Obama speaks on changes to US gun laws

[Greed and Death]

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms? That sounds like a great place to work! I love all three of those things, especially at the same time! Where's the nearest recruitment facility!

What an awesome country America could have been, were it just for this one minor detail...

It is a hard job but someone must test all these cigars whiskey and firearms.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Plenty's changed.
America will be prohibited from making up almost a third of sales from the Izmash arsenal.
You're killing the Russian economy!

No seriously, renewed interest in AK-type rifles was one of the main things that kept that factory open.

Maybe, but for everything else it hasnt changed much.

...
Also the US economy will suffer from this?

[Occupied Deutschland]

Only if the states are allowed to require a mental evaluation before a woman gets an abortion. It is a serious decision we want to make sure she is not crazy before making it.

I'm not sugarcoating it. That comparison sucked.

People need to be trusted with a firearm, which requires a psych evaluation. I don't see how a woman would require an evaluation unless her vagina can somehow kill other people.

And don't turn this into a discussion about abortion. Unborn foetuses aren't people yet.

So find a better comparison or give me an argument.

Psych evals aren't predictors of future behavior.
Psych evals are subjective by their nature, so any categorization using them will similarly be subjective.
Psych evals would suffer from inherent bias from the original creator (if we went with a 'standard' evaluation nationally)
Psych evals would be incredibly expensive to perform on every individual who wants to purchase a firearms.
Mandating psych evaluations for the practice of a Constitutional Right is of...questionable...legality at best.

[Dilange]

Maybe, but for everything else it hasnt changed much.

...
Also the US economy will suffer from this?

How would the US economy suffer from that?

[G-Tech Corporation]

...
Also the US economy will suffer from this?

How would the US economy suffer from that?

Tariffs, importers, markups at the counter for gun sellers. Ammunition can't be had for love nor money where I am.

[Lessnt]

I'm not sugarcoating it. That comparison sucked.

People need to be trusted with a firearm, which requires a psych evaluation. I don't see how a woman would require an evaluation unless her vagina can somehow kill other people.

And don't turn this into a discussion about abortion. Unborn foetuses aren't people yet.

So find a better comparison or give me an argument.

Psych evals aren't predictors of future behavior.
Psych evals are subjective by their nature, so any categorization using them will similarly be subjective.
Psych evals would suffer from inherent bias from the original creator (if we went with a 'standard' evaluation nationally)
Psych evals would be incredibly expensive to perform on every individual who wants to purchase a firearms.
Mandating psych evaluations for the practice of a Constitutional Right is of...questionable...legality at best.

Here is the definition of mental illness.
Anything that makes it hard for a person to live an ordinary life.

With no definition to what an ordinary life is.
And no concrete definition for the problems afflicting the mind.

It is all pretty much subjective.

[Esternial]

I'm not sugarcoating it. That comparison sucked.

People need to be trusted with a firearm, which requires a psych evaluation. I don't see how a woman would require an evaluation unless her vagina can somehow kill other people.

And don't turn this into a discussion about abortion. Unborn foetuses aren't people yet.

So find a better comparison or give me an argument.

Psych evals aren't predictors of future behavior.
Psych evals are subjective by their nature, so any categorization using them will similarly be subjective.
Psych evals would suffer from inherent bias from the original creator (if we went with a 'standard' evaluation nationally)
Psych evals would be incredibly expensive to perform on every individual who wants to purchase a firearms.
Mandating psych evaluations for the practice of a Constitutional Right is of...questionable...legality at best.

It just seems logical to confirm whether or not someone is prone to going depressed and shoot people, even if it's only a minor test to weed out the very dangerous cases. But I know it's probably hard for me to understand, considering you Americans are so tightly bonded with a gun culture compared to most - if not all - European countries.

It's just hard to understand.

But wouldn't you agree it would seems reasonable, provided if it could be efficient and objective.

[Dilange]

How would the US economy suffer from that?

Tariffs, importers, markups at the counter for gun sellers. Ammunition can't be had for love nor money where I am.

Ok, but tariffs and markups happen pretty often. THats not going to do much damage to the economy.

[Lessnt]

How would the US economy suffer from that?

Tariffs, importers, markups at the counter for gun sellers. Ammunition can't be had for love nor money where I am.

http://ammo.net/7.62x39-ammo
http://www.ammunitiontogo.com/index.php ... tal-jacket
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/ItemList ... ?catid=606

makes me feel like everyone is stocking up for a war.

[Free South Califas]

May I ask a slightly controversial question?
Why exactly is it that we treat the Bill of Rights as if they were gospel?
Why is it that we always use the Bill of Rights and the Founding Fathers as its own argument?

The Founding Fathers lived 200 years ago in a vastly different world of differing values and circumstances, why should what they say matter?
They were men, not gods, men.
On this issue I'm going to say right now that the 2nd Amendment is wrong.

Then the entirety of America, as an entity is wrong.
The Bill of Rights and the Constitution defines every aspect of your country.

No, the Native American genocide and the history of slavery have a lot to say about the shape of economics and politics in this society, too.

To declare it forfeit and start again is wut and impossible.

No, the Constitution gives us the power to do exactly that, actually.

May I ask a slightly controversial question?
Why exactly is it that we treat the Bill of Rights as if they were gospel?
Why is it that we always use the Bill of Rights and the Founding Fathers as its own argument?

The Founding Fathers lived 200 years ago in a vastly different world of differing values and circumstances, why should what they say matter?
They were men, not gods, men.
On this issue I'm going to say right now that the 2nd Amendment is wrong.

I disagree with ya, but to answer your question - I suppose going back on the principles on which the country was founded

Genocide, forced displacement, slavery, racism, timocracy or extreme patriarchy? We've long since turned against all of those principles to some degree.

May I ask a slightly controversial question?
Why exactly is it that we treat the Bill of Rights as if they were gospel?
Why is it that we always use the Bill of Rights and the Founding Fathers as its own argument?

Because people generally share the 'Enlightenment liberal' philosophy that drove its creation.
Because people (well, Americans) generally share the distrust of government that drove its creation.
Because people generally agree with the Rights included being, well, rights. (Even if they dislike aspects of one or another, there is a fairly common consensus that, hey, Amendments 1-10 have some nice stuff. Free speech? That's pretty slick. Right to a speedy trial by jury? Pretty slick. Due process for criminals? Generally considered a good thing as well.)

People use it in argument because they agree with the principals (or at least, a good deal of them) that drove the creation of the Bill of Rights.

But arguing against gun control with the Second Amendment is a crutch. The amendment is clearly ambiguous and could easily be interpreted as allowing the government to ban all weapons except cattle prods if it so desired. If you think it's a good thing for more people to have more kinds of guns, or that there is some philosophical reason to further restrict the reach of weapons legislation, argue that. But don't try to imply it with Second Amendment innuendo. 2A allows gun restrictions, period.

May I ask a slightly controversial question?
Why exactly is it that we treat the Bill of Rights as if they were gospel?
Why is it that we always use the Bill of Rights and the Founding Fathers as its own argument?

The Founding Fathers lived 200 years ago in a vastly different world of differing values and circumstances, why should what they say matter?
They were men, not gods, men.
On this issue I'm going to say right now that the 2nd Amendment is wrong.

You know what the founding fathers realized they were foulable and that is why we have Article V.
If you want to remove the right to bear arms do so through the amendment process.

Yes I know it is not removable by a simple majority, no right is removable by a simple majority, that is why we call it a right.

There is no right to own guns. Just a right to bear arms, which could technically be limited to cattle prods without violating the letter of the amendment.

So you had to look all the way back to the 1960's to find an incident in the 2nd most populous state. Clearly Texas style gun laws must be adopted.
Lets have the federal government preempt the field with Texas style laws.

An excellent point. Places like Alabama and Mississippi have lower gun crime rates than Chicago and California.

And less income disparity, plus smaller cities hence less opportunity for a gang culture to develop. What's your plan for uplifting the inner city, again?

For once, I find most of Obama's ideas here to be reasonably, and wouldn't mind if they were put into place. Most of them, except the ten round clip limit.

You could regulate the sale of large magazines, but banning them outright is bad. We've got a storage facility in Nevada, and we keep a fully automatic AR-15 (that was converted to full auto) with a 30 round mag (this would be illegal in California, so we keep it in Nevada). Why should we have to give it up? On the illogical presumption that we might go on a shooting spree? No! It's downright absurd.

Why?
TO give criminals a new market to take advantage of obviously.
As long as legitimate manufacturers can sell weapons the illegal market cannot compete.

Tell me, how do you think these guns are mass produced? Manufacturing processes accountable to law enforcement agencies, or is it the magic wands they distribute to gang members in this country?

[Lessnt]

Firearms can be produced by anyone.
As they have been for centuries.

You know who invented the machine pistol?

A friggin criminal who used it against police.
THe police were using old fashioned revolvers.

[Esternial]

Firearms can be produced by anyone.
As they have been for centuries.

You know who invented the machine pistol?

A friggin criminal who used it against police.
THe police were using old fashioned revolvers.

Ok sure.

Make me a gun.

Also, where did this criminal live?

[Priory Academy USSR]

There is no right to own guns. Just a right to bear arms, which could technically be limited to cattle prods without violating the letter of the amendment.

They could push the technicalities and give every American a bear arm. Just for the sake of it.

[Lessnt]

Firearms can be produced by anyone.
As they have been for centuries.

You know who invented the machine pistol?

A friggin criminal who used it against police.
THe police were using old fashioned revolvers.

Ok sure.

Make me a gun.

Also, where did this criminal live?

Go make your own gun buddy.
I aint breaking no laws for the ignorant.

[Esternial]

Ok sure.

Make me a gun.

Also, where did this criminal live?

Go make your own gun buddy.
I aint breaking no laws for the ignorant.

Did the criminal live in America?

Second Amendment America?

[Paddy O Fernature]

Firearms can be produced by anyone.
As they have been for centuries.

You know who invented the machine pistol?

A friggin criminal who used it against police.
THe police were using old fashioned revolvers.

Ok sure.

Make me a gun.

If you know what you are doing, I hear that they are really easy to make.

[Lessnt]

Go make your own gun buddy.
I aint breaking no laws for the ignorant.

Did the criminal live in America?

Second Amendment America?

You think its a secret on how a person can build a firearm?
You think we living like it was 300 years ago?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_firearms

[Greed and Death]

Only if the states are allowed to require a mental evaluation before a woman gets an abortion. It is a serious decision we want to make sure she is not crazy before making it.

I'm not sugarcoating it. That comparison sucked.

People need to be trusted with a firearm, which requires a psych evaluation. I don't see how a woman would require an evaluation unless her vagina can somehow kill other people.

And don't turn this into a discussion about abortion. Unborn foetuses aren't people yet.

So find a better comparison or give me an argument.

This is the perfect comparison because both gun ownership and abortion are rights.
Yes duh, guns and abortions are different. Everything not an abortion will be different from an abortion, and likewise everything not a gun is different from a gun.

What protects both abortion and gun ownership rights, is the fact they are rights. Not that the proposed restriction is reasonable. The Courts the protector of rights, do not address reasonable reasonable is a question for the legislative branch of government. So it would not matter that you find it unreasonable, the state legislature of Georgia could articulate some reason and that would make a pre abortion pysch evual reaosnable.

So if you tell me requiring a mental health evual, before you exercise gun ownership then any right can have a mental health evual before being exercised. This goes for abortion, free speech ( MSNBC, all your producers, anchors, and anyone else with a say what goes on the air must have a pysch evual).

[Esternial]

So if you tell me requiring a mental health evual, before you exercise gun ownership then any right can have a mental health evual before being exercised. This goes for abortion, free speech ( MSNBC, all your producers, anchors, and anyone else with a say what goes on the air must have a pysch evual).

Nope it doesn't.

Because unlike you I don't like to make generalisations.

[Free South Califas]

Firearms can be produced by anyone.
As they have been for centuries.

You know who invented the machine pistol?

A friggin criminal who used it against police.
THe police were using old fashioned revolvers.

So, if we ban certain kinds of dangerous firearms, their rate of manufacture will plummet from "massive" to "near zero, just the extreme hobbyists"? That sounds like a good outcome to me.

There is no right to own guns. Just a right to bear arms, which could technically be limited to cattle prods without violating the letter of the amendment.

They could push the technicalities and give every American a bear arm. Just for the sake of it.

That would certainly be a well-regulated militia, though it's fair to say that such a force would lack other important qualities of a good militia. Still, you're right, it would be constitutional.

[Esternial]

Did the criminal live in America?

Second Amendment America?

You think its a secret on how a person can build a firearm?
You think we living like it was 300 years ago?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_firearms

You're avoiding my question.

Probably because if that criminal invented the submachine gun in the US, it would turn your own argument in my favour because it proves the US promotes gun culture and thus - with the lack of a better word - encourages creativity to acquire firearms, whereas civilians in less gun-centred countries would lake the means to produce this weaponry, should they feel the *need* to acquire one at all.

[Lessnt]

You think its a secret on how a person can build a firearm?
You think we living like it was 300 years ago?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_firearms

You're avoiding my question.

Probably because if that criminal invented the submachine gun in the US, it would turn your own argument in my favour because it proves the US promotes gun culture and thus - with the lack of a better word - encourages creativity to acquire firearms, whereas civilians in less gun-centred countries would lake the means to produce this weaponry, should they feel the *need* to acquire one at all.[/quote]
Gun culture in america has always been.
Since colonial times.
And America has benefitted from it.
The militia that created the USA could not exist without the gun culture.

[Free South Califas]

The militia that created the USA could not exist without the gun culture.

And what a wondrous militia it was, fighting for justice, equality, and dignity for all peoples.

[Esternial]

Gun culture in america has always been.
Since colonial times.
And America has benefitted from it.
The militia that created the USA could not exist without the gun culture.

And this conservative mindset, this reluctance to ever ADAPT to modern times is making me sick down to the core.

The US is nothing to envy. Once the greatest nation, but it's living in the wake of its past, desperately trying to hang on to the 'good old days'

This might be a blunt statement, but it's pathetic.

[Lessnt]

The militia that created the USA could not exist without the gun culture.

And what a wondrous militia it was, fighting for justice, equality, and dignity for all peoples.

And your point is that you oppose the American republic?