• 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

Heinrich said:
I would be petrified were I to have a trigger-happy gun lover as a neighbor.

.
Click to expand...




Your hoplophobia is not our problem.


Virtually all my neighbors are armed. Most have some sort of assault rifle as well as the usual pistol, deer rifle, shotgun and 22 plinkers.


On any given Saturday, the volume of small arms fire around here would probably give you a nervous breakdown.


Yet, no one local to the neighborhood has been unlawfully shot by another local in decades. We HAVE potted a couple thieves and burglars though... which is all to the good. :)


You do things your way, we'll do things our way thanks.
 
Heinrich said:
The European Union with a bigger population than the USA has one twelfth the number of firearm deaths than the USA. This is because we regulate the ownership of firearms.
Click to expand...


I would be petrified were I to have a trigger-happy gun lover as a neighbor.


They arsenal was legally owned by the killer's batty mommy.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps you can explain exactly where those people who shot up Charlie Hebdo and those other places recently in France acquired their weapons. They sure didn't get them here.
 
Heinrich said:
I would be petrified were I to have a trigger-happy gun lover as a neighbor.
Click to expand...

Would you be ok if they just loved guns and were not trigger happy? Or do you consider them to go hand in hand?

I own over 50 guns spanning from 1600's muskets to modern firearms. I have a carry permit but rarely ever do. Never pointed a gun at human. Would you be petrified to be my neighbor?
 
Nnsecu said:
Would you be ok if they just loved guns and were not trigger happy? Or do you consider them to go hand in hand?

I own over 50 guns spanning from 1600's muskets to modern firearms. I have a carry permit but rarely ever do. Never pointed a gun at human. Would you be petrified to be my neighbor?
Click to expand...



Come on over for barbecue Sunday afternoon and bring some of your more interesting firearms, we'll compare collections and maybe blast some paper targets while the ribs are cookin'. :)
 
Crusdr57 said:
Great post Nnsecu. The "Fast-and Furious" Program was a complete failure, and was destined to fail before it began. What a bone-head idea, as there was NO way for the US Officials to track the weapons.

It must've been the 'brainchild' of Eric Holder and Obama. (This IS still a big issue for me, also due to the complete lack of accountability for those involved/responsible.)
Click to expand...

It was designed to do just what Obama's doing now; create more gun control in the US.
 
One of the problems with Obama's proposals, if I understand him correctly, is that he's giving the Federal Government more control over gun purchaser background checks than the Congress allowed by Law.
That's a possible Legal problem.
There's also a practical problem in that it presents a very tempting opportunity for abuse of innocent citizens by a Federal Government entity (likely the FBI) like there has been by, oh, let's say, the IRS for example.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
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.
Click to expand...

Changing the law through executive orders never amounts to common sense. The executive branch is not the legislative branch. Obama wants to be a King....not a president.
 
Goshin said:
Sorry, but Barry ain't invited. :D





Unless he wants to hold the targets... :lamo
Click to expand...

Wouldn't you just love to see a video of Obama emptying the mag of a Colt 1911? What a hoot that'd be.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agreed with the President's plan and this I think is the first time in his administration that I did. Except for when he said Snowden wasn't a patriot, but that had nothing to do with making new laws. This is a plan that most Republicans should be for and I wonder what if anything Republicans would find wrong with it. If you are a member of my party or a conservative what exactly inside the idea do you have a problem with? Don't just have a problem with the E.O because it's a E.O. As Republicans you have to come up with a more valid argument to be against it, and I for one cannot!
 
jet57 said:
When I bought my three guns, I didn't have to pay for the background checks.
Click to expand...

You must have known the dealer. Every store I've bought a gun from cost me money on the check. And you really think the Feds are gonna dole out freebies now?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
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.
Click to expand...

There shouldn't be any restrictions on gun ownership for ordinary people.

Any ban on individuals not convicted of a crime and not receiving any special favors from the government owning weapons is an affront to liberty.
 
No kidding, Biden is one of the all time great cryers, especially when he is calling for men to hand over our balls to women.

(note mods: Bidden has spent most of his political life working to change the balance between the sexes, this point deserves to see sunshine, to not be hidden in the darkness under the lying label "hate speech")
 
stonewall50 said:
Let me ask you: how many more people would be saved if he got rid of the 4th amendment? Imagine how many people would be saved if we enacted nationwide stop and frisk?

Just because it seems like a good idea, doesn't mean it is. It also doesn't mean it is the best idea. The fact is we are still in a decline and this is being treated like an emergency situation. I've heard plenty of suggestions that would help, and haven't even remotely been explored.
Click to expand...

Don't you just love hyperbole? What a winning argument. You have completely missed the point.
 
Lutherf said:
That's an interesting take on things. What makes defining "who is engaged in the business" of selling guns any different than defining the same for someone selling a car or any other personal possession?
Click to expand...

Same concept.... The IRS and many other regulatory agencies have to define who is in the business and who are making casual sales. That was all that was done her, to add definition to those that work gun shows that are active in the business of selling guns vis-a-vis casual sales.
 
matchlight said:
I have interacted with police quite a bit, and I have yet to meet an officer who went on his shift looking for trouble. Unless a person has X-ray vision like Superman, he has no way to know what if that bulge in someone's clothing is just a cell phone, or a deadly weapon. And I do not see police in greater L.A. routinely patting down people at random, as if they had nothing better to do. The procedure I've seen most often is for the cop to walk up slowly with a smile and say hello, ask how you're doing, etc.--and if you respond normally, to wish you a good day and walk on. If the person gets agitated, belligerent, walks away, etc., that will probably cause them to wonder why, and take a closer look.

Any city manager, mayor, supervisor, or other municipal government official who has evidence that municipality's police are detaining people without reasonable suspicion, and does nothing to stop it, is asking for serious trouble. So are the officers who are doing it and any police officials who condone it. There are plenty of public law firms ready to help people who are wronged by police, and there are federal civil rights laws which apply. The state A.G.'s office and the Justice Dept. will both investigate alleged violations of civil rights, if they receive credible information.
Click to expand...

NYC was somewhat different. Because Bill Bratton loves statistics there are volumes of stats available on NYCs stop and frisk program. Though 2011, when the city was sued in Federal Court over the program, there were something like 600,000 stop and frisks per year on average. Given the city population of 14 million that gives you about a 1 in 28 chance of being frisked in any given year or pretty much a certainty at least once over your lifetime. Of course since the NYPD targets specific groups - predominantly young black and Latino men, my chance as a well dressed middle aged white guy is pretty close to zero. For some others it's probably a monthly occurrence.

BTW 85-90% of those stops turned up nothing.

The problem that I see with your analysis is that reasonable is judged from the viewpoint of the officer and so pretty much anything becomes reasonable especially given the deference that courts typically show police. The reasonable suspicion standard really has no teeth.
 
polgara said:
Greetings, humbolt. :2wave:

The gun should not be horizontal when you're skeet shooting! Just saying....
Click to expand...

I don't think he actually shot at anything in particular. And he's firing a (semi) automatic shotgun - an assault weapon.
 
You know, in my mind's eye, I swear to God, when I read some people, this is what I envision, when I read their words... I gotta work on my stereotyping problem.

(Notice: R rated language. Please do not open link if a few schoolyard dirty words are offensive to you. Thank you.)

 
VanceMack said:
If Congress has established law, the president doesnt have the power and authority to change law. Its that whole "we dont want a dictator" thing.

Obviously you want this to happen. What happens when a conservative president gets in the White House and decides to redefine laws in his own image. Will you be as readily accepting of that?

Congress should not act to regulate foolishly. We know background checks were in place, used, and failed to stop anything. And have you seen a whole lot of criminal activity/school shootings by social security recipients?
Click to expand...

Of course the President can not change the law. But congress does not generally enact the regulations, which are the filler of the law (definitions, implementation and enforcement). The administrative branches (federal, state and local) are usually the ones that develop the regulations. There is a ton of power in that.

This is nothing new. It is done at all levels by Democrats and Republicans. It always has and always will be. The outrage in this is by people that do not understand how laws are passed and develop (understand our government) and by those in the media that prey upon less informed for voters.
 
stonewall50 said:
You must have known the dealer. Every store I've bought a gun from cost me money on the check. And you really think the Feds are gonna dole out freebies now?
Click to expand...

I have to say that I certainly don't remember paying for any background checks.
 
Mycroft said:
Whoa...dude...you pulled out all the liberal debate tactics here, didn't you. LOL!!
Click to expand...
If you mean "speaking plainly," then yes, I'm using "debate tactics."


The law has been posted here and it is quite clear. Congress established who, exactly, must be licensed to sell firearms.
Click to expand...
Incorrect.

Congress did NOT define the categories of a business, a hobbyist, a collector and so forth. It was well within their purview to provide precise definitions for those categories... and did not. They did not set any standards or criteria, they punted. This is very common, as Congress often gives federal agencies latitude to adapt to changing circumstances.


Obama, with his EA today and with his unspecified "factors" (I suppose we'll find out what THEY are someday) is disregarding a very clear law.
Click to expand...
We will find out soon, because the ATF will be required to publish its finalized rules before they can have any legal effect whatsoever.

The law is clear... but it is neither detailed nor precise. And remember, the DOJ and its attorneys reviewed all of the options, and more. Thus, it is very unlikely that the executive action will violate any laws.


While Obama made mention of sales over the internet and other ways of engaging in gun buying and selling, he didn't eliminate ANY condition from possibly being considered engaging in business. That's the problem.
Click to expand...
No, the problem is that you are jumping to conclusions that suit your own assumptions.


Regarding your point #3...I know for a fact that I didn't say anything about being classified a business means you cannot sell firearms, so don't try to raise strawmen before me. I won't have it and I won't dignify such tactics with a response except to dismiss it.
Click to expand...
Then what, exactly, is your objection to the expansion of background checks? What horrors will result with... making it harder for felons and mentally disturbed people from acquiring firearms?


And, dude...when we already have an established law, why would you want to accept some unknown, as yet to be seen rules and say, that's okay...the courts will sort it out?
Click to expand...
Gosh, I dunno. I guess I'm holding out an impossible hope that you would treat this situation rationally, instead of as a partisan fight to the death. Silly me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom