A big part of the blame is on the US, because we, in conjunction with KSA, are funding and providing military equipment to anyone willing to fight Assad. We have no idea where those weapons and funds are going. You have seen the videos of the TOW missile systems blowing up tanks, right? Where do you think they got those? They are even giving these guys MANPADS, which can knock down a commercial jetliner on approach or takeoff. Beyond that we are providing training for rebels, rebels whom have continually joined forces with ISIS and AQ. Beyond that, the CIA has a pretty murky history in the Middle East and Southwest Asia when it comes to terrorism. Is there a smoking gun direct to ISIS? Not that I am aware of but people in DC realize they have a real problem there: https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...f45a9e-1114-11e5-adec-e82f8395c032_story.html
The "beef" between the Hammond family and the Federal Government has been going on for quite some time. It's hard to get any sort of "just the facts" summary about what lead to this new sentencing, exactly. This version is obviously biased towards the Hammond family (I wish the grammar were better, but it does give some of the backstory): http://theconservativetreehouse.com...uge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/ This is the DOJ info about the recent charges: http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/e...convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison
In the gold mine of stupidity that is the comments about the Oregon stand off, I found this: "we do not need farmers and ranchers, that is what grocery stores are for." Wow.
Now they're asking for donations for snacks... apparently they didn't think this through all that well. http://i100.independent.co.uk/artic...-out-plea-for-snacks-and-supplies--ZJglh9sRjx #YallQueda and their #YeeHawd indeed... It's like Blazing Saddles or something.
I can't add much in way of substance to this, but I'd like to hear the gun owners of this board's opinion on this. It DOES seem to make sense, yes?
If you're not a felon or a [friend's term] "gun fetishist" this isn't going to fuck with whatever you're doing, at all.
I'm not thrilled with the way he went about it, but if this is all it amounts to, I've got no problem with it. Is it going to help things? Not one bit.
If you're not an FFL (ie: someone who is licensed through the government to sell firearms), then this is already the case. As a regular person, if I wanted to buy a gun online, I'd have to have it shipped to an FFL first and then have it transferred to me legally (which includes things like a background check as part of the transfer activities). Here in CT, you can't buy a pistol unless you have a permit to carry, which in and of itself requires a slew of background checks, fingerprints, an approved course, etc. So whether I'm buying a gun online or in a store, there are several levels of background checks between gaining the ability to buy and at the time of the purchase itself. For gun shows, it may be a different story and they should have something in place. But I can't speak to the current laws for those.
They make a big deal about a gunshow loophole, but a majority of the people selling guns at the gun shows I go to, Crossroads of the West, are dealers and require a background check or a CCW permit. Yes there are a few private sellers who do not require anything but those some people can sell on backpage just as easily with no documentation, so while the gun show loophole is thrown around by the media a lot, those sales represent a very small percentage of actual gun sales. The data to suggest the infamous gunshow loophole is even partially responsible for mass shootings is just not there.
I have a much bigger issue with the nature of his constant Executive Action use than requiring background checks. I'm a card carrying member of the NRA and come from CT originally and I have a CCL/CCW in CT, MA, and NY. Fine with background checks, it just makes good sense to do it.
I thought those were the rules already. I've never bought from a dealer without a background check and when I buy from buds or something, they will only ship to an FFL which does a background check as part of the transfer. You can buy and sell privately all you want with little to no regulation though.
Refugees don't seem to be working out so good for Germany. Cologne Police Chief Condemns Sex Assaults on New Year's Eve http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/01/04/world/europe/ap-eu-germany-sex-assaults.html?_r=0
This. Background checks should be a no brainer. I recently bought two handguns at a gun show, cash, no background check and I was in and out in 15 minutes. To me, that's ridiculous. Now granted I don't have anything in my background, but it's completely absurd to not require background checks. In my opinion, they should require them for purchasing ammo too. I am 100% ok with any background checks they want to do, the more the better. And if they want to mandate some kind of gun safety course or that you pass a proficiency test, go ahead. The more the better! However, Obama's constant use of this Executive Action crap is really getting on my nerves.
You do realize that he's doing it because the GOP has come right out and said that they will shut down anything that Obama tries to push through, regardless of what it is, right? It's been that way for 9 years or so. The only thing he has left is the executive order. Also, he's not even at half the number of Executive Orders that Reagan passed.
Your country's congress and senate suck and are completely pathetic, blocking every bill and doing nothing year after year. Approval ratings have spoken for themselves. It's his last year, he may as well throw caution to the wind and MAKE shit happen, because nobody else is.
Oh, I am fully aware of how much the GOP is pissing in the wind. They're cutting off their nose to spite their face. They don't like Obama, therefore they're shutting down everything he tries to pass even if it makes complete sense and is a reflection of the wishes of a majority of the population. And now they're bitching about Obama background check saying it's infringing on their gun rights and all this bullshit. No it ain't. It's not gonna affect jack shit unless you have something to hide, in which case you shouldn't have a gun in the first place. Obama doing these Executive Orders gets on my nerves because it's like a kid throwing a temper tantrum to get what he wants (we'll see; I'm sure this will be in litigation for a while). That being said, I am even more upset that he has to do it in the first place because our government is so fucked up that even something reasonable and popular can't get passed.
Somewhat tangential, but aren't extensive background checks part of a CHL? I've heard that if you have that on your license it pretty much gives you a pass with cops. This whole "dude buying a gun at a gun show and doesn't have a CHL" seems like a very small percentage. It seems like between people who purchase guns at places other than gun shows and people who have CHL...there are very few people who legally obtain a gun without a background check. Criminals don't always go through the proper legal channels to obtain a gun. This whole gun regulation cause seems like political lip service and empty laws. If you want to address violence and shootings, start with mental health and the lack of assistance. Since there are no mental institutions anymore people who truly have mental health and cognitive issues end up in jail or homeless. Start there.
That's not how it's supposed to work even if he and congress don't get along. Im not saying the Republicans are blameless but he is only going to harden the opposition and divisiveness of this country even more. The EO count doesn't mean shit when he's trying to push the limits of their legality at every turn, did Reagan have courts rule against his EO's as much as Obama has? To me, him simply changing the definition of what constitutes a dealer outside of the legislative process is the most fucked part of this to me. Guns a political issue is so divisive its almost useless for me to defend this new action in the current atmosphere. Trying conflate it with another, even hypothetical issue, is also a lesson in futility. Changing bureaucratic standards to penalize citizens outside of congressional oversight is a slippery slope. We'll see how much sticks to the walls after it goes through the courts.
That's still not an excuse. The onus is on him to find middle ground. Besides, he's only been in office for 7 years. Go back to the beginning of his presidency. He promised compromise numerous deals, got what we wanted out of it, then never held up his end of the bargain, over and over again. Why should Congress trust him? Plus the "passage" of Obamacare was nothing but Chicago politics-bullshit. He's made zero tangible effort for actual compromise. Bottom line, the guy is a shitty leader, a shitty president, and a shitty human being.