Violent crimes aren't equal nor are they interchangeable.

Obama's plan (from NYT):

Proposed Congressional Actions

•Requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales, including those by private sellers that currently are exempt.
What do you expect this to accomplish? This rule only affects the law abiding who, by definition, are not the problem.

•Reinstating and strengthening the ban on assault weapons that was in place from 1994 to 2004.
This didn't work before, I don't expect it would work now.

•Limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.
Even you have said this was stupid. This proposal illustrates truly how clueless those in power are. It didn't work before, it won't work now, especially with "Military and Law Enforcement Use Only" stamped on millions of perfectly legal pre-ban magazines.

•Banning the possession of armor-piercing bullets by anyone other than members of the military and law enforcement.
Right, because we may never have use for such things in case the people ever decide the federal government has banned too much. By the way, they are already illegal in most calibers.

•Increasing criminal penalties for "straw purchasers," people who pass the required background check to buy a gun on behalf of someone else.
What, is 10 years in jail not enough for you? Straw sales are a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison

•Acting on a $4 billion administration proposal to help keep 15,000 police officers on the street.
Brilliant. Just what we need. More fucking cops.

•Confirming President Obama's nominee for director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
What is this supposed to accomplish, exactly, other than adding yet another GS Executive salary to the US Government payroll?

•Eliminating a restriction that requires the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to allow the importation of weapons that are more than 50 years old.
Right, because collectible firearms are clearly the problem. Nevermind the fact that they already banned a good number of Eastern Bloc military arms in the 922R legislation passed in 1968. The AK-47s we have in the USA are assembled here, on American made receivers.

•Financing programs to train more police officers, first responders and school officials on how to respond to active armed attacks.
Right, because again, we clearly don't have enough police, despite having more than pretty much any other nation.

•Provide additional $20 million to help expand the a system that tracks violent deaths across the nation from 18 states to 50 states.
Seems like a lot of money for a department whose job is to skew statistics in favor of the anti-gun crowd. Pass.

•Providing $30 million in grants to states to help schools develop emergency response plans.
The states can do this on their own, and probably already have such plans in place.

•Providing financing to expand mental health programs for young people.
This does need to happen and is probably the most central issue at hand.

Executive actions
•Issuing a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
The NCIC is hardly insufficient.

•Addressing unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
Why, so that diseases can become a disqualifier for one's 2nd Amendment Rights?

•Improving incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
The states are pretty vigilant about this. Something as innocuous as an unpaid speeding ticket can cause someone to fail the NICS check.

•Directing the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
These "categories" should be "felon" or "non-felon", with the former being those who should be prohibited.

•Proposing a rule making to give law enforcement authorities the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
Why should someone require a "full background check" (which can take weeks) to have their rightful property returned to them?

•Publishing a letter from the A.T.F. to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
Private sellers in some states are already required to do this. In others, the "gun show loophole" prevails. It's largely a non-issue, no matter how you try to paint it otherwise. I am content with this remaining a state's rights issue.

•Starting a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
You mean like "Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People"? Yeah, that worked really well last time around.

•Reviewing safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
Neither of which should be compulsory. If a firearm is to be used as a means to defense one's home, family, or self, it needs to be readily accessible, and stowing it away in a safe, or locking it up with an apparatus to render it unable to fire, is not a good enough solution at all. Hence why pistols are no longer required to be manufactured with the integrated "Hillary Hole" gun lock.

•Issuing a presidential memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
Yeah, there's a great way to utilize police resources.

•Releasing a report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and making it widely available to law enforcement authorities.
This would be little more than a report which states that criminals are the cause of crime.

•Nominating an A.T.F. director.
What would this do, exactly?

•Providing law enforcement authorities, first responders and school officials with proper training for armed attacks situations.
This needs to happen, but it should be up to the cities, counties, and states to decide what is best for their communities.

•Maximizing enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
ROFL. Are you shitting me? The Supreme Court has already stated that the police are not there for your protection, so how would maximizing enforcement efforts do anything to prevent gun violence? Gun crime is already prosecuted with zeal.

•Issuing a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research gun violence.
This has been researched ad nauseum and it's been cited numerous times that gun proliferation is not the problem. Not sure why you want to pump more of our tax money into something we've already researched to death.

•Directing the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenging the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
ROFL. Gun safety begins and ends with the shooter. How can technology solve what is effectively a human problem?

•Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
Shouldn't be any of their business. We're not required to tell the police how many guns we own, why should we be required to tell insurance companies and doctors? Seems like a way to turn a guy's gun collection into a sign of mental illness.

•Releasing a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
Meh, whatever.

•Providing incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
Many schools already have police in them. I'm in favor of more police in schools.

•Developing model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
Sounds like a waste of time and money to me.

•Releasing a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
It should cover the entire gamut, but that is just the idealist in me talking.

•Finalizing regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within insurance exchanges.
This should have been done before they passed the Affordable Health Care Act.

•Committing to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
Isn't this sorta the job of the APA?

•Starting a national dialogue on mental health led by Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, and Arne Duncan, the secretary of education.
I'm all for it. The better we prepare, the easier it will be to prevent unprovoked violent atrocities from occuring.

Directing the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
These "categories" should be "felon" or "non-felon", with the former being those who should be prohibited.

You think the ATF is unconstitutional so we fundamentally disagree on all of those points. You could use a refresher on Article 6. And I disagree with you on the majority of the other points you make, but this one struck out at me:



A lot of the recent mass murderers have not been convicted felons, and you say mental health should be a focus, but then you say that only "felons" should be prohibited from guns. I would rather have reformed felons than nothing-to-lose, crazy, non-felons legal access to guns.

Ok, add "mentally incompetent" as a category. Anything more could be stepping on the toes of those afforded protections by the ADA.

Q. Is the Federal government covered by the ADA?

A. The ADA does not cover the executive branch of the Federal government. The executive branch continues to be covered by title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits discrimination in services and employment on the basis of handicap and which is a model for the requirements of the ADA. The ADA, however, does cover Congress and other entities in the legislative branch of the Federal government.

Q. How does title II affect participation in a State or local government's programs, activities, and services?

A state or local government must eliminate any eligibility criteria for participation in programs, activities, and services that screen out or tend to screen out persons with disabilities, unless it can establish that the requirements are necessary for the provision of the service, program, or activity. The State or local government may, however, adopt legitimate safety requirements necessary for safe operation if they are based on real risks, not on stereotypes or generalizations about individuals with disabilities. Finally, a public entity must reasonably modify its policies, practices, or procedures to avoid discrimination. If the public entity can demonstrate that a particular modification would fundamentally alter the nature of its service, program, or activity, it is not required to make that modification.

DENTISTS?!

Oh, nevermind.

From the ADA's website's Q&A:

and


Seems more stringent standards are completely within the law.

So, are you advocating that people in wheelchairs shouldn't be allowed to own guns? What about people who have bipolar disorder, or nervous tics, but have not been declared mentally incompetent by a court of law? Where do you draw the line?

Again, you're an idiot.

It's a fair question. Why won't you answer it?

The State or local government may, however, adopt legitimate safety requirements necessary for safe operation if they are based on real risks, not on stereotypes or generalizations about individuals with disabilities.

To be fair, if the Natives didn't give up their weapons they would've have been slaughtered to extinction. They really didn't have a choice. We were already killing them, and after indiscriminately murdering their women and children we pretty much dismantled any morale they had. That doesn't really apply to the 2nd Amendment.

So they should have just surrendered as soon as the white man arrived?

Not tried to defend themselves in any way?

No, they did everything in their power and I would act the same, but the overwhelming devastation caused at Wounded Knee pretty much crushed any hopes for Natives. Either live, and more important, have your women and children live, end the fighting and surrender to the white invaders, or remain fighting and have your people butchered to the last soul. They did what they had to.

That scenario is different than the gun control debate. We are all one nation now, killing each other, and the debate is on how much freedom we should be allowed to own and operate fire arms and to which degree. It is a public safety issue, not a genocidal war issue.

I think the truth of the matter is that you're scared and somehow passing laws to restrict the rights of others will help you sleep better at night, even if it doesn't save a single life.

It's the only way I reach orgasm.

As Freud said, an irrational fear of weapons is a sign of retarded emotional and sexual maturity.

U mad bro? Looks like I might have touched a nerve.