Obama's 23 point gun control plan

[KingSpeed]

I think it's extremely reasonable and he doesn't want to "ban all guns" like some of you believe for some odd reason. The whole proposal before responding.

http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/president-obama-signs-23-point-gun-control-or

 

[Natebishop3]

Seems like a lot of fluff. You're happy with that? I didn't see anything that really accomplishes anything.

This is the only one that really seemed like it might lead to some kind of action... maybe?

Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

 

[KingSpeed]

Seems like a lot of fluff. You're happy with that? I didn't see anything that really accomplishes anything.

This is the only one that really seemed like it might lead to some kind of action... maybe?

Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

It's all about taking action. Making an effort for change. Will it stop all mass shootings? No. But I think, over time, it will reduce them.

 

[Natebishop3]

It's all about taking action. Making an effort for change. Will it stop all mass shootings? No. But I think, over time, it will reduce them.

It's not decisive. It's a lot of "have this person look into this" and "that person enforce that."

I don't really see any actual plan. I don't see any actual move that would reduce violence. Just a lot of fluff. Appoint an ATF director? Ohhhhhhhh. Big move POTUS!!

 

[oldfisherman]

A whole lot of bureaucratic nothing.

 

[MarAzul]

I think it's extremely reasonable

Before I would accept any of this, I want to see the specific definition of this phrase, "make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks".

I also want to know how the phrase dovetails with the Strong Cities Network and the search for extremist.

Then, I would like to see the language of the Amendment he expects to see pass because there are infringements involved.

 

[Natebishop3]

A whole lot of bureaucratic nothing.

Yup.

 

[magnifier661]

Seems like something a lawyer written up with enough holes to add amendments and more control. Not a fan... He should allow more armed security in schools.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Before I would accept any of this, I want to see the specific definition of this phrase, "make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks".

I also want to know how the phrase dovetails with the Strong Cities Network and the search for extremist.

Then, I would like to see the language of the Amendment he expects to see pass because there are infringements involved.

this

 

[riverman]

I think there's nothing wrong with most of these points..but I'm with MarAzul on the slipping between the cracks..that one was a ghosted statement without any directive. Addressing health care and improving the lines of communication between law enforcement and mental health professionals is a start

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Yeah, gun control does not work.

 

[Natebishop3]

Yeah, gun control does not work.

None of that was gun control.

 

[MARIS61]

I think it's extremely reasonable and he doesn't want to "ban all guns" like some of you believe for some odd reason. The whole proposal before responding.

http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/president-obama-signs-23-point-gun-control-or

Violates The Second Amendment obviously, but also several others.

It's also purposely vague to allow for endless expansion of who may be considered dangerous enough to be refused arms.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

Felons, mentally ill, people who live or work with mentally ill or ex-felons, "radicals" i.e. got arrested at a sit-in for peace, religious "extremists", gay protestors, angry bloggers, illiterates, women, the elderly....

The slippery slope has no bottom.

 

[blue32]

Violates The Second Amendment obviously, but also several others.

It's also purposely vague to allow for endless expansion of who may be considered dangerous enough to be refused arms.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

Felons, mentally ill, people who live or work with mentally ill or ex-felons, "radicals" i.e. got arrested at a sit-in for peace, religious "extremists", gay protestors, angry bloggers, illiterates, women, the elderly....

The slippery slope has no bottom.

Gotta love those statements... heh.

 

[Natebishop3]

I really don't think this is anything to worry about. It's a fluff piece. It's a plan to show he's "doing something" without actually doing anything.

 

[magnifier661]

I really don't think this is anything to worry about. It's a fluff piece. It's a plan to show he's "doing something" without actually doing anything.

His executive orders cannot do what his plan orders. He needs full support of congress, which should never happen.

 

[Natebishop3]

His executive orders cannot do what his plan orders. He needs full support of congress, which should never happen.

Which is why the plan is fluff. He can use Congress as an excuse and still get the credit for having his "plan."

 

[magnifier661]

Which is why the plan is fluff. He can use Congress as an excuse and still get the credit for having his "plan."

Exactly!!!

 

[riverman]

We had about a 50 page thread on gun control and mental health in this country yet when the president addresses it, it's fluff? For whatever political agenda folks have...I for one am glad to see the president address the issue if only to shed some light on possibilities. I think it's important that law enforcement work closer with mental health professionals. If he said nothing, you'd say he didn't give a shit..when he says something...it's fluff? One thing is glaringly apparent...folks will argue about this issue to the end...myself...I'm giving the prez a slow golf clap on this one. I like seeing our leaders show more concern over domestic issues.

 

[magnifier661]

We had about a 50 page thread on gun control and mental health in this country yet when the president addresses it, it's fluff? For whatever political agenda folks have...I for one am glad to see the president address the issue if only to shed some light on possibilities. I think it's important that law enforcement work closer with mental health professionals. If he said nothing, you'd say he didn't give a shit..when he says something...it's fluff? One thing is glaringly apparent...folks will argue about this issue to the end...myself...I'm giving the prez a slow golf clap on this one. I like seeing our leaders taking show more concern over domestic issues.

The term "fluff" explains how impossible this legislation is to enforce when congress isn't behind you. Obama knows damn well he can't enforce this, but releases it to show America his plan.

 

[Natebishop3]

We had about a 50 page thread on gun control and mental health in this country yet when the president addresses it, it's fluff? For whatever political agenda folks have...I for one am glad to see the president address the issue if only to shed some light on possibilities. I think it's important that law enforcement work closer with mental health professionals. If he said nothing, you'd say he didn't give a shit..when he says something...it's fluff? One thing is glaringly apparent...folks will argue about this issue to the end...myself...I'm giving the prez a slow golf clap on this one. I like seeing our leaders show more concern over domestic issues.

Talking about it and doing something about it are two completely different things. I saw a lot of talk in that plan and very little action.

 

[riverman]

Talking about it and doing something about it are two completely different things. I saw a lot of talk in that plan and very little action.

ya gotta start somewhere

 

[Natebishop3]

Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

A letter! Woohoo!

Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

Another letter! Woohoooooooo!

Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

That's nice.... but what's going to come from that?

 

[riverman]

The term "fluff" explains how impossible this legislation is to enforce when congress isn't behind you. Obama knows damn well he can't enforce this, but releases it to show America his plan.

It all starts with dialogue...they used to say the same thing about women's suffrage ..you can water down the intent but it's an effort in the right direction

 

[Natebishop3]

It all starts with dialogue...they used to say the same thing about women's suffrage ..you can water down the intent but it's an effort in the right direction

There has already been so much dialogue. They keep saying something must be DONE! Well starting a dialogue is great, but it doesn't guarantee that any actual steps will be taken to address the mental health crises in America.

 

[riverman]

What's going to come from doing nothing and just showing up at funerals? Anybody here got any better ideas about how to keep mentally ill people from easily obtaining weapons? I hate to think that writing my congressman is worthless because it's just a letter

 

[Natebishop3]

I'm serious, I would ban the media from giving the name of the shooter. If the FCC can prevent you from saying words like fuck on the air, they can prevent the media from saying the name of a shooter who is desperate for attention. That would be my first move.

 

[riverman]

There has already been so much dialogue. They keep saying something must be DONE! Well starting a dialogue is great, but it doesn't guarantee that any actual steps will be taken to address the mental health crises in America.

guarantees aren't ever part of a process...we're having a dialogue about it right now but doesn't stop us simply because they've been arguing forever about it.

 

[riverman]

I'm serious, I would ban the media from giving the name of the shooter. If the FCC can prevent you from saying words like fuck on the air, they can prevent the media from saying the name of a shooter who is desperate for attention. That would be my first move.

I agree with this completely

 

[Natebishop3]

guarantees aren't ever part of a process...we're having a dialogue about it right now but doesn't stop us simply because they've been arguing forever about it.

In debate, if I were to propose a plan for gun control, I would need an agent of action.

Example

Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

Who will provide this training? Where will the funds come from? We actually already have active shooter training. I've been in class when we've had to go through it. So is this assuming that there is better training, or places that do not conduct this training?