Trump warns Obama is coming after guns

[Klou 2,414]

Great. Let's just give everyone less a chance to defend themselves. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

31 minutes ago, Goosey said:

Really? Because in "Now Is The Time: The President's Plan to Reduce Gun Violence" the third action on his list is "a new, stronger ban on assault weapons".

https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gun-violence

The 2nd Amendment does protect the individual right to posess guns.

The Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller, concluded:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

Here is the court's full decision: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Wait, let me stan for that link  

Those are actually all super well thought out goals that want to tackle the issue from multiple angles, which is actually much more effective than a general "stricter background checks" policy. It acknowledges that the issue of Gun Violence is multifaceted and in that light is kind of responsible actually  I dont find them even that controversial from a political perspective, so while I'd say im surprised Republicans and NRA members + allies are fighting him so hard on it, I'm really not because the cult of personality-led bandwagoning is hella strong this presidency  

Admittedly, some are the goals are intrinsically related to societal norms and aren't really solvable in a single term, let alone two Ending the freeze on gun violence research honestly just seems like common sense from a both pro-gun and pro-gun control standpoint (unless the findings don't support one side  )

But yeah, the key word in your statement was "assault" in "assault weapon". For someone so usually well researched () that seems like a clear misrepresentation of the issue, unless you just had no idea that assault weapons are a specific class of weapons... I'd say it was clever, but it's pretty FOX news level  

Anyway, thanks for the link, its bookmarked  

[SISTERV 3,887]

31 minutes ago, jojuun said:

Hold up, I AM racist? How? Cause I said you should move to a hillbilly country forum if you are defending Trump? If this was real life, this is the part where I'd be looking for the hidden cameras cause you MUST be joking.

Donald Trump is the definition of a racist. In his presidential campaign alone the man has attacked women, Jews, Mexicans, African Americans, the LGBT community, Muslims... Basically everyone that isn't a caucasian macho male like himself.

I don't agree with Gaga all the time either but I'm not going to go on a Jennifer Lopez fansite if I'm a Mariah stan, catch my drift? Don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about. This website is 95% LGBT and Donald Trump isn't exactly a fan of our community. 

And if you don't like Trump and are a believer of "freedom and diversity", why would you defend him? Trump has just released a TV commercial saying he wants to "ban all Muslims temporarily" and "build a wall around the border that Mexico will pay for." Like a f*cking South Park skit come to life. He's delusional and it's scary to think people with an OUNCE of intelligence would even consider voting for him. 

The man said "he'll call Bill Gates to figure out what to do with the internet". Tell me in what world does that make sense? Donald Trump is a moron and that's just a f*cking fact. If you don't see that, I'd suggest you to call the Born This Way Foundation hotline because he's the opposite of someone who believes in "freedom and diversity". The Man is Hitler Light. 

Get a grip.

I'm not even for Donald Trump. I just believe people shouldn't go around insulting people. And yes I do think your comment was racist. No I don't agree with what he says about minorities but I'm not going to condemn him to hell. I'm not going to act like him and namecall (like you are doing now). I wouldn't stoop as low as Donald Trump.(something you are doing now)

 

 And actually this site isn't just 95% LGBT and this site isn't just democrats. There are plenty of republicans on here who I've spoken to but they don't speak up because people like you just send them ignorant hateful comments and tell them to leave the site. THAT IS NOT WHAT GAGA IS ABOUT.  We are to embrace each other and be thoughtful and open. And I find it ironic that you are accusing Trump of being a bully, a racist, a bigot, stupid, etc....when you so far have made ignorant comments about a group of people, called me names, told me to LEAVE a place I like, and used hyperbolic outlandish statements regarding to attack my character. 

Ironically, I haven't called you a name. I haven't told you to leave. I haven't bullied you. I haven't attacked you personally. And I have asked you left to not read my comments if you so vehemently don't like them. I don't know why you are getting so angry. But I disagree with you. Get over it. 

[SISTERV 3,887]

37 minutes ago, GloZell Green said:

A baby and mother got killed less than a block away from me with a gun by someone who had a criminal background. I've never tried to purchase a gun, but I don't consider it strict when things like this happen.

Background checks are possible and can help lower crime. And it's not, you agree with criminals being able to purchase a gun? Obama isn't doing away with them completely either. I also don't get the point of the final list, each are distinct. 

Did you read what I said? I specifically stated that criminals should be vetted. But making it more difficult for EVERYONE like Obama wants is unnecessary and has backlash and unintended consequences.

[Tokyo Rose 1,475]

Civil war in the US, just what the world needs 

I wonder if anything will be left of civilized society in 10 years 

[SISTERV 3,887]

38 minutes ago, LeoFameMonster said:

this is a typical republican crap playing on "its the beginning of the end" or "what's next"

Remember, "if gays get married what's next, people can marry animals and cars"

As if background checks on buying a gun is their "beginning to the end of the world!"

GURL BYE!

 

 

That's not what was said at all. Quit blaming it on republicans. It's not a party's fault. It's certain people that want gun control so they can tax it more and add more beauracracy. The people against this bill understand putting massive restrictions on gun control makes an even bigger cluster****.

[Seeka 12,372]

Here's the thing: While I admit that there needs to be stricter rules on guns, you can't really do it well in America. There's no possible way.

We have guns ingrained into our culture. We use the second amendment without knowing what it means. We think guns are the only way to defend ourselves. We always turn to violence first.

There are so many things wrong with this country and guns. And it will take decades, if not centuries to fix the problems. because guns are so ingrained we have to take them out slowly.

[DietCoke 386]

1 hour ago, SISTERV said:

But controlling them more for everyone, not just vetted criminals cultivates a need for a bigger black market, which makes more crime, more availability for illegal purchases, and more animosity towards the police. 

Theorizing that is useful, but why don't we use Australia as an example.

On a national level, "Australia enacted one of the largest gun reforms in recent history — and gun deaths plummeted."

For one, Australia enacted the NFA. This required gun-owners to provide "genuine reason" for owning a gun. The country also bought back 700,000 guns in their country (percentage-wise, that's equal to 40 million in the U.S), keeping them out of circulation to the general public. "Australian universities found that, in the decade after the NFA was introduced, the firearm homicide rate fell by 59% and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65% — without increases in other types of deaths."

source: http://www.businessinsider.com/australia-gun-control-shootings-2015-10

[Whispering 18,865]

49 minutes ago, SISTERV said:

That's not what was said at all. Quit blaming it on republicans. It's not a party's fault. It's certain people that want gun control so they can tax it more and add more beauracracy. The people against this bill understand putting massive restrictions on gun control makes an even bigger cluster****.

Stricter background checks are overwhelmingly supported by Americans, including gun owners. Obama is actually in line with what the majority of people in this country want to see happen with gun laws. 

These restrictions are not "massive" by any means and these executive actions also include funding for mental health. It's a small step in trying to do SOMETHING....ANYTHING other than ignoring the problem and letting the NRA run the show. 

[Goosey 3,017]

2 hours ago, ItsVenusBitch said:

Wait, let me stan for that link  Those are actually all super well thought out goals that want to tackle the issue from multiple angles, which is actually much more effective than a general "stricter background checks" policy.

They aren't. I challenge you to go through them one-by-one.

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

2 hours ago, ItsVenusBitch said:

But yeah, the key word in your statement was "assault" in "assault weapon". For someone so usually well researched () that seems like a clear misrepresentation of the issue, unless you just had no idea that assault weapons are a specific class of weapons... I'd say it was clever, but it's pretty FOX news level  

No one serious thinks any candidate would attempt to ban all guns. Saying "Obama doesn't want to take guns away" is the misrepresentation, Obama confiscating all guns is not what people are afraid of. It's a straw man argument.

[RBNLM 1,647]

3 hours ago, SISTERV said:

When did he ever say he wants to restrict freedom of speech?

And why would you wish death on someone based on a political opinion?

So a wrong political opinion can destroy the world

[Stephen 30,433]

3 hours ago, jojuun said:

Hold up, I AM racist? How? Cause I said you should move to a hillbilly country forum if you are defending Trump? If this was real life, this is the part where I'd be looking for the hidden cameras cause you MUST be joking.

Donald Trump is the definition of a racist. In his presidential campaign alone the man has attacked women, Jews, Mexicans, African Americans, the LGBT community, Muslims... Basically everyone that isn't a caucasian macho male like himself.

I don't agree with Gaga all the time either but I'm not going to go on a Jennifer Lopez fansite if I'm a Mariah stan, catch my drift? Don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about. This website is 95% LGBT and Donald Trump isn't exactly a fan of our community. 

And if you don't like Trump and are a believer of "freedom and diversity", why would you defend him? Trump has just released a TV commercial saying he wants to "ban all Muslims temporarily" and "build a wall around the border that Mexico will pay for." Like a f*cking South Park skit come to life. He's delusional and it's scary to think people with an OUNCE of intelligence would even consider voting for him. 

The man said "he'll call Bill Gates to figure out what to do with the internet". Tell me in what world does that make sense? Donald Trump is a moron and that's just a f*cking fact. If you don't see that, I'd suggest you to call the Born This Way Foundation hotline because he's the opposite of someone who believes in "freedom and diversity". The Man is Hitler Light. 

Get a grip.

THE LASHINGS LORD in heaven have mercy  

[RBNLM 1,647]

Its absurd that a union like USA is so outdated in something so serious like guns, is this far west?

[Goosey 3,017]

26 minutes ago, RBNLM said:

Its absurd that a union like USA is so outdated in something so serious like guns, is this far west?

With guns they're progressive and egalitarian. The US is the Sweden of guns.

 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

1 hour ago, Goosey said:

They aren't. I challenge you to go through them one-by-one.

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

No one serious thinks any candidate would attempt to ban all guns. Saying "Obama doesn't want to take guns away" is the misrepresentation, Obama confiscating all guns is not what people are afraid of. It's a straw man argument.

I did go through each of the points  That is how I came to my conclusion  

I was going to deconstruct the argument about assault weapons, but as I did research (as I always do before I post ) basically came to the conclusion that the term "Assault weapons" is more vague than I thought. Obviously "assault weapons" is not strictly synonymous with "machine gun" and I don't personally know much about the specifications of guns and the "semi-automatic" label discrepancies and what not, so I'm not going to make a blanket statement, and I wouldn't expect any laws to do so either...

In my opinion, there should be a ban on weapons that are excessive for personal protection and hunting (and it should be investigated as to what is actually necessary for hunting and what is actually excessive in that regard in terms of features) Obviously gun technology advances with time and laws regulating them specifically should be re-evaluated on a timely basis. I'm not currently sure if "assault weapon bans" is as sweeping as it sounds. I think people tend to dramatically underestimate the Obama crew's intelligence and insight. Most laws are not as lax and simplified as the media reports them, which is why I tend to actually just read entire bills an proposals and what not that are made public to know exactly what they actually say, which I haven't done for this in any capacity in regards to assault weapons bans, so i'll refuse to comment on that and accept your revision that the "all guns ban" is the misrepresentation... though I'd add that a few pro-gun control people DO actually want NO guns in an extreme only police/government way (if even that...) but obviously don't voice it and work for incremental change in the form of gun control that may some day in the far future result in larger change.