We have a couple floating around gun control threads, but this seems like its own topic:
The President of the United States of America said:
[News] Here are Obama's 23 new Gun Control proposals / actions.
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
- Status
Seems fairly reasonable to me... mostly about making background checks more comprehensive and easier to implement which I think a lot of people would agree with.
I just found it on the front page of I think CNN and Fox News.
Wait, yes it is, just not neatly summarized.
Here's a link to the list.
I honestly don't remember which I got this from, I opened up a handful of online news sources just to compare/contrast, and I remember Fox and CNN both had that exact same text in the middle of some commentary (that I left out)
They can disseminate news once in a while, but wait for prime-time and then bullshit mountain will start raining down.
Their morning show has a lot of the most putrid little excerpts I've seen. And the website is insulting 24/7
These are the limit of what the executive orders can accomplish, and were signed this afternoon.
Now he's going to be taking his other plans to congress, which include:
- Limiting gun magazine capacity to ten rounds
- Banning assault style weapons
- Requiring every gun sale include both a background and mental health check
Now he's going to be taking his other plans to congress, which include:
- Limiting gun magazine capacity to ten rounds
- Banning assault style weapons
- Requiring every gun sale include both a background and mental health check
Only thing of those three I agree with is the bottom but then I don't have checks ran on me because I have my concealed handgun license so yeah. That and I don't think mental patients should have firearms (or felons)
The one in bold is far too nebulous to gain any real traction. There's no real definition of "assault style". Is is based on caliber? Action? Accessories? Looks scary?
I totally agree with guns sales requiring both a background and mental health check.
Magazine capacity to ten rounds is more lenient than what we have in Canada lol.
I'm pretty sure they're just going back to the old definition, but a bit more stringent. he old definition is pretty easy to comprehend, and can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#United_States_Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
Who cares if a rifle has a pistol grip and a telescoping stock. The key thing is the action of the firearm and the ability to put out high volumes of fire. This kind of legislation will not do anything to make weapons less dangerous. Not by a long shot. Technically most old battle rifles would be exempt from "assault weapon" status even though they are deadly as hell.
GasBandit
Staff member
A lot of that is nebulous. I mean...
"Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime."
What the hell does that even mean? That they're just half-assing it now? That they'll be diverting resources away from vice and other departments to increase focus on crimes involving firearms? Wha?
"Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."
Uh, actually, it does.
Copied directly (do a search for "gun" to find it"):
"Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime."
What the hell does that even mean? That they're just half-assing it now? That they'll be diverting resources away from vice and other departments to increase focus on crimes involving firearms? Wha?
"Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."
Uh, actually, it does.
Copied directly (do a search for "gun" to find it"):
That's why it was allowed to lapse. Studies showed it didn't decrease violence, and people seemed to recognize that those items in the list didn't actually help kill people much more than the rifle alone would have.
Can you imagine the black market this would create for ammunition?[DOUBLEPOST=1358371171][/DOUBLEPOST]
I guess that makes sense. I mean really... someone with an M1A is going to be just as deadly as someone with an AR-15 (more deadly in my opinion because of the more powerful cartridge).
I'd only agree with #2 if this only applies to background checks for guns. If it applies to ALL background checks then it would make discrimination against the mentally ill even worse than it already is. You would essentially be creating an underclass of people who would never employable through no fault of their own.
They need to make a database of all the gun crimes in America. List they type, caliber and capacity of the guns used. I'll bet my remaining nut that the vast majority will be sub $200 crap pistols (7-10 shots) or revolvers with 6 or 5 capacity. These small guns will normally be illegally acquired, especially in towns like Chicago. Assault rifles are very rarely used in the commission of a crime. They are too obvious.
It is just odd to me that law abiding citizens are being punished for the actions of criminals or the insane.
It is just odd to me that law abiding citizens are being punished for the actions of criminals or the insane.
Necronic
Staff member
That's basically saying "We shouldn't regulate the ownership of nerve gas". This is a cop-out I hear in all sorts of fallacious security arguments: The security is not 100%, therefore it does not provide security. That's not how it works and anyone with anti-virus software knows that.
5 years is not far away at all.
The nice thing about regulating ammo is:
1) It has a shelf-life (so you can grandfather existing ammo cache's but they will dwindle overtime)
2) While people can make their own ammo, there is already a system in place to trace gunpowder.[DOUBLEPOST=1358372155][/DOUBLEPOST]
Don't worry, responsible recreational drug users learned to accept this years ago. They can help you learn to cope.
I'd say that the vast majority of laws on the books fall into that. The one's that don't are akin to "don't murder, don't steal" and maybe a few regulatory things like contract law and such. Beyond that, most laws put restrictions on people who already obey the law and aren't looking to start shit, but "may" (or it's hoped it will) discourage those that are law-breakers already. They don't, but hey, that's the thought.
I know there's a boatload of other types of laws I'm probably missing that make sense, but still, saying that killing somebody with a gun deserves more punishment than killing somebody with a knife is the kind of insanity I mean.
"May not require" is not the same thing as "can't ask".[DOUBLEPOST=1358372610][/DOUBLEPOST]
Regulation doesn't mean outright banning. I think you can regulate (especially tracking!) without outright prohibition.
Necronic
Staff member
Swords don't kill people. Neal Stephenson with swords kills people
Nerve gas isn't a great analogy, since it's illegal to own in any amount - there is, for all intents and purposes, none to be stolen. If you want nerve gas your only option is to import it, or manufacture it yourself.
Guns aren't illegal to own, so ammunition is going to be cheap and plentiful. Stealing it is going to be trivial, nevermind simply buying it on the black market.
A better analogy would be alcohol. A minor isn't allowed to purchase it illegally, and yet if a minor merely desires to drink alcohol they can get it from a variety of sources.
Regulating ammunition may, as you seem to think, go some way towards preventing violence, but I don't think it's going to do much more than regulating the gun itself. You're talking about a tiny, tiny margin.
Necronic
Staff member
Doesn't have to be nerve gas, how about precursors for meth, or heroin processing equipment? Perfectly legal to own for certain organizations. I work with it daily. Totally illegal for civilians to own. Your logic is right in that there are people who steal this stuff. But your logic fails because the amount of people that will risk stealing it doesn't come near the level of people that would misuse it if anyone could have it.
Same goes for the regulations put on psuedafed. That has actually successfully limited the production of methamphetamine.[DOUBLEPOST=1358388620][/DOUBLEPOST]Or how about passports or prescription drugs. Totally legal to own them, and they are tied to individuals. Is there theft and a black market? Of course. Should there be no security behind them?
....
Same goes for the regulations put on psuedafed. That has actually successfully limited the production of methamphetamine.[DOUBLEPOST=1358388620][/DOUBLEPOST]Or how about passports or prescription drugs. Totally legal to own them, and they are tied to individuals. Is there theft and a black market? Of course. Should there be no security behind them?
....
I don't understand why this hasn't already been law for years.
Legally it's difficult to write a law that doesn't run afoul of the constitution that gets in the way of private person to person sales.
Even once they figure out a way to do it that the Supreme Court finds acceptable, it will be difficult to enforce. About the only way to find and punish those that do sell weapons privately without the required checks would be to create a gun tracking and sales database, and register every transaction.
This, however, is likely to conflict with the "infringed" part of the second amendment.
Over the last 15 years the GOP has stripped the ATF of its worthwhile powers. So there is nearly no enforcement of gun laws. Dealers don't even need to do an inventory. And dealers will likely only see an ATF agent once every 17 years.
- Status