You Crazy Americans

[hatehabsforever]

So President Obama is planning on getting tough on gun control in the United States, after years of mass shootings, individual gun violence, and more gun related deaths than pretty much any other country in the world. As I understand it, he is planning on utilizing his executive authority to enforce stricter rules regarding background checks regarding obtaining guns. He is attempting to close the supposed "gun show loophole". He is not trying to prevent deserving individuals from obtaining firearms if they so choose, he is simply trying to ensure that more rigid screening measures are in place to try to prevent weapons from ending up, legally, in the wrong people's hands.

Now I am not a resident of the United States of America, being a proud Canadian citizen, so I put the question to my neighbors to the south, and anyone else who wants to chime in here. What exactly is the problem with what President Obama is trying (likely unsuccessfully) to do here? Because I have yet to hear a logical argument as to what the problem with Obama's initiative is. Please, someone explain to me why trying to keep dangerous weapons out of inappropriate people's hands is a bad thing.

 

[Fire Marshall Bill]

I agree that there some ways to obtain firearms that just make it too easy for the wrong people to legally obtain them. Gun shows are a huge one.

That said, anyone fighting for stricter gun control is always going to fight an uphill battle. You're talking about something that was a basic foundation in the forming of our country. It's the 2nd amendment. Things like that don't come or go easily. I don't know enough about anyone else's country to make an even parallel, but I have a hard time believing they're not out there.

Is he trying to get rid of the 2nd amendment? No. Is he trying to chip away at it? That's probably how a lot of the country sees it. I don't necessarily disagree with this attempt, but who in the hell made those laws so lenient in the first place? The 2nd amendment gives the right to bear arms. It says nothing about gun shows. Someone much further down the line is at fault here.

 

[One Punch Doug Crashin]

The courts will likely overrule these "ideas" because that's exactly what they are. Executive orders are recommendations. They can't be laws. I don't understand this president sometimes. The office of the Presidency is just a figurehead. It's Congress who makes the laws.

 

[hatehabsforever]

I agree that there some ways to obtain firearms that just make it too easy for the wrong people to legally obtain them. Gun shows are a huge one.

So why not take whatever steps are feasible to at least make this as difficult as possible?

That said, anyone fighting for stricter gun control is always going to fight an uphill battle. You're talking about something that was a basic foundation in the forming of our country. It's the 2nd amendment. Things like that don't come or go easily. I don't know enough about anyone else's country to make an even parallel, but I have a hard time believing they're not out there.

I have no doubt it will be an uphill battle and ultimately, Obama's efforts will be thwarted. No one is suggesting abolishing or ignoring the 2nd amendment. You still should have the right to bear arms. Just as long as you are do not have a criminal history, a history of mental illness, a history of violence, etc., People do have the right to bear arms (I guess). They also have the right to be able to walk down the street without getting shot by some lunatic who was given a gun by a family member, with no attempt in place to at least make this less likely to happen. Nothing can eliminate this completely. But at least make it less likely. And boo freakin hoo if that is inconvenient for some guys.

Is he trying to get rid of the 2nd amendment? No. Is he trying to chip away at it? That's probably how a lot of the country sees it. I don't necessarily disagree with this attempt, but who in the hell made those laws so lenient in the first place? The 2nd amendment gives the right to bear arms. It says nothing about gun shows. Someone much further down the line is at fault here.

I don't see how he is even chipping away at the 2nd amendment. He is just attempting to put some logical provisions in place to ensure it exists in a safe and sensible manner. I really don't get it.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Were the fuck is IDR? Someplace jerking it so hard he is about to fuck around and start a forest fire, im sure.

What exactly is the problem with what President Obama is trying (likely unsuccessfully) to do here? Because I have yet to hear a logical argument as to what the problem with Obama's initiative is. Please, someone explain to me why trying to keep dangerous weapons out of inappropriate people's hands is a bad thing.

There is no problem, and people are lazy fucking morons.


I literally had to explain to two people today that the President was simply beefing up background checks in order to obtain a firearm in the first place, and both of them just kind of said "....oh" and then the room got all quiet.

Uh, yea.


I don't want to hear SHIT about the second amendment. For numerous reasons.


The constitution was designed as a living document. Perhaps people don't know what the word "amendment" actually means.

It was also written by people who owned other human beings as property.

The amendment itself states you may own weapons as part of a well-regulated militia. Its intent is not for jim-bob on the farm to have an AR-15, or Tyrone from the hood to have an uzi. It is not designed for every human being to have whatever the fuck they want whenever the fuck they want. Just because it has been enforced incorrectly for so wrong doesn't make it right. Fucking stop, for fuck sake.

It isn't the sweeping change we desperately and obviously need, but it is at least something. It makes me chuckle that the President used an executive order on it, since the republican congress has done everything and anything to abuse the system and impede everything possible.

 

[The Butcher]

A psychopath with a legally purchased weapon shot up women and children in a schoolhouse, and many of us barely blinked. Decrying gun violence while doing nothing about it is woven into our fabric. As South Park humorously pointed out during the U.S. invasion of Iraq, from our very beginnings the American people have had deep divisions in thought. Divisions which have only deepened as we've grown more bloated and deluded.

On those too rare occasions when we have been fortunate enough to have a leader that is willing to take on an issue like gun control, the side that doesn't get its way throws a tantrum. And like a leashed 5-year old at the grocery store, they get dragged along, not having enough self-awareness to realize how wrong or embarrassing they are. The world community plays the role of the other shoppers, trying not to stare, but wishing more than anything that the spoiled brat gets taken over the knee sooner rather than later.

Congress as it stands is less than useless on this issue. Most Americans are tired of it. Those that aren't see countrymen killed by gun violence as acceptable losses. The President, himself an American, sides with those who are fed up. And, being the Chief Executive of the United States, he can sign executive orders. Don't like it? Vote. And if your side loses, suck it up and enjoy gay marriages, stricter rules on buying firearms, Obamacare, and the privilege of living within the confines of the United States of America.

 

[enviousdominous]

Political parties pander to a social base, and they immediately adopt whatever silly whims they may have.

The Republicans have bravely adopted those who so enjoy the company of guns that they name them and attribute a sentient perspective unto them. While not all gun owners are fucking crazy, the gun owners who are the quickest to comment online tend to just let the crazy thoughts gush out of them.

If you have a bad guy with a gun, both political parties offer unique solutions. Most Republicans believe that the only solution is a hero with a gun channeling their inner Dirty Harry. Most Democrats believe that the only solution is to trust in the police force to respond quickly and to enact restrictions on gun sales that would have supposedly prevented the criminal from obtaining a gun.

There are holes in either argument, that can't be directly referenced because either side is too distracted by the fact that their verbal fights usually devolve into immature contests of wit.

This being election season, every Republican candidate is now mandated to ridicule the President for his decision. Despite showing a complete lack of understanding in regard to what was actually proposed, acting like a bunch of callous dick-heads seems to be working for now.

In spite of the necessity of this move on part of the President, Republicans can't agree with him on any matter during an election season. I'm a registered Republican, and I've had to prune the hell out of my friends' list on Facebook over hot button issues that involve how one feels about the President.

This fight isn't over; the President will have to have a budget approved by *shudder* Congress that will recognize funding for the ATF in regard to providing extra materials and manpower to meet this requirement. So look for them to drag their feet like crazy and probably force another shutdown.

 

[SSJPhenom]

The problem is its un-American that's what!!! Its unconstitutional..... God gave me the right to carry a gun!!!!! It says so in the good ole King James Bible..........and on and on and on with more ignorant talk from southern rednecks who thinks that stricter gun laws is going to impede on them being able to hunt or have a gun locker in their garage and such.

Do you want to know what the real issue with this idea is? It's Obama's idea; that's what the problem with it is. I swear, the man could end world hunger and his detractors would still call him a communist and a socialist. He's not trying to take guns away from everybody. He's just trying to make it harder for a young man with orange colored hair to go into a movie theater and gun down innocent people. He's just trying to make it harder for a grown man to go into an elementary school in the north east and kill 5-7 year old children. He's just trying to make it harder for a racist man to go into a black church and open fire. He's just trying to make it harder for a group of black teenagers to shoot and kill an innocent old white man walking his dog because they wanted to rob him. I don't understand the issue with that? If you're a law abiding citizen with no history of violence and all you want to do is hunt or have protection in your home just in case, then you have nothing to worry about.

So again hatehabsforever, the only issue with this idea is that it's Obama's idea.

 

[rbv13]

Very well said NorCal. While I am a minority around here I am a conservative and my "real life" circle typically falls under the same umbrella. When the topic of gun control arises I become an outcast as I'm typically they only one who understands or wants to admit to the points you've made.

I will add this gun control shit is coming off more and more as a financial gains tactic. I was wise enough to invest a bit of cash in Smith & Wesson and let me tell you it is doing extremely well. Smoking the hell out of my WWE stock.

There is no problem, and people are lazy fucking morons.


I literally had to explain to two people today that the President was simply beefing up background checks in order to obtain a firearm in the first place, and both of them just kind of said "....oh" and then the room got all quiet.

Uh, yea.


I don't want to hear SHIT about the second amendment. For numerous reasons.


The constitution was designed as a living document. Perhaps people don't know what the word "amendment" actually means.

It was also written by people who owned other human beings as property.

The amendment itself states you may own weapons as part of a well-regulated militia. Its intent is not for jim-bob on the farm to have an AR-15, or Tyrone from the hood to have an uzi. It is not designed for every human being to have whatever the fuck they want whenever the fuck they want. Just because it has been enforced incorrectly for so wrong doesn't make it right. Fucking stop, for fuck sake.

It isn't the sweeping change we desperately and obviously need, but it is at least something. It makes me chuckle that the President used an executive order on it, since the republican congress has done everything and anything to abuse the system and impede everything possible.

 

[Akhilleus]

For some reason people, most of whom don't like President Obama, think that the Democrats are going to knock on everyone's door and raid their house for any and all firearms. All gun control is, is what it says it is...GUN...CONTROL. Controlling the guns, making it more difficult for people who shouldn't have them, not to have them.

Now granted, I am in favor of making more guns illegal. I don't think there is any need for fully automatic and semi automatic weapons. I think sidearms are good for self defense, I think rifles are okay for hunting. That is all I think we need to own. Shotguns are fine too, but I don't see any reason for even the most upmost citizents to own an M14 Assault rifle. Sport? You really make a sport out of shooting an assault rifle?

There are countless arguments for being anti gun control that just make no sense what so ever. The biggest reason people say is so that we can fight the government in the event of a revolution. First of all this made sense back in the day of muskets, but do people really think we could take on the government now? News flash, they have drones.

Another thing people say is making guns illegal would make it so only criminals have guns. That's no true either. Without guns easily available, the black market price for them would sky rocket. And besides more shootings happen from people who don't even know how to purchase guns off of the black market. These people get them other ways, by buying them without getting background checks.

Protection? I love this one. Because people who own guns say they're smart enough to keep it locked in a gun safe. If they're not locked in a gun safe that's a whole new problem all together, how do you keep it them away from your children or from being stolen by people? But assuming it is locked in a safe and your house is robbed, are you going to have enough time to run to your gun safe and get your weapon? Robbery is when someone breaks into your house and steals your stuff by force or threat of force. That means that probably have a gun too.

But my favorite argument goes for people who complain about the background checks too. They get angry because they have to wait longer for their guns. What are you planning on doing with that gun that you need it THAT bad? But people say "Why should I have my guns taken away if I didn't do anything". Reminds me of "Why should I have my slaves taken away?" Or "Why can't I speed, I'm a good driver". Or how about "Why can't I do drugs, I can take it".

The simple fact of the matter is though that guns are never going to be truly outlawed. President Obama is not going to land his helicopter on your street, kick down your door, and raid your house for every firearm you own. All he, and many others want, is to make it much more difficult for people to acquire guns who otherwise should not have them. Adam Lanza's mother may not have been cleared to own firearms. James Holmes may not have been able to acquire the guns that he did.

People say that if someone wants a gun, they're going to find a way to get it no matter what. Personally, this is coming from an average young white male, I don't know where to obtain a gun illegally. If I were to snap like James Holmes, it's not like I would be able call up my black market dealer and get a delivery. I would have to get it legally. Now if I was on the verge of a breakdown like that I assume I'd be getting help first, possibly on medication, seeing a psychiatrist. That should be able to been seen on background checks, and I would be denied access to the gun.

They also say that if they can't find a gun, they'll use something else so there's no stopping it. First of all, using a gun is easier. You can take out a lot more people with a gun then you can if you are using a knife. Guns also allow people to kill if they are too weak or unskilled to do it in other ways. It also gives you range and concealment, and basically prevents others from stopping the attack. They're also more reliable. Homemade bombs can be duds, knives can be wrestled away.

I've written multiple papers on the argument gun control, and I throw this reasoning in the face of anyone that tries to sell mean the idea of having guns. The simple fact is you can't prevent crimes of passion, but you can keep guns out of the hands of lunatics. I don't want guns to be outlawed, that isn't what I want at all. In fact I plan on getting a license to carry. All I want to is regulation, and awareness. It's a team job, the government controls and regulates the possession and sale of firearms, and we as citizens recognize not only the importance of gun safety, but also not ignoring signs of mental illnesses in people we know and love. Adam Lanza could have been stopped at many different times by many different people. He wasn't, but maybe we can stop the next one.

 

[J.J.]

I typically stay away from these subjects, especially with non-US citizens(no pun intended) but I'll offer my one time opinion on the gun ordeal. Overall I'm not opposed to Obama but I can't help but point out that he's fully protected by the 2nd amendment....Literally.

I seems like these strong pro-gun supporters feel that my 8 year old son's life is less important than their right to own whatever firearm and ammunition they want, then I wish they would openly admit that. Instead they hide behind meaningless rhetoric or claim that they're just ready for action only to back off when the NRA comes knocking. If you believe along with a clear majority of Americans of both sides of the political spectrum that modest regulation of weapons designed for the sole purpose of killing humans seems reasonable, that's a pretty easy public position to take.

I own firearms myself and honestly I want to keep them. I believe our society is overflowing with lethal weapons and that we must take action to prevent more dead children. Mass shootings are on the rise. When will it be enough to actually do something? Who has the courage to do the right thing? It starts at the state level to maintain our constitutional right to bear arms while arming ourselves with the tools to be safer in public.

I feel that licenses should be renewed every 5 years with full background checks and mental health screenings. My driver's license tells people that I am a donor - it could also indicate whether or not I am a gun owner or authorized to carry concealed firearms.

Before anyone tells me how I am violating rights by proposing a record of gun owners, I just want to note that the constitution does not say that you have the right to bear arms and not tell anyone. This country regulates chemicals, elevators, airplanes, and financial transactions. None of those are specifically designed to kill anyone.

I would mandate a set 40 hour amount of training hours prior to license approval. I'm here to tell you that there is little value to having a firearm if one cannot employ it tactically. I'm not saying we need owners to be trained to the level of the Military, but if you claim to want these weapons to protect your home, then you should at least have a baseline knowledge. The amount of training should jump to 80 for those who want a concealed carry permit. This training should be done by the government to ensure consistency and quality control and should be covered by a tax on ammunition.

To pay for the licensing process and training as well as the background and mental health screenings, we can add a modest tax to ammunition sales - I believe five to ten cents per round is a manageable amount. This way, the costs are spread amongst those who wish to own guns.

That's my spin on it - as a family man, gun owner and former Military weapons inspector.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Most of the reasons have already been stated as to why this probably won't work or, at the very least, why it's such an uphill battle.

As someone else mentioned, there seems to be this innate fear that right wing politicians and lobbyists have instilled in predominantly right wing voters: the Democrats sending police and/or military personnel to your homes to take your guns away from you, thereby leaving you defenseless in your homes against potential threats such as burglars. It's a fear mongering tactic that's worked quite well for decades and a huge reason why it's worked is because of the tactics and money flooded into the Washington machine by the powerhouse lobbying practices of the National Rifle Association and their efforts are bolstered by gun companies like Smith & Wesson and Colt.

I get it: people want to feel safe and they want to be able to keep their rights. The thing is that we can't have EVERYTHING exactly the way we want it; while there's never going to be 100% safety where guns are concerned, we can't expect to be protected when we're not willing to possibly give a little. I haven't heard anything that's going to infringe on our rights as a society, just those of certain people as it'll be more difficult for them to obtain guns. While it might not be PC for politicians to come right out and say this, the truth of the matter is that there are some people who should not be able to purchase, own and carry firearms. There are people who're mentally and emotionally unstable, there are people who are too immature in their mind set to view guns as more than symbols of machismo rather than deadly weapons, there are people who purposely intend to cause harm and general chaos if they're able to get their hands on firearms, etc. Some people will slip through the cracks, that's the case with life as a whole unfortunately, but if new measures make it less likely for massacres like Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook and all the others take place, then I've got no problem with it. I mean, something has to be done and it has to be something new because what's going on now sure as shit isn't getting it done; maybe if there weren't so many loopholes in currently existing laws, it'd be different. There's not a day that goes by when I don't flip over to CNN with a little apprehension due to wondering if there's been another mass shooting.

 

[One Punch Doug Crashin]

Ben Franklin said it best: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Very applicable here.

 

[CyberPunk]

I am very unfamiliar with how things work in the States when it comes to firearms. In India, we have stringent rules against owning or acquiring firearms. It has always been like that here. You need a licence to own any type of gun, and even if you have one, its difficult to acquire a semi-automatic or automatic handguns, leave alone assault rifles. Getting a licence itself is a very uphill task here as you have to prove why you need one and you're granted one only if it is your life is under threat or more plausibly, for sports. Unless you have connections, acquiring any type of firearm legally is very tough.

To some extent, it has helped. You'll hear very few stories of mass shoot-outs in this part of the world. It's makes it very difficult for us to believe that imposing control over who acquires guns is this difficult in the US. I am not saying that our communities are any safer than yours, but it certainly has less deaths in a shoot-out. This doesn't mean people don't have guns here, but for that one has to turn to the black-market.

We have other ways of killing ourselves here anyway.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Ben Franklin said it best: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Very applicable here.

What essential liberty is being given up, or being asked to be given up here?

It seems to me you are attacking a strawman.

For me, I've argued clearly from the onset — a national gun policy is required. To what extent, exactly? We can argue that. But it needs to be national. This business of allowing individual states to set laws or no laws is what prevents meaningful legislation from having positive effects. Like Chicago. Pro-gun advocates love to point to it as an example of how "banning guns doesn't work", but completely fail to understand that the state of Indiana, a mere three hour drive away, has some of the most lax laws in the country. So does Mississippi. Two states that officials in Chicago have repeatedly traced to as the source of much of the city's illegal guns.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Were the fuck is IDR? Someplace jerking it so hard he is about to fuck around and start a forest fire, im sure.

LMAO! Been a little busy. Sorry.

There is no problem, and people are lazy fucking morons.


I literally had to explain to two people today that the President was simply beefing up background checks in order to obtain a firearm in the first place, and both of them just kind of said "....oh" and then the room got all quiet.

Uh, yea.


I don't want to hear SHIT about the second amendment. For numerous reasons.


The constitution was designed as a living document. Perhaps people don't know what the word "amendment" actually means.

It was also written by people who owned other human beings as property.

The amendment itself states you may own weapons as part of a well-regulated militia. Its intent is not for jim-bob on the farm to have an AR-15, or Tyrone from the hood to have an uzi. It is not designed for every human being to have whatever the fuck they want whenever the fuck they want. Just because it has been enforced incorrectly for so wrong doesn't make it right. Fucking stop, for fuck sake.

It isn't the sweeping change we desperately and obviously need, but it is at least something. It makes me chuckle that the President used an executive order on it, since the republican congress has done everything and anything to abuse the system and impede everything possible.

Yup, and one of the Founding Fathers who helped craft it said it ought to be rewritten every 19 years, equating not doing so with being "enslaved to the prior generation".

But if you are even the slightest bit curious why this particular amendment has avoided even minor revisions, look no farther than the laundry list of congressmen and congresswomen who receive NRA donations (often regularly).

Igor Volsky of ThinkProgress has been tweeting out NRA connections to our elected leaders for a while now, with the actual factual financial details to boot: https://twitter.com/search?q=@igorvolsky&ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^search

 

[One Punch Doug Crashin]

What essential liberty is being given up, or being asked to be given up here?

It seems to me you are attacking a strawman.

For me, I've argued clearly from the onset — a national gun policy is required. To what extent, exactly? We can argue that. But it needs to be national. This business of allowing individual states to set laws or no laws is what prevents meaningful legislation from having positive effects. Like Chicago. Pro-gun advocates love to point to it as an example of how "banning guns doesn't work", but completely fail to understand that the state of Indiana, a mere three hour drive away, has some of the most lax laws in the country. So does Mississippi. Two states that officials in Chicago have repeatedly traced to as the source of much of the city's illegal guns.

And this is the problem. Owning a gun is an American"liberty". Has been since the Supreme Court affirmed an individuals right to own one as defined by the Second Amendment. Before you come in saying oh, that was merely for "well regulated militias". You would be correct. But it was also the founding fathers who said that an individuals right to defend themselves is an essential liberty. When you put too much a burden for civilians to protect themselves, lives get cut short. This is what these politicians fail to understand. That is to say I'm all for increasing background checks to include mental heath history what I'm concerned with is what constitutes too much government interference?

 

[It's Damn Real!]

And this is the problem. Owning a gun is an American"liberty". Has been since the Supreme Court affirmed an individuals right to own one as defined by the Second Amendment. Before you come in saying oh, that was merely for "well regulated militias". You would be correct. But it was also the founding fathers who said that an individuals right to defend themselves is an essential liberty. When you put too much a burden for civilians to protect themselves, lives get cut short. This is what these politicians fail to understand. That is to say I'm all for increasing background checks to include mental heath history what I'm concerned with is what constitutes too much government interference?

I don't disagree. But you seem to be confusing my position with one wanting or supporting a ban on gun ownership. That's not my position. My position has been, and will continue to be that a national policy is needed. Background checks, mental health history, etc. all need to be part of it. Requirements as part of the national policy.

Australia got it right. People often misunderstand and think they banned guns. They didn't. They put restrictions on ownership based on type of weapons allowed to be owned, reasons they're allowed to be owned and put an emphasis on things like proper storage and safety. There are exactly zero reasons the U.S. can't do something similar.