today's example of administration deceit NOT related to Syria (yeah, gun stuff)
Options
janklow
Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
so Biden announces these two new executive orders that are really being announced because the administration didn't get their national gun ban and Obama's tantrum didn't work:
White House announces new gun restrictions
alright, so if you read that and/or listen to Biden, you are CLEARLY supposed to think of the select-fire rifles like, say, the M16s and M4s we sell to countries like Mexico, as this is how Biden describes it... except as those are select-fire rifles (being military issue and all), they for all intents and purposes CANNOT be sold to the average private citizen.
instead, we're actually going to ban the importation of WWII-era rifles like M1 Garands, which is what really constitutes "over 250,000 such weapons have been brought home since 2005." these are very likely not the firearms flooding our streets with violence. you know, the streets where crime has been going down for 30 years and all that. i suppose these rifles DO qualify as "military-grade," but there's clearly a game being played there.
then you have anti-gun groups like Moms Demand Action pile in to refer to "military-grade assault weapons" in order to continue to confuse the issue (not in the linked article, but this is their turn of phrase), because there's really no purpose in abandoning the emotion for, you know, logically debating the topic. ultimately the whole mess remains not a policy that will accomplish anything, but more of a "? you" to gun owners/people who did not support the administration on this issue earlier in the year.
(it's also actually meaningless on another level since it's not even really anything more than declaring what the government won't approve until Obama's term ends, so really, it's best as an illustration of Obama/Biden/the rest being ? .)
okay, back to your Syria chat.
White House announces new gun restrictions
so let's focus on the bolded.The White House announced two new executive orders to curb gun violence on Thursday, building on the 23 executive orders President Obama signed in the aftermath of the December 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
The first order closes a loophole that allows felons and other people who would be prohibited from owning guns to circumvent the law by registering their guns with a corporation or trust, which would exempt them from the requisite background check. A fact sheet distributed by the White House notes that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) "received more than 39,000 requests for transfers of these restricted firearms to trusts or corporations" in 2012 alone.
The new executive order requires individuals associated with trusts and corporations that acquire weapons to undergo background checks just as they would if they registered the guns in their own name.
At the ceremonial swearing-in on Thursday of Todd Jones, the new director of the ATF, Vice President Biden said the loophole provided felons and others prohibited from owning guns an "easy way to evade required background checks." With the new executive order, he added, that "artful dodge" would be a thing of the past.
The second executive order announced Thursday aims to keep military-grade weapons off the streets by prohibiting private entities from re-importing firearms that the United States previously provided to foreign allies. Currently, the law requires U.S. government approval before these weapons can be re-imported. According to the White House, over 250,000 such weapons have been brought home since 2005.
Biden noted that, prior to 2005, that re-importation wasn't occurring. The new executive order, he said, would end the "practice of allowing countries to send back to the United States these military weapons to private entities. Period."
alright, so if you read that and/or listen to Biden, you are CLEARLY supposed to think of the select-fire rifles like, say, the M16s and M4s we sell to countries like Mexico, as this is how Biden describes it... except as those are select-fire rifles (being military issue and all), they for all intents and purposes CANNOT be sold to the average private citizen.
instead, we're actually going to ban the importation of WWII-era rifles like M1 Garands, which is what really constitutes "over 250,000 such weapons have been brought home since 2005." these are very likely not the firearms flooding our streets with violence. you know, the streets where crime has been going down for 30 years and all that. i suppose these rifles DO qualify as "military-grade," but there's clearly a game being played there.
then you have anti-gun groups like Moms Demand Action pile in to refer to "military-grade assault weapons" in order to continue to confuse the issue (not in the linked article, but this is their turn of phrase), because there's really no purpose in abandoning the emotion for, you know, logically debating the topic. ultimately the whole mess remains not a policy that will accomplish anything, but more of a "? you" to gun owners/people who did not support the administration on this issue earlier in the year.
(it's also actually meaningless on another level since it's not even really anything more than declaring what the government won't approve until Obama's term ends, so really, it's best as an illustration of Obama/Biden/the rest being ? .)
okay, back to your Syria chat.
Comments
-
Why does this bother you?? Seriously
-
why does the administration flagrantly deceiving people regarding the executive order they're pushing in order to give a false impression of what they're doing and why in order to keep beating the anti-gun drum?manofmorehouse wrote: »Why does this bother you?? Seriously
yeah, i don't know... -
manofmorehouse wrote: »Why does this bother you?? Seriously
Because anti gun people are ramming through ? legislation because of misinterpreted facts and raw enotional outrage.
Would you let a cop out on the street who was just told his wife is ? some guy he arrested 2 weeks ago?
So why let people make gun laws who know nothing about gun laws and are letting rare tragedies influence a majority of harmless gun owners?
-
it might also be worth noting that Dianne Feinstein --that hero of the anti-gun crowd-- specifically exempted from even her sweeping proposed assault weapon ban the kinds of "military-grade" firearms Obama would ban from being re-imported. we've got to keep those M1 Garands off the streets!
-
it might also be worth noting that Dianne Feinstein --that hero of the anti-gun crowd-- specifically exempted from even her sweeping proposed assault weapon ban the kinds of "military-grade" firearms Obama would ban from being re-imported. we've got to keep those M1 Garands off the streets!
lmao she's exempt from her own law? SMH -
I might be more sympathetic to Jank's plight if he wasn't one of those NRA absolutists that think guns cure cancer.
-
i don't think they cure cancer. although there WAS that case where a guy with a brain tumor went to shoot himself and shot the tumor out...Swiffness! wrote: »I might be more sympathetic to Jank's plight if he wasn't one of those NRA absolutists that think guns cure cancer.
people should be sympathetic because for all his guns are so evil talk, this administration has done NOTHING regarding mental health, only the most minor of baby steps regarding drugs JUST NOW, and frankly, not much to address continuing poverty in the ? areas of the country (i will grant that latter part is a little more debatable, but whatever). and these are the real issues to deal with when we talk about gun crime in the US.
yet the Vice President is preening himself while he declares a ban on importing 70-year-old rifles is taking "military-grade" weapons off the streets. ? , you don't have to agree with me on guns at ALL to a) recognize the ? being spoken and b) object to it on principle.
ps. there's also a point where i get salty because i co-sign everyone else's civil rights concerns only for all kinds of demographics to turn around and say "? you, i got mine" and bash my gun rights. i mean, come on, guys, please don't make me be an absolutely ? and hope everyone ELSE gets ? over because none of you gave a damn about my concerns. 2013 is a year for incredible saltiness.
-
Sorry bruh, I believe in a person's right to defend themselves but how much is too much?? I've seen too many people "gain" some heart when they got heat with them. Give these ? assault weapons and they'll be out here thinking they're Rambo. And the NRA care nothing about people's gun rights. They care about the profits seen from said people pujrchasing fire arms. ? em
-
why don't you start by telling ME what's "too much" and why. because it usually leads to inaccurate statements about guns and gun laws.manofmorehouse wrote: »Sorry bruh, I believe in a person's right to defend themselves but how much is too much??
and again, what Biden/Obama are banning with the executive order i am talking about is literally World War II era rifles.
also, i have to add this: when people say "they support the Second Amendment but..." or "i believe in a person's right to defend themselves but..." ... well, maybe you should tell me what you DO support. because usually it's lip service.
which has nothing to do with the guns and everything to do with the person. but why deal with social issues when we can call guns scary, right?manofmorehouse wrote: »I've seen too many people "gain" some heart when they got heat with them.
except that the NRA is, you know, a national organization millions can join that, whatever their flaws, ARE actually defending my gun rights. Bloomberg is a paternalist billionaire who spends thousands of his personal rich man's dollars ? with gun rights nationwide, but the NRA is the sole group getting trash-talked? while groups like MAIG and those ? moms actively cosign the above deceit? miss me with that ? .manofmorehouse wrote: »And the NRA care nothing about people's gun rights. They care about the profits seen from said people pujrchasing fire arms. ? em
-
yeah, social issues like the fact that there are milllllllllllllllllllllllllions of deadly deadly firearms designed to ? people floating around out there lol. *sigh* Look I actually get unlike other libruls how gun control law sucks and 2nd amendment repeal confiscation would be the only real solution...and one that leads inexorably to Drug War 2: Electric Boogaloo/Civil War 2/World War 7/The Turner Diaries/etc, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna sit there and nod my head to that "guns don't cause problems" gospel. Or the other myths - really, after what we've seen, we don't think "disarmed" populaces can rebel? Oh lord. I think most rebel organizations worldwide would wipe out a whole village just to get a hold of 10% of America's stockpile.
And btw - no, ? the NRA. They're a hollow corporate shill lobby that doesn't give a ? about you. You know who told me that? A cracka-ass far-right fascist that owns better guns than you and way more of them. "whatever their flaws"? You mean like their ? President? You mean like that pathetic "kindergartern killer" ? ? -
except that that's not a social issue. but i'll tell you what: how about i agree to give a ? about how many guns there are in America when any of these anti-gun groups gives the first ? about ANY of the issues of the drug war/poverty/mental health which have a massive effect on crime and gun violence in America.Swiffness! wrote: »yeah, social issues like the fact that there are milllllllllllllllllllllllllions of deadly deadly firearms designed to ? people floating around out there lol.
right, because ? about guns being SO EVIL is a lot easier than trying to improve society. the thing is, i THOUGHT liberals wanted drug decriminalization. or improving economic status. or improving mental health care. only we're going to score points ? about Newtown while all that goes undone. or talking about banning assault weapons as a solution to crimes committed primarily with handguns. or pretending suicides and people killed by the police during the commission of crimes are the same thing as homicides. or demanding more extensive background checks when even liberal bastions like Maryland don't bother to properly report mental health data to the feds to make those checks work. and on and on and on. need i remind you that the meat of the above article is "watch Joe Biden ? lie."Swiffness! wrote: »but that doesn't mean I'm gonna sit there and nod my head to that "guns don't cause problems" gospel.
and let's go further: regarding this executive order? the vice president is flagrantly bullshitting you. the PRESIDENT is flagrantly bullshitting you. groups like Moms Demand Action are co-signing it. and let me know when you or any other anti-gun dude is even willing to ADMIT that. because what's happening here is that it's more important to complain about millions of deadly guns that have a shred of intellectual honesty on the topic.
let me see if i can break this down for you:Swiffness! wrote: »And btw - no, ? the NRA. They're a hollow corporate shill lobby that doesn't give a ? about you.
the administration doesn't give a ? about me. the NRA doesn't give a ? about me. Bloomberg doesn't give a ? about me, MAIG and those moms don't give a ? about me, Wayne LaPierre doesn't give a ? about me, the ACLU doesn't give a ? about me. and on and on and on. but the NRA is at least inadvertently defending my damn gun rights, which i personally give a ? about. you think on this issue i'm going to side with the laundry list of people lying to my face on this topic?
and i'll say it again: a national organization with millions of members is more democratic than a paternalist billionaire dictating what's best for us all.
owning better and more guns than me will always be debatable.Swiffness! wrote: »You know who told me that? A cracka-ass far-right fascist that owns better guns than you and way more of them.
i mean like them delving into anything that's not about gun rights. but then i don't hear you calling out anti-gun organizations for THEIR ? or groups like the ACLU for mysteriously skipping over one of those amendments in the Bill of Rights, so what's the ? point of me criticizing the organization on my side at all if anti-gun types aren't willing to do the same.Swiffness! wrote: »"whatever their flaws"? You mean like their ? President? You mean like that pathetic "kindergartern killer" ? ? -
Lol No one is going to take away your precious guns. No one will take away the only way you feel comfortable defending yourself. Calm down and breathe. What's comical is NRA types, is that they will blame mental health,poverty, slippery fingers, overzealous bullets, etc. rather than blame what really creates the problem. You believe in your 2nd amendment rights, terrific, but just out of curiousity, what do you think should be outlawed to the general public in terms of weaponry?
-
well, for starters, let's talk about the fact that i am not speaking simply of myself. a gun ban that allows grandfathering takes away guns from future generations; these are happening now. laws designed to make it difficult to purchase a firearm are also designed to make people not bother with the process or be able to complete it, much like a poll tax would; these are happening now. look at New York talking CONFISCATION before the SAFE Act and walking it back not because it was wrong, but only because of the logistics. look at California's new policy of using registration to facilitate the confiscation of firearms right now.manofmorehouse wrote: »Lol No one is going to take away your precious guns.
who made the claim this is the only way i feel comfortable? or is this yet another aspect of the debate where you're finding it easier to just make something up?manofmorehouse wrote: »No one will take away the only way you feel comfortable defending yourself.
because i guess we can either debate the topic or we can just resort to whatever that portion of the post is about. sorry that a) i give a ? about the topic and b) i'm responding to someone's post accordingly.
what's comical is that anti-gun types USUALLY care about things like poverty and mental health care, but are really quick to toss them under the bus in order to be afraid of EVIL GUNS... which is what you're doing right now.manofmorehouse wrote: »What's comical is NRA types, is that they will blame mental health,poverty, slippery fingers, overzealous bullets, etc. rather than blame what really creates the problem.
take, for example, the fact that suicides where a firearm is the method of suicide are commonly lumped into the firearm deaths we're talking about. now, you're going to tell me what REALLY creates the problem are the guns and not the underlying mental health issue that causes someone to want to commit suicide? please.
but then again, you actually know this, because you're slipping in "overzealous bullets" because the list is ACTUALLY meant to trash-talk "NRA types" than actually pretend the guns are the root cause, right? because otherwise those 300 million guns in America would SURELY result in a murder rate that was the highest in the world, right?
just out of curiosity, what's the point of me fielding this question? you're already tossing out "assault weapons" in a way that tells me you can't really make distinctions between what we're talking about. what do we mean by "outlawed": essentially prohibited by current laws or outright banned? what reason to i have to even presume that you're legitimately acknowledging anyone's Second Amendment rights? etc, etc.manofmorehouse wrote: »You believe in your 2nd amendment rights, terrific, but just out of curiousity, what do you think should be outlawed to the general public in terms of weaponry?
