Opinion of Obama's gun speech today

[SteveRogers]

The NRA doesn't receive one penny of public funding, leave them alone.

Whyever should that be a reason to leave them alone?

And please do explain how the Second Amendment protects the gunshow loophole.

[SteveRogers]

Yes, yes. It is a pressing issue. Damn the fact that almost all of the shootings take place in crossroads for the drug war with lots of gun control to begin with. Take out the suicides and self defenses and we're as safe as Canada! If anything, make it EASIER to get a gun. Criminals will buy their guns on the black market, so it won't matter.

I'm not really sure what you think that graph proves. It certainly doesn't support your argument that more guns somehow decreases shooting deaths. So what's the point? That because violent crimes have ticked downwards slightly since 2009 we should never ever talk about gun control ever again? Despite the clever graphwork, that's still a lot of deaths. And why exactly shouldn't we consider suicides and accidental deaths as well?

[SteveRogers]

Yes, yes. It is a pressing issue. Damn the fact that almost all of the shootings take place in crossroads for the drug war with lots of gun control to begin with. Take out the suicides and self defenses and we're as safe as Canada! If anything, make it EASIER to get a gun. Criminals will buy their guns on the black market, so it won't matter.

I'm not really sure what you think that graph proves. It certainly doesn't support your argument that more guns somehow decreases shooting deaths. So what's the point? That because violent crimes have ticked downwards slightly since 2009 we should never ever talk about gun control ever again? Despite the clever graphwork, that's still a lot of deaths. And why exactly shouldn't we consider suicides and accidental deaths as well?

It's the fact that it's declining and are mainly concentrated in areas with high gun control. And to answer another post, there's no such thing as the gunshow loophole. There ARE background checks at them.

If there were no gunshow loophole, then you wouldn't be so strongly opposed to closing it now would you?

[SteveRogers]

Yes, yes. It is a pressing issue. Damn the fact that almost all of the shootings take place in crossroads for the drug war with lots of gun control to begin with. Take out the suicides and self defenses and we're as safe as Canada! If anything, make it EASIER to get a gun. Criminals will buy their guns on the black market, so it won't matter.

I'm not really sure what you think that graph proves. It certainly doesn't support your argument that more guns somehow decreases shooting deaths. So what's the point? That because violent crimes have ticked downwards slightly since 2009 we should never ever talk about gun control ever again? Despite the clever graphwork, that's still a lot of deaths. And why exactly shouldn't we consider suicides and accidental deaths as well?

It's the fact that it's declining and are mainly concentrated in areas with high gun control. And to answer another post, there's no such thing as the gunshow loophole. There ARE background checks at them.

If there were no gunshow loophole, then you wouldn't be so strongly opposed to closing it now would you?

If it did exist, I would be fine with closing it. Only logical.

Um, so which part of Obama's executive action are you actually opposed to then?

[SteveRogers]

What I find baffling about the anti-gun control side's arguments in this thread is that no one actually seems interested in explaining why the measures embodied in Obama's executive orders are bad. Sure, I've seen some arguments about how they aren't the most effective way to reduce gun deaths, which is obviously true since Obama is extremely limited in the actions he can take on his own. And I see a lot of people expressing a knee jerk reaction that anything that falls under the umbrella of "gun control" is bad because blah blah blah. But can anyone explain specifically the downside of:
1. Narrowing the gun show loophole? (Yes, that's what it's called. Debating the semantics of that term isn't actually an argument against eliminating it).
2. Hiring more ATF agents to actually process background checks in a timely manner?
3. Providing funding for mental health services?
4. Promoting "smart gun" technology?

Because those are the things Obama's actions do.

[SteveRogers]

Prohibition doesn't work. If gun control was strengthened then criminals would clearly start brewing firearms in their bathtubs.

you realize firearms aren't that hard to make right?  Why do gun control advocates always come from a point of complete ignorance. 

Good ones are pretty darn hard to make.

[SteveRogers]

True but they really making strides with 3D printing.  But prohibition would make the number of guns skyrocket as well.  You would just be disarming people who would follow the law/make regular citizens criminals.

How would the number of guns skyrocket??? Where would the guns come from. You cannot 3D print a semiautomatic assault rifle.

No one ever asks Gun Control Advocates the tough questions.  If you don't think I have a right to a firearm, do I have a right to self defense?  And if I don't have the right to either does the government have the right to use force to disarm me? 

Most "Gun Control Advocates" in real life (granted, not necessarily on this forum) would tell you that they aren't actually interested in keeping you from buying a handgun for your personal self-defense. And you won that battle already; the Supreme Court has protected your 2nd Amendment right to possess a handgun. But nobody needs an AK-47 for self-defense.

[SteveRogers]

True but they really making strides with 3D printing.  But prohibition would make the number of guns skyrocket as well.  You would just be disarming people who would follow the law/make regular citizens criminals.

How would the number of guns skyrocket??? Where would the guns come from. You cannot 3D print a semiautomatic assault rifle.

No one ever asks Gun Control Advocates the tough questions.  If you don't think I have a right to a firearm, do I have a right to self defense?  And if I don't have the right to either does the government have the right to use force to disarm me? 

Most "Gun Control Advocates" in real life (granted, not necessarily on this forum) would tell you that they aren't actually interested in keeping you from buying a handgun for your personal self-defense. And you won that battle already; the Supreme Court has protected your 2nd Amendment right to possess a handgun. But nobody needs an AK-47 for self-defense.

Where would guns come from? Outside the US, illegal sources in the US, and explosion of the Firearm black market. 

3D printers can print everything for the AR but the Lower Receiver.  There have been experiments with 3D printing a lower but its just not there yet. 

AK-47's are seriously overrated rifles.  But the AR-15 is simply a semiautomatic rifle.  Semiautomatics are great for hunting, competitive shooting, predator control, and yes self defense.   And the last time I checked it was still the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Needs.  Owning a firearm doesn't make you a criminal. 

Owning an illegally modified fully automatic firearm makes you a criminal. The First Amendment right to free speech doesn't protect defamation or shouting fire in a crowded building or uttering death threats or fighting words. Similarly, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms doesn't create a right to own any and all firearms you might desire.

[SteveRogers]

True but they really making strides with 3D printing.  But prohibition would make the number of guns skyrocket as well.  You would just be disarming people who would follow the law/make regular citizens criminals.

How would the number of guns skyrocket??? Where would the guns come from. You cannot 3D print a semiautomatic assault rifle.

No one ever asks Gun Control Advocates the tough questions.  If you don't think I have a right to a firearm, do I have a right to self defense?  And if I don't have the right to either does the government have the right to use force to disarm me? 

Most "Gun Control Advocates" in real life (granted, not necessarily on this forum) would tell you that they aren't actually interested in keeping you from buying a handgun for your personal self-defense. And you won that battle already; the Supreme Court has protected your 2nd Amendment right to possess a handgun. But nobody needs an AK-47 for self-defense.

Where would guns come from? Outside the US, illegal sources in the US, and explosion of the Firearm black market. 

3D printers can print everything for the AR but the Lower Receiver.  There have been experiments with 3D printing a lower but its just not there yet. 

AK-47's are seriously overrated rifles.  But the AR-15 is simply a semiautomatic rifle.  Semiautomatics are great for hunting, competitive shooting, predator control, and yes self defense.   And the last time I checked it was still the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Needs.  Owning a firearm doesn't make you a criminal. 

Owning an illegally modified fully automatic firearm makes you a criminal. The First Amendment right to free speech doesn't protect defamation or shouting fire in a crowded building or uttering death threats or fighting words. Similarly, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms doesn't create a right to own any and all firearms you might desire.

The only reason someone would desire to modify AK pattern rifles for full auto would be illegal activity or the novelty.   They aren't great accurate rifles in semiauto anyway.  But when you bring out the term AK47 it is an easy mark that you know little about guns.   Most AK pattern guns sold are semiauto Chinese or Polish knockoffs.  They are also mostly AK74's not 47's.   It is an awful all around rifle.  That is why the AR family has exploded in popularity since the AWB expired. 

 Other than suppressive fire full auto has little use even in military applications much less civilian use.  But a regular run of the mill AR15 is legally the same type of gun as a modern hunting rifle.

I didn't mention Ak-47s in that post and only did so in the earlier post to throw out an example, and you responded to literally none of my points.

[SteveRogers]

AK pattern rifles are the only ones that are regularly modified to go full auto by shade tree gunsmiths.  Most civilian AR's are gas piston guns compared to he military grade direct impingement M16/M4.   Gas Piston guns are almost impossible to rig up without an old military spec action.  Even the new M4 design was considered to remove Full Auto because of how little utility it provided in Iraq. 

What exactly does the 2nd Amendment protect then? The American Revolution was won because we were a nation of riflemen.  The "muskets" they carried were as contemporary military tech.  So law abiding citizens having access to small arms is definitely Constitutional.   People can own full auto machine guns if they so choose through the extensive Licensing process through the ATF.  It is for collectors and novelty though.  Full Auto's have little practical use. 

You're missing the whole point. All arms are not created equal. Nobody actually thinks the 2nd Amendment protects a right to any and all weapons. There's a point at which a weapon becomes so dangerous that its usefulness as a tool of self defense is vastly outweighed the harm it inflicts on society. You and I may disagree about where that line is, but I'm pretty sure you don't think the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own a grenade launcher.