Obama plans curbs on guns

[styrgwillidar]

IMO what Obama has proposed will not do anything to stop gun violence. He might start with enforcing the laws already on the books.

Well…

Biggest issue (other than illegal immigration which neither party will approach as a security/violent crime issue) is mental illness and mas shootings. So, I would say there are some positive efforts in his proposals- again the devil being in the details of how they’re actually implemented.

• Significant funding for mental health treatment. (Of course, like any budget issue- how do we pay for it?).
• Tying mental deficiency as identified by folks unable to handle their own benefits from Social Security. Now, I’d like to see something to differentiate between folks in that situation because of true significant mental impairment, and folks who’ve chosen to have other; do it out of convenience or because folks are more competent in finances (think a spouse who always depended on their now deceased spouse to handle financial matters). Also, determine if it’s temporary situation or a permanent disqualification with no means to regain rights.
• Greater sharing of information on mental health between states, doctors and FBI. Again, details will determine whether this is supportable. But we’re all aghast when someone who has had known issues is simply able to move to a new jurisdiction and obtain firearms. Also, temporary or permanent infringement of rights- what’s the appeal process?
• Doctor involvement in assessing mental state, it’s iffy but look at the numbers. A lot of middle aged folks commit suicide, folks with a very sick spouses sometimes become despondent and consider murder suicide as a way out. I don’t have an issue with doctors or medical professionals in these situations recommending counseling to keep folks from getting to that desperate mental state in the first place. Get them help prior to them being any kind of risk. Maybe getting doctors involved with more options than just reporting folks who are past a certain point would have a benefit.

There is the issue of unintended consequences. If the cost of admitting one has mental issues is giving up one’s rights, will it dissuade people who need help from coming forward? It’s far more likely if criteria aren’t clearly defined, and no path for restoration. Just like there are a lot of older folks who shouldn’t be driving, they won’t admit to themselves they’re not competent anymore. Better to get them professional driving instruction (my Mom took it every two years, figured when an instructor told her she was done, she’d stop) then just let skills deteriorate. Had a relative who finally stopped driving because their mechanic refused to give them the keys when they came to pick up the car. I respected that mechanic, he risked losing business from other family members as well as the relative.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Well, then are you with me on banning gun free zones? If it saves one life, it will be worth it. And potentially, it could save a lot more than just one life.

Prohibit restrictions on magazine capacities. Folks have been killed after running out of ammo in a fight with a bad guy (Massad Ayoob has a lot of documentation)-- if ensuring folks have sufficient ammo saves one life, it will be worth it.

My problem with the ban is it is for folks on the terror watch list, ~1.5 million people 5 years ago by some guesses but it’s classified so it could be millions more, the ‘no fly’ is only a very small subset of that list ~50 thousand people.

There is no hard requirement/process for putting folks on the list, no way to know if you are on it until you’re denied some service by the government (passport/firearm purchase), and no process for removal. You could be on it Lily, they won’t tell you why, and they can’t tell you how to be removed from it. Anything that aroused some government employee somewhere to believe you’ve done something ‘suspicious’ by their judgment. Internet posting, communication to someone (even inadvertent), association with someone however nebulous.

I need to read more closely, when they’re developed, the specific regulations the president/AG/DHHS/ATF are proposing to enact directed at mental illness. I think we can all agree that has been a huge factor in many of these shootings. I mentioned the CA law, empowering families to be able to take action to limit access to firearms by people known to have issues of concern makes sense. (It’s the due process aspect that concerns me. An accusation isn’t proof. How do they get fundamental rights restored etc.)

I don’t think I’m on it because I flew internationally not long ago, and to Israel, too, but I agree that many things need clarification.

 

[Leo2014]

No. I’d want him to enforce laws already on the books. I’d want him to do the things he’s supposed to do. We have systems that are supposed to identify people such as the Islamic extremists who attacked in San B.
If I lived in Sandy Hook, if I *taught *at Sandy Hook, I’d want to be allowed to have the means to protect myself and my children, other than with a meter stick, something denied teachers currently. I’d want them to take down the dangerous invitation to the disturbed that says, “gun free zone”.

The current school environment is set up where the good people are denied firearms, but the bad guys are not. That needs to be fixed.

Jon

It’s misleading to assume that because you have a firearm that you will be ready at a moment’s notice to use it. Just look at Congresswomen Gabby Gifford’s event. She was at a rally - announcement at a parking lot in front of a supermarket when she and twenty others were tragically shot, with six people killed. Also, remember this happen in a state that loves firearms! I apologize for not being able to recall the details; but couldn’t (or did they) members of her staff or authorities present have had a firearm in their procession?

I think every school is a “gun free zone”? Besides, I would not want to encourage some gun nut by advertising that we permit firearms at a particular school? That would be just provoking trouble!

 

[Lily_Bernans]

No. I’d want him to enforce laws already on the books. I’d want him to do the things he’s supposed to do. We have systems that are supposed to identify people such as the Islamic extremists who attacked in San B.
If I lived in Sandy Hook, if I *taught *at Sandy Hook, I’d want to be allowed to have the means to protect myself and my children, other than with a meter stick, something denied teachers currently. I’d want them to take down the dangerous invitation to the disturbed that says, “gun free zone”.

The current school environment is set up where the good people are denied firearms, but the bad guys are not. That needs to be fixed.

The fact the you hate guns doesn’t matter, quite frankly. I am thrilled that our soldiers in our wars had guns. I am thrilled the farmers and minutemen at Lexington and Concord did.
Tashfeen Malik should not have been in the country, much less had access to a firearm. That failure is Obama’s, plane and simple. It’s the fault of an unwillingness to profile those who are the greatest risk to us. It’s a failure caused by a lunatic political correctness, which places citizens in a position where they won’t report oddities of behavior if it involves certain groups, because of fear of being labeled a racist, bigot, Islamophobe. It’s a tactic that progressives have used to silence opposition. I don’t care for Trump, but that’s one good thing he’s done: exposed this for what it is: political intimidation.

Jon

It’s not Obama’s fault that Malik was in the US! It’s the fault of the lazy person entrusted to vetting her prior to the issuance of a fiancee visa, and I agree that she should not have been given a visa. I also agree that Obama’s too soft on immigrants, but he’s not to be blamed for everything that goes wrong.

 

[styrgwillidar]

I don’t think I’m on it because I flew internationally not long ago, and to Israel, to, but I agree that many things need clarification.

Well, we complain because folks are on a list, and then we complain when folks do something and they weren’t on a list… sometimes the government just can’t win either. But then, that’s one of the costs of a limited government and having greater freedom. How much surveillance/control do we want the government to exercise if we expect them to catch everything.

I’m willing to consider all the proposals, but without the details it’s just guesswork as to the impacts both positive and negative.

 

[Cathoholic]

Sy Noe. You said:

Comments like these do nothing more than show one’s political colors and are nothing more than sheer hyperbole. President Obama taught Constitutional law.

First let’s deal with your “President Obama taught Constitutional law” quote Sy Noe.

Teaching Con-Law is NO protection against getting Constitutional thinking and positions wrong!

President Obama has had plenty of his actions overturned by the Supreme Court—some by a 9-0 decision!

When someone is IN POWER, they often “see things a little differently”.

For example:

BEFORE:

Just look at what President Obama has said in the past about deficit spending as Senator . . . . and then look at what President Obama now says.

youtube.com/watch?v=DyLmru6no4U

AFTER:

From CNN Dec. 18th, 201:

Congress approved a $1.1 trillion spending package on Friday . . . . President Barack Obama, . . . signed it . . . Obama called Ryan after the vote to thank him “for helping government work,” the speaker said. The president also invited Ryan to join him for a meal at the White House in the new year.

US debt now at about 19 TRILLION dollars!

(Recall our debt is now at 19 Trillion dollars. President Obama NOW sees things “a little differently” on this issue doesn’t he? Isn’t it possible he could see other things “a little differently” too?)

---

Sy Noe. You also said:

QUOTE:
Comments like these do nothing more than show one’s political colors and are nothing more than sheer hyperbole.

It seems to me Sy Noe that YOU see this as a “political” issue (but many others here see these issues as waaay beyond mere “politics”). It seems like you are engaging in transference. I think you are using how YOU feel, and assume that is how everyone else MUST think too.

But these issues go beyond the political spectrum. The concerns of citizens here far surpass mere “political colors”.

This COULD impact some future President (not merely President Obama who was elected “President” and not “King” or “Dictator”).

These themes could effect “Democrat”, “Republican” or some other “Party” in the future.

These decisions ALSO could be used by a judge!

These executive over-reachings could be used by a judge WITHOUT political affiliation to RE-DEFINE TERMS and render judgments based upon his or her own creative re-definitions (just as President Obama is attempting to RE-DEFINE what a fire-arms “dealer” is now).

Judges COULD get “creative” just has the Obama administration has gotten “creative” purposing removing Constitutional Rights based upon what some bureaucrat putting someone on a “no-fly list” does.

A “no-fly list” proverbial tattoo that has no recourse to judicial appeal or if it does, only at great personal expense . . . . **unless . . . you are one of the power elite **. . . like the late Senator Kennedy was when he found himself on the no-fly list (Senator Kennedy was just 1 phone call and 10 minutes away from being OFF of that list at virtually no personal expense to him. YOU try to do that fast ten times).

Once RIGHTS are taken away by out of control Governments, Governments rarely seek to “give” them back to the people. (The citizens can’t afford to be wrong here and think Governments will fix it later).

And as I have said elsewhere, BY FAR, the biggest fire arms abusers, FAR AND AWAY the most prolific people killing of other people with guns, BEYOND QUESTION the MOST ABUSED weapons powers despots we’ve seen are NOT from citizens!

The MOST fire arms abusers ABUSES occur from GOVERNMENTS! Not Citizens.

After all, “if it saves just one life, shouldn’t we” allow citizens their freedoms?

You might say: “Well Government fire arm abuse against its citizens just can’t happen here!”

You might say: “People in power five or ten or whatever years from now, will just be too benevolent for us to be concerned about long-standing principles!”

That is your call. But our founding fathers warned us against this kind of complacency of our freedoms.

The “it can’t happen here!” motif would be a different argument for a different thread.

But it is UNDENIABLE that the most mammoth ABUSER of gun rights the past 150 years has been from GOVERNMENTS!

Please see the book Death By Government (book here–emphasis mine) or my prior post elsewhere on this book (here) . . . . . .

Here is the description from Amazon (emphasis mine) . . .

Quote:
(Death by Government) is R. J. Rummel’s fourth book in a series devoted to genocide and government mass murder, or what he calls democide. He presents the primary results, in tables and figures, as well as a historical sketch of the major cases of democide, those in which one million or more people were killed by a regime.

In Death by Government, Rummel does not aim to describe democide itself, but to determine its nature and scope in order to test the theory that democracies are inherently nonviolent… . . .

. . . The underlying principle is that the less freedom people have, the greater the violence; the more freedom, the less the violence.

Thus, as Rummel says, “**The problem is power. ** . . . The course of action is to foster freedom.

”Death by Government is a compelling look at the horrors that occur in modern societies. It depicts how democide has been very much a part of human history. . . . .

 

[JonNC]

=Sy Noe;13557206]Comments like these do nothing more than show one’s political colors and are nothing more than sheer hyperbole.

I’m not afraid of my political colors. Why should I be? As for hyperbole, they are not. This is the incremental approach of the progressive movement.

President Obama taught Constitutional law.

Yeah. The irony of that! How often has he done things as president that he claimed, prior to being president, were not within the powers of the president?

As he said today, he believes in the 2nd amendment.

**“The Second Amendment in this country is part of our Constitution and the president of the United States is bound by our Constitution,” he said. “So I believe in the Second Amendment. It does provide for Americans the right to bear arms for their protection, for their safety, for hunting, for a wide range of uses. That does not mean that we cannot constrain gun runners from shipping guns into Mexico.” **
He also said if we like our plan we can keep our plan. He also said ACA would save us $2500 a year. He has said a lot of things that his actions reveal as untrue. When he says he believes in the second amendment, I do not believe him, because I know his political ideology.
If he is worried about guns being run into Mexico, he needs to check on his own administration, starting with Eric Holder.

He believes in the 1st amendment and free speech too. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t restrictions such as you can’t yell “fire” in a movie theatre.

He proves his opposition to the first amendment with the HHS Mandate, and by sending his current Attorney General out to threaten free speech rights.

And there is a right to privacy but we still go thru a checkpoint at an airport. We can’t prevent all traffic accidents but we take actions to prevent some. People go through background checks when purchasing guns at a store and it has not led to a slippery slope where the American govt goes door to door to confiscate the guns of every gun owner.

The confiscation precedent is being set, right now, with the new California law. Make no mistake, the incrementalism of the progressive movement at work.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Then why does he praise Australia and Great Britain as examples of gun control? In both Australia and Great Britain, guns were banned and confiscated. When you say you want “common sense gun control” and use Australia and Great Britain as your models, you can’t in any meaningful way say you “believe in the 2nd amendment”.

Sure you can, if you believe that ACA allowed people to keep their doctors and plans, and saved them $2500.
You can say it if you believe that, contrary to the original intent, and recent Supreme Court rulings in Heller and MacDonald, that the 2nd amendment is really a government right, not an individual one (see the recent movement in the Illinois legislature), even though no where else does the constitution speak of government power in terms of government rights.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

So I take it you do not fear if people sell their prescription drugs to their friends, family, and neighbors.

And the constitution says where: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and sell drugs, shall not be infringed.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Leo2014;13557491]It’s misleading to assume that because you have a firearm that you will be ready at a moment’s notice to use it. Just look at Congresswomen Gabby Gifford’s event. She was at a rally - announcement at a parking lot in front of a supermarket when she and twenty others were tragically shot, with six people killed. Also, remember this happen in a state that loves firearms! I apologize for not being able to recall the details; but couldn’t (or did they) members of her staff or authorities present have had a firearm in their procession?

It is even more misleading for people to say we should depend on law enforcement - “call 911”, etc. I don’t know if they did or didn’t, but there are numerous examples of people defending their lives, and the lives of those around them because they were armed. Being armed may not always work. Being unarmed never works.

I think every school is a “gun free zone”? Besides, I would not want to encourage some gun nut by advertising that we permit firearms at a particular school? That would be just provoking trouble!

The nut almost always goes to a “soft target”, a “gun-free zone”. They know they we meet little resistence, giving them the 3 - 5 minutes before the police come. They always do their damage at a school or other soft target until they hear the sirens.

Jon

 

[Murmurs]

It is even more misleading for people to say we should depend on law enforcement - “call 911”, etc. I don’t know if they did or didn’t, but there are numerous examples of people defending their lives, and the lives of those around them because they were armed. Being armed may not always work. Being unarmed never works.

The nut almost always goes to a “soft target”, a “gun-free zone”. They know they we meet little resistence, giving them the 3 - 5 minutes before the police come. They always do their damage at a school or other soft target until they hear the sirens.

Jon

The point is though that this sort of thing - that 3-5 minutes - hardly happens in other civilised countries. What is it about the United States that’s different? I refuse to believe it’s because Americans are just a lot more violent…

 

[Theo520]

So I take it you do not fear if people sell their prescription drugs to their friends, family, and neighbors.

Assuming they are not felons, your friends, family, and neighbors already have a prescription for guns. Thus I have no problem loaning or selling them guns.

The ‘prescription’ is the 2nd amendment, your analogy failed miserably

 

[Brendan]

The point is though that this sort of thing - that 3-5 minutes - hardly happens in other civilised countries. What is it about the United States that’s different? I refuse to believe it’s because Americans are just a lot more violent…

Do you mean that the Paris police got to THEIR mass shooting crimes scenes in under 3 minutes?

 

[JonNC]

The point is though that this sort of thing - that 3-5 minutes - hardly happens in other civilised countries. What is it about the United States that’s different? I refuse to believe it’s because Americans are just a lot more violent…

Not sure what you mean, the number of victims of mass public shootings per capita is lower than some countries with far more restrictive laws.
ijreview.com/2015/12/348197-paris-attack-claim-mass-shootings/

The U.S. has a much larger population than many countries we are compared to.
Jon

 

[Crossbones]

Not sure what you mean, the number of victims of mass public shootings per capita is lower than some countries with far more restrictive laws.
ijreview.com/2015/12/348197-paris-attack-claim-mass-shootings/

The U.S. has a much larger population than many countries we are compared to.
Jon

Sample size.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Assuming they are not felons, your friends, family, and neighbors already have a prescription for guns. Thus I have no problem loaning or selling them guns.

The ‘prescription’ is the 2nd amendment, your analogy failed miserably

No it doesn’t. The point remains we regulate and take actions all the time. I wouldn’t advise you to become a drug dealer. And again, we can’t prevent all traffic fatalities but we try to take actions to reduce them. There’s a right to privacy but at an airport our bags are examined and I haven’t flown in a few yrs but the last time I did, I even had to take off my shoes. We have the 1st amendment too but we place limitations on it. For instance yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theatre I wouldn’t advise either. So we can restrict the 1st amendment and can’t yell “fire” but apparently to many here we can’t at least try to do more to try to keep someone from firing a weapon at a movie theatre. Or murdering first graders at a school or worshipers at a church. Those last 2 especially blow my mind on a Catholic forum. Where abortion is such a huge issue but we can’t at least try to do more to prevent innocent first grade children from being shot dead in their school. And where freedom of religion is a topic but we can’t at least try to do more to control people from being gunned down in their church or other house of worship. The Christians mass murdered in Charleston and the Sikhs in WI were in essence denied their right to worship because someone had a gun and carried it into their church and temple. I can only pray tonight that a mass murder doesn’t occur in a Catholic Church, God forbid, or that those here who may have children or grandchildren or other relatives in a school somewhere never are faced with the reality that those parents of children at Sandy Hook were faced with. We already have had a dr gunned down in his Lutheran church. Some of the views expressed on this forum I guess though I will just will never understand.

 

[Faithdancer]

It is even more misleading for people to say we should depend on law enforcement - “call 911”, etc. I don’t know if they did or didn’t, but there are numerous examples of people defending their lives, and the lives of those around them because they were armed. Being armed may not always work. Being unarmed never works.

The nut almost always goes to a “soft target”, a “gun-free zone”. They know they we meet little resistence, giving them the 3 - 5 minutes before the police come. They always do their damage at a school or other soft target until they hear the sirens.

Jon

Jon I work as a substitute teacher in the public schools and I can tell you that they are definitely “soft targets.” Even at the high schools,which are probably the least likely targets for the active shooter from off campus scenarios, there is often only sporadic law enforcement presence. I would give my life to defend the children I’m charged with protecting, but it would be nice if, in such a situation, I at least had a fighting chance. Who knows what the outcome might have been if some of the administrators or teachers at Sandy Hook had been trained and armed? The principal was one of the first to die–what if she had been able to fire first? Anyway, I’m a good citizen and leave my firearms at home. But remember Mississippi high school principal Joel Myrick? The one who had to run to his truck in the parking lot to retrieve his .45 while the crazed teenager continued shooting? And you’re absolutely right with “until they hear the sirens.” That’s usually when they turn the gun on themselves. At the first sign of armed resistance to their cowardly attacks!

 

[Sy_Noe]

Thanks Lily. Your contribution as a professor of Catholic theology on this thread and on this subject and your patience and perseverance I can only admire.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Thanks Lily. Your contribution as a professor of Catholic theology on this thread and on this subject and your patience and perseverance I can only admire.

Thank you, Sy! You made my day. And I am enjoying and learning from your posts. Keep up the excellent work!

 

[Cathoholic]

Sy Noe.

You rhetorically asked . . .

(Where abortion is such a huge issue but) we can’t at least try to do more to prevent innocent first grade children from being shot dead in their school?

WHY are you putting out this straw man argument?

Nobody here said anything like, “we can’t do more to prevent innocent first grade children from being shot dead in their school”. Nobody.

When I discussed overpowerful Governments and Dr. Rummel’s book “Death By Government” (here), I did NOT suggest . . . .

This is what I DIDN’T say (nor did anyone else say or intimate such a caricature): WHY some of these gun-grabbers NOT want to do more for school children’s lives by preventing mass citizen genocide is beyond me!

(WHY do you do this false emotional appeal?)

The question is, HOW you go about safety . . . not just for schoolchildren, but for ALL the people?

I have discussed this issue before with you. The problem is not too much freedom for the law-abiding citizens.

The defect here in our society that is becoming MORE manifest is the need for a moral change in heart (but few will admit it).

Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta “We must not be surprised when we hear of murders, of killings, of wars, of hatred. If a mother can kill her own child, what is left but for us to kill each other.”

In the meantime there are natural things we can do too—but gun-grabbers have opposed those measures—NOT because they want to see school children “being shot dead” (as you just intimated Second Amendment supporters do) but because it violates gun-grabbers presuppositions about a free society and their inflated love for Government dependence. A free society that ironically, these same gun-grabbers inherited through freedom given to us from our forefathers.

Incidentally. NONE of these “Executive Orders” would impact a criminal and I think we all know that. (So I just don’t understand what all the proverbial pom-pom waving is all about in support of these Executive Orders)

It is NOT OK for the President to be inventing “laws” Sy Noe. Even if you or I happen to AGREE with those “laws” or edicts.

This contributes to undermining our Constitution (which ALSO is a threat to citizens including children). This type of thing is NOT OK.

If you really think, disarming American citizens is the thing to do (or some other such solution), that’s your prerogative. But do it LEGALLY.

If you really think, the Constitution needs to be dramatically re-interpreted, that’s your privilege too. But do it LEGALLY.

If you really want to see the President have such sweeping powers, that’s your call as well. But take it to the people, have the debate, change the Constitution if you think law-abiding fire arm owners should be further infringed concerning bearing arms, but do it LEGALLY.

Abide by the principles you swore an oath to uphold.