6 Reasons Obama Is Untrustworthy on Guns

[LUClEN]

If there are already background checks why exactly would there be displeasure at them being enacted?

 

[The_Jackal]

If there are already background checks why exactly would there be displeasure at them being enacted?

For me personal time and an unjustly amount if money we already have to spend on background checks. Who knows what else they would add and you would have to pay for for extended background checks

 

[J-sonDkay]

u cant trust any of them doe...

 

[playmaker88]

lol.

 

[janklow]

If there are already background checks why exactly would there be displeasure at them being enacted?

a couple of issues:

01. why are we offering them in response to things they wouldn't have affected? at best, this is weird, but you also see active dishonesty when the administration claims we "don't know" if background checks would have had an impact of some crimes.

02. it matters how the laws are written: see also Washington State, states that have logistics issues when it comes to actually running checks, etc. so we need to talk specifics instead of saying "why would someone object to background checks?"

i don't think most anyone objects to background checks in and of themselves. they object to specific, proposed laws, most likely.

 

[LUClEN]

If there are already background checks why exactly would there be displeasure at them being enacted?

a couple of issues:

01. why are we offering them in response to things they wouldn't have affected? at best, this is weird, but you also see active dishonesty when the administration claims we "don't know" if background checks would have had an impact of some crimes.

02. it matters how the laws are written: see also Washington State, states that have logistics issues when it comes to actually running checks, etc. so we need to talk specifics instead of saying "why would someone object to background checks?"

i don't think most anyone objects to background checks in and of themselves. they object to specific, proposed laws, most likely.

I was speaking specifically to the first paragraph in the article. The author alleges that there was a background check done, and then Obama proposes more background checks. If the process already exists though what exactly is the problem? Longer wait times? Higher fees? Both those problems seem like they could be addressed with some better management of the bureaucracy

 

[janklow]

I was speaking specifically to the first paragraph in the article. The author alleges that there was a background check done, and then Obama proposes more background checks. If the process already exists though what exactly is the problem?

well... i'm trying to break this down. the problem in a nutshell is that when you say "more background checks," no one wants to say no to that. but then you have to write a law. so some examples:

-Washington had Bloomberg & Friends throw millions at a law mandating background checks for private transfers. but the law is written so strictly it requires us to get a background check for me to loan a handgun to you at a firing range with us both present. it's not much enforced, but there's basically no mechanism to address this and anti-gun politicians aren't willing to make an effort to fix it either.

-higher fees: if you live in a state like mine, the legislature had the good sense to have the state police required to facilitate the background checks required for private sales at cost ($10). the logistics can suck (as all must meet at a barracks and again to make the approved transfer, and the state troopers are not always on top of things), but this prevents situations like California, where people get raped for transfer costs because the background checks are mandatory... but you're at the mercy of FFLs to price as they see fit. one thing that would have addressed this were the kitchen-table FFLs that Clinton made it a point to target and kill in his day.

-longer wait times: so in this state, in the run-up to our bullshit AWB, the police were taking SO LONG to process background checks that it took months to get them back. here's an example: i bought a FAL on 02.23.2013. the check usually runs 3 days for the state (it's essentially instant for the feds) and then you wait the rest of the mandatory 7-day wait... and i got the approval from the state on 04.24.2013. some people had wait times of up to 8 months before things were released toward the end. so you can see how you can squeeze people with a bureaucracy on this point.

also, this situation saw guns released because the state was required to allow it if the check didn't come back in 8 days. remember how people want to make laws preventing that circumstance? now imagine if you pass a law saying that and then the state/fed chops resources to make those checks take an astronomical length of time...

i'll also default to my usual position of "anti-gun proposals should be rejected on principle because they're pushed by people ignorant of current laws, willfully ignorant of firearms and unwilling to concede anything."

 

[alissowack]

I don't own a gun...but if Obama gets his wish I never will. My thing about the background checks is...just how far are they're going to go with it. I read an article somewhere of how doctors may end up diagnosing people with bogus disorders to rule people incapable of owning one...like...Oppositional Defiant Disorder, if I read it right.

 

[rodneyskinner]

Reason 1. China suffers from a string of mass daycare hackings. Where a single killer armed with a machete goes in a hacks away at children. Crazy people are going to do Crazy things. Nothing you can do about crazy.

 

[manofmorehouse]

Reason 1. China suffers from a string of mass daycare hackings. Where a single killer armed with a machete goes in a hacks away at children. Crazy people are going to do Crazy things. Nothing you can do about crazy.

So because of this or in spite of this we shouldn't have stricter laws?? U think u can murder the same amount of people with a machete than u can with a gun before being stopped?? Stop watching fox news

 

[kingblaze84]

Researching this issue, there is nothing wrong with what Obama is proposing with his new executive action. It doesn't end the right to own a gun, just makes background checks a little stricter. Considering all the shady people out there buying guns, and how guns are being bought at higher rates then almost ever before, we should know the kind of people buying these weapons. Won't stop all mass shootings, but seat belts don't end all traffic deaths either. Doesn't mean seat belts can't do any good.

I do agree that background checks probably take too long and shouldn't be so expensive in some states (especially NY), but that can and should be worked on. More of a states issue then an Obama one.

 

[janklow]

Researching this issue, there is nothing wrong with what Obama is proposing with his new executive action. It doesn't end the right to own a gun, just makes background checks a little stricter.

honestly, as far as the background checks issue... it doesn't change anything. there's a legitimate reason why "in the business" is a little fuzzy.

-and how guns are being bought at higher rates then almost ever before, we should know the kind of people buying these weapons.

crime rate going down, murders going down, ever more guns bought... at the very least, it seems that purchasing isn't increasing the crime.

 

[rodneyskinner]

Reason 1. China suffers from a string of mass daycare hackings. Where a single killer armed with a machete goes in a hacks away at children. Crazy people are going to do Crazy things. Nothing you can do about crazy.

So because of this or in spite of this we shouldn't have stricter laws?? U think u can murder the same amount of people with a machete than u can with a gun before being stopped?? Stop watching fox news

No I'm saying. If you want to kill allot of people you gone find away. Can we stop people from making Bombs, driving cars into crowds. The biggest attacks on US soil had no guns. So gun control laws we already have in place are good. You won't eliminate crazy ever.

 

[manofmorehouse]

Reason 1. China suffers from a string of mass daycare hackings. Where a single killer armed with a machete goes in a hacks away at children. Crazy people are going to do Crazy things. Nothing you can do about crazy.

So because of this or in spite of this we shouldn't have stricter laws?? U think u can murder the same amount of people with a machete than u can with a gun before being stopped?? Stop watching fox news

No I'm saying. If you want to kill allot of people you gone find away. Can we stop people from making Bombs, driving cars into crowds. The biggest attacks on US soil had no guns. So gun control laws we already have in place are good. You won't eliminate crazy ever.

No one is expecting the elimination of crazy or eliminating 100% gun violence. That's not realistic. But why does it have to be one extreme or the other?? None of the proposals brought forth by Obama takes away guns from responsible owners, as u purport to be. So if extra regulations stop even a small percentage of gun violence, why would that be a problem?? It's the same shit as taking your shoes off at the airport. It's an inconvenience initially until it saves your life or your family's lives.

 

[janklow]

But why does it have to be one extreme or the other??

let me tell you something: if someone actively lies or misleads me to pass a law, there's a problem with the law from the jump.

also... talking about "one extreme or the other" is kind of funny since i don't think you've argued for any compromise from people pushing for gun control laws.

None of the proposals brought forth by Obama takes away guns from responsible owners, as u purport to be.

also not sure why anti-gun people argue this way. "as u purport to be?"

So if extra regulations stop even a small percentage of gun violence, why would that be a problem?? It's the same shit as taking your shoes off at the airport. It's an inconvenience initially until it saves your life or your family's lives.

because sometimes you think something violates your rights or is otherwise wrong despite a nebulous promise of "if it saves even one life?"

some people don't like taking off their shoes at the airport because they think it violates their rights. i don't personally agree, but i also understand why they don't like it. and it's an interesting analogy since they think the claimed benefits of taking off their shoes are negligible.

 

[kingblaze84]

Researching this issue, there is nothing wrong with what Obama is proposing with his new executive action. It doesn't end the right to own a gun, just makes background checks a little stricter.

honestly, as far as the background checks issue... it doesn't change anything. there's a legitimate reason why "in the business" is a little fuzzy.

-and how guns are being bought at higher rates then almost ever before, we should know the kind of people buying these weapons.

crime rate going down, murders going down, ever more guns bought... at the very least, it seems that purchasing isn't increasing the crime.

At many gun shows, there were ZERO background checks done. The executive order I think has changed that, for most gun shows at least. Not sure why that is a bad thing, as there are people out there who traffic guns who also happen to be up to no good. And it's a great thing crime has been going down, and I absolutely support gun rights but with more background checks at gun shows, where all kinds of shady people may show up, we can know who some or many of these people are.

 

[The_Jackal]

Researching this issue, there is nothing wrong with what Obama is proposing with his new executive action. It doesn't end the right to own a gun, just makes background checks a little stricter.

honestly, as far as the background checks issue... it doesn't change anything. there's a legitimate reason why "in the business" is a little fuzzy.

-and how guns are being bought at higher rates then almost ever before, we should know the kind of people buying these weapons.

crime rate going down, murders going down, ever more guns bought... at the very least, it seems that purchasing isn't increasing the crime.

At many gun shows, there were ZERO background checks done. The executive order I think has changed that, for most gun shows at least. Not sure why that is a bad thing, as there are people out there who traffic guns who also happen to be up to no good. And it's a great thing crime has been going down, and I absolutely support gun rights but with more background checks at gun shows, where all kinds of shady people may show up, we can know who some or many of these people are.

Because it implies that every citizen who makes a private sell automatically is required to spend time/money/effort doing a background check that most would past anyway. A few states already require it and speaking from expiernce it's asinine as fuck

 

[janklow]

At many gun shows, there were ZERO background checks done. The executive order I think has changed that, for most gun shows at least. Not sure why that is a bad thing, as there are people out there who traffic guns who also happen to be up to no good.

uh... it's not a bad thing because what you're saying isn't true.

first off, any actual dealer has always been required to conduct background checks, both before and after this. so any gun show with a licensed FFL selling has had the checks before or has featured people committing federal offenses. so that hasn't changed.

second, what the executive order actually has done about private sellers is... nothing. "in the business" was fuzzy before and the advisory doesn't really change that, because it's an advisory. you could arrest someone who was "in the business" and not conducting background checks before, and you can do it now. the only distinction is an attempt to point out criteria aside from "number of guns sold."

gun shows in states that already mandate this kind of thing obviously aren't affected. although i keep being told that we need to close the gun show loophole here in a state where we mandate background checks on private sales of handguns, so hey.

whatever you think of background checks, this executive order hasn't changed anything about them at gun shows. so you might need to withhold a little credit.

 

[kingblaze84]

At many gun shows, there were ZERO background checks done. The executive order I think has changed that, for most gun shows at least. Not sure why that is a bad thing, as there are people out there who traffic guns who also happen to be up to no good.

uh... it's not a bad thing because what you're saying isn't true.

first off, any actual dealer has always been required to conduct background checks, both before and after this. so any gun show with a licensed FFL selling has had the checks before or has featured people committing federal offenses. so that hasn't changed.

second, what the executive order actually has done about private sellers is... nothing. "in the business" was fuzzy before and the advisory doesn't really change that, because it's an advisory. you could arrest someone who was "in the business" and not conducting background checks before, and you can do it now. the only distinction is an attempt to point out criteria aside from "number of guns sold."

gun shows in states that already mandate this kind of thing obviously aren't affected. although i keep being told that we need to close the gun show loophole here in a state where we mandate background checks on private sales of handguns, so hey.

whatever you think of background checks, this executive order hasn't changed anything about them at gun shows. so you might need to withhold a little credit.

So if the new background checks point out some new criteria, isn't it possible it can do some good or put connections on some of the negative groups or people that are out there? I agree the rules don't change much but pointing out new criteria in background checks can do some good. People will still be able to buy guns, assuming they haven't violated restraining orders or been convicted of a non-justified violent crime. As you know, some states have less criteria then others and that can miss certain things.

 

[kingblaze84]

Researching this issue, there is nothing wrong with what Obama is proposing with his new executive action. It doesn't end the right to own a gun, just makes background checks a little stricter.

honestly, as far as the background checks issue... it doesn't change anything. there's a legitimate reason why "in the business" is a little fuzzy.

-and how guns are being bought at higher rates then almost ever before, we should know the kind of people buying these weapons.

crime rate going down, murders going down, ever more guns bought... at the very least, it seems that purchasing isn't increasing the crime.

At many gun shows, there were ZERO background checks done. The executive order I think has changed that, for most gun shows at least. Not sure why that is a bad thing, as there are people out there who traffic guns who also happen to be up to no good. And it's a great thing crime has been going down, and I absolutely support gun rights but with more background checks at gun shows, where all kinds of shady people may show up, we can know who some or many of these people are.

Because it implies that every citizen who makes a private sell automatically is required to spend time/money/effort doing a background check that most would past anyway. A few states already require it and speaking from expiernce it's asinine as fuck

As you said, a few states require it already and if the process doesn't take too long, it shouldn't be a big problem. I'm against 6 month laws or rules, like in NY but some states are very loose with their gun laws. Just a little more criteria being used to get red flags on even a few more people can save a few lives and save a few body parts too.