snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Soapbox Derby

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 14 January 2013, 11:16 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,659
Icon22 Obama says gun lobby stokes fear of federal action

The gun lobby is "ginning up" fears the federal government will use the Newtown shooting tragedy to seize Americans' guns, President Barack Obama said.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/14/politi...tle/index.html
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 14 January 2013, 11:27 PM
Mouse's Avatar
Mouse Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 10 July 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 7,589
Mouse

That's a pretty duh statement there. Stirring up fears that the guvmint's gonna take away guns, is pretty much how the gun lobbies make their living.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 14 January 2013, 11:30 PM
Mickey Blue's Avatar
Mickey Blue Mickey Blue is offline
 
Join Date: 01 February 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,571
Default

Unfortunately by definition anytime a government official (and certainly the president) says "This whole 'secret government conspiracy' thing is fake" it's gonna be seen as an unreliable speaker.

That and the degree of madness shown towards Obama by the conservatives in question here will make it seem even moreso.

I suppose on the upside it will pump money into the economy.. On the downside it will continue to foster political problems in society and may be indirectly responsible for more deaths.

ETA:

It occurs to me.. Maybe we can use stupid conservatives (as opposed to smart ones) as a tool to repair the economy. Threats that the government will ban things like light bulbs or guns make them go out in droves and buy up the things. Lets just start pick industries that are hurting and every few months have the government 'leak' that they are going to ban them. Send them to Fox News and to Rush and such and just let the issue fix itself.

Say did you hear that Obama is planning to ban organic produce? He says that he prefers strict government regulation and wanted to remove the freedom to choose between Organic and non-Organic.. Stop the Nanny State people!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 15 January 2013, 12:05 AM
diddy diddy is offline
 
Join Date: 07 March 2004
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 10,928
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey Blue View Post
Unfortunately by definition anytime a government official (and certainly the president) says "This whole 'secret government conspiracy' thing is fake" it's gonna be seen as an unreliable speaker.
I actually think that they take it as part of a disinformation campaign.

Quote:
I suppose on the upside it will pump money into the economy.. On the downside it will continue to foster political problems in society and may be indirectly responsible for more deaths.
It's not really pumping a meaningful amount though - you just can't do that one market at a time

Quote:
ETA:

It occurs to me.. Maybe we can use stupid conservatives (as opposed to smart ones) as a tool to repair the economy. Threats that the government will ban things like light bulbs or guns make them go out in droves and buy up the things. Lets just start pick industries that are hurting and every few months have the government 'leak' that they are going to ban them. Send them to Fox News and to Rush and such and just let the issue fix itself.!
Won't work in the long run. Not only wouldn't it work for the more relevant markets like housing, people would start to question all these leaks.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 15 January 2013, 12:26 AM
Mickey Blue's Avatar
Mickey Blue Mickey Blue is offline
 
Join Date: 01 February 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,571
Default

So far as I'm concerened people who believe the President is a secret Muslim foreigner who is part of a plot decades old to get a sleeper agent into the white house will believe anything.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 15 January 2013, 12:50 AM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 13,135
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey Blue View Post
Unfortunately by definition anytime a government official (and certainly the president) says "This whole 'secret government conspiracy' thing is fake" it's gonna be seen as an unreliable speaker.
On the other hand, if he didn't say it, they'd just say "see, he doesn't even bother to deny it."

Paranoid delusional wing-nuts tend to be predictable like that.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 15 January 2013, 01:08 AM
diddy diddy is offline
 
Join Date: 07 March 2004
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 10,928
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter View Post
Paranoid delusional wing-nuts tend to be predictable like that.
That is one of my biggest things about conspiracy theorists that is so mind boggling frustrating is that they don't play by the rules of logic and we know it so well since we know roughly how they argue things since their responses are so predictable.

You know how they will argue but a load of good that will do when they can just reject your reality and substitute their own (as Adam Savage put it)
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 15 January 2013, 01:12 AM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is online now
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,363
Default

I kind of wish they would leak that they would be not only banning the sale of, say, assault rifles, but also would be confiscating them. Maybe a few people would opt not to buy something that will bring federal agents to their door, as opposed to flocking out to buy it before it becomes illegal to do so. Also, then when they ultimately decide to only ban the sale, and not confiscate, it can be seen as a compromise.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 15 January 2013, 01:59 AM
me, no really's Avatar
me, no really me, no really is offline
 
Join Date: 02 June 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 2,550
Default

After date x the sale of assault weapons will be banned. Between date x and date y the government will buy assault weapons back from you at 120% of their value (as long as you can prove the weapon was purchased before this announcement). Between date y and date z the government will buy them back from you at 50% of their value. After date z possession will be illegal, and they will be confiscated and you will be charged. I bet not many of them would last in circulation until date z.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 15 January 2013, 02:34 AM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 13,135
Default

In circulation? No.
In the hands of private citizens? Most likely.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 15 January 2013, 02:44 AM
me, no really's Avatar
me, no really me, no really is offline
 
Join Date: 02 June 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 2,550
Default

Oh yes, absolutely, and most likely mostly in the hands of those you would least want to have them. There would still be a lot less out there though. There would be a lot less of "went home and got the assault rifle out of mum's cabinet" happening. From what I have read, it is handguns that are responsible for the majority of gun deaths, and an assault weapon ban will do absolutely nothing for that. They are arguably the least needed class of weapon though unless you are serving military.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 15 January 2013, 11:22 AM
dungeondragon18 dungeondragon18 is offline
 
Join Date: 16 September 2007
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 436
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by me, no really View Post
There would be a lot less of "went home and got the assault rifle out of mum's cabinet" happening. From what I have read, it is handguns that are responsible for the majority of gun deaths, and an assault weapon ban will do absolutely nothing for that. They are arguably the least needed class of weapon though unless you are serving military.
There's never going to be any one perfect piece of legislation that will stop all gun violence. The best we can do is implement several different pieces of semi-effective legislation, and hope that combined, they reduce the rate of gun violence. Renewing the assault rifle ban is a good place to start.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 15 January 2013, 11:30 AM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,316
Default

*Banning assault weapons
*Closing the gun show loophole
*Gun licensing and registration
*Mandatory biometric trigger locks
*Significant penalties for not reporting gun theft or loss
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 15 January 2013, 11:51 AM
Drakkon Drakkon is offline
 
Join Date: 07 February 2005
Location: Windsor, MO
Posts: 65
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloe View Post
*Banning assault weapons
*Closing the gun show loophole
*Gun licensing and registration
*Mandatory biometric trigger locks
*Significant penalties for not reporting gun theft or loss
*Regular training on use of securing/using guns.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 15 January 2013, 11:53 AM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,316
Default

Yes, although the biometric locks would mean securing guns was less of an issue.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 15 January 2013, 01:13 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is online now
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,687
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloe View Post
*Closing the gun show loophole
By this do you mean preventing an individual from selling his/her gun to another individual? Because there is no loophole or gap or what have you that is specific to gun shows. If it can be done at a gun show, it can be don via craigslist or the newspaper. If it can't be done there, it can't be done at a gun show.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 15 January 2013, 01:30 PM
Mickey Blue's Avatar
Mickey Blue Mickey Blue is offline
 
Join Date: 01 February 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,571
Default

It seems reasonable. There are several things I can buy but not legally resell. You could even have dealers process peer to peer gun sales.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 15 January 2013, 01:36 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,316
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
By this do you mean preventing an individual from selling his/her gun to another individual? Because there is no loophole or gap or what have you that is specific to gun shows. If it can be done at a gun show, it can be don via craigslist or the newspaper. If it can't be done there, it can't be done at a gun show.
Yes. No changing of hands without a licensed dealer involved. Of course, if biometric locks become the norm, changing hands would be useless anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 15 January 2013, 01:48 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is online now
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,687
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey Blue View Post
There are several things I can buy but not legally resell.
The only thing I can think of is prescriptions, what else is there?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloe View Post
Yes. No changing of hands without a licensed dealer involved. Of course, if biometric locks become the norm, changing hands would be useless anyway.
That's what I figured. It might be more accurate to say you want to ban private gun sales then.

Guns could still change hands even with biometric locks. You'd simply take it to a gun store, provide proof of ownership, then they'd re"key" the gun to your signature. Any firearm dealer would have to have such a means, either on-site or by the gun's manufacturer (otherwise they wouldn't be able to key the gun to it's first purchaser).

ETA: Of course, it would be possible to create a system where a biometric key could not be re"key"ed and where it was illegal to buy or sell a biometric lock seperate from a gun (so you couldn't buy a new unkeyed lock for a resold gun). But getting such a system passed would be even harder than getting biometric locks required in the first place.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 15 January 2013, 01:53 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,316
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
That's what I figured. It might be more accurate to say you want to ban private gun sales then.
And any dealer sales without background checks. Basically, no sales, public or private, that don't include background checks, waiting periods, license checks, and registration. Yes, this will make guns more expensive. Freedom is not free.

Quote:
Guns could still change hands even with biometric locks. You'd simply take it to a gun store, provide proof of ownership, then they'd re"key" the gun to your signature. Any firearm dealer would have to have such a means, either on-site or by the gun's manufacturer (otherwise they wouldn't be able to key the gun to it's first purchaser).
Right; I should have added "without a dealer involved."
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
An ounce of action is worth a ton of theory adam232 Questionable Quotes 6 08 January 2010 07:25 AM
Football games have 12 minutes of action snopes Sports 35 21 August 2008 02:48 AM
AFA Action Alert: TV LAND flippantly disrespects God and Christians Canuckistan Inboxer Rebellion 54 29 February 2008 01:43 AM
Action Line: Gift card purchases call for precautions BoKu Snopes Spotting 0 27 June 2007 07:02 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.