Obama's executive action on gun control

I’m watching now.
Must be most Republicans worst case scenario.

I’m a gun owner and I support it. How do you feel about it ?

I don’t know the specifics. What are they?

Basically, improving background check system, asking for more money for mental health and requiring background checks on all guns sold including internet sales and gun show sales.

Plus investing in technology to prevent the unauthorized use of a gun.
Most of these my friend, who is a vocal advocate of “guns for everyone”, has admitted that these are common sense measures that will not infringe his right to own a gun.

Most republicans I know don’t object to this.

Any reaction from the NRA yet?

Paul Ryan is speaking now. so there you go.

I am a long time gun owner and I support the changes. I’m the NRA’s worst nightmare.

I am a strong supporter of gun rights, and these actions (if they are what they are purported to be) are exactly what I feel we need, with the possible change that I would want an even larger push for mental health.

Helping that problem helps solve a whole bunch more.

The NRA is of course scoffing at this saying “Is that all you got? - this is the result of 7 years of work on this? That’s it?” No cite at the moment but that is what was stated on the news this AM.

IMHO, based on what I have read about it, the proposal seems reasonable. Of course the politicians are looking to use this as an opportunity to inspire more fear in people, but that’s what you get these days.

I’m kind of blah. I don’t own guns and I support gun control (though I believe gun control authority is strongly limited by the Second Amendment) but I don’t see any of this stuff having a major impact. I do think the FFL extension is a good idea.

In brief, extending FFL requirements to cover additional gun sellers (those “in the business of selling firearms,” though I don’t know if a specific number of sales is required); hiring more FBI staff to process FFL checks; and, asking Congress to appropriate funds for mental health screening/care and “smart gun” research.

I agree. If you’re trying to solve a problem you should have solutions that… solve the problem. Obama downplays the idea that these things wouldn’t have stopped the mass shootings we’ve seen of late, but isn’t that the point? Go ahead and implement these things, but don’t expect much, if anything, to change.

We get to pick one: a country where it is easy for a law-abiding person to buy multiple guns or a country with significantly lower suicide and homicide rates. Even if Congress supported them, none of the third-way solutions–reasonable background checks, registration, gun safety technology–is going to transform us into Australia.

The majority of Americans would rather have the death and the easy access to guns. Until that changes then nothing serious will change.

I’m not sure it is even a step forward to continue with the illusion that somehow better background checks will make a difference. It just further entrenches the idea that there’s some magic solution other than vastly fewer guns that are harder for law-abiding people to get.

I agree with this, though I support (in general) the small efforts like the ones today. It can’t make things worse, and at least (hopefully) it can show that small ‘common-sense’ and widely supported measures are still possible (and maybe even popular!), even if they’re taken by executive action.

But as long as there are hundreds of millions of guns in America, guns will be easy to get. Just like drugs – laws don’t matter so much when there’s tons of the stuff nearby and in demand. Gun violence in America won’t change significantly until there’s a profound cultural shift that is incompatible with so many guns in the nation.

In America, gun control laws have never lead to significantly lower suicide and homicide rates. And, many people think suicide is a basic human right.

These new regs are very reasonable, and really cant be challenged Constitutionally.

So nobody should ever make a proposition that doesn’t 100% solve the problem it addresses? Any lessening of the problem is now a bad thing-it must be all or nothing? Personally, I’m a little confused-if these proposals supposedly do little to nothing, why are Paul Ryan and the NRA so hell-bent on getting them struck down?

It has two downsides, in my view. First, there’s a political cost. Even something as uncontroversial as today’s move (which would probably poll in the 80%+ range) will cost political capital which might be better spent elsewhere. And second, it diverts us from the conversation we should be having, which is not about background checks or trigger technology.

Maybe the marginal lives it will save are worth it. But it doesn’t strike me as a sure thing that the benefits outweigh the costs.

And, I should hasten to add, I’m not much of a gun control supporter. I think it may well be that the only reforms that would be a significant difference would require too much curtailment of the right to self-defense.

It’s too damn easy to get a gun from an easy-access state and transport it to a hard-access state. It’s like trying to have a quarantine zone without any fences or security-totally useless. It might work better if the states that had hard-access laws were grouped together for better and more coordinated patrolling, but unfortunately they are not.

The NRA and its minions oppose these sorts of things because it’s a fear-based organization that exists to fund itself by inciting fear in its membership. Everything, therefore, is an attack on gun rights, and every politician is either a gun-grabber or gun-rights supporter.

The NRA has been long into the “racket” stage of advocacy evolution.

There. I made it easier for you.