Executive Action

[airlocksniffer]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...-on-gun-safety-signed-today-by-the-president/

Here's a condensed version link. Answer this, why so many separate orders?

I read them all. Are all of these an infringment of the 2a in your opinion? I don't see anything limiting your right to bear arms.

 

[Flatgo]

The scary part is half the executive orders deal with obamacare... Which is setting up for doctors to be government employees and have the right to say if you're mentally ill or not. Or own guns or not without any due process. Seems like there's more to this that meets the eye a very slippery slope.

 

[Roy68]

Holy crap I can't get past the first clause of number 2.

If you get passed it #16 clarifies the entent of #2

 

[dvm_hunter]

Just to say this, are there even any good politicians left? They're all crooked in their own way. The fact trump can make this a comedic routine while running shows how bad these politicians are.

I honestly don't know how most democrats feel taking guns away will solve the problem. Just makes criminals feel safer because no one will be a threat to shoot back

They don't care about solving the gun violence problem, they would love nothing more than to turn us into the next Australia or Great Britain. They want to ensure a citizenship of sheep, unarmed men and women stand no chance against a well armed government. Why do you think they have dumbed down our education system and focused on tests and use that to control what teachers focus on to teach their students. They do not want independent thought or free thinkers. It amazes me what passes for curriculum in today's universities. I'm up in age (31 when I finished my B.S.) compared to classmates and their inability to create an original thought or response to a situation is astonishing. I attended a rather "conservative" school or what is thought to be a conservative school in this state and the History/Government/Poli Sci professors were anything but.

 

[dvm_hunter]

The scary part is half the executive orders deal with obamacare... Which is setting up for doctors to be government employees and have the right to say if you're mentally ill or not. Or own guns or not without any due process. Seems like there's more to this that meets the eye a very slippery slope.

My first experience with a medical professional asking if there were any guns in my home about 4-4.5 years ago when I took my son in because he was ill. I was taken aback, but firmly followed up with "NO". They have no business what weapons I have in my home if I'm not a felon, sex offender, suffer from a mental default, or have been convicted of domestic violence. For that line of questioning to take place in a pediatrician's office is an invasion of privacy.

 

[1hoda]

Never have advocated for pure socialism but we have elements that are beneficial in our country. Social Security? National Forests? If you really hate socialism in any form then you should quit coming out west to hunt on public lands.

Could you reference which article of the US Constitution authorizes socialism? Reading the Constitution it's abundantly clear that the intent of the document is to protect private property and associated rights of ownership, the opposite of socialism. The burden of proof rests with you, sir.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Could you reference which article of the US Constitution authorizes socialism? Reading the Constitution it's abundantly clear that the intent of the document is to protect private property and associated rights of ownership at all costs, the opposite of socialism. The burden of proof rests with you, sir.

Don't recall saying socialism is referenced in the Constitution. Can you reference which article of the US Constitution authorizes capitalism? Do you think we should have public lands to hunt on? My guess is that you do else you wouldn't be on Rokslide. Would you then not agree that the concept of public land ownership is kind of socialism?

 

[Hootsma]

That link doesn't really make any sense. Senators would be more responsive to the interests of their state if legislators, rather than the people themselves elected them?

Yes because of this (from the article, emphasis added):
"The idea was that the states would send the senators to Washington to represent them. If a senator started voting against the best interests of the state which he represented, he could be immediately recalled."

"Without the 17th amendment the senators would be kept in check. They would be watched closely by the state legislatures. So what happens when the state legislatures fail to make sure no unconstitutional bills are voted for by the senators? That’s where the people come in. It is much easier for the people of a state to contact and put pressure on the state representatives which reside in their district than it is for them to try to get a U.S. Senator to listen to them all the way from Washington."

"The idea is that the people would keep a close eye on their state legislatures, and the state legislatures would then keep a close eye on the senators that represent them."

The 17th Amendment doesn't grant power to the federal government and take power away from the states

I never said that it grants power to the federal government, but it does take a check away from controlling the size of the federal government. It does however, take power away from the states. When Senators were appointed by the state legislatures, they were not interested in any national interest groups because they had to answer to their own state. Now, with the 17th amendment, we've effectively removed bicameralism and essentially have to houses of representatives.

--it takes power away from politicians and party structures at the state level and places it in the hands of the people.

And that's exactly what makes it unconstitutional. Here's how it was originally intended to work:
The people are represented by the house
The states are represented by the senate
The nation is represented by the president
States lost much of thier ability to control the federal government because the state legislatures are no longer represented by the senators.

The federal government as designed by the founders was designed to be unresponsive to the will of the people. Read Madison, Federalist #10. That's why, according to the original plan of government, the people had no guarantee of influencing the government other than through their district representative--no direct election of senators, an appointed judiciary and executive branch, an electoral college.

That is mostly correct. The president is not appointed, the president is elected by the people through the electoral college. But, the rest is spot on. One of the important reasons for Hamilton, Madison and Jay to write the Federalist Papers was to convince the states, particularly New York, that they wouldn't be relinquishing their power to a bloated federal government if they agreed to the Constitution. They were trying to explain exactly how the states would retain their rights and powers that they currently had and how they would be able to restrain the federal government and keep it in check. They had just overthrown a tyrannical monarchy and they wanted assurances that they weren't going to eventually end up back their.

The framers designed a system of government that was rather well insulated from the popular will--a point that is often lost when we mythologize the politics that shaped our constitution.

Not on me. I almost always make it a point to correct people that say we are a democracy. We are not, we are a Republic. If you want to see what happens with a democracy, then look at Baltimore or Ferguson. Mob rule is a pitfall within democracy that everyone seems to 'mythologize' over when discussing it. This is the exact reason why they intended to insulate the government from the popular will.

The 17th Amendment was passed in order to give "the people" greater say in governance

The people are already represented by the house. Now they are represented by the House and Senate. Who represents the states?

The modern movement to repeal it is essentially so that the same arbitrary designation of gerrymandered voting districts keeping a certain set of interests in control of Congress and most state legislatures will influence the composition of the Senate.

State legislatures were not intended to simply influence the composition of the Senate, they were suppose to determine the exact composition of the Senate so that they would have a place at the table. That's the whole point of a bicameral house and a Federalist system. Is gerrymandering a problem? Sure, but you don't need to destroy the basic tenets of our government to fix it. The movement to repeal it isn't about 'arbitrary designation of gerrymandered voting districts' (by the way, they are either arbitrary or gerrymandered, they can't be both), it's about restoring power back to the states and trying to reign in the bloated federal government.

 

[1hoda]

Typical liberal response. Change the subject when you can't answer the question.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Typical liberal response. Change the subject when you can't answer the question.

Pretty sure I did. I never said the US Constitution authorizes socialism. It doesn't. Doesn't authorize capitalism either. I'm not a liberal nor a conservative. We don't all have to be all or none. I'm just a guy with different ideas than yours about the topics in this thread. Doesn't make me bad and you good or vice versa.

 

[7mag.]

I couldn't read all the posts because some of you are so ignorant it hurts my brain. This is EXACTLY how it started in Great Britain, now they have no guns. More gun laws do nothing except disarm law abiding citizens, nothing more.

 

[7mag.]

I want to follow up by saying, I did not intend to offend anyone in my previous post, but I'm going to leave it as I wrote it, unedited, because I believe it shows how important I feel this issue is. I urge everyone to think hard about the long term implications these types of laws carry, and think about what good they actually do, if any. Don't get caught up in "It sounds reasonable", on the surface, because that's exactly what they want you to think, while they're sticking it to every gun owner in the convoluted details of the law.

These laws are authored to sound reasonable to the majority, but buried in the long drawn out text, lies the evil tyranny of the law.

 

[Mike7]

Wow, great thread and really proves Jmez & Shrek's points about public education and an attitude of dependency. Great, informative and well reasoned posts by 1Hoda and Hootsma as well, thank you.


Airlock and MAT, the answers to your questions and concerns are already in these posts. In my opinion it seems as if you are repeating talking points, without really listening. Some people want to be dependent and have the government tell them what to do, which is their choice, but it is intellectually dishonest to make false arguments based upon progressive talking points which don't have any factual basis...you can't have freedom without personal responsibility. Currently, a lot of people want compete freedom without personal responsibility. Private property and capitalism encourage personal responsibility (gov't should be there to enforce laws, not pick the winners and take money from some to give to others). That is what private charity is for. People naturally are biological systems that seek efficiency...greatest reward for the least amount of effort. Culture and laws have historically been present to foster a work ethic, hope, and community, but gov't forced socialism is a cancer on the spirit.


Also think about this, how am I am infringing upon your rights by owning a firearm? But progressives/the gov't are clearly infringing upon my rights through taxes, regulations, etc. by preventing me from owning an effective weapon for the defensive of my family against criminals...or even God forbid for defense against the gov't itself. Of course the gov't if given the chance will teach/brainwash in school that there if only one way to think, and that individual liberties are really just privileges bestowed by the gov't...and that every group needs special privileges.


MAT, let's forget the point that Shrek already made about civilian law enforcement and consider the military as you say for a moment. You don't have to have equal firepower to make a greater force think twice about their own actions. I would guess from the military leaders that I have met that 1/3 might have little problem following orders which are not Constitutional in rounding up and imprisoning civilians (although it could be higher now as many good ones in this administration have been replaced by "yes men"). It would become much harder for these leaders to follow this order, and I suspect this number really drops, when one is asked to shoot civilians and get shot by civilians who are physically able to resist and just want to be left alone in their own homes.


If I come home with my family and get attacked by 3 criminals with various weapons, and needed 15 bullets in my magazine to repel the attack instead of 10, where do progressives get off telling me that my family should die and 10 round magazines are all that I should have to fight against criminals which don't follow the same laws. Listen to some of the videos of Colin Noir if you want to see things in a different fashion than maybe you were taught in public school. Here is a link regarding guns used to protect people. http://www.mrcolionnoir.com/right-to-carry/florida-state-university-criminologist-gary-kleck/

 

[Mike7]

This experiment is failing, not because of the Constitution or guns, but rather because we are getting away from the Constitutional principles. It was a freak of history that these highly educated men, who had really studied history and understood human nature for what it is and not what they hoped it would become, arrived on a new continent in a time that they were able to put this miracle together. These men were for liberty & justice and the "pursuit of happiness". Income equality necessarily means injustice & tyranny. After college I worked 24-36 hr shifts and didn't do drugs, and spent my hard earned money to continue school (the gov't didn't freely pay for my school), while many people who work at Walmart did not do these things. That is a personal choice. But I personally know many people who work at Walmart, who do just fine if they work hard and make good choices with their money. If they don't work hard and didn't get an education and did drugs, are they going to advance up the Walmart chain...no, nor should they. But at least they are caring for themselves and providing a service.


Governments are inherently wasteful, with big governments being more wasteful and function to sustain themselves in an ever increasing fashion without checks and balances. And gov't debt to pay for the lifestyle and wants of politicians and people living right now, means stealing from the lives and labors of our children and grandchildren. It is unconsionable.

 

[Mike7]

I really can't believe that we don't have more gun violence with all of the things working against our country as the result of our expanding government, our dishonest & failing public schools, and our purposeful destruction of our borders & culture. But I would never want to get rid of the second amendment. Most gun violence happens in our ghettos, but we are instituting ghetto policies on the entire nation. Our populace has largely become blind to cause and effect, because of this system. Guns are not the problem.

 

[Travis Bertrand]

One thing is for sure, we are passionate about something here on Rokslide. That's good. Thanks for keeping it civil.

 

[hunting1]

I really can't believe that we don't have more gun violence with all of the things working against our country as the result of our expanding government, our dishonest & failing public schools, and our purposeful destruction of our borders & culture. But I would never want to get rid of the second amendment. Most gun violence happens in our ghettos, but we are instituting ghetto policies on the entire nation. Our populace has largely become blind to cause and effect, because of this system. Guns are not the problem.

Well said! It is not a gun problem but is a society problem!

 

[airlocksniffer]

This experiment is failing, not because of the Constitution or guns, but rather because we are getting away from the Constitutional principles. It was a freak of history that these highly educated men, who had really studied history and understood human nature for what it is and not what they hoped it would become, arrived on a new continent in a time that they were able to put this miracle together. These men were for liberty & justice and the "pursuit of happiness".

The framers of the constitution were indeed highly educated, ambitious men who drafted an incredible framework for building this nation. They were also men, just like you and me, flaws and all. Many owned slaves. And they didn't arrive on a new continent, there were already people here who were systematically destroyed. Given these obvious flaws in these men, to assume these men created an absolute perfect document to be followed to the t is ignorant at best. They knew that as well, hence the system of checks and balances in our government so no one party gained too much power. The Constitution also authorized the creation of a federal judiciary, the Supreme Court. You and I know both know the Supreme Court, to put it simply, interprets the Constitution (it's a framework, remember)? While the power of judicial review is not explicitly granted in the Constitution, many framers viewed that as appropriate. In Federalist 78 per Alexander Hamilton:

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution

Funny thing about the Constitution, a framework, is that it's not explicit about a lot of things. Like the definition of "arms". So, the SC interprets the Constitution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Whether you agree with this or not really doesn't matter. The Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution and this is what they came up with. If you look at who was part of the majority in this opinion, it was the conservative justices (Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito). But it's the liberals who want to take away our guns, slowly with background checks, then complete confiscation. Doesn't really look like that at least in the Supreme Court.

Maybe it seems like it here that I'm the left, evil liberal who wants to take away all guns. I'm not. I'm a hunter. I've hunted my whole life as long as I was legally able to do so. I fully support my and your right to keep and bear arms. Do I think we would be better with no guns whatsoever? Nope. Do I think anybody should be able to buy any weapon they want at any time? Nope. I and the majority of Americans feel the answer is somewhere in the middle.

Not sure if you have kids but I do and quite clearly remember temper tantrums. Kid gets so worked up and cannot be reasoned with, screaming, kicking, raising an all out shitstorm. They want what they want and that's the final word in their minds. My first reaction is to try to talk to my kids, maybe defuse the situation. If you've experienced a temper tantrum with a 3 year old, that doesn't usually work. What happens next? You take over and force your will upon that kid (Knock that shit off!). I'm not a spanker but maybe you swat your kid on the ass. The far right and far left are the kids with the temper tantrum. Most Americans are the moderate adult The bigger tantrum you throw about guns in this country, the majority of Americans will grow tired of trying to reason with you and end it via legislation. Wouldn't be surprised at all if it leads to a constitutional amendment to define "arms". Not saying I want that but the hard line in the sand will only end one way.

And nobody on this thread has addressed the whole socialist, public lands question I posed.

Lastly, armed toddlers kill more people in this country than ISIS. Think about that.

 

[Kevin Dill]

I'm not so much interested in the intellectual teacup discussions about interpreting governmental intent, constitutional intricacies and founding father insights. I'm interested in not losing my rights on account of media and political propaganda...and that's from either side of the political arena.

I frequently see that about 80% of firearm-related homicides (not suicide or accidents) are attributed to gang violence. I find that to be an enormous statistic, and it does seem intuitively extreme. I could be wrong.

We all know that mass murders constitute a very tiny percentage of total violent homicides in the US each year. Statistically small, but obviously very large perceptually.

What will additional firearms laws and background checks accomplish in reducing these two high-profile categories?

 

[jmez]

The Federal Government should not own land.