Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You see this is what confuses me, someone who turns round and says he owns 3 pistols, one for carry, one for home defence, and one for backup when one of the others is being maintained I can understand. There is a logic to that. Someone who owns 18+ guns because he inherited them, fine. Someone who says he owns 18 guns because he can leaves me confused as to what this person actually is.

Basically I dont understand the justification of 'because'.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
You see this is what confuses me, someone who turns round and says he owns 3 pistols, one for carry, one for home defence, and one for backup when one of the others is being maintained I can understand. There is a logic to that. Someone who owns 18+ guns because he inherited them, fine. Someone who says he owns 18 guns because he can leaves me confused as to what this person actually is.

Basically I dont understand the justification of 'because'.

Cheers

Andrew

Why not? How many toy soldiers do you own? How many pair of pants do you own? How many songs/cds/records do you have? It doesn't matter.

 AndrewC wrote:
Basically I don't understand the justification of 'because'.

I think that's more of universal question than just a gun question. Same can be said for 40K. Why do people own multiple armies or huge amounts of the same army. Having mutliple armies I can sort of understand because GW power creeps so much, but having hordes of a single army doesn't really make sense. Why does someone need 6 land raiders of the same configuration? They typically can't fit them all in a one force org chart. They rarely are going to play a game where they can use 6 land raiders. Lastly, the current land raiders are not even considered to a good points investment.

I have over 10K points of CSM. I can't put it all on the table at one time and I don't even have models for all the options available, with extreme amounts of duplication of other models. Why did I buy this, no good reason other than, because I wanted to.

 Frazzled wrote:

Why not? How many toy soldiers do you own? How many pair of pants do you own? How many songs/cds/records do you have? It doesn't matter.

Because I have kids and it seems like a complete cop out whenever I use the reason of 'Because I said so' I'm not jusifying myself, I'm just imposing an arbitrary decision on them that has no discernable logic.

Toy soldiers? I own more than I need, and most of them unmade/unpainted

Trousers? (Remember I'm Scottish not American, same word different meaning ) Personally I only need 6 (work, casual, dress and a spare for each), but the wife keep buying me more. As for kilts I cant afford them, besides wear them here? not a chance!

I think that I'm going to bow out of this discussion, mainly because I don't want to be seen as trolling. I willl however leave one last comment, Frazz I think it does matter simply because the end result has such a terrible, final impact. In the case of figures, pants, tools etc familiarity breeds contempt and they just become things in the background and unless you stand on a chaos spikey bit with bare feet unlikely to hurt you. Firearms on the other hand are designed to inflict harm on something else, and if they become one of those things in the backround then they are not treated with the respect they need in order to be kept safe. Now, I know that everyone here will proclaim that they a paragons of virtue and that they treat all firearms with healthy respect, locking them away and storing ammo seperately, but dakkites are not everyone, and not everyone takes care. So to me owning excessive guns 'just because' is a terrible reason.

Cheers (from a very windy Falklands)
Andrew

Well, guns are lethal weapons not toys, but letting that go I don't see a particular problem with people owning several or even a lot of guns. You can only use one at a time, after all. UK gun owners often own multiple weapons.

 AndrewC wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Do you own tools? Or paint brushes for models perhaps? Why do you need more then one hammer? Or more them one paint brush? Different tools for different jobs. Then there's collectors who stack various historical firearms. Examples:

I know a guy who owns one of every primary infantry rifle (and a couple specialty rifles) used by the United States since 1775. (M1A and AR-15 semiautomatic rifles obviously stand in for the more modern stuff). I know several people with collections of WW2 weapons, ranging from variants of M1 Garands to one fellow who's looking to collect /all/ the things.

You see I dont get that argument. I understand what you are saying, I just don't 'get' it.

As you say different tools for different jobs, so please explain why, hypothetically, a person would need (pulls figure from air) 6 handguns? What different jobs do those items perform?

Cheers

Andrew

Depends on the handguns. I could blow you off and say "Six rare variants of revolvers" and call it a day (I know a fellow who has twelve revolvers of different styles and types ranging from an old cap and ball to a Colt that's probably worth more then my car) but I'll go through and break down some possibilities for you.

A .22 for practice or hunting
A rimfire competition pistol
A large caliber competition pistol
Carry pistol
Hunting pistol (they do exist)
Collector pistol (classic police revolver, luger, etc)

Just for a set of examples that all have a specific purpose.

I can own three types of shotgun for three different purposes easily if we just limit things to 12 gauge shotguns
A home defense shotgun with no choke and a short barrel
A long barreled birding and trap shooting shotgun
a rifled hunting shotgun

All three of those types can come in different styles to qualify for different styles of sport, competition or personal preference. (For example my next shotgun purchase is a double barreled shotgun for cowboy action shooting competitions) and to comply with different state laws. I can't legally hunt with my house shotgun for example because it has too high a shell capacity. Smaller shotguns can find use for small game, or dealing with snakes and other pests on the range. (I know a couple horse ranchers who carry a .410 shotgun just for that, though some of them have switched to the Taurus Judge revolver which can also fire .410 shotshells)

For rifles that's where things get really messy
Everyone should own a .22 for target shooting, instruction, practice and to save some money on the more expensive calibers. Also a handy way to teach people how to shoot without bruising their shoulders up. There are also purpose built competition .22s like the ones the Olympic shooting teams use.
Various calibers and builds have various purposes and set ups. Smaller calibers like 5.56/.223 are great for varmint hunting (Prairie dogs, Coyotes, etc) and other small game, but it's not what you want for elk or bear. So the average hunted can easily have a range of three to four rifles depending on personal preference, terrain, and the game in question. X round on X action with X scope is used for X game, Y round on Y action with iron sights is used for Y and Zed game and so forth.
Some folks have a thing for tack driving and long range, this also gets into competition rifles.
Then we get into Modern Sporting Rifles like the AR-15 which can be used for... just about everything really. Hunting, defense, a variety of competition ranging from service rifle category shooting competitions to tactical shooting competitions like three gun.
Then there's collecting as mentioned above. Many gun owners have a passion for the history and craftsmanship shown in quality firearms, especially older examples of the type. Old English double guns that have seen Africa, Military rifles that came home from one of a hundred wars in it's soldier's hands... or perhaps not, having been sent back to await a new master to serve after it's former owner fell in battle. A certain type of style of weapon that spurred a technological revolution or defined it's era such as the Colt Single Action Army, the iconic pistol of the American West.

The good news is I don't really have to justify myself to you. Or any one else for that matter. idon't mind explaining my hobby and one of my passions, or at least trying to but the bottom line is we live in free societies and are within the limits of the law free to do as we please. Collect a dozen cars of various makes and models? Every single 40k army GW has rules for at 2000 points? Rifles and hand guns? High end electronics that you assemble yourself from kits? Who am I to judge?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Well, guns are lethal weapons not toys, but letting that go I don't see a particular problem with people owning several or even a lot of guns. You can only use one at a time, after all. UK gun owners often own multiple weapons.

Well you can always try shooting dual pistols or what not, but it doesn't work very well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Gotta love that we are using the kids as a prop:



(I know the box isn't labeled "gun control" but still...)

Well you could just go straight to the source d-usa

I know this breaks Godwin but dang... when the man makes a speech surrounded by children, then says it's "for the children" it's begging for it.



and yes I checked. This is a direct quote from Mein Kampf.

Why do people own sports cars or other high-end vehicles, when something like a Corolla or a Fiesta are just fine?-Everyone has slightly different reasons for buying anything.

I think its funny how people want to impose upon firearms the unique distinction of being the only consumer product that must have this higher rationale to justify type or quantity. That demand for rationale is really an imposition of someone elses personal belief of what is adequate. That is that its shortsighted and limits a persons decision making to prior. When it came to my cellphone I used to just buy whatever was adequete, then last year I broke from that and I got an Iphone and I use it daily for a variety of tasks beyond just making calls. There are a variety of sports and hunting activities as well as self defense, all demanding varied forms.

Well you could just go straight to the source d-usa

I know this breaks Godwin but dang... when the man makes a speech surrounded by children, then says it's "for the children" it's begging for it.

Good to know the company you keep.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/16/scarborough-on-new-nra-ad-politicizing-protecti/192265

 aka_mythos wrote:
Why do people own sports cars or other high-end vehicles, when something like a Corolla or a Fiesta are just fine?-Everyone has slightly different reasons for buying anything.

I think its funny how people want to impose upon firearms the unique distinction of being the only consumer product that must have this higher rationale to justify type or quantity. That demand for rationale is really an imposition of someone elses personal belief of what is adequate. That is that its shortsighted and limits a persons decision making to prior. When it came to my cellphone I used to just buy whatever was adequete, then last year I broke from that and I got an Iphone and I use it daily for a variety of tasks beyond just making calls. There are a variety of sports and hunting activities as well as self defense, all demanding varied forms.

It is interesting that you class guns as a consumer product.

 AndrewC wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Why not? How many toy soldiers do you own? How many pair of pants do you own? How many songs/cds/records do you have? It doesn't matter.

Because I have kids and it seems like a complete cop out whenever I use the reason of 'Because I said so' I'm not jusifying myself, I'm just imposing an arbitrary decision on them that has no discernable logic.

Toy soldiers? I own more than I need, and most of them unmade/unpainted

Trousers? (Remember I'm Scottish not American, same word different meaning ) Personally I only need 6 (work, casual, dress and a spare for each), but the wife keep buying me more. As for kilts I cant afford them, besides wear them here? not a chance!

I think that I'm going to bow out of this discussion, mainly because I don't want to be seen as trolling. I willl however leave one last comment, Frazz I think it does matter simply because the end result has such a terrible, final impact. In the case of figures, pants, tools etc familiarity breeds contempt and they just become things in the background and unless you stand on a chaos spikey bit with bare feet unlikely to hurt you. Firearms on the other hand are designed to inflict harm on something else, and if they become one of those things in the backround then they are not treated with the respect they need in order to be kept safe. Now, I know that everyone here will proclaim that they a paragons of virtue and that they treat all firearms with healthy respect, locking them away and storing ammo seperately, but dakkites are not everyone, and not everyone takes care. So to me owning excessive guns 'just because' is a terrible reason.

Cheers (from a very windy Falklands)
Andrew

KNives are designed to cut and stab. How many do you have? Why? You only need one. Owning excessive knives "just because" is a terrible reason.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Well, guns are lethal weapons not toys, but letting that go I don't see a particular problem with people owning several or even a lot of guns. You can only use one at a time, after all. UK gun owners often own multiple weapons.

I agree. I can only use four at a time, and thats if I take off my shoes. On the positive, Team Wienie can man one as well, although TBone's so blind now its pretty much like bird hunting with Dick Cheney...

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
Why do people own sports cars or other high-end vehicles, when something like a Corolla or a Fiesta are just fine?-Everyone has slightly different reasons for buying anything.

I think its funny how people want to impose upon firearms the unique distinction of being the only consumer product that must have this higher rationale to justify type or quantity. That demand for rationale is really an imposition of someone elses personal belief of what is adequate. That is that its shortsighted and limits a persons decision making to prior. When it came to my cellphone I used to just buy whatever was adequete, then last year I broke from that and I got an Iphone and I use it daily for a variety of tasks beyond just making calls. There are a variety of sports and hunting activities as well as self defense, all demanding varied forms.

It is interesting that you class guns as a consumer product.

They aren't? People who buy guns aren't consumers purchasing products on a relatively free market?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:

Well you could just go straight to the source d-usa

I know this breaks Godwin but dang... when the man makes a speech surrounded by children, then says it's "for the children" it's begging for it.

Good to know the company you keep.
rd
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/16/scarborough-on-new-nra-ad-politicizing-protecti/192265

Don't see how those are A. in any way connected and B. How calling the NRA extremist does anything to make it true.

Yes children of politicians are targets, but the NRA's supposed point is that the President wouldn't feel secure without A. his own armed guards and B. the dozens of armed guards for each of his daughters, when comparatively they're asking for one cop an elementary school for hundreds of children.

Edit: Not to mention MSNBC's usually biased enough to make Faux News blush. Kinda week over all.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
Why do people own sports cars or other high-end vehicles, when something like a Corolla or a Fiesta are just fine?-Everyone has slightly different reasons for buying anything.

I think its funny how people want to impose upon firearms the unique distinction of being the only consumer product that must have this higher rationale to justify type or quantity. That demand for rationale is really an imposition of someone elses personal belief of what is adequate. That is that its shortsighted and limits a persons decision making to prior. When it came to my cellphone I used to just buy whatever was adequete, then last year I broke from that and I got an Iphone and I use it daily for a variety of tasks beyond just making calls. There are a variety of sports and hunting activities as well as self defense, all demanding varied forms.

It is interesting that you class guns as a consumer product.

They aren't? People who buy guns aren't consumers purchasing products on a relatively free market?

Define a consumer product. Why is it that cigarettes and guns are, but cannabis and nerve gas aren't? It is based at least partly on the legal framework.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:


Don't see how those are A. in any way connected and B. How calling the NRA extremist does anything to make it true.

Yes children of politicians are targets, but the NRA's supposed point is that the President wouldn't feel secure without A. his own armed guards and B. the dozens of armed guards for each of his daughters, when comparatively they're asking for one cop an elementary school for hundreds of children.
.

Obama makes a comment about children and he's compared to Hitler -- odd it didn't happen to , say , Barbara Bush or Hoover.. or Jesus.. or any of the many other famous people who have said things about children

http://www.compassion.com/child-advocacy/find-your-voice/famous-quotes/default.htm

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/children?auto_login_attempted=true

So you're happy label him an extremist, whilst the NRA, in their continuing attempts to disappear up their own fundamentals and become even less important or useful than they are, attempt to claim that the children of the President of the USA are in no more danger or at risk than the child of Joe ( Joanne ? What is the female equivalent here ?) Public, and that is fine and sensible and not at all deranged beyond the point of extremism.

Gotcha.

KNives are designed to cut and stab. How many do you have? Why? You only need one.

Most knives are designed for different types of cutting/cooking/whathaveyou. They are also of cousre considerably cheaper than guns and, one assumes, break or need replacing more often too..? I guess to an extent that'd vary depending upon how often one fires ones gun or whathaveyou.

 reds8n wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:


Don't see how those are A. in any way connected and B. How calling the NRA extremist does anything to make it true.

Yes children of politicians are targets, but the NRA's supposed point is that the President wouldn't feel secure without A. his own armed guards and B. the dozens of armed guards for each of his daughters, when comparatively they're asking for one cop an elementary school for hundreds of children.
.

Obama makes a comment about children and he's compared to Hitler -- odd it didn't happen to , say , Barbara Bush or Hoover.. or Jesus.. or any of the many other famous people who have said things about children

http://www.compassion.com/child-advocacy/find-your-voice/famous-quotes/default.htm

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/children?auto_login_attempted=true

So you're happy label him an extremist, whilst the NRA, in their continuing attempts to disappear up their own fundamentals and become even less important or useful than they are, attempt to claim that the children of the President of the USA are in no more danger or at risk than the child of Joe ( Joanne ? What is the female equivalent here ?) Public, and that is fine and sensible and not at all deranged beyond the point of extremism.

Gotcha.

What I'm saying is that he is using the concept of "the children" as political capital, which is why his press conference announcing his gun control package that is going on right now has the president literally surrounded with a group of children. It's a politically calculated move to sell his package, and it's a political ploy that's older then dirt, and one from his writings that yes Hitler was quite fond of. That happened to be one of the roots to the cartoon d-usa posted, thus why I posted the quote. Don't put words into my mouth. Calling Obama an extremist? Nope. Calling the NRA extremists? Nope. I don't see the NRA's point being that John Q. Public's kids need the same level of protection as the President's kids because that's not what they're calling for. They aren't saying your child deserves a dozen secret service agents. They're saying one cop per school, maybe let teachers carry if they want to. They're saying "His kids deserve protection, and so do yours." Both sides are using the concept of "the children" again for political gain not out of any concern for kids and THAT is indeed morally reprehensible.

Call the NRA extremist all you want, but they are the only lobbying group in the country (and quite literally the only one with any amount of influence) that pushes back against absurdities like 7-round mag bans, or banning cerakote finishes because Chuck Schumer saw a black gun once and nearly fainted.

And for the left, this isn't about saving lives, it's about pushing an agenda. If they were interested in saving lives, they'd be going after inexpensive handguns holding less than 10 rounds, because that's what the overwhelming majority of firearm homicides are committed with. Targeting "assault weapons" is like making drunk driving laws that apply specifically to Bugattis.

 Seaward wrote:
Call the NRA extremist all you want, but they are the only lobbying group in the country (and quite literally the only one with any amount of influence) that pushes back against absurdities like 7-round mag bans, or banning cerakote finishes because Chuck Schumer saw a black gun once and nearly fainted.

And for the left, this isn't about saving lives, it's about pushing an agenda. If they were interested in saving lives, they'd be going after inexpensive handguns holding less than 10 rounds, because that's what the overwhelming majority of firearm homicides are committed with. Targeting "assault weapons" is like making drunk driving laws that apply specifically to Bugattis.

The NRA does what the ACLU would do if it weren't a lefty Alinsky organization. Thats why I give to both.

Courtesy of the Whitehouse website, President Obama's 23 executive orders that were just announced:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

Then this is the legislation the President would like to see:

Require criminal background checks for all gun sales. (a.k.a. closing the "gun show loophole.")

Reinstate and strengthen the assault weapons ban.

Restore the 10-round limit on ammunition magazines.

Protect police by finishing the job of getting rid of armor-piercing bullets.

Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime.

End the freeze on gun violence research.

Make our schools safer with more school resource officers and school counselors, safer climates, and better emergency response plans.

Help ensure that young people get the mental health treatment they need.
er
Ensure health insurance plans cover mental health benefits.

I'd like to see a 24th executive order to stop having the ATF force FFLs to sell to Cartel strawman buyers, but you know, beggars can't be choosers I suppose.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:


What I'm saying is that he is using the concept of "the children" as political capital, which is why his press conference announcing his gun control package that is going on right now has the president literally surrounded with a group of children. It's a politically calculated move to sell his package, and it's a political ploy that's older then dirt, and one from his writings that yes Hitler was quite fond of.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/15/limbaugh-fox-freak-out-about-inclusion-of-kids/192260

That happened to be one of the roots to the cartoon d-usa posted, thus why I posted the quote. Don't put words into my mouth. Calling Obama an extremist? Nope.

When you compare someone to Hitler that is calling them an extremist.

Calling the NRA extremists? Nope. I don't see the NRA's point being that John Q. Public's kids need the same level of protection as the President's kids because that's not what they're calling for. They aren't saying your child deserves a dozen secret service agents. They're saying one cop per school, maybe let teachers carry if they want to. They're saying "His kids deserve protection, and so do yours." Both sides are using the concept of "the children" again for political gain not out of any concern for kids and THAT is indeed morally reprehensible.

Nope.

They out and out call him a hypocrite for "wanting" his children protected in a way that that he won't allow or doesn't even want ( the monster that he is !) your children to have.

The actual reality of the situation -- that he and his family are at far more of a risk than Joe publics' kids, IIRC he and his family get about 30 death threats a day according to his security guys.Secret service is it ? Bound to be SS anyway -- is apparently irrelevant and not worth mentioning.

That's morally reprehensible because it is essentially dishonest, cynically and deliberately so.

But that appears to be all that's left in theri locker so no real surprise I guess.

So, those Executive Orders seem pretty reasonable and sensible to me.

The Legislative Agenda, well that doesn't matter so much because it will never get through the House.

 Easy E wrote:
So, those Executive Orders seem pretty reasonable and sensible to me.

The Legislative Agenda, well that doesn't matter so much because it will never get through the House.

Most do.

As for the legislation agenda, if the politcal contributions I've been making have anything to say, you're right!

I'm curious what they're going to define as "armor piercing ammunition."

Wonder if I should start stocking up on +p+.

 Seaward wrote:
I'm curious what they're going to define as "armor piercing ammunition."

Wonder if I should start stocking up on +p+.

First of all, this is the request, not law.

Secondly, I assume they are going to go with steel core as armor piercing because anything else starts getting into hunting rounds.

 Easy E wrote:
So, those Executive Orders seem pretty reasonable and sensible to me.

The Legislative Agenda, well that doesn't matter so much because it will never get through the House.

A good chunk of them won't even make it through the Senate from the looks of things. I think the Universal Background Check and the bottom five are gonna have the best shot of passing.

The armor piercing bullet thing is stupid because in regards to cops, most LEOs only wear soft body armor. Bullet resistant material can only resist so much. You can be wearing full level IV body armor (Lvl III soft armor with ceramic inserts rated to stop rifle rounds) and I can still defeat your armor with a big and fastest enough bullet shooting that plate dead center. Same is true for all variants of soft armor. Doesn't matter what the tip of that round looks like or what's in it... whatever they're calling armor piercing these days. This is just as dumb as the Brady Campaign outcry about "cop killer" bullets back before Black Talon got banned.

Mag bans are silly and untenable, not to mention you can bulk print the things now from a 3D printer, just add springs. That said they might try to press on it as a compromise position. "You pass this, we leave the AWB thing dead in committee"

AWB is as I said still born, it's just the usual suspects digging after that one, with lip service from Obama.

 reds8n wrote:

They out and out call him a hypocrite for "wanting" his children protected in a way that that he won't allow or doesn't even want ( the monster that he is !) your children to have.

The actual reality of the situation -- that he and his family are at far more of a risk than Joe publics' kids, IIRC he and his family get about 30 death threats a day according to his security guys.Secret service is it ? Bound to be SS anyway -- is apparently irrelevant and not worth mentioning.

That's morally reprehensible because it is essentially dishonest, cynically and deliberately so.

But that appears to be all that's left in theri locker so no real surprise I guess.

Hmmm... executive orders are "meh"... ain't going to change anything. Passing any additional legislations ain't going to happen now.

Going to have some fun here... "hypocritical"?

I'm fine with him being protected by armed mens (SS)...

But... coming from guy who actively opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois, he has zero moral authority with respect to "if it saves one child's life)... that's why he's hypocritical.

Also, coming from a guy that proposed/championed Obamacare that we're now required to protect ourselves... he and the anti-gun folks wants to make it hard for us to defend ourselves with guns.

Barfolomew wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
I'm curious what they're going to define as "armor piercing ammunition."

Wonder if I should start stocking up on +p+.

First of all, this is the request, not law.

Secondly, I assume they are going to go with steel core as armor piercing because anything else starts getting into hunting rounds.

It'll be law soon enough. The AWB won't pass again - we've tried it, we know it doesn't work, there are too many opposed, and it's what the NRA will focus on - but I anticipate mag cap and "ammunition" bans going through, unless the administration's dumb enough to bundle it all together as one bill. We can only hope, I suppose.

And I very much doubt that getting into hunting rounds will stop them from chasing anything outside of steel core. Again, this isn't about safety, this is about an agenda.

Okay... I'll admit that this is snarkingly overboard... but funny OBAMA’S NEW EXECUTIVE ORDERS:

I’ve taken the time to translate the summaries into plain English below:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

Tell the government to follow the law.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

Tell the regulators to stop the stupid and useless regulations.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

Pay the states back for the unfunded mandates that the Feds keeps making.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

Tell the Attorney General to do his job.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

Start another unfunded mandate. (See #3.)

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

Tell FDLs how to do something no one is ever going to bother to do.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

Do the same thing the NRA already does, only half as well at twice the cost.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

Do what Underwriters Laboratories already does, only half as well at twice the cost.

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

Tell the Feds to do their jobs.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

Tell the DOJ to do its job.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

Tell myself to do my job.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

Spend more money.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

Tell everyone to do their goddamned jobs.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

Tell the doctors to figure out why it isn’t the feds’ fault that they aren’t doing their jobs.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

Figure out a way to push “smart guns” that don’t exist and wouldn’t be useful as guns if they did.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

Tell everyone that Obamacare doesn’t actually mean what it says.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

Tell everyone that, seriously, Obamacare doesn’t actually mean that. We had to pass it to find out what was in it, after all.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

Tell everyone that I’ve been a partisan hack for the last month every time I said the NRA was crazy to want to post more cops in schools.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

Do the same thing that every police agency in the country has already done, only half as well and at ten times the cost.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

Tell doctors what they already know.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

Tell people what the parts of Obamacare that don’t say anything say.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

Tell HHS to do their job.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

Hand the rest of the job of telling everyone to do their jobs off to someone else so it is no longer my job.

Barfolomew wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
I'm curious what they're going to define as "armor piercing ammunition."

Wonder if I should start stocking up on +p+.

First of all, this is the request, not law.

Secondly, I assume they are going to go with steel core as armor piercing because anything else starts getting into hunting rounds.

Don't assume anything. This is the same group that keeps saying "clip." Outside of WWI and WWII relics, nothing has a "clip."
Having said that I'd be ok with limiting clips to 10. Even Enfields would fit under that.

 whembly wrote:
Okay... I'll admit that this is snarkingly overboard... but funny OBAMA’S NEW EXECUTIVE ORDERS:

I’ve taken the time to translate the summaries into plain English below:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

Tell the government to follow the law.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

Tell the regulators to stop the stupid and useless regulations.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

Pay the states back for the unfunded mandates that the Feds keeps making.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

Tell the Attorney General to do his job.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

Start another unfunded mandate. (See #3.)

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

Tell FDLs how to do something no one is ever going to bother to do.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

Do the same thing the NRA already does, only half as well at twice the cost.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

Do what Underwriters Laboratories already does, only half as well at twice the cost.

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

Tell the Feds to do their jobs.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

Tell the DOJ to do its job.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

Tell myself to do my job.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

Spend more money.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

Tell everyone to do their goddamned jobs.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

Tell the doctors to figure out why it isn’t the feds’ fault that they aren’t doing their jobs.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

Figure out a way to push “smart guns” that don’t exist and wouldn’t be useful as guns if they did.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

Tell everyone that Obamacare doesn’t actually mean what it says.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

Tell everyone that, seriously, Obamacare doesn’t actually mean that. We had to pass it to find out what was in it, after all.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

Tell everyone that I’ve been a partisan hack for the last month every time I said the NRA was crazy to want to post more cops in schools.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

Do the same thing that every police agency in the country has already done, only half as well and at ten times the cost.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

Tell doctors what they already know.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

Tell people what the parts of Obamacare that don’t say anything say.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

Tell HHS to do their job.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

Hand the rest of the job of telling everyone to do their jobs off to someone else so it is no longer my job.

Dude thats so classic, yet so true.

reds8n wrote:

Calling the NRA extremists? Nope. I don't see the NRA's point being that John Q. Public's kids need the same level of protection as the President's kids because that's not what they're calling for. They aren't saying your child deserves a dozen secret service agents. They're saying one cop per school, maybe let teachers carry if they want to. They're saying "His kids deserve protection, and so do yours." Both sides are using the concept of "the children" again for political gain not out of any concern for kids and THAT is indeed morally reprehensible.

Nope.

They out and out call him a hypocrite for "wanting" his children protected in a way that that he won't allow or doesn't even want ( the monster that he is !) your children to have.

The actual reality of the situation -- that he and his family are at far more of a risk than Joe publics' kids, IIRC he and his family get about 30 death threats a day according to his security guys.Secret service is it ? Bound to be SS anyway -- is apparently irrelevant and not worth mentioning.

That's morally reprehensible because it is essentially dishonest, cynically and deliberately so.

But that appears to be all that's left in theri locker so no real surprise I guess.

The President and Democrats as well as the media vilified the NRA for the last couple weeks because the NRA wants armed guards available to schools. The jist of that vilification is that it introduces more danger. Many schools already have that kind of armed presence, the President's childrens school is an example. Should only the children of important people or the children of those who can afford a private education be so protected? The attendence of the President's children at that school isn't why there are armed guards, its coincidental. It is however hypocrtical to denounce the very notion that a proposal is innately dangerous when your childrens' school is point of fact proof it isn't innately dangerous. There are many reasons why the NRA's idea might not work but that isn't really one of them. It is a case of privaliage that his children are afforded Secret Service protection though it is justified. The issue is that one side says viamently something will never work, when it either factually works or at worst just wastes money, not that it fails for the reason thats asserted.

I don't thinkt he NRA can catch a break, no matter what they say its going to be framed and vilified, no mater how justified their arguement. Maybe they're the worst people in the world, and morally questionable, but that has little to do with the validity of their idea. I don't think their idea has been given half as much consideration as the the stuff now being proposed, despite the fact that there is more case evidence for its effectiveness and more proof for the lack of effectiveness of an assault weapons ban.

Like I said there are reasons why the NRA plan has flaws, cost being a big one. With ~133,000 public schools having a police officer at each would cost ~$7.8B a year ($56K/officer/year). That is as opposed to a proposed $500M. That is reason enough. Maybe there are ways to bring down that cost, but without an actual discussion we'll never know. The NRA didn't pull this idea out of nowhere as the media would imply, they listened to what the parents in areas around Sandy Hook were asking for and proposed that. The idea wasn't denounced until the NRA said it.

The political discussion by our elected officials has been a one sided dog and pony show. The greater part of their proposals are laws that existed at one point and were allowed to sunset because they were found to have a statistically negligable effect on crime while costing a significant amount. These new laws are being pushed by people who have been pushing for identical laws for the last decade. I think the word "opportunistic" best describes those who re-proposed this battery of laws. I'm willing to listen to reforms, but when "reforms" are without any empirical basis and encroach on Civil Rights and have shown tp have neglible impact we should be concerned about the monologue that is portrayed in the guise of dialogue.