Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Could have sworn they were implemented for safety.

So was the NSA.

Quote:So was the NSA.

The NSA was created as a way for the code breaking experts to continue to provide intelligence to the White House and joint chiefs in the post-war era over 50 years ago. I don't recall it being rolled out to the public as a big safety initiative like M.A.D.D. or seat belts or motorcycle helmets or its creation getting a big propaganda campaign.

Quote:So.. if you develop a rash. Then the skin breaks open. It gets infected. You develop bleeding sores.


You do nothing.

 

You certainly don't blame the skin and pass laws restricting skin.

 

That wouldn't be addressing the correct problem.

 

Which is why you fail to understand the issue entirely.  Otherwise you wouldn't respond so laughably.

Quote:It's about safety huh? Oh ok, I suppose the invasion of Iraq is also about freedom, right?


Everybody has statistics that back up their assertion. Australia has gun restrictions. After they were passed, gun crime increased and armed robbery increased.


Your statistic will not help anybody when somebody attempts to break into your house. Only an idiot would prefer to not have a gun in that situation.

Woah woah woah. That isn't true armed robbery is down since however due to a heroin problem in late 90s armed robbery increased at that period. Sure longer term stats are more telling?... Nice cherry picking though. Homicide is now at lowest rate too.


Come to Australia and ask about gun laws, the vast majority will laugh at any suggestions of bringing back pre 96 laws. Also will make fun of Americans awful stance on guns.

Quote:There will never be a confiscation in this country. Never. After a few days of trying and cops getting shot trying to take Jim Bob's guns, they will rethink the whole confiscation thing. As for me, I used to have a lot of guns, but lost them all in a tragic boating accident a few years ago.

I don't think you'll ever see a door to door raid collecting guns that would be suicide. What they will do is phase it out of the large populace:


Phase one medical bans, people with PTSD, on any kind of sleep medicine or hormone therapy to treat depression will be deemed unsafe to own a firearm. The executive action has already opend this door setting a mandate to ignore patient and doctor privilage.


Phase two place on magazine loaded firearms on the same ffl3 license list as fully automatic weapons, this makes the common ar15 and ak47 three times as expensive to purchase and if you have an ffl3 license you have to give authority to the feds to search your home without warrent at any time ( that's already the law regarding ffl3 licenses.)


Phase three outlaw the private transfer of firearms that means you can't pass a firearm down from generations without paying an ffl dealer and notifying the government of the transfer. They'll set up a system where when a family member dies their firearms have to either be turned into a dealer for resale or transfer at an expensive cost or turned over to the government for a substantial financial gain probably three times the firearms worth.


Finally a national register to track all the remaining owners who will then be much smaller portions of the populace and they will close look for reasons to eventually confiscate those firearms one at a time.


In a few generations the idea of owning a firearm is so foreing and expensive no one really bothers.

Quote:The NSA was created as a way for the code breaking experts to continue to provide intelligence to the White House and joint chiefs in the post-war era over 50 years ago. I don't recall it being rolled out to the public as a big safety initiative like M.A.D.D. or seat belts or motorcycle helmets or its creation getting a big propaganda campaign.

Most public safety initiatives don't involve a President unilaterally changing laws in a way that affect Constitutional rights.

 

If this had gone through the proper channels, even just Congress, I'd have no issue with it. I'd support it, actually, but it didn't go through representatives elected directly by the American public. Obama knew it stood no chance of making it through Congress, so he exploited a loophole in the law that we need to hurry up and close to shift a Constitutional right more to his liking. That's not safety--it's tyranny.

Quote:I don't think you'll ever see a door to door raid collecting guns that would be suicide. What they will do is phase it out of the large populace:


Phase one medical bans, people with PTSD, on any kind of sleep medicine or hormone therapy to treat depression will be deemed unsafe to own a firearm. The executive action has already opend this door setting a mandate to ignore patient and doctor privilage.


Phase two place on magazine loaded firearms on the same ffl3 license list as fully automatic weapons, this makes the common ar15 and ak47 three times as expensive to purchase and if you have an ffl3 license you have to give authority to the feds to search your home without warrent at any time ( that's already the law regarding ffl3 licenses.)


Phase three outlaw the private transfer of firearms that means you can't pass a firearm down from generations without paying an ffl dealer and notifying the government of the transfer. They'll set up a system where when a family member dies their firearms have to either be turned into a dealer for resale or transfer at an expensive cost or turned over to the government for a substantial financial gain probably three times the firearms worth.


Finally a national register to track all the remaining owners who will then be much smaller portions of the populace and they will close look for reasons to eventually confiscate those firearms one at a time.


In a few generations the idea of owning a firearm is so foreing and expensive no one really bothers.

On the plus side mass shootings will be down! Paranoia about needing protection will also be down. May start enjoying yourselves.

Quote:You certainly don't blame the skin and pass laws restricting skin.


That wouldn't be addressing the correct problem.


Which is why you fail to understand the issue entirely. Otherwise you wouldn't respond so laughably.

Skin isn't the problem. The rash is. I never blamed guns as being the issue. Or the gun culture or ammosexuals. But it is absurdly easy for anyone in this country to obtain a gun through both legal and illegal means. Trying to do something about the fact many of the random acts of violence were perpetuated by absolute nutjobs who had no business possessing a gun is not blaming guns. Gun lobbyists will fight to make sure convicts can buy a gun as easily as everyone else. That's not dumb? So when a meth freak strolls into a gun store all tweaked out, logic says we should just give that person a gun without the most basic background check?

Quote:Most public safety initiatives don't involve a President unilaterally changing laws in a way that affect Constitutional rights.


If this had gone through the proper channels, even just Congress, I'd have no issue with it. I'd support it, actually, but it didn't go through representatives elected directly by the American public. Obama knew it stood no chance of making it through Congress, so he exploited a loophole in the law that we need to hurry up and close to shift a Constitutional right more to his liking. That's not safety--it's tyranny.

My impersonation of Congress since Obama took office.


"Sorry folks! Congress is closed. The moose out front should have told you."


Tell me the top three achievements of Congress in the past 7 years. Led by McConnell and company, the sole mission has been to try to obstruct everything the president has tried to accomplish. I am not a huge fan of executive orders, but when the NRA owns Congress, can you really expect them to do anything about literally hundreds of mass shootings?



Also.. stop abusing the word tyranny. Obama is no Pol Pot.

Quote:My impersonation of Congress since Obama took office.


"Sorry folks! Congress is closed. The moose out front should have told you."

That's not the American public's problem. It's Obama's. What is the American public's problem is when a President decides that he's tired of the checks and balances written into the [BLEEP] Constitution keeping him from doing whatever he wants, so he uses an administrative action to circumvent them and piss all over the rights of Americans.

 

It's a known fact that obesity is one of the leading killers in America. It's also a known fact that sedentary lifestyles, including spending most of the day on your [BLEEP] watching TV, are a key contributor to obesity. By that flawed logic, TV kills. Should you have to weigh in when you go to Best Buy? If you turn up with a BMI >30, should they be required to tell you that you can't buy a TV?

Quote:That's not the American public's problem. It's Obama's.

This is what's wrong with you. You fail the realize when Congress deliberately grinds to a halt, it's all of our problem. Not just the guy you don't like.

Quote:That's not the American public's problem. It's Obama's. What is the American public's problem is when a President decides that he's tired of the checks and balances written into the [BAD WORD REMOVED] Constitution keeping him from doing whatever he wants, so he uses an administrative action to circumvent them and [BAD WORD REMOVED] all over the rights of Americans.


It's a known fact that obesity is one of the leading killers in America. It's also a known fact that sedentary lifestyles, including spending most of the day on your [BAD WORD REMOVED] watching TV, are a key contributor to obesity. By that flawed logic, TV kills. Should you have to weigh in when you go to Best Buy? If you turn up with a BMI >30, should they be required to tell you that you can't buy a TV?

Yeah but no obese person goes around stuffing burgers in innocent victims mouths to kill them as far as I'm aware.

Quote:This is what's wrong with you. You fail the realize when Congress deliberately grinds to a halt, it's all of our problem. Not just the guy you don't like.

What makes you think I like Congress?

 

My whole underlying point is this: Congress and the President not getting along does not give the President the right to abuse an administrative procedure in a manner that potentially has Constitutional ramifications. I don't care if Congress packs up and goes home rather than hear any more proposals from the Obama Administration. The executive order was allowed (not Constitutionally granted) so that the President could do simple, dumb things like grant a $500k budget increase to the GAO for a pet project, and to ensure that we could immediately respond to an attack on US soil by granting the President the ability to order us into battle for up to 72 hours while Congress convenes and formally declares war. That "power" was not accepted so that a President who isn't getting his way could pull an end-around on Capitol Hill and force a controversial, possibly rights-stripping policy into effect until the Supreme Court overturns it three years later.

 

I don't mind in the least what the provisions of the order are. I don't agree with all of them, but I think that on the whole, it's a necessary step. What I object to is the idea that a President can abuse an executive order to force the outcome he desires without Congressional approval, which the Constitution dictates is necessary. The idea that people are defending Obama's tyranny (and yeah, this is about as close to tyranny as I've ever seen from a President) is a little bit terrifying to me. You're allowing one man elected by delegates--not 565 people elected by you--to shove a policy that might violate the Constitution down your throat with no oversight, no opposition and no democratic process. Are you really ok with that?

Quote:Yeah but no obese person goes around stuffing burgers in innocent victims mouths to kill them as far as I'm aware.

How about a convicted arsonist filling up a two-gallon jug of gas to fuel up his lawnmower? Surely he could find a way to use two gallons of gas to kill a few people. Is gasoline now dangerous to the point that we need to have our fingerprints scanned before we can fill up our cars to make sure we don't have a record?

 

I get what you're saying, but applying this to one situation only while dismissing any future bastardization of an already-bastardized order into a rights-grab is short sighted, naive and dangerous.

Chances are if he's committed arson and killed loads of people he has served substantial time and deemed fit to return to society...


Also I'm sure you would look at it if people were dying in their thousands from arsonists. But it's not the biggest issue out there is it?


Why not put gun control to a referendum?

Quote:The idea that people are defending Obama's tyranny (and yeah, this is about as close to tyranny as I've ever seen from a President) is a little bit terrifying to me. 

 

You must not remember president Cheney.  As for your tirade on executive orders.  Well that's just how they work.  

 

I never said you liked Congress.  But this bunch is quite special. Choosing to do nothing when there was a mass shooting practically every day in the US last year was unacceptable to the president, so he flexed his executive muscle.  Am I okay with it?  Not as okay as I was with the executive order they called the Emancipation Proclamation.

Quote:Woah woah woah. That isn't true armed robbery is down since however due to a heroin problem in late 90s armed robbery increased at that period. Sure longer term stats are more telling?... Nice cherry picking though. Homicide is now at lowest rate too.


Come to Australia and ask about gun laws, the vast majority will laugh at any suggestions of bringing back pre 96 laws. Also will make fun of Americans awful stance on guns.

Well my point is that you can cherry pick a stat to try and support whatever you want.


I'm really happy for Australia, seems like a wonderful place. That doesn't mean anything to me however and I want to retain my right to own an assault rifle.

Quote:Well my point is that you can cherry pick a stay to try and support whatever you want.


I'm really happy for Australia, seems like a wonderful place. That doesn't mean anything to me however and I want to retain my right to own an assault rifle.

 

It's amazing how far the script has strayed from the Almighty's vision..  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG4V_6pCLVo

Quote:It's amazing how far the script has strayed from the Almighty's vision..

I won't waste my time watching this since it doesn't mean anything to me what he says

Basically makes the case 25 years ago for a small portion of Obama's executive order.