Obama plans curbs on guns

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lily_Bernans said:
A lot of kids were killed when Reagan and the Bushs’ were president as well, yet nothing was done. And correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t 9/11, the worst terrorist attack in the US occur when Bush Version Two was president? I’m sure it did. Did Bush turn a blind eye to terrorism? Was he not concerned that the US has so many enemies? Enemies he was making with his war?
Click to expand...
We’re not talking about 9-11, and I see that as off-topic and an attempt to attack GOP Presidents (conveniently leaving out Clinton).

I was talking about domestic violence in the USA, not foreign terrorists, but since foreign terrorists are able to act as common criminals because the left insists on being PC (an idea heavily promoted in academic bubbles) and feeling good inside instead of keeping Americans safe, I’d say that’s even more reason to own guns, as many Americans evidently agree judging by the increased gun sales.

In terms of domestic gun violence, much of that falls on local governments. It’s a very simple trend: areas with gun control or gun bans have the sites of bloody atrocities. That will not change. More gun control = more atrocities, and today, potentially more terrorism.

Sorry, but it’s not the NRA members in Wyoming, Montana or other sensible red counties that are creating all the mayhem. I’m sure that left-wing academia, the media and the political establishment would love that narrative, but in reality it’s blue districts run by Democrat mayors and city councils that have been absent of GOP participation on the last 50-60 years were all this is happening.

The conversation really can’t go anywhere until Democrats bite the bullet and admit that instead of playing politics.
 
Nothing good will come about until people admit that it’s not Democrats or Republicans, it’s making politics a game. The Democrats want something, so the Republicans block it.
 
Sy_Noe said:
As with most matters, we can and indeed do disagree. I define as common sense some of the things you don’t believe are common sense. And as with most matters, I’m not going to change your mind. And I can guarantee you, you most certainly are not changing mine. I pray President Obama takes the executive actions and I shall leave it at that.
Click to expand...
I’ve been praying that Obama would just abide by the constitution, something he seems rather unwilling to do on a lot of issues. 🤷

The fact that we disagree and won’t change each other’s minds doesn’t mean I’ll be quiet when it comes to constitutional rights. This is just one of them under attack by progressives.

Jon
 
breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/01/03/trump-hillary-clinton-disarm-bodyguards-really-believes-guns-dont-keep-safe/
On December 19 Breitbart News reported that Clinton reacted to the surge in gun sales that followed the San Bernardino terror attack by saying, “Guns, in and of themselves…will not make Americans safer.” She then listed the number of gun-related deaths each year in a way that appeared to suggest guns actually make America less safe.
Click to expand...
On January 3 Trump responded with: “Hillary said that guns don’t keep you safe. If she really believes that she should demand that her heavily armed bodyguards quickly disarm!”
Click to expand...
🙂

Obama ought to do “something” about war zone Chicago instead of attacking the Constitution and second amendment at every opportunity. He talks gun sales go up. you would think he starting a civil war or something.
 
I recall reading, not long ago, how upset Rahm Emanuel was about non-enforcement of gun laws in Chicago. Chicago has very restrictive gun laws, but a lot of gun homicides even so. What Emanuel addressed was the apparent unwillingness of the judiciary to give real sentences (and sometimes any sentences at all) to crimes committed with guns.

Sometimes it seems to me the gun control folks are like frustrated toddlers who hit their mothers when the toy doesn’t work right. Some crazy person or criminal (or one who is both) kills some people with a gun and the reaction is to take guns away from people who are neither crazy nor criminals.

As much as I hate to agree with Rahm Emanuel, perhaps the bigger problem is failure to enforce laws against weapon violence of all kinds.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
Nothing good will come about until people admit that it’s not Democrats or Republicans, it’s making politics a game. The Democrats want something, so the Republicans block it.
Click to expand...
Sometimes, as with Obama’s attempt to pass restrictive gun laws in congress, it’s better that the Repubs did exactly that.
 
As much as I hate to agree with Rahm Emanuel, perhaps the bigger problem is failure to enforce laws against weapon violence of all kinds.
Click to expand...
Its been well documented from Holder forward. We don’t help as a country either with the major issue of the cartels-weapons and drugs especially in Chicago. Seems we always want to address the symptom and skirt the real issues. The solution is never to limit the police either. Which of course doesn’t mean bad police don’t exist. But they are working a literal war zone and we don’t have to take their word, just look at the hospitals and statistics as its very similar to a war zone.

abc7chicago.com/news/secret-trap-cars-used-to-smuggle-goods-guns/1087659/
 
Lily_Bernans said:
Nothing good will come about until people admit that it’s not Democrats or Republicans, it’s making politics a game. The Democrats want something, so the Republicans block it.
Click to expand...
That’s a mighty convenient way to dismiss the claim that there’s a legitimate constitutional issue regarding which people continue to disagree: “oh, no… everyone in America wants it – it’s just those evil Republicans, thwarting the will of the people in order to spite the Democrats!” :rolleyes:

The objection being raised – which I haven’t seen anyone even attempt to refute – is this: if this is what America really wants (and which the Democrats want to see implemented)… then why didn’t they do so when they had Congressional majorities in the 21st century?

(Hint: it’s easier to demonize than to engage rationally.)
 
Gorgias said:
That’s a mighty convenient way to dismiss the claim that there’s a legitimate constitutional issue regarding which people continue to disagree: “oh, no… everyone in America wants it – it’s just those evil Republicans, thwarting the will of the people in order to spite the Democrats!” :rolleyes:

The objection being raised – which I haven’t seen anyone even attempt to refute – is this: if this is what America really wants (and which the Democrats want to see implemented)… then why didn’t they do so when they had Congressional majorities in the 21st century?

(Hint: it’s easier to demonize than to engage rationally.)
Click to expand...
And not much consideration to the fact that the constitution and Bill of Rights were constructed to preclude the ‘tyranny of the majority’. That certain rights were so essential they should only be changed by super-majorities of the states.

The majority of US citizens now oppose a ban an ‘Assault Weapons’, so, does that settle the issue? Of course not-- majorities on certain subjects ebb and flow which is exactly why changes should be carefully considered.

Anyway, it will be better when Obama issues his directives so we can discuss their actual content.
 
Gorgias said:
That’s a mighty convenient way to dismiss the claim that there’s a legitimate constitutional issue regarding which people continue to disagree: “oh, no… everyone in America wants it – it’s just those evil Republicans, thwarting the will of the people in order to spite the Democrats!” :rolleyes:

The objection being raised – which I haven’t seen anyone even attempt to refute – is this: if this is what America really wants (and which the Democrats want to see implemented)… then why didn’t they do so when they had Congressional majorities in the 21st century?

(Hint: it’s easier to demonize than to engage rationally.)
Click to expand...
I’m not really interested in discussing anything with you until you stop insulting me. I’m not upset or angry, this is a message board, for goodness sake. I’m just not interested. Sorry.🤷
 
styrgwillidar said:
And not much consideration to the fact that the constitution and Bill of Rights were constructed to preclude the ‘tyranny of the majority’. That certain rights were so essential they should only be changed by super-majorities of the states.

The majority of US citizens now oppose a ban an ‘Assault Weapons’, so, does that settle the issue? Of course not-- majorities on certain subjects ebb and flow which is exactly why changes should be carefully considered.

Anyway, it will be better when Obama issues his directives so we can discuss their actual content.
Click to expand...
Do you have a source for your contention that most Americans oppose a ban on actual assault weapons? Thanks in advance.
 
styrgwillidar said:
Anyway, it will be better when Obama issues his directives so we can discuss their actual content.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I’ve been in class all day. Didn’t even have time for lunch, so I’ve sure not had time to watch any news program.
 
The President’s Actions to Reduce Gun Violence

So President Obama is taking executive action to reduce gun violence. Here’s what his actions are designed to do:

Keep guns out of the wrong hands through background checks
  • The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is making clear that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks.
  • ATF is finalizing a rule to require background checks for people trying to buy some of the most dangerous weapons and other items through a trust, corporation, or other legal entity.
  • Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch has sent a letter to States highlighting the importance of receiving complete criminal history records and criminal dispositions, information on persons disqualified because of a mental illness, and qualifying crimes of domestic violence.
  • The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is overhauling the background check system to make it more effective and efficient. The envisioned improvements include processing background checks 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and improving notification of local authorities when certain prohibited persons unlawfully attempt to buy a gun. The FBI will hire more than 230 additional examiners and other staff to help process these background checks.
Make our communities safer from gun violence
  • The Attorney General convened a call with U.S. Attorneys around the country to direct federal prosecutors to continue to focus on smart and effective enforcement of our gun laws.
  • The President’s FY2017 budget will include funding for 200 new ATF agents and investigators to help enforce our gun laws.
  • ATF has established an Internet Investigation Center to track illegal online firearms trafficking and is dedicating $4 million and additional personnel to enhance the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network.
  • ATF is finalizing a rule to ensure that dealers who ship firearms notify law enforcement if their guns are lost or stolen in transit.
  • The Attorney General issued a memo encouraging every U.S. Attorney’s Office to renew domestic violence outreach efforts.
Increase mental health treatment and reporting to the background check system
  • The Administration is proposing a new $500 million investment to increase access to mental health care.
  • The Social Security Administration has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to include information in the background check system about beneficiaries who are prohibited from possessing a firearm for mental health reasons.
  • The Department of Health and Human Services is finalizing a rule to remove unnecessary legal barriers preventing States from reporting relevant information about people prohibited from possessing a gun for specific mental health reasons.
Shape the future of gun safety technology
  • The President has directed the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology
  • The President has also directed the departments to review the availability of smart gun technology on a regular basis, and to explore potential ways to further its use and development to more broadly improve gun safety.
Take an in-depth look at the President’s latest actions here.

whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/01/04/live-updates-what-president-doing-keep-guns-out-wrong-hands
 
gilliam said:
The President’s Actions to Reduce Gun Violence

*]The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is making clear that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks.

*]ATF is finalizing a rule to require background checks for people trying to buy some of the most dangerous weapons and other items through a trust, corporation, or other legal entity.

*]Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch has sent a letter to States highlighting the importance of receiving complete criminal history records and criminal dispositions, information on persons disqualified because of a mental illness, and qualifying crimes of domestic violence.
Click to expand...
So, if I sell a gun to my neighbor it will be a crime unless I am somehow able to do a background check on him/her, notwithstanding that I might have known him/her all my life. And maybe it will be a crime if i give a gun to a relative???

As to buying guns through a trust, corporation or other legal entity, the present difference is this. If, say, you want a fully automatic weapon, whether personally or through a separate entity, you have to undergo a serious background check. The difference is that if you buy one through an entity, you don’t consent to unannounced home searches the way you do if you buy it in your own name.

I don’t know how Lynch is going to get past HIPAA to check into whatever she considers disqualifying mental illness. Domestic violence perps are already prohibited from having guns in my state; probably in most.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top