[Newsbot]

Title: White House introduces two gun-control measures
Category: Uncle Sam
Posted By: Hyack
Date: 2013-08-29 14:23:44

[DrCaleb]

Some good steps, I think.

[BartSimpson]

The first EO is just silly. Many of these arms are antiques such as the popular M-1 that makes a fine hunting rifle. And many of those arms are still in their original packaging having never been used and they've been returned to the USA to be sold via the US Civilian Marksmanship program.

http://www.odcmp.com/

This makes money for the government by selling US made firearms to the public.

Now the government will spend money to destroy these perfectly fine firearms.

The second EO is going to die in court in very short order.

Private security firms own the weapons they issue to their employees in much the same way an employer owns the computers most people use at work every day. Requiring that security firms (or banks or armored car companies) can't own the tools of their trade is going to die a very swift death in the courts.

Period.

S#ithead has authority on the first EO, on the second EO he's out of bounds by regulating private behaviors and interstate commerce - that's an explicit power of Congress and I imagine the Senate and the House will go batshit crazy over this.

[xerxes]

They go crazy over everything. What's the difference?

[xerxes]

I'm sure congress will get to it after another dozen futile votes to repeal Obamacare and to defund acorn.

[sandorski]

xerxes xerxes:

I'm sure congress will get to it after another dozen futile votes to repeal Obamacare and to defund acorn.

Indeed. Most Active, Do Nothing Government ever!

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The first EO is just silly.

The second EO is going to die in court in very short order.

Well, I stand corrected. I thought they were closing sneaky loopholes.

[stratos]

$1:

Well, I stand corrected. I thought they were closing sneaky loopholes.

The artical even mentioned that this sneaky loophole is hardly known. So closeing it is only fluff to make people have warm fuzzy feelings.

[BartSimpson]

Neither one is a 'loophole'. Firearms sold through the Civilian Marksmanship Program are required by existing law to be transferred by a Federally licensed dealer and the purchaser has to pass all required Federal and State background checks.

The latter situation is quite the opposite of a 'loophole' since any firm that issues a firearm to someone as part of their job has to require the person to pass a full FBI criminal background check, they have to have a state issued gun card, and then their insurance companies typically require psychological assessments, credit checks, and character references before the insurance policies are issued for both liability and workman's compensation.

Obama is posturing pure and simple.

[Jabberwalker]

The next step ... you can have two guns, ... and two bullets.

[CanadianJeff]

How about closing the damn gun show loophole already?

Am I off my rocker is that one still a huge gaping hole?

[bootlegga]

It's a little late to close the barn door, I think the horse ran away years ago...

[Thanos]

It probably is what it is until a more sensible and much less fearful generation of Americans take control over the political system. Myself, I think that the crazies are at the same point the Confederacy was at just before Gettysburg, where they seemed triumphant on every front. Give it a couple of days later, or a couple of decades later in terms of the modern political scene, and they're on the run with a slow, drawn out, and agonizingly long series of defeats in front of them.

[stratos]

Thanos Thanos:

It probably is what it is until a more sensible and much less fearful generation of Americans take control over the political system. Myself, I think that the crazies are at the same point the Confederacy was at just before Gettysburg, where they seemed triumphant on every front. Give it a couple of days later, or a couple of decades later in terms of the modern political scene, and they're on the run with a slow, drawn out, and agonizingly long series of defeats in front of them.

As I like to counter any one wanting to limit and or remove the rights given in the 2nd admendment what other one are you willing to give up. Will they willingly give up the 1st admendment or how about the 4th. Both can be argued that the removal of them will help ensure public safety.

[Public_Domain]