List of EO by Barry

I had a new worst though What is their are doctors out their who are adamantly opposed to guns PERIOD? The possibility could be doctors now controlling guns across the nation ! what do ya'll think about those apples

dcrane wrote:

Flyer5 wrote:

dcrane wrote:
I personally want gun reform, but even i have issue with this lil' snafffuu

I have to ask. Why do you feel we need reform? Can you stand behind your answers and say they will save one person without putting other people at risk?

HERE WE GOOOOOOOO..... hommie don play dat.... your not gonna lead me into this convo again, the forum would get bogged down with lag

We can go and start a different thread. But this is my problem is people say we need these laws or regulations. But yet they cannot back up why they want them. Take the Magazine limit. (I hope I am staying on topic here) I would bet I could find a lot of cases that someone would be dead if they didn't have that 11th round. The last shooting in Ga. If the assailant was not alone and the woman only had the 6 rounds she would be dead.
So I feel my question of asking for a reason to back up new laws you want is valid.
No more gun laws till they can prove that the ones we have are enforced and actually contribute to what they were intended. If not those laws that are not necessary to be enforced or are obsolete should be revoked before adding any more.
David Gregory is a fine example. He should be charged under current laws in DC and he walked. If that was me that made a mistake I would be paying the legal bills the rest of my life.
So that is why I have a problem every time someone says they need to *censored* on my rights for no valid reason.

well, i did make some arguments on those other threads... I just dont see the "need" for weapons whos only purpose is to kill humans as fast and efficiently as possible in anyones hands but military, police and registered people who have valid reasons for having them (IE: security, instructors, etc.). I feel that people who wish to carry assault weapons and 30 round clips should have to meet a higher standard then others. Im not saying to ban them, im simply saying to hold "those" folks to a much higher standard then a mere gun lic.

Since these acts are almost always committed by crazy people that is where the major impetus should be in preventing them. Ban all guns and there are even worse ways to kill people once a loony is determined on that act.

Notice I avoided all the politically correct labels for wackos and that is also a large part of the problem. Homicidal maniac does not sound nice but that's what these people are.

Ignorance reinforced by ignorance with a PhD attached set out to solve the problem. In a world of illusion reality is rare and actively suppressed.

I kind of think that they want doctors & the like to be able to release some information on who may be a danger to themselves & others & not have to worry about patients rights & being sued. Too often everyone seems to be too afraid of labeling someone, there are many that need some help that don't get it early on. Elementary Schools used to do this back in my day but they (I guess) must have cut costs for that type of thing, it seems like they used to do a lot more with less than they do now.
I don't know how it could be said that if someone had one less round things would have been different, things are what they are, if the first round was well placed the rest wouldn't have been needed at all but that wasn't the case either. People get killed everyday & that isn't going to change but mass killings aren't too often committed with bats or even handguns, it becomes a time & target thing.

Now people will think twice about going to a doctor for emotional issues. They'll also be careful what they say around their doctors, and lie about gun ownership.

Welcome to the world of unintended consequences. Guess I'll have to build my own weapons from now on as well.

dcrane wrote: I just dont see the "need" for weapons whos only purpose is to kill humans as fast and efficiently as possible

You don't see the need but our founding fathers did and wrote it into our Constitution.

Ever since the government murder of all those children and adults in Waco Texas it has been obvious that citizens need some form of protection from out of control government, even if in the end it is futile.

The true intent of the EO's reminds me of a quote (snippet from a book) by Ayn Rand:

"Did you really think we want those laws observed? said Dr. Ferris. We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957)

SMITTY wrote:Now people will think twice about going to a doctor for emotional issues. They'll also be careful what they say around their doctors, and lie about gun ownership.

Welcome to the world of unintended consequences. Guess I'll have to build my own weapons from now on as well.

Since the government has a larger role in heath care, can lying about gun ownership be used as a basis for care or may it result in a fine?

Call it a "pre existing condition" and I think you're all set.

samhill wrote:I kind of think that they want doctors & the like to be able to release some information on who may be a danger to themselves & others & not have to worry about patients rights & being sued. Too often everyone seems to be too afraid of labeling someone, there are many that need some help that don't get it early on. Elementary Schools used to do this back in my day but they (I guess) must have cut costs for that type of thing, it seems like they used to do a lot more with less than they do now.
I don't know how it could be said that if someone had one less round things would have been different, things are what they are, if the first round was well placed the rest wouldn't have been needed at all but that wasn't the case either. People get killed everyday & that isn't going to change but mass killings aren't too often committed with bats or even handguns, it becomes a time & target thing.

You sir have clearly never been in a combat situation when your praying against all odds to all thats holy that you don't have to take the 3 seconds necessary to swap out a clip or encounter a jamb. Their are obviously ways which would take out far more human life then an assault weapon if someone is indeed hellbent on doing such acts of violence... the problem is they are not using those acts, they are using assault weapons!

Had a minor day surgery, had a mole removed .. So, part of the pre-op interview, I was asked if I felt threatened,or fear in my
house. " Huh?" , but as it turns out, standard " abuse" screen questions. Who knew? As far as new gun regulation,
the trick will be to protect your right to have guns while keeping them out of the hands of the crazy. Clueless as to how to make
that happen. Hear a lot of talk about more robust enforcement existing laws. But with what? I think some sort of mandatory
insurance may be the answer. An insurance industry would sniff out potential" expensive" issues with gusto. Maybe continuing education for owners. What ever the answer, it will be another hoop to jump and cost a few bucks. We may have a right to own them, but no where does it say it has to be easy or cheap.

Paulie wrote: We may have a right to own them, but no where does it say it has to be easy or cheap.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What's your definition of "infringed"?

And while we're at it, what's the difference between a "right" and a "privilege"?

Those who already have guns will be able to hide them, but the next generation will have a hard time procuring them.

It will be interesting to see if one of the EO's somewhere down the road outlaws passing them from one generation to the next (at least without our own children procuring permits and passing background checks, etc...). Another right in the process of becoming a privilege... (edit to add that I just noticed jpete beat me to it with regard to the rights and privileges matter).

I recall posting somewhere about becoming (or already being) wards of the state...

A right is a legal entitlement protected and guaranteed by the state . A privilege is granted , conditionally, and can be legally revoked by the state.

Paulie wrote:A right is a legal entitlement protected and guaranteed by the state . A privilege is granted , conditionally, and can be legally revoked by the state.

Ok. Just so we are on the same page. Although I bristle at your use of the phrase "legal entitlement".

I would add that rights cannot be denied except through due process of law. Since none of us have been tried and convicted of a felony(I'm generalizing here. ) how can we be denied our Second Amendment rights or our natural right to defend our lives?