy away from using executive orders for restrictions he deems necessary, according to the Times.

Those actions are expected to include limits on guns imported from overseas, pressure on federal agencies to improve sharing of mental health records, and directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to conduct research on gun violence, according to lawmakers informed of the president’s plans, the Times reports.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/guns-obama-executive-orders/2013/01/14/id/471370

------------------------

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1r3sYKr3wMs/TlEc1KxAuBI/AAAAAAAAAls/SLyt5XYVqlg/s640/Obama+Fuhrer.jpg

So Obamaführer supports assault weapons and high cap mags in the hands of Lybian, Egyptian, and Syrian rebels so they can overthrow a tyrannical regime, but not in the hands of American citizens?

MACH1
01-15-2013, 12:21 PM
After market mags will be available. Besides, if they are cheaper, 7 rd mags will sell everywhere.

The problem with the plug is ease of removal.

Tell ya what if I had the choice in my state which I do I go for the higher mag every time the price (about the same) isn't enough to make a difference.
I'm sure the law abiding citizen wouldn't have a problem leaving them in, it's the criminals that you have to worry about.

Yet another law that only affects people that follow the law. Whats going to stop criminals from buying 15 rd mags from the next state over?

Fire Haley
01-15-2013, 12:24 PM
better turn in all your guns now citizen, to be safe

Fire Haley
01-15-2013, 12:40 PM
'knock knock"

Achtung! - hand over your weapons please, vee zee by your papers you own suspicious weapons on our list, vee need to check it to see if you are complying with zee 7 bullet rule!

and ver iz your yellow star?

Vis
01-15-2013, 12:52 PM
Tell ya what if I had the choice in my state which I do I go for the higher mag every time the price (about the same) isn't enough to make a difference.
I'm sure the law abiding citizen wouldn't have a problem leaving them in, it's the criminals that you have to worry about.

Yet another law that only affects people that follow the law. Whats going to stop criminals from buying 15 rd mags from the next state over?


Murderers don't follow laws on murder. Why have them at all?

MACH1
01-15-2013, 12:53 PM
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/217934_320670578033855_1931262677_n.jpg

Vis
01-15-2013, 12:54 PM
better turn in all your guns now citizen, to be safe


They haven't asked for mine. But I don't own anything based on a fantasy of holding off an army.

Fire Haley
01-15-2013, 12:58 PM
They haven't asked for mine. But I don't own anything based on a fantasy of holding off an army.



do tell - what do you have?

Ammunition magazines would be restricted to seven bullets... and current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state

Fire Haley
01-15-2013, 01:30 PM
here we go..


White House to announce gun plans Wednesday

President Obama will unveil a sweeping set of gun-control proposals at midday Wednesday, including an assault weapons ban, universal background checks and limits on the number of bullets magazines can hold, according to sources familiar with the plans.

The announcement, to be delivered at the White House, is also expected to include a slate of up to 19 executive actions that the Obama administration can take on its own to attempt to limit gun violence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/01/15/white-house-to-announce-gun-plans-wednesday/?wpisrc=al_comboNP_p

MACH1
01-15-2013, 01:35 PM
here we go..


White House to announce gun plans Wednesday

President Obama will unveil a sweeping set of gun-control proposals at midday Wednesday, including an assault weapons ban, universal background checks and limits on the number of bullets magazines can hold, according to sources familiar with the plans.

The announcement, to be delivered at the White House, is also expected to include a slate of up to 19 executive actions that the Obama administration can take on its own to attempt to limit gun violence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/01/15/white-house-to-announce-gun-plans-wednesday/?wpisrc=al_comboNP_p

Good thing their going after the criminals with this horse shit. :rolleyes:

Fire Haley
01-15-2013, 01:44 PM
Obama plans to surround himself with children during gun control announcement

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announced this afternoon that President Obama will unveil a “concrete package” of gun control proposals including assault weapons bans, high capacity ammunition magazine bans, and closing loopholes on background checks.

Carney said that the president will be joined by Vice President Joe Biden as well as children who wrote to the president after the Newtown shootings.

“They will be joined by children around the country expressing their concerns about gun violence and school safety, along with their parents,” Carney confirmed.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2518621

--------------------

Can you get any lower? Using children for human shields while dancing on the graves of the dead?

MACH1
01-15-2013, 01:47 PM
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/580696_243920649075108_1916222115_n.jpg

Fire Haley
01-15-2013, 02:03 PM
First NY, then the rest of the country.


Gun Owners of America

http://gunowners.org/a01142013.htm
________________________________________

Biden Proposals Include Framework for Gun Registry and Confiscation

Up to 50-80% of all guns in circulation could be covered

Press reports now make it clear what Vice President Joe Biden’s gun control package will look like. Biden wants to impose:

* A Feinstein-like semi-auto ban which, according to experts who have done the counting, could ban up to 50% of all long guns currently in circulation and up to 80% of all handguns.

Incidentally, if you wanted to keep the AR-15 you currently have, you would have to have a 6-month FBI background check, be fingerprinted, and get a machine gun-type license.

Vis
01-15-2013, 02:08 PM
do tell - what do you have?

Ammunition magazines would be restricted to seven bullets... and current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state


We've had that discussion. I'll tell you what I want - a gaudy, blue, Mossberg Rhythm 930

Vis
01-15-2013, 02:09 PM
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/580696_243920649075108_1916222115_n.jpg

I'm sure he would allow it after training. Remember, the military can kick the dumb asses out. Wal-Mart can't, it's their whole customer base.

Fire Haley
01-15-2013, 02:14 PM
We've had that discussion. I'll tell you what I want - a gaudy, blue, Mossberg Rhythm 930

I musta forgot - it holds 12+1 - way over the limit there - so you want to be an assault weapon owner too

http://www.precisionpointarms.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/mossberg-930-rhythm.png

Vis
01-15-2013, 02:17 PM
I'm fine renting it. Just learning.

Atlanta Dan
01-15-2013, 04:36 PM
Obama Plans 19 Executive Orders on Gun Control

President Barack Obama plans this week to present 19 separate executive orders on gun control and will press for comprehensive legislation to expand gun-purchase background checks, lawmakers made privy to the president’s agenda said Monday, according to the New York Times.

------------------------

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1r3sYKr3wMs/TlEc1KxAuBI/AAAAAAAAAls/SLyt5XYVqlg/s640/Obama+Fuhrer.jpg

Got one of those Hitler images for George H.W. Bush as well?:coffee:

Issuing an executive order is not a new idea. It has been used many times before.

In 1989, then-President George H.W. Bush halted the importation of some semi-automatic firearms that could be considered “assault weapons” under existing legal authority provided by the 1968 Gun Control Act, under the determination that they were not “particularly suitable for or readily adapting to sporting purposes.”

Bush used his executive powers after a career criminal killed five kids and wounded 29 others with an AK-47 assault rifle on Jan. 27, 1989, in California.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/12/range-executive-actions-possible-on-guns-some-more-controversial-than-others/#ixzz2I0NThhdu

MACH1
01-15-2013, 05:05 PM
:doh: Bu...bu...bu...Bush

Atlanta Dan
01-15-2013, 05:24 PM
:doh: Bu...bu...bu...Bush

Wrong Bush - this was Bush The First - the fact I cited a Fox News story should tell you something about this not being an unprecedented exercise of executive power by the Kenyan Socialist

But no worries - the home office of crazy will make sure nothing happens

Texas Proposal: JAIL Any Federal Officials Trying to Enforce New Gun Restrictions in the State

A Texas lawmaker says he plans to file the Firearms Protection Act, which would make any federal laws that may be passed by Congress or imposed by Presidential order which would ban or restrict ownership of semi-automatic firearms or limit the size of gun magazines illegal in the state, 1200 WOAI news reports.

Republican Rep. Steve Toth says his measure also calls for felony criminal charges to be filed against any federal official who tries to enforce the rule in the state.

"If a federal official comes into the state of Texas to enforce the federal executive order, that person is subject to criminal prosecution," Toth told 1200 WOAI's Joe Pags Tuesday. He says his bill would make attempting to enforce a federal gun ban in Texas punishable by a $50,000 fine and up to five years in prison....

Toth concedes that he would welcome a legal fight over his proposals.

"At some point there needs to be a showdown between the states and the federal government over the Supremacy Clause," he said.

The Supremacy Clause is the portion of the Constitution which declares that federal laws and statutes are 'the supreme law of the land.'

"It is our responsibility to push back when those laws are infringed by King Obama," Toth said

http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=119078&article=10700507

And there's more:thumbsup:

Texas Rep. Stockman threatens to impeach Obama over gun control

In a statement released Monday, Stockman said: "The White House's recent announcement they will use executive orders and executive actions to infringe on our constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms is an unconstitutional and unconscionable attack on the very founding principles of this republic."...

In his statement, Stockman said he "will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57563967-10391739/texas-rep-stockman-threatens-to-impeach-obama-over-gun-control/

Fire Haley
01-15-2013, 10:37 PM
Cuomo Signs Gun Legislation Into Law


Sweeping Limits on Guns Become Law in New York

ALBANY — Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo signed into law on Tuesday a sweeping package of gun control measures, significantly expanding a ban on assault weapons and making New York the first state to change its laws in response to the mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school.

Mr. Cuomo signed the bill less than an hour after the State Assembly approved the legislation on a 104-to-43 vote. The State Senate approved the measure, 43 to 18, on Monday night.

The expanded ban on assault weapons broadens the definition of such weapons, banning semiautomatic pistols and rifles with detachable magazines and one military-style feature, as well as semiautomatic shotguns with one military-style feature.

New Yorkers who already own such guns can keep them but will be required to register them with the state.

The expanded ban on assault weapons takes effect immediately; New Yorkers who already own guns that are banned under the new law can keep them, but will have to register them with the state within a year. Other provisions of the bill take effect at later dates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/nyregion/tougher-gun-law-in-new-york.html?_r=1&

SteelCityMom
01-16-2013, 09:45 AM
To be honest, what Bush Sr. did in this regard is not of much importance to me. I was 9 when he passed the EO you mentioned. So not sure why bringing it up is of importance. He's not the president anymore, and what he did shouldn't matter in what we don't want the current president doing.

One or more former presidents doing unconstitutional things does not mean we have to stand for the current president doing unconstitutional things. I didn't like Bush Jr. either, and looking back on the past, I don't like what Bush Sr. did, or Reagan, or Nixon, or Johnson, etc. etc. That doesn't mean I'm not going to voice my disdain for the current administration and attempt to fight back against unconstitutional laws.

Keep in mind, there are actually people alive who've only seen one or two presidents in their voting age life lol.


My hope is this bill doesn't pass Congress and eventually dies. It'll have a tough time getting through them.

Atlanta Dan
01-16-2013, 12:10 PM
To be honest, what Bush Sr. did in this regard is not of much importance to me. I was 9 when he passed the EO you mentioned. So not sure why bringing it up is of importance. He's not the president anymore, and what he did shouldn't matter in what we don't want the current president doing.

One or more former presidents doing unconstitutional things does not mean we have to stand for the current president doing unconstitutional things. I didn't like Bush Jr. either, and looking back on the past, I don't like what Bush Sr. did, or Reagan, or Nixon, or Johnson, etc. etc. That doesn't mean I'm not going to voice my disdain for the current administration and attempt to fight back against unconstitutional laws.

Keep in mind, there are actually people alive who've only seen one or two presidents in their voting age life lol.


My hope is this bill doesn't pass Congress and eventually dies. It'll have a tough time getting through them.

My point was that in all probability what Bush The Elder was not unconstitutional
(what is your basis for contending it was?) and the constant bleating about Obama engaging in unprecedented exercises of executive authority is unsound

Unless of course the rationale is that everything Obama does with which someone disagrees is not just wrong but unconstitutional and therefore if prior Presidents took similar actions those actions also were unconstitutional even though no one has raised such a contention until now:noidea:

MACH1
01-16-2013, 12:32 PM
In other words two wrongs make a right?

Atlanta Dan
01-16-2013, 12:45 PM
In other words two wrongs make a right?

No - in other words just admit actions with which you disagree are in your opinion wrong rather the start of a descent into the long dark night of dictactorship because you disagree with them

You apparently think a lot of what Obama does is "wrong" - I think a lot of what he does is "right" - we both have our own opinions :drink:

MACH1
01-16-2013, 01:00 PM
What I think is wrong is trying to circumvent congress and/or the constitution, Obama seems to be doing that more than any recent d'bags in office when he can't get his way, or forcing things down our throats. And it doesn't matter who it is.

Atlanta Dan
01-16-2013, 01:14 PM
What I think is wrong is trying to circumvent congress and/or the constitution, Obama seems to be doing that more than any recent d'bags in office when he can't get his way, or forcing things down our throats. And it doesn't matter who it is.

Executive orders are entered all the time (although Obama has not entered as many as his predecessors) without being regarded as "circumventing" Congress" - that is why i cited to a Republican President using an executive order to implement a gun control measure as proof this is nothing new and was not a problem to the GOP then (since Obama was not doing it?)

As far as the "unconstitutional" part of the action, would it be any less unconstitutional if Congress enacted the provisions of the Executive Orders as statutes - if the answer is no, why would the limits upon weapons use be "unconstitutional" (Justice Scalia noted in Heller that the right to bear "arms" does not mean the right to use any and all weapons)

Policy disagreements are why it matters to win elections - better luck next time in winning the one for President

SteelCityMom
01-16-2013, 01:33 PM
My point was that in all probability what Bush The Elder was not unconstitutional
(what is your basis for contending it was?) and the constant bleating about Obama engaging in unprecedented exercises of executive authority is unsound

Unless of course the rationale is that everything Obama does with which someone disagrees is not just wrong but unconstitutional and therefore if prior Presidents took similar actions those actions also were unconstitutional even though no one has raised such a contention until now:noidea:

I didn't specifically say that one was, but we'll go with that one. The "right to bear arms" is an individual right and that this right extends to possessing military style semiautomatics. Current "assault rifle" legislation unduly burdens this right and is, therefore, unconstitutional. A number of courts (and you provided me recently with examples) have agreed with this assessment. Therefore, the limiting of firearms to civilians is unconstitutional. The 2nd amendment wasn't written for "sporting purposes".

I contend that civilians have bent very far in giving up parts of this right. Some may use that bending as a reason to continue further. Citizens may not legally possess the same weapons as that of the military, as was intended by the 2nd amendment, and many citizens are fine with that. Asking them to further give up their rights at this point, by only allowing (mostly) pistols and hunting rifles/shotguns is not going to stand.

I've never said that everything Obama does that I don't agree with is unconstitutional. To be honest, I was never aware of Bush Sr.'s EO that you brought up. Like I said, I was 9, and wasn't reading the politics section of the paper every day. I was doing Book-It challenges and playing with Barbie dolls.

I would also mention, that not everyone who demonized Bush in the past for the wars he went into (with the approval of Congress), is willing to demonize Obama in the same way, even though he entered Libya w/o Congressional approval. It goes both ways. Many who labeled Bush a war criminal are not willing to do the same for Obama.

SteelCityMom
01-16-2013, 01:35 PM
Executive orders are entered all the time (although Obama has not entered as many as his predecessors) without being regarded as "circumventing" Congress" - that is why i cited to a Republican President using an executive order to implement a gun control measure as proof this is nothing new and was not a problem to the GOP then (since Obama was not doing it?)

As far as the "unconstitutional" part of the action, would it be any less unconstitutional if Congress enacted the provisions of the Executive Orders as statutes - if the answer is no, why would the limits upon weapons use be "unconstitutional" (Justice Scalia noted in Heller that the right to bear "arms" does not mean the right to use any and all weapons)

Policy disagreements are why it matters to win elections - better luck next time in winning the one for President

They noted the use of "strange and unusual weapons" (or something along those lines). Semi-auto's do not fall into that category. And they have uses for both hunting and self-defense.

SteelCityMom
01-16-2013, 01:45 PM
The president, if he decides to go through with all this, will face a lengthy court battle...that will probably go on past his term. All at the taxpayers expense. Instead, he could just beef up measures that are already in place, and set stricter regulations and penalties on gun sellers. It would be absolutely silly to do otherwise.

Banning "assault weapons" in the 90's didn't work (ever wonder why crime was at it's highest then?). Gun sales are at an all time high right now, while murder rates are at their lowest. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1

Also according to the UCR, firearm murders have declined every year since 2006 from 10,177 murders to 8,583 in 2011 despite the population increasing in the United States. Nonfatal firearm crimes are dramatically decreasing as well. The Bureau of Justice Statistic shows that the crime rate for nonfatal violent crimes involving firearms dropped from 5.9 per 100,000 in 1993 to 1.4 in 2009 (over a 66% decrease). All of this is occurring despite the fact that there are more guns in America than ever before.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/22102/assault-weapons-ban-is-not-needed-u-s-murder-rate-is-near-an-all-time-low

Vis
01-16-2013, 02:47 PM
I just put 20 rounds in that deer

Fire Haley
01-16-2013, 02:58 PM
The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution has nothing to do with hunting - duh



NY is just the beginning, just like I predicted......the elitist rulers will decide what's best for you




Michigan Mayors Pushing for Changes in Gun Laws

http://www.fox47news.com/news/topstories/186946671.html

---------------

Cities and towns to seek sweeping gun reforms

HARTFORD -- Connecticut will have the toughest gun laws in the country if the Legislature adopts a proposal to be unveiled Wednesday by an organization representing the overwhelming majority of the state's towns and cities

http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Cities-and-towns-to-seek-sweeping-gun-reforms-4197284.php

-------------------------

Santa Cruz County Supervisors Pass 45 Day Moratorium to Freeze Any Gun Shop Plans

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, Calif- The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors, in a unanimous decision, approved a 45 day moratorium which places an immediate hold on any pending gun retailers looking to open up shop in unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County.

http://www.kionrightnow.com/story/20596118/santa-cruz-county-supervisors-pass-moratorium-to-freeze-any-gun-shop-plans

---------------

Largest Pa. gun show says no to assault rifles

Pennsylvania gun owners threatened to boycott the state's largest hunting and fishing expo Tuesday after organizers announced that they would ban the display and sale of assault rifles at this year's show. Reed Exhibitions, a British-based company that runs the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show in Harrisburg each February, notified vendors of the change in policy over the last several days, a company representative confirmed to The Inquirer.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20130115_Largest_Pa__gun_show_says_no_to_assault_w eapons.html

-----------

City of Austin furthers effort to control guns

AUSTIN TX -- The City of Austin's Health and Human Services Committee spent the first hour of its Tuesday meeting discussing ways to expand gun control and safety. "We are taking part in an important discussion that's going on at the national level," said Austin City Council member Mike Martinez.

http://www.kvue.com/home/City-of-Austin-working-to-control-guns--187029851.html

-------

Kiss PA goodbye too


Sen. Bob Casey: Gun control measures would not infringe on certain gun rights

Just hours before President Obama unveils proposals for executive measures that would impose stricter policies on gun control, U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., said proposals to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazine clips would not infringe on gun owners' rights.

He also said that an assault weapons ban would not have an “adverse impact” on important considerations for Pennsylvanians

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/01/gun_control_bob_casey.html

Atlanta Dan
01-16-2013, 03:03 PM
I didn't specifically say that one was, but we'll go with that one. The "right to bear arms" is an individual right and that this right extends to possessing military style semiautomatics. Current "assault rifle" legislation unduly burdens this right and is, therefore, unconstitutional. A number of courts (and you provided me recently with examples) have agreed with this assessment. Therefore, the limiting of firearms to civilians is unconstitutional. The 2nd amendment wasn't written for "sporting purposes".

I contend that civilians have bent very far in giving up parts of this right. Some may use that bending as a reason to continue further. Citizens may not legally possess the same weapons as that of the military, as was intended by the 2nd amendment, and many citizens are fine with that. Asking them to further give up their rights at this point, by only allowing (mostly) pistols and hunting rifles/shotguns is not going to stand. .

You may be reading a lot more into Heller than is there

Heller held that an absolute ban upon handguns by the District of Columbia violated the Second Amendment right to self-defense - if there is anything in there about the right to bear semi-automatic weapons I missed it

What Justice Scalia did say about other weapons was as follows

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely
explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ...

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful against modern day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

Scalia at the very least leaves open the possibility that a M-16 can be banned - if you can ban the M-16 without violating the Second Amendment it certainly is not a stretch to argue the AR-15 and other semi-automatics that would be "most useful" in military service also can be banned without violating the Second Amendment. Just because a weapon might be used for sporting purposes (machine guns would certainly be an effective means of culling the deer population) is not the end of the argument.

In accordance with that line of reasoning, the DC Circuit upheld a ban on assault weapons and certain types of ammunition, after Heller, as not being in violation of the Second Amendment in a challenge to that law by the same plaintiff who previously had challenged the handgun ban successfully in the Supreme Court's Heller decision. The law that was upheld:

defines “assault weapon” to include certain brands and models of semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns, such as the Colt AR-15 series of rifles, as well as semi-automatic firearms with certain features, regardless of make and model, such as a semi-automatic rifle with a “pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon” or a “thumbhole stock.” § 7-2501.01(3A)(A). The District also prohibits possession of “any large capacity ammunition feeding device,” which includes “a magazine ... or similar device that has a capacity of ... more than 10 rounds of ammunition.”

In upholding the DC ban on those weapons, as opposed to handguns, the DC Circuit held

The plaintiffs contend semi-automatic rifles, in particular the AR variants, are commonly possessed for self-protection in the home as well as for sport. They also argue magazines holding more than ten rounds are commonly possessed for self-defense and for other lawful purposes and that the prohibition of such magazines would impose a burden upon them. Specifically, they point out that without a large-capacity magazine it would be necessary, in a stressful situation, to pause in order to reload the firearm....

Although we cannot be confident the prohibitions impinge at all upon the core right protected by the Second Amendment, we are reasonably certain the prohibitions do not impose a substantial burden upon that right. As the District points out, the plaintiffs present hardly any evidence that semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds are well-suited to or preferred for the purpose of self-defense or sport. Cf. Kleck & Gertz, supra, at 177 (finding that of 340,000 to 400,000 instances of defensive gun use in which the defenders believed the use of a gun had saved a life, 240,000 to 300,000 involved handguns)....

Heller suggests “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned because they are “dangerous and unusual,” see 554 U.S. at 627. The Court had previously described the “AR-15” as “the civilian version of the military’s M-16 rifle.” Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 603 (1994). Although semi-automatic firearms, unlike automatic M-16s, fire “only one shot with each pull of the trigger,” id. at 602 n.1, semi-automatics still fire almost as rapidly as automatics....

We conclude the District has carried its burden of showing a substantial relationship between the prohibition of both semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds and the objectives of protecting police officers and controlling crime. Accordingly, the bans do not violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Heller v. District Of Columbia (aka "Heller II")(D.C. Cir. October 4, 2011)

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/DECA496973477C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf

That holding by the DC Circuit has not been reversed by the Supremes

Many who labeled Bush a war criminal are not willing to do the same for Obama.

W was tagged as being a war criminal for overseeing "enhanced interrogation practices" that constituted torture, not for invading Iraq. FWIW I thought the Libya adventure was an improper exercise of executive authority, which is not the same as an international war crime

:drink:

SteelCityMom
01-16-2013, 03:03 PM
I just put 20 rounds in that deer

I'm not a hunter, and have only encountered wild hogs a couple times in my life (thankfully from a distance), but I have seen footage of people trying to take them down (I believe it was Mach who alluded to this before as well, I can't remember)...but I'm pretty sure I never saw anyone take down a wild hog with one shot.

Hunters who want lighter recoil and faster sight-picture acquisition during follow-up shots might lean toward a semi-automatic. Those who want the best in long-range precision, hunt dangerous game or hunt under incredibly harsh environmental conditions, might want to pick a bolt-action rifle.

It's not as simple as "how many rounds can you put in a deer". That's why you should know the differences of guns, and how they can be used, before you debate about them.

SteelCityMom
01-16-2013, 03:24 PM
You may be reading a lot more into Heller than is there

Heller held that an absolute ban upon handguns by the District of Columbia violated the Second Amendment right to self-defense - if there is anything in there about the right to bear semi-automatic weapons I missed it

What Justice Scalia did say about other weapons was as follows

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely
explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ...

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful against modern day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

Scalia at the very least leaves open the possibility that a M-16 can be banned - if you can ban the M-16 without violating the Second Amendment it certainly is not a stretch to argue the AR-15 and other semi-automatics that would be "most useful" in military service also can be banned without violating the Second Amendment. Just because a weapon might be used for sporting purposes (machine guns would certainly be an effective means of culling the deer population) is not the end of the argument.

In accordance with that line of reasoning, the DC Circuit upheld a ban on assault weapons and certain types of ammunition, after Heller, as not being in violation of the Second Amendment in a challenge to that law by the same plaintiff who previously had challenged the handgun ban successfully in the Supreme Court's Heller decision. The law that was upheld:

defines “assault weapon” to include certain brands and models of semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns, such as the Colt AR-15 series of rifles, as well as semi-automatic firearms with certain features, regardless of make and model, such as a semi-automatic rifle with a “pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon” or a “thumbhole stock.” § 7-2501.01(3A)(A). The District also prohibits possession of “any large capacity ammunition feeding device,” which includes “a magazine ... or similar device that has a capacity of ... more than 10 rounds of ammunition.” [/B][/B]..

In upholding the DC ban on those weapons, as opposed to handguns, the DC Circuit held

The plaintiffs contend semi-automatic rifles, in particular the AR variants, are commonly possessed for self-protection in the home as well as for sport. They also argue magazines holding more than ten rounds are commonly possessed for self-defense and for other lawful purposes and that the prohibition of such magazines would impose a burden upon them. Specifically, they point out that without a large-capacity magazine it would be necessary, in a stressful situation, to pause in order to reload the firearm....

Although we cannot be confident the prohibitions impinge at all upon the core right protected by the Second Amendment, we are reasonably certain the prohibitions do not impose a substantial burden upon that right. As the District points out, the plaintiffs present hardly any evidence that semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds are well-suited to or preferred for the purpose of self-defense or sport. Cf. Kleck & Gertz, supra, at 177 (finding that of 340,000 to 400,000 instances of defensive gun use in which the defenders believed the use of a gun had saved a life, 240,000 to 300,000 involved handguns)....

Heller suggests “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned because they are “dangerous and unusual,” see 554 U.S. at 627. The Court had previously described the “AR-15” as “the civilian version of the military’s M-16 rifle.” Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 603 (1994). Although semi-automatic firearms, unlike automatic M-16s, fire “only one shot with each pull of the trigger,” id. at 602 n.1, semi-automatics still fire almost as rapidly as automatics....

We conclude the District has carried its burden of showing a substantial relationship between the prohibition of both semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds and the objectives of protecting police officers and controlling crime. Accordingly, the bans do not violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Heller v. District Of Columbia (aka "Heller II")(D.C. Cir. October 4, 2011)

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/DECA496973477C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf

That holding by the DC Circuit has not been reversed by the Supremes



W was tagged as being a war criminal for overseeing "enhanced interrogation practices" that constituted torture, not for invading Iraq. FWIW I thought the Libya adventure was an improper exercise of executive authority, which is not the same as an international war crime

:drink:


I wasn't talking about just Heller, but I will sit down and read those links at some point...I don't really have time to read 80 pages of analysis at the moment. :chuckle:

These two things jumped out in my initial browsing though...

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Along with the continuation of what you already began quoting...

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons

SteelCityMom
01-16-2013, 03:37 PM
Sen. Bob Casey: Gun control measures would not infringe on certain gun rights

Just hours before President Obama unveils proposals for executive measures that would impose stricter policies on gun control, U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., said proposals to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazine clips would not infringe on gun owners' rights.

He also said that an assault weapons ban would not have an “adverse impact” on important considerations for Pennsylvanians

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/01/gun_control_bob_casey.html


There are a lot of things I don't like Tom Corbett for (PA Gov.), but he's a lifetime NRA member, and has stated he would never sign a ban into law (he is a politician though, so take that for what it's worth I guess lol).

SteelCityMom
01-16-2013, 03:50 PM
In regards to this statement...

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause.

it's worth noting that M-16's aren't banned. You have to jump through a few more hoops, and they are quite expensive (as are the rounds), but they are not banned.

Automatic weapons are "Class III" weapons, and are titled much like cars are. Most firearms dealers do not have a Class III FFL. The title transfer fee is hundreds of dollars, and you need written permission from your local police chief or county sheriff.

1. A registered owner of an NFA firearm may apply to ATF for approval to transfer the firearm to another person residing in the same State or to a Federal firearms licensee in another State;
2. An individual may apply to ATF for approval to make and register an NFA firearm (except for a machine-gun); or
3. An individual may inherit a lawfully registered NFA firearm.

***Sorry for all the separate posts today...I really do know how to multiquote, I swear. :chuckle:

BrandonCarr39
01-16-2013, 06:33 PM
To be honest, what Bush Sr. did in this regard is not of much importance to me. I was 9 when he passed the EO you mentioned. So not sure why bringing it up is of importance. He's not the president anymore, and what he did shouldn't matter in what we don't want the current president doing.

One or more former presidents doing unconstitutional things does not mean we have to stand for the current president doing unconstitutional things. I didn't like Bush Jr. either, and looking back on the past, I don't like what Bush Sr. did, or Reagan, or Nixon, or Johnson, etc. etc. That doesn't mean I'm not going to voice my disdain for the current administration and attempt to fight back against unconstitutional laws.

Keep in mind, there are actually people alive who've only seen one or two presidents in their voting age life lol.


My hope is this bill doesn't pass Congress and eventually dies. It'll have a tough time getting through them.

Pt being that Republicans have been responsible just as much as the Democrats. No different from the abortion issue - Roe V Wade was uphelp b/c ALL 5 of the justices that voted to uphold it in 1992 were appointed by Republican Presidents.

They're just merely opposite sides of the same coin.

torpedoshell31
01-16-2013, 06:50 PM
As has been stated the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting or even self defense, the real purpose is to protect the citizen from its most danger enemy, an out of control federal government. If the Feds come to take my guns they better have a good supply of body bags.

Atlanta Dan
01-16-2013, 09:14 PM
Obama plans to surround himself with children during gun control announcement

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announced this afternoon that President Obama will unveil a “concrete package” of gun control proposals including assault weapons bans, high capacity ammunition magazine bans, and closing loopholes on background checks.

Carney said that the president will be joined by Vice President Joe Biden as well as children who wrote to the president after the Newtown shootings.

“They will be joined by children around the country expressing their concerns about gun violence and school safety, along with their parents,” Carney confirmed.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2518621

Can you get any lower? Using children for human shields while dancing on the graves of the dead?


Other Tyrants Who Have Used Children As Props

http://static.infowars.com/2013/01/i/general/stalinchildren.jpg

http://static.infowars.com/2013/01/i/general/maochildren.jpg

http://static.infowars.com/2013/01/i/general/hitlerchildren.jpg


Dictator Obama Exploiting the Children for Executive Action on Gun Control

http://static.infowars.com/2013/01/i/general/obama_use_children_executive_order_guns.jpg

http://www.infowars.com/other-tyrants-who-have-used-children-as-props/

No question only the most depraved and immoral rulers will exploit children for a photo op

http://johnthewitness.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/polls_bushreading_0057_128876_answer_1_xlarge.jpeg

lloydwoodson
01-16-2013, 11:25 PM
Haha! Dubbya is holding the children's book upside down.

I like to research data when people start talking about issues like this. What I have found from statistics on the FBI website is that handguns account for the overwhelming majority of firearms murders in the USA.

Using Pennsylvania statistics as an example: 379 of the 470 firearms murders committed in 2011 involved handguns- that is a staggering 80.6%. Firearms other than handgun, shotguns and rifles accounted for only 13% of all murders. America will not surrender its handguns- it's just not going to happen- so what is the government really after?

Also, 26% of all murders in Pennsylvania were caused without the use of firearms. More than twice as many people were murdered without the use of firearms as were murdered with the use of assault weapons. Should Obama also be trying to make knives illegal? It will be a lot tougher for Americans to eat dinner.

The bottom line is bad things will always happen and there is no way of preventing them. Citizens giving away all their freedoms to the government and begging the government to take care of them like a parent will not stop tragedies from occuring.

Most European countries as well as my native Canada do not permit assault weapons for private use. There are definite advantages to restricting access to such weapons. The time for the firearms discussion to occur is after the wave of fear caused by 9/11 and the ensuing military engagements has passed. The removal of firearms should not be rammed down America's throat like the Patriot Act or the NDAA.

I personally like living next door to the one country on earth that is armed to the teeth and I hope it stays that way.

SteelCityMom
01-16-2013, 11:43 PM
I'm pretty sure we can all agree Dubya was a tool. Obama is a tool as well.

We should just forget about that though, because other presidents were tools as well.

MACH1
01-17-2013, 12:12 AM
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/73394_462049870510537_958478664_n.jpg



And just for you Dan. :wink02:

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/71825_453429528044551_873972_n.png

Fire Haley
01-17-2013, 01:11 AM
relax, it's for the children

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/QaDzfvKg33NaWK.zBnQ19A--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zMTQ7cT04NTt3PTUxMg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2013-01-16T174655Z_521997241_TB3E91G1DDYFP_RTRMADP_3_USA-GUNS-OBAMA.JPGhttp://www.anunews.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/aa-Adolf-Hitler-surrounded-by-children.jpg

Fire Haley
01-17-2013, 02:45 AM
50,000 people are killed by auto accidents every year - go after them too

cars that go over say, 75mph should be outlawed..

They’re unsafe and Americans have no need for cars which travel 140mph.

So lets get government to legislate new laws which restrict all new cars made from speeds over 75mph. Why does anyone need a 100 mph car?

Think of all the lives that will be saved. Lets do it for the kids!

if it even saves one child life, it's worth it.

Blackout
01-17-2013, 05:18 AM
Yet cars were not designed to kill people.

Fire Haley
01-17-2013, 07:35 AM
Yet cars were not designed to kill people.

doesn't matter - they kill

and it's about time we put a stop to it with more legislation - for the chilldren

Vis
01-17-2013, 07:43 AM
doesn't matter - they kill

and it's about time we put a stop to it with more legislation - for the chilldren


Maybe we could mandate seat belts. Oh, did that. How about speed limits? Done. Airbags? Ok. Crash testing and crumple zones? Got it.

The question is, why didn't you vocally oppose all of those?

Fire Haley
01-17-2013, 07:57 AM
Maybe we could mandate seat belts. Oh, did that. How about speed limits? Done. Airbags? Ok. Crash testing and crumple zones? Got it.

The question is, why didn't you vocally oppose all of those?

schoolbuses have seatbelts?

since when?


retrofit every one with airline passenger seats, shouldn't cost more than a trillion, if you're really interested in safety

Vis
01-17-2013, 08:00 AM
schoolbuses have seatbelts?

since when?


retrofit every one with airline passenger seats, and make them all wear helmets too


Were you talking about school buses when you mentioned cars going 100 mph? Must have missed the weed you found.

Fire Haley
01-17-2013, 08:04 AM
If he really want to save children’s lives, ban bathtubs and swimming pools.

because - it's all about the children

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/QaDzfvKg33NaWK.zBnQ19A--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zMTQ7cT04NTt3PTUxMg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2013-01-16T174655Z_521997241_TB3E91G1DDYFP_RTRMADP_3_USA-GUNS-OBAMA.JPG

Fire Haley
01-17-2013, 08:23 AM
In fact, the most dangerous place in America for a child is in its mother's womb.

3000 children die from abortions every day in America

if it will save one child's life...ban abortions

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/QaDzfvKg33NaWK.zBnQ19A--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zMTQ7cT04NTt3PTUxMg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2013-01-16T174655Z_521997241_TB3E91G1DDYFP_RTRMADP_3_USA-GUNS-OBAMA.JPG

Fire Haley
01-17-2013, 09:21 AM
First they came for your guns, then they came for your video games and movies......



White House calls for research on the effect of media and video games in gun violence

NEW YORK — Hollywood and the video game industry received scant attention Wednesday when President Barack Obama unveiled sweeping proposals for curbing gun violence in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., school shooting.

The White House pressed most forcefully for a reluctant Congress to pass universal background checks and bans on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines like the ones used in the Newtown, Conn., school shooting.

No connection was suggested between bloody entertainment fictions and real-life violence. Instead, the White House is calling on research on the effect of media and video games on gun violence.

The administration is calling on Congress to provide $10 million for the CDC research.

The CDC has been barred by Congress to use funds to “advocate or promote gun control,” but the White House order claims that “research on gun violence is not advocacy” and that providing information to Americans on the issue is “critical public health research.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/white-house-calls-for-research-on-the-effect-of-media-and-video-games-in-gun-violence/2013/01/16/2d92d182-601b-11e2-9dc9-bca76dd777b8_story.html

Atlanta Dan
01-17-2013, 09:54 AM
First they came for your guns, then they came for your video games and movies......

White House calls for research on the effect of media and video games in gun violence

NEW YORK — Hollywood and the video game industry received scant attention Wednesday when President Barack Obama unveiled sweeping proposals for curbing gun violence in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., school shooting.

The White House pressed most forcefully for a reluctant Congress to pass universal background checks and bans on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines like the ones used in the Newtown, Conn., school shooting.

No connection was suggested between bloody entertainment fictions and real-life violence. Instead, the White House is calling on research on the effect of media and video games on gun violence.

The administration is calling on Congress to provide $10 million for the CDC research.

The CDC has been barred by Congress to use funds to “advocate or promote gun control,” but the White House order claims that “research on gun violence is not advocacy” and that providing information to Americans on the issue is “critical public health research.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/white-house-calls-for-research-on-the-effect-of-media-and-video-games-in-gun-violence/2013/01/16/2d92d182-601b-11e2-9dc9-bca76dd777b8_story.html

Since cracking down on video games is a big NRA and GOP talking point to rebut calls for increased firearms control I suppose Obama would have been slammed by the usual suspects if he had not called for a review of video games

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice-president of the NRA, cited violent video games as a contributing factor in tragedies like these.”Guns don’t kill people.” he said. “Video games, the media and Obama’s budget kill people.” He even called out a few by name:

“There exists in this country, sadly, a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells and stows violence against its own people, through vicious, violent video games with names like “Bulletstorm,” “Grand Theft Auto,” “Mortal Kombat,” and “Splatterhouse.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/12/21/nra-press-conference-blame-video-games-and-movies-not-guns/

Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kans, said he doesn’t think gun laws could have stopped the Newtown massacre, but maybe better parenting could have.

“What has bothered me the most as a representative is how this has been politicized so quickly that somehow if we had changed one single law—that as I understand it, the state of Connecticut had laws against these things,” he said with a slight chuckle, “What we can all agree on is we’ve got a cultural problem!”

Huelskamp pointed to violent video games and poor parenting as the cause of the mass-shooting that left 20 first-grade schoolchildren dead.

“The kind of video games you just talked about, we don’t let him play that, let’s have them Moms and Dads of Americans stand up and actually take control of our children,” he said of how he monitors his own son’s video game usage. “We’ve got a mental illness issue here. But Washington has to recognize that there’s no simple solutions, this has been going on a long time.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/50275066/t/tea-partier-video-games-not-guns-caused-newtown-massacre/

Of course the NRA is out with a new shoot 'em up video game so I can see that the anti-Obama position on video games being part of the problem can be confusing to sort out

A month after the deadly school shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, the National Rifle Association is taking heat again -- this time for releasing a mobile video game that lets players learn how to shoot at targets.

The game, "NRA: Practice Range," puts the user in a gun range, where they fire a variety of handguns and rifles at stationary targets and earn points for accuracy. Critics are questioning the timing of the game's release Monday -- a month to the day after the December 14 shootings -- and accusing the NRA of hypocrisy because one of its leaders recently blamed video games for stoking gun violence.

"It's outrageous. The NRA never seems to be able to amaze me," said Joel Faxon, a member of Newtown's Police Commission, who described himself as a longtime gun owner.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/15/tech/gaming-gadgets/nra-shooting-game/index.html

SteelCityMom
01-17-2013, 10:41 AM
I don't know, maybe it's just me...but a target shooting game just doesn't sound like it's a "vicious, violent video game". Kind of sounds more tame than Duck Hunter. :chuckle:

That's not to say I agree with what the NRA said either. Should parents be letting young children play these violent games? Absolutely not. But I don't think video games are any more the reason for actual gun violence than music is responsible for teen suicides or violence. It's quite common for these things to be used as scapegoats instead of analyzing the underlying societal problems surrounding the incidents.

BrandonCarr39
01-17-2013, 10:47 AM
Yes, the NRA is opposition-controlled as well.

http://news.yahoo.com/nra-chief-says-group-accepts-background-checks-122514606--politics.html

1/16/13

NRA chief says group accepts background checks

WASHINGTON (AP) — The head of the National Rifle Association says the organization has no problem with tighter background checks of gun purchasers.

But association president David Keene also says too much emphasis has been placed on banning certain firearms.

In an interview on "CBS This Morning" Thursday, Keene argues, quote, "The real question that needs to be addressed is not what we do about guns, but what we do to make our schools safer."

The NRA has come under close scrutiny in the wake of Newtown, Conn., shootings that killed 20 children and six adults.

Keene said officials should focus more attention on a "devastatingly broken mental health system in this country," if they genuinely want to end gun violence.

He said the NRA has been "generally supportive" of stronger background checks.

BrandonCarr39
01-17-2013, 10:53 AM
I don't know, maybe it's just me...but a target shooting game just doesn't sound like it's a "vicious, violent video game". Kind of sounds more tame than Duck Hunter. :chuckle:

That's not to say I agree with what the NRA said either. Should parents be letting young children play these violent games? Absolutely not. But I don't think video games are any more the reason for actual gun violence than music is responsible for teen suicides or violence. It's quite common for these things to be used as scapegoats instead of analyzing the underlying societal problems surrounding the incidents.

Big Pharmaceutical drugs however have played a large role in these shootings...

Psych meds linked to 90% of school shootings
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/psych-meds-linked-to-90-of-school-shootings/#vgFAhVbrXyVsTcFK.99

BrandonCarr39
01-17-2013, 10:54 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/scott-brown-becomes-first-republican-back-federal-assault-134440437--politics.html

Scott Brown becomes first Republican to back federal assault weapons ban

12/20/12

Scott Brown of Massachusetts on Wednesday became the first sitting Republican senator to voice support for a federal assault weapons ban after the Newtown, Conn., shootings.

Brown failed to win re-election in November, however, and won’t be in Congress to vote on gun legislation.

“As a state legislator in Massachusetts, I supported an assault weapons ban thinking other states would follow suit. But unfortunately they have not and innocent people are being killed,” Brown told Massachusetts paper the Republican on Wednesday. “As a result, I support a federal assault weapons ban, perhaps like the legislation we have in Massachusetts."

Brown is the first sitting Republican senator to offer support for a new federal ban—something Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has pledged to introduce in January and something the White House has indicated will have the president’s support.

Several pro-gun-rights Democratic lawmakers, including West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin—who spoke with President Barack Obama to discuss the issue on Tuesday—Virginia Sen. Mark Warner and Rep. Joe Donnelly of Indiana have either expressed concern over the availability of assault weapons or left the door open to a discussion.

Vis
01-17-2013, 11:05 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/scott-brown-becomes-first-republican-back-federal-assault-134440437--politics.html

Scott Brown becomes first Republican to back federal assault weapons ban

.

It may be what he truly believes but he's also going to run for Gov.

MACH1
01-17-2013, 11:31 AM
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/431320_10151192877631701_1223271287_n.jpg

MACH1
01-17-2013, 12:00 PM
Anti-Gun Liberal News Anchor gets destroyed repeatedly during Interview with Keith Morgan

ECxDvwObwZk&feature

Atlanta Dan
01-17-2013, 03:40 PM
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/431320_10151192877631701_1223271287_n.jpg

"Heroine?" - is that how it is spelled in French?:noidea:

MACH1
01-17-2013, 03:58 PM
I didn't make the pic. :hunch:

hero - heroine. :chuckle:

MACH1
01-17-2013, 04:03 PM
Gee you think? :doh:

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/537192_391620947596353_1921213990_n.jpg

Fire Haley
01-17-2013, 05:26 PM
you knew it was coming...

Democrat introduces bill to restrict access by minors to violent video games

Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT) has introduced legislation that would require all retailers to prevent the sale of violent video games to minors:

Matheson's Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act, H.R. 287, would make it illegal for anyone to ship, distribute, sell or rent a video game that does not bear a label from the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) on the age-appropriateness of the game.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/17/democratic-introduces-bill-to-restrict-access-by-minors-to-violent-video-games/

Atlanta Dan
01-17-2013, 05:52 PM
you knew it was coming...

Democrat introduces bill to restrict access by minors to violent video games

Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT) has introduced legislation that would require all retailers to prevent the sale of violent video games to minors:

Matheson's Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act, H.R. 287, would make it illegal for anyone to ship, distribute, sell or rent a video game that does not bear a label from the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) on the age-appropriateness of the game.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/17/democratic-introduces-bill-to-restrict-access-by-minors-to-violent-video-games/

Maybe Representative Sensenbremnner can be a co-sponsor

A Republican congressman is calling on President Obama to denounce a new "video game" that allows users to shoot what appears to be a likeness of National Rifle Association President David Keene in the head.

The downloadable video game was apparently produced in response to NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre's speech shortly after the Connecticut shooting massacre. In that address, LaPierre suggested violent video games have played a role in America's high murder rates while rejecting calls for more gun control.

The video game -- called "Bullet to the Head of the NRA" -- appears to re-create the speech, while allowing players to target and shoot a figure by the podium who resembles Keene.

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., in a letter to Obama, urged him to condemn the game.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/16/congressman-urges-obama-to-denounce-video-game-where-players-shoot-nra-official/

Or maybe this GOP proposal can be implemented

A Republican lawmaker from rural Missouri bucked her party's anti-tax bent on Tuesday and called for a sales tax on violent video games in response to a deadly Connecticut school shooting.

Rep. Diane Franklin, of Camdenton, said the proposed 1 percent sales tax would help pay for mental health programs and law enforcement measures aimed at preventing mass shootings. The tax would be levied on video games rated "teen," "mature" and "adult-only" by the Entertainment Software Rating Board, the organization in charge of rating video games.

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/ingame/state-lawmaker-wants-tax-violent-video-games-1B7986403#/technology/ingame/

These damn socialsts are always proposing greater regulation of thriving private sector enterprises to solve any problem

Vis
01-17-2013, 06:24 PM
vP1sG2AcksA

Governor Christie On NRA Ad: It's Reprehensible

“I think any of us who are public figures, you see that kind of ad and you cringe,” he said

BrandonCarr39
01-17-2013, 08:08 PM
^^

Wasn't Christie the same guy who took a stand against Planned Parenthood and gay marriage?

Dunno, but his true colors have come out since Hurricane Sandy.

BrandonCarr39
01-17-2013, 08:09 PM
Gun control: Catholic Church firmly, quietly opposes firearms for civilians

http://www.uscatholic.org/news/2011/01/gun-control-church-firmly-quietly-opposes-firearms-civilians

01/2011

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The Catholic Church's position on gun control is not easy to find; there are dozens of speeches and talks and a few documents that call for much tighter regulation of the global arms trade, but what about private gun ownership?

The answer is resoundingly clear: Firearms in the hands of civilians should be strictly limited and eventually completely eliminated.

But you won't find that statement in a headline or a document subheading. It's almost hidden in a footnote in a document on crime by the U.S. bishops' conference and it's mentioned in passing in dozens of official Vatican texts on the global arms trade.

The most direct statement comes in the bishops' "Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice" from November 2000.

"As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer -- especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children or anyone other than the owner -- and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns."

That's followed by a footnote that states: "However, we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions -- i.e. police officers, military use -- handguns should be eliminated from our society."

That in turn reiterates a line in the bishops' 1990 pastoral statement on substance abuse, which called "for effective and courageous action to control handguns, leading to their eventual elimination from our society."

On the world stage, the Vatican has been pushing for decades for limitations not just on conventional weapons of warfare, such as tanks and missiles, but also for stricter limitations on the illegal and legal sale, trade and use of small firearms and weapons, said Tommaso Di Ruzza, the expert on disarmament and arms control at the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

Di Ruzza told Catholic News Service that the Vatican is one of just a handful of states that would like to see small arms and weapons included in the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, which would better regulate the flow of conventional arms.

He said while many countries are open to limits on larger weapons systems, most nations aren't interested in regulating small arms even though they "cause more deaths than all other arms (conventional and non-conventional) together."

The Vatican's justice and peace council is working to update its 1994 document, "The International Arms Trade," to further emphasize the importance of enacting concrete controls on handguns and light weapons, he said.

The current document calls on every nation and state "to impose a strict control on the sale of handguns and small arms. Limiting the purchase of such arms would certainly not infringe on the rights of anyone."

The more weapons there are in circulation, the more likely terrorists and criminals will get their hands on them, the document said.

The Catholic Church recognizes that "states will need to be armed for reason of legitimate defense," as Pope Benedict XVI said in a message to a Vatican-sponsored disarmament conference in April 2008.

However, armed defense is something appropriate for nations, not for all individual citizens in a state where rule of law is effective, said Di Ruzza.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, individuals have a right and a duty to protect their own lives when in danger, and someone who "defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow."

How that "lethal blow" could be licitly wielded is unclear, but the catechism clarifies that repelling the aggressor must be done "with moderation" in order to be "lawful" in the eyes of the church; using "more than necessary violence" would be unlawful, it says.

According to the catechism, the right to use firearms to "repel aggressors" or render them harmless is specifically sanctioned for "those who legitimately hold authority" and have been given the duty of protecting the community.

Di Ruzza said that in "a democracy, where there is respect for institutions (of law), the citizen relinquishes his right to revenge onto the state," which, through its law enforcement and courts system, aims to mete out a fair and just punishment.

"There is a sort of natural right to defend the common interest and the common good, and in 1791 (when the United States passed the Second Amendment), my right to have a weapon served the common good because there wasn't an army; the democratic institutions were young and a little fragile, and I could have been useful in a time of war as a soldier," said Di Ruzza.

But once a nation has a functioning army, police force and court system, "do I still serve the common good with my gun or do I put it at even greater danger?" and promote a lawless kind of "street justice where if you steal my car, I shoot you," he asked.

The Vatican's justice and peace council's 1994 document said, "In a world marked by evil and sin, the right of legitimate defense by armed means exists," but, Di Ruzza said, it wasn't lauding the potential of weaponry as much as it was lamenting the existence of arms in an imperfect world.

Nations have a duty, the document said, to reduce if not eliminate the causes of violence.

And as Pope Benedict wrote in his message to the disarmament conference, no reduction or elimination of arms can happen without eliminating violence at its root.

Every person "is called to disarm his own heart and be a peacemaker everywhere," the pope said.

BrandonCarr39
01-17-2013, 08:13 PM
http://www.noiseofthunder.com

Thursday, January 3, 2013 at 8:33PM
Today's Show: THE JESUITS, GUN CONTROL, & THE WAR ON THE CONSTIUTION

Chris discusses a story posted in the New York Times featuring an op-ed piece by a Jesuit law professor from Georgetown University who is calling for an end to the U.S. Constitution. Could there be a new American Revolution on the horizon? If the old Constitution is done away with, what will replace it? And who will be the new authors of such a document?
http://www.noiseofthunder.com/storage/NOTR_JESUITS.GUN.CONTROL.CONSTITUTION_01.04.13.mp3

Monday, January 7, 2013 at 10:31AM
Today's Show: PHARMAKIEA - THE MISSING LINK IN THE GUN CONTORL DEBATE?

Chris discusses the disturbing pattern found in nearly all of the the various school-type massacres that have happened for the past 20 years. Emerging evidence proves that all of the killers were on some kind of psychiatric, mind-altering drug. In the Bible, the word "pharmakeia" (from which we get the modern word "pharmacy") is usually translated "witchcraft" and signifies the practice of sorcerers in the ancient world who used drugs to make contact with the spirit realm. While politicians and the media are calling for more gun control, are they overlooking the most significant detail? Is it possible that these murderers were driven by evil spirits to commit their awful crimes?
http://www.noiseofthunder.com/storage/NOTR_PHARMACIA.MISSING.LINK_01.07.13.mp3

43Hitman
01-17-2013, 08:14 PM
Nah we should just have another game that shoots the likeness of our congress and pres. All of this shit is just turning into a mud slinging contest as usual and nothing will be done, as usual. Its all about scoring political points for these assholes. What a fucking joke. I can't wait until our economy finally blows up in our face. Instead of worrying about our debt and spending, we are worrying about stupid video games. 4.5 billion dollars is what Obama is going to spend on his executive orders over this gun issue. What a fucking waste of time and money. Cause we all know if a criminal wants to go massacre 20 people it doesn't matter if he has a gun or a knife, its going to happen.

43Hitman
01-17-2013, 08:16 PM
And if we really want to save children, how about starting with abortion. How many little caskets does Planned Parenthood have a part in?

torpedoshell31
01-17-2013, 09:18 PM
At the heart of the gun contol grab is private property. Marxists from Lenin to Obama hate the idea of private property, as they see all land, all property should belong to the state. The trouble in confiscating all private property is the 2nd amendment. The federal government would run out of US Marshalls and BTF agents if they tried to confiscate your property. So they have to first take away your guns before they can take away your property.

ricardisimo
01-18-2013, 01:43 AM
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/217934_320670578033855_1931262677_n.jpg
Better yet, let's make it legal to murder, then you won't be at any tactical disadvantage.

ricardisimo
01-18-2013, 01:43 AM
And if we really want to save children, how about starting with abortion. How many little caskets does Planned Parenthood have a part in?
Or god himself, the greatest abortionist of all time.

ricardisimo
01-18-2013, 01:48 AM
If he really want to save children’s lives, ban bathtubs and swimming pools.

because - it's all about the children

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/QaDzfvKg33NaWK.zBnQ19A--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zMTQ7cT04NTt3PTUxMg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2013-01-16T174655Z_521997241_TB3E91G1DDYFP_RTRMADP_3_USA-GUNS-OBAMA.JPG
I agree. I'm tired of all of the deranged psychos mowing people down with swimming pools. Let's get rid of them all. And bathtubs serve no other purpose but mass murder, so far as I can tell.

Your examples are lacking a certain je ne se quoi... like maybe a connection to reality.

Fire Haley
01-18-2013, 10:36 AM
The Hussein boys - Remarkable similarity

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/QaDzfvKg33NaWK.zBnQ19A--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zMTQ7cT04NTt3PTUxMg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2013-01-16T174655Z_521997241_TB3E91G1DDYFP_RTRMADP_3_USA-GUNS-OBAMA.JPGhttp://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/saddam-hussein-hostage-boy-fear.jpg

Vis
01-18-2013, 01:34 PM
http://media.yourdailymedia.com/4/thumbs/picture/1/6066.jpghttp://

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR5i1iMD1vSKu-U9stadCXQ2xH-lkPdzZoIvhpBDNNYGAm4uRRhGw

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQf1aslSFkcrV0QW_XolW1pqOkENKl4S Rm3ftBM6XBwIqKZzsdt

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSA7wWLOZtKgEBJb-Fob47txCaqb9UeREXDiE1xFVbToreejD3RDQ

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT_Kt6s4fYReSBVeO28q2rAylEYflCcY r3zaJ1k02YTeHawGPK2

Fire Haley
01-18-2013, 01:51 PM
BWAhahahaha...


that's all you got? everytime it's more .....but, but, but.... B - B - B - UUUUUUUSH!!!!!


face it - Hussein owns it all now - his agenda is clear - destroy America, and if he has to dance on the graves of kids to do it, he will

Fire Haley
01-18-2013, 02:44 PM
I didn't make the pic. :hunch:

hero - heroine

I'm sorry - I have to make a ruling here - it's an even WORSE offense when you copy the pic like that....of course not everyone can read English, not that there's anything wrong with that

http://www.businessblunder.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/twelve_shirt.jpg

Fire Haley
01-18-2013, 03:16 PM
I agree. I'm tired of all of the deranged psychos mowing people down with swimming pools. Let's get rid of them all. And bathtubs serve no other purpose but mass murder, so far as I can tell.

Your examples are lacking a certain je ne se quoi... like maybe a connection to reality.

you are lacking any vision to see the truth

What he's doing is bringing his radical left nightmare to middle America. what he promised a long time ago.

He'll crush every bitter cracker who stands in his way - the subject doesn't really matter to him, whatever he can use

Kids, guns, heathcare, trillion dollar coins.... he says it's all his now - and he'll tell you what's good for you....just like I perdicted.


you voted for him for Emperor, right?

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/4654423552/h7B5D8CA3/

Vis
01-18-2013, 03:27 PM
Let's look at this power play of the new King:

Presidential Memorandum -- Engaging in Public Health Research on the Causes and Prevention of Gun Violence
January 16, 2013


MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

SUBJECT: Engaging in Public Health Research on the Causes and Prevention of Gun Violence

In addition to being a law enforcement challenge, gun violence is also a serious public health issue that affects thousands of individuals, families, and communities across the Nation. Each year in the United States there are approximately 30,000 firearm-related deaths, and approximately 11,000 of those deaths result from homicides. Addressing this critical issue requires a comprehensive, multifaceted approach.

Recent research suggests that, in developing such an approach, a broader public health perspective is imperative. Significant strides can be made by assessing the causes of gun violence and the successful efforts in place for preventing the misuse of firearms. Taking these steps will improve our understanding of the gun violence epidemic and will aid in the continued development of gun violence prevention strategies.

Therefore, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby direct the following:

Section 1. Research. The Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary), through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other scientific agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services, shall conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it. The Secretary shall begin by identifying the most pressing research questions with the greatest potential public health impact, and by assessing existing public health interventions being implemented across the Nation to prevent gun violence.

Sec. 2. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Sec. 3. Publication. You are hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

Vis
01-18-2013, 03:29 PM
Therefore, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby direct the following:

Section 1. Firearms Tracing. (a) Federal law enforcement agencies shall ensure that all firearms recovered after the date of this memorandum in the course of criminal investigations and taken into Federal custody are traced through ATF at the earliest time practicable. Federal law enforcement agencies, as well as other executive departments and agencies, are encouraged, to the extent practicable, to take steps to ensure that firearms recovered prior to the date of this memorandum in the course of criminal investigations and taken into Federal custody are traced through ATF.

(b) Within 30 days of the date of this memorandum, ATF will issue guidance to Federal law enforcement agencies on submitting firearms trace requests.

(c) Within 60 days of the date of this memorandum, Federal law enforcement agencies shall ensure that their operational protocols reflect the requirement to trace recovered firearms through ATF.

(d) Within 90 days of the date of this memorandum, each Federal law enforcement agency shall submit a report to the Attorney General affirming that its operational protocols reflect the requirements set forth in this memorandum.

(e) For purposes of this memorandum, "Federal law enforcement agencies" means the Departments of State, the Treasury, Defense, Justice, the Interior, Agriculture, Energy, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security, and such other agencies and offices that regularly recover firearms in the course of their criminal investigations as the President may designate.

Sec. 2. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect the authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof.

(b) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Sec. 3. Publication. The Attorney General is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

..............................

Vis
01-18-2013, 03:31 PM
Therefore, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby direct the following:

Section 1. Improving the Availability of Records to the NICS. (a) Within 45 days of the date of this memorandum, and consistent with the process described in section 3 of this memorandum, the Department of Justice (DOJ) shall issue guidance to agencies regarding the identification and sharing of relevant Federal records and their submission to the NICS.

(b) Within 60 days of issuance of guidance pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, agencies shall submit a report to DOJ advising whether they possess relevant records, as set forth in the guidance, and setting forth an implementation plan for making information in those records available to the NICS, consistent with applicable law.

(c) In accordance with the authority and responsibility provided to the Attorney General by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Public Law 103-159), as amended, the Attorney General, consistent with the process described in section 3 of this memorandum, shall resolve any disputes concerning whether agency records are relevant and should be made available to the NICS.

(d) To the extent they possess relevant records, as set forth in the guidance issued pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, agencies shall prioritize making those records available to the NICS on a regular and ongoing basis.

Sec. 2. Measuring Progress. (a) By October 1, 2013, and annually thereafter, agencies that possess relevant records shall submit a report to the President through the Attorney General describing:

(i) the relevant records possessed by the agency that can be shared with the NICS consistent with applicable law;

(ii) the number of those records submitted to databases accessible by the NICS during each reporting period;

(iii) the efforts made to increase the percentage of relevant records possessed by the agency that are submitted to databases accessible by the NICS;

(iv) any obstacles to increasing the percentage of records that are submitted to databases accessible by the NICS;

(v) for agencies that make qualifying adjudications related to the mental health of a person, the measures put in place to provide notice and programs for relief from disabilities as required under the NIAA;

(vi) the measures put in place to correct, modify, or remove records accessible by the NICS when the basis under which the record was made available no longer applies; and

(vii) additional steps that will be taken within 1 year of the report to improve the processes by which records are identified, made accessible, and corrected, modified, or removed.

(b) If an agency certifies in its annual report that it has made available to the NICS its relevant records that can be shared consistent with applicable law, and describes its plan to make new records available to the NICS and to update, modify, or remove existing records electronically no less often than quarterly as required by the NIAA, such agency will not be required to submit further annual reports. Instead, the agency will be required to submit an annual certification to DOJ, attesting that the agency continues to submit relevant records and has corrected, modified, or removed appropriate records.

Sec. 3. NICS Consultation and Coordination Working Group. To ensure adequate agency input in the guidance required by section 1(a) of this memorandum, subsequent decisions about whether an agency possesses relevant records, and determinations concerning whether relevant records should be provided to the NICS, there is established a NICS Consultation and Coordination Working Group (Working Group), to be chaired by the Attorney General or his designee.

(a) Membership. In addition to the Chair, the Working Group shall consist of representatives of the following agencies:

(i) the Department of Defense;

(ii) the Department of Health and Human Services;

(iii) the Department of Transportation;

(iv) the Department of Veterans Affairs;

(v) the Department of Homeland Security;

(vi) the Social Security Administration;

(vii) the Office of Personnel Management;

(viii) the Office of Management and Budget; and

(ix) such other agencies or offices as the Chair may designate.

(b) Functions. The Working Group shall convene regularly and as needed to allow for consultation and coordination between DOJ and agencies affected by the Attorney General's implementation of the NIAA, including with respect to the guidance required by section 1(a) of this memorandum, subsequent decisions about whether an agency possesses relevant records, and determinations concerning whether relevant records should be provided to the NICS. The Working Group may also consider, as appropriate:

(i) developing means and methods for identifying agency records deemed relevant by DOJ's guidance;

(ii) addressing obstacles faced by agencies in making their relevant records available to the NICS;

(iii) implementing notice and relief from disabilities programs; and

(iv) ensuring means to correct, modify, or remove records when the basis under which the record was made available no longer applies.

(c) Reporting. The Working Group will review the annual reports required by section 2(a) of this memorandum, and member agencies may append to the reports any material they deem appropriate, including an identification of any agency best practices that may be of assistance to States in supplying records to the NICS.

Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(d) Independent agencies are strongly encouraged to comply with the requirements of this memorandum.

Sec. 5. Publication. The Attorney General is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.
.......................

Vis
01-18-2013, 03:34 PM
Here's a summary listing of the 23 (which really weren't 23)


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 itwidely 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 effectiveuse of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to developinnovative 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.



Now, seriously, which ones are objectionable to the wingnuts?

MACH1
01-18-2013, 03:37 PM
The ones that's costing 4.5 billion in tax payer money that we don't have.

Vis
01-18-2013, 03:40 PM
The ones that's costing 4.5 billion in tax payer money that we don't have.


Identify those.

MACH1
01-18-2013, 04:19 PM
At Least $4.5 Billion in New Spending for Gun Control



President Obama and Vice President Biden revealed their proposed reforms intended to reduce firearms related violence.

The proposal contains a mix of executive actions, regulations, and calls for Congress to act legislatively. The total package will cost at least $4.5 billion in new spending.

Among the new spending the president proposed:

• $4 billion for the president’s proposal “to help keep 15,000 cops on the streets in cities and towns across the country.” (That is roughly $266,000 per police officer.)

• $20 million to “give states stronger incentives to make [relevant] data available [for background checks] … “$50 million for this purpose in FY2014”

• “$14 million to help train 14,000 more police officers and other public and private personnel to respond to active shooter situations.”

• “$10 million for the Centers for Disease Control to conduct further research, including investigating the relationship between video games, media images, and violence.”

• $20 million to expand the National Violent Death Reporting System.

• $150 million to “put up to 1,000 new school resource officers and school counselors on the job.”

• “$30 million of one-time grants to states to help their school districts develop and implement emergency management plans.”

• $50 million to help 8,000 schools “create safer and more nurturing school climates.”

• $15 million to “provide “Mental Health First Aid” training for teachers.”

• $40 million for school districts to “work with law enforcement, mental health agencies, and other local organizations to assure students with mental health issues or other behavioral issues are referred to the services they need.”

• $25 million for state-based strategies that support “young people ages 16 to 25 with mental health or substance abuse issues.”

• $25 million to “offer students mental health services for trauma or anxiety, conflict resolution programs, and other school-based violence prevention strategies.”

• $50 million to “train social workers, counselors, psychologists, and other mental health professionals.”

The president’s proposals to ban high capacity magazines and “military-style assault weapons” will be costly to implement, if they are passed. Those costs are either unknown or haven’t been released.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/least-45-billion-new-spending-gun-control_696120.html

MasterOfPuppets
01-18-2013, 04:24 PM
:applaudit:
Armed men are citizens; unarmed men are subjects (http://times-news.com/letters2/x1633454958/Armed-men-are-citizens-unarmed-men-are-subjects)

To the Editor: Cumberland Times-News (http://times-news.com)
I am writing this letter to encourage anyone who still cares about our Second Amendment rights to participate in National Gun Day on Saturday, Jan. 19. If we let them outlaw one type of firearm, it’s a slippery slope.

Every day our rights are being trampled on making our government more and more dictatorial. We must go out and support our rights.

On Jan. 19, we must go out and exercise our rights; hold some signs, hand out copies of the Constitution and patronize gun shops. We need to let them know we will not accept the taking of our guns.

A screwdriver can be an assault weapon if it is used to attack a person.

I know there have been several tragedies involving guns recently, however, according to the FBI’s crime statistics, more murders are committed annually with hammers than with guns.

Should we also register or outlaw our hammers? We cannot give up any more rights and continue to be a free nation! Our Founding Fathers had it right when they wrote the following:

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” — George Mason 1788

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American People’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence.” — George Washington

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike how to use them, especially when young.” — Richard Henry Lee 1788

“Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.” — Thomas Jefferson

“Those who trade liberty for security have neither. An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject.” — John Adams

Gun control is not about controlling guns, it’s about controlling those who use the guns! Assault is a behavior, not a device .

Notice every communist country in the world has disarmed their people. The Soviet Union established gun control, and 1.5 million people unable to defend themselves were exterminated.

Germany established gun control and 13 million people unable to defend themselves were exterminated.

China established gun control and 20 million people unable to defend themselves were exterminated.

Need I go on? At least 56 million people have been rounded up and exterminated in the 20th century because of gun control.

Everybody who cares needs to speak up now!

Joel Jackson

Cumberland

SteelCityMom
01-18-2013, 05:37 PM
Identify those.

You can't be serious? You think those EO's come for free???? They don't.

See, here's where, at the heart of it all, people disagree. Some people think that it's the federal governments job to protect them and take care of them in everyday matters. This was never the purpose of our federal government. Those issues are supposed to lie within our local and state governments.

The Constitution authorizes the feds to regulate in areas of national defense, foreign affairs, keeping interstate commerce regular, establishing a post office, protecting patents and artistic creations, and keeping the nation free. The areas of health, safety, welfare and morality were not delegated to the feds and were retained by the States.
..............

The Supreme Court has ruled consistently and countless times that the “police power,” that is, the power to regulate for health, safety, welfare and morality, continues to be reposed in the states, and that there is no federal police power. All of this is consistent with the philosophical principle of “subsidiarity,” famously articulated by St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas argued that the problems that are closest to the people needing government intervention should be addressed by the government closest to those people. Its corollary is that all governmental intervention should be the minimum needed.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/17/guns-and-government/?fb_action_ids=10151239227816034&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210151239227816034%22%3A149 184151902259%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210151239227816034%22%3A%22og .likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D#ixzz2IMxiHU00


Seriously, suck on it statists. I'm so tired of this argument. If you demand a central government to make moral laws for you, go move to Britain. I hear they love that crap there.


I don't hate those that want "gun control" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean), I get that you're afraid of your fellow man. You shouldn't be, but I get it. You are targeting the wrong people with these actions though. Do any one of you who want Obama to pass gun bans want to question him about Fast and Furious? Anyone? You think he cares about your safety? Or your child's safety? He doesn't. But I guaran-damn-tee you that your neighbor with firearms would protect you and your children quicker than the federal government would if someone came breaking down your door. I'd take any one of you in to my home for protection if it ever came to that. I wouldn't even have to know you. I'm dead serious when I say that gun owners in America value your life more than the federal government does. Think about that.

Fire Haley
01-18-2013, 05:39 PM
At Least $4.5 Billion in New Spending for Gun Control

Hush now - don't scare the herd

Vis is a good German - Obama is their savior, and that's all that matters

Fire Haley
01-18-2013, 07:32 PM
This is what happens when you let the frothing-at-the-mouth gun grabbers get their foot in the door...it opens the nanny state floodgates


Massachusetts bill would require gun liability insurance

Massachusetts gun owners would be required to purchase liability insurance in case their firearm was ever used to injure someone under a bill being filed at the Statehouse.

The initiative is included in a gun control measure which would also change standards for gun licenses and outlaw large capacity magazines.

Under the bill being filed Friday, individuals applying for gun permits in Massachusetts would have to show proof of firearms insurance.

The bill's sponsor, Rep. David Linksy, compared the change to the requirement that car owners have auto insurance before registering their vehicles.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014373320

MACH1
01-18-2013, 07:44 PM
This is what happens when you let the frothing-at-the-mouth gun grabbers get their foot in the door...it opens the nanny state floodgates


Massachusetts bill would require gun liability insurance

Massachusetts gun owners would be required to purchase liability insurance in case their firearm was ever used to injure someone under a bill being filed at the Statehouse.

The initiative is included in a gun control measure which would also change standards for gun licenses and outlaw large capacity magazines.

Under the bill being filed Friday, individuals applying for gun permits in Massachusetts would have to show proof of firearms insurance.

The bill's sponsor, Rep. David Linksy, compared the change to the requirement that car owners have auto insurance before registering their vehicles.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014373320

Wheres all the outrage over car deaths. Better ban them even if it only saves one life.

Fire Haley
01-19-2013, 09:56 AM
I want one of these assault pistols


http://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Uberti-1873-Cattleman-12-Shot-.22-LR-Caliber-Revolver.jpg

Uberti 1873 Cattleman 12-Shot .22 LR

Fire Haley
01-19-2013, 10:10 AM
thought control run amok from the nanny state


Kindergartner suspended for comment on toy bubble gun

An attorney for a 5-year-old girl in Mount Carmel, Pa., said school officials labeled her a "terrorist threat" after she told another girl she was going to shoot her with a toy gun that expels soap bubbles.

MOUNT CARMEL, Pa. — A 5-year-old Pennsylvania girl who told another girl she was going to shoot her with a pink toy gun that blows soapy bubbles has been suspended from kindergarten.

Her family has hired an attorney to fight the punishment, which initially was 10 days but was reduced to two.

http://news.msn.com/us/kindergartner-suspended-for-comment-on-toy-bubble-gun

MACH1
01-19-2013, 12:16 PM
I want one of these assault pistols


http://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Uberti-1873-Cattleman-12-Shot-.22-LR-Caliber-Revolver.jpg

Uberti 1873 Cattleman 12-Shot .22 LR

I see your .22 and raise you to a triple.

http://www.hightech-edge.com/wp-content/uploads/triple-barreled-revolver-3.jpg

43Hitman
01-19-2013, 12:29 PM
Or god himself, the greatest abortionist of all time.

You can't be serious. This is all you have, really? :blah::blah::blah: