Local radio talkshow wingnuts are FUMING about the President's executive order: "He LIED!1"

[UTUSN]

They hosted a lawyer working for the gun lobby who claimed there is no such thing as the gun show loopholes, that all the rest of the President's presentation was just tugging at heartstrings and *just the FIRST STEP* because we Libs are always "playing the long game" in our devious way!1

But then they were stupified by their next guest, a prominent hunting/gunning outlet owner, whom they expected to be all wingnut ranting against OBAMA, but who said that the executive order would have no effect on him as a business owner since he is already regulated, but that if anything it will *help* his business because it will bring all the customers that have been going outside channels over to him. Haha!1

[NastyRiffraff]

1. There ARE sane gun sellers & owners

but the ammosexuals would have us believe that Obama wants to take away their guns...all guns except for his secret super-duper undercover army who will round up all conservatives and lock them in government-controlled Walmarts. Or something.

[gratuitous]

4. I'll be interested to see . . .

I'll be interested to see if these sane gun sellers and owners have the President's back on his proposal to enforce existing gun laws, or if they bolt back to their ammosexual brothers and sisters in the upcoming election and vote for the most outspoken lunatic the Republicans can urp up.

[Warpy]

5. Exactly, most of the guns in this high gun ownership state are utilitarian

because the areas outside the city are all pretty wild. People need to keep the wildlife out of the trash and the predators away from their stock.

You see the swaggering jerks in the suburbs and city areas where a call to animal control takes care of the occasional bear in the back yard. There is just no reason for city people to be armed to the teeth, it just presents burglars with more guns to steal and sell to shitheads in gangs.

[Lizzie Poppet]

2. The point that last guest made is a very good one.

One of the objections I've always had to the people who show up at gun shows with a couple tables worth of tactical gear and a bunch of guns supposedly from their "private collection" to sell (usually quite a few brand new, popular models by "strange coincidcdence&quot is that they have an unfair advantage over someone who follows the rules. The latter have to spend money on an FFL, on business licenses, probably on professional bookkeeping, and the host of other expenses that legitimate small businesses have. Phony "non-dealers" save all that (and thus don't pay their way). Add expanded background check requirements to the benefits, and as a gun owner and gun rights advocate, I fully support the president's action on this.

I favor most of the other memoranda issued today, too. My only concern is that the change in reporting regulations by health professionals could discourage people from seeking mental healthcare, a problem that's already enormous due to the stigma attached. This is a thorny issue, since reducing access to firearms by mentally ill people (with applicable diagnoses) is an important step in reducing certain kinds of gun crimes...but vastly improving our mental healthcare system is at least as important.

As for the president lying, I'm not convinced at all...but his statements regarding Internet purchases were misleading. To someone unfamiliar with the matter, it could easily seem as if Internet gun purchases in general required no background check. This is absolutely not the case. The only such purchases that are legal with no check are between private parties in the same state who then meet in person to transfer the weapon. All interstate transfers require that the weapon be both mailed and received by an FFL holder, and the receiving dealer has to run a background check, just like any other transaction. Private parties in the same state could arrange a sale on one of several websites dedicated to gun sales (or on Craigslist if they're careful to use code words to avoid getting reported, as CL bans advertising guns) and meet in person...but that's what universal background check laws intended to curb.

[UTUSN]

3. Haha, the 3rd guest threw them for a loop, too!1 It ain't going they way they wanted!1

Third guest, a law professor, "There's a lot more being made on both sides than what the proposals entail. This hasn't changed any law that is already on the books. There's no question that the president can do this"!1 Stunned silence.