So, Obama is not after our guns?

[Ikari]

That was off-topic. I went down the road to ridicule you for the ridiculousness, but I want to get back on topic. Do you think you can do that?

But it was your initial off-topic remark

I have no problem at all where it ended. It ended where you said you have no problem with innocent people being deprived of their right to live as long as you get to have your inanimate object. It ended where I noted that I find your personal ethics to be appalling. Can we now get back on topic?

When you start engaging with some intellectual honesty maybe, I never said I had no problem with innocent people being deprived of their right to life. Please refrain from emotional hysterics when trying to make an argument.

It really is a simple question.

"Are you of the opinion these two executive orders are about being after the guns you own?"

Already answered that, try reading.

 

[Wiseone]

Foreign trade implies that company A is purchasing products overseas from company B.
That is not the case here.

One government trading with another is foreign trade, that's an example of foreign trade not being company A and company B. Also if you buy a product and have it shipped to the United States that's foreign trade, but you aren't a company.

Also according to you're on source: "One new policy will end a government practice that lets military weapons, sold or donated by the U.S. to allies, be reimported into the U.S. by private entities"

We are dealing with private entities, ie companies and individuals, and yes an individual or company purchasing something from a foreign government counts as foreign trade.

End of Story.

 

[CRUE CAB]

One government trading with another is foreign trade, that's an example of foreign trade not being company A and company B. Also if you buy a product and have it shipped to the United States that's foreign trade, but you aren't a company.

Also according to you're on source: "One new policy will end a government practice that lets military weapons, sold or donated by the U.S. to allies, be reimported into the U.S. by private entities"

We are dealing with private entities, ie companies and individuals, and yes an individual or company purchasing something from a foreign government counts as foreign trade.

End of Story.

Splitting hairs.
You tell me what is the harm in bringing those guns back here?

 

[mak2]

Now that is a good question. I was wondering that myself. But instead of finding out the real reason behind it we have worked our selves up in a froth worry about another Obama gun grab...well there hasnt been one yet, but we can still worry.

Splitting hairs.
You tell me what is the harm in bringing those guns back here?

 

[BretJ]

As far as "pandering" goes, if it is pandering, then isn't that what we expect from our leaders? Do we not expect them to act in the interests of those who elect them? I assume you try to vote for a candidate with a good rating from the NRA (assuming other factors are roughly equal). If that candidate wins, would you not want him to go to Washington to try and pass laws which align with your vision of America?

Absolutely. I would expect them to pander to someone informed on the subject matter by enacting well thought out, purposefull, effective legislation intended to solve a problem. I do not expect them to deliberately enact legislation/executive orders/regulations on the premise it will "keep these guns off the street" but does not really accomplish anything of value. (Actually, perhaps I do...) That is pandering to an uninformed electorate who "want to keep these guns off the street". They do not realize that "these guns" and "the streets" referred to by the President are not "these guns" nor "the streets" that they refer to. This executive order is right up there with, "it depends on what the definition of "is" is." It is the kind of deliberate obfuscation I would expect from a teenager.... "Oh, I did not know you meant those guns or those streets. You must have misunderstood me.."

 

[CRUE CAB]

Now that is a good question. I was wondering that myself. But instead of finding out the real reason behind it we have worked our selves up in a froth worry about another Obama gun grab...well there hasnt been one yet, but we can still worry.

I take everything said and done since he came into office and put it all together.
I see him and his administration as well as many many in the democratic party as putting little things together. Step by step, inch by inch.
They have found out that its not going to work doing big bites at a time. Its going to be as some call it "incremental".
And the only way he will know what will and wont work is by doing things like this by EO.

 

[VanceMack]

First of all...once again...more proposed legislation targeting law abiding citizens or that will be COMPLETELY ineffective. Oh yes...I am certain there are SCADS of gang bangers and violent felons incorporating so they can purchase a firearm by skirting a background check. This is just more of the same. PASS A LAW!!! GAWDAMMIT!!!! We GOTTA PASS A LAW!!! Something! Anything!!!!!

So thats the first part. The second part though...I doubt the Executive Order will stand. The president can sign all the exectuive orders he wants. He cant pass laws. Executive Orders pertain to the operation of the Executive Branch of government. He can order civ government employees working for the exec to act or not act on existing law but he cant CREATE law.

Now...I am CERTAIN that even his supporters would get a little bit queasy if the president were actually writing and implementing law. Because...you know...once you endorse that kind of power with THIS president...well...presidential precedent can bite you in the ass.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Now that is a good question. I was wondering that myself. But instead of finding out the real reason behind it we have worked our selves up in a froth worry about another Obama gun grab...well there hasnt been one yet, but we can still worry.

It's all related. Obama is attacking one side of the rights using his commander in chief status as a technicality, he is being petty and small as usual, and frankly, firearms are something out of legitimate federal authority. The main issue is that these busy body politicians get involved in thousands of areas that are not within their powers or rights, and make the dialogue complicated in doing so. Every time an asshole from D.C. wants any kind of gun control it's worth getting upset about.

 

[CalGun]

If someone is going to use a play on words for to embrace their position there is nothing you can do to convince him.

For example there was a play on "corporations" since the executive order banned corporations from importing such guns. Never mind that the only corporation set up to do so is the one the government established in non profit mode only to redistribute the rifles to the trained and competent public - a public now denied these rifles and for no valid or good reason other than pandering to an anti gun community.

Sly likes to point out no one has "rights" to these rifles and they are not "taken away' because the people don't have them yet. This play on words ignores the reality these rifles were in demand by the trained, law abiding public, a program with a 110 year history of distributing them was in place, and that has in fact been taken away without debate, without vote, and with the executive DICTORIAL power of the president - anyone that was looking forward to making that purchase has in fact lost their "rights" to one of these weapons and that has been done by this anti gun president.

Absolutely. I would expect them to pander to someone informed on the subject matter by enacting well thought out, purposefull, effective legislation intended to solve a problem. I do not expect them to deliberately enact legislation/executive orders/regulations on the premise it will "keep these guns off the street" but does not really accomplish anything of value. (Actually, perhaps I do...) That is pandering to an uninformed electorate who "want to keep these guns off the street". They do not realize that "these guns" and "the streets" referred to by the President are not "these guns" nor "the streets" that they refer to. This executive order is right up there with, "it depends on what the definition of "is" is." It is the kind of deliberate obfuscation I would expect from a teenager.... "Oh, I did not know you meant those guns or those streets. You must have misunderstood me.."

 

[TurtleDude]

I've never claimed to be pro-gun, or anti-gun for that matter. I'm just pointing out there's nothing in the Constitution or the 2A that prevents the United States from regulating foreign trade, including in firearms.

really, I sure recall you objecting when several posters labeled you as anti gun.

there is nothing that properly allows the federal government to prevent the CMP from reimporting guns that us taxpayers paid for

 

[TurtleDude]

Splitting hairs.
You tell me what is the harm in bringing those guns back here?

you won't get a straight answer. There are several posters who want to obliquely attack people owning guns but they won't come out and say it directly. There is no sensible argument in favor of Obama's schemes

you will see one poster claim that since its not a gun grab people shouldn't be upset but that same poster won't tell us why what Obama is doing is justified. Another will whine about deaths but won't address the fact that surplus Garands have almost no criminal misuse history

the bottom line is that their failure to actually address the stupidity of Obama's actions is evidence that they really have issues with law abiding americans owning guns-they are just too cowardly to come out and say it. So they will make attacks on the fringe of the issue and insinuate that gun ownership is bad

 

[TurtleDude]

Now that is a good question. I was wondering that myself. But instead of finding out the real reason behind it we have worked our selves up in a froth worry about another Obama gun grab...well there hasnt been one yet, but we can still worry.

an example is a post like this. rather than argue Obama's scheme he will argue a non-issue-a gun grab.

 

[mak2]

I think the NRA is over the top and has been for quite a while. All responsible Americans should be allowed and/or encouraged to carry. But the NRA and the RW has gone so crazy as to want violent felons allowed to buy guns. They aint responsible Americans. And I really dont see why Obama not permitting them to reenter the country. But I dont think it is a gun grab.

you won't get a straight answer. There are several posters who want to obliquely attack people owning guns but they won't come out and say it directly. There is no sensible argument in favor of Obama's schemes

you will see one poster claim that since its not a gun grab people shouldn't be upset but that same poster won't tell us why what Obama is doing is justified. Another will whine about deaths but won't address the fact that surplus Garands have almost no criminal misuse history

the bottom line is that their failure to actually address the stupidity of Obama's actions is evidence that they really have issues with law abiding americans owning guns-they are just too cowardly to come out and say it. So they will make attacks on the fringe of the issue and insinuate that gun ownership is bad

 

[mak2]

: So, Obama is not after our guns? well you know, it is in the title of the thread...

an example is a post like this. rather than argue Obama's scheme he will argue a non-issue-a gun grab.

 

[TurtleDude]

I think the NRA is over the top and has been for quite a while. All responsible Americans should be allowed and/or encouraged to carry. But the NRA and the RW has gone so crazy as to want violent felons allowed to buy guns. They aint responsible Americans. And I really dont see why Obama not permitting them to reenter the country. But I dont think it is a gun grab.

where has the NRA said that. That is complete BS on your part. YOu must be swallowing the Brady swill in that if the NRA opposes moronic unenforceable background checks for private sales that is the same thing as wanting violent felons to be legally allowed to own guns

Its not a gun grab but it clearly demonstrates that obama is against law abiding people being able to buy guns

 

[TurtleDude]

: So, Obama is not after our guns? well you know, it is in the title of the thread...

why are you dishonest? I said that the specific action is not a gun grab but it demonstrates an anti gun attitude

Just as you do-you are extremely critical to the point of creating strawmen against pro gun posts but you give all benefits of the doubt to anti rights assholes

 

[mak2]

Ok, I guess, "So, Obama is not after our guns?" isnt implying Obama wants to take our firearms, but simply implies an antigun attitude. Ok. I will try to remember.

why are you dishonest? I said that the specific action is not a gun grab but it demonstrates an anti gun attitude

Just as you do-you are extremely critical to the point of creating strawmen against pro gun posts but you give all benefits of the doubt to anti rights assholes

 

[TurtleDude]

Ok, I guess, "So, Obama is not after our guns?" isnt implying Obama wants to take our firearms, but simply implies an antigun attitude. Ok. I will try to remember.

I guess I cannot expect you to actually honestly address the point I have made several times

But you support his anti gun agenda and that is why your patent evasiveness continues

 

[CRUE CAB]

I think the NRA is over the top and has been for quite a while. All responsible Americans should be allowed and/or encouraged to carry. But the NRA and the RW has gone so crazy as to want violent felons allowed to buy guns. They aint responsible Americans. And I really dont see why Obama not permitting them to reenter the country. But I dont think it is a gun grab.

Show me where the NRA is pushing for felons to own guns.

 

[mak2]

In post 26 I went back to the article to see what it was really about. I dont understand either why we cant reimport firearms we have sold or given to other countries. My problem with this is the second outrage the article sited, I highlighted it below. I dont think felons who cannot pass a firearm background check should be able to buy firearms, they are not responsible Americans. I dont understand why anyone would want felons to have firearms. Did I misundersand the point?

I had a real hard time figuring out exaclty what this article was talking aobut with all the side bar and Obama bashing. It appears to me the only firearms this will effect will be firearms the US has donated or sold to Allies. I can only think of one entity this helps, It sounds to me like this law would benefit the gun companies.

As for the second one, if a guy cannot pass the check for a firearm I dont want him to have one and say it is for his company. I think this might be another foxrage.

"One new policy will end a government practice that lets military weapons, sold or donated by the U.S. to allies, be reimported into the U.S. by private entities. The White House said the U.S. has approved 250,000 of those guns to be reimported since 2005; under the new policy, only museums and a few other entities like the government will be eligible to reimport military-grade firearms.

The Obama administration is also proposing a federal rule to stop those who would be ineligible to pass a background check from skirting the law by registering a gun to a corporation or trust. The new rule would require people associated with those entities, like beneficiaries and trustees, to undergo the same type of fingerprint-based background checks as individuals if they want to register guns.

Read more: Administration announces new gun control measures, targets military surplus imports | Fox News

I guess I cannot expect you to actually honestly address the point I have made several times

But you support his anti gun agenda and that is why your patent evasiveness continues

 

[mak2]

the NRA and/or my fellow gun enthusiast. Is that better?

Show me where the NRA is pushing for felons to own guns.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Ok, I guess, "So, Obama is not after our guns?" isnt implying Obama wants to take our firearms, but simply implies an antigun attitude. Ok. I will try to remember.

Thats what I started the thead with and I dont back down from it.
Its just another thing in the march towards confiscation, and I say confiscation because they said it. Our elected officials said it.

 

[CRUE CAB]

the NRA and/or my fellow gun enthusiast. Is that better?

I personally know NO gun owners/NRA members that are all for felons owning guns.
There may be a small percentage that have little to no problem with it, but I believe the majority do not favor it.

 

[mak2]

If gun confisacation means gun grab, dont say it in front of turtle dude.

Thats what I started the thead with and I dont back down from it.
Its just another thing in the march towards confiscation, and I say confiscation because they said it. Our elected officials said it.

 

[mak2]

So it was half the article you posted. I screwed up my quote, this is what I meant.

I personally know NO gun owners/NRA members that are all for felons owning guns.
There may be a small percentage that have little to no problem with it, but I believe the majority do not favor it.