I believe the gun shy people and psychopaths are beginning to outnumber the responsible adults in America.

That might be so. It's similar to when I think that the moment I leave home I am going to be outnumbered by stupid people.

(01-06-2016, 04:57 PM)F.U. Wrote: Its because of how things turned out across the pond that I don't want to even consider the way they did things. Its not that hard to understand HotD. But that's OK. Glad I can make you laugh.

We don't have to consider a national registry in order to look at the other components of a foreign model/system objectively, obviously. It's not all or nothing.

Anyway, the U.S. already has mandatory registration of firearms in some states.

In any case, a federal registry isn't on the table in the U.S., no matter what other model components we consider or whether the new Executive Actions are implemented in full. Fear that simply taking measures to make it harder for people to obtain a gun without a background check is a direct path to registration, confiscation and tyranny is baseless at this time, in my view.

Establishing a federal registry would require repealing the Federal Firearm Owners Protection Act forbidding such a registry. It would also require getting the necessary approval votes from the designated majority of states. That would be a very difficult and time consuming task to accomplish considering our culture. Americans have proven that gun massacres by private citizens don't have the same change-stimulating effect on our collective population as they have in other western nations like England, Australia, Canada...

If at some point, however, a majority of U.S. citizens grew to favor a national gun registry and they elected representatives who lobbied and voted for it, a national gun registry could (and should) become a reality. That's Democracy.

But even if a national registry was approved and implemented, it wouldn't be an invitation for big brother to confiscate all your guns just because registries allowed foreign governments to mandate buy backs and confiscate guns more easily. The U.S. is unique in its Constitutional guarantee of the rights of citizens to bear arms. Repealing or amending the Constitution would also require the support of the majority of the people's elected state representatives and probably Supreme Court involvement; another difficult and time consuming endeavor.

(01-06-2016, 05:53 PM)Maggot Wrote: I believe the gun shy people and psychopaths are beginning to outnumber the responsible adults in America.

I always wonder why you happen to come across so many gun shy people. I grew up in California and don't personally know any adult (responsible or not) who is shy or afraid of guns.

Almost everybody around me IRL is the same as the mix here at Mock: some have a gun(s), some grew up with guns or hunting or shooting at the range, some just aren't interested in guns, some are for stricter gun controls and some are against them, AND almost all of us consider it important to keep those psychopaths you come across so frequently from getting a hold of guns and killing people.

Is there just a high density of crazy pussies in NH, Maggot?

(01-06-2016, 05:10 PM)F.U. Wrote:

(01-06-2016, 04:00 PM)BigMark Wrote: You can't change the gun grabbers mentality, most are democrats anyway so why even try.

Because it fun to play every once and a while. They think they are all high and mighty, doing something good for the children [remember the children. that is until we discuss abortion then fuck the children] by trying to stop even one death. You know, if we can stop even one death its worth all the bull shit we have to deal with.
I know they wont ever see the light, but its fun anyway.

I don't know who you're talking about, but your attempts to pass off your serious-as-a-heart attack emotional gun-related posts as "playing" or "fucking" with people is hilarious, F.U.

You're either lying about "playing" now, or you're admitting that you've been a really ineffective troll for years. UNLESS, you're actually the most hard-core gun control supporter around -- in that case, you've served your cause well.

I just heard that LE want to be able to destroy all the guns that are confiscated from criminals and the NRA are fighting that. They want them resold.

Besides the ones they take home.

(01-06-2016, 05:02 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(01-06-2016, 03:11 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(01-06-2016, 02:43 PM)F.U. Wrote: confiscation.

That will never happen in the United States. There would be a revolt the likes of which the government has never seen and I sincerely doubt the military would follow any order to confiscate weapons. This is what I believe.

Neither will an Executive Order that circumvents congress... Oh wait...

Hey there genius (BG), Executive Orders have been signed by several Presidents; however, I will only mention two or three. President Eisenhower did so to implement school desegregation, (John Kennedy did so also)

President Ronald Reagan signed an Ex Order prohibiting family planning clinics who receive Federal funds, from advocating abortion to their clients.....see male politicians have been telling women for ages what they should do and shouldn't do with their bodies...but I add that little tidbit just for your information, only.....because it is my own personal opinion.....which some of you want to stomp on. This personal comment really doesn't have any direct connection to Executive Order...I just sneaked/snuck (?) it in.


I just want to say that I have every right to be opinion as the rest of you and at least, I am consistent in my rantings.....I am ranting according to Cutz, but he is is "discussing"
when he makes a snarly comment here on Mock....

I read the above information in the Capitol Corner and authored by Ilona Nickels 2015....disclaimer: not my personal opinion stuff of course, and Ilona didn't mention Cutz or call BG a genius.......that was me.....

Yeah, Executive Orders are not uncommon across administrations and have been used by every U.S. president in history (except Harrison).

Here's the tally of average EOs per year by president (red is Republican and blue is Democrat).

(01-06-2016, 08:29 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(01-06-2016, 05:10 PM)F.U. Wrote:

(01-06-2016, 04:00 PM)BigMark Wrote: You can't change the gun grabbers mentality, most are democrats anyway so why even try.

Because it fun to play every once and a while. They think they are all high and mighty, doing something good for the children [remember the children. that is until we discuss abortion then fuck the children] by trying to stop even one death. You know, if we can stop even one death its worth all the bull shit we have to deal with.
I know they wont ever see the light, but its fun anyway.

I don't know who you're talking about, but your attempts to pass off your serious-as-a-heart attack emotional gun-related posts as "playing" or "fucking" with people is hilarious, F.U.

You're either lying about "playing" now, or you're admitting that you've been a really ineffective troll for years. UNLESS, you're actually the most hard-core gun control supporter around -- in that case, you've served your cause well.

Well, it all depends on my mood. Sometimes I am serious, sometimes I am joking and sometimes I just throw shit at the wall to see what sticks. When I get bored with something I like to stir the pot .

(01-06-2016, 09:28 PM)Duchess Wrote: I just heard that LE want to be able to destroy all the guns that are confiscated from criminals and the NRA are fighting that. They want them resold.

This has ben discussed for a long time. I remember when my dad was dealing guins in the 70's. LE destroyed SOME of the guns even back then. Well that is they destroyed the ones they didn't want for themselves.
As far as I am concerned they can destroy them, sell them, take them home if they want. I really don't care. The rate that new guns are churned out today there will never be a shortage.

(01-06-2016, 11:13 PM)F.U. Wrote: Well, it all depends on my mood. Sometimes I am serious, sometimes I am joking and sometimes I just throw shit at the wall to see what sticks. When I get bored with something I like to stir the pot .

Moody and full of shit. It could be worse; at least the walls are clean and you're apparently never bored.

(01-06-2016, 09:28 PM)Duchess Wrote: I just heard that LE want to be able to destroy all the guns that are confiscated from criminals and the NRA are fighting that. They want them resold.

It sucks for the police departments who've been stripped of choice for no other reason than NRA puppetry of local politicians.

Some of the police departments seriously don't want or need the hassle of auctioning those guns and hate seeing them used later in attacks on officers and other victims.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/21/news/pol...ized-guns/

Wow, I just got off a Facebook thread where literally 99% of the posters were still defending Bill Cosby (I know this isn't right thread for this), but I had to say something to a woman who mentioned that one of the victims was 80 years old and why would he rape someone that old. I told her off; no wonder i have trouble sleeping, but can you believe the stupidity of some of the people out there (and they vote).

Anyway, I was thinking about all the debate that I had with Jimbone re gun debate. I haven't seen him around to chime in on gun discussions. Hope he is o.k.

I've never paid much attention to the NRA until this thread. I've never even had a conversation about them until this thread and more & more it's my opinion that they are part of the problem. Them and the politicians that they can manipulate.

Long Live the NRA !

(01-06-2016, 10:42 PM)blueberryhill Wrote:

(01-06-2016, 05:02 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(01-06-2016, 03:11 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(01-06-2016, 02:43 PM)F.U. Wrote: confiscation.

That will never happen in the United States. There would be a revolt the likes of which the government has never seen and I sincerely doubt the military would follow any order to confiscate weapons. This is what I believe.

Neither will an Executive Order that circumvents congress... Oh wait...

Hey there genius (BG), Executive Orders have been signed by several Presidents; however, I will only mention two or three. President Eisenhower did so to implement school desegregation, (John Kennedy did so also)

President Ronald Reagan signed an Ex Order prohibiting family planning clinics who receive Federal funds, from advocating abortion to their clients.....see male politicians have been telling women for ages what they should do and shouldn't do with their bodies...but I add that little tidbit just for your information, only.....because it is my own personal opinion.....which some of you want to stomp on. This personal comment really doesn't have any direct connection to Executive Order...I just sneaked/snuck (?) it in.


I just want to say that I have every right to be opinion as the rest of you and at least, I am consistent in my rantings.....I am ranting according to Cutz, but he is is "discussing"
when he makes a snarly comment here on Mock....

I read the above information in the Capitol Corner and authored by Ilona Nickels 2015....disclaimer: not my personal opinion stuff of course, and Ilona didn't mention Cutz or call BG a genius.......that was me.....

How does prohibiting and organization from "advocating abortion" have anything to do with telling women what they should or shouldn't do with their bodies?

And as far as your lists of executive orders go, were those things achievable? Were they issued for the same reasons this EO was? Is an EO an EO is an EO or is this one a little different? In general EO's are given to manage how the Govt operates. Is that what we have here or is this more of an emotional knee jerk cupcake?

(01-07-2016, 10:52 AM)F.U. Wrote: Long Live the NRA !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU6mPYFtF8E

Almost all use of Executive Order/Action draws the ire of the opposition party, people who disagree with what's being enacted, and people who dislike the President. And, there are those who decry all EOs/EAs as unconstitutional regardless of content or party or President. It's been that way for hundreds of years.

As posted upthread, the thousands of EO/EAs issued cover laws and policies across a multitude of topics; some more controversial than others. Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation" is one well-known Executive Order. Harry Truman used EO to desegregate schools. Franklin Roosevelt used EO to forbid banks from releasing gold coin or bullion; Executive Order 6102 forbade the hoarding of gold coin, bullion and gold certificates. George W. Bush used EO to restrict public access to the papers of former presidents. Bill Clinton used EOs to for environmental protection purposes. Etc...

Nothing in the Constitution says, "Executive Order or Executive Action", which fundamentalists often use to claim that EOs/EAs are therefore unlawful. But, the term 'executive power' used in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, refers to the title of President as the "executive". As so, he/she is instructed to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" per Article II, Section 3, Clause 5. Since all EO/EAs require a Constitutional justification, those two sections of the document are typically cited as justification.

Obama's Gun Violence Reduction EA is not a controversial one in terms of content, in my opinion. It's giving a broader scope of duties to government agencies in order for them to enforce existing laws as intended. The ATF will get more budget and staffing to ensure that gun dealers can't get around the licensing requirements and they'll get updated criteria for what constitutes a dealer to help close loopholes; they'll also get additional funding to enhance the National Ballistics database to better track illegal gun trafficking. That means more legal dealers, more background checks on potential buyers, more power and resources to pursue unlicensed/illegal dealers. The FBI will get more staff to run the anticipated higher volume of background checks, and do it more quickly so fewer people will get guns without a background check because the FBI wasn't able to complete it within the committed 3-day time frame.

Funding for smart gun technology research and mental health is also part of the 10 point EA. I think those points may need to go through Congress for approval though; we'll find out more details at the televised Town Hall Meeting tonight.

Personally, I doubt that any Republican politician will seriously challenge this EA with the Supreme Court, even if they are declaring now that they will (though some pro-gun groups or individuals might). I think such a challenge would fail with any set of Supreme Court Justices and it would be politically imprudent for any elected politician, almost all of whom have said they support universal background checks and more mental health focus, to challenge measures designed to curb gun violence. But, they have the right and the opportunity to challenge it if they want and a few EOs have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and overturned over the years.

(01-06-2016, 08:01 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(01-06-2016, 05:53 PM)Maggot Wrote: I believe the gun shy people and psychopaths are beginning to outnumber the responsible adults in America.

I always wonder why you happen to come across so many gun shy people. I grew up in California and don't personally know any adult (responsible or not) who is shy or afraid of guns.

Almost everybody around me IRL is the same as the mix here at Mock: some have a gun(s), some grew up with guns or hunting or shooting at the range, some just aren't interested in guns, some are for stricter gun controls and some are against them, AND almost all of us consider it important to keep those psychopaths you come across so frequently from getting a hold of guns and killing people.

Is there just a high density of crazy pussies in NH, Maggot?

Its probably much less here than in Cali as NH does not have as much restrictions as that state. As far as crazy people go I would have to say California has more than we do. I'm not saying YOU are a freak but I was out there for a year and the people are "different" there.

It may be because Cali was not really very populated until the 1890's and later. It may be that the area attracted people that were different or maybe its just the water. It is a weird place but I guess if a person grows up there it seems "normal". They really do need restrictions there at any rate. Its good for the people there.