How can we regulate guns ... ?

Show me how the Executive orders are taking guns away? Yes they did. Where the camps were located has no bearing on what was known. They were all run by Nazi germany.

Which executive order was that? If he banned a particular weapon I don't see it. Besides that wouldn't be legal.

quote:

---

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

​

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

​

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

​

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

​

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

​

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

​

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

​

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

​

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

​

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

​

11. Nominate an ATF director.

​

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

​

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

​

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

​

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies

​

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

​

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

​

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

​

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

​

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

​

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

​

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

​

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

---

Whatever you want to believe? But your argument that armed Jews would have resisted better and would have alarmed the world to action is plain silly. The allies didn't really care that much about the jews. If you want to provide some sort of sources supporting your view, by all mean I will consider it. But as you seem to be counter to all scholarship on the issue, you have a high bar to meet on this.

Military and police forces world wide would disagree with you. If this is true then military and police forces are wasting billions on firearms training.Gun safety is is simple. In theory. In application it is highly complex. Gun safety in any stressful situation is very difficult until the actions and movements become second nature. This only happens with a very high degree of training.A person with a 4 hour course on gun handling and safety is not an expert and is potentially more dangerous than doing nothing. Remember, contrary to earlier assertions, in a lot of states no training is required for concealed carry. None.Even trained individuals fuck up. I know of a deputy sheriff that shot his pinky off when his backup .380 went off in the dressing room of a clothing store. These things are dangerous in anyone hands. Why would we not regulate something that is dangerous and life threatening.That you are defending Faith's rants should tell you something about the strength of your arguments.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

one minor quibble It was a single shot Deringer pistol.

Look at northern MN and WI. They are supposedly high gun violence. What a crock. You can't get any more rural. They are very democratic and progressive, but no high gun violence.Hibbing, MN and Ashland WI are not areas of violence of any kind.More rightwing lies and propaganda. Nothing more.

I am glad you addressed this whole "natural right" thing. Might keep me from being attacked.Surprisingly none of the great proponents of "Natural Rights", Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Thomas Paine, had anything to say about guns.The whole argument, if you understand even the basics of natural rights, is just crazy.Here is a little something written in The Economist.

quote:

---

Take this essay by Cliff Stearns, the Republican congressman and (to be reductionist) gun-rights advocate. "Not only is the right to be armed a Constitutional right, it is also a fundamental natural right," Mr Stearns writes. And then, in the very next paragraph: "Once again we can trace the right to be armed to legal and political events in 17th century English history, this time pertaining to hunting and gaming laws." How does a fundamental natural right lie sleeping throughout the first 6,000 years of recorded history, only to wake to full flower due to conflicts over gaming laws in Regency Restoration England? And what of the benighted 95% of humanity who still do not enjoy the fruits of this natural right, including, rather confusingly, the actual English who supposedly roused it from its primeval slumber?

​

Perhaps American supporters of gun rights would say that in fact people in every country do have a natural right to bear arms, but their enjoyment of that natural right is denied them by oppressive governments in countries like Britain, France, Canada, Israel, the Netherlands and Japan. Meanwhile, the so-called "right" to health insurance enjoyed by citizens of those countries is presumably only a fake right which they do not in fact possess. This just doesn't seem to be a satisfactory explanation. Is the problem that we use the word "right" in two ways, meaning in one sense an inalienable moral consideration which we believe all humans possess regardless of the context of government in which they live, and in another sense an enforceable claim within a country's legal system which commands government and other persons to guarantee certain kinds of treatment to every citizen? Which kind of right would the right to health insurance be? Which kind is the right to bear arms?

---

I guess refrigeration and having a car is a Natural Right too.

LOL
Like most of what the pro-gun crowd has to offer it is nothing more than propaganda. There is no sourcing for anything claimed. We are supposed to believe all of it because someone made a video.

Not the same thing is it. Unless of course Ari and his buddies had firearms.Also, there is a HUGE difference between "right of citizens" and "natural rights".
Take a look.
Natural and legal rights But you seem to be very confused about natural rights and legal rights. Methinks you need to read some philosophy. You have not shown this to be true. As you don't know the difference between legal and natural rights I am not sure I can just take your word on this.