Obama executive action on gun control

[UCFKnight85]

I agree with you but most of the country is agreement there should be more background checks.

Because most people stupidly believe that there aren't ALREADY background checks done on 95% of all gun sales.

Many of the "mass shootings" this year were done with guns and shooters that passed both State and Federal background checks. The main issue in all of these cases was an easily detectable pattern of mental instability, isolation, and family issues, that absolutely no one stepped in to help with. Their family and friends ignored it, chose to be selfish, and "left it to the government" to sort out.

This is why Obama is knowingly being a deceitful dick when he mocks people who are calling for increased mental health care. He knows that his laws wouldn't have prevented most ANY of the shootings in the past 5 years, but he can't admit that. He can't admit that the breakdown of the family, the loss of traditional values, and the increase in drug usage and societal decay is the reason for a lot of these shootings. He can't admit that mental health care IS the overwhelming culprit here, and not guns themselves or "gun show loopholes".

 

[MACHater02]

85 he's asking for additional funding for mental health as part of this.

 

[Knight_Light]

Because most people stupidly believe that there aren't ALREADY background checks done on 95% of all gun sales.

Many of the "mass shootings" this year were done with guns and shooters that passed both State and Federal background checks. The main issue in all of these cases was an easily detectable pattern of mental instability, isolation, and family issues, that absolutely no one stepped in to help with. Their family and friends ignored it, chose to be selfish, and "left it to the government" to sort out.

This is why Obama is knowingly being a deceitful dick when he mocks people who are calling for increased mental health care. He knows that his laws wouldn't have prevented most ANY of the shootings in the past 5 years, but he can't admit that. He can't admit that the breakdown of the family, the loss of traditional values, and the increase in drug usage and societal decay is the reason for a lot of these shootings. He can't admit that mental health care IS the overwhelming culprit here, and not guns themselves or "gun show loopholes".

When he was crying about Sandy Hook yesterday when discussing background checks, he forgot to tell the Nation Media in attendance that the Mom, legally obtained both of those rifles thru background checks and had them registered as needed.

Sadly, as you noted, almost all of the recent mass shootings were done by those that obtained them legally and passed state/federal background checks.

Even the NYTimes did a recent feature article on this:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=0

A big coup for a group that pretends it wont' benefit from it will be the Trail Lawyers, as their business will soar if anyone who had one reported episode (if the courts count it as a mental health issue) is denied the right to purchase a weapon in later years...as Obama wants to broaden those with any possible mental health issue, even if wrongly diagnosed even one time, from ever having the right to purchase a weapon.

Those court cases will make many lawyers even richer.

 

[fabknight]

The main issue in all of these cases was an easily detectable pattern of mental instability, isolation, and family issues, that absolutely no one stepped in to help with. Their family and friends ignored it, chose to be selfish, and "left it to the government" to sort out.

He can't admit that the breakdown of the family, the loss of traditional values, and the increase in drug usage and societal decay is the reason for a lot of these shootings. He can't admit that mental health care IS the overwhelming culprit here, and not guns themselves or "gun show loopholes".

^^^^This! This! and This!

I know I've been approached by extended family members in the past about my thoughts on them purchasing a gun and have emphatically told them no way. Some people just shouldn't own guns because of their emotional and/or mental instabilities and I have no problem with letting them know it isn't a good idea. Like you said in an earlier post, who better to determine whether or not someone should own a gun than those that know them best.

 

[UCFKnight85]

85 he's asking for additional funding for mental health as part of this.

Yea, because Republicans have been DEMANDING it. Hell, the NRA has been the loudest one screaming for increased focus on mental health.

 

[Poolside Knight]

The President gave Anderson Cooper the look of death bc he challenged him w tough questions during that Town Hall. With that and CBS's 60 minutes even grilling him on foreign policy it's time to just run out the clock till November

 

[MACHater02]

Yea, because Republicans have been DEMANDING it. Hell, the NRA has been the loudest one screaming for increased focus on mental health.

LMAO! I forgot all good ideas come from the GOP.

 

[cnsaguy]

You want gun control? Just put a $50 tax on each bullet/shell sold. Buy all the guns you want, you just can't afford to shoot them.

Chris Rock called and wants his joke back.

 

[CommuterBob]

Chris Rock called and wants his joke back.

Sometimes even jokes have a point. His joke was $5k per bullet. I think this might be more palatable.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Sometimes even jokes have a point. His joke was $5k per bullet. I think this might be more palatable.

You'd run a standard box of 50 rounds to $2,500. Yea, so palatable*

Amazing what gun control fanatics will deem as palatable even when an idea is clearly unconstitutional.

 

[CommuterBob]

You'd run a standard box of 50 rounds to $2,500. Yea, so palatable*

Amazing what gun control fanatics will deem as palatable even when an idea is clearly unconstitutional.

Again, what's unconstitutional about it? Please explain. We have vice taxes on many other items. What is so special about ammunition that would be considered constitutionally protected?

 

[CommuterBob]

Yea, because Republicans have been DEMANDING it. Hell, the NRA has been the loudest one screaming for increased focus on mental health.

GOP has only been DEMANDING it because it's a defense against gun control. Before the issue was raised, they sure weren't DEMANDING it, much like they weren't DEMANDING alternative health care reforms before Obamacare.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Again, what's unconstitutional about it? Please explain. We have vice taxes on many other items. What is so special about ammunition that would be considered constitutionally protected?

I truly don't understand how you can't grasp this. Your little idea would all but assure that a HUGE majority of this country could never afford to buy ammunition to actually use with a firearm, much less train with it, much less be able to stock their house for reasonable self defense, much less do any sort of target shooting or hunting.

Yet, the entire population is entitled to the 2nd Amendment freedoms that are explicitly guaranteed in our Constitution.

Passing a Federal Law that mandated $50 per cartridge would be challenged and defeated instantly. It would be by default a law that strips millions of people of their Constitutional right and leaves that right only to the wealthier people who can afford to spend $2,500 f*cking dollars on a box of 50 rounds.

The fact that you have to ask your last question tells me that you barely recognize that you're talking about a constitutionally protected right.

 

[UCFKnight85]

GOP has only been DEMANDING it because it's a defense against gun control. Before the issue was raised, they sure weren't DEMANDING it, much like they weren't DEMANDING alternative health care reforms before Obamacare.

So just to be clear: the left wing zealots regularly cite gun death statistics that are 2/3 suicides, and the majority of "mass shootings" have been carried out by people who are clearly mentally ill or deranged, yet those same left wing zealots can't fathom why greatly expanded access to mental health care MIGHT JUST BE the best and most pressing solution to a problem whereby 2/3 of all deaths are suicides to begin with?

OK THEN

 

[CommuterBob]

I truly don't understand how you can't grasp this. Your little idea would all but assure that a HUGE majority of this country could never afford to buy ammunition to actually use with a firearm, much less train with it, much less be able to stock their house for reasonable self defense, much less do any sort of target shooting or hunting.

Yet, the entire population is entitled to the 2nd Amendment freedoms that are explicitly guaranteed in our Constitution.

Passing a Federal Law that mandated $50 per cartridge would be challenged and defeated instantly. It would be by default a law that strips millions of people of their Constitutional right and leaves that right only to the wealthier people who can afford to spend $2,500 f*cking dollars on a box of 50 rounds.

The fact that you have to ask your last question tells me that you barely recognize that you're talking about a constitutionally protected right.

Or maybe it's $5. Or $1. Price is negotiable, but the concept remains the same. But you're wrong about "stripping people's rights." There's nothing stopping people from buying ammo, even with a tax. It just ends up costing more. And instead of the 50 round box, maybe it goes down to a 6 round or 10 round box. People would be more cognizant of how they use ammo. Maybe it only applies to ammo that users buy outside of a gun range - allowing ammo sold at a gun range to be used for practice on the range to be exempted from such a tax, but once the user takes the ammo home, he/she has to pay the tax.

 

[CommuterBob]

So just to be clear: the left wing zealots regularly cite gun death statistics that are 2/3 suicides, and the majority of "mass shootings" have been carried out by people who are clearly mentally ill or deranged, yet those same left wing zealots can't fathom why greatly expanded access to mental health care MIGHT JUST BE the best and most pressing solution to a problem whereby 2/3 of all deaths are suicides to begin with?

OK THEN

Still a knee-jerk reaction (to be fair it's on both sides of the aisle) rather than trying to be proactive about an issue. Nobody in the GOP gave a rat's ass about mental health (and often the GOP cut such funding in the past) until the anti-gun nuts tried to use the crisis to their own ends.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Or maybe it's $5. Or $1. Price is negotiable, but the concept remains the same. But you're wrong about "stripping people's rights." There's nothing stopping people from buying ammo, even with a tax. It just ends up costing more. And instead of the 50 round box, maybe it goes down to a 6 round or 10 round box. People would be more cognizant of how they use ammo. Maybe it only applies to ammo that users buy outside of a gun range - allowing ammo sold at a gun range to be used for practice on the range to be exempted from such a tax, but once the user takes the ammo home, he/she has to pay the tax.

Oh, ok. So you'll just make it impossible for a huge amount of gun owners that live in rural areas and don't go to a brick and mortar gun range to train, shoot, or hunt.

"Hey John, here's your 6 rounds to train with, zero in your scope, and go hunting! I hope that 1 cartridge you have left for your entire hunting trip comes into good use!"

It's amazing how you guys scream and yell that gun owners MUST train more, but then want to throw up these ridiculous barriers to actually do it.

 

[UCFWayne]

Unfortunately, youtube is blocked at work. Can someone post one of the recent videos that the nra posted?

Basically the president has all the tools he needs to help lower the "epidemic" of gun violence in the country, but refuses to use them.

 

[CommuterBob]

Have you seen the price of guns? It's ridiculously high. Several hundred dollars apiece, yet you're going to bitch about a tax on bullets. It's already prohibitively expensive to buy a gun, hence the reason most people don't have them.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Have you seen the price of guns? It's ridiculously high. Several hundred dollars apiece, yet you're going to bitch about a tax on bullets. It's already prohibitively expensive to buy a gun, hence the reason most people don't have them.

OH.MY.GOD

You seem like a nice guy but you're really utterly clueless in this debate. You should stop now before further embarrassing yourself.

First, I'm not sure you understand this, but a firearm is an item that you really only need to buy once. It is not a consumable item. There are firearms from the 1800's that still work today. It's also an item that is made of many high precision moving parts, polymer, metal, etc. I'm sure you think that a pistol would typically cost $100 or something, given your knowledge of guns thus far, but that's not remotely true.

I can go into a gun store and pick up a quality 9mm pistol for roughly $400-500. That is not "prohibitively high" when you consider that the pistol will easily last my entire life. You can buy a quality .308 rifle for $350.

Ammo on the other hand is extremely simple: there's a primed case, propellant, and a bullet. It's inexpensive to make in large quantities and it's 100% consumable. You pull the trigger and that cartridge is spent unless you're going to re-load at home. To even compare the cost of a gun to the cost of ammo is insane. It's like comparing a cost of a car to the cost of the tires and saying - GEE THAT CAR IS INSANELY EXPENSIVE!

"Most people don't have them"? What planet do you live on? Over 65% of households in America report owning a firearm, there are over 320 million guns in America, and we've set records for CCW permit holders.

Man...

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

Have you seen the price of guns? It's ridiculously high. Several hundred dollars apiece, yet you're going to bitch about a tax on bullets. It's already prohibitively expensive to buy a gun, hence the reason most people don't have them.

You can pick up a used rifle or handgun for under a couple hundred bucks. I have a rifle and pistol and I don't have more than $400 in them.

 

[CommuterBob]

OH.MY.GOD

You seem like a nice guy but you're really utterly clueless in this debate. You should stop now before further embarrassing yourself.

First, I'm not sure you understand this, but a firearm is an item that you really only need to buy once. It is not a consumable item. There are firearms from the 1800's that still work today. It's also an item that is made of many high precision moving parts, polymer, metal, etc. I'm sure you think that a pistol would typically cost $100 or something, given your knowledge of guns thus far, but that's not remotely true.

I can go into a gun store and pick up a quality 9mm pistol for roughly $400-500. That is not "prohibitively high" when you consider that the pistol will easily last my entire life. You can buy a quality .308 rifle for $350.

Ammo on the other hand is extremely simple: there's a primed case, propellant, and a bullet. It's inexpensive to make in large quantities and it's 100% consumable. You pull the trigger and that cartridge is spent unless you're going to re-load at home. To even compare the cost of a gun to the cost of ammo is insane. It's like comparing a cost of a car to the cost of the tires and saying - GEE THAT CAR IS INSANELY EXPENSIVE!

"Most people don't have them"? What planet do you live on? Over 65% of households in America report owning a firearm, there are over 320 million guns in America, and we've set records for CCW permit holders.

Man...

Fair points, insults and the gun ownership one, aside. At best, only 1 in 3 own guns, and some data shows that number to be closer to 1 in 4 or 1 in 5. And gun ownership hasn't been at 65% in my lifetime. The 320 million guns is correct though, meaning there are a lot of folks who own multiple guns.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/fewer-and-fewer-americans_b_7382326.html

 

[UCFKnight85]

Fair points, insults and the gun ownership one, aside. At best, only 1 in 3 own guns, and some data shows that number to be closer to 1 in 4 or 1 in 5. And gun ownership hasn't been at 65% in my lifetime. The 320 million guns is correct though, meaning there are a lot of folks who own multiple guns.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/fewer-and-fewer-americans_b_7382326.html

I've seen this "study" before and it's pure crap. First, these types of studies are typically pushed by outfits like the one the HuffPo is parading around, and they always begin with an anti-gun perspective to start with. It wouldn't be surprising then that an organization who is anti-gun would report "data" that shows Americans are not owning guns these days!

Second, most every gun owner I know would never answer questions being posed by some unknown person from Chicago about if they own a firearm and how many. Never. They'd either hang up or lie and say none. THere's no way a "study" like that can be relevant when they're trying to ask this type of sensitive question to a populace that won't trust them to begin with.

 

[anon_x731qvsnsyb8i]

It's really sad that this issue has become so entrenched in what equates to almost a "spiritual" beliefs in terms of what causes and doesn't causes violence. No one knows a god-damned thing.

Obama is lying, 100%, that he doesn't want to confiscate. He said that he idolized Australia's and Great Britiain's resolution not 6 months ago. He has back-tracked on his own statements on healthcare, the gun-issue (6 times now)....

8 years ago people were calling into question his ties to Saul Alinksy. It seems quite clear that he is practicing the method in lock-step fashion. He promises, gives lip-speak, etc...then changes when legislation is already delivered. He promised to be moderate/bi-partisan, he has not. Proof is in action/inaction. He was also quite open and clear that he did NOT support gay marriage in 2007, it caused a major stir, then he championed it? ...people quickly forget I guess. I cannot help, based on his previous false statements that everything he said in that town hall was lip-service.

"We are NOT Marxists!" - Fidel Castro after the fall of Batista.

 

[CommuterBob]

I've seen this "study" before and it's pure crap. First, these types of studies are typically pushed by outfits like the one the HuffPo is parading around, and they always begin with an anti-gun perspective to start with. It wouldn't be surprising then that an organization who is anti-gun would report "data" that shows Americans are not owning guns these days!

Second, most every gun owner I know would never answer questions being posed by some unknown person from Chicago about if they own a firearm and how many. Never. They'd either hang up or lie and say none. THere's no way a "study" like that can be relevant when they're trying to ask this type of sensitive question to a populace that won't trust them to begin with.

LOL. Even the NRA says less than half of the households in the US owns guns. Several other studies show about the same range anywhere from 25%-40% own guns.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/one-three-americans-own-guns-culture-factor-study-finds-n384031

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/Guns.aspx

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ricans-own-guns-but-just-how-many-is-unclear/

And this talks about the trickiness of polling gun owners, but also demonstrates that in one experiment, gun owners told the truth about owning a gun 94% of the time.

http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/guns-present-polling-conundrum-1223/

 

[UCFKnight85]

Let's just run the numbers:

32,000 gun deaths per year
20,000 of those are suicides
10,000 are homicides or other
1,000 are accidental

That leaves us 9,000 guns used in homicides

Using FBI data, I can reasonably infer that 40% of those are gang related

that bring us to 5,400 gun homicides

The FBI has also told us that nearly half of gun homicides are from arguments of domestic nature

That leaves us with 2,700 gun homicides that are not the result of: gang related violence, suicide, accidentally shooting yourself, or having an argument a domestic incident which leads to blowing eachother away.

This represents .0008% of the population that is killed annually by a gun by simply existing or being in a public space.

 

[UCFKnight85]

LOL. Even the NRA says less than half of the households in the US owns guns. Several other studies show about the same range anywhere from 25%-40% own guns.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/one-three-americans-own-guns-culture-factor-study-finds-n384031

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/Guns.aspx

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ricans-own-guns-but-just-how-many-is-unclear/

And this talks about the trickiness of polling gun owners, but also demonstrates that in one experiment, gun owners told the truth about owning a gun 94% of the time.

http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/guns-present-polling-conundrum-1223/

Well you tried to push a 1/5 number earlier. Now you're conceding that it easily could be closer to 40-45%.

That's a difference of 64,200,000 Americans.

 

[CommuterBob]

Well you tried to push a 1/5 number earlier. Now you're conceding that it easily could be closer to 40-45%.

That's a difference of 64,200,000 Americans.

Same difference between your probably made-up 65% and what's likely the real number.

 

[CommuterBob]

Let's just run the numbers:

32,000 gun deaths per year
20,000 of those are suicides
10,000 are homicides or other
1,000 are accidental

That leaves us 9,000 guns used in homicides

Using FBI data, I can reasonably infer that 40% of those are gang related

that bring us to 5,400 gun homicides

The FBI has also told us that nearly half of gun homicides are from arguments of domestic nature

That leaves us with 2,700 gun homicides that are not the result of: gang related violence, suicide, accidentally shooting yourself, or having an argument a domestic incident which leads to blowing eachother away.

This represents .0008% of the population that is killed annually by a gun by simply existing or being in a public space.

Why all the qualifiers? It's still 2700 people too many.

 

[UCFKnight85]

There were 4,600 work related fatalities in 2014.

That's too high also, but we don't like in a risk free utopia.

 

[CommuterBob]

OK, time to come clean. I don't really advocate gun control, but I do like rustling jimmies of gun owners, who almost without exception act like paranoid freaks that the government is coming to take away all of their guns. I don't own a gun, but I wouldn't infringe on the rights of others who do. I believe the 2A allows for individual gun ownership, but I also believe that many gun owners are simply fooling themselves in their rationale for owning guns. If they think that their pea-shooter is going to stop a government army from taking their home/land, they're clearly delusional. Self-defense rationale is also laughable to me because most gun owners keep their guns locked up for safety reasons, making quick access to them in a dire situation relatively difficult or even impossible. Shooting guns is fun and while I don't hunt, I understand the passion for it by others. But be honest with yourself as to why you own a gun. It jut seems to me to be that several simply need the ego boost of "hey, I can blow you away if you piss me off" to deal with society. I've just never understood that mindset.

 

[UCFKnight85]

OK, time to come clean. I don't really advocate gun control, but I do like rustling jimmies of gun owners, who almost without exception act like paranoid freaks that the government is coming to take away all of their guns. I don't own a gun, but I wouldn't infringe on the rights of others who do. I believe the 2A allows for individual gun ownership, but I also believe that many gun owners are simply fooling themselves in their rationale for owning guns. If they think that their pea-shooter is going to stop a government army from taking their home/land, they're clearly delusional. Self-defense rationale is also laughable to me because most gun owners keep their guns locked up for safety reasons, making quick access to them in a dire situation relatively difficult or even impossible. Shooting guns is fun and while I don't hunt, I understand the passion for it by others. But be honest with yourself as to why you own a gun. It jut seems to me to be that several simply need the ego boost of "hey, I can blow you away if you piss me off" to deal with society. I've just never understood that mindset.

No, you just demonstrated that you don't understand anything about why people actually own firearms and have instead drawn your own biased rationalization as evidenced by your 2nd to last sentence.

1. Maybe people are paranoid because we have a constant barrage of left wing zealots advocating to do just that?
2. The Japanese specifically cited those "pea shooters" as a reason not to attempt a ground invasion of the US in WW2.
3. You've apparently missed that you can carry a firearm legally for self defense i.e. not locked up
4. Everyone I know locks their guns when they're gone- but a firearm is easily accessible when they're home or at night. Even if it's locked up, are you better off having to open a safe and retrieve a firearm to deal with an intruder, or grabbing a bat?

 

[CommuterBob]

No, you just demonstrated that you don't understand anything about why people actually own firearms and have instead drawn your own biased rationalization as evidenced by your 2nd to last sentence.

1. Maybe people are paranoid because we have a constant barrage of left wing zealots advocating to do just that?
2. The Japanese specifically cited those "pea shooters" as a reason not to attempt a ground invasion of the US in WW2.
3. You've apparently missed that you can carry a firearm legally for self defense i.e. not locked up
4. Everyone I know locks their guns when they're gone- but a firearm is easily accessible when they're home or at night. Even if it's locked up, are you better off having to open a safe and retrieve a firearm to deal with an intruder, or grabbing a bat?

1. That may be true, but it'll never happen.
2. That's not exactly true. The Japs had a strategy to invade the US, starting with kicking our navy out of Hawaii and trying to force our base of operations from the west coast, hoping to exhaust our resources and weaken us for an invasion into Alaska and through Canada (or even no invasion at all, but just to keep us at arm's length). After Pearl Harbor failed miserably, they never got a chance. The Yamamoto meme is factually incorrect. It was a line from the movie Tora Tora Tora. There's certainly no record he ever said it.
3. I didn't miss it, just simply noted that most gun owners lock up their weapons, a fact which you also repeated.
4. The bat is far quicker, but again this seems like a paranoia situation. How often to intruders enter your home while you are there? What kind of crappy neighborhood do you live in?

 

[UCFKnight85]

"When someone breaks in, your gun is locked up! You're too late!"

"Well, actually, it's accessible when I'm home, should someone break in"

"OH YEA, WELL WHY DO YOU LIVE IN A CRAPHOLE? ALWAYS BEING BROKEN INTO?"

Do you see the massive flaw in this line of arguing?

 

[UCFKnight85]

And no, it's not untrue that the Japanese feared an armed American insurgence if they invaded. I didn't reference the Tora quote; I referenced the well established fact that the Japanese did have a plan to invade and conquer the US but one of the obstacles that they referenced was having to deal with an armed populace in an insurgency.

 

[CommuterBob]

"When someone breaks in, your gun is locked up! You're too late!"

"Well, actually, it's accessible when I'm home, should someone break in"

"OH YEA, WELL WHY DO YOU LIVE IN A CRAPHOLE? ALWAYS BEING BROKEN INTO?"

Do you see the massive flaw in this line of arguing?

You really expect me to believe that you go "Yup, I'm home now. Time to unlock the gun safe and put the glock on my nightstand" every day? Why would you do this?

 

[CommuterBob]

And no, it's not untrue that the Japanese feared an armed American insurgence if they invaded. I didn't reference the Tora quote; I referenced the well established fact that the Japanese did have a plan to invade and conquer the US but one of the obstacles that they referenced was having to deal with an armed populace in an insurgency.

Umm...you may have intended to say that, but you did not

2. The Japanese specifically cited those "pea shooters" as a reason not to attempt a ground invasion of the US in WW2.

You said they used that "as a reason to not attempt a ground invasion of the US in WW2" which implies that they had no plan, contradicting your statement above which says they had a plan. Why plan an invasion if you're afraid to invade? The truth is that they realized that they didn't really want to invade because it would stretch their resources and accomplish little. They really just wanted to make sure we couldn't interfere with their takeover of the western Pacific and eastern Asia.

I brought up the Yamamoto thing because the Tora quote is the one that gun advocates frequently try to establish as fact, when it is not. It's Hollywood.

Besides, that was 70 years ago. The only true foreign military threat we have today is ballistic nuclear weapons, which hand guns and rifles will do absolutely nothing to stop. Worrying about an invasion from a foreign military is laughable.

 

[UCFWayne]

I just let freedom ring up in Apopka.

 

[MACHater02]

Anybody who thinks he wants to confiscate needs a tinfoil hat.

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

Anybody who thinks he wants to confiscate needs a tinfoil hat.

He absolutely wants to. He knows he could never do it though. If he had the support to get rid of the second amendment he'd do it in a heartbeat, probably the first too.