Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If Obama could by some magical fiat ban all guns and confiscate every single firearm in the U.S. in a single day.....the Mexican cartels would be pushing through Chinese made SKS rifles and all sorts of other assorted firearms across our porous borders to satisfy black market demand. They are equal opportunity profiteers and are having no trouble acquiring stockpiles of fully automatic and military grade weapon from China, Guatemala and Eastern Europe.
If they can push tons of drugs through on a daily basis, they certainly could push through a whole lot of weaponry should the demand exist.
Rather than attacking the underlying mental health issues and lack of appropriate treatment services as well as attempting to curb the spread of radical fundamentalists we seem to be hellbent on attacking a symptom rather than the root causes.
If you want to put the blame for this particular incident somewhere, put the blame on run amuck political correctness. Neighbors knew that something was amiss but didnt report it to authorities for fear of being seen as racist or bigoted, much how over a thousand young girls in Roterham in the UK were raped over a period of ten+ years with the full knowledge of local police and authorities who simply looked the other way because 99% of the perpetrators were Pakistani nationals.
Excellent move. We can't rely on an irrational GOP-controlled Congress to do what's right. EXECUTIVE ORDERS are an under utilized tool to get things done, and do what's right. Yet another wise decision by our President.
Let's be fair and do a trial run.
We'll ban all guns for a year and see what happens.
Ted Cruz said:
"Unfortunately, the goal of both President Obama and Hillary Clinton, is to consistently–at every turn–to look to weaken the constitutional rights of American citizens. And in particular, to undermine our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. You don’t get rid of the bad guys by getting rid of our guns. You get rid of the bad guys by using our guns. And, rather than respond to radical Islam and terrorism with a commitment from the president to keep this nation safe–to kill the terrorists–instead, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton refuse to even utter the words “radical Islamic terrorism.”"
He continued;
"The gun control push illustrates the misguided priorities of President Obama and Hillary Clinton. They refuse to stand up and do what is necessary to defeat radical Islamic terrorism, to defeat ISIS, to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Instead, they remain obsessed with disarming the American citizenry, of stripping us of our fundamental right to protect our homes, our lives, and our families.
I would note that the calls from liberals for more and more gun controls in the wake of the San Bernardino shootings ignores the fact that California already has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country–so their policies and solutions have already been implemented in California. And to the surprise of no one, the laws failed to prevent this horrific attack."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake Lets see now...what gun laws have been involved with the guns used by the shooters? OK, my understanding is that they had 2, AR-pattern rifles, that were legally purchased by someone else in CA.
1) CA has a mandatory background check law. But they were not sold legally to the terrorists that had them. Somewhere, someone either broke the background check law by selling them to the terrorists, or the guns were stolen.
2) Every semi-auto in CA has to have a reduced capacity magazine and it has to be permanently attached. Both weapons were illegally modified for standard capacity magazines. So law 2 broken.
3) One of the guns was reportedly modified for automatic operation (aka "machine gun"). Such modifications are illegal at both the federal and state level. So law 3 broken.
4) The fiance was an alien here on a visa. Her possession of a firearm was a crime. Law 4.
So...since these terrorists weren't bothered by breaking these gun control laws-just what makes some weak-minded people think they would obey others? Not to mention that they broke laws against murder. Here's a clue for the perpetually slow-criminals break laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUNNDFRNT
Everything you stated is probably right, but should we have no laws at all because they can be broken.
All laws are made to deter a behavior based on the consequence of breaking the law involving that behavior, absolutely nothing to stop you from breaking any laws but we still have them why is gun control any different.
The point is that the actions of terrorists are being manipulated to decrease our freedoms.
We have been here already after 9/11.
Before the ad hominems fly I am not advocating this. I am a gun owner myself and enjoy recreational shooting. I carry concealed when I think I need to and have a concealed permit. We need to be realistic.
If you want to deal with the gun violence problem, then you have to take the bull by the horns. Background checks and bans on certain kind of guns etc are half-measures that will not solve the problem or even dent it. The only thing that will work is a TOTAL BAN. Guns could be allowed for certain people and certain circumstances such as hunting but otherwise the goal is a gun free society to the maximum extent possible. It could take a generation or more to collect all the guns and go about re-programming the American mind against gun ownership (like with did with smoking). You would never get them all but you would get most of them and we would be a much safer society in the end.
Before the ad hominems fly I am not advocating this. I am a gun owner myself and enjoy recreational shooting. I carry concealed when I think I need to and have a concealed permit. We need to be realistic.
If you want to deal with the gun violence problem, then you have to take the bull by the horns. Background checks and bans on certain kind of guns etc are half-measures that will not solve the problem or even dent it. The only thing that will work is a TOTAL BAN. Guns could be allowed for certain people and certain circumstances such as hunting but otherwise the goal is a gun free society to the maximum extent possible. It could take a generation or more to collect all the guns and go about re-programming the American mind against gun ownership (like with did with smoking). You would never get them all but you would get most of them and we would be a much safer society in the end.
Excellent move. We can't rely on an irrational GOP-controlled Congress to do what's right. EXECUTIVE ORDERS are an under utilized tool to get things done, and do what's right. Yet another wise decision by our President.
All the shooters have been known to have some mental illness, that was ignored by either family members or those doctors caring for them. The people involved in shootings have stole the guns from family members. Very few , if any were purchased by the shooter themselves.
How is more extensive background checks going to help if a person has no record? Why is mental illness and terrorism being ignored? Why is the President addressing only the public and not gang members?
From the article, this seems like BS...........In most other mass shootings in recent years, the perpetrators also purchased their weapons legally through licensed firearms dealers. Federal law requires those dealers to get federal licenses and conduct background checks on their customers. But the law offers an exemption to hobbyists, collectors and others who make “occasional sales” and are not considered to be “engaged in the business” of gun dealing.
Read that back again and include the "well-regulated militia" part that the NRA refuses to post in their headquarters. Then read Warren Burger's thoughts on it, or even the 2008 Heller decision that still gives the government the right to regulate guns.
"The right of the People", means everyday citizens because the people are the militia, not the military.
Why would the founders feel the need for the 2nd ammendment to protect only the military's right to bear arms? ....doesn't make any sense, seeing how the regular military basically is the government.........
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
