6 Reasons Obama Is Untrustworthy on Guns
Options
janklow
Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
just saying...
6 Reasons Obama Is Untrustworthy on Guns
6 Reasons Obama Is Untrustworthy on Guns
During last night's CNN "townhall" on "Guns in America," President Obama ruefully noted that "I've been very good for gun manufacturers," because fear of new firearm restrictions under his administration has repeatedly driven up sales. Yet he expressed dismay at Second Amendment supporters who do not trust him on this issue, who buy into the "imaginary fiction in which Obama's trying to take away your guns." At the same time, he demonstrated, both in his comments during the CNN special and in a New York Times op-ed piece published the same day, why he is not trustworthy. Here are six reasons:
1. The mass shooting bait and switch. As he did in his speech on Tuesday, Obama last night repeatedly invoked mass shootings to justify policies that would not have prevented them. He presented "sensible background checks" as a way to make sure that famillies "don't have to go through what the families at Newtown or San Bernardino or Charleston went through." But in those and the other recent mass shootings—as the surprisingly skeptical moderator, Anderson Cooper, pointed out—"none of the guns were purchased from an unlicensed dealer." That means background checks were performed and demonstrably did not stop the shootings. Obama himself conceded that "the young man who killed those kids in Newtown, he didn't have a criminal record, and so we didn't know ahead of time, necessarily, that he was going to do something like that." Given this reality, offering background checks as a solution to mass shootings is patently dishonest.
2. The argument from emotion. As I noted on Wednesday, Obama's policy proposals are all about showing that his heart is in the right place, which is why he so easily shrugs off questions about whether they would actually work. The implication is that people who oppose his proposals simply do not care, or at least do not care enough. In his New York Times essay, he appeals to "the vast majority of responsible gun owners" who "support common-sense gun safety" because they "grieve with us after every mass shooting." You either grieve with us, or you're against us. If you feel bad about murdered children, you have no choice but to support Obama's gun control agenda. A CNN survey suggests that focusing on intentions rather than results can be an effective strategy: While "67% of those asked [said] they favor the changes" Obama unveiled this week, "57% of those polled also said that the measures would not be effective in reducing the number of people killed by guns."
3. The false crisis. "The epidemic of gun violence in our country is a crisis," Obama declares in the opening line of his op-ed piece. But as he was forced to admit at the townhall, the murder rate in this country has reached historically low levels after declining for years. "Every year," he writes, "more than 30,000 Americans have their lives cut short by guns." But as he mentioned during the townhall, two-thirds of the "30,000 deaths due to gun violence" are suicides. If the "gun violence" problem consists mainly of people taking their own lives, why does Obama keep talking about mass shootings, which account for a tiny percentage of homicides and an even smaller share of gun-related deaths? Presumably because they are scary and get a lot of attention. Yet the gun control solutions he proposes have nothing to do with mass shootings and little to do with preventing suicides, except to the extent that people who ? themselves have previously undergone court-ordered psychiatric treatment.
4. Cost blindness. In the Times, referring to the gun-related "executive actions" he announced on Tuesday, Obama says, "These actions won't prevent every act of violence, or save every life—but if even one life is spared, they will be well worth the effort." This formulation completely overlooks the other side of the ledger, which includes not just the dollars spent (money that potentially could save more lives if it were spent on something else) but the burdens imposed on law-abiding gun owners and on Americans unjustly deprived of their constitutional rights by expanded background checks.
5. Skepticism of armed self-defense. "I respect people who want a gun for self-protection," Obama claimed during the townhall, but that clearly is not true. Later, in response to a ? victim who keeps a gun at home to protect herself and her family, he questioned the value of keeping a gun at home to protect yourself and your family. "There are always questions as to whether or not having a firearm in the home protects you from that kind of violence," he said, warning that "there's always the possibility that that firearm in a home leads to a tragic accident." He conceded that "there are times where somebody who has a weapon has been able to protect themselves and scare off an intruder or an assailant" but claimed "what is more often the case is that they may not have been able to protect themselves, but they end up being the victim of the weapon that they purchased themselves." On balance, in other words, owning a gun for self-protection—a right at the core of the Second Amendment, as recognized by the Supreme Court—is a bad idea, and you're deluding yourself if you think otherwise.
6. Support for gun bans. Obama supported Chicago's handgun ban, which was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2010, and claimed it was consistent with the Second Amendment. He favors a new, broader federal ban on so-called assault weapons, although he does not seem to know what they are. Last night he said the Newtown massacre would have been less lethal if its perpetrator had not been able to obtain "a semiautomatic," an observation that suggests he joins New York Times columnist Gail Collins in supporting a ban on a category of firearms that includes many hunting rifles and almost all modern handguns aside from revolvers (which Collins claims "are totally inappropriate for either hunting or home defense"). And as Cooper pointed out, Obama admires Australian-style gun control, which features mass confiscation of guns and tight restrictions that would be clearly unconstitutional in this country.
If the idea that "Obama's trying to take away your guns" is an "imaginary fiction," it's not because he does not want to take away your guns. It's because political and legal realities prevent him from doing so. But for anyone who cares about the right to armed self-defense, the understanding that Obama does not like guns and reads the Second Amendment so narrowly that it has no practical meaning colors everything he does or proposes in this area. When he talks about "universal background checks," for example, you have to wonder how that requirement could be enforced without a national gun registry, a prerequisite for the sort of mass confiscation that Obama has repeatedly praised. That's not paranoia; that's logic.
Comments
-
If there are already background checks why exactly would there be displeasure at them being enacted?
-
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 -
u cant trust any of them doe...
-
lol.
-
a couple of issues:If there are already background checks why exactly would there be displeasure at them being enacted?
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. -
a couple of issues:If there are already background checks why exactly would there be displeasure at them being enacted?
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 -
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: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?
-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 ? 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 ? in his day.
-longer wait times: so in this state, in the run-up to our ? 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." -
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.
-
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.
-
rodneyskinner wrote: »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 -
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. -
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.kingblaze84 wrote: »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.
crime rate going down, murders going down, ever more guns bought... at the very least, it seems that purchasing isn't increasing the crime.kingblaze84 wrote: »-and how guns are being bought at higher rates then almost ever before, we should know the kind of people buying these weapons.
-
manofmorehouse wrote: »rodneyskinner wrote: »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 ? 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. -
rodneyskinner wrote: »manofmorehouse wrote: »rodneyskinner wrote: »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 ? 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 ? as taking your shoes off at the airport. It's an inconvenience initially until it saves your life or your family's lives. -
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.manofmorehouse wrote: »But why does it have to be one extreme or the other??
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.
also not sure why anti-gun people argue this way. "as u purport to be?"manofmorehouse wrote: »None of the proposals brought forth by Obama takes away guns from responsible owners, as u purport to be.
because sometimes you think something violates your rights or is otherwise wrong despite a nebulous promise of "if it saves even one life?"manofmorehouse wrote: »So if extra regulations stop even a small percentage of gun violence, why would that be a problem?? It's the same ? as taking your shoes off at the airport. It's an inconvenience initially until it saves your life or your family's lives.
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. -
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.kingblaze84 wrote: »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.
crime rate going down, murders going down, ever more guns bought... at the very least, it seems that purchasing isn't increasing the crime.kingblaze84 wrote: »-and how guns are being bought at higher rates then almost ever before, we should know the kind of people buying these weapons.
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.
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »
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.kingblaze84 wrote: »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.
crime rate going down, murders going down, ever more guns bought... at the very least, it seems that purchasing isn't increasing the crime.kingblaze84 wrote: »-and how guns are being bought at higher rates then almost ever before, we should know the kind of people buying these weapons.
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 ? -
uh... it's not a bad thing because what you're saying isn't true.kingblaze84 wrote: »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.
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. -
uh... it's not a bad thing because what you're saying isn't true.kingblaze84 wrote: »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.
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. -
The_Jackal wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »
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.kingblaze84 wrote: »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.
crime rate going down, murders going down, ever more guns bought... at the very least, it seems that purchasing isn't increasing the crime.kingblaze84 wrote: »-and how guns are being bought at higher rates then almost ever before, we should know the kind of people buying these weapons.
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 ?
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. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »
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.kingblaze84 wrote: »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.
crime rate going down, murders going down, ever more guns bought... at the very least, it seems that purchasing isn't increasing the crime.kingblaze84 wrote: »-and how guns are being bought at higher rates then almost ever before, we should know the kind of people buying these weapons.
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 ?
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.
States already requiring it doesn't make it right at all in anyway. I don't get how this argument comes down to life's being saved. Do you hace any data whatsoever that guns purchased at gun shows are brought by criminals who wouldn't pass a background check. Are is this one of those common sense things smh -
The_Jackal wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »
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.kingblaze84 wrote: »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.
crime rate going down, murders going down, ever more guns bought... at the very least, it seems that purchasing isn't increasing the crime.kingblaze84 wrote: »-and how guns are being bought at higher rates then almost ever before, we should know the kind of people buying these weapons.
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 ?
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.
States already requiring it doesn't make it right at all in anyway. I don't get how this argument comes down to life's being saved. Do you hace any data whatsoever that guns purchased at gun shows are brought by criminals who wouldn't pass a background check. Are is this one of those common sense things smh
That's not completely true. And what's so bad about these parts of the new executive order.....
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/4/10708324/obama-gun-control-executive-order
The FBI will hire more than 230 more people to help run background checks — an increase of more than 50 percent to the current staff. Lynch said this was in part needed to keep up with rising demand. "We're looking to improve the efficiency and response time of the system," she said.
The government will also require background checks for people who try to buy restricted firearms through a legal entity, such as a corporation or trust. People were able to avoid background checks in the past through these entities.
-
no. because there are NO new background checks. this executive order is an advisory as far as that goes: it doesn't require new ones, doesn't install new ones, and doesn't really change how the previous ones were conducted.kingblaze84 wrote: »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?
however, if we're talking about reporting issues, which can be a thing, then this executive order doesn't really do anything there either.kingblaze84 wrote: »-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.
in fact, one of the arguments that usually comes up is "we should fix the process rather than expanding it before it's fixed," and typically the anti-gun side isn't too interested in that until they can claim an issue with the process somehow means we need more of it.
actually, i don't mind this part.kingblaze84 wrote: »That's not completely true. And what's so bad about these parts of the new executive order.....
The FBI will hire more than 230 more people to help run background checks — an increase of more than 50 percent to the current staff. Lynch said this was in part needed to keep up with rising demand. "We're looking to improve the efficiency and response time of the system," she said.
my problem with this is that we're once again claiming the existence of some vast loophole when that's likely not the case, because explaining how trusts are commonly used is more complicated to understand.kingblaze84 wrote: »The government will also require background checks for people who try to buy restricted firearms through a legal entity, such as a corporation or trust. People were able to avoid background checks in the past through these entities.
literally in the middle of this right now as i just wrapped up a trust to facilitate owning NFA items with shared access and this change will definitely be more annoying for me (although not so bad as for some folks who have trusts with trustees in wildly dispersed locations). obviously the guys pushing the change (this change actually was NOT based on that executive order) don't really care how it affects me or others, but i do again have an objection to a policy change that's sold based on a vague, disingenuous claim. -
no. because there are NO new background checks. this executive order is an advisory as far as that goes: it doesn't require new ones, doesn't install new ones, and doesn't really change how the previous ones were conducted.kingblaze84 wrote: »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?
however, if we're talking about reporting issues, which can be a thing, then this executive order doesn't really do anything there either.kingblaze84 wrote: »-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.
in fact, one of the arguments that usually comes up is "we should fix the process rather than expanding it before it's fixed," and typically the anti-gun side isn't too interested in that until they can claim an issue with the process somehow means we need more of it.
actually, i don't mind this part.kingblaze84 wrote: »That's not completely true. And what's so bad about these parts of the new executive order.....
The FBI will hire more than 230 more people to help run background checks — an increase of more than 50 percent to the current staff. Lynch said this was in part needed to keep up with rising demand. "We're looking to improve the efficiency and response time of the system," she said.
my problem with this is that we're once again claiming the existence of some vast loophole when that's likely not the case, because explaining how trusts are commonly used is more complicated to understand.kingblaze84 wrote: »The government will also require background checks for people who try to buy restricted firearms through a legal entity, such as a corporation or trust. People were able to avoid background checks in the past through these entities.
literally in the middle of this right now as i just wrapped up a trust to facilitate owning NFA items with shared access and this change will definitely be more annoying for me (although not so bad as for some folks who have trusts with trustees in wildly dispersed locations). obviously the guys pushing the change (this change actually was NOT based on that executive order) don't really care how it affects me or others, but i do again have an objection to a policy change that's sold based on a vague, disingenuous claim.
I guess the new executive order isn't perfect but it seems to be more of a minor inconvenience to some then a terrible order. You admit hiring more staff to do these background checks is good, it might even speed up the background checks for some.
In the end, not much changed one way or the other. A president that was really anti-gun could have done much worse. -
i don't care if they staff up some of these agencies, that's true. what i dislike is the disinformation campaign that Obama seems to be invested in running alongside this stuff. see how you thought he was addressing some loopholes and instituting background checks?kingblaze84 wrote: »I guess the new executive order isn't perfect but it seems to be more of a minor inconvenience to some then a terrible order. You admit hiring more staff to do these background checks is good, it might even speed up the background checks for some.
