In partnership with CBSSports.com
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
There goes the zombie defenses. Excuse me, "walkers." :rolleyes
If your goal is to restrict gun ownership, I suppose it's reasonable, but if it's to impact firearm violence, I just don't think it's reasonable at all. Based on the 90s, it's reasonable to project that it won't have much if any impact on the violence it's supposedly targeted at, but it will predictably create a whole new class of criminals who were previously law abiding with all the bad results that entails.
Dont assault weapons or assault rifle account for like 4% of all gun homicides?
If we really cared we would just legalize drugs.
This post was edited by Tthnce 18 months ago
Yes, but they account for like 95% of gun homicides that people get worked up about.
Heck, we average MORE THAN TWICE THE NUMBER OF GUN DEATHS DAILY as were killed in that school or at that movie theater. More people likely died from gun violence yesterday than died at that school. But you don't see a huge movement for gun control on a random Wednesday.
(That's neither here nor there...but just saying....)
Those are mostly (I'm generalizing) scary black men, not cute, mostly white children, so nobody cares.
I really, really hate the "create new criminals from the law abiding" argument. Just grandfather people that already possess those weapons and don't sell any new ones or allow the resale of old ones. Bam, no one gets "their guns taken away." Over time, the issue works itself out.
I grew up around guns, I learned to shoot when I was like 11 or 12. I believe 100% that there is no earthly reason for a private citizen to need a modern infantry rifle for "home defense" or any other private use. And in that case, yes my goal is 100% to restrict the ownership of that type of weapon. It's not a magic solution because nothing is, but it is a reasonable and "well regulated" idea towards maybe making the world a 2% safer place for you and your kids.
NY state is talking about doing away with their grandfathering, which makes me wary of that concept. Also if the grandfathering prohibits transfer of the item then the owner would need to be compensated for its value (they are being denied the economic utility of the item) which would run into the hundreds of billions for a bill with a wide scope. The reason that they need to be compensated is that since the item cannot be sold, its monetary value has essentially gone to zero.
i didnt see this mentioned here. its this getting any national play?
A mother of twins has been hailed a hero by her husband after she shot an intruder in their Loganville, Ga., home last Friday afternoon. said her husband, Donnie Herman, in an interview with ABC's Atlanta affiliate WSB-TV.
What is this executive order going to look like?
Of course not. It doesn't fit the mainstream media script
Why even bother to ask the NRA to come to the table? It's Obama's country, we're all just living in it. At least the Attorney General is very knowledgeable about illegal guns.
President Obama is poised to flex his presidential power with an executive order that will single-handedly crack down on gun violence, the vice president promised yesterday.
“The president is going to act,” Vice President Joe Biden vowed as he convened a White House meeting yesterday to work on tough new gun laws in response to the horrific shooting last month at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
“There are executives orders, there’s executive action that can be taken,” said Biden. “We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general.”
Who the governor of New York is a moron
Someone got pissed at me other day for basically saying same thing. If we really wanted to end a ton of the gun violence we would legalize drugs. Prohibition worked out so well for us...and of course didn't cause 25% increase in crimes or anything
“Sometimes you have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it,” to paraphrase former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. As reported at IJR earlier today, a hidden amendment in Obamacare prevents a national gun and ammunition registry.
That’s right. It was put into the bill by Senator Harry Reid — in order to keep the NRA out of the Obamacare fight. Well, thank you Harry Reid?
The Nevada senator, after all, is a fan of guns and firearms, believing them to be as American as baseball or football. (Football without suspected black conservative quarterbacks who play injured in big games, that is.)
Breitbart.com picked up on the story (which IJReview first learned of via The Right Scoop):
It seems that in their haste to cram socialized medicine down the throats of the American people, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Barack Obama overlooked Senate amendment 3276, Sec. 2716, part c.
According to reports, that amendment says the government cannot collect “any information relating to the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.”
CNN is calling it “a gift to the nation’s powerful gun lobby.”
Yeah I read about that Obamacare clause. I couldn't believe it at first...it doesn't seem to be that relevant to anything, but maybe there's something else in the bill it refers to?
I don't think this is true. I'm really bored so I just looked it up, and that's not really what the language says.
Or maybe it's just proof that nobody bothered to read the whole bill. Like that's a surprise...
Yeah I don't know how they do all that stuff, but it'd be hilarious if someone just stuck that in there because they knew no one would read it.
Please pardon any ignorance in my post, but I have a couple of questions.
Is there speculation as to what Obama's executive order might say?
Also, and this may be more of a legal question, but what determines when it's appropriate for a president to sign an executive order? I fully realize all presidents do it, so I don't mean this as a shot against Obama by any means, but it seems as though he's basically skirting the whole "How a Bill Becomes a Law" process that we all learned in grade school in order to avoid Congress. I'm not debating the legality of executive orders or anything, but that's always seemed fishy to me. I apologize in advance if my question has some really simple answer I've forgotten from my civics class.
In case anybody is interested, this is what it actually says.
``(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.--A wellness and health promotion activity implemented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to--
``(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully-possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or
``(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual.
I'm not going to bother to figure out what a wellness and health promotion activity is though.
Totally agree. Presidents push the envelope with executive orders, and I'm sure many are of dubious Constitutional validity, but this is one of those hot topics where he can really go too far with it, and it'll blow up in his face. This is one area where Congress will act if he goes way overboard with it.
This seems like it's one of those things where they ask you if you're a smoker, and then if you are, that triggers certain costs and treatment possibilities. So are they saying the fact that you're a gun owner can't have any bearing on your care program (i.e., they can't even ask)?
The talk of an executive order(s) is probably just a shot over the bow of Congress. Not much they can do that way, it'll be a legislative push. Just a matter of to what degree.
I guess this is the basis for my question. I can't tell to what extent the actions are legitimately questionable, versus what extent is just the other party blustering that they got "skipped" in the process.
Yup, I think you're right. Since there are studies that you're so and so more likely to be hurt/die in a home that has guns in it, maybe the point is that the insurance companies or gov't can't use gun ownership as a way to restrict services or programs to people. Either way, it certainly does not mean what CNN thinks it means.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports