Books. Bikes. Boomsticks.
"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." -A.E. van Vogt
You'd think that before they waved the bloody shirt, they'd have the decency to take it off the dead kid first.
— Tamara K. (@TamSlick) January 16, 2013
TWENTY THREE Executive Orders! So how many of us have just been declared "Enemies of the State?"
Great tweet! And, Dear Leader - Eff off.
Wow, Tam wins the twitter today.
Waaaaaacist! You just want little children murderized to death, you wingnut!And, uh, deadly cop killer military style assault armor piercing high magazine clips blah blah blah...
The emperor has spoken; let it be written, let it be done.THUMP!(the sound of guns fired all over the nation)Looks like the party has started. And we all got invited!
Actually, twenty-three executive orders that I'm not sure actually do much of anything, except for increase the scope of background checks and look into security at schools, for the most part. I just quickly brushed over an article about it, so I might be wrong, but it really doesn't look like much has changed here. Which is what I suspected all along. But I could be wrong. It's happened before.
You're stronger than I, Tam. I didn't have the stomach to watch the whole thing. It's easier to deal with in transcript...The small bits I've watched were nauseating.Related:Found this list of the executive orders:Obnoxious fluff and political memes.N.B. I know nothing about the veracity of the site, found it on Google...Thanks,JSG
Goober, JSG,Yup. It looks like a complete wet firecracker.I'd be more pissed if I were Joan Petersen than if I were Wayne LaPierre.
Tam,How could you ever tell if Joan Petersen was more pissed? Is a significant deviation from her wacky baseline even detectable??JSG
The hidden Easter eggs will be in the healthcare provisions, owning a gun will now affect your health and may affect your insurance coverage.
Sobriant,Maybe but that's just guessing so far. I have to really squint at that list to find any cause for even low-level panic. So far, the Kwhite House has done all the blinking in this staring contest.
The action is going to take place in the mental health bits. All sorts of aggravation is impending from those. Hope this doesn't sound too panicky. I say this because he's kind of good at making us watch one hand and ignore the other. I'll be happy to be wrong about this.Mike James
Plain-language breakdown of this mess:http://phelps.donotremove.net/2013/01/obamas-new-executive-orders/I'm wondering how much of this is "We must be seen to be concerned; but not so much that we destroy the party in the next elections"?Barry wants those bans, he wants that control, but I suspect a lot of people informed him that if he issued a diktat there'd be nasty consequences. And God knows he doesn't have the balls for that(just because Boehner has even less doesn't mean Obama has a lot).
Magnificently spoken, Tam.Thank You.
I think it's more of BHO: Hey Congress look at all I've done.Now its your turn to save the children from gun violence.Congress: (crickets)Gerry
sobriant74, admitting to owning a gun will be adverse. I don't see a problem there. Oh yeah, I used to have one, but then there was that freak canoeing accident...Otherwise, the 23 Points (eleven more than Wilson had! Suck on that, Woodrow!) is a lot of harrumphing in order to protect their phoney-baloney jobs.
Shit. Nine more than Woodrow had. Frickin' math.
Long as they don't call themselves SECPOL.Stay safe
sobriant74:People lie to their doctors about their smoking, drinking, sex life, diet, exercise, medication compliance, drug use, hygiene, height, weight, age...What's one more lie?JSG
The headline next to BO's pic at MSN:"I will put everything I've got into this."He's got nothin', so I feel better now. Especially after reading the secondary story titles just below that:-Gun sales jump-NRA ad spotlights Obama's kids-Female gun ownership rising
"17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities."A quick look for the correct name of the "reporting a threat" shows that Texas, at least, does consider it a violation of patient confidentiality. (http://www.hebw.com/newsletters/medical-malpractice/duty-of-mental-health-professionals-to-warn-third-parties-of-threats-by-patients/)(I forget the bloody name, it's been a while since it came up on Law & Odor. Or at work, for that matter - 9.5 years in mental health this past November, weeee.)(Well, making copies and delivering the mail, anyway. I are a high-school graduate.)
Research indicates that nowhere is it illegal to lie to your doctor or any of his subordinates.Just be sure your weapon isn't printing when you look them in the eye and say "No, I don't have a gun."If they ask about possession in the plural, I answer in the singular, and vice versa. It gives me a LEETLE wiggle room.
I had a doctor ask me about whether I had any guns in my home. I told him that the only way someone would find out for sure was to try to break in while I was there. I also asked him what part of his medical education trained him to evaluate my answer and asked him to stick to medical issues. He was surprised by my answer but calmly tried to explain that he wanted to discuss safety in the home. After telling him that I was a Cub Scout Shooting Sports Instructor that had trained hundreds of youths in the safe handling of weapons, I told him he had more to worry about from how I stored knives in the kitchen and whether I kept the ammonia away from the bleach under the sink in the kitchen. He was not interested in those.
As long as the topic stays hot,the libs want the headlines.They don't really want to 'do' anything,they just want it to 'look' like they're doing something.How come Obama and Biden can stay up all night having meetings on guns,but they haven't written a budget on time in four years?Bill
Sobriant, say you're correct. Say that the big thing is going to be that healthcare rates and coverages for gunonwers will be tweaked by all of this. Assuming that is the case, here is the recommended transcript at your next doctor's visit:Doctor: "Goober, do you own any guns?"Goober: "Nope." Doctor: "Fair enough, moving along..."That being said, I doubt highly that this is what the intent of these rules is, because it is literally that easy to sidestep. But as always, we shall see. I think that this is all really quite funny - it looks like the big buildup to the big constitutional debate ended up being a dud.
Doctor: "Do you own or have any guns at home?"Me: "Yup. One very nice, high-powered Nerf (my daughter loves that one), and two easily-concealable squirty-guns (one green, one purple). Now fix my medical issues."
I dunno.#1 - ties all federal databases into background check -- there goes any privacy, including the projected electronic medical records databases, probably the no-fly list, and any warrantless "terrorist" surveillance "while we were there we noticed so-and-so votes Republican", "so-and-so didn't contribute to BHO's campaign fund yet this month", etc.#2, destroy privacy barriers between ObamaCare records and background check/no fly lis.#4, big time problem with freedom of speech -- an unsupervised, unreviewed witch hunt for "who do we not want armed". Remember Hillary and the FBI files on Democratic opponents, during campaign season?#6 -- there is the ATF forcing gun dealers to do the background check for private sales.#8 Gun locks, review "safety" standards. Only criminals won't have locks that disable (permanently?) their guns.#16, refuse ObamaCare for gun owners. Or maybe just short-list the Death Panel consideration.There are some scary ObamaCare scope and "intimidate the states, again" issues, too.I don't think this is benign, at all. And I did read news reports of at least one member of Congress stating readiness to begin impeachment proceedings against the President if he tried to take any guns by executive order.
the cute one went: "note to self. appoint a new BATFEIEIO Director". The Congress passed laws to stop CDC from treating gun ownership as a mental disorder, now he wants to ignore that. SUPRISE!
Brad K.,To put it as politely as possible, you're making shit up.For example, your Point #6, " there is the ATF forcing gun dealers to do the background check for private sales," is nothing of the sort.The letter to dealers has already been sent and is available online here. It tells FFLs "Hey! Did you know you can do transfers between private citizens!" which is a great big "Duh" to anyone who's ever used Gunbroker.
Certainly Brad is extrapolating...but considering the track record of .gov it's understandable that he reads a more sinister intent into what is there in black and white.For example, there is no doubt that the NICS for P2P transactions will bring FFL's into the process, but as with the online sales you reference, it'd likely be more a voluntary draft than a conscription, plus dealers can make a buck on the transfer (said buck adding further to the chagrin of buyers who would already be pissed at losing the advantages of off-the-books sales).So yeah, I don't see ATF being able to force FFL's to run checks unless they choose to, and I hope to hell the whole effort to "close the loophole" of private transactions crashes and burns...I for one never buy anything anymore that requires the NICS even though approvals are required to be purged; those 4473's are forever, and I just don't trust those bastards.
"Do you own any guns?""Do you keep any guns at home?"(Recalling my reading of Leon Uris's "Battlecry", and the easy rhyme of "this is my rifle, this is my gun",. . .)"no."(Recalling my conversation with my lefist philosophy professor in undergrad, a gun is a crew-served weapon.)"no."Do you own a firearm?(Only one?)"no."Law school may yet be useful.
Post a Comment