Obama plans curbs on guns

[Leo2014]

Over and over and over again, we see progressives trying to undermine this basic civil and human right, which is antecedent to government power and protected by the Bill of Rights. It is happening again in California right now.

Jon

Having a gun is a human right? Antecedent to government? What???

Have you have been in a country where guns are prevalent? If so, I am certain that you did not feel safer. The question of; to have or not have a gun is more complex. The idea that a couple of vigilantes are suddenly going to start reducing the crime in their neighborhoods because they are now carrying a weapon is a fallacy.

I happen to live in a neighborhood where schools are not fenced penitentiaries and people are often seen walking at night. Now, should I give the credit for the tranquility to people carrying concealed weapons? I am in Progressive Southern California - I think not. However, I can drive a short distance and find a community that is completely opposite in regards to safety and where guns are very accessible.

Now your primordial argument that there is some kind of right that supersede the intervention of government is absurd. I know Pandora’s box has been open and we are never going to be able to close it. Hence, guns are not going away. The argument is to control the flow of access, to reduce the stem of violence that we have become so accustom to hearing. I would not want my neighbors to take it upon themselves to bring order to my community. We need to have a better sense of governing…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Perhaps wearing purple socks could prevent a mass shooting? If the President mandated the wearing of purples socks in order to reduce firearms fatalities and called on Congress to pull money from other programs to hire FBI agents to dispense purple socks. Would you applaud, as there is a CHANCE that the purple socks might distract a shooter, and thereby save a life?

In the case of an untested measure, it is reasonable to apply reason to decide if a measure is likely to achieve some good. It is not reasonable that purple socks would reduce firearms fatalities. But it is reasonable that a measure that imposes penalties for skipping background checks would motivate gun sellers to avoid the penalties and do the background checks. And if background checks are done, it is reasonable to assume that at least some of the lunatics will be flagged before they get a gun.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Having a gun is a human right? Antecedent to government? What???

…

Yes, according to the ruling in Heller which examined the origins of the second amendment. Hence 2A is written as the government will not infringe on the right vice establishing the right.

2A was assurance that the right the colonists as englishman (well, protestants…) had to keep and bear arms to counter tyranny by the crown, for self-defense, and for hunting would continue under the new government.

 

[LongingSoul]

theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/05/what-obama-said-on-gun-control-doesnt-matter-republicans-oppose-it?CMP=soc_567

The modest gun control policy changes announced in a passionate speech by President Obama on Tuesday are not of great substantive importance. But they reveal important truths about the state of American politics. The disproportionate Republican opposition to the president’s minor executive actions on gun control isn’t just about the party’s opposition to any and all efforts to stem the tide of gun violence. Their reflexive opposition also reflects their refusal to cede any legitimate authority to the president.

After all, the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination didn’t even know what executive actions – if any – Barack Obama would take on gun control after his Monday meeting with the attorney general, Loretta Lynch. That didn’t stop them, because they knew that they would oppose whatever actions Obama planned to take.

In light of the modesty and obvious legality of the actions that Obama announced on Tuesday, the Republicans’ pre-emptive reactions seem comically overwrought. But they do reflect two major trends in Republican thought: reflexive opposition to taking any measures to stop America’s epidemic of gun violence; and claims that standard presidential actions represent some kind of threat to American constitutional order.

Mr Reagans OpEd… nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html

…This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now – the Brady bill – had been law back in 1981.

Named for Jim Brady, this legislation would establish a national seven-day waiting period before a handgun purchaser could take delivery. It would allow local law enforcement officials to do background checks for criminal records or known histories of mental disturbances. Those with such records would be prohibited from buying the handguns.

While there has been a Federal law on the books for more than 20 years that prohibits the sale of firearms to felons, fugitives, drug addicts and the mentally ill, it has no enforcement mechanism and basically works on the honor system, with the purchaser filling out a statement that the gun dealer sticks in a drawer.

The Brady bill would require the handgun dealer to provide a copy of the prospective purchaser’s sworn statement to local law enforcement authorities so that background checks could be made. Based upon the evidence in states that already have handgun purchase waiting periods, this bill – on a nationwide scale – can’t help but stop thousands of illegal handgun purchases.

And, since many handguns are acquired in the heat of passion (to settle a quarrel, for example) or at times of depression brought on by potential suicide, the Brady bill would provide a cooling-off period that would certainly have the effect of reducing the number of handgun deaths.

 

[Theo520]

There’s this one: ketv.com/news/woman-who-supplied-weapon-that-killed-officer-orozco-given-probation/36238062

She should have served 10 years in federal prison for lying on a 4473. But what we need are MORE LAWS that the government will also continue to not enforce against certain people.

People like her need a book thrown at them, and the cases need to be publicized so other girlfriends are afraid to take the risk. Nobody has a fear of punishment now.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Yes, according to the ruling in Heller which examined the origins of the second amendment. Hence 2A is written as the government will not infringe on the right vice establishing the right.

2A was assurance that the right the colonists as englishman (well, protestants…) had to keep and bear arms to counter tyranny by the crown, for self-defense, and for hunting would continue under the new government.

A ruling made by an arm of government (namely, the courts) can only apply to things of government. The very definition of a court ruling is one that is enforced by that government. To talk about a court ruling as applying to truths outside that government is like having the courts rule on the law of gravity.

A third way way of seeing this is to observe that the US courts only have jurisdiction over US laws. There are other nations on this earth that have no such thing as the 2nd amendment, and where the right to own guns is not deemed a human right. Since these nations are in fact populated by humans, you would think that a human right in one nation ought to be a human right in another nation. Who is to say which nation got it right?

Another way to see this is to observe that amendments to the Constitution can be revoked by other amendments, and rulings can in principle be overturned. If Heller were to be overturned, would that mean the right to own a gun is no longer a human right? Yes it would. If you can use the Heller ruling to prove that owning guns is a human right, an overturning of Heller would prove it is not. But a true human right that existed before any government cannot be revoked by a court ruling. If a court ruling revoked what ought to be a human right, that ruling would be wrong. If court rulings cannot be used to destroy a human right, neither can a court ruling be used to establish one.

No, you have to search outside of US court rulings if you want to establish that owning a gun is a human right.

 

[minion]

Having a gun is a human right? Antecedent to government? What???

Have you have been in a country where guns are prevalent? If so, I am certain that you did not feel safer. The question of; to have or not have a gun is more complex. The idea that a couple of vigilantes are suddenly going to start reducing the crime in their neighborhoods because they are now carrying a weapon is a fallacy.

During the LA riots, Korean store owners were being targeted by looters. What protected them were --guns. NOT the cops. I certainly feel safer. The LA riots aren’t exactly ancient history…

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I’m sorry, but these are facts. It’s not up to your opinion. Obama is a vociferous and adamant supporter of abortion and Roe. He even supports allowing children who survive abortions to be killed. If you can’t even admit that Obama is rabidly pro-abortion, your rational thinking skills and moral compass are malfunctioning.

My moral compass is just fine. You don’t know me, so don’t go judging. Thank you.

Please provide a link showing that what you contend about President Obama is factual or I will have to assume it’s a figment of your imagination.

 

[styrgwillidar]

A ruling made by an arm of government (namely, the courts) can only apply to things of government. The very definition of a court ruling is one that is enforced by that government. To talk about a court ruling as applying to truths outside that government is like having the courts rule on the law of gravity.

A third way way of seeing this is to observe that the US courts only have jurisdiction over US laws. There are other nations on this earth that have no such thing as the 2nd amendment, and where the right to own guns is not deemed a human right. Since these nations are in fact populated by humans, you would think that a human right in one nation ought to be a human right in another nation. Who is to say which nation got it right?

Another way to see this is to observe that amendments to the Constitution can be revoked by other amendments, and rulings can in principle be overturned. If Heller were to be overturned, would that mean the right to own a gun is no longer a human right? Yes it would. If you can use the Heller ruling to prove that owning guns is a human right, an overturning of Heller would prove it is not. But a true human right that existed before any government cannot be revoked by a court ruling. If a court ruling revoked what ought to be a human right, that ruling would be wrong. If court rulings cannot be used to destroy a human right, neither can a court ruling be used to establish one.

No, you have to search outside of US court rulings if you want to establish that owning a gun is a human right.

Leaf, you can look up and read the ruling. But -

The concept is that the right of self-defense is a natural right, the effective means to do so is therefore inherent in that right, it is not dependent on the government and does not come from the government. The US constitution affirms that it will not infringe on that inherent right, and acknowledges that it is in the interest of the people since it supports them collectively exercising that right in defense of the people collectively. In fact, it is impossible for the people to do so if they are denied the effective means, which are arms.

Which is consistent with Catholic doctrine on self-defense.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

People like her need a book thrown at them, and the cases need to be publicized so other girlfriends are afraid to take the risk. Nobody has a fear of punishment now.

I agree 100% with that.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Now we await for Republicans to put money where there mouth is.

 

[JonNC]

Having a gun is a human right? Antecedent to government? What???

Have you have been in a country where guns are prevalent? If so, I am certain that you did not feel safer. The question of; to have or not have a gun is more complex. The idea that a couple of vigilantes are suddenly going to start reducing the crime in their neighborhoods because they are now carrying a weapon is a fallacy.

I happen to live in a neighborhood where schools are not fenced penitentiaries and people are often seen walking at night. Now, should I give the credit for the tranquility to people carrying concealed weapons? I am in Progressive Southern California - I think not. However, I can drive a short distance and find a community that is completely opposite in regards to safety and where guns are very accessible.

**Now your primordial argument that there is some kind of right that supersede the intervention of government is absurd. ** I know Pandora’s box has been open and we are never going to be able to close it. Hence, guns are not going away. The argument is to control the flow of access, to reduce the stem of violence that we have become so accustom to hearing. I would not want my neighbors to take it upon themselves to bring order to my community. We need to have a better sense of governing…

Yes we do. We need to insist that the federal government limit its actions to that mandated in the Constitution.
As for the bolder, I suspect that you believe no rights supersede government power. Hence, you believe government can, at will, shut down newspapers and other forms of media, close churches, arrest opponents who speak out, or even dictate that soldiers must be housed by private citizens, among many other rights.
If government power supersedes rights, then they are not rights in the first place, but privileges bestowed by a benevolent authoritarian government that can rescind them at will.
That is not how our constitution, other founding documents or the founders themselves describe rights.
Rights, particularly enumerated rights are not granted by government.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Leaf, you can look up and read the ruling. But -

The concept is that the right of self-defense is a natural right, the effective means to do so is therefore inherent in that right, it is not dependent on the government and does not come from the government. The US constitution affirms that it will not infringe on that inherent right, and acknowledges that it is in the interest of the people since it supports them collectively exercising that right in defense of the people collectively. In fact, it is impossible for the people to do so if they are denied the effective means, which are arms.

Which is consistent with Catholic doctrine on self-defense.

You are on the right track referring to the Catholic doctrine of self-defense. At least this has a ring of universality (“catholic”) to it. But drawing any universal conclusions from the court ruling is nonsense. I don’t doubt that the ruling says exactly what you claim it says. But the courts are just not in a position to affirm a universal truth. After all, they have affirmed Roe vs. Wade. I doubt you want to claim that is about a universal right that is antecedent to government. The court can** say** the right to own a gun is a natural right, but they might be wrong in so saying, as they are in Roe vs. Wade. So let’s drop the “Constitution defines universal rights” argument and try to proceed just from the Catholic doctrine of self-defense, OK?

 

[ucfengr]

In the case of an untested measure, it is reasonable to apply reason to decide if a measure is likely to achieve some good. It is not reasonable that purple socks would reduce firearms fatalities. But it is reasonable that a measure that imposes penalties for skipping background checks would motivate gun sellers to avoid the penalties and do the background checks. And if background checks are done, it is reasonable to assume that at least some of the lunatics will be flagged before they get a gun.

This is a really good example of how Obama cares more about moral preening than actually accomplishing anything meaningful. In 2009, there were 71,000 cases of people lying on their background check forms. The Obama Justice Department prosecuted a grand total of 77 cases. The NRA has long supported prosecuting felons who commit crimes under federal law, but the Obama administration has never prioritized prosecuting federal gun crimes.

cnn.com/2013/01/10/opinion/avlon-obama-gun-control/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

 

[JonNC]

This is a really good example of how Obama cares more about moral preening than actually accomplishing anything meaningful. In 2009, there were 71,000 cases of people lying on their background check forms. The Obama Justice Department prosecuted a grand total of 77 cases. The NRA has long supported prosecuting felons who commit crimes under federal law, but the Obama administration has never prioritized prosecuting federal gun crimes.

cnn.com/2013/01/10/opinion/avlon-obama-gun-control/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Because that wouldn’t further the cause of disarming the law-abiding. Criminals pose no threat to expanding government power. An armed citizenry does.

Jon

 

[Brendan]

You are on the right track referring to the Catholic doctrine of self-defense.

OK, lets look at the Jewish Warsaw Getto uprising of 1943.

In that uprising, the Jews defended their lives using firearms. Was that a legitimate case of self defense under Catholic Doctrine?

If so, what was the legio (law) that granted the legitimacy? It certainly was not the civil law, as that law specifically forbade the Jews to possess arms at all? They were not soldiers, they were not police. The government granted them no rights at all to bear arms.

So one considers it to be a legitimate self defense under Catholic Doctrine, and that the use of arms was a just one, that leaves the Natural Moral Law.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

OK, lets look at the Jewish Warsaw Getto uprising of 1943.

In that uprising, the Jews defended their lives using firearms. Was that a legitimate case of self defense under Catholic Doctrine?

If so, what was the legio (law) that granted the legitimacy? It certainly was not the civil law, as that law specifically forbade the Jews to possess arms at all? They were not soldiers, they were not police. The government granted them no rights at all to bear arms.

So one considers it to be a legitimate self defense under Catholic Doctrine, and that the use of arms was a just one, that leaves the Natural Moral Law.

You are confusing the morality of using guns with the morality of restricting guns. These are separate issues. The Church (and Natural Moral Law) says it is morally licit to use lethal force for self-defense, it you happen to have access to the means of lethal force. It does say that any attempt to restrict your access to guns is illicit.

This can be illustrated with an extreme example. If you or your family are being attacked and for some reason you find yourself with access to a military high-powered bazooka that you may not own, it is morally licit to use that bazooka in self-defense. However that does not mean that any government action that restricts the ownership of bazookas is necessarily illicit. The two issues are just separate moral questions. One of them does not inform the other at all.

 

[Sy_Noe]

theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/05/what-obama-said-on-gun-control-doesnt-matter-republicans-oppose-it?CMP=soc_567

The modest gun control policy changes announced in a passionate speech by President Obama on Tuesday are not of great substantive importance. But they reveal important truths about the state of American politics. The disproportionate Republican opposition to the president’s minor executive actions on gun control isn’t just about the party’s opposition to any and all efforts to stem the tide of gun violence. Their reflexive opposition also reflects their refusal to cede any legitimate authority to the president.

After all, the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination didn’t even know what executive actions – if any – Barack Obama would take on gun control after his Monday meeting with the attorney general, Loretta Lynch. That didn’t stop them, because they knew that they would oppose whatever actions Obama planned to take.

In light of the modesty and obvious legality of the actions that Obama announced on Tuesday, the Republicans’ pre-emptive reactions seem comically overwrought. But they do reflect two major trends in Republican thought: reflexive opposition to taking any measures to stop America’s epidemic of gun violence; and claims that standard presidential actions represent some kind of threat to American constitutional order.

Mr Reagans OpEd… nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html

…This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now – the Brady bill – had been law back in 1981.

Named for Jim Brady, this legislation would establish a national seven-day waiting period before a handgun purchaser could take delivery. It would allow local law enforcement officials to do background checks for criminal records or known histories of mental disturbances. Those with such records would be prohibited from buying the handguns.

While there has been a Federal law on the books for more than 20 years that prohibits the sale of firearms to felons, fugitives, drug addicts and the mentally ill, it has no enforcement mechanism and basically works on the honor system, with the purchaser filling out a statement that the gun dealer sticks in a drawer.

The Brady bill would require the handgun dealer to provide a copy of the prospective purchaser’s sworn statement to local law enforcement authorities so that background checks could be made. Based upon the evidence in states that already have handgun purchase waiting periods, this bill – on a nationwide scale – can’t help but stop thousands of illegal handgun purchases.

And, since many handguns are acquired in the heat of passion (to settle a quarrel, for example) or at times of depression brought on by potential suicide, the Brady bill would provide a cooling-off period that would certainly have the effect of reducing the number of handgun deaths.

Yes, unfortunately I am afraid you summed up the current state of America rather well. If Obama is for it, Republicans are against it. It has sadly been that way since Inauguration night of his first election when a group of Republicans were meeting on that very night after our newly elected President had just been sworn in, taking his oath on the Holy Bible, to plot their opposition. Had the Bible been hot off the presses, the Republicans didn’t even give it time for the ink to have dried. Note the current Speaker of the House was on the guest list.

huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html

Then later on, Republican Senate leader, Mitch McConnell, said his priority was to make Obama a 1 term President. They did fail at that.

But it doesn’t matter what it is. Replace the name “Romney” with the name “Obama” before the word “care” and you have opposition. On gun control, the times of bipartisanship with Republican support for the Brady bill that you mentioned are a bygone era. And as you said now the Republican candidates opposed even before they knew what they were opposing. Or take today. They were quick to criticize Obama before they had any analysis as to whether N Korea actually had done what they claimed.

And then there is this one:

“The examples of the GOP’s reflexive opposition to President Obama’s agenda are many but this may be the best one yet: by a 27 point margin Republicans say they disapprove of the President’s executive order last year pardoning two Thanksgiving turkeys (Macaroni and Cheese) instead of the customary one. Only 11% of Republicans support the President’s executive order last year to 38% who are opposed- that’s a pretty clear sign that if you put Obama’s name on something GOP voters are going to oppose it pretty much no matter what. Overall there’s 35/22 support for the pardon of Macaroni and Cheese thanks to 59/11 support from Democrats and 28/21 from independents.”

publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/11/americans-say-trump-most-likely-to-ruin-thanksgiving-dinner-gop-opposes-obama-on-turkey-pardons.html

Can’t even support the pardon of 2 turkeys.

 

[Theo520]

You are confusing the morality of using guns with the morality of restricting guns. These are separate issues. The Church (and Natural Moral Law) says it is morally licit to use lethal force for self-defense, it you happen to have access to the means of lethal force. It does say that any attempt to restrict your access to guns is illicit.

You can’t use a gun if you don’t have access to one

This can be illustrated with an extreme example. If you or your family are being attacked and for some reason you find yourself with access to a military high-powered bazooka that you may not own, it is morally licit to use that bazooka in self-defense. However that does not mean that any government action that restricts the ownership of bazookas is necessarily illicit. The two issues are just separate moral questions. One of them does not inform the other at all.

Your example is pure hyperbole. Come back when you are reasonable, not a Manus Dei example (hand of God) that conveniently drops an illegal military weapon in your lap, but no other weapon is available (?)

 

[Sy_Noe]

Having a gun is a human right? Antecedent to government? What???

Have you have been in a country where guns are prevalent? If so, I am certain that you did not feel safer. The question of; to have or not have a gun is more complex. The idea that a couple of vigilantes are suddenly going to start reducing the crime in their neighborhoods because they are now carrying a weapon is a fallacy.

I happen to live in a neighborhood where schools are not fenced penitentiaries and people are often seen walking at night. Now, should I give the credit for the tranquility to people carrying concealed weapons? I am in Progressive Southern California - I think not. However, I can drive a short distance and find a community that is completely opposite in regards to safety and where guns are very accessible.

Now your primordial argument that there is some kind of right that supersede the intervention of government is absurd. I know Pandora’s box has been open and we are never going to be able to close it. Hence, guns are not going away. The argument is to control the flow of access, to reduce the stem of violence that we have become so accustom to hearing. I would not want my neighbors to take it upon themselves to bring order to my community. We need to have a better sense of governing…

Yes, I am sad to say as a Christian that in America it’s more important for humans to have the right to a gun than it is for humans to have healthcare.