Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
SarahAvery

obama starts ban on guns

17 posts in this topic

cnn news have just reported that obama has banned high capacity magazine clips for guns and banned assault weapons. he wants magazines to have no more than 10 rounds in each. i do not really keep up with these sort of things but i think that is rather obsurd..do you really think that if someone wanted to kill someone they would not find another way than a gun to kill them? it is not guns that they need to ban. they need to spend more time and money on mental health than on banning guns. just my opinion. im sure that America knows they made the wrong decision in electing obama for a second term, now he will never have to be in office again so he can do as he pleases, bringing our country down with him. romney would have been much much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CNN has reported that Obama will unveil his PROPOSALS for gun control laws tomorrow.

From the article you didn't take the time to read:

More specifically, the source -- an official familiar with the process -- said the president's proposal will press for a ban on high capacity magazines with more than 10 rounds, universal background checks and a request that funds be made available to help treat mental illness and provide schools with support to enhance their safety.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/15/politics/gun-laws-battle/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Or should we just issue AR's at birth with an NRA membership?

Edited by Imaginarynumber1
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One change I'd like to see - and one that might actually have made a difference that horrible day - is an alarm system just for such intrusions and a fail safe barrier/door in all classrooms. If a gunman can't get in then he can't slaughter a captive group of people. If he's already in the room then he can at least be isolated there and minimize the damage. Granted, trapping people in a room might lead to casualties but with proper fire suppression devices I think that could be minimized. No system is perfect but this one requires no extra guns on the premises and can give time for LEO's to arrive.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One change I'd like to see - and one that might actually have made a difference that horrible day - is an alarm system just for such intrusions and a fail safe barrier/door in all classrooms. If a gunman can't get in then he can't slaughter a captive group of people. If he's already in the room then he can at least be isolated there and minimize the damage. Granted, trapping people in a room might lead to casualties but with proper fire suppression devices I think that could be minimized. No system is perfect but this one requires no extra guns on the premises and can give time for LEO's to arrive.

I've thought of this same type of defensive technique too. But it requires a police state style of intervention. But in reality, it is what the true free market would impose.... so I'm all for it.

---except of course if it';s the GOV doing the bidding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or should we just issue AR's at birth with an NRA membership?

Na, we could wait till they are 18, like in Switerland. Seems to be working out pretty good over there.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cnn news have just reported that obama has banned high capacity magazine clips for guns and banned assault weapons. he wants magazines to have no more than 10 rounds in each.

Obama learned this lesson the hard way while in surfing in Hawaii and working in the law office.

He will fire 10 rounds each of executive orders and assume that you won't be able to dodge from all of them.

Why 10, why not 5 or 15? There's no basis for it, it's a completely arbitrary number that he pulled out of thin air to make it sounds like he knows what he's talking about. The only word he's concerned with is "limit".

Edited by Order66

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Na, we could wait till they are 18, like in Switerland. Seems to be working out pretty good over there.

Switzerland's gun death rate is pretty bad by the standard of most western democracies, but still a lot lower than the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Switzerland's gun death rate is pretty bad by the standard of most western democracies, but still a lot lower than the USA.

Thats probably as its a much smaller country.. I read somewhere that the Obama administration thinks young males, 18-20 year olds should be banned from owning guns....

I wonder if its the same 18-20 year old males they arm to the teeth and send off to war, and to protect their own country?

Heres the lists on gun deaths by country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

I wont be going to El Salvador anytime soon..

Edited by seeder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This response by the White House is based upon the premise that the story is true and accurate.

There is considerable evidence suggesting the story is not accurate. The details seem to contradict each other.

I doubt Romney would have been any better, but Gary Johnson certainly would have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why 10, why not 5 or 15? There's no basis for it, it's a completely arbitrary number that he pulled out of thin air to make it sounds like he knows what he's talking about. The only word he's concerned with is "limit".

NY State came up with an even better number. Seven!

Seven rounds is all a legal gun owner can have in the magazine. The purchase of a 10 round magazine is also illegal now in NY State. Current owners of 10 round 'clips' are okay though, those clips have been grandfathered into the new law. But, you can't put more than 7 rounds of ammo in them.

The previous larger clips 15-20 which were previously grandfathered into the last batch gun ban laws are now illegal to possess, thus turning thousands of legally licensed, law abiding gun owners into criminals the moment Cuomo signed the bill into law.

There is so much more to this law that just steams my beans. <_<

Edited by BiffSplitkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love laws that retroactively make law abiding citizens criminals. -sarcasm-

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NY State came up with an even better number. Seven!

Seven rounds is all a legal gun owner can have in the magazine. The purchase of a 10 round magazine is also illegal now in NY State. Current owners of 10 round 'clips' are okay though, those clips have been grandfathered into the new law. But, you can't put more than 7 rounds of ammo in them.

The previous larger clips 15-20 which were previously grandfathered into the last batch gun ban laws are now illegal to possess, thus turning thousands of legally licensed, law abiding gun owners into criminals the moment Cuomo signed the bill into law.

There is so much more to this law that just steams my beans. <_<

Isn't this an example of an ex post facto law? Which is prohibited by the US Constitution?

How can it be that legal acts today are rendered illegal tomorrow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Na, we could wait till they are 18, like in Switerland. Seems to be working out pretty good over there.

From the age between 19-24, boys have to go in the military for around a minimum of 260 days. After military service men can take their guns home and keep them.

Switzerland's gun death rate is pretty bad by the standard of most western democracies, but still a lot lower than the USA.

Switzerlands criminality rate is very good compared to most of Europe. The only reason they have highest rate of gun related criminality compared to other western countries is because guns are legal (after military service). So in effect there are a lot more guns in households compared to other countries

.

Switzerland has the highest rate of gun related suicides compared to Europe.

It is not known how many military-issued guns are involved in homicides each year, though Switzerland's gun murder rate is relatively low – just 24 in 2009, or about 0.3 firearms homicides per 100,000 inhabitants. By comparison, the US rate in 2007 was 4.2 per 100,000 inhabitants.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/13/swiss-reject-gun-law-reform

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this an example of an ex post facto law? Which is prohibited by the US Constitution?

How can it be that legal acts today are rendered illegal tomorrow?

From wikipedia:

A law may have an ex post facto effect without being technically ex post facto. For example, when a law repeals a previous law, the repealed legislation is no longer applicable to situations to which it previously was, even if such situations arose before the law was repealed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From wikipedia:

A law may have an ex post facto effect without being technically ex post facto. For example, when a law repeals a previous law, the repealed legislation is no longer applicable to situations to which it previously was, even if such situations arose before the law was repealed.

I appreciate that bit of Wiki stuff, and understand the general idea, but does this mean the state cannot prosecute people for possessing today what was perfectly legal yesterday? Or must the state "buy back" all those now illegal pieces of hardware to compensate the people for their loss? This could be seen as a "taking" by the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NY State came up with an even better number. Seven!

Kind of like the 32 ounce soda, the number where soda magically becomes unhealthy for you.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate that bit of Wiki stuff, and understand the general idea, but does this mean the state cannot prosecute people for possessing today what was perfectly legal yesterday? Or must the state "buy back" all those now illegal pieces of hardware to compensate the people for their loss? This could be seen as a "taking" by the government.

I'm not quite sure how that will actually work. I'm sure the politicians that helped make this law don't have a clue either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.