Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Obama signs 23 Executive Orders on GunControl


  • Please log in to reply
90 replies to this topic

#1    acidhead

acidhead

    Were Not Your Slaves!

  • Member
  • 10,272 posts
  • Joined:13 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Victoria, BC CANADA

Posted 16 January 2013 - 11:19 PM

Obama signs 23 Executive Orders on Gun Control
Jan. 16, 2013 http://us.cnn.com/20....html?hpt=hp_c1
Posted Image

Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama on Wednesday proposed background checks on all gun sales and bans on military style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines as part of a package of steps to reduce gun violence in the wake of the Newtown school massacre last month.

continued... *****

Just curious...

Weren't the 'birthers' roundly criticized for wanting to do 'background checks' on Barack Obama?

Seems hypocritical of him to want back ground info on YOU but for him to become POTUS he didn't have to provide you with his own information(except an autobiography novel, of course)  And now he just sign an executive order with the use of force to provide back ground checks on YOU!

I know, I know... the same ole people will say, "If you have nothing to hide or fear you'll pass the tests... er, I mean back ground checks......

Weird how this President continues to get a free pass at every turn.

Good job Barry.

"there is no wrong or right - just popular opinion"

#2    Supersquatch

Supersquatch

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 486 posts
  • Joined:30 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Earth, Milky Way, Local Group

  • Supersquatch powers, activate!

Posted 16 January 2013 - 11:26 PM

View Postacidhead, on 16 January 2013 - 11:19 PM, said:

Weren't the 'birthers' roundly criticized for wanting to do 'background checks' on Barack Obama?

Seems hypocritical of him to want back ground info on YOU but for him to become POTUS he didn't have to provide you with his own information(except an autobiography novel, of course)  And now he just sign an executive order with the use of force to provide back ground checks on YOU!

There's a difference between racism and knowing if you're dangerous or not. And why would you want to buy an assault weapon anyway?

I'm giving Obama a BBBIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGG thumbs up! :tsu: :clap: :tu:

Posted Image

#3    Sir Wearer of Hats

Sir Wearer of Hats

    Is not a number!

  • Member
  • 9,428 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queensland, Australia.

Posted 16 January 2013 - 11:28 PM

FWIW I think the whole "getting rid of loopholes in background checks" is a good move, what's the point of having a law (a relatively sensible one, making sure convicted criminals don't get guns and so forth) if there's such an easily exploitable hole in it?
Banning assault weapons? Why do you need them? Surely for hunting you need something with a bit more "stopping power" and less damage to the carcass (after all, who wants to be picking bullets out of their venison?) and for home defence you want stopping power as well - a shotgun for example will both stop a home invader and give them a chance to survive and face trial.


#4    acidhead

acidhead

    Were Not Your Slaves!

  • Member
  • 10,272 posts
  • Joined:13 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Victoria, BC CANADA

Posted 16 January 2013 - 11:48 PM

View PostNoodly Savior, on 16 January 2013 - 11:26 PM, said:

There's a difference between racism and knowing if you're dangerous or not.



Collectivism.  Call a person a racist and immediately the issue is derailed.

Nice try dumb dumb.

"there is no wrong or right - just popular opinion"

#5    acidhead

acidhead

    Were Not Your Slaves!

  • Member
  • 10,272 posts
  • Joined:13 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Victoria, BC CANADA

Posted 16 January 2013 - 11:58 PM

View PostWearer of Hats, on 16 January 2013 - 11:28 PM, said:


Banning assault weapons? Why do you need them? Surely for hunting you need something with a bit more "stopping power" and less damage to the carcass (after all, who wants to be picking bullets out of their venison?) and for home defence you want stopping power as well - a shotgun for example will both stop a home invader and give them a chance to survive and face trial.

GOV tyranny.

Piers Morgan, who's been leading the corporate media on this issue on CNN has asked the same question over and over.  His question has been met with the same conclusion over and over... GOV tyranny.  Last night on his TV program he had individuals from both sides debate the issue(it appeared fixed to me)  Piers suggested, on his own accord that GOV tyranny was the reason for owning assault weapons to which one of the individuals on the panel said while laughing, "...but... but... the GOV has nuclear weapons..... those assault weapons would be useless against nuclear weapons...."   HUH?!?!?!?  

If in the future the GOV became tyrannical I highly doubt the GOV would be bombing it's own cities with nuclear weapons... the fallout would affect everybody, not just those the weapons were meant to take out.  Piers, nor any of the panel raised this prospect.  They simply continued on talking about the need to take away the ability for the citizenry to defend itself against GOV tyranny.

"there is no wrong or right - just popular opinion"

#6    Simbi Laveau

Simbi Laveau

    Overlord A. Snuffleupagus

  • Member
  • 8,245 posts
  • Joined:26 Feb 2012
  • Location:Rim of hell

  • ~So what's all this then ?!

Posted 16 January 2013 - 11:58 PM

There's an episode of Drawn Together,that is this exact topic,including a false flag .
The deer are the government equivalents .Bambi kills her own mom,so guns are given up by everyone ,so the deer can rise up .
It's a joke of course,and its from years ago .The irony is beyond amusing to me ....

http://www.tv.com/sh...a-y-ray-897306/



Edited by Simbi Laveau, 17 January 2013 - 12:00 AM.

Miss me?

#7    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 12,812 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 17 January 2013 - 12:17 AM

View Postacidhead, on 16 January 2013 - 11:19 PM, said:

Obama signs 23 Executive Orders on Gun Control
Jan. 16, 2013 http://us.cnn.com/20....html?hpt=hp_c1
Posted Image

Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama on Wednesday proposed background checks on all gun sales and bans on military style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines as part of a package of steps to reduce gun violence in the wake of the Newtown school massacre last month.

continued... *****

Just curious...

Weren't the 'birthers' roundly criticized for wanting to do 'background checks' on Barack Obama?

Seems hypocritical of him to want back ground info on YOU but for him to become POTUS he didn't have to provide you with his own information(except an autobiography novel, of course)  And now he just sign an executive order with the use of force to provide back ground checks on YOU!

I know, I know... the same ole people will say, "If you have nothing to hide or fear you'll pass the tests... er, I mean back ground checks......

Weird how this President continues to get a free pass at every turn.

Good job Barry.
The background checks are not a problem for citizens without a criminal record.  The issue is the database being compiled that creates a map like the one generated in NJ (I think) showing who owns and where.  If the government knows this then after the next crazy person or three shoots up some public venue then the government knows where to begin the eventual confiscation.  Yeah, sure, that'd never happen..... UNTIL IT DOES....
This E.O. creates a new classification of criminals.  I will be one at some point.  If I decide to sell my shotgun to a friend or some person I know and refuse to go to the police for a background check on them first (at my expense no doubt) then voila' !  I'm a felon.  These new laws will not impede real criminals.  The guns I've sold in past to strangers, I get a name and a copy of a driver license.  If the police ever come to me telling me that weapon was used in a crime then I have a last known location of the gun. To expect individuals to bear the expense and liability for a weapon that passes through their hands once, briefly, for as long as that weapon is in circulation is ridiculous.  My problem is not with certification in general.  Keeping firearms from criminals is a laudable objective in society.  But if my choice is to take a chance on another citizen or the government - I'll try my luck with the citizen.  I do, after all, have some ability of discerning whether the potential buyer is a thug or a gang banger.

  Imagination is the power in the turn of a phrase.

#8    Hasina

Hasina

    Maximillion Hotpocket Puckershuttle

  • Member
  • 3,032 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Female

  • JINKIES

Posted 17 January 2013 - 12:19 AM

I'm still seeing no action on those dangerous hammers and baseball bats. WHY U IGNORE ME GUMENT?

Posted Image

~MEH~


#9    Drayno

Drayno

    Reverend Dudemeister

  • Member
  • 3,672 posts
  • Joined:18 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 January 2013 - 12:19 AM

"The President believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual to bear arms, and he respects our nation's rich hunting and sport shooting traditions and the millions of responsible Americans who participate in them every year."

Too bad it's not about hunting animals.

We can refer to the Gesetz über Schußwaffen und Munition (Law on Firearms and Ammunition) of 1928..

The Weimar republic (Germany) made it forbidden to own a rifle beyond the usual extent for shooting and hunting. The law went into effect on October 1st, 1928. If you ignored this law you were thrown into prison for three years and had to pay a fine. If you inherited a gun and didn't report it, you were given the same punishment (echoing gun registration). In order to get a Waffen oder Munitionserwerbscheins, or license to obtain a weapon or ammunition, you had to go through the police. Authorities of the Reich and people in various positions, of course, were exempt.

“Licenses to obtain or to carry firearms shall only be issued to persons whose reliability is not in doubt, and only after proving a need for them.”

This, of course, sounds nothing like the United States.

Edited by Eonwe, 17 January 2013 - 12:24 AM.

"One leader, one people, signifies one master and millions of slaves." - Camus

#10    Hasina

Hasina

    Maximillion Hotpocket Puckershuttle

  • Member
  • 3,032 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Female

  • JINKIES

Posted 17 January 2013 - 12:23 AM

View PostEonwe, on 17 January 2013 - 12:19 AM, said:

"The President believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual to bear arms, and he respects our nation's rich hunting and sport shooting traditions and the millions of responsible Americans who participate in them every year."

Too bad it's not about hunting animals.

In 1928 the Weimar republic (Germany) made it forbidden to own a rifle beyond the usual extent for shooting and hunting. The law went into effect on October 1st, 1928. If you ignored this law you were thrown into prison for three years and had to pay a fine. If you inherited a gun and didn't report it, you were given the same punishment (echoing gun registration). In order to get a Waffen oder Munitionserwerbscheins, or license to obtain a weapon or ammunition, you had to go through the police. Authorities of the Reich and people in various positions, of course, were exempt.

Of course, “Licenses to obtain or to carry firearms shall only be issued to persons whose reliability is not in doubt, and only after proving a need for them.”

This, of course, sounds nothing like the United States.

*Sarcasm*
On a similar note:

Hardy, p. 1237. "Early Americans wrote of the right in light of three considerations: (1) as auxiliary to a natural right of self-defense; (2) as enabling an armed people to deter undemocratic government; and (3) as enabling the people to organize a militia system."

Malcolm, "That Every Man Be Armed," pp. 452, 466. "The Second Amendment reflects traditional English attitudes toward these three distinct, but intertwined, issues: the right of the individual to protect his life, the challenge to government of an armed citizenry, and the preference for a militia over a standing army. The framers' attempt to address all three in a single declarative sentence has contributed mightily to the subsequent confusion over the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment."

Merkel and Uviller, pp. 62, 179 ff, 183, 188 ff, 306. "[T]he right to bear arms was articulated as a civic right inextricably linked to the civic obligation to bear arms for the public defense."

Posted Image

~MEH~


#11    Supersquatch

Supersquatch

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 486 posts
  • Joined:30 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Earth, Milky Way, Local Group

  • Supersquatch powers, activate!

Posted 17 January 2013 - 12:30 AM

View Postacidhead, on 16 January 2013 - 11:48 PM, said:

Collectivism.  Call a person a racist and immediately the issue is derailed.

Nice try dumb dumb.

I never called you racist. Birthers usually are racist. Can't it be seen that it is racism if the birth certificate of the first black president is being questioned and scrutinized for no apparent reason?

Posted Image

#12    acidhead

acidhead

    Were Not Your Slaves!

  • Member
  • 10,272 posts
  • Joined:13 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Victoria, BC CANADA

Posted 17 January 2013 - 12:30 AM

View Postand then, on 17 January 2013 - 12:17 AM, said:

The background checks are not a problem for citizens without a criminal record.


While I like your post I would like to address this first sentence.

The back ground checks are a problem for individuals who have any such history of being prescribed anti-depressants regardless of zero criminal behavior.

Do not forget that the majority of shooters never had a criminal record.... this includes the latest Connecticut shooter.

If you've been prescribed anti-depressants by your doctor this information will be released, by the use of force, to the DOJ and YOU will not be allowed to own a fire arm.  YOU will be stripped of your rights because you are a potential risk.

"there is no wrong or right - just popular opinion"

#13    Hasina

Hasina

    Maximillion Hotpocket Puckershuttle

  • Member
  • 3,032 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Female

  • JINKIES

Posted 17 January 2013 - 12:37 AM

View PostHasina, on 17 January 2013 - 12:19 AM, said:

I'm still seeing no action on those dangerous hammers and baseball bats. WHY U IGNORE ME GUMENT?
I want PSA's from baseball players saying things like 'whenever I took a baseball bat into my own hands, I didn't know what a dangerous game I was playing.' -sarcasm-

See? You'd trust a baseball player with a bat, but maybe not Lenny the repeat batterer. (Bat pun, didn't notice that. Uh -ba-dum-tsh-)

Edited by Hasina, 17 January 2013 - 12:41 AM.

Posted Image

~MEH~


#14    acidhead

acidhead

    Were Not Your Slaves!

  • Member
  • 10,272 posts
  • Joined:13 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Victoria, BC CANADA

Posted 17 January 2013 - 12:38 AM

View PostNoodly Savior, on 17 January 2013 - 12:30 AM, said:

I never called you racist. Birthers usually are racist. Can't it be seen that it is racism if the birth certificate of the first black president is being questioned and scrutinized for no apparent reason?


Nope.... it's a non-issue throwing in the race card.  Obama's mother is as white as mine.  And my father is just about as dark as his... It's a non-issue meant to derail the whole point of providing accurate information to qualify as POTUS.  Color is in every single one of us.  We are all one people.

Barry has not provided the public with his full back ground check yet here he is signing executive orders to disarm the public of the means to protect the nation against any future GOV tyranny.

You do realize Obama has an alias name, Barry Soetaro, which he used while living in Indonesia as a youth?

Edited by acidhead, 17 January 2013 - 12:44 AM.

"there is no wrong or right - just popular opinion"

#15    acidhead

acidhead

    Were Not Your Slaves!

  • Member
  • 10,272 posts
  • Joined:13 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Victoria, BC CANADA

Posted 17 January 2013 - 12:41 AM

View PostHasina, on 17 January 2013 - 12:37 AM, said:

I want PSA's from baseball players saying things like 'whenever I took a baseball bat into my own hands, I didn't know what a dangerous game I was playing.' -sarcasm-

See? You'd trust a baseball player with a bat, but maybe not Lenny the repeat batterer.

I've come to the conclusion that you are not female.  But rather a male, probably aged around 40-ish posing as a young female.

"there is no wrong or right - just popular opinion"




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users