PDA

View Full Version : Obama Urges for Tighter Background Checks on Gun Buyers After Aurora Shooting.....



MMC
07-26-2012, 10:24 AM
Obama paused in his speech so that it could look like he is showing he cares. He Couldnt stop himself from Politicizing the Event.


http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/VjaekovRssK0VB3d5jV1lg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTMxMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/theticket/AP421804848176.jpg

In his broadest remarks on gun control yet in the aftermath of the mass shooting at a Colorado movie theater, President Barack Obama called late Wednesday for tougher background checks designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.
"I believe the majority of gun owners would agree that we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons; that we should check someone's criminal record before they can check out a gun seller; that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily," he said. "These steps shouldn't be controversial. They should be common sense."

"And I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. And we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation -— that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage," he said.....snip~

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-urges-tighter-background-checks-gun-buyers-aurora-033815400.html
The Ticket (http://thepoliticalforums.com/blogs/ticket/) – 11 hrs ago<<<<<

Oh.....and he told our kids they have to earn success. Because kids in Beijing and Bangalore aren't hanging out or playing video games. Course all of this was so he can hint at bringing back the Ban on Assualt Weapons.

MMC
07-26-2012, 10:48 AM
http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/Mc4K5Z8puVaKyhgIA5pKhA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0yODg7cT04NTt3PTUxMg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en-US/video/video.reutersnews.com/2012-07-26T051807Z_1_LOVE86P0EQ6C0_RTRMADP_BASEIMAGE-960X540_USA-SHOOTING-FUNERAL-OBAMA-O.JPG

U.S. President Barack Obama pledges to reduce gun violence, following the shooting at a movie theatre in Colorado.
During a speech to the National Urban League, Obama said all political leaders should find consensus on the issue.
But he emphasised his support for the Second Amendment - which covers the right to bear arms.....snip~

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/obama-pledges-action-gun-violence-photo-052124649.html


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfzCjeIaeFM

Peter1469
07-26-2012, 10:51 AM
This isn't going to turn out well.

MMC
07-26-2012, 11:11 AM
This isn't going to turn out well.

Yeah I know Pete.....look what the Atlantic Wire is reporting on it. Atlanta.....huh? Then they wonder how he creeps up with something else that does not focus on this Economy and Jobs.

Obama spoke out about gun control (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/25/12957142-obama-addresses-gun-control-for-first-time-since-aurora-shootings?ocid=twitter) for the first time since the Aurora shootings at a National Urban League convention on Wednesday night, and it seems like he's going to lobby for the ban on assault weapons to return.

The talk surrounding gun control has been pretty stale since the Aurora shooting. There were questions as to whether the tragedy would bring (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/07/will-gun-control-always-be-stale-debate/54839/) about any real change, or if it would yield more talk and no action. On just about every Sunday talk show (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/07/gun-control-dominates-conversation-after-aurora/54870/), gun control dominated the conversation. Colorado Rep. Ed Perlmutter and Senator Dianne Feinstein brought up the idea of reinstating the ban on assault weapons that was in place from 1994 to 2004. It seems like Obama's a fan of the idea, too.

Obama was careful to talk about making an effort to reduce violence in general in other parts of his speech instead of committing to stricter gun control laws, but this is the first hint we have of where the President plans to take this issue over the next several months. He doesn't say specifically that he wants to reinstate the ban, but it sure sounds like it, right? .....snip~

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-hinting-towards-assault-weapons-ban-042305882.html

Mister D
07-26-2012, 11:16 AM
These calls for increased gun control obscure what I think is a more pertinent question: what is it about modern life that makes these tragedies possible?

Goldie Locks
07-26-2012, 11:26 AM
What is Ubama's definition of tighter background checks, no guns???

bladimz
07-26-2012, 12:11 PM
Why would anybody have a problem with a ban on assault weapons? Why does any "honest" citizen require such a weapon?

Goldie Locks
07-26-2012, 12:21 PM
Why would anybody have a problem with a ban on assault weapons? Why does any "honest" citizen require such a weapon?

To protect your home, family and yourself from enemies foreign and domestic.

MMC
07-26-2012, 12:51 PM
These calls for increased gun control obscure what I think is a more pertinent question: what is it about modern life that makes these tragedies possible?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nym7GgWfmE

According to Xzibit, Young De, and Mykestro.....it is the Formula of:

Beef
+ Straps
- Ego's
_______

= Figure it Out! :afro:

MMC
07-26-2012, 01:40 PM
But the video does bring out that point about why there is more of need for assualt weapons around urban cities. As Clearly the standard or average pistol is not going to be enough against those that will not hesitate to use weapons period.

coolwalker
07-26-2012, 03:10 PM
Background check...my-my...does that mean someone will have to show an (ugg) ID?

Captain Obvious
07-26-2012, 03:55 PM
Did this Aurora killer obtain his arsenal legally, legitimately?

bladimz
07-26-2012, 05:50 PM
To protect your home, family and yourself from enemies foreign and domestic....does Conservative Polly want a cracker?

281

Standard handguns and rifles aren't good enough anymore? How about missile launchers, grenades, and flame throwers? Should they also be available for private ownership? Say "yes", Polly.

Mainecoons
07-26-2012, 06:21 PM
Strawman argument, your specialty. I don't see anyone here suggesting flamethrowers be legalized.

OTOH, think of how that would speed up barbecues. :grin:

Goldie Locks
07-26-2012, 09:51 PM
Background check...my-my...does that mean someone will have to show an (ugg) ID?


Oh say it isn't so!!!!!!!!!!...but where will they get them? They're too expensive, too far away.

bladimz
07-27-2012, 12:07 PM
Oh say it isn't so!!!!!!!!!!...but where will they get them? They're too expensive, too far away.I think an ID should definitely be produced. If they can't show an ID... no gun, cowgirl.

Captain America
07-27-2012, 12:50 PM
Why would anybody have a problem with a ban on assault weapons? Why does any "honest" citizen require such a weapon?

There's two answers to that question.

1. An honest citizen might require such a weapon when, and if, big brother comes knocking on your door like they are doing now in Syria. Don't think it can't happen here. The right to bear arms was intended to arm citizens from a tyrannical government.

2. An honest should have no need for an assault weapon that is designed solely to take human life.

Pick one.

I do agree with Obama when he said assault rifles belong in the hands of soldiers and not criminals. Who doesn't? And I agree it wouldn't hurt to tighten up the requirements, if not an outright ban.

But that's about all I agree with him on this particular topic.

Truth is, and the evidence shows, there has been less restrictions on guns put in place under Obama than under Bush. Which either alludes to one of the following:

1. Obama is pro-gun, regardless of the whacko lies.
2. He doesn't have the balls to stand up to the runamuk gun situation for fear of political repercussions.

Pick one.

Peter1469
07-27-2012, 03:17 PM
I think an ID should definitely be produced. If they can't show an ID... no gun, cowgirl.

Here in VA you need three forms of valid ID to buy a handgun.

Goldie Locks
07-27-2012, 05:20 PM
I think an ID should definitely be produced. If they can't show an ID... no gun, cowgirl.

I think you should have an picture ID to buy a gun and to vote too.

Goldie Locks
07-27-2012, 05:22 PM
There's two answers to that question.

1. An honest citizen might require such a weapon when, and if, big brother comes knocking on your door like they are doing now in Syria. Don't think it can't happen here. The right to bear arms was intended to arm citizens from a tyrannical government.

2. An honest should have no need for an assault weapon that is designed solely to take human life.

Pick one.

I do agree with Obama when he said assault rifles belong in the hands of soldiers and not criminals. Who doesn't? And I agree it wouldn't hurt to tighten up the requirements, if not an outright ban.

But that's about all I agree with him on this particular topic.

Truth is, and the evidence shows, there has been less restrictions on guns put in place under Obama than under Bush. Which either alludes to one of the following:

1. Obama is pro-gun, regardless of the whacko lies.
2. He doesn't have the balls to stand up to the runamuk gun situation for fear of political repercussions.

Pick one.

An assault rifle may indeed be to take someone's life and that someone may be the government.

patrickt
07-27-2012, 06:18 PM
I want better background checks on nominees to run for President.

Goldie Locks
07-27-2012, 06:20 PM
I want better background checks on nominees to run for President.

Why you're not happy with our Kenyon President???...;)

Mainecoons
07-27-2012, 06:27 PM
I want better background checks on nominees to run for President.

Yep, Congress really dropped the ball on this one. Wait! They did demand, and get, a real original BC from John McCain.

This is clearly a flaw in the Constitution. Leaving vetting up to Congress is a bad idea. This should be the job of the Supremes. If it was clearly their responsibility they wouldn't be able to avoid it as they are doing now.

bladimz
07-29-2012, 04:11 PM
There's two answers to that question.

1. An honest citizen might require such a weapon when, and if, big brother comes knocking on your door like they are doing now in Syria. Don't think it can't happen here. The right to bear arms was intended to arm citizens from a tyrannical government.

2. An honest should have no need for an assault weapon that is designed solely to take human life.The right to bear arms was not intended solely to protect citizens from tyranny. It has to do with the right to protect from threats from within and without. If you fear your government to the point that you think owning an assault weapon will protect or save you from the remote chance that they will rain down on your home and family, have at it. All i'm saying is that the right to purchase one of those bad boys needs to be more closely monitored. That's really not asking too much.

MMC
07-29-2012, 04:33 PM
The right to bear arms was not intended solely to protect citizens from tyranny. It has to do with the right to protect from threats from within and without. If you fear your government to the point that you think owning an assault weapon will protect or save you from the remote chance that they will rain down on your home and family, have at it. All i'm saying is that the right to purchase one of those bad boys needs to be more closely monitored. That's really not asking too much.


Myself I don't think anyone would disagree with the logic of that. It's how we go about doing so and without it affecting the rights of others as well as Uphoding the Constitution. Still even within the law those that cannot purchase weapons. Like say due to having a Class X. Or even those with mental issues. If they are involved with another or even due to their own family. How do you prevent them from legally buying a weapon and putting it in the home. Available to the one who cannot go out and purchase any firearms?

Peter1469
07-29-2012, 04:57 PM
The right to bear arms was not intended solely to protect citizens from tyranny. It has to do with the right to protect from threats from within and without. If you fear your government to the point that you think owning an assault weapon will protect or save you from the remote chance that they will rain down on your home and family, have at it. All i'm saying is that the right to purchase one of those bad boys needs to be more closely monitored. That's really not asking too much.

You can't buy a real assault rifle without a class III federal permit which includes a peace bond. What more do you want?

Mainecoons
07-29-2012, 05:23 PM
He's still pretending that a semi-automatic is a "real" assault weapon because he's too dumb to know the difference.

Shoot the Goose
07-29-2012, 05:57 PM
So lift the Executive Order on Fast and Furious documents you jackass. Let's see about the ID checks on those guns.

Obama is greatest domestic enemy this country has ever had.

Mainecoons
07-29-2012, 06:23 PM
I want better background checks on nominees to run for President.

No kidding!!

Captain America
07-30-2012, 11:12 AM
I am an avid supporter of gun rights, who can deny?

But even I know that someday, sooner and later, with the way things are going, better gun control is a serious discussion the nation will need to address. We can kick the can down the road until after elections, I suppose, for NO politician wants to address the issue during election season. It would be political suicide.

bladimz
07-30-2012, 11:12 AM
He's still pretending that a semi-automatic is a "real" assault weapon because he's too dumb to know the difference.


Definition of assault weapon

Assault weapon (semi-automatic) refers primarily (but not exclusively) to firearms that possess the cosmetics of an assault rifle (which are fully-automatic). Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine gun, rather, only 1 round is fired with each trigger pull.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Definition_of_assault_ weapon

We all hope that someday your willingness to present facts over-rides your manic obsession.

bladimz
07-30-2012, 11:27 AM
You can't buy a real assault rifle without a class III federal permit which includes a peace bond. What more do you want?http://willtoexist.com/quick-dirty-guide-buying-assault-rifle/


The actual mechanics of legally purchasing a firearm vary from state to state. Most states will treat you better if you hold a concealed carry permit issued by the state. For instance, I live in Georgia. Because I am a CCW holder I can walk into a gun store and pick a weapon, fill out the official federal form in about 10 minutes, and walk out with the weapon and as much ammo as I can afford. Some places make you wait a while while they check up on you. Some places let the local constable decide if you are worthy of your second amendment right to bear arms. Some states (Massachusetts comes to mind) won’t let you have a military style rifle at all. You can check out your state laws here. Bear in mind that real assault rifles fire on full automatic or burst mode. These modes are currently federally restriced and require a Class III license. A Class III license requires the holder to give up Constitutionally guarenteed rights. Read Unintended Consequences for more information about federal gun laws and the slow death of American’s gun culture.What constitutionally guaranteed rights are lost? Just curious.

Mainecoons
07-30-2012, 12:49 PM
Hey stupid, a disabled assault weapon isn't the real deal. We know what the real deal is in Mexico. You don't know squat. These disabled weapons don't shoot any faster than a hunting rifle, they just hold more bullets.

You're so dumb about weapons you probably think those water pistols that look like AK47s are assault weapons.

IDIOT

Cigar
07-30-2012, 01:03 PM
Obama paused in his speech so that it could look like he is showing he cares. He Couldnt stop himself from Politicizing the Event.


http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/VjaekovRssK0VB3d5jV1lg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTMxMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/theticket/AP421804848176.jpg

In his broadest remarks on gun control yet in the aftermath of the mass shooting at a Colorado movie theater, President Barack Obama called late Wednesday for tougher background checks designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.
"I believe the majority of gun owners would agree that we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons; that we should check someone's criminal record before they can check out a gun seller; that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily," he said. "These steps shouldn't be controversial. They should be common sense."

"And I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. And we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation -— that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage," he said.....snip~

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-urges-tighter-background-checks-gun-buyers-aurora-033815400.html
The Ticket (http://thepoliticalforums.com/blogs/ticket/) – 11 hrs ago<<<<<

Oh.....and he told our kids they have to earn success. Because kids in Beijing and Bangalore aren't hanging out or playing video games. Course all of this was so he can hint at bringing back the Ban on Assualt Weapons.



Well Duuaaaaaaaaaaaa

MMC
07-30-2012, 01:29 PM
Well Duuaaaaaaaaaaaa


Truly he needs to make up his mind. One minute he is saying people can be successful if they work hard to achieve their dreams. Then in the very next sentence he is sitting there explaining how it's not due to all their hard work. One minute he is for the second Amendment and the next he is out trying to politicize a shooting saying the kid could have been his.

That if he had a son his son would like a victim.

Sounds just like a man who is desperate to talk about anything else but jobs and this economy. :facepalm:

Peter1469
07-30-2012, 04:18 PM
http://willtoexist.com/quick-dirty-guide-buying-assault-rifle/

What constitutionally guaranteed rights are lost? Just curious.

Are you asking me to defend what someone else wrote?

bladimz
07-31-2012, 05:30 PM
Are you asking me to defend what someone else wrote?No, not at all. I'm only asking you if that's true. You'd know a lot more about this than i do. And, no matter what Goons thinks, reading it doesn't necessary make it so. I don't know if you checked out the link, but when i read that, you were the one who i thought could answer my question. Is there any kind of constitutional rights lost in such a situation?

Mainecoons
07-31-2012, 06:14 PM
Boy, I've really gotten under your skin, eh Document Scanning Expert?

Did you watch the video? Had you done so you would have found out you don't know squat about document scanning either. I am still waiting to figure out what you do know squat about. :grin:

Peter1469
07-31-2012, 07:05 PM
No, not at all. I'm only asking you if that's true. You'd know a lot more about this than i do. And, no matter what Goons thinks, reading it doesn't necessary make it so. I don't know if you checked out the link, but when i read that, you were the one who i thought could answer my question. Is there any kind of constitutional rights lost in such a situation?

If you are buying the semi auto version of these weapons they are essentially no different from common hunting rifles, except they look scary (a military look). Functionally they are the same as a typical hunting rifle. The only difference is larger magazines are available.

Mainecoons
07-31-2012, 07:09 PM
I think Blat should buy himself a scarey AK47 water pistol and shoot himself with it. Whoops, not necessary, he's already all wet.

:rofl:

Captain Obvious
07-31-2012, 07:10 PM
If you are buying the semi auto version of these weapons they are essentially no different from common hunting rifles, except they look scary (a military look). Functionally they are the same as a typical hunting rifle. The only difference is larger magazines are available.

Exactly.

Semi-auto rifles are widely available.

Goldie Locks
07-31-2012, 07:13 PM
Truly he needs to make up his mind. One minute he is saying people can be successful if they work hard to achieve their dreams. Then in the very next sentence he is sitting there explaining how it's not due to all their hard work. One minute he is for the second Amendment and the next he is out trying to politicize a shooting saying the kid could have been his.

That if he had a son his son would like a victim.

Sounds just like a man who is desperate to talk about anything else but jobs and this economy. :facepalm:


He's really a sad state of affairs and it seems only those who are not sheeple can see it.

MMC
07-31-2012, 07:45 PM
He's really a sad state of affairs and it seems only those who are not sheeple can see it.


http://yankehome.com/video/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/obama-pelosi-war-on-women.gif

Thas 25 million wimmens never to own a pair of heelz eva! :angry: http://www.debatepolitics.com/images/smilies/pimpdaddy.gif

bladimz
08-01-2012, 11:25 AM
If you are buying the semi auto version of these weapons they are essentially no different from common hunting rifles, except they look scary (a military look). Functionally they are the same as a typical hunting rifle. The only difference is larger magazines are available.Ok, i understand that. But what about the purchase of a fully automatic weapon. Are there really any rights lost? And how does that happen, if it's true.

Peter1469
08-01-2012, 04:11 PM
Ok, i understand that. But what about the purchase of a fully automatic weapon. Are there really any rights lost? And how does that happen, if it's true.

You can buy a fully automatic weapon if you get the proper licensee and post the required peace bond. I think that relatively few people have such licenses. I am not overly concerned that such restrictions implicate the 2nd Amendment.

bladimz
08-04-2012, 09:42 AM
You can buy a fully automatic weapon if you get the proper licensee and post the required peace bond. I think that relatively few people have such licenses. I am not overly concerned that such restrictions implicate the 2nd Amendment.You're still not answering my question: are any constitutional rights lost as a result of such a purchase? Do you know if there are? It's ok if you're not sure; i'm just really only curious. And you the only one that i trust to give me a straight answer.

Peter1469
08-04-2012, 10:26 AM
You're still not answering my question: are any constitutional rights lost as a result of such a purchase? Do you know if there are? It's ok if you're not sure; i'm just really only curious. And you the only one that i trust to give me a straight answer.

Sorry, I don't understand what you are getting at. Do you mean restricting the purchases? I agree with Scalia. The Second Amendment allows for regulation based on what was common practice and law when the Constitution was ratified. Whether an assault rifle would meet the test or not is debatable. I would argue that it does, but would not be wholly offended if I were in the minority. Basically, if you read the various Militia Acts of the colonies, and later the States, they all generally said that men between 15-45 had to have and maintain the common infantry weapons and gear of the day. Cannons (crew served weapons) were the responsibility of villages and towns, not individuals. That is where I would draw the line, with the exception of say shoulder fired missiles that can be operated by the individual.

bladimz
08-04-2012, 10:42 AM
Sorry, I don't understand what you are getting at. Do you mean restricting the purchases? I agree with Scalia. The Second Amendment allows for regulation based on what was common practice and law when the Constitution was ratified. Whether an assault rifle would meet the test or not is debatable. I would argue that it does, but would not be wholly offended if I were in the minority. Basically, if you read the various Militia Acts of the colonies, and later the States, they all generally said that men between 15-45 had to have and maintain the common infantry weapons and gear of the day. Cannons (crew served weapons) were the responsibility of villages and towns, not individuals. That is where I would draw the line, with the exception of say shoulder fired missiles that can be operated by the individual.See... this is exactly why i ask you and no one else here about this stuff.

Now, of course, you know that i'm going to ask about the state's requirements to own and maintain. Do you believe that this still be the rule of the day, without restriction or licensing?

Peter1469
08-04-2012, 12:01 PM
See... this is exactly why i ask you and no one else here about this stuff.

Now, of course, you know that i'm going to ask about the state's requirements to own and maintain. Do you believe that this still be the rule of the day, without restriction or licensing?

I don't think that the Constitution would prohibit licensing, especially if there are no longer militia acts in effect which require all males between 15-45 to participate. If everyone is participating, then licensing is redundant.

Mainecoons
08-04-2012, 01:11 PM
Don't forget to license the criminals. Sure, that will work just about as well as everything else the government does.

:grin:

Peter1469
08-04-2012, 02:35 PM
Don't forget to license the criminals. Sure, that will work just about as well as everything else the government does.

:grin:

Noted.