Executive Action

[Brandon Pattison]

Check out redflagnews if you think the pot isn't getting warmer. Our liberties are eroding faster in the past 5 years then they have in the past 50. The citizens allow it. They are dumbed by media, sports and other distractions to a point of being so ignorant they are clueless. Then there's the government dependents; it is so easy to qualify that our nation is falling right inline.

 

[NYSHUNTER]

I come from NYS where the gun laws are tighter then a frogs ass... It took 18 months for me to get a handgun target/ resident license ... Its impossible to get a carrier's license any longer in NY.. All the AR'S are off the wall and extinct. Rifles of any kind take a background check that usually takes 5 mins but if you have a common last name you can wait up to a week .. We can't have more then 7 bullets in a handgun. We can't even order ammo online anymore.. They wanna even track how many bullets we buy now a days ... OH NOT TO FORGET we had to registered all AR's previously brought , traded or gifted ... we can't lend a rifle to a friend to go to the range its now a FELONY

This Executive Order sounds all good and dandy but beware that's how it started in NYS .....more regs to buy a gun at the local gun shop to now next to impossible to get any gun.. more regs to lend a gun or gift a gun. if done with out a background check its a felony punishable up to 3 years in prison

To me its frighting when the politicians have a knee jerk reaction and can't pass a bill. So they find a loop hole to stick it to the people one way or the other .. That's what we are seeing here. Grandstanding at the highest level

 

[5MilesBack]

Seems reasonable to me too. I am sure a lot of people wont like it. I am pretty sure this will keep some guns from some people that shouldn't have them and it will do it without keeping any guns from those that can have them.

Please explain to me who these "people that shouldn't have them" are.

The 2nd Amendment gives U.S. citizens the RIGHT to bear arms. So from this my take is that only non-U.S. citizens don't have that RIGHT. The liberals will spin that mentally unstable people shouldn't own firearms. Is that what the 2nd Amendment says? I believe it says "shall NOT be infringed upon". How does a mentally unstable person show up on a background check? They don't. Expanding checks does nothing to change this.

Then the liberals will spin that folks that are guilty of domestic violence or are convicted felons cannot own guns. Really? Is that what the 2nd Amendment says......."except for those people convicted of a crime".

People who commit crimes are sent to prison or sentenced to probation. As soon as they are released from prison and/or done with their probation, all rights should be restored. Otherwise they shouldn't be out of prison. But they've served their debt to society and now should be fully functioning citizens of our country again.

So back to my original question........who are the background checks supposed to keep from buying a gun?

Anybody who is OK with this is either young, misinformed, or an idiot.

In the last few months there have been at least 2 cases that I know of where someone used their vehicle as a murder weapon. Did Obama come on and demand action against vehicle violence? Of course not. Yet there are many more people killed by vehicles every year than guns. Instituting national vehicle controls would have nothing to do with eliminating that.

Having any kind of gun control does absolutely nothing to address the problem. They could completely ban guns and we will still have violent people that want to do harm to others. Our LE forces are nothing more than "responders". They can't be everywhere, all the time, for every act of violence......nor should they be (we wouldn't like that). The best response is from citizens themselves at the TIME the incident is happening. I think every person should be armed and ready to act in every situation.

The problem is.........we have too many sheep in this country, too many wolves that are running rampant, and not enough sheep dogs. And it doesn't help anything when the liberals are always trying to eliminate the sheep dogs, or eliminating how effective they can be.

 

[MuleyFever]

Please explain to me who these "people that shouldn't have them" are.

The 2nd Amendment gives U.S. citizens the RIGHT to bear arms. So from this my take is that only non-U.S. citizens don't have that RIGHT. The liberals will spin that mentally unstable people shouldn't own firearms.

You explained it to yourself. Good job.

 

[MuleyFever]

The right to bear "arms" is protected by the second amendment is already infringed. Plenty of people cannot legally possess a firearm such as convicted felons. 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? Why can't I have a small nuclear bomb? Or a big one? Isn't that an "arm"? I would imagine the founders would look at the weapons available with very little regulation today in this country and be flabbergasted.

I don't think every dipshit should be able to go buy whatever gun they want. Guns are tools and can be dangerous. 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?

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. Should mentally ill people be able to buy a firearm? Most of us would agree that they should not. How about somebody convicted of domestic abuse? Should I be able to buy depleted uranium ammuntion? How about a daisy cutter?

So this executive action is aimed to close the loophole of gun shows and background checks. Why does this mean King Hussein Obummer is going to fly to your house in a black helicopter, take your guns, convert you to Islam and gay marry you? The sky isn't falling. 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.

Good post.

 

[Shrek]

Please explain to me who these "people that shouldn't have them" are.

The 2nd Amendment gives U.S. citizens the RIGHT to bear arms. So from this my take is that only non-U.S. citizens don't have that RIGHT. The liberals will spin that mentally unstable people shouldn't own firearms. Is that what the 2nd Amendment says? I believe it says "shall NOT be infringed upon". How does a mentally unstable person show up on a background check? They don't. Expanding checks does nothing to change this.

Then the liberals will spin that folks that are guilty of domestic violence or are convicted felons cannot own guns. Really? Is that what the 2nd Amendment says......."except for those people convicted of a crime".

People who commit crimes are sent to prison or sentenced to probation. As soon as they are released from prison and/or done with their probation, all rights should be restored. Otherwise they shouldn't be out of prison. But they've served their debt to society and now should be fully functioning citizens of our country again.

So back to my original question........who are the background checks supposed to keep from buying a gun?

Anybody who is OK with this is either young, misinformed, or an idiot.

In the last few months there have been at least 2 cases that I know of where someone used their vehicle as a murder weapon. Did Obama come on and demand action against vehicle violence? Of course not. Yet there are many more people killed by vehicles every year than guns. Instituting national vehicle controls would have nothing to do with eliminating that.

Having any kind of gun control does absolutely nothing to address the problem. They could completely ban guns and we will still have violent people that want to do harm to others. Our LE forces are nothing more than "responders". They can't be everywhere, all the time, for every act of violence......nor should they be (we wouldn't like that). The best response is from citizens themselves at the TIME the incident is happening. I think every person should be armed and ready to act in every situation.

The problem is.........we have too many sheep in this country, too many wolves that are running rampant, and not enough sheep dogs. And it doesn't help anything when the liberals are always trying to eliminate the sheep dogs, or eliminating how effective they can be.

I agree with this. ^^^ . Both parts ! Once someone has served their time the should be fully restored citizens. The infringement of rights under the constitution should not be tolerated for anyone not currently serving a sentence for a crime. It gives the power to the government to create a lessor class of citizen.

 

[go4thegusto]

Yea, no foothold....no regulation. How about we run amok on all public land? Let's over-graze the heck out of it without leases or control. Let's open as an ORV scramble area without limitations. These wilderness areas are a burden to our rights.

I know....let's occupy a National Wildlife Refuge to get our point across.

Does critical thinking exist here or are you hard-core 2nd Amendment guys blogging from the refuge? I don't see much of a difference. You have to legislate stupidity.

Yes, there is an AR in my ample gun safe.

 

[Dos Perros]

I apologize if this has been raised in the thread and I missed it...

...but is there any proposed regulation out there by R's? The reason I ask...I'm extremely hesitant to be "okay" with regulation forced down our throats by the executive branch, completely bypassing Congress. That's the point of Congress. This administration does not have a strong track record for success when it comes to executive action (e.g. Obamacare). Why not partner across the aisle and hammer out some good legislation that can be backed by both sides?

 

[Northernpiker]

To many people, that are ignorant about firearms, believe the media and some politicians. I have to fight it in my own house. AR stands for assault rifle, you don't need a military style rifle, they shoot a lot faster than other guns. Weren't all guns military at one time dating back to the muzzle loader. I guess I'm not a Resonable Gun Owner according to our leader. IF there was a reasonable solution I'd be all for it but with the freedoms we have in this country...I don't know if it's possible. Don't let them get their foot in the door!

 

[OG DramaLlama]

Obama said their recommendations are “well within my legal authority” and would be supported by “the overwhelming majority of the American people, including gun owners.”

This quote is very concerning. The Administration is speaking for all Americans. Our elected officials are meant to serve us, not dictate our voice.....

There are many good points throughout this feed and I highly encourage everyone to take some time and reach out to your elected state and local officials.

Unfortunately, enacting change, or as it may be in this case prohibiting it, takes more than a vote. It is my belief, that it takes participation and communication at a local/state level.

http://www.senate.gov/senators/states.htm

http://www.house.gov/

 

[realunlucky]

You have to legislate stupidity.

This doesn't work but continue to focus all efforts on it instead of balancing a budget. You know where you only spend money you have because if you don't your stupid and need to be legislation to be forced too.

If you want to change the rules do it right and change the bill of rights. You people can't follow our simple constitutional laws of governing. You can't break the law to change the law.

 

[MuleyFever]

Yea, no foothold....no regulation. How about we run amok on all public land? Let's over-graze the heck out of it without leases or control. Let's open as an ORV scramble area without limitations. These wilderness areas are a burden to our rights.

I know....let's occupy a National Wildlife Refuge to get our point across.

Does critical thinking exist here or are you hard-core 2nd Amendment guys blogging from the refuge? I don't see much of a difference. You have to legislate stupidity.

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.

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.

 

[airlocksniffer]

I know....let's occupy a National Wildlife Refuge to get our point across.

True freedom fighters right there. Y'all-queda occupying a federal outbuilding at a bird sanctuary are really fighting government tyranny. If they're so righteous in their cause, why don't they occupy a federal building in downtown Portland. Oh right, all bark, no bite. Maybe they should blow up a federal building like the Muslims in Oklahoma City. Crap, sorry those those were patriots, my bad. Me thinks that if those were brown people there would be a little more concern from true 'Muricans.

These types of knuckleheads spent a bit of time 'defending freedomz' in MT this year at a mining claim dispute with the forest service. I say if they want to play army, let the National Guard oblige them.

 

[5MilesBack]

You have to legislate stupidity.

Ok, you've given your opinion.......you're FOR removing citizen's RIGHTS........right, wrong, smart, stupid, or otherwise. That's the problem with our country today........too many people just willing to give their RIGHTS away.

I AM NOT!! Too many people have died over the course of the last two centuries protecting those rights to just throw them away. People really do deserve what they want. All rights are equal, if you're willing to give away 2nd Amendment RIGHTS then you don't deserve any of the rights afforded by our Constitution. So please give up your right to freedom of speech and also please stop voting.

Anyone here that's willing to give their rights away.......are any of you over 30? I'd like to see the average age of those willing to give their rights away. And how many of those have fought for their country and "Swore an oath to defend the Constitution from ALL enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC"?

 

[jmden]

Good post.

And...there it is. Wow.

 

[jmden]

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.

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.

This sounds just like the folks that claim the Islam is a peaceful religion and then in the same sentence tell us not to do anything to incite them. If it's peaceful, why should we have to worry...? Think about that a little bit. Talk about blind.

 

[Dos Perros]

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.

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.

I don't think that's necessarily the case. Colorado D's lost seats after their AR magazine regulation. D's nationwide lost seats over this issue after Columbine. Since the expiration of the AWB there has been no substantial federal gun control passed and the proposals for gun control have only incited people to arm themselves like crazy.

 

[MuleyFever]

This sounds just like the folks that claim the Islam is a peaceful religion and then in the same sentence tell us not to do anything to incite them. If it's peaceful, why should we have to worry...? Think about that a little bit. Talk about blind.

I dont know any of those people so could you please spell out the correlation for me?

 

[realunlucky]

Muley fever what do you believe is the answer? What do you feel is reasonable and common sense

 

[-bowfreak-]

Reading this thread is a perfect example as to how we ended up with Obama as POTUS. Don't educate yourself and rely on others, the MSM, to tell you what you should think. People are fat, happy and taken care of by the government. What possibly could they do that wouldn't be in your best interest?