Anonymous Responds To Obama's 2013 Gun Policy

Hmm right to the point, kind of chilling.

1.) You can point out cities with strict gun control and high violent crime (Chicago) just as you can point out cities with strict gun control and low gun crime (San Fransisco). The difference between these cities is overall poverty rate.

2.) "Only law abiding citizens obey the law" yadda yadda yadda, prior to pretty much every freak mass shooting incident, the perpetrator was also a law-abiding citizen.

We need some sort accountable government-approved private certification system. The federal and/or state governments can privatize gun registration under the caveat that the certification "gun clubs" will share responsibility with dealers if registered guns are misused. Approved training should be part of this certification/registration. If your firearms are used in violent crime, then you, the dealer who sold them to you, and the "gun club" should be held accountable. You can argue "well it's not my fault that my guns got stolen." This is what a reporting system is for. If your gun gets stolen and you don't report it, and it gets used in a violent crime - well, you sort of deserve whatever comes your way legally. These are lethal weapons - you should keep track of them and know where they are always. Shared responsibility will give dealers and private sellers motivation to make sure they know who they're selling to.

3.) The Hitler thing has been done, we have a thread for that, not touching it.

4.) I can just go buy a gun for pretty much whatever reason without much trouble (I've done it before to prove a point). I had a harder time purchasing the protection plan for my Nintendo 3DS. Buying a gun should be at least as painful as going to the DMV.

5.) Pointing out that people die from other weapons doesn't change the fact that you're significantly more likely to die during an attack if the perpetrator is armed with a firearm as opposed to something else.

I know the Empire State building murder got plenty of coverage around here. Including the injured bystanders.

The only thing that's chilling is that the right is learning how to use the internet

Ugghhhhh. I knew this would happen. The problem with the fundamental idea of Anonymous is that anyone can make a video and seem like they're a mass group that champion a cause. In this case though, it only wounds my perspective of what Anonymous could be.

It hit some truths but missed its mark in a lot of places, and seems just as flawed as every news cast on public television.

Anonymous needs to stick to social justice.

This. They go on talking about murders committed without weapons. Give us statistics: otherwise, these are all irrelevant.

I agree with the rest of Sylow's points as well.

Just wanted to forward it honestly. it's creepy how it's all put together. It made a few good points, honestly I phased out the Hitler crap, and continue to do so because it's used so much.


I apologize if this gets into a rant.

The way the Obama administration is willing to do things is much too extreme, and using executive action against the constitution is worse than wiping your *** with it. They aren't addressing any real issues, just feel good legislation that happens to involve our constitutional rights.

Just about anything they call a "common sense" laws is a nicer way for the anti's to say draconian. They are not just coming after "Assault Weapons" but all semi-autos. After that they will come after scopes bolt action rifles because they will be branded "Sniper Rifles."

I mean seriously read some of the bills being proposed by them. Look at what they are trying to pass in New York, look at what they tried to pass in Illinois..

Pretty soon revolvers will also be next because the criminals will still have shoot outs (which will be done with illegal fire-arms anyways and not really the revolvers.) Because "something must be done for the children!!!!1111".

You have failed laws and politics in Chicago, 500+ murders and now the mayor wants even harsher gun laws even though getting a pistol is near impossible for a law abiding citizen and "AWB's" are already banned in Chicago and areas of cook county. (Chicago is in Cook County.)

Yet guess where most illegal fire-arms are recovered from? Not Indiana/Kentucky/Wisconsin/Missouri... Cook county itself..

Then again Chicago's mayor, police chief, and all alderman are nothing but tools.


It's a slippery slope, but I agree if a law goes against our own constitution the people have no obligation to follow it.

To me the second amendment and fire-arms represent our freedom and preserves it. Back during slavery why did they not want slaves to have arms? Because they would soon be free men. Though firearms can be dangerous and destructive tools they can be used for the greater good to liberate people from oppression, to defend ones self and families, and even sustain life (not that the 2nd is about hunting).

People don't realize you can't ban evil, they only want to hurt law abiding people. Why is it if a crazy person f*cks up I and others like me have to suffer?

Moore/Shepard, among other cases and people are still trying to ban all semi-automatics.

Even with my state certification, finger prints, PERC Security Card, Clean Criminal Record, No prior drug abuse, Straight A's in the criminal justice field and no mental defects... I'm still not trustworthy?

I mean according to these bills Feinstein/Gov Quinn/Biden and others would like to pass I wouldn't be a trustworthy person. I wouldn't mind having things like a drivers license where you do classroom/live fire exercises along with back ground checks. But these politicians don't want us to be trained or educated. It isn't about gun control but control itself.


Edit: In regards to crimes committed without a fire-arm. The absence of fire-arms reduces fire-arm related crimes slightly, but violent crime does not go down because killers will use other instruments to kill. Also it would leave people defenseless against their attackers further increasing the violent crime rate.

I thought the goal here was to reduce violent crimes as a whole and not just gun related crimes?

So many take on the mantle of Anonymous and yet so few understand it's about the lulz.

You can have all the muskets you'd like.

The authors of the constitution were not clairvoyant. Pretending their position on anything should be treated as absolute is infantile.

At the end of the day, defending something on the basis of it being a constitutional allowance is nothing short of circular. You shouldn't be looking toward a document to explain why you should be permitted to do something, you should be explaining why you should be able to do what the document says you you're permitted to.

Executive Orders are not in themselves unconstitutional, but can be challenged just like an act of Congress. Statistically, EOs have a better constitutional track record than acts of Congress (as meaningless as that may be).

Restrictions on certain types of firearms is also not unconstitutional.

From the Supreme Court in their most gun-friendly decision ever:


That aside, arguing Constitutionality is about as futile as arguing whether or not Pepsi is superior to Coke. Most people will see things as constitutional if they agree with them and unconstitutional if they don't. This is why we have Supreme Court, but they're not flawless in this regard.

Slow down there hoss. Most of what is being discussed has been federal law in the past that was allowed to expire. While you may disagree with the law, Obama isn't exactly spitting in the face of legal precedent.

I love this response. That's it.

So you are implying the authors of the constitution did not foresee the internet, or telecommunication in regards to the first amendment? So with that mind set it would apply only at town hall meetings and in a public assembly.

After all you state they were not clairvoyant.

You can't say that about one amendment and expect something else from the others.

Stealing this. An idea I've never articulated, and this is done well. Cheers.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I feel like whenever people argue the 2nd amendment, they pretend the first part isn't even there. just saying >.> the intent of the amendment is made pretty clear.

Same, well said.

According to the supreme court case District of Columbia v. Heller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Also linked from DC V Heller
United States v. Miller, as standing for the principle that the Second Amendment has historically protected guns “in common use at the time,” rather than “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

AR15 as an example is one of the best selling rifles in the country, and is even sold at wal-mart. Looks like common use to me.

touche >.> freaking judicial review

well still to say though the wording of the amendment says what it says. new supreme courts can always change their interpretation of it... though they are terrified of touching on this one in most cases

edit: this was response to Sylow... I'd just add in the quote but it just derped on me

As far as I understand it, until relatively recently judicial interpretations of the second amendment have been relatively closer to the stricter gun control side. I wouldn't say they're terrified of touching the issue, it's been moving in direction of more liberal interpretation.

Then change the constitution through the amendment process.

hmmm well I suppose I haven't been watching it all close enough to fairly argue it. but to reword my meaning, the court is very very wary of how they handle gun laws. though it's much more of a third rail in congress since well... they can get voted out

Fun thing is, Judicial Review is not even expressly authorized in the Constitution.

Anyway, any EO issued by Obama on gun control will almost certainly be challenged in the courts and almost certainly face one of the most gun-friendly courts in recent history.

The problem with refusing to grant the courts judicial review is it effectively nullifies the power of the one branch of government. On the other hand, it is an awfully potent power if mishandled.

I don't particularly think he should be wasting political capital in terms of an executive order on this issue. He's going to have enough problems dealing with budget negotiations.

It's not just the poverty rates that are different. It's literally comparing two different state and municipal governments. San Francisco is also one of the richest areas of the country and also one of the most liberal. It has the highest per capita income in the state. Their Chief of Police is the highest paid in the nation.

I see Skarwinds point to a degree, particular as he is a resident of Chicago. He has firsthand experience of how gun control regulation can fail a population. Obama giving out excutive orders for for background checks etc is a blanket solution. Its quite obvious not one set of gun regulations is universal in the US. So Obama issuing out an EO is not the answer. While it may work in some cities, it will backfire in others if Chicago and San Francisco are any indication.

I had an argument earlier with someone about this subject and as I cited more supreme court cases to show that the 2nd amendment is not universal, they continued to argue a "strict Constitutionalist" interpretation of the amendment and said that supreme court cases wouldn't change their opinion because the supreme court decided Dred Scott.

Ironically, Dred Scott was a very strict Constitutionalist decision. Which brings me to this:

Constitutionalist (n.): A person who has read part the Constitution at least once and who is exceptionally good at looking the other way when the Constitution is unsupportive or dismissive of their established mindset and/or goals, but gets exceptionally loud about having read it whenever they think they can interpret it to support their position.

I agree there are more pressing issues at hand. I wish both sides of congress can come together on something that would actually benefit the American people.

That was hardly my anarchist manifesto. My grievance is with citing anything that's presently sitting pretty on founding documents as some sort of a governmental end-all. That isn't to say that one should cease adherence to any law that be, but simply that you cannot say, "my reason for <this> is that it's in the <insert governing document here>" without arguing in circles.

Regardless, I won't be responding further, so save your energy. Discussing politics on XIAH is maddening.