Obama Starting Gun Control Talks with or without NRA

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

Say what you want to say about the NRA, but they are the 800lb gorilla in the room. And yet, Obama hasn't extended an invitation to 2AF, or GOA.

 

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/03/obama-holds-gun-law-meetings-without-the-nra/1

 

The Obama administration is holding meetings on new gun laws, but they will be missing a key political player: the National Rifle Association.

 

Wayne LaPierre, the organization's chief executive, told The New York Times, "Why should I or the NRA go sit down with a group of people that have spent a lifetime trying to destroy the Second Amendment in the United States?"

 

Given its political and financial strength, the NRA is probably in a position to block any new gun legislation, especially in the Republican-run House.

 

With *Shoulder Thing That Goes Up* McCarthy introducing a new bill this week, Schumer's new bill, and these talks, the anti's are starting their engines.

 

[Old School 611]

Folks if there was ever time to get involved, now is the time.

[Babaganoosh 192]

Yeah I would think that they need to be involved in this

[vladtepes 1,060]

Why is it that no one is logical... Why is it that we even allow the entertaining of legislation brought up by people who have ZERO understanding of gun knowledge..

 

When it is time to legislate laws regarding finance do we talk to an expert? or do we ask the local trash man?

When we need laws to control the impact of industrial waste do we ask an expert? or talk to the local school janitor?

When it is time to develop foreign relation do we send qualified individuals? or rely on one of the white house limo drivers?

 

you get the idea.. but more to the point.. WHY THE fugg do we let these idiots who have NO IDEA WTF they are even talking about introduce laws concerning things they know NOTHING about.. it is a waste of the tax payers money... and more importantly it puts our rights in great peril.. isn't it time we collectively sought some kind of legislation to put an end to this ridiculous game.. OH wait.. we don't need to do that.. because the words "shall not be infringed" are already there.. clear as day.. GET OVER IT ALREADY..

 

want to reduce crime? keep people from getting shot? then LOCK UP CRIMINALS and in the case of violent crimes.. give them stricter sentences.. people who are violent can not shoot people if they are in jail..

 

As much as I am annoyed by gun control.. I am MORE annoyed at the lack of focus on the real problem (bad people).. and even MORE annoyed at the inanimate object scapegoating that is constantly utilized (guns randomly kill mass amounts of people with no guns there would be no violence.. ) YEAH RIGHT..

 

really.. enough is enough already.. Obama should go play some more golf at least he can't screw anything up that matters while he is doing that..

[fredex 2]

On the radio today I heard Glenn Beck hypothesize that the president could use an executive order to create new firearms legislation. I dropped a WTF! out loud when I heard that. I hope that the executive branch is not considering that method, it would be so wrong.

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

Violence Policy Center has been pushing for executive orders for gun control since the 80s.

 

They might get their wish with Obama.

[sig2009 3]

Wayne LaPierre, the organization's chief executive, told The New York Times, "Why should I or the NRA go sit down with a group of people that have spent a lifetime trying to destroy the Second Amendment in the United States?"

 

 

Thank You Wayne for telling this ahole off! I love it! Besides it makes no difference if the NRA is there. This administration has it's mind made up with what they want to do and no one is going to change that!

[vjf915 456]

Why is it...

Damn dude....you need to start speaking publicly about this stuff.

[Dan 177]

I can understand the NRA's position. More than likely Obama+Antis will try to corner them into choosing A B or C, all anti-gun legislation. Then if the NRA doesn't choose, the anti's could run around saying how they "wanted to compromise, but the NRA wouldn't".

 

We don't need more "gun laws" (the focus of these talks), we need more "anti-criminal laws".

[vladtepes 1,060]

Damn dude....you need to start speaking publicly about this stuff.

 

 

seriously man.. they just need to use a little common sense.. I don't know ANYTHING about nuclear reactors... radiation.. etc.. so guess what? NO ONE is ringing my cell off the hook to ask me what I think on the matter in Japan.. in the same regard... this assclown who has already illustrated her vast firearms knowledge (or more correctly her lack of) should have NOTHING TO EVER DO WITH ANY LEGISLATION CONCERNING FIREARMS EVER.. and anyone.. left right or middle that can not see that, is equally deserving of being locked in a dark closet somewhere far far far away where they can do no harm...

 

all the crazy stuff these people come up with just shows they do not even understand basic firearms operation.. serial numbered ammunition.. electronics on the gun that only let the owner use them.. bans that allow legal gun A that shoots a bullet in the SAME EXACT WAY as illegal gun B... these people are a circus.. and they quite literally have NO idea what they are doing..

[fredex 2]

check out this link to Kurt Hofman's blog, talks about possible executive order http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-st-louis/forcible-citizen-disarmament-by-fiat-when-separation-of-powers-gets-the-way?cid=parsely#parsely

[JimmyAGR 54]

 

want to reduce crime? keep people from getting shot? then LOCK UP CRIMINALS and in the case of violent crimes.. give them stricter sentences.. people who are violent can not shoot people if they are in jail..

 

As much as I am annoyed by gun control.. I am MORE annoyed at the lack of focus on the real problem (bad people).. and even MORE annoyed at the inanimate object scapegoating that is constantly utilized (guns randomly kill mass amounts of people with no guns there would be no violence.. ) YEAH RIGHT..

 

:thsmiley_deadhorse:

 

+10000000 I agree with your whole statement about knowledge also, but this is the main point. Break an existing law go away to jail. Seems simple enough, but I guess our legislators are even simpler....

[BRaptor 68]

I see two possible outcomes from the NRA's two choices of show up or don't show up:

 

Option 1: Show up. The NRA shows up, some ridiculous anti-gun resolution is created, because the NRA is horridly outnumbered and outvoiced. Then, the group will claim that this resolution has "bipartisan" with full consideration given to NRA's concern and created with the blessings of the NRA.

 

Option 2: Don't show up. The NRA refuses to show up, some ridiculous anti-gun resolution is created. The group will blame the NRA for "refusing to discuss the issue," and "being unreasonable" along with all the other "silence is consent" garbage.

 

Since the outcome is likely the same, I think the NRA should at least be there to know what is going on in the meeting and attempt to make a difference.

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

check out this link to Kurt Hofman's blog, talks about possible executive order http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-st-louis/forcible-citizen-disarmament-by-fiat-when-separation-of-powers-gets-the-way?cid=parsely#parsely

 

Kurt Hoffman is a daily must read for me.

 

Everybody should read him daily as well.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

I see two possible outcomes from the NRA's two choices of show up or don't show up:

 

Option 1: Show up. The NRA shows up, some ridiculous anti-gun resolution is created, because the NRA is horridly outnumbered and outvoiced. Then, the group will claim that this resolution has "bipartisan" with full consideration given to NRA's concern and created with the blessings of the NRA.

 

Thank the lord that as the political landscape stands, WE outnumber them.

[kenw 293]

Legislators and lawmakers don't have to be smart or knowledgeable to do their jobs. They just have to convince their constituencies that they're smarter than they are, and create the perception that all they they want to do is help the people that agree with them. Again, perception is reality.

 

Legislation is always about knee jerk reactions to anything. The long term ramifications are completely irrelevant because when the unintended consequences of some past decision come up to bite them, they have a new knee jerk piece of crap sitting in their pockets to deal with it. It makes them look like they're always working towards the future, and it's likely that they can spin the blame for the new problem away from themselves and point to a "previous administration" or "earlier Congress" as the source of the problem.

 

The fact that there's talk about Obama paying new attention to gun regs should be a warning. But there's no activity to preempt any of his lunacy. Congress is fragmented and fractured right now, there are issues in the Mideast, Japan's disaster is front page, gas is reaching an all time high, energy industries are in trouble, organized labor is under the gun, and the "economic recovery" is being threatened. What better time to, with the stroke of a pen, launch his campaign for reelection by handing down some absurd, useless feel good executive order that will only affect those who wouldn't vote for him in any case, but will send his supporters into an ignorant frothing frenzy of support, and will let him temporarily step away even further from the real issues that he seems to not really have any way (or desire) to address. If he enacts gun regulation by fiat, what do you think the pundits will be talking about for the next few weeks? Japan? Obama's apparent disinterest in doing his job? Nope. They'll be coming out of the woodwork to REACT to the new executive orders, and both sides will be sooo busy taking the credit and pointing the blame that the issues that are really important will have diffused by the time attention turns back to them.

 

It's a diversionary move, an attack on the unguarded flank, and I don't believe there's a single thing we (the national gun rights community) can do about it.

 

If the NRA, GOA, SAF, JPFO, et al participate in the discussions, the result will be a "bipartisan and cooperative result of reasonable and civilized discussion and debate". If they don't, it will be "a necessary step towards reasonable regulation is spite of hostile and intransigent opposition". It's a no win either way. Except for the liberals, and Obama.

[jerseydave 35]

Im not really understanding all this. Government doesnt seem to want to take away our 2nd amendment right. All there saying is that they want to make it harder for people to buy there firearms across our country.. well hello people we live in New Jersey haha how much harder could it get here? I believe NJ should be the state to lead the way for all of the other states. Other states where its so easy to buy and carry are the states with the highest gun crime rates and they should adopt our way of processing, i mean i dont wish the ridiculous waiting time on any one in any state but ya know what if thats what we have to do in order to keep the gun crime in america down and maybe just maybe they might relax on these anti gun outbursts in washington. Now im pro 2nd amendment all the way, but im also a logical person that believes that criminals will have them no matter what the laws are and they arent really concerneced about gun laws or any laws for that matter... i understand that defenetly correct.. thats why we need to get these criminals, especially violent ones off the street, and we need to get the mentally impared help as well so they dont get there hands on firearms and do dumb things. and ya know what that all falls on our government as well. So i see it like this... we are never going to win this pro gun vs. anti gun fight unless both sides stop arguing over whos right and whos wrong or who makes a better point. We need to work together to solve this issue. Guns ARE NOT GOING ANYWHERE. And neither is ANTI GUN SUPPORTERS. so both sides need to come up with what ever they need to come with in order to at least bring some calmness to this issue. Jared Loughner wouldnt of gotten a gun here. Not with his drug paraphanalia charge he had on his record, which i might add that he recently just got. He would of walked into a gun store they would of done his background check in the store by our state police.. seen he was a drug user and they would of told him to beat it out of the store so fast his head would be spinning. and i know that drug parphanilia is not a felony, so is that a loop hole in other states? u can be a drug user and own firearms just as long as your a drug user that does not have a felony? Because i Know for a fact in new jersey that wouldnt happen. ive seen 40 year old men get denied here in nj for pissing on someones lawn back when they were 19 drunk at a party and got arrested. So it goes twords my point.. Other states do make it to easy.. NEW JERSEY must lead the way in my opinion.

[Stickle 2]

I don't need to register or get a card to use my first amendment right and I shouldn't have to register or get a card to use my 2nd amendment right. I sir am an American and my country's founding fathers had to fight and beat back one opressive government. They gave us the people "We the people" rights to protect ourselves and our liberty from any enemy foreign or Domestic. I will protect my rights and the rights of my fellow man. They may not be using a big hammer to take away our rights but they are chipping away and soon enough they will have chipped away so much all we will have left is a pile of dust that once was our freedom.

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

Im not really understanding all this. Government doesnt seem to want to take away our 2nd amendment right. All there saying is that they want to make it harder for people to buy there firearms across our country.. well hello people we live in New Jersey haha how much harder could it get here? I believe NJ should be the state to lead the way for all of the other states.

 

 

Please tell me this is satire........I think my head is about to explode

[Melgamatic 66]

On the radio today I heard Glenn Beck hypothesize that the president could use an executive order to create new firearms legislation. I dropped a WTF! out loud when I heard that. I hope that the executive branch is not considering that method, it would be so wrong.

 

No matter on what side of the political fence you sit, paying too much attention to what GB says is probably not good for you.

[Shane45 807]

jerseydave, so many of your statements are so significantly flawed and contradicting I dont even know where to begin!

[jerseydave 35]

I stand behind my statements just as hard as i stand behind my rights as an american. ha and that includes my right to free speech and expression on what i think. New Jersey has to lead the way when it comes to gun control. other states are making it easy to get firearms in the hands of people who should not have them. and its causing problems.. other states are making it easy and its putting our 2nd amendment right in jeopardy. i Mean what do we care? it will still be the same here. Its my opinion that boths sides of the argument have good points. We will never get anywhere in this fight unless we take the other side into consideration and make changes. But they have to be willing to do the same. thats all im saying about that. as for loughner.. if he lived in nj it never would of happened. and thats fact. if arizona had nj gun laws he would of been throwing rocks instead of shooting. fact. NJ needs to step up and lead the way.. so people will have to wait..yea it absolutly sucks! but thats life. And dont think for 1 second that if washington revoked our 2nd amendment right i wouldnt be standing outside of the whitehouse protesting along with the millions of other gun owners across our nation. But i truely believe its not there intenet to do that. yea.. they might want to do that.. but know they cannot. Its my opinion that states just need to come up with stricter processing thats all.

[hd2000fxdl 422]

Im not really understanding all this. Government doesnt seem to want to take away our 2nd amendment right. All there saying is that they want to make it harder for people to buy there firearms across our country.. well hello people we live in New Jersey haha how much harder could it get here? I believe NJ should be the state to lead the way for all of the other states. Other states where its so easy to buy and carry are the states with the highest gun crime rates and they should adopt our way of processing, i mean i dont wish the ridiculous waiting time on any one in any state but ya know what if thats what we have to do in order to keep the gun crime in america down and maybe just maybe they might relax on these anti gun outbursts in washington. Now im pro 2nd amendment all the way, but im also a logical person that believes that criminals will have them no matter what the laws are and they arent really concerneced about gun laws or any laws for that matter... i understand that defenetly correct.. thats why we need to get these criminals, especially violent ones off the street, and we need to get the mentally impared help as well so they dont get there hands on firearms and do dumb things. and ya know what that all falls on our government as well. So i see it like this... we are never going to win this pro gun vs. anti gun fight unless both sides stop arguing over whos right and whos wrong or who makes a better point. We need to work together to solve this issue. Guns ARE NOT GOING ANYWHERE. And neither is ANTI GUN SUPPORTERS. so both sides need to come up with what ever they need to come with in order to at least bring some calmness to this issue. Jared Loughner wouldnt of gotten a gun here. Not with his drug paraphanalia charge he had on his record, which i might add that he recently just got. He would of walked into a gun store they would of done his background check in the store by our state police.. seen he was a drug user and they would of told him to beat it out of the store so fast his head would be spinning. and i know that drug parphanilia is not a felony, so is that a loop hole in other states? u can be a drug user and own firearms just as long as your a drug user that does not have a felony? Because i Know for a fact in new jersey that wouldnt happen. ive seen 40 year old men get denied here in nj for pissing on someones lawn back when they were 19 drunk at a party and got arrested. So it goes twords my point.. Other states do make it to easy.. NEW JERSEY must lead the way in my opinion.

 

Dave, did you read what you wrote??

 

I am not going to speak for everyone, but it has been proved over and over again, not just in recent history but over 100's of years, when you disarm the people you take away all the ability of the people to defend them selves. No I don't want criminals to have guns, but guess what, they will have them no matter what, and if you got rid of ever firearm that we the people have, they would make there own. Think back to school and metal shop....

 

I am very much PRO 2A and do support stiffer penalties for crimes for criminals(actual crimes, not HD/PP)

 

The only thing Gun Laws do is make it harder and more restrictive for unrestricted persons to obtain them, and it make criminals day and night job's just that much easier!

 

Harry

[jerseydave 35]

Changes obviously need to be made. Pro gun is not winning and neither is anti gun. Fact. So obviously something needs to be done. The easier it is to get firearms the more of a problem there is going to be. Im not saying disarm people. i love my firearms and dont want them taken away. But i also dont want some idiot who has a drug background buying guns legally and killing members of my family either.

[jerseydave 35]

No where... No where did i state disarm the people. did u read what i wrote? where did i say we need to take peoples firearms away? i said other states need to follow njs way of processing. so less people will be killed and this debate slows down significantly.

[hd2000fxdl 422]

I stand behind my statements just as hard as i stand behind my rights as an american. ha and that includes my right to free speech and expression on what i think. New Jersey has to lead the way when it comes to gun control. other states are making it easy to get firearms in the hands of people who should not have them. and its causing problems..

 

I also believe in the 1A and as I believe you have the right to your opinion, I also and given the same right so i will ask the following:

 

Can you please list any state that makes it easy for a restricted person to obtain a firearm??

 

Harry

[jerseydave 35]

i used my example. it came to my attention that jard loughner had purchased the glock 19 AFTER he had been charged with drug parphanalia. and was allowed to purchase. like i stated... if that were nj they would of told him to beat it. so fast his head be spinning. How does arizona let drug offenders buy guns? somethings wrong with that. or am i crazy? drug users can have guns? thats ok?

[hd2000fxdl 422]

. But i also dont want some idiot who has a drug background buying guns legally and killing members of my family either.

 

Stiffer penalties for crimes with firearms needs to happen, not more restriction on out 2A rights. All the gun laws do to make it hard for UNRESTRICTED people to obtain firearms.

 

People who shouldn't have them will ALWAYS have them.

 

It's not like Criminal prospect #1 goes and applies for their FID and a couple PP's sits around waiting for them to come in and get DENIED and say's oh well I guess I better go look for a job now that I can't rob people.

 

Criminal #2 doesn't apply for anything, picks up a hot gun in a back alley and goes to work.

 

They don't care about the law, or they wouldn't be breaking it in the first place, but if you want to make it harder for the unrestricted person to defend them selves, I just don't see the point and NEVER WILL

 

Harry

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

i used my example. it came to my attention that jard loughner had purchased the glock 19 AFTER he had been charged with drug parphanalia. and was allowed to purchase.

 

 

Oh, I see, you are one of those "Lautenberg People" who are all for suspending a person's rights before they are convicted of anything. What happened to the "Presumption of Innocence". You want to throw that out the window with other selected parts of the Constitution with which you do not agree. While it is a cliche, what part of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

 

A drug conviction would be a disqualifier in any state. Stop drinking the Brady kool-aid, pay attention and learn a few things.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

No matter on what side of the political fence you sit, paying too much attention to what GB says is probably not good for you.

 

The only good thing about GB is how frothing at the mouth Dems get over him. It's actually funny.