Executive Order background checks

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by Rockport24

Since Obama got all teared up when discussing Newtown, can someone please explain how any of these new "laws" would have prevented that terrible tragedy?

I mean, this POS stole his mother's guns, killed her, then proceeded with the rest of the atrocity. His mother passed all of the very strict regs in CT to legally obtain her guns (which, like MA, requires one to pass a criminal background check to even be licensed to possess a gun!)

because he's trying to add in restrictions about mental health


I don't understand why he does this crap, it just drives people away from the left toward the right

[Rockport24]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

because he's trying to add in restrictions about mental health


I don't understand why he does this crap, it just drives people away from the left toward the right

agreed on the second sentence! But let's say there was a mental health check required to buy a gun, the mother likely would have still passed it and she's the one who bought the guns, not her son who killed her and the everyone else!

Bottom line: It would have done NOTHING to stop Newtown. Obama can cry us all a river, these actions won't stop this kind of thing from happening again.

[PaulS]

So the first stuff I quoted meant it was an executive action. I just saw an other article stating it was an executive order

Just wasting time on a slow day.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Rockport24

agreed on the second sentence! But let's say there was a mental health check required to buy a gun, the mother likely would have still passed it and she's the one who bought the guns, not her son who killed her and the everyone else!

Bottom line: It would have done NOTHING to stop Newtown. Obama can cry us all a river, these actions won't stop this kind of thing from happening again.

Perhaps there's a solution here where liability could be factored in. If you have a son with known mental issues, you should be responsible for preventing that person access to your weapons.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Perhaps there's a solution here where liability could be factored in. If you have a son with known mental issues, you should be responsible for preventing that person access to your weapons.

I forget . Isn't she dead ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

I forget . Isn't she dead ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She likely wouldn't be had she ensured her son didn't have access to her weapons.

Check this out...

http://www.cabelas.com/product/shoot...gclsrc%3Daw.ds

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

She likely wouldn't be had she ensured her son didn't have access to her weapons.

Check this out...

http://www.cabelas.com/product/shoot...gclsrc%3Daw.ds

True and that's how mine are stored .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by spence

She likely wouldn't be had she ensured her son didn't have access to her weapons.

Check this out...

http://www.cabelas.com/product/shoot...gclsrc%3Daw.ds

Do we know that they weren't locked up and maybe he surprised her when she unlocked the safe or whatever.
A person would only have to let their guard down once at the wrong time and access to a gun can be had.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Rockport24]

Originally Posted by spence

She likely wouldn't be had she ensured her son didn't have access to her weapons.

Check this out...

http://www.cabelas.com/product/shoot...gclsrc%3Daw.ds

Totally agree with you Spence! (wow!)
I think the negligence of the mother had a lot to do with this tragedy. I don't agree that more laws would have prevented it. A better mental health system that picked up on this kid and a more involved parent that could have picked up on it? Absolutely. It seems like you are implying that if the government knew that the son had a mental illness then they should have not allowed the mother to purchase guns, which seems like a stretch.

Still the fact remains Obama is doing nothing that could have prevented it.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Rockport24

Totally agree with you Spence! (wow!)
I think the negligence of the mother had a lot to do with this tragedy. I don't agree that more laws would have prevented it. A better mental health system that picked up on this kid and a more involved parent that could have picked up on it? Absolutely. It seems like you are implying that if the government knew that the son had a mental illness then they should have not allowed the mother to purchase guns, which seems like a stretch.

Still the fact remains Obama is doing nothing that could have prevented it.

If you made the law stronger around liability it would absolutely make it harder for guns to fall into the wrong hands. The executive action wouldn't fix this but it does start to remedy mental health issues.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

Perhaps there's a solution here where liability could be factored in. If you have a son with known mental issues, you should be responsible for preventing that person access to your weapons.

.....and this executive order fixes that how???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

.....and this executive order fixes that how???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, it would start by removing barriers to mental health reporting. The proposed HR 4269 would provide the law to require grandfathered but newly restricted weapons to be locked up.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, it would start by removing barriers to mental health reporting. The proposed HR 4269 would provide the law to require grandfathered but newly restricted weapons to be locked up.

I see the liability being shifted to the doctors .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, it would start by removing barriers to mental health reporting. The proposed HR 4269 would provide the law to require grandfathered but newly restricted weapons to be locked up.

I thought HR 4269 prohibits the sale of certain weapons.

And whoopie.....a law that requires them to be locked.....but she trusts her kid and still doesn't lock them up.....no effect on crisis at all....but everybody sure feels better
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I thought HR 4269 prohibits the sale of certain weapons.

And whoopie.....a law that requires them to be locked.....but she trusts her kid and still doesn't lock them up.....no effect on crisis at all....but everybody sure feels better
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The sale...I don't think it takes anything away.

As for the rest, this is the boring drum you keep beating. It's like if rules aren't perfect they're worthless. Tell that to the auto regulators.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

.....and this executive order fixes that how???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It does absolutely NOTHING that would have changed what happened in Newtown. Zip.