DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Obama White House: Terrorists Will Stop Attacking If We Pass Gun Control Laws

One other thing..no matter how hard you make gun registration..and we have no such thing in Ohio and a most of the other states..if someone who wants to do what these jackholes did..what is to stop someone who believes they way they do and do a STRAW purchase..how would you stop that scenario?

Actually, no, you didn't miss read it. What I was trying to say is that I can't support someone that wants to take guns away from Americans. But I can support tougher rules for getting a gun permit.

What that means to me is this, if you have a felony and it was a long time ago, it may not show up on the simple background check they do today. It pretty much won't show up if you had that felony 20 years ago.

The FBI can do a background check that will be able to search that far back. So can the DOD and the DOE. Of course, the DOD uses the FBI for their checks.

Also, to my knowledge, they do nothing to check on a persons mental state. Not even sure they can given the HIPAA laws. (Maybe with consent they can) But honestly, do you want a person that has a history mental health issues carrying a gun. I don't. I can't believe a responsible gun owner would either.

Keep in mind, I'm not an anti gun guy. I don't own one, but I like the idea that if I want to, I can. I'm more into cars as a hobby so that's where my spare change goes.

Hope that helps

Are you proposing that mental issues are never healed or cured?

No, I think what he's saying is that he wants to make sure they are medically cleared from any current or previous issues.

President orders military surplus items to be seized from police departments


Posted: Dec 06, 2015 8:35 PM EST
Updated: Dec 06, 2015 9:43 PM EST
By Janet Rogers, Report

YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio -

Under orders from President Barack Obama, the federal government is seizing some military surplus equipment from police departments across the country.

With the rise of terror attacks and crime on the streets, local law enforcement agencies say now is not the time to take back the equipment.

Mahoning County Sheriff Jerry Greene said, "At a time when police are facing war zones on the streets with criminals and terrorists using semi automatic weapons to murder unarmed men, women, and children, or detonating bombs like in the attack at the Boston Marathon, law enforcement should be given every tool in the arsenal to help keep communities safe. In many ways, I feel like law enforcement is being thrown under the bus as you know we are living in a different world with the things happening with ISIS and all of that, first responders do need to be prepared."

Yet President Obama is seizing some legally obtained military surplus equipment through an executive order he signed. He ordered military surplus equipment and all vehicles that are too militarized looking to be seized. His explanation was that militarized equipment can make one feel like police are an occupying force.

The President believes the equipment can intimidate residents and make them feel scared.

Obama did this after the riots in Ferguson and Baltimore.

Items to be confiscated from law enforcement all over the country include armored vehicles, weaponized aircraft and vehicles, 50-caliber firearms and ammunition, bayonets, camouflage uniforms and grenade launchers.

Greene tells 21 News, the Mahoning County Sheriff's Department received a few pickup trucks, vans to transport prisoners, M-16s and different types of equipment from the government's surplus program. The Bear, an armored vehicle that this region bought, will not be affected.

Greene also said, "It's a constant fight we are dealing with the mental illness in our prisons and in our jails right now. We are dealing with the heroin epidemic."

The Columbiana County Sheriff's Department purchased a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle known as the MRAP. The 24 ton armored truck can be used to help officers with an active shooter or standoff situation.

Trumbull County Sheriff Tom Altiere says his department has received military surplus items; however none have to be returned.

"Seizing the equipment from police departments is a bad idea with terrorism, school shootings, and war on streets," said Altiere.

Brilliant. Finish destabilizing the middle east, ferment social discord at home, bring in displaced middle easterners, then take weapons and equipment away from the security guys. Sounds like a plan to destabilize the world.

if the cops want military equipment, then they need to join the military.

You know, if someone wrote a book about the Obama presidency 12 years ago, nobody would believe any of this could happen in the United States of America, it would be labeled real fiction.
By the way, I recommend a new beauty I just picked up, a CZ - 75 SP - 01
9mm with 18 capacity clips. A real accurate weapon. I named mine the Barbara Boxer.



.

Exactly. it never ceases to amaze me the lengths some on here will go to to put words in peoples mouths... Geez

What? You say people who have a problem with constantly putting things in their mouths should no be allowed to own guns?

I have tried to stay out of this but " Swish " . that was about a dumb ass comment !

how? if they want to have military equipment, join the military.

if you're gonna say it's a dumb comment, explain why.

they have the tools needed to get the job done. they don't need anything extra.

when there's being IED's placed on the side of the roads everyday in america, when it's a constant warzone with rebels posted on top of buildings with AK's and RPG's here in america, then they can have the toys.

but until America starts looking like Iraq or Afghanistan, they don't need it.

How on earth did you get a license for that M1A2 120mmm for your Abrams, 40'?

Had to go thru the Canadian Government, bud. Why?

Cost me $50.00 USD or $10,500 Canadian.

Kind of stuck on this one bro. On one hand I get what you are saying. On the other hand should we really wait until we look like Iraq to do something?

I guess my middle ground would be that maybe states should have this stuff on hand (I guess many do through the national guard?) but you can't roll out the heavy artillery for simple civil unrest. Which is where I believe they have gotten into trouble in the past.

*cough*kentstate*cough*

Not putting words in your mouth, I was just asking for clarification.

on hand...i can MAYBE get behind that, but these guys use this stuff way too much for the dumbest reasons.

they're excuse for this stuff is "for our protection".

this is how we become a police state.

when stuff starts getting done in the name of safety, then screw people screaming about gun restrictions, when we give up more and more freedoms just for the appearance that we get to keep just 1.

the patriot act, the NSA, all in the name of safety.

If the items are for legal sale, and they are purchased legally... where in the Hell does the Federal gov't get off confiscating items?

I'm sure that there is a loophole being exploited here somewhere, but since when can they confiscate legally obtained items that are also legal to own???

All of the "you don't have IEDs" stuff doesn't matter because it never gets to that point.... the point is that this stuff isn't the Feds to confiscate!

Isn't that what the National Guard in each state is for?

purp, a lot of that equipment they got was from the federal government in the first place.

i forgot what bill, but it was signed during the bush administration to give surplus military equipment to local cops.

so people are up in arms over something that didn't belong to them in the first place.

So did they give it to the cities and states or did they buy it? If they gave it to them, they may be justified in taking it back, if the cities/states bought it, then I tend to agree with purp, the federal government doesn't have much right to waltz into that state and take it back.

I know that it was surplus. I believe all of it was.

But, unless there were stipulations in place at the time ownership was transferred, this is tantamount to theft of public property. Whether it was a gift or a purchase... it wasn't the Feds to do anything with any longer.

The ONLY way I can say that I wouldn't have a beef with this is if the equipment was on lease/loan and the Feds maintained ownership all along. Then it is still theirs to do as they please with. Aside from that, this is royally disgusting overreach that SHOULD be immediately rejected and struck down as illegal by any and all Police Departments affected.

No, no, the Feds could NEVER come for our guns!

Caucasian givers.

to you and purp:

i did some digging, and even though you guys don't normally do it, i made sure i got this from the military newspaper we use to read, that way guys like Erik can't claim "terrible source".

it's called the National Defense Authorization Act of 1990

here's the thing specifically proving my point:

Equipment is free, but law enforcement agencies must pay maintenance and transportation costs.

http://www.stripes.com/how-and-why-local-police-departments-get-military-surplus-equipment-1.299570

local cops don't pay a dime except just to get it there. so the equipment itself doesn't come out of local PD's budget whatsoever.

i have other articles as well, but like i said, don't want it being downplayed because "liberal media"

So, the only question remaining is this: was there an actual transfer of ownership, or not?

If Yes, the Feds are wrong.
If No, then this is a non-story.


Edit to add: reading that article, and seeing that everything goes through DLA, it strikes me as a case where it was an actual transfer of ownership.

So, again, unless there is/was an actual stipulation at the time of transfer, they have overstepped their bounds.

I'm not questioning your sources... I've always been a big states rights guy. I think the fed should be divesting power where they can and allowing states to handle more themselves.... so the thought that by executive decree, the feds can roll in and take stuff that belongs to cities and states, just rubs me the wrong way. I get that it came from the feds in the first place but if the states took ownership of it, then this is wrong.

my problem is that when i was looking for info, the whole thing with obama came out in May of this year.

and i didn't hear a word from even conservative media that much.

but now people are acting like this just happened?

I had no idea this happened until today, so yeah, I am acting like this just happened.

I wasn't and I'm not a proponent of local law enforcement having military type vehicles and equipment. Yet, once they take ownership of the equipment, I'm not for the feds flexing their muscles by removing it.

As with most things the government does, it's either stalled with over regulation or pushed through without proper restrictions.

Had the equipment been issued with guidelines for under what circumstances and situations it can be used, that may have mitigated the reasons why guys like Swish and myself disagree with them having such equipment.

But at this point, I'm with you and DC. IF ownership transferred, the feds have no grounds under law with which to confiscate this equipment.

and for the record, I'm with you on whether or not they ever needed it in the first place, but that horse is already out of the barn.

I almost forgot about you Tulsa,
You are right/wrong. The registration is $48. The handling fee is 125( which i hate). But if you get another gun within a year or so, you dont have to pay the money for the background check -> $13 for registration, 125 for gun handling!.

While we are at it, I saw this article in the wp
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2015/12/08/the-american-illusion-of-gun-control/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory


Look at what the ATF agent says. Both sides need to get real and deal with this. Not the, oh well lets just keep doing what we are doing = nothing!!

You almost forgot about me? For shame...

None of that really matters anyway, that was such a minor point in the article. The real point, at least for me, there is no due process on the no fly list. Anyone can end up there for anything, even by mistake and you are guilty before proven innocent (not literal but you get the point). That is what I can't agree with. Fix what's wrong with the list and define how people get put on the list, arbitrary should not be in the definition then it might become viable.

Tulsa,
Now there you go!!.. That is a possible solution. Strengthen the list so that its viable!! See, a solution.

I would hate to see what a hundred round clip looks like.

I gotta get me one of these.

and I bet that magazine is heavy when filled.

Only if you're weak.