• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Administration Announces Executive Actions On Guns

T

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,312
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist

Read more @: Obama Administration Announces Executive Actions On Guns

Well there you have it. Obama issuing the executive order. It for sure will be challenged legally and we will likely see a back and forth legal battle in the near future over this. But in my opinion this seems like common sense measure that need to be taken.
 
I'm not a fan of EO in lieu of legislation.

But after watching post-Sandy Hook, where the citizens supported mandatory back-ground checks to the tune of 90 percent, only to see the will of the people usurped by the power and money of NRA lobbying, I can live with some reasonable EO.

There's no reason to have background check loopholes, that I can see.

Now as to the rest, I have no idea of what is planned or if it will help.

But I'm a strong Castle Doctrine guy, and don't want the right infringed.

I'm a little less sanguine about carrying, but that cat seems out of the bag.

I abhor 'stand your ground'.
 
To add:

CNN polling is showing 89% of all Americans support background checks, while 84% of gun owners support background checks.
 
It doesn't go near far enough. Background checks would not have caught all those mass murderers who had no records and all the accidental deaths caused by guns owned by law-abiding citizens. Chalk this up as a waste of ink. What is needed is the will of Americans to reject the gun culture in favor of living in civilized peaceful communities.
 

I don't think it's the law abiding gun culture that's the source of disturbances in civilized peaceful communities.

You could take it all the way to banning all firearms and destroying the 2nd amendment, and you'd still have disturbances in civilized peaceful communities.
 




'Stand your ground' is a misnomer much beloved of the mostly-anti-gun press. The words themselves are not, TMK, found in any state's actual laws.


What "SYG" really does is remove the "duty to retreat" before employing lethal force that many states required. Analysis revealed that including a "duty to retreat if safe to do so" was excessively burdensome to the private citizen trying to protect himself from criminal attack, as it added a layer of decision making that could easily result in the person freezing, or trying to flee when it was not safe to do so (ie in the open exposed to gunfire), or be abused in court to put a man in prison over an otherwise clean shoot if it could be argued that he didn't try to retreat vigorously enough.


It should never have been called that.
 
Yes, I understand.

But even by the definition and scenario you describe, I still respect life enough that I would never take one if there is any other alternative, nor would I take one over property.

So I'm a strong proponent of 'duty to retreat'.

And I've had to pull my piece out in defense of a neighbor during an early morning attack at her front door, but my mind was already conditioned that I would lead the perp away from her property rather than drop him (for a myriad of reasons). And I did (scare him off), and I never regretted it, the cops thanked me, and we all went back to bed with no one hurt, no paperwork, and no liability.

I also would add that if a gun owner cannot make clear & logical decisions in an expedient manner, they might not be suitable to be trusted with deadly force, at least in the public.

It's a huge decision to take a life, and I think it's best not done unnecessarily, and that's for everyone's sake.
 
Executive Orders should only apply to functions of government agencies under the direction of the Executive Branch.

They should NEVER have been, nor continue to be, used as pseudo-legislation.
 
Heinrich said:
What is needed is the will of Americans to reject the gun culture in favor of living in civilized peaceful communities.
Click to expand...

Like Gun Free Zones? We all know how those work.

Stop living in the world of rainbows and unicorns and wake up to reality.
 
Emperor Palpatine makes another illegal decree. Cue the Star Wars Imperial March music!
 
Captain Adverse said:
Executive Orders should only apply to functions of government agencies under the direction of the Executive Branch.

They should NEVER have been, nor continue to be, used as pseudo-legislation.
Click to expand...
Well, background checks are performed by BATF, which is part of DOJ, which reports to the USAG, who is appointed by and reports the President and is part of his cabinet.

So that does seem a legit executive chain to me, at least for background checks (which is what I believe the EO centers upon).

Unless you see an error in my logic?
 



You are a compassionate man and this speaks well of you.


However I do not think it is necessary to enumerate a legal demand to retreat in order to encourage armed citizens NOT to shoot unless truly necessary... available studies seem to indicate that is already the most common outcome of armed citizen vs criminal confrontations... the thug retreats and the citizen refrains from shooting.


Most decent people are reluctant to kill unless truly necessary.



The time I spent in law enforcement left its mark on me, one of which is that I have very limited compassion for career criminals, and even less for those willing to use violence to get other people's money and stuff. I've known too many of them you see. By and large they are not simply "good folks who fell on hard times", or "a good kid who got in with the wrong crowd," nor even "desperately poor people forced by circumstance to do things they wouldn't otherwise do."

Not so much, really. Mostly by the time they reach Convicted Felon status, they are hardened lawbreakers with ****-all compassion for anyone else, many of whom actually enjoy their victim's suffering and fantasize about doing worse. By the time someone goes out with a gun and "get money!" on the brain, with a willingness to threaten innocents with death to satisfy their own selfish desires, they have typically crossed a line somewhere in their soul. They're no longer a juvenile prankster or desperate little poor boy.... no. Their minds no longer work like an ordinary person's. To them, they are OWED whatever isn't nailed down and it isn't nailed down if they can pry it loose, and if you get in their way anything that happens to you is your fault and they'll have a good laugh about whatever suffering they inflicted on you... because in their mind you DESERVED it, because you dared succeed in the world of the lawful while they probably never really tried.

At that point, there is rarely any hope of redeeming them. They just get worse and worse. They get arrested several times before they get convicted, then they get probation, time served and probation, 90 days and probation, wrist-slaps until they start to think they can get away with anything. Nobody can stop them.


That's usually around the time they end up murdering someone.


Personally I'd prefer some armed citizen End them before they get to that point. I think as a society we'd be much better off if armed robbers and such were shot down in DROVES every day. Pretty soon the survivors would seek a safer occupation.

Armed robbery is no joke. Innocent people often die, even if the perp didn't necessarily set out to kill when he left the house that night.


It's a line for me. People say I'm bloodthirsty when I cheer because an armed robber or would-be rapist gets shot dead... I'm not. I'm celebrating the removal from our society of someone who'd given up their humanity already, and who will certainly harm no one else again, a thing to be happy about IMO. Would I prefer they'd seen the error of their ways, turned over a new leaf and not gone down that path? Of course I would... I just know how rarely that happens, and if they are in the commission of an act of armed robbery or attempted rape or similar, if they are shot dead they are simply reaping what they have sown.


Too many people I have loved have come to harm at the hands of such persons. Needlessly, senselessly, and avoidably.
 

My children are in my house. Whether or not my state has Duty for me to Retreat and let you potentially threaten them is completely irrelevant to my decision making, and a law that demand that I do so is as much a violation of my rights to self-defense as a confiscation. If you force your way into my house or put me in a situation where I reasonably fear for my life or theirs, I am shooting you. The question is whether or not I give you medical care while you bleed out, or if I just call the police (after checking - thoroughly - to see if you have any buddies) and figure they'll handle it whenever they bother to show up.

If you would rather run away or try to lock yourself in a bathroom :shrug: do so. But don't expect me to follow suit.
 

Yeah at least he is doing something that a majority of Americans support that our coward NRA **** sucking congress critters won't touch with a ten foot pole.

It no longer matters what is the right thing to do. It depends on if it will jeopardize their chances of reelection.
 
Last edited:
I don't have a problem at all with background checks....

...who's gonna do the background checks on the gangstas that get their guns illegally?

Stop putting the squeeze on law-abiding people with stricter and stricter gun laws, while the source of the REAL gun problem continues to be immune from them.
 

Well, he is planning on expanding the law to include INTRAstate sales:

One option under consideration is expanding background check rules for people purchasing guns from dealers who sell a large quantity of firearms, including sales at gun shows and online, administration officials have said.
Click to expand...
President Obama Claims Executive Action on Gun Control Within His Authority - ABC News

Obama moves to require background checks for more gun sales

I'd say that would be acting outside his purview, ya think?
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Executive Orders should only apply to functions of government agencies under the direction of the Executive Branch.

They should NEVER have been, nor continue to be, used as pseudo-legislation.
Click to expand...
Then legislators should write laws that do not delegate decisions to the Executive Branch. 'Cause that is pretty much what is happening here.

If you go down the list of proposed changes, not a single one creates a new law. It's pretty much all strengthening systems already approved by Congress.
 

Yes, it is a serious choice to make, and if someone were caught on my property I would give them the option to lay down and wait for the Sheriff. But if I catch one in my home I would drop em like a bag of rocks without a second thought or one bit of remorse., they made their choice, I would not have one to make. Yes, I have also been in bad situations and have also been in real combat, more than I care to repeat, but the fact of the matter is life is about choices and those that would go after others are taking a chance with their own lives. You have no idea what an intruder is planning to do, rob, rape, murder are all on the list and those protecting themselves have no obligation to do nothing and wait while they inform you of which offence they are there for.
 

We shall see what it does once in place. Nice things about EO's the next President can kill them 5 minutes after being sworn in.
 

Dude, you don't have a clue. You are purely political. How many guns do you own? How often do you shoot them? Have you ever even held a gun in you hand? How many gun shows have you attended? The US government doesn't know what common sense is. Did you know there never was nor has ever been a gun show loophole. Background checks will stop nothing.
 
for a guy who taught the constitution, he has sure found every way possible to sneak past it in order to get his laws passed. and he has gotten away with it. without a peek from his liberal supporters.

but one day, and the rational of us pray it will be one day soon, a republican will be President. And when he uses the same tactics, and the liberals pour into the streets in protest, and pour gasoline on themselves in front of the White House, I just hope they remember how they were all SILENT when it was Obama who set the standard for sneaking past the constitution at every turn.
 

The point though is... will it actually accomplish anything... and statistically its likely to accomplish either little or nothing.
 
Thank you for your post & kind words.

And yes, the reason I wouldn't take a life unless absolutely necessary is: Firstly I've got to live with that, and I'm not sure how I'd react afterwards, so I don't want to find out unless absolutely required.

But also, I really don't know the guy I'm taking out. Just like I didn't know the guy that night (but later found out he was an associate of the women's son and had a beef with him), but my fear would be if the guy I killed had some situation that ameliorated his actions that night.

Maybe he was a young kid that got drunk & stupid one night, maybe the situation wasn't exactly what it appeared. I dunno. So I figure I'm playing it safe, unless of course my life or those I love are on the line with no other recourse. Then of course I'll do whatever I gotta' do. But until then, I'll take a pass if possible.

Interesting your comments about preferring a citizen taking out a career bad guy. When I was in my early 20's we had a string of car battery thefts that went on for a month or two. They'd take out a whole city block on one side in one night! Maybe 10-15 or more cars! And then doing the old pro m.o. - they'd come back a month later to get the new batteries!

One night they hit my block, and in the morning I'm making out the police report. My brother and I had a hunch who these guys were, and we tossed it out to the coppers who also thought it was the same clowns. And they hated these guys. The problem? They were juvies! 15 & 16 years old. They couldn't touch them. So the cops begged us to take care of them. They were pissed because as juvies they would bust them, only for them to be quickly released. Over & over. And the coppers were frustrated.

So basically they told us if we caught them on the block at night we should beat the crap out of them, really work them over, and when they arrived they would charge them and see to it that we were in the clear. The exact words were: "Put 'em in the hospital, just don't kill them". They also said we need to show something for evidence like a screwdriver from their back pocket or a broken side window on a car, and they'd take it from there. And they seemed sincere in this request.

Anyway, was a long time ago in a crazy big-city hardscrabble neighborhood, but I do miss it, and I do miss those coppers that new how to get stuff done, or let things go, based upon their better judgement and the situation at hand. But taking this attitude too far is how we got Commander Birge, if you remember from the Wiki link I gave you earlier last year.
 
Ah, I was talking of CCW situations there in the general public.

Otherwise, I'm a very strong supporter of the Castle Doctrine.

But I'd still prefer to get the guy to run and not have to shoot him, if possible.

But hey, different strokes for different folks.

I'll do what's required if the time ever comes (hopefully it doesn't).

BTW - Does duty to retreat apply inside one's home? I didn't think it did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…