Can we please just admit that maybe gun control is a good idea finally?

Also the more people have access to more guns the more likely one of them is to be dangerous, however the more people have access to more fact the more likely they all are to be more informed and make better decisions. No one's ever been "mediaed to death" (which is why people who watch FOX news consistently rate lowest in being informed: they can only consume a small section of media in a bubble)

And, once again, all of those examples of media are regulated to hell and back both externally by the government and private groups, and internally by editors and lawyers. The things that come out of media, news or opinions, are tightly controlled. Just imagine if the things that came out of guns, bullets, were just as tightly controlled.

Here in Canada only people with a gun license (Possession & Acquisition License) are allowed to purchase ammunition and gun powder (for those who reload). The gun stores check your PAL to make sure it's valid.

We also have regulations that all ammunition have to be stored in a lock container (it can be in the same safe as the firearms as long as the firearms are not loaded). Ammunition cannot be displayed with firearms.

*sigh*

Let me Google that for you.

For you Americans the word "Minutemen" probably has more associations with going over history with glossy coat of fuckstupid.

That's how it was explained in whatever news article I was reading - Obama will required federal agencies to perform these additional backgrouond checks.

I kind of question your assumption when it comes to background checks - the only laws I'm aware of involve background checks on purchases. Also, I think you're claiming it's an innocent executive action because you already agree with the underlying sentiment - but I suspect you'd have reservations if it was limiting a right you supported more strongly. For example, if someone's pro-privacy, shouldn't the order saying "oh btw HIPAA doesn't apply to reporting issues that might affect background checks" raise a red flag? The bottom line for me is, how can someone (especially a party that considers itself a proponent of civil rights) just passively accept these types of platitudes when it even obliquely touches a constitutional issue:

Consider a pro-life executive order couched in that reasoning, or an order around indefinite detention or interrogation techniques. It's terrible reasoning, even if you happen to agree with the underlying result this time it will certainly come back around to bite you.

Personally, my average work day prevents me from gaming for more than an hour and I have a huge backlog of games to play, so I usually don't have anything salient to contribute to the gaming threads (for example, I'm playing gears 3 at home, radiant historia on the train currently). So I enjoy reading the gaming forums but I can more easily and readily contribute to the politics boards.

Actually, as Kildorn pointed out, the executive order doesn't say anything about requiring new background checks in cases of seized weapons. Here's the full text of the President's proposal on this issue from the WH press release:

Take executive action to help law enforcement avoid returning guns to the wrong hands: Law enforcement should never be put in the position of unknowingly returning a gun to an individual who is prohibited from having it. Currently, when law enforcement must return firearms seized as part of an investigation, they do not have the ability to conduct a full background check on the owner. The Administration will propose regulations to ensure that law enforcement has access to the database needed for complete background checks

That's lovely, but if you read what I wrote a bit more carefully, I did not actually make any assumptions at all about the virtues of background checks. My point was merely that what the President was doing was not nefarious insofar as the executive order appeared to be saying nothing more than that he would propose adding and/or modifying background check regulations. That's verified by the blurb I quoted above, which states that the Administration will "propose regulations." Where I think you're getting hung up is with a fundamental, albeit it common, misunderstanding of the administrative process. Anyone, including the President, can propose regulations. But until those proposals go through the relevant agency's rulemaking process (which includes opportunity for comment by interested persons), they're just that: proposals, with no force of law. It's also important to understand that as part of that process, the relevant agency will have to determine whether or not Congress has delegated to that agency authority to enact the proposed regulations, because generally speaking an agency can only issue regulations within the boundaries set by a law passed by Congress. This usually occurs through Congress enacting a somewhat broad legislation and directing an agency or agencies to develop regulations to implement the details thereof. This is all in the Administrative Procedure Act.

In short, the President hasn't actually *done* anything here. He's just said that he plans to propose some regulations to "ensure that law enforcement has access to the database for complete background checks." Any U.S. citizen has the legal right to do the same. There's really nothing to debate at this point because the President hasn't actually proposed any specific regulations yet.

That being said, just to keep things interesting, I have no philosophical dispute with running a criminal background check before returning weapons seized in criminal investigations. Criminal background checks are pretty much de rigeuer these days for many aspects of our lives, and criminal records are generally considered public anyhow.

Granted, that may be technically true, but it seems ludicrous to pretend that Obama proposing an ATF rule would be treated the same as a request from you or I. Thank you for the response though - it was very informative.

Well, obviously no agency bureaucrat with any sense of career preservation is going to pooh-pooh a proposal from the White House, but that doesn't change the underlying fact that the President isn't doing anything extra-legal here. I mean, no one has a problem with the President proposing legislation to Congress, which no doubt is going to garner more attention than you or I calling our local rep and doing so. Still, agencies can't just ignore requests from the public, and sometimes they do actually result in new or amended regulations.

Anyways, you're welcome. I practice regulatory law and therefore deal with this kind of stuff every day, but I can appreciate how it can be confusing, even for a relatively well-informed layperson, to understand exactly what these proposals mean in practice.

I associate it with the Watchmen comic!

Also I was referring to this, more or less the same thing you mentioned.

I don't know, does the anti-choice EO actually DO anything? And is the meaning of "life" universally accepted regarding a fetus as it is with a 10 year old?

Defriended someone on facebook for making the Obama = Hitler post.

Sure - like nothing too drastic, but nudges things in a pro-life direction. Say, reinstating the Mexico City policy or directing some VAWA funds go establish some pre natal care local support groups with a pro-life message? It does a thing which in some way limits abortion.

Let's put it this way - the status of a fetus under the constitution is no more or less universally accepted than an AR-15.

This showed up in my wife's FB feed yesterday:

Armed Janitors Approved By Montpelier, Ohio, School Board To Stop School Shootings

Relevant bits:

It's very much an opinion piece, but my wife grew up one town over from Montpelier and basically shrugged it off because it was essentially redneck heaven there. Small town, everyone has a gun, etc. But anyway, armed janitors! It's hilarious and depressing at the same time.

I don't suppose this increase in responsibility and hazard is accompanied by a corresponding increase in compensation. Is there a union involved?

What if there is a Quaker janitor or other CO type? are they now disqualified from the job because acting as armed guards is now part of the core job description, even though there is a 1/100000 chance it will happen in their school? (I don't know the law on whether you can refuse to hire a member of a religion for a job that goes against their religion, but I'm assuming employers aren't required to hire people whose religious beliefs actually prevent them from doing the job in question.)

Who wants to bet against the possibility that the next school shooting will involve either a janitor with mental health issues or a kid who gets sick of being bullied and steals a janitors's gun?

Whoops, fixed the link, sorry.

This isn't so much a response as a simple note. One of my favorite right-wing approaches to political discussions is the transparent attempt to steer things off the Cliff of Abortion. Such fertile lands of discussion lay beyond the edge, as the conversation bounds end-over-end before exploding on impact.

Are you doing that thing where you think you're gaining the upper hand by pretending this is a hypothetical question, then pulling back the curtain and yelling, "GOTCHA! THAT TOTALLY REALLY HAPPENED!"?

Because stop that.

Not quite, that's just racist dickheads in the woods. The militia myth, paraphrased, is that you could gut your standing army down to little more than an officer corps and some specialist forces; then when the shit hit the fan reconstitute the army with militias slotted into where you'd stick regular infantry. Hey, presto, instant army!

Yes, serious thinkers actually believed that.

The idea gained traction in the USA due to the much celebrated Minutemen; in Canada because during the War of 1812 the only people not more retarded than the Canadian militias were the American militias; and in Britain because of the bad shit that went down during the English Civil War lead people to question whether a large standing army was safe, which is probably where the entire notion originated. It was also popular as a cost-saving measure, because the cost of maintaining a standing army in a landmass the size of North America was ruinous before the construction of the railroads. Britain also saw a related development of maritime forces as basically their only defense against foreign threats. By the time 1914 rolled around it started to seem like a really fucking awful idea because it became immensely obvious that none of the officers had any clue whatsoever how to lead large forces of green recruits equipped with new technology.

New Jersey governor Chris Christie denounces the NRA's ad featuring President Obama's daughters.

Thank you for sharing this preference, however the fact is I laid out three different things which might be unpalatable to a Democrat, specific examples of a more general conccept. You're siezing on one and claiming it was a "transparent attempt" to steer the conversation? No.

Actually I explicitly picked an existing example because I didn't want people saying "no that example's not possible because of <obscure reason>". I used the word "reinstating" which clearly indicates it's happened before, so apparently I'm freely giving away my "big reveal"? Again, no. Because that thing where you ignore both the things I actually wrote and the underlying point and proclaim "AH HA I SEE WHAT YOURE REALLY DOING ITS A CONSERVATIVE TRICK"? Feel free to stop that too.

OK cool my point was that people today use the militia excuse to hoard guns in case the gubmint declares martial law or the lowly brown people revolt.

Fair enough, but my point a page ago when it was first brought is that they really did think state level militias in and of themselves were a good idea at the time; for reasons not necessarily related to slaves, Mexicans or Native Americans.

Yes, it should be rewritten. It was never a good idea, and it's been misappropriated into something completely different.

Three things?
You laid out two: both far more drastic than the EO Obama just laid forth (stopping all funding for any organization that provides abortion regardless of any other service) and specifically allocating government money to establish groups with a political agenda.

So yes, I'd have a problem with an EO couched in the same "if it only saves a single life" reasoning if the EO actually DOES something. Unlike the ones Obama just announced.

Give it up guys, he's clearly a Synthetic. I mean, he's not even trying to hide behind his forum handle.

Another example of the NRA's very clumsy handling of all this. If I was an NRA member I'd probably be calling for a change in leadership after all their stupid moves in the last few months. About the only thing they've done right is indicate they are not opposed to an extension of the background check laws.

Not that it matters, really. Between Republicans and Dems from rural states, it sounds unlikely that nothing more then the background check extension and the 10 round mag limit will actually pass through Congress. More interesting, I think, is how many states may follow the New York lead and enact more stringent laws. And how those hold up when they are inevitably challenged and are heard before the conservative Supreme Court.

As an aside, the gun market in the US for military style rifles is absolutely crazy right now. Things are going for two or three times their real value as people panic about this possibly being their last chance to get them. That includes rifles that were legal under the previous assault weapons ban and rifles that fire things like .22lr.

Who the fuck cares about a .22lr? I mean, seriously.

It only has to do with what the gun looks like, not the round. People think all guns that look like military rifles could end up being banned.

I guess I can get that, but we're talking about a caliber that is seriously tiny. It's something you'd hunt with (rarely) and mostly compete with. It's not a goddamn military or assault rifle.

I just realized Jibble was 100% right: you WERE laying out a "future trap". Just not the one he thought. I was supposed to go "No, well those are terrible things the president should never use an EO for!" because, to you, I'm the typical Democrat, and you'd pull back your velvety curtains and reveal that "HaHA! So when a Republican does it you HATE it! But you LOOOOOoooooOOOOvvvve when Obama does it!!!11"

So good on ya Jibble.

Wasn't it Bob Cherub who used to do that constantly on Qt3?

"bla bla bla look at this terrible thing a Republican did"

"Actually, that doesn't seem so unreasonable? Whatever, not really a news story?"

AND THEN SURPRISE IT WAS A DEMOCRAT ALL ALONG

Yeah, he'd do that. And then argue himself to oblivion until abandoning thread. Hmm. Hmmmmmm

For months now the gun manufacturers have stopped taking new orders as they are having a hard time filling up the back orders. Every time President Obama is (re)elected or talk of tougher gun control laws, the sales of firearms shoot (pun intended) through the roof. The anti-gun advocates are the gun manufacturers' greatest promoters in an ironic and sick way.

Of course, this means that for Canadian gun owners such as myself we get the crumbs of what's left over and at a higher price (exporters have to pay the State Department for regulated parts (an AR-15 detent spring would normally cost $1 in the US costs around $5 in Canada!)).

Civil Advantage's firearms safety course instructor Rod Giltaca was interviewed by CBC Radio on Canada's gun control laws and guns, compared those in the US.

I'm an American gun-owner, a responsible one, and while prices haven't shot up (pun intended) to your level, there is a heavy shortage. I do competitions, mostly with standard .22 rifles, but I own my father's Colt 1911 and really enjoy target practice at the range. I own several .22 rifles, wood-stock and steel/urethane, and I was flabbergasted when I went to my favorite local gun shop to find out that .22 ammo was actually on back-order. What the hell, America?

People are stockpiling. I've been into several gun stores/sporting goods stores the last few days where they have listed limits on what you can buy. It varies from Cabela's "limiting" to 10 boxes to other places limiting to 100 rounds. Some of the prices for certain types of ammo are skyrocketing online as well.

Before I got laid off I would may have to wait a month or two to get a box of 1000 rounds of .223 (about $380 when I last bought it) because of the lack of shipments to Vancouver and when they do come in they sell out pretty quickly.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/so-a-guy-walks-into-a-jc-penny-with-an-assault-rif

A true patriot.

The whole phenomenon of guys carrying weapons like that is truly bizarre, and pretty much emblematic of Gun Nut (as opposed to people who like guns) culture.

jesus buzzfeed's site makes me want to gouge my eyes out, mostly for the mind-numbing stories featured on the side of the site.


How would a police officer or security guard deal with a guy carrying an assault rifle into a store?

Pfft, like you didn't click on the 12 pictures of girls in bikinis in the snow.