StarGateWars Forums

as a whole, I like the way this all leans. more towards the perpetrator and less towards the scary looking guns. though I do think that this whole thing could have been done with 10 or so longer executive orders instead of repetitiveness though, but such is our government it seems LOL. I dissected most of what my take on each order is.
****************************************

1. improved background checks by increased federal cooperation.


2. had to look up that particular legislation, not sure of the exact effect but im assuming it will change something about reporting mental health problems.


3. increased state cooperation on background checks.


4. not sure what to make of that. I think it would have been better had a board of certified and trained psychologists were put on some type of committee to decide this instead of leaving the decision to a group of pencil pushers with vague training.


5. not sure what this will do, i dont think there are all that many guns that are seized that arent used in crime. and as far as I've seen and heard law enforcement has to keep all weapons used in crimes and destroy them once the case has been finished. dont quote me on this though.


6. make the background check more effective once again.


7. Gun orginizations like the NRA have been teaching responsibility for a long time. it's about time gov't got on board, hopefully this isnt just an increase of the rhetoric taught in most schools today though.


8. I doubt this would help much of anything, as the only places that are required to follow such laws are stores, once they get into private hands anything can happen, but we will see.


9. trace them back to the legal owners? i dunno, maybe if someone who can pass a background check supplies criminals there may be an increase in tracking and punishment?


10. increase reporting of stolen guns to help them get found. not a bad idea.


11. Fills a vacant positon with a permanent director instead of an acting one. not sure why this was anything that couldnt have been adressed outside of the gun control issue?


12. this I actually really like. law enforcement already gets this training, why not increase the number of people trained to respond to such situations?


13. Maximize enforcement. concentrate on laws already in place.


14. a lot of private orginizations have done such research, but with the CDC doing it it will have less political twisting, and probably be a lot more comprehensive.


15. this seems to tie into #8 a little bit. just with what is built into guns.


16. i suppose this is the same strategy as taking on child abuse.


17. help detect mentally ill people. probably ties #2 and #16


18. extra funding for schools who have 'resource officers'? that would be my guess as far as an incentive. It'll help schools with their budgets a little more.


19. Some of the current procedures definitely need rethinking. I know how well the lockdown situation would have gone down during my time in high school and JR high had there actually been an active shooter.


20. more coverage for mental health, maybe more mentally ill people will go in for help instead of just keeping to themselves, which would definitely reduce the risks.


21. same thing as 20?


22. same thing as 20 and 21?


23. expansion on a national campaign?

Kjarkur wrote:

man after all this debate I really expected more outta you. Chicago has had it's gun laws in place since the 1980's, and in the past 15 days there have been over 59 separate shootings, where as Dallas has had 10. now considering Dallas has half the population, it is still 3 times the shootings as a percentage of the population.

No you see I had to post this when I saw it. In the beginning of this thread they posted a lot of these aimed at me and I never got around to finding one. I just did it because nobody was posting much anymore.

I haven't been posting because all I have is my phone, and it's a real pita to use.

curtthehurt1 wrote:man after all this debate I really expected more outta you. Chicago has had it's gun laws in place since the 1980's, and in the past 15 days there have been over 59 separate shootings, where as Dallas has had 10. now considering Dallas has half the population, it is still 3 times the shootings as a percentage of the population.

Dallas is quite famous for people being shot there.

Dovahkiin wrote:I haven't been posting because all I have is my phone, and it's a real pita to use.

Yeah takes forever to type a post lol. My posts from my iPhone only consist of LOL's and the occasional LMAO when I'm in the mood for spicing it up a little.

-KJ

Juliette wrote:

curtthehurt1 wrote:man after all this debate I really expected more outta you. Chicago has had it's gun laws in place since the 1980's, and in the past 15 days there have been over 59 separate shootings, where as Dallas has had 10. now considering Dallas has half the population, it is still 3 times the shootings as a percentage of the population.

Dallas is quite famous for people being shot there.

You are bad Jules!!

@ Curt - Agree with ya 100%
@ KJ - Funny comic strip. Fits our Democratic Republic to a tee.

Dovahkiin wrote:What's the point of registration if anyone can buy guns?

Felons are NOT allowed firearms even in the same house they reside in. NOW.

@ KJ - Guns made illegal, hmmm. So are mexicans and cocaine but we sure got a ton of it!! Nuff' said.

This executive order is garbage mostly. That monster that shot all those kids killed himself to avoid capture. Had he not done so we could have demanded that Obama issue a different kind of executive order. That whole cruel and unusual punishment thing? Wouldn't protect that shooter with this executive order.

Madness you say? Obama has already used executive orders last year to kill American citizens and their deaths were exceptionally cruel and unusual. Some were American children ironically! This is a fact and you can stop being lazy and go look it up with ease. This punishment would be at least 10x more deserved yet equally unconstitutional. Yet you left wing fanatics pushing for gun control would not allow this in a million years.

You would want to provide the gunmen some really expensive mental healthcare rehabilitation and coddle him with hugs at the expense of taxpayers. The guy kills scores of children and you want to nurture him back to health and blame the scary assault object thingie. Maybe build him his own prison like they did in Norway! That guy only got what 26 years max sentence for his massacre?

This is who you are at your core and this is one of the fundamental principals of your political philosophy. This is also why you are hopelessly irrelevant and not worth worrying about long term. A thousand years from now history students will still be trying to figure out your strange desire to surrender your freedoms to fear and paranoia so easily.

You call them military style weapons yet you cannot name a single sovereign nation on Earth that uses these "really scary" weapons. Even Canada, crappy little estranged nations, omg even the freaking Vatican (which is still a nation, yes?) have some freaking powerful and destructive military weapons. What military on Earth is using semi-autos with ultra low capacity magazines (comparatively speaking of course)? Which one liberals? Name it. You cannot because you know there simply isn't one.

Liberals have slightly higher IQs than conservatives therefore it is safe to say they are astonishingly dishonest people. Under no circumstances are they to be trusted with gun control issues.

I hear ya sniperwax.

It is why I tell everyone I am a social Liberal who is an independant.
I want freedom, and protection to keep it. Sadly, those two DO NOT go hand in hand. So, I am left with one of the best countries in the world as far as personal freedoms go. Also, our senate and house is full of the other party last 4-6 years, so it's kinda tough to get ANYTHING passed.

As far as what kind of weapon, it DOES NOT MATTER.
2nd ammendment states, as a citizen it is MY RIGHT to BEAR ARMS, i.e. a musket, or an M60.

Unfortunately, we give and give and they will continue to take more and more until not even hunting rifles will be legal because there are hunting accidents!! Oh no! FEAR FEAR FEAR is what the right wing has been playing all of the religious and southern suckers for years, so it is NOT a liberal tactic by ANY means.

GUNS: YES - Protected in Constitution (this is good)
Raises and salaries for life for senators: YES - BS pro-whateverwillgetmeelected bills now it doesn't matter because I make 200K a year for life for 2 years of BS dinners with corporate medication distributors and gun-safety lobbyists.

Let's change the topic for a moment. Let's forget about the guns for a minute.

If one of your ammendments were proven to be killing you off one by one, would you still not change it for the better?

So simply by saying, that because it says so in the consitution, written by people long ago, I have to have it and keep it that way and it can NEVER change? Even though often, changes are good.

I'm in no way using gun as a subject now. I'm only asking cause all of you reply that the gun's cant be taken away because it says so in the constitution even though that is in no way a valid argument really. Lots of nations have changed their constitutional right when it has been obvious it's beneficial.

Again I'm not asking about this due to the guns, I'm asking why you use it as an argument when all is it is something that was decided a long time ago. They also killed people who were different and burned witches a long time ago. The world changes.

So because the founding members of my nations, the vikings, had it so that I could kill others in honor of my family does that mean we have to do it still? Guess what? We didn't keep that constitutional right.
I still care a lot about those who founded my beloved country. Doesn't mean I agree with everything they did or said. They were just men.

Agreed KJ.
That is why we have 13th ammendment abolishing slavery etc.
The times they are a' changing. We get it. But a right to self defence should NEVER be taken.
Also, the south refused the change, so we just beat the holy crap outa them until they fell into line, sound familiar germany?
But history shows mistakes, and one mistake, is unarming law abiding citizens.

Anyone heard of operation Gladio?


Edit:


LMAO!


"I don't believe in guns," said Dorsey. "I don't own a gun. I'm totally at the mercy of my saviors. They obviously sent two angels to help me. These people protected me when I couldn't protect myself."

http://www.naturalnews.com/038737_gun_c ... escue.html


I wonder how Dorsey feels about guns now!

Dr. Walter Bishop™ wrote:Agreed KJ.
That is why we have 13th ammendment abolishing slavery etc.
The times they are a' changing. We get it. But a right to self defence should NEVER be taken.
Also, the south refused the change, so we just beat the holy crap outa them until they fell into line, sound familiar germany?
But history shows mistakes, and one mistake, is unarming law abiding citizens.

Well said. But the goal should be to unarm the criminals. Reduce the amount of illegal guns.

Or are you telling me, that in every single case that person could have obtained the weapon legally?