Obama Requests $1.1 Billion for Gun Control

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
39,060
Criminal Mexi Midget
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/04/09/obama-requests-11-billion-gun-control

According to The Washington Beacon, Obama's $1.1 billion "[includes] $182 million to support the president's 'Now is the Time' gun safety initiative."

"Now is the Time" includes the following:

1. Require background checks for all gun sales.

2. Strengthen the background check system for gun sales.

3. Pass a new, stronger ban on assault weapons.

4. Limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.

5. Finish the job of getting armor-piercing bullets off the streets

6. Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime

7. End the freeze on gun violence research

8. Make our schools safer with new resource officers and counselors, better emergency response plans, and more nurturing school climates.

9. Ensure quality coverage of mental health treatment, particularly for young people.
1 no problem

2 no problem

3 no reason for it.

4. millions of high cap mags out there already

5 no idea where to even get them

6 see 1

7 research by WHO?

8 sounds vague.

9 good .

anyways, what say you?
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,262
7,298
This won't happen, obviously. And it isn't even like he's saying anything horrible, these are tiny measures mostly.
 

miloblithe

macrumors 68020
Nov 14, 2003
2,076
28
Washington, DC
7 research by WHO?
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-ban-gun-research-caused-lasting-damage/story?id=18909347

The CDC conducted gun violence research in the 1980s and 1990s, but it abruptly ended in 1996 when the National Rifle Association lobbied Congress to cut the CDC's budget the exact amount it had allocated to gun violence research.

"It's worth pointing out that the language never specifically forbade the CDC from conducting the research," Wintemute said.

The 1997 appropriations bill stated, "None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control." Congress also threatened more funding cuts if the gun research continued.

"The message was really clear," Wintemute said.

In 2003, the 1997 bill language was updated to include the words "in whole or in part," which expanded the ban. Then, in 2012, the appropriations bill expanded the restriction to all Health and Human Services agencies.

...

When the research was banned, Dr. Arther Kellermann had been working on CDC-funded research on whether home gun possession had potentially protective or hazardous effects on health. Nonprofit organizations helped fund the remainder of the project, but as the years went on, fewer and fewer nonprofits stepped up.

"I did not realize when I wrote an editorial in 1997 that the prohibition would continue for 17 years," Kellermann said, referring to his American Journal of Public Health piece about the NRA's response to gun research and its parallels to the tobacco industry's response to research linking cigarettes to cancer.

Like many gun violence researchers, Kellermann tried to stay in his field, but after a decade of waiting for the ban to lift, he had to find a different specialty. He now works on policy analysis at the Rand Corp.
You gotta know you're on the wrong side if you ban research.
 

TechGod

macrumors 68040
Feb 25, 2014
3,163
840
New Zealand
Most are good points, someone told me there really isn't a difference between assault and normal weapons though so I don't understand that point.
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
Most are good points, someone told me there really isn't a difference between assault and normal weapons though so I don't understand that point.
Considering the firearms being sold in the U.S., an assault weapon is a normal weapon.
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
So you don't want them changing the laws to be based on something more logical than the gun looks scary?
Non-detachable magazines.

Maximum six bullet capacity.

Load each bullet, one at a time.

That's law I'd implement.

Make your gun as scary-looking as you like ... with that restriction.

(awaits howls of righteous indignation)
 

lostngone

macrumors 65816
Aug 11, 2003
1,340
2,841
Anchorage
He is asking for 1.1 Billion to find even more creative ways to strip people of their Constitutional Rights?

I guess it is time to donate even more money to gun rights organizations like the JPFO, SAF and GOA.
 

TechGod

macrumors 68040
Feb 25, 2014
3,163
840
New Zealand
He is asking for 1.1 Billion to find even more creative ways to strip people of their Constitutional Rights?

I guess it is time to donate even more money to gun rights organizations like the JPFO, SAF and GOA.
Not to take rights away from people. Its to reduce the number of nut jobs that can legibly obtain a gun. You can still own guns you just have to have a background check and if you aren't doing anything wrong this should not affect you.
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,262
7,298
He is asking for 1.1 Billion to find even more creative ways to strip people of their Constitutional Rights?

I guess it is time to donate even more money to gun rights organizations like the JPFO, SAF and GOA.
Which ones of those would strip you of your constitutional rights? We do know that there is no such thing as an unlimited right, by the way. Well, most of us do.
 

lostngone

macrumors 65816
Aug 11, 2003
1,340
2,841
Anchorage
Not to take rights away from people. Its to reduce the number of nut jobs that can legibly obtain a gun. You can still own guns you just have to have a background check and if you aren't doing anything wrong this should not affect you.
See line item #3.

The retort from the gun grabbers will be, well we aren't trying to take ALL your guns.

Until next year or the year after that when they want to ban the next type or model of firearm. Their statements will ring with the same refrain, we aren't trying to take ALL your guns...

Rinse and repeat.
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,262
7,298
See line item #3.

The retort from the gun grabbers will be, well we aren't trying to take ALL your guns.

Until next year or the year after that when they want to ban the next type or model of firearm. Their statements will ring with the same refrain, we aren't trying to take ALL your guns...

Rinse and repeat.
So this all based on conjecture and paranoia?
 

TechGod

macrumors 68040
Feb 25, 2014
3,163
840
New Zealand
See line item #3.

The retort from the gun grabbers will be, well we aren't trying to take ALL your guns.

Until next year or the year after that when they want to ban the next type or model of firearm. Their statements will ring with the same refrain, we aren't trying to take ALL your guns...

Rinse and repeat.
This would be your paranoia kicking in. Not fact.

----------

So this all based on conjecture and paranoia?
Pretty much.
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,262
7,298
This would be your paranoia kicking in. Not fact.

----------



Pretty much.
It really has to suck to be that incredibly paranoid. Imagine fearing all day, every day, that something like that was coming up around the corner.