Executive Action

[Hootsma]

Seem reasonable to me.

Seems reasonable to me too.

I'm okay with this.

Have you really thought this through. Do you realize all the laws Obama is breaking with this EA and all the parts of our Constitution he's trashing, and all the freedoms you're giving up?

EAs are for clarifying laws not for making a laws. Making laws are the job of our legislative branch of government. HIPPA is a law passed by our Congress which protects peoples medical information. This EA will negate that law and allow a doctor to provide parts of your medical record to the government without your permission or knowledge. This isn't clarifying the HIPPA law, this is rewriting the HIPPA law to fit his agenda, which is clearly illegal and outside the purview of EAs. This will allow any doctor to take away your second amendment rights for what ever reason they deem fit. Whether it be a legitimate mental health issue, political activism, foul mood or personality conflict. This is too much power in the hands of one person. Are you sure your ok with this?

In addition, where is the due process in all of this. Our 5th and 14th amendments guarantee us that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. At what point, between when the doctor informs the government and the confiscation of my guns / revocation of my 2nd amendment rights occurs, do I get to confront my accuser in a court of law and defend myself. This is clearly an infringement on multiple Constitutional Amendments. Are you sure your ok with this?

The parameters of the definition of a gun dealer are already established law. By changing those parameters to define a gun dealer (ie. FFL requirements) as anyone who sells a single gun, then he is rewriting existing laws and not clarifying them. Again, illegal. Do I need to mention that the gun show loophole is a fallacy with absolutely no evidence or statistics to support that notion. I've personally purchased 4 guns at a gun show over my lifetime and I had to go through the background check process each and every time.

The right to bear "arms" is protected by the second amendment is already infringed.

So, since it's already infringed, we should just keep on infringing on it without any thought to the consequences of those infringements?! That makes absolutely no sense!

And what do you thing the founders meant by "arms"? Knives? Muskets? AR-15's? Anti-aircraft guns? Why can't I have all of these things?

Per our Constitution and in my opinion, you should have a right to these things. That is the whole point of the 2nd amendment.

Why can't I have a small nuclear bomb? Or a big one? Isn't that an "arm"?

Per our constitution you should have that right. However, I don't think anyone, government or individual, should have nuclear weapons.

I would imagine the founders would look at the weapons available with very little regulation today in this country and be flabbergasted.

You're right, they would be flabbergasted, but for the opposite reason. I'm not sure how you define 'very little', but I suspect it's quite different from my definition and our Founding Fathers. They would look at the hundreds of federal laws and thousands of state laws and regulations governing gun ownership and wonder what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you people not understand. It's pretty miopic to think that our Founding Fathers had the wisdom and knowledge to create the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, yet they lacked complete foresight of the possibility of any advancement of weapons development. They were smart enough to know that they didn't know everything that was or was to be, hence the Constitutional Amendment process.

I don't think every dipshit should be able to go buy whatever gun they want.

I'm a very prejudiced man. But, my prejudices are not based on religion, politics, nationality, skin color or sexuality. They are based on intelligence. I don't like stupid people. So, I kind of agree with you. But, as much as I abhor the rampant ignorance and stupidity in this country, I am unable to find a "dipshit" clause in the Constitution. Do you think we can apply this same metric to the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th amendments? How about the right to vote? That's where it'd do the most good.

Guns are tools and can be dangerous.

Freedom is dangerous. Everything can be dangerous. So what? That is not a legitimate reason to infringe upon someones constitutional rights.

We has hunters have all passed some form of hunters safety to prove we are responsible enough for hunting, why shouldn't gun owners/non-hunters have to prove that competency?

I'm guessing the "hunting clause" is right next to the "dipshit" clause and that's why I can't find it? If that's not the case, then I suggest you take a look at the 10th amendment.

What will really sink the ship of firearm ownership in this country is the lack of reasoned discussion and compromise, fueled by the "cold dead hands" mentality of the NRA.

So, you are unable to find any compromise on the side of the gun rights advocates in the course of events going from the final ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791 which includes the clause of "shall not be infringed" to today where we have hundreds of federal laws and thousands of state laws regulating gun ownership on the books? If so, then I don't think your and my definition of compromise are the same. Criminal activity is already thoroughly outlawed, usually by multiple laws. How many times do we have to make something illegal before it's officially illegal. All these new laws tend to affect and limit the abilities of honest law abiding folks, not the criminals, hence the definition of criminal.

Should mentally ill people be able to buy a firearm? Most of us would agree that they should not.

I don't agree with your blanket statement. It depends on the definition of mentally ill and how that is determined. The parameters for the various metal illnesses that can eliminate someones 2nd amendment right need to be clearly delineated and that diagnosis needs to be adjudicated by a court. See amendments 5 and 14 for support of this notion. Are any other rights and/or privileges on the chopping block for mentally ill people? If not, why not?

So this executive action is aimed to close the loophole of gun shows and background checks

How is this EA going to further protect us? How many murders and/or mass murders are perpetrated by folks who slipped through the gun show loophole or background check loophole? The jackass who shot the folks in a church in South Carolina passed a back ground check that he should not have passed. Our federal government can't even enforce all the existing laws effectively and you want them to pass more?!

Do you really think the NRA and corporate lackeys of Congress would allow any form of regulation to even be discussed? Piss on the NRA. They give not two shits about your right to hunt with your firearm. All they care to do is scare people into buying more guns and ammo. The NRA and gun manufacturers are laughing all the way to the bank.

I'm a member of the NRA because they support and defend my 2nd amendment right, not because they support and defend hunting. There are other organization dedicated solely to hunting. I agree with you that they are laughing all the way to the bank. Laughing at the irony of a liberal, progressive president being the most effective pro-gun propaganda that this country has ever seen.

Come on now. Dont you know the best regulation is no regulation? This is 'MURICA. Mentally ill and criminals just released or fresh off parole should have every right to buy weapons. I mean heck within 5 years only 71% of violent criminals are back in prison after committing another crime. Of all prisoners 24 years old and younger only 84% go back. Remolded model citizens I tell ya.

This epitomizes one of the problems with this country and gun control. We are about curing symptoms not the actual problem. If the court sentences a person to prison, they serve their time, including house arrest, halfway house, parole... and are set free to be members of society again, then they should receive all of their rights back. If our punishment system isn't working, then lets fix it, not put a band aid on the symptom which unjustly takes away Constitutional rights and forget the problem. If we can't trust someone with a gun, then they shouldn't be out in society without any restraints.

The problem with trying to stick with the "shall not be infringed upon" argument is that it just leads to more cries for gun control. If people could just come together and come up with some "common sense" (for lack of a better term) rules while understanding that every murder cannot be stopped we would be a lot better off. The more people blindly fighting any regulation the more strength the anti movement gains. It is a circle we wont get out of until a compromise is reached and that just isnt likely.

So what? The gun control folks can cry me a river for all I care. We already have 100's of federal and 1000's of state "common sense" rules regarding gun control not to mention all the other laws which make things illegal as well. How many different ways do we have to make murder illegal before it's really illegal and makes people stop murdering? Which new law is going to be the magic one to fix everything? Again, we're looking at the symptom, not the problem. The gun is inanimate. It has no influence or control over a person. It's the person who does the killing. It's the person who is the problem. Their weapon of choice is irrelevant. If it wasn't, then there would have been no such thing as murder until the gun was invented. We aren't blindly fighting legislation, their blindly proposing legislation with hopey changey sentiments looking for anything that will stick to further their progressive agenda. Can you point to any piece of gun control legislation that's been recently proposed or can you suggest one yourself that would drastically reduce the murders in this country or would have stopped any of the recent mass murders? You can't because the gun is a symptom not the problem. Curing the symptom still leaves the underlying problem. The cities with the highest murder rates in this country are the cities with the strictest gun control. The only way we'll ever reach a compromise is when everyone gives up their 2nd amendment rights. That's the ultimate goal of the progressive left, stated many times and anything short of that is unacceptable to them. Since that's their idea of compromise, then I think I'll have to pass.

Back on the original topic, not sure why if 9 firearms dealers are required to do background checks that the 10th who happens to sell at a gun show doesn't, requiring that dealer to do so is not the end of our freedom. It's a damn loophole, that's all it is.

A gun dealer is clearly defined by current laws and their is clear delineation between a dealer and private seller. There are no exceptions for dealers who only sell at gun shows and do not have a brick and mortar store. What you are trying to do is create a straw argument by confusing the terms dealer and private seller. If a person is a dealer, then they are required to have an FFL. Do some people abuse this? Absolutely, but they are breaking existing laws. Is the ATF aware of this and monitoring these individuals at guns shows. Absolutely. I've seen them their myself. A private citizen selling their firearm, regardless of whether they are at their house, a gun show or Wal Mart parking lot is not a gun show loop hole. It's a private transaction and none of the governments business.

 

[Hootsma]

I think that we people need to take way all regulation of guns cause any regulation will lead to more regulation, ect. The regulation we already have is unconstitutional and will lead to more regulation. Every 5 year old should be able to buy a gun. Doesn't matter they have no concept of what a gun is nor do they have money. There is no reason for anyone to ever not have a gun. This is a slippery slope that will only lead to more regulation. A five year old not getting a gun is the first step in the frog and the pot. Its the pinky toe in the pot. From my baby's cold dead hands...... Heck, that kid's parents shouldn't even supervise it when the kid wants to use the gun. Parental regulation. Bad deal there.

Look if the founding fathers were these super geniuses and all that were omniscient and we don't need to interpret the constitution at all, then black people wouldn't be able to own guns. It wasn't stated in the constitution they couldn't but since they weren't citizens, then it should go without saying, right? They knew something we don't.

And nukes. I want a nuke.

I cringe when people bring up 'common sense legislation' or 'compromise' because of spurious arguments like this. How can we even have a reasoned and logical debate on this topic when this is what you bring to the table.

The constitution was written when people were shoving lead balls and black powder down the barrel of a 40 inch musket. Do people really think that applies to this day where there are semi-automatic weapons?

And travel was on foot or horse back and mail took months to get delivered. Not sure what your point is. Is the 1st amendment on the chopping block too because of it's antiquated origins. Murder occurred then as it does now even though they had 40" muskets. There is this thing that the Founding Fathers came up with called the amendment process for just such an occasion.

I will say that I personally don't see the need for anyone outside of law enforcement to possess an assault rifle/semi-automatic weapon. And citing that "it's your right" is an ignorant misinterpretation of our constitution.

Wow!? That's absolutely ridiculous, considering this is the exact reason our forefathers included the 2nd amendment. It was common sense that firearms were necessary for protection, hunting and sport and therefore there was no reason to include those reasons in the bill of rights. The reason for the "Well regulated militia" preamble in the 2nd amendment is to identify the basic premise of their founding philosophy, which was freedom through self-governance. They had just overthrown a tyrannical government and wanted to ensure they would always have the means to do so again if it became necessary. I'm curious, what's your interpretation of the Constitution and our 2nd amendment?

 

[nflesher]

From first hand knowledge I can say steps should be taken to help keep guns out of the hands of those who by law should not have them or by principle should not have them. The path to that is consequenses. If people had to pay for their actions things would be different. Most of the world has lost complete touch with right and wrong. From my neighbor who walked away from 200 grand in debt and now lives high on the hog, to these criminals who are getting shot by police and then they are made marters by the media, to thief's, to rapists, to mass shooters of the past who still have not been punished at all. It seems more important to not hurt someone's feelings than to punish. I know of several hard felons who went to gun shows the day out of prison and bought guns, yes plural, I don't believe laws will ever solve anything at all, the person we don't want to do wrong just needs the fear of god in them from seeing what happens when you break the law, and that's not getting support from the media after you are mistreated by cops or if you are sentenced to death. An eye for an eye whould be the only law needed to fix all this. I'm sick and tired of this crap and no leaders have any vision whatsoever past the current term they are milking.

Well said!

I agree with everything Hootsma stated as well. Maybe a lawyer, but either way I couldn't agree more with all that he posted!

 

[Kevin Dill]

Hootsma is my kind of American.

It's depressing to see the cumulative effects of liberal gun-control propaganda finally taking hold in the minds of otherwise-strong men and women. It cannot be over-emphasized that media is absolutely...gradually...moving the needle which is majority opinion on gun-control. When gun owners begin repeating media and liberal-speak....that is a sign not to be ignored.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Yes, you're finally getting it. We should have the right to own and possess whatever the military has at its disposal. How else could we expect to overcome a tyrannical government, which is exactly why the 2nd Amendment is in there. So anything and everything that the U.S. and state governments have done to restrict our rights to these weapons, is an infringement........which is strictly addressed by the 2nd Amendment.

Hmm interesting interpretation. I always thought the 2A was something like this:

It seems in a lot of these responses there is the attitude that things are so bad now with the 2a and everything else in this country. What in your opinion is the time we need to go back to?
Also there is a lot of talk about the 2a and what that means, how Obama is breaking the law, etc. As I think this EA is a response to gun violence in this country, what are some ideas to address that? Praying and doing nothing is not an answer.

 

[PNWGATOR]

Well said Hootsma!!!

 

[FlyMooney]

Served
Hootsma, Thank you. I appreciate you.

 

[gelton]

Our rights were given to us by our creator not the government, so the government has no right to take them away. The 2nd doesnt state that we have the right to keep and bear arms unless you are mentally unstable, or unless restricted otherwise by the government. Its like saying that if the government determines that you are a homophobe or religous zealot that they have the right to remove your 1st ammendment, it doesnt work that way.

Thats where the slippery slope comes in and if you think it applies to the second ammendment, then you also must agree that it applies to all the others, and then you have a fascist dictatorship where rights are granted by the government instead of a birthright, and that is absolutely not what the bill of rights and the constitution were written for - they were meant to restrain the government not the people.

 

[Kevin Dill]

It's not gun violence....

The problem is human violence. Guns are the implement but controlling or outlawing them doesn't address the causes and doesn't prevent violent crimes in which guns are used.

similarly...

The problem is addiction. Drugs are the objective but controlling or outlawing them doesn't address the causes and doesn't prevent addiction and use of drugs.

The efforts made against these issues are akin to killing a snake by cutting off its tail. None of us wants this, but the problem is far deeper in our culture. The PROBLEMS are expressed in addiction (drugs), crime (guns), child abuse (child porn) and many, many more illegal or socially unacceptable behaviors. Outlawing the tangible items in these 3 examples may seem to make sense, but does not prove to prevent or address the underlying causes of their illegal use. Additionally in the case of firearms restrictions, legal and responsible owners/users bear the difficulties of buying and owning...while criminals tolerate none of that. It doesn't work...as any middle-class Chicago working person sees every single day.

Final weird, related note. Pseudoephedrine is now regulated here in Ohio. I have to present a valid driver's license and be approved to buy it. If I have a nasty cold I can't get Sudafed (legally) any other way. If the state's system check is down, I can't buy it. Why? Methamphetamine addiction. So I go home and wipe my nose...while reading about the nonstop meth crisis and the all the 2-liter bottle 'labs' busted continuously. I'm sure someone feels better knowing the Sudafed is under lock-and-key...but it's doing little or nothing to help me or prevent meth use.

 

[5MilesBack]

Hmm interesting interpretation. I always thought the 2A was something like this: I don't even know what you're attempting to say with that. But I guarantee you that the Constitution nor the 2nd Amendment is a cartoon nor a laughing matter like it is to some of you. Some of you are obviously very young and haven't studied any history at all. I'd take care of that promptly so you can understand what you're arguing for and against.

As I think this EA is a response to gun violence in this country, what are some ideas to address that? Praying and doing nothing is not an answer.

Your second statement pretty much says it all. "Think", "response", "gun violence", "doing nothing"........

First of all, it isn't "gun violence"........it is "violence".......period. You don't address violence by addressing inanimate objects......they inherently aren't violent.......they just sit there, until a person picks them up. I carry every day, all day, everywhere......because that's my right. And I don't carry because I know that guns are out there just waiting to kill people. I carry because I know there are "people" out there that are fully capable of killing people, whether they use a gun, a knife, a screw driver, a baseball bat, or as is becoming popular these days.......a vehicle. Should Obama create some EA's to require background checks for purchasing vehicles? Using the exact same logic he's using for gun control measures.........absolutely! Again........it's not the tool it's the violent offender. If the goal is to prevent some people from obtaining dangerous weapons, then we need to expand that reach into ALL dangerous weapons, not just guns. THIS IS WHY WE ALL KNOW THIS ISN'T ABOUT KEEPING PEOPLE SAFE. THIS IS ABOUT CONTROL OF THE PEOPLE!!

What would be safer? A criminal walking into a gun free zone with a Glock that he bought on the black market because he couldn't pass a background check (a lot of good that law does), and shooting 30 people because all the "law-abiding citizens" weren't carrying in the gun-free zone. Or.........the same criminal walks into the same location which is not a gun-free zone and pulls his Glock, and a prepared citizen (sheep dog) pulls his sidearm and takes the guy down, thereby saving many lives.

Actually this happens more often than you'd think. But this type of news is counter-productive to the left's objective, and isn't given the airtime that it really deserves.

And I actually agree with you on your last statement: "Praying and doing nothing is not an answer." But praying and BEING PREPARED is the answer. I pray every day that I'll never HAVE to use my sidearm, but that doesn't mean that I'm not prepared to. There are a lot of sheep that refuse to protect themselves, but I just hope that there are enough sheep dogs left in the world to not only protect themselves, but also the sheep. The problem is the government and society in general is trying to disarm the sheep dogs, because "guns are scary and bad". The wolves are loving this because they could care less how many EA's and laws are created. They don't follow laws and EA's......only law-abiding citizens do.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Our rights were given to us by our creator not the government, so the government has no right to take them away.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Pretty sure Jesus mentioned nothing about "the right to bear arms". If you want to live in a theocracy, I hear Syria is nice.

 

[jmez]

It's depressing to see the cumulative effects of liberal gun-control propaganda finally taking hold in the minds of otherwise-strong men and women.

That is an oxymoron.

 

[Roy68]

Well said Hootsma, Shrek, Gelton; I'm in the same corner.

 

[Kevin Dill]

That is an oxymoron.

I agree. So is crime-prevention through gun-control.

 

[5MilesBack]

Pretty sure Jesus mentioned nothing about "the right to bear arms". If you want to live in a theocracy, I hear Syria is nice.

The right to defend oneself and/or others that can't, shouldn't have to be explained.......even by Jesus. If you don't understand this right, there are plenty of dictatorship's that might suit you.

 

[airlocksniffer]

The PROBLEMS are expressed in addiction (drugs), crime (guns), child abuse (child porn) and many, many more illegal or socially unacceptable behaviors.

These are symptoms. The problem is income inequality and the destruction of the middle class. The problem is our elected officials (left and right) owned by corporations, who worship nothing other than profit.

 

[rayporter]

Hootsma, excellent!

comprise? i fear most young people here willing to compromise will get their wish. it is only a matter of time until the east coast and the west coast join hands and dictate the compromise you will make. i just hope i dont live to see it.

ammo- yes that will be an issue. who needs a hundred rounds when you can only put 3 in the magazine.
powder - wait till they discover reloaders store pounds of powder. that will be forbidden and you will then be a terrorist.
bullets and primers -soon to follow -surely you have heard of the attempt to serial number every bullet made.

and after that it will be target rifles [ did you know that you can hit an aspirin at a hundred yards with those?] who needs a weapon that accurate, thats a sniper rifle and not necessary.

to think that they wont pour water on that steep slope and attempt to start us slipping all the way down to the bottom is to ignore their stated goal. Nancy pelosi was heard to say that confiscation was the goal.

the demographics that are unfolding clearly show thew will win given enough time.

 

[Hootsma]

Pretty sure Jesus mentioned nothing about "the right to bear arms".

You sure about that?! You don't sound very sure. Maybe you should look that up. Here, I'll help:
http://www.biblicalselfdefense.com/
It's important to note that context is everything with the bible and this website provides a good bit of context for the passages that are included. It's clear from this, that the bible and Jesus were ok with the right to bear arms.

If you want to live in a theocracy, I hear Syria is nice.

With some light research, it's pretty clear that our Fore Fathers based our form of government on Judeo-Christian values and believed that this style of government of people without those values would fail. Adams says it better than I can: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams (Federer, p. 10) This does not mean that our Fore Fathers created a theocratic government. Quite the opposite. Many came to America to escape religious persecution. The last thing they wanted to do was bring that persecution with them. However, they realized without a moral compass to guide us, we would devolve into the feel good, all about me, entitlement leeches we are today.

We must understand that with freedom comes great responsibility. I have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater, even if there is no fire. That's freedom and that is what they intended. But, in the context of a person with a strong moral, responsible and religious foundation, who would do such a thing? It's easy and obvious to see the consequences of such an action. That's why that's not specifically prohibited in the constitution. Our current government has strayed a long ways from the concept of freedom and now thinks they need complete and total control of everything and everyone. And, I strongly disagree with that.

 

[Shrek]

The problem is that the weak minded have accepted the framing of the issue and the need to compromise by the totalitarian socialist. For those born after 1978 or so they have no personal memories of the examples of totolitarian socialist regimes that existed before their collapse. The hopeless misery and lagging standard of living. The evil of modern Russia is a pale shadow of the evil that was the Soviet Union. History is whitewashed in public schools. Look to China to see the future of the United States. totolitarian socialism in action with an unarmed population. Stand up for freedom and you get run over by a tank and you internet isn't just monitored for chilling effect but filtered too. Speaking out for justice will get you a bullet to the back of the head. Chairman Mao's spirit walks with the modern democratic party.

 

[Kevin Dill]

These are symptoms. The problem is income inequality and the destruction of the middle class. The problem is our elected officials (left and right) owned by corporations, who worship nothing other than profit.

All of these problems...symptoms (semantics matter little) cross every income boundary and are found in all socioeconomic groups. I doubt we'd find many Americans who think these 3 'symptoms' would subside if we could achieve income equality and get rid of capitalism. I can easily imagine plenty of liberal Americans who would love that though, and would appreciate the extra income to use for cannabis purchases, abortion co-pay...etc. For the record, I am with you on the problem of elected officials who see their main constituents as being their biggest financial supporters. On the other hand, without that tendency there's a real argument that the pro-gun lobby would have failed and we'd now all need licenses simply to purchase and own a firearm...every one of which would be registered and tracked.