Executive Order To Keep Criminals Off The Streets?? No gun violence in jail. | Page 2 | INFJ Forum

Executive Order To Keep Criminals Off The Streets?? No gun violence in jail.

[MENTION=862]Flavus Aquila[/MENTION]
I think this is different from non-criminal homicide (I just googled it). Not sure how that fits into this statistic actually...
 
We all know the real problem here.

...

...

...

Blacks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flavus Aquila
Flavus Aquila said:
One of the most common explanations for non-rural gun ownership is personal/family security. Are there any statistics about how frequently guns are effectively/successfully used for personal security? @just me posted something a while ago about noticing someone near him at a store carpark and how he tensed to pull a gun.
Click to expand...

Reference?
 
The right to stand up against tyranny inside our government should never be laughed at.

A President using an Executive Order against guns, when our Congress will not stand behind him, is the beginning of more presidential horror. Do we live in a kingdom? No.

While a lot of people might agree with Obama's teary speech and actions, he is not following our legal system's rules of engagement. Anything he has issued should be revoked. REVOKED! Period. There are ways to do things. Just because he made this look so innocent, it is far from being innocent. He is trying to set the stage for more like this which will be more strict.

Let Congress set the stage for these things, as they are duly elected for. Otherwise, what good are they? Why not have a king? Our government has been belittled by Obama, and his powers don't hold the strength in acceptance as he thinks they do. All he did was create a crying TV commercial against gun laws and our ruling government. Do people really not see what he is trying to do? Are we so stupid?
 
just me said:
The right to stand up against tyranny inside our government should never be laughed at.

A President using an Executive Order against guns, when our Congress will not stand behind him, is the beginning of more presidential horror. Do we live in a kingdom? No.

While a lot of people might agree with Obama's teary speech and actions, he is not following our legal system's rules of engagement. Anything he has issued should be revoked. REVOKED! Period. There are ways to do things. Just because he made this look so innocent, it is far from being innocent. He is trying to set the stage for more like this which will be more strict.

Let Congress set the stage for these things, as they are duly elected for. Otherwise, what good are they? Why not have a king? Our government has been belittled by Obama, and his powers don't hold the strength in acceptance as he thinks they do. All he did was create a crying TV commercial against gun laws and our ruling government. Do people really not see what he is trying to do? Are we so stupid?
Click to expand...

I pretty much take the NRA side of things. You cant give an inch before they take a mile. Past that though this measure is useless. It would not have prevented any of the recent massacres. Its all for show.
BUT, if people are really serious about negating unconstitutional gun laws.... what about all of the ones already on the books? Limits on how much ammo you can buy and own etc...

This particular measure on Obamas part is all fluff with no filling.
 
Eventhorizon said:
I pretty much take the NRA side of things. You cant give an inch before they take a mile. Past that though this measure is useless. It would not have prevented any of the recent massacres. Its all for show.
BUT, if people are really serious about negating unconstitutional gun laws.... what about all of the ones already on the books? Limits on how much ammo you can buy and own etc...

This particular measure on Obamas part is all fluff with no filling.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, the measure he put in place also gave 50 million to the mental health sector. I'm ok with that. In fact I don't have a problem with any of the parts he has put in place (as far as I am aware of them). My only problem is how he did it. [MENTION=680]just me[/MENTION] said it pretty well.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
One of the most common explanations for non-rural gun ownership is personal/family security. Are there any statistics about how frequently guns are effectively/successfully used for personal security? @just me posted something a while ago about noticing someone near him at a store carpark and how he tensed to pull a gun.
Click to expand...

http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf

Yeah…the whole mentality that he should reach for his gun in the parking lot of Walmart is fucking bonkers…but that’s just my personal opinion.
Maybe one day I’ll get what’s coming to me and I’ll see the light.
 
And if we want to get into Kingly like orders…how about the law Congress passed via ALEC and the NRA that won’t even let people study gun violence.
[h=1]GOP keeps in place funding ban on gun violence research[/h]http://thehill.com/policy/finance/2...to-keep-funding-ban-for-gun-violence-research

That was just this year.
Looks like the lobbyists were passing out seasons tickets or something good this year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: acd and the
dogman6126 said:
As I understand it, the measure he put in place also gave 50 million to the mental health sector. I'm ok with that. In fact I don't have a problem with any of the parts he has put in place (as far as I am aware of them). My only problem is how he did it. [MENTION=680]just me[/MENTION] said it pretty well.
Click to expand...

50 million to our government is basically a pay off to an individual who made a campaign donation.

We live in the falsification of truth.
 
Eventhorizon said:
50 million to our government is basically a pay off to an individual who made a campaign donation.

We live in the falsification of truth.
Click to expand...

Yeah I just checked. Got my numbers messed up. I was thinking 50 billion. 50 Million isn't that significant to spread around the nation. Even so, he hasn't done anything bad with the executive order beyond using it in this way. I do think we seriously need to better fund than that.
 
Last edited:
Why vote?

We have a republic, as long as we can keep it.

Outside Independence Hall when
the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended,
Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin,
"Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded,
"A republic, if you can keep it."​
 
dogman6126 said:
I think (or at least would like to think) that his comment was a joke...
Click to expand...

Nope. Feel free to talk about socio-economic status or institutional racism until your fingers bleed though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back