Isn't that how the Federal government is designed to work?

[TheHammer]

Obama claims that the majority of Americans and even America's gun owners wants his new alleged "common sense" gun laws by executive order. If that is true, then why doesn't Obama just get the Congress to pass it as legislation he could sign into law? If the Congress won't do it why can't he, (Obama), just use his bully pulpit to lobby the populace to vote the members of Congress out and replace them with folks that will pass legislated gun laws he could sign?

Isn't that how the Federal government is designed to work?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Nope, only the POTUS has a "mandate" because only the POTUS was elected nationwide.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Obama claims that the majority of Americans and even America's gun owners wants his new alleged "common sense" gun laws by executive order. If that is true,

It is true.
"A new CNN/ORC poll finds 67% say they favor the changes Obama announced, and 32% oppose them. Support for the executive actions, designed to expand background checks to cover more gun purchases made online or at gun shows and to make it easier for the FBI to complete background checks efficiently, comes across party lines, with majorities of Democrats (85%), independents (65%) and Republicans (51%) in favor of them. Majorities back the measures across most demographic groups, in fact, including 57% of gun owners and 56% of rural residents.. Those who strongly favor the changes outnumber those who are strongly opposed by about a 2-to-1 margin: 43% say they are strongly in favor, 21% strongly opposed... A Quinnipiac University poll in December found that 89% of Americans favored "a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online." Americans supportive but skeptical on Obama's gun action - CNNPolitics.com

then why doesn't Obama just get the Congress to pass it as legislation he could sign into law?

Because the majority party in congress does not want to pass a law like this..

If the Congress won't do it why can't he, (Obama), just use his bully pulpit to lobby the populace to vote the members of Congress out and replace them with folks that will pass legislated gun laws he could sign?

Because its not that simple...

 

[Visbek]

Obama claims that the majority of Americans and even America's gun owners wants his new alleged "common sense" gun laws by executive order. If that is true, then why doesn't Obama just get the Congress to pass it as legislation he could sign into law?

While there is broad support for civilian access to firearms, there is also broad support for regulation like universal background checks.

Obama has repeatedly pushed Congress to pass laws for various gun control laws.

Congress refuses to pass them, because the NRA has legislators by the... bullets.

They are a small, single-issue group with a dedicated and activist membership, lots of money, and expert lobbyists. Since we are in an era where small numbers of voters can mean success or failure, NRA voters have a disproportionate influence.

Fun historical note! This is also how Prohibition got passed. The Anti-Saloon League developed the tactic of focusing strictly on banning alcohol, endorsing anti-alcohol candidates, and attacking pro-alcohol candidates. This allowed them to ignore party and partisan divisions, and they often tipped the scales in close elections. They also gamed the system in other ways, such as pushing for an amendment before major changes in congressional representation kicked in, and they even unconstitutionally pushed to skip the 1920 reapportionment for the House of Representatives.

IIRC: After Sandy Hook, the NRA was briefly willing to play ball, and were somewhat involved in negotiations with various legislators on a UCB bill. However, a few extremists took the attitude that allowing any law with any kind of gun control was utterly unacceptable, and pushed the NRA to the most extreme position possible. As a result, they torched a well-known loyal NRA supporter (Patrick Toomey, who had an "A" rating from the NRA) for daring to work as an intermediary between the NRA and Congress on the bill.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/magazine/inside-the-power-of-the-nra.html

We should note this is the kind of thing that the Framers warned about, and did not want, in the Federalist Papers. The inability to pass something as popular as universal background checks is a failure of our electoral system. Obama's executive action is him basically throwing up his hands, saying "I'm doing everything I can do," and putting pressure on Congress to listen to their constituents.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Statistically, well over 90% of the guns purchased in the United States today are done following a background check of some kind.

Statistically, every single mass murder committed with guns in the United States are committed with guns that were legally purchased following a background check - I know of no mass murder where the guns used were either illegal or acquired illegally.

Every time a mass murder is committed with guns in the United States since President Obama was elected, the President has made some comment about needing to tighten access to guns and institute some additional form of gun control knowing full well that what he is promoting will have zero effect on curtailing mass murders committed with guns in the United States.

Statistically, the vast majority of gun deaths in the United States today are either suicides using legally acquired guns or crime committed by criminals who would not pass a background check. Thus, the fast majority of deaths in the United States would not be affected or lessened one bit by the executive actions the President proposes.

The President has proven time and again that he has no use for the democratic process and has zero ability when it comes to working with opposing parties or views to mold a consensus for legislative action. The American people know full well that much of the time the President is misleading the public or blatantly lying as soon as he opens his mouth. The President has made his legacy and he can't get away from it.

Only the ignorant and ill informed are willing to follow a man who has no ability to lead.

 

[Greenbeard]

Isn't that how the Federal government is designed to work?

Depends on what you mean here. The "bully pulpit" concept comes from a much more populist era than that of the original Framers. And the modern conception of the Presidency came about even later than that.

So if this is one of those "let's pretend it's 1787" exercises, neither one of these concepts makes much sense. But then it's not 1787.

 

[Thrilla]

While there is broad support for civilian access to firearms, there is also broad support for regulation like universal background checks.

Obama has repeatedly pushed Congress to pass laws for various gun control laws.

Congress refuses to pass them, because the NRA has legislators by the... bullets.

They are a small, single-issue group with a dedicated and activist membership, lots of money, and expert lobbyists. Since we are in an era where small numbers of voters can mean success or failure, NRA voters have a disproportionate influence.

Fun historical note! This is also how Prohibition got passed. The Anti-Saloon League developed the tactic of focusing strictly on banning alcohol, endorsing anti-alcohol candidates, and attacking pro-alcohol candidates. This allowed them to ignore party and partisan divisions, and they often tipped the scales in close elections. They also gamed the system in other ways, such as pushing for an amendment before major changes in congressional representation kicked in, and they even unconstitutionally pushed to skip the 1920 reapportionment for the House of Representatives.

IIRC: After Sandy Hook, the NRA was briefly willing to play ball, and were somewhat involved in negotiations with various legislators on a UCB bill. However, a few extremists took the attitude that allowing any law with any kind of gun control was utterly unacceptable, and pushed the NRA to the most extreme position possible. As a result, they torched a well-known loyal NRA supporter (Patrick Toomey, who had an "A" rating from the NRA) for daring to work as an intermediary between the NRA and Congress on the bill.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/magazine/inside-the-power-of-the-nra.html

We should note this is the kind of thing that the Framers warned about, and did not want, in the Federalist Papers. The inability to pass something as popular as universal background checks is a failure of our electoral system. Obama's executive action is him basically throwing up his hands, saying "I'm doing everything I can do," and putting pressure on Congress to listen to their constituents.

ya know, it's kinda of stupid to discount the notion that many folks in congress will vote against gun control measures because they actually support the rights enumerated in the 2nd amendment..... but you're free to pretend it's all about the NRA.

I don't care what reason President have.. good , bad, or indifferent...purposefully circumventing Congress to create law is not a good thing at all, especially when Congress has the sole power to legislate, as per the Constitution.

 

[Thrilla]

Obama claims that the majority of Americans and even America's gun owners wants his new alleged "common sense" gun laws by executive order. If that is true,

the popularity of the polcies does not matter.. even a little bit

then why doesn't Obama just get the Congress to pass it as legislation he could sign into law?

he's tried.. and they have decided not to..... and then he throws fits and does what he wants anyways.

If the Congress won't do it why can't he, (Obama), just use his bully pulpit to lobby the populace to vote the members of Congress out and replace them with folks that will pass legislated gun laws he could sign?

that would be the correct answer, and the only thing he should be doing... he doesn't have the authority to do anything else, other than faithfully execute the law.

Isn't that how the Federal government is designed to work?

of course not... the federal government is designed to allow the President to make laws and ignore Congress as he deems fit./ sarcasm

 

[TheHammer]

It is true.
"A new CNN/ORC poll finds 67% say they favor the changes Obama announced, and 32% oppose them.

Since we’re discussing the entire nation here relative to this issue, can you report factually what the size of the CNN/ORC poll taken was and how it was worded?

Support for the executive actions, designed to expand background checks to cover more gun purchases made online or at gun shows and to make it easier for the FBI to complete background checks efficiently, comes across party lines, with majorities of Democrats (85%), independents (65%) and Republicans (51%) in favor of them. Majorities back the measures across most demographic groups, in fact, including 57% of gun owners and 56% of rural residents.. Those who strongly favor the changes outnumber those who are strongly opposed by about a 2-to-1 margin: 43% say they are strongly in favor, 21% strongly opposed... A Quinnipiac University poll in December found that 89% of Americans favored "a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online." Americans supportive but skeptical on Obama's gun action - CNNPolitics.com

If that’s true, how come Congress isn’t being swamped with phone calls and letters from the population demanding that they pass legislation similar to Obama’s executive order?

Because the majority party in congress does not want to pass a law like this..

Then why do the voters keep voting the majority party in instead of out and why isn’t Obama using the bully pulpit to assemble the voting population that agrees with him about his gun laws and urging them to swamp the majority party with phone calls and letters and why aren’t the voters voting the majority party out and why didn’t Obama’s similar gun laws pass the Congress when the Democrats had the majority?

Because its not that simple...

Isn’t it how the federal government was designed by the founders? Just because it’s not simple, is that a license for Obama to violate the Constitution with an unconstitutional executive order?

Does Obama think he’s the President or America’s King?

 

[TheHammer]

While there is broad support for civilian access to firearms, there is also broad support for regulation like universal background checks.

Obama has repeatedly pushed Congress to pass laws for various gun control laws.

Congress refuses to pass them, because the NRA has legislators by the... bullets.

They are a small, single-issue group with a dedicated and activist membership, lots of money, and expert lobbyists. Since we are in an era where small numbers of voters can mean success or failure, NRA voters have a disproportionate influence.

If the NRA has that much power, How did an anti-gun nut like Obama get elected in the first place? How come so many anti-gun nut Democrats are elected to Congress and keep getting elected if the NRA is as powerful as you say? Does the NRA have as much money a Michael Bloonburg the X-New York Mayor anti-gun nut and multi billionaire and his anti-gun operations and all of the other anti-gun operations?

The inability to pass something as popular as universal background checks is a failure of our electoral system. Obama's executive action is him basically throwing up his hands, saying "I'm doing everything I can do," and putting pressure on Congress to listen to their constituents.

Does Obama know that his Justice Department has prosecuted fewer gun crimes than the Bush administration prosecuted? Does Obama know that gun crime in America has been down and going down in America for more than a decade? Does Obama know that criminals and terrorist don’t bother obeying gun laws? Does Obama know that most gun crime is committed by inner city gang bangers fighting over drug turf created by the federal government’s unconstitutional idiot Drug War?

Can you explain how Obama’s unconstitutional executive order will prevent one gun crime?

 

[ttwtt78640]

While there is broad support for civilian access to firearms, there is also broad support for regulation like universal background checks.

Obama has repeatedly pushed Congress to pass laws for various gun control laws.

Congress refuses to pass them, because the NRA has legislators by the... bullets.

They are a small, single-issue group with a dedicated and activist membership, lots of money, and expert lobbyists. Since we are in an era where small numbers of voters can mean success or failure, NRA voters have a disproportionate influence.

Fun historical note! This is also how Prohibition got passed. The Anti-Saloon League developed the tactic of focusing strictly on banning alcohol, endorsing anti-alcohol candidates, and attacking pro-alcohol candidates. This allowed them to ignore party and partisan divisions, and they often tipped the scales in close elections. They also gamed the system in other ways, such as pushing for an amendment before major changes in congressional representation kicked in, and they even unconstitutionally pushed to skip the 1920 reapportionment for the House of Representatives.

IIRC: After Sandy Hook, the NRA was briefly willing to play ball, and were somewhat involved in negotiations with various legislators on a UCB bill. However, a few extremists took the attitude that allowing any law with any kind of gun control was utterly unacceptable, and pushed the NRA to the most extreme position possible. As a result, they torched a well-known loyal NRA supporter (Patrick Toomey, who had an "A" rating from the NRA) for daring to work as an intermediary between the NRA and Congress on the bill.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/magazine/inside-the-power-of-the-nra.html

We should note this is the kind of thing that the Framers warned about, and did not want, in the Federalist Papers. The inability to pass something as popular as universal background checks is a failure of our electoral system. Obama's executive action is him basically throwing up his hands, saying "I'm doing everything I can do," and putting pressure on Congress to listen to their constituents.

There is no need to do BGCs for each and every purchase of a gun/ammo. The things that can change one's 2A rights status are fairly limited and (should) require due process of law. By indicating the 2A status of "GUN OK", if they pass an NICS records check, on each (adult's) state issued, photo ID it would simplify matters considerably. If that "GUN OK" status should change then remove and destroy that ID upon sentencing and update the NICS database. This would allow anyone, even the clerk at the beer, bait and ammo store, to know if a prohibtied gun/ammo sale would result by simply looking at the ID, much like now happens when selling alcohol, prescription medication or tobacco.

 

[Bobu]

Can you explain how Obama’s unconstitutional executive order will prevent one gun crime?[/QUOTE]


It might, it might not. But that so very slight chance that it may save one life in the US is better than not saving that life. Don't you agree?
Even if the executive action doesn't change anything at least someone in power is trying. I haven't heard anyone in congress push for gun control, even the slightest change like what Obama has introduced.

Obama's new law (imo) probably won't change much, as you stated, but I think we can all agree that something has to be changed on this topic and sitting around complaining about how s*** Obama isn't going to change much, at least he is trying to bring about change to the heavy gun violence in the US, even if it isn't effective, its better than what anyone else has done in power (NOTHING).

P.S. Obama's executive order was constitutional, I'm 99.99% sure he and his team checked that introduction of these new laws were legal. So don't call it unconstitutional as if you were trying to get a cheap shot at him.

 

[Thrilla]

It might, it might not. But that so very slight chance that it may save one life in the US is better than not saving that life. Don't you agree?
Even if the executive action doesn't change anything at least someone in power is trying. I haven't heard anyone in congress push for gun control, even the slightest change like what Obama has introduced.

Obama's new law (imo) probably won't change much, as you stated, but I think we can all agree that something has to be changed on this topic and sitting around complaining about how s*** Obama isn't going to change much, at least he is trying to bring about change to the heavy gun violence in the US, even if it isn't effective, its better than what anyone else has done in power (NOTHING).

P.S. Obama's executive order was constitutional, I'm 99.99% sure he and his team checked that introduction of these new laws were legal. So don't call it unconstitutional as if you were trying to get a cheap shot at him.

" heavy gun violence"?... you're really not aware that gun violence rates are near historic lows are you?... you should be aware or such things when basing policy upon those very stats, and it's sad you aren't aware.


where in the Constitution does it confer power on the President to create news laws(new crimes)?... be specific.

I'll be nice and educate you, this time.... nowhere in the Constitution does it confer a power on the President to make law... in fact, all legislative power is conferred upon Congress..... additionally, there's no exemption to this power for Presidents who don't like what Congress does or does not do.

if you doubt me, simply refer to Article 1 section 1.
"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."... it's didn't say "some".. or " most".. it said "ALL"

in your post, you typed the words " Obama's law"... denoting your agreement that Obama has , indeed, created law on this matter ( it's a fact, he did).... and according to the Constitution, Obama does not have the power to do this.
so what do we call something that is directly opposed to what the Constitution states?... yes.. yes.. unconstitutional... that's the word you're looking for.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

It might, it might not.

So, is that how liberals pass laws? Eh...it might work...might not...who cares really?

Even if the executive action doesn't change anything at least someone in power is trying.

Great. So he gets a "participation award" like children in kindergarten now?

Obama's new law (imo) probably won't change much, as you stated, but I think we can all agree that something has to be changed on this topic and sitting around complaining about how s*** Obama isn't going to change much, at least he is trying to bring about change to the heavy gun violence in the US, even if it isn't effective, its better than what anyone else has done in power (NOTHING).

No. His gun laws completely ignore the source of gun violence. The pieces of crap that roam city streets. The thugs that shoot each other with illegally-obtained weapons. It's a law directly targeting legally-owned guns. Most purchased by law-abiding citizens. Obama puts undo burden on the lawful citizens, while turning a blind eye towards the trash that use illegal guns. Hows about Lord Obama doing something about the gang violence?

 

[Bobu]

"heavy gun violence"?... you're really not aware that gun violence rates are near historic lows are you?... you should be aware or such things when basing policy upon those very stats, and it's sad you aren't aware."

So we should just sit down and not try to lower it more? Shouldn't we always push for more? Humans didn't stop innovating once they have innovated, we have always pushed for more and theres no reason to stop.


"where in the Constitution does it confer power on the President to create news laws(new crimes)?... be specific.

I'll be nice and educate you, this time.... nowhere in the Constitution does it confer a power on the President to make law... in fact, all legislative power is conferred upon Congress..... additionally, there's no exemption to this power for Presidents who don't like what Congress does or does not do.

if you doubt me, simply refer to Article 1 section 1.
"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."... it's didn't say "some".. or " most".. it said "ALL"

in your post, you typed the words " Obama's law"... denoting your agreement that Obama has , indeed, created law on this matter ( it's a fact, he did).... and according to the Constitution, Obama does not have the power to do this.
so what do we call something that is directly opposed to what the Constitution states?... yes.. yes.. unconstitutional... that's the word you're looking for."

I'm no expert on the constitution so I respect what you have posted and would agree if it weren't for the fact that people in the Obama administration and the Attorney General (who im guessing is more of an expert on what Obama can do than you) have said that it is within Obama's power to do what he has done. It takes more than the anti-Obama media anti-Obama people to convince me that what Obama has done is illegal.

 

[Bobu]

"So, is that how liberals pass laws? Eh...it might work...might not...who cares really?"

If i could see the future i would give you a more exact answer but sadly that's not the case. Idk why you put "who cares really?", bizarre implication.

"Great. So he gets a "participation award" like children in kindergarten now?"

Yes.

"No. His gun laws completely ignore the source of gun violence. The pieces of crap that roam city streets. The thugs that shoot each other with illegally-obtained weapons. It's a law directly targeting legally-owned guns. Most purchased by law-abiding citizens. Obama puts undo burden on the lawful citizens, while turning a blind eye towards the trash that use illegal guns. Hows about Lord Obama doing something about the gang violence?"

"the actions would expand mandatory background checks for some private sales. The administration would also provide more funding for mental health treatment, FBI staff and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives agents."

Obama and gun control: White House outlines moves - CNNPolitics.com

Unless you are a criminal these new gun control laws just make it harder for you to buy guns legally, and yes I understand that most criminals get their guns illegally. But there is no good reason to why it should be easy to obtain such a dangerous weapon and as a right, it should no excruciatingly hard to get a gun. That is why the new laws are modest and will have little effect on both criminals and the average citizen, but will have an effect on those will mental illnesses, which I view as a positive aspect as in a few shootings the shooter has had a mental illness such as in the Sandy Hook case.

 

[TheHammer]

Can you explain how Obama’s unconstitutional executive order will prevent one gun crime?

It might, it might not. But that so very slight chance that it may save one life in the US is better than not saving that life. Don't you agree?

No! Violating the Constitution with an unconstitutional executive order and making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to exercise their right of self defense isn’t excused by a “might” law about anything. At least prove/show that Obama’s unconstitutional executive order saved a life, then go to the Congress and pass a law that Obama can sign. That’s how the founders designed the nation.

Even if the executive action doesn't change anything at least someone in power is trying. I haven't heard anyone in congress push for gun control, even the slightest change like what Obama has introduced.

There are over 22,000 gun laws that Obama’s Justice Department isn’t even prosecuting to the fullest.

Violating the Constitution isn’t “trying” to do anything except trashing the Constitution.

Obama's new law (imo) probably won't change much, as you stated, but I think we can all agree that something has to be changed on this topic and sitting around complaining about how s*** Obama isn't going to change much, at least he is trying to bring about change to the heavy gun violence in the US, even if it isn't effective, its better than what anyone else has done in power (NOTHING).

“Heavy gun violance?” Don’t you know that gun violance has been going down for a decade?

The majority of America’s gun crime is in the inner cities among the gang-bangers warring over drug turf instituted by America’s federal government’s insane violent Drug War. Why doesn’t Obama do something about the insane, violent Drug War if he’s really concerned about gun crime? Oh! That’s right, Obama the left and the right in Congress don’t know, or won’t admit that America’s gun crime rates are directly related to their stupid, reckless, arrogant, violent unconstitutional Drug War, huh?

P.S. Obama's executive order was constitutional, I'm 99.99% sure he and his team checked that introduction of these new laws were legal. So don't call it unconstitutional as if you were trying to get a cheap shot at him.

The President has no constitutional authority to “make law” His only authority relative to the rule of law is to enforce existing law and to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, not violate it.

 

[Deuce]

Obama claims that the majority of Americans and even America's gun owners wants his new alleged "common sense" gun laws by executive order. If that is true, then why doesn't Obama just get the Congress to pass it as legislation he could sign into law? If the Congress won't do it why can't he, (Obama), just use his bully pulpit to lobby the populace to vote the members of Congress out and replace them with folks that will pass legislated gun laws he could sign?

Isn't that how the Federal government is designed to work?

Libertarians are just adorable.