Obama to take Executive Action on Gun Control

**Damien** · 05-01-2016, 07:48

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...ing-with-lynch

Quote:

Thousands of unlicensed gun shows and online dealers will be forced to conduct customer background checks for the first time in a fresh effort by Barack Obama to tackle America’s epidemic of deadly shootings.

Bold move and one which will see a lot of fighting in congress to get overturned. Maybe Obama thinks the Republicans may not want to pass gun control measures in the House but that they won't want the image of overturning implemented gun control measures in an election year when, inevitably, another massacre will occur at some point at people will look at what they did? Inaction on gun control is probably preferable to them than action of loosing gun control.

At least he is doing something though. He has entered a 'I don't care' stage of the Presidency in this term since congress wants to stifle pretty much everything. He has resorted to a number of executive actions to bypass them.

Hom3r · 05-01-2016, 18:00

Waiting my US FB friends to freaking out, saying its unconstitutional.

Taf · 05-01-2016, 18:51

"The right to bear arms" but not if you're a nutter, criminal or psychopath.

Seems good sense to me. But it probably won't to a big chunk of the USA population.

roughbeast · 05-01-2016, 19:20

Obama's proposals are less radical than those supported by Ronald Reagan in the 1990s.

The problem in the USA is that the GOP oppose anything to do with Obama. They have taken great exception to his slightly socialistic policies and his colour and have characterised him as the enemy of the democracy, the average worker and the constitution even though he has brought prosperity back to the USA after the mess left by George W Bush. They will not rest until they have erased his memory.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...cans-oppose-it

**Damien** · 05-01-2016, 20:14

We're going the same way. Ultra-entrenched political partisans who believe those who think differently are evil. People have become religious zealots for their party be it the SNP, UKIP or Corbyn.

Hom3r · 05-01-2016, 20:46

Obama's colour has a lot to do with the hate for his decisions.

**Maggy** · 05-01-2016, 21:34

I don't get it. 2nd amendment would indicate that if it's been amended once it can be amended again..

Kursk · 05-01-2016, 22:39

Bit disappointed that President Obama was in tears during the announcement. Don't get me wrong, I'm not averse to men showing emotion but it seems like everyone is a cry baby these days. I just feel it doesn't look right on the leader of the free World. The man has enough presence to convey emotion without going the whole hog.

Ah well, I suppose I need to get more in touch with my feminine side

nomadking · 05-01-2016, 22:58

Is he going to take all the guns of the gangstas? Or the law-abiding who just happen to be................

alanbjames · 05-01-2016, 23:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taf

"The right to bear arms" but not if you're a nutter, criminal or psychopath.

Seems good sense to me. But it probably won't to a big chunk of the USA population.

When this was put into the constitution it was meant they were allowed to wear short sleeve shirts and T-Shirts.

**Damien** · 06-01-2016, 07:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

Is he going to take all the guns of the gangstas? Or the law-abiding who just happen to be................

Neither. Read the article. It states what measures he is introducing.

nomadking · 06-01-2016, 09:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

Neither. Read the article. It states what measures he is introducing.

The gangstas are the ones that will have the guns. There are so many out there already, they can't be uninvented. If X is linked to Y and Y has legitimately held guns, then X can use the guns of Y, eg at Sandy Hook. Nothing solved.

Derek · 06-01-2016, 10:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

There are so many out there already, they can't be uninvented. If X is linked to Y and Y has legitimately held guns, then X can use the guns of Y, eg at Sandy Hook.

Surely by that logic there shouldn't be any controls at all if the guns are already in circulation.

If it stops a single mass shooting then a sensible measure like this should be encouraged by all sides rather than the current rush to see who can be most pro-NRA.

nomadking · 06-01-2016, 10:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek

Surely by that logic there shouldn't be any controls at all if the guns are already in circulation.

If it stops a single mass shooting then a sensible measure like this should be encouraged by all sides rather than the current rush to see who can be most pro-NRA.

But will it stop anything? Is it possible to prevent "out of nowhere" type attacks from people not considered a danger? Other than a complete ban and those people will still have access to guns, as they are determined and have secretly planned things for ages. It tends not to be a spur of the moment thing.

It is the dangerous people that are known about that should be addressed. Why is 10 killings in separate incidents any less than a one-off killing of 10?

You have a situation where somebody can start up a major(30,000+ members) gang, be responsible for 100s of deaths, be finally convicted, and still get support from many people and even a Nobel Peace prize nomination, all because they are..... not somebody looking to get guns in a legal manner.

**Hugh** · 06-01-2016, 10:48

So if we can't solve everything, we shouldn't try to solve anything...