[Closed] Obama and Guns... again.

Yep he's a communist...

Quick, take over a bird sanctuary !

Perhaps the the only sensible option is to ban bullets...

Gun lobby in America is far too strong. I wish him luck I really do but I fear he in on a hiding to nothing.

If you watch the bottom video in that report it is very revealing - that the resistance to the proposal is actually about much wider issues than whether there should be checks.

It's an interesting moment for this Damascene conversion by Obama - despite numerous massacres, despite sandy hook and aurora, he 'finally does something' in the last few months of his second term? Remarkable...

Against the lunatics in congress? Come on ninfan, of course he didn't want to spend the last few years battling then at every turn?
It would have hamstrung every other piece of governing he tried to do

(Some) Americans see the number of people killed by people with guns each year as an acceptable cost for being able to relatively freely buy guns.

It seems really hard to understand until you compare it to the UK and cars. We see a couple of thousand deaths on the roads per year (plus those caused by pollution, obesity, etc) as an acceptable price to pay for the widespread use of cars.

It seems really hard to understand until you compare it to the UK and cars. We see a couple of thousand deaths on the roads per year (plus those caused by pollution, obesity, etc) as an acceptable price to pay for the widespread use of cars.

what? 😆

The last trip to the states had the air of war time and fear, the constant threat/warning that the rest of the world was only seconds away from attacking was there. In many ways the fear is being manipulated and engineered by those who want to sell guns, own an arsenal or just get rid of people who aren't white.

Just the idea that you should be armed in case you need to overthrow the government is grounds for taking them away.

Just the idea that you should be armed in case you need to overthrow the government is grounds for taking them away.

Really? I hear lefties talking all the time about wanting to rebel and rise up against Cameron and the evil cuts agenda being imposed by the Tories? Surely if the government was concerned about a popular uprising it would prevent the gross abuse of a flawed democracy by those who seek to privatise and destroy the NHS?

It seems really hard to understand until you compare it to the UK and cars. We see a couple of thousand deaths on the roads per year (plus those caused by pollution, obesity, etc) as an acceptable price to pay for the widespread use of cars.
what?

He's right. Have a universal speed limit of 15mph everywhere and, chances are, no one would be killed in an rtc every again. But would you vote for it? Not even sure I would.

he 'finally does something' in the last few months of his second term? Remarkable...

He's repeatedly raised the issue of gun control and been met with fierce opposition. I actually think it's quite smart - try to force in some changes while he still has some power, and let Hilary deal with it at the beginning of her first term and people might have gotten over it by the time she needs to stand for a second time. Given the current republican candidates have little chance of becoming president he has nothing to lose here.

It seems really hard to understand until you compare it to the UK and cars. We see a couple of thousand deaths on the roads per year (plus those caused by pollution, obesity, etc) as an acceptable price to pay for the widespread use of cars.

I don't recall any teenagers near me driving cars in to school and around the hall during assembly.

No idea what you are on about ninfan, UK and US both have legitimate and easy routes to effect a change of government. Ironically the US is very keen to impose this system around the world and stop armed militias running the show

The car comparison is to take the list of things that kills or injures the most people and tick them off in order.

I don't recall any teenagers near me driving cars in to school and around the hall during assembly.

Clearly, the analogy was to the mindset not the actual acts.

Edit: Read American comment pieces on gun control, then read UK articles on 20MPH urban speed limits.

America is a big beautiful place and I would love to go back and explore more of it,but when I see this ongoing arms debate,it feels like a lot of Americans are going to implode with distrust and paranoia.
Put a few Trump types in charge and the madness recipe will be complete.

How about limiting bullets to 15mph? That should sort it.

This is an unusual comment. He's repeatedly raised the issue of gun control [s]and been met with fierce opposition.[/s] but done nothing about it

FTFY

No idea what you are on about ninfan, UK and US both have legitimate and easy routes to effect a change of government

Which is why we still have an unelected second chamber, an unelected head of state, and the government run by millionaires in the pay of vested interests and multinational corporations?

Check out cam zinc.....
http://americanshootingjournal.com/tag/cam-zink/

Z I have several di?erent models, all for di?erent reasons. My daily carry is a Ruger LC9, but the trigger is a bit annoying. Other than that, I have a S&W .40-caliber handgun and .22 revolver, a Remington 20-gauge shotgun and .243 ri?e, a Tikka T3 Tactical .308, an H&K .45 and, of course, an AR-15.

Hes all about keeping his family safe 🙄

Well over 100 gun deaths in America already this year....
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/number-of-gun-deaths?page=2

(Above link not yet updated for last night's deaths)

It's called politics ninfan pick your battles. He has had to force massive stuff through none of which would have happened if he had done gun control earlier.

It's called politics ninfan pick your battles. He has had to force massive stuff through none of which would have happened if he had done gun control earlier.

E.g. Look at what he's had to deal with to make any progress on health care

Really? I hear lefties talking all the time about wanting to rebel and rise up against Cameron and the evil cuts agenda being imposed by the Tories? Surely if the government was concerned about a popular uprising it would prevent the gross abuse of a flawed democracy by those who seek to privatise and destroy the NHS?

Eh????

I think even you know you are on shaky ground here if you are coming up with ransoms like this

Guns are designed to kill people, America has lots of them, which is silly

[img] [/img]

Democracy eh?
Who would have it?

@kimbers - what a strange list, no mention of, for example, Canada or Switzerland - almost as if someone cherry picked a list of countries to try and prove a point 🙄 - and let's be honest, your list shows guns per head rather than proportion of people owning guns, does it matter if I own one gun or thirty five? I've only got two trigger fingers.

Ps. According to uk law, owning a couple of these doubles the amount of 'firearms per head' in my household:
[IMG] [/IMG]
Yes, this small metal tube is actually a section one registered firearm - strangely, owning an identical one of an air rifle doesn't show on figures at all - so you can take your 'firearms per capita' figures and smoke them, because they tell us nothing.

ninfan - Member
Democracy eh?
Who would have it?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/nra-congress/

Ninfan full list here if you want to learn more.... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

[i]It seems really hard to understand until you compare it to the UK and cars. We see a couple of thousand deaths on the roads per year (plus those caused by pollution, obesity, etc) as an acceptable price to pay for the widespread use of cars. It seems really hard to understand until you compare it to the UK and cars. We see a couple of thousand deaths on the roads per year (plus those caused by pollution, obesity, etc) as an acceptable price to pay for the widespread use of cars. [/i]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

Road deaths? The USA sits way above us on this too.

@kimbers - what a strange list, no mention of, for example, Canada or Switzerland - almost as if someone cherry picked a list of countries to try and prove a point

Switzerland has high gun ownership (much because of active military conscription/service), but also strict rules and regulations about the purchase of weapons and ammunition. That level of control in the US would be a hugely positive step.

- almost as if someone cherry picked a list of countries to try and prove a point

Edit: Read American comment pieces on gun control, then read UK articles on 20MPH urban speed limits

Eh? Comparing apples to pteradons...

FWIW I don't think many would be opposed to a 20mph limit, moreso as you rarely get much faster (if even that speed) in areas where it would be useful. Unless you're a prat.

Eh? Comparing apples to pteradons...

As I said above, I was comparing attitudes.

FWIW I don't think many would be opposed to a 20mph limit, moreso as you rarely get much faster (if even that speed) in areas where it would be useful. Unless you're a prat.

Find a random article of 20 limits. Read the comments.

Edit: or read [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road-safety/10858646/Why-20mph-zones-ned-to-be-stopped.html ]an opinion piece in the Telegraph[/url].

I think he's done what he can, he tried to push even slight increases in control through Congress and had it beaten every time - the restrictions he's ordered aren't even restrictions, they're measures to actually enforce the existing restrictions.

The thing is, the pro-gun lobby isn't listening, he could speak for hours, days even. They've been debating it for decades and the pro-gun lobby has long stopped listening - there is no amount of deaths that will change their mind and enough of them seem proud to claim that if someone does try to disarm them, they'll kill them - how do you try to reason with that sort of insanity?

there is no amount of deaths that will change their mind and enough of them seem proud to claim that if someone does try to disarm them, they'll kill them -

squirrelking - Member

FWIW I don't think many would be opposed to a 20mph limit, moreso as you rarely get much faster (if even that speed) in areas where it would be useful. Unless you're a prat.

you're clearly a reasonably person. but in case you hadn't noticed, people are prats.

Against the lunatics in congress? Come on ninfan,

They are his own people.

there is no amount of deaths that will change their mind and enough of them seem proud to claim that if someone does try to disarm them, they'll kill them - how do you try to reason with that sort of insanity?

I find it highly amusing that these gun nuts think they are going to last five minutes against the most powerful military force on the planet.

Ninfan, since when have big black dildos been classed as firearms?

I really don't understand the American fixation with owning and using guns.

I guess the important thing from a UK perspective is that we can see and learn from their lax approach.

I find it highly amusing that these gun nuts think they are going to last five minutes against the most powerful military force on the planet

China?

Someone try and tell me this isn't the product of a sick society that fetishises guns and violence:

That's a republican leadership candidate BTW.

MoreCashThanDash - Member

I guess the important thing from a UK perspective is that we can see and learn from their lax approach.

it's a bit like the Australian approach to cycling laws, it's nice of them to provide proof that all the stupid ideas don't work.

Apparently it's un-American and unconstitutional to deny someone access to guns. Anyone*

[i]
*Unless they muslamic, which is difernt.[/i]

Unless you're Ronald Reagan, who remains a GOP hero despite doing far more for gun control than Obama has any chance of doing.

Regardless of rights and wrongs, so many of the responses have been absolutely barking mad. And a lot of them were written before people even knew what the orders were. They're illegal! Unconstitional! An attack on your freedoms! And they won't work! Er, whatever they are.

Ironically, there's some legitimate questions about these orders- how practical/enforcable background checks are for less formal sellers, exactly who counts as being "in the business of selling firearms", and what effect it'll really have since background checks are so toothless anyway.

*Unless they muslamic, which is difernt.

Same applies to the First Amendment as well: [i]"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."[/i]

Violating that would be illegal, unconstitutional, an attack on freedoms etc etc - unless of course the targets are muslamic in which case a presidential candidate can suggest banning them completely and many of the people clapping him will be the same people who hold the Second Amendment as sacred and unchangeable.

For me in order to address the gun situation in the states you first have tackle this sence of fear and paranoia alot/most Americans seem to feel. The pro gun lobby feeds off this fear and is able to manipulate vast swathes of the population convincing them they need to tool up with an Arsenal of military grade weapons to protect themselves (from what I don't know). As a wise man once said a long time ago in a galaxy far far away: fear leads to hate, hate leads to anger. So you have a lot of scared, hateful and angry people....with guns. It's a toxic mix and can never end well.

Ironically, there's some legitimate questions about these orders- how practical/enforcable background checks are for less formal sellers

"any person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the State where he resides as long as he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms"

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole

They demonstrated this [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35229220 ]on BBC News the other day[/url]. The reporter just needed to show his driver's license (to prove he was a resident) and then verbally answer the question [i]"are you a convicted felon or is there any reason you cannot own this gun"[/i]. If he said "no" then he could buy the gun on the spot and walk out with it. Even the gun seller thought this was a bit lax!

Yup, but the gun show exemption is only a part of it. The line between a person who owns guns and occasionally sells one, and a person who sells guns, can be pretty fine. Would gun-Hora be a seller or an owner who sells?

The numbers are pretty crazy though. 40% of guns are bought by routes that evade background checks. Support for reducing that seems overwhelming. But less than 1% of checks completed lead to a refusal, even with that capacity to evade checks.

The polling's pretty interesting- in one poll, 90% said they thought all gun purchases should be subject to a background check but only 50% were in favour of stricter gun control. Various reasons for that but the 2 main ones would seem to be either that people don't see background checks as gun control, or that people assume that everyone already gets background checked. Either has interesting implications for the bigger debate in terms of how things are represented and understood

It seems to be a recurring theme though that if you say "gun control" people think about taking guns from law abiding citizens and if you say "background checks" they think about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Which presumably is why he's chosen this approach.

I like the weird ironies too. Like, Obama raised the prospect of banning people on the US no fly list from buying guns. The GOP fell over themselves in hysterics about how the no fly list avoids due process and infringes on the rights of citizens. But they invented the bloomin no fly list, specifically to avoid due process and infringe on the rights of citizens. And freedom of movement is surely more important than freedom to own a gun.

It seems really hard to understand until you compare it to the UK and cars. We see a couple of thousand deaths on the roads per year (plus those caused by pollution, obesity, etc) as an acceptable price to pay for the widespread use of cars.

The car thing is a pretty specious argument anyway, I know what you're getting at but it really isn't a comparison as the car provides other positive (?) benefits, when you're talking about 'acceptable number of deaths for the benefit of X' then you can argue the toss about the acceptable bit all you like, but don't ignore the 'benefit of X' bit.

The societal and personal benefits of widespread car use (which is still regulated) are numerous and easily identifiable, (even if overuse is not so beneficial), the benefit of owning lots of guns is a lot harder to quantify and justify.

Not to mention that it's not an either/or situation, you can tackle road deaths AND gun deaths, the difference being removing all the cars would have a different impact to removing all the guns, and not just on the number of deaths.

Now, 20mph limits (enforced) for urban areas is something I could get behind, very little negative for a massive positive, I *would* vote for it.

Back on topic, I have no idea how this can be successfully tackled in the US in reality, every decent option seems hard, not to mention viciously fought against, but just because it's hard that's not a reason to not try...

<pondering...>
It will certainly be interesting to look back in 20-50-100 years to see how history views 'the US gun problem'
</pondering...>

Same applies to the First Amendment as well: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Suggest you start a different thread if you want to debate "when does a religion becomes a death cult".

No it's okay, I think I can separate Islam, the second largest religion in the world, from the actions of terrorist groups and "death cults".

people who hold the Second Amendment as sacred and unchangeable

These people don't understand the word amendment...

The car thing is a pretty specious argument anyway, I know what you're getting at but it really isn't a comparison as the car provides other positive (?) benefits, when you're talking about 'acceptable number of deaths for the benefit of X' then you can argue the toss about the acceptable bit all you like, but don't ignore the 'benefit of X' bit.

The societal and personal benefits of widespread car use (which is still regulated) are numerous and easily identifiable, (even if overuse is not so beneficial), the benefit of owning lots of guns is a lot harder to quantify and justify.

Unless you're American. Then you can justify the benefits of guns: protection from bad guys with guns, stopping a tyrannical government, teh muslamics, etc.

That was my point: to us, it seems utterly batshit to allow the widespread ownership of guns, but from a [s]redneck's[/s] [i]patriotic American[/i] there are definite benefits.

perceived benefit Vs actual benefit

that might be what they answer with, but its not an actual real, quantifiable, and provable benefit is it?

provable

But you can prove anything with facts.

As [url=

great Jim Jefferies says[/url]:

"there is one argument, and one argument alone, for having a gun.
And this is the argument: 'f*** off. I like guns'

It's not the best argument, but it's all you've got."

But you can prove anything with facts.

Indeed, but only 40% of people know that. 😉

For the sake of it and because clearly you're picking holes in my terminology rather than the actual concept, lets replace "provable" with:

"even remotely supported by actual evidence that stands up to basic inspection"

EDIT - or what GrahamS said ^

"even remotely supported by actual evidence that stands up to basic inspection"

You're taking the rational, British perspective. We're talking about Americans.

😉

You're taking the rational, [s]British [/s]perspective.

let's leave the national stereotyping out of it.

BTW - that's exactly what this problem requires, rational thinking, and rational action.

The last trip to the states had the air of war time and fear

Funny, living here and that is not the case at all, just a minority media making it seem that way. Don't believe all the crap you read. 🙄

Erm

[url=

link[/url]

well.....

I think michael means this specific post:

Which (for non-Facebookers) links to this article:
http://www.singletracks.com/blog/uncategorized/opinion-you-should-arm-yourself-when-you-ride-your-bike/

[img] [/img]

😯

There seems to be a worrying consensus developing in this thread that executive action is legitimate governance - if your happy with dictatorship please say so - I'm genuinely interested in who believes that it's ok to bypass congress? As for those who harp about 'Americans' - your just further discrediting yourselves ..

There seems to be a worrying consensus developing in this thread that executive action is legitimate governance

So you are saying the American system of governance is flawed because it allows executive actions?

But you are happy that Congress blocking tougher gun laws that [url= http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/vast-majority-americans-tougher-gun-laws-poll-article-1.2454131 ]reportedly 80% of Americans support[/url] (to one degree or another) is legitimate governance?

'Dictatorship'?

Anyone for a nice big slice of Hyperbole? There's plenty to spare tonight.

Why are you lot debating about guns in Merica?

They are doing just fine by naturally culling their own population ...

You want population explosion? Who are going to feed them? You?

Think of all the poor animals roaming the forest.

🙄

Reasons people shot people in December 2015: https://m.facebook.com/ParentsAgainstGunViolence/photos/a.416647195073938.95672.413407645397893/962868703785115/?type=1&theater

Why are you lot debating about guns in Merica?

At least four reasons I can think of:

1) most people are not that keen on children being gunned down in mass shootings, regardless of the country.

2) taking an interest in world affairs and comparing/contrasting society and politics in similar countries. It's interesting even as a dispassionate observer.

3) we may visit America.

4) more obtusely, aspects of the American pro-gun psyche inevitably influence our culture to a degree and may also explain some American approaches to foreign policy.

A man tried to rob my store, but I have a concealed carry license, so I pulled out my gun. I unintentionally shot a bystander, and one of my bullets hit a nearby house. The robber got away unharmed. (IL, 12/05)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-bystander-wounded-during-shootout-between-robber-shop-owner-20151206-story.html

I heard a noise so I grabbed my shotgun to investigate, but unintentionally discharged it into my five-month-old baby’s crib. (GA, 12/06)
http://www.newtoncitizen.com/news/local/month-old-accidentally-shot-in-arm/article_efbfe2a7-9450-55b4-b9a4-b3c867155011.html

I wanted my 14-year-old niece to give me her Jordans so I could sell them. She said no, so I shot her dead. (WA, 12/07)
http://q13fox.com/2015/12/07/search-continues-for-man-suspected-of-killing-columbia-city-teen/

My neighbor was watching a movie and the sound was bothering me so I knocked on his door and shot him when he answered. (MO, 12/12)
http://m.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/maryland-heights-man-charged-with-killing-neighbor-wore-bulletproof-vest/article_e01ee342-793f-5182-9fcd-6e26ef7af179.html?mobile_touch=true

My fiancé was holding my dog so I could euthanize it with my gun. The bullet went through the dog and into his wrist. (FL, 12/15)
http://www.rnrfonline.com/woman-tries-to-shoot-dog-shoots-husband-instead/

I was teaching my wife how to defend herself with a gun when I unintentionally shot her in the shoulder. (OK, 12/16)
http://www.kxii.com/home/headlines/Off-duty-officer-accidently-shoots-wife-in-shoulder-362892281.html#.VnSTS3qcQRQ.twitter

A coworker made a joke about me so I shot him in the butt. (PA, 12/17)
http://www.pennlive.com/news/2015/12/police_angry_man_shot_co-worke.html

Dad and I were fighting and his gun fell on the floor. It went off when I picked it up and shot mom dead. (MI, 12/17)
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2015/12/17/police-detroit-mom-dies-accidentally-shot-son/77533656/

I was watching the Eagles game with my buddies and we got into an argument about football, so I shot three of them. (PA, 12/20)
http://6abc.com/news/1-dead-2-hurt-after-argument-during-eagles-game-in-west-oak-lane/1130370/

I was using video chat to demonstrate the proper way to clean a gun when I unintentionally shot myself on camera. (FL, 12/22)
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/miami-dade/sfl-man-shoots-himself-cleaning-gun-dies-20151222-story.html?utm_content=buffer5a67d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

I met a woman who didn’t believe in God, so I shot her dead and made a shrine out of her body. (AZ, 12/24)
http://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/arizona-news/64863225-story

My boyfriend didn’t want to spend Christmas with my mom, so I shot him. (SC, 12/25)
http://www.heraldonline.com/news/local/crime/article52047340.html

I got a new gun for Christmas and I was playing with it and unintentionally shot my two-year-old niece in the face. (OR, 12/25)
http://komonews.com/news/local/toddler-shot-in-the-cheek-by-family-member-cleaning-gun-12-25-2015

Another customer at McDonald’s yelled at me that my order was ready, so I shot him. (FL, 12/26)
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/ill-kill-you-right-now-florida-man-opens-fire-at-mcdonalds-restaurant-after-dispute-over-order-escalates/

I got into an argument at a family gathering, so I started blasting away in a blind rage. I shot two little kids playing with Christmas presents. (MI, 12/27)
http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/64378106-story

My brother accused me of disrespecting our mom, so I threatened to shoot him. He handed me my gun and dared me to shoot him, so I did. Twice. (FL, 12/27)
http://m.news-journalonline.com/article/20151227/NEWS/151229653/0/COLUMNS

I grabbed my gun to go see what my dogs were barking at. I unintentionally shot myself in the leg, then lied to police and said a home invader shot me. (NY, 12/28)
http://13wham.com/news/top-stories/portage-woman-charged-with-lying-about-shooting

GrahamS - Member

Why are you lot debating about guns in Merica?

At least four reasons I can think of:

1) most people are not that keen on children being gunned down in mass shootings, regardless of the country.

What a naive view of the world ... children died everyday. Even my Jewish mate grandma said if you leave children alone they die.

2) taking an interest in world affairs and comparing/contrasting society and politics in similar countries. It's interesting even as a dispassionate observer.

Interesting but I wonder if it will degenerate into mass petition by minority few to affect the govt policy ... i.e. 500K plus people signing petition against Trump ... we have more than 50 million people in the UK.

3) we may visit America.

Crikey ... just try not to be at the wrong place at the wrong time but if your time is up then it's up no matter where you are.

4) more obtusely, aspects of the American pro-gun psyche inevitably influence our culture to a degree and may also explain some American approaches to foreign policy.

Nothing wrong with that so long as the world continue to cull each other to free up space because we simply cannot expect population expansion without resources to feed them. I certainly do not want mankind to compete for food source with the animals ...

We the mankind or ZM needs culling ... 😀

From the conservative tribune today.

As most everybody knows by now, President Barack Obama is expected to issue unilateral executive actions on gun control within days, having been stymied repeatedly by a Congress unwilling to further infringe upon the Second Amendment.
Obama will most likely attempt to expand background checks on firearm purchases by reclassifying more individuals as “gun dealers” who must be licensed and regulated by the feds, as well as other actions that tinker around the edges and do nothing to actually address [b]the alleged problem of “gun violence.”[/b]
Meanwhile, Texas has become the latest state to allow some individuals to openly carry their holstered sidearms, and many other states are working towards relaxing gun control laws and respecting the rights of their citizens, according to former Florida U.S. Rep. and retired Army Lt. Col. Allen West.
On his website Monday, West reported on this “interesting juxtaposition,” of Obama seeking to infringe upon the Second Amendment while many states and millions of American citizens are moving towards greater respect of our gun rights.
Pointing out that none of Obama’s likely proposals would have done anything to stop December’s terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, West noted that Obama is merely attempting to take advantage of [b]a supposed “crisis”[/b] to advance his anti-gun agenda.
However, Obama consistently ignores the real issues behind the [b]so-called[/b] “epidemic of gun violence” often cited by [b]gun-grabbers[/b], such as a “lack of quality education, breakdown of the family, and better economic opportunities in the inner cities.”
In response to Obama’s unilateral actions that would strip gun rights from American citizens and make it more difficult for individuals to arm themselves, West made two propositions.
First, since guns are so [b]bad and scary and dangerous[/b], West thinks the Secret Service should be defunded and disarmed, as Obama shouldn’t be protected by guns if American citizens aren’t allowed to protect ourselves with guns.
Second, and most importantly, West called for civil disobedience on the part of American citizens in regards to Obama’s gun control actions.
Citing the civil disobedience of the civil rights movement that led to monumental changes in society, as well as the fact that [b]the feds can’t arrest us all[/b], West simply called for American gun owners to ignore any and all executive actions put forth by Obama that infringe upon the Second Amendment.

Rorschach - Member

From the conservative tribune today.

WTactualF

My head hurts ...

Could you summarise please.

Which side are you on?

Freedom or Obama? 🙄

Team 'murica.
One nation....under god.....or else.

Rorschach - Member
Team 'murica.
One nation....under god.....or else.

Ok ... freedom it is. 😛

noltae - Member

There seems to be a worrying consensus developing in this thread that executive action is legitimate governance - if your happy with dictatorship please say so - I'm genuinely interested in who believes that it's ok to bypass congress?

Government's supposed to represent the will of the people, who overwhelmingly support increasing background checks. These are changes that Obama would have been able to make via the normal channels if the GOP was prepared to do their job and their duty, rather than fillibuster legislation change to death as they did last time. But in the face of electoral dysfunction he's forced to resort to executive action in order to to his job and his duty.

Pretty odd dictatorship tbh- using legally granted powers and acting within the constitution to do the will of the electorate. It's a sad state of affairs but when a party loses their collective minds, that's what happens.

America's problem is that public debate is absolutely broken. It's simply screaming hysteria. So nothing can be done through the normal democratic channels.

Freedom of speech requires responsibility, but there's no way to enforce it. The only way to solve this problem (as almost all others) is with education.

LHS - Member
The last trip to the states had the air of war time and fear
Funny, living here and that is not the case at all, just a minority media making it seem that way. Don't believe all the crap you read.

Lands in LAX, posters everywhere about, be vigilant, never let this happen again (9/11) the big show of strength security etc.
The rest may have just been election season but it was being pushed hard by the right wing and the "government"orgs.
Had the misfortune to sit next to a woman on the plane who recounted how lax she thought the security was overseas as they were not under attack like the US was.
People were being told to fear, to watch out, not in the general reasonable way the rest of the world does it but more in your face.
I would suspect over time you get used to it.
Even with the deaths from terror vs deaths from mass shootings with legally held guns people still fear terror way more. For this reason alone the terrorists can pack up and head to the beach they have won.

Haven't been to the US in the last 15 years so can't comment, but I hope that was just an isolated (woman) case Mike, if that kind of thought is widespread then that's really sad.