Executive Orders

Executive Orders (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> Executive Orders (1/16/2013 2:20:30 PM)
23.. read em ..... grab your tin foil hats for you conspiracy nut cases. [;)] http://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-executive-actions-on-gun-control-2013-1#ixzz2IAfg7OIT

DaNewAgeViking -> RE: Executive Orders (1/16/2013 2:27:41 PM)
Well, it's a start at least. [sm=lame.gif]

jlf1961 -> RE: Executive Orders (1/16/2013 2:30:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl 23.. read em ..... grab your tin foil hats for you conspiracy nut cases. [;)] http://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-executive-actions-on-gun-control-2013-1#ixzz2IAfg7OIT Well after reading the proposals, I dont see a problem with the basic idea behind them. However I can see how they can be used to make it almost impossible to purchase firearms, but I really doubt that it will go that far.

Nosathro -> RE: Executive Orders (1/16/2013 3:29:17 PM)
I like at the bottom of the article the flag, "NRA is killing our kids" that about sums it up for me.

jlf1961 -> RE: Executive Orders (1/16/2013 3:31:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro I like at the bottom of the article the flag, "NRA is killing our kids" that about sums it up for me. So you are asserting that members of the NRA are actively murdering teens and children in the US? Do you have links to prove this point?

playfulotter -> RE: Executive Orders (1/16/2013 3:40:44 PM)
I think there are just a lot more stupid and crazy people because there a whole lot more people than there used to be... and we know about them and what they do/did a lot sooner than we used to...it isn't rocket science!

Nosathro -> RE: Executive Orders (1/16/2013 3:45:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro I like at the bottom of the article the flag, "NRA is killing our kids" that about sums it up for me. So you are asserting that members of the NRA are actively murdering teens and children in the US? Do you have links to prove this point? http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/nra_a_lobby_for_criminals/ http://www.vpc.org/studies/felons.htm http://www.thenation.com/blog/172125/how-nra-became-organization-aspiring-vigilantes-part-2#

thishereboi -> RE: Executive Orders (1/16/2013 3:50:35 PM)
I will admit I just skimmed the list, but I don't see any problems with it. jlf....It certainly sounds like that is what he is suggesting. Not sure why some people have so much problem blaming the guy who actually did it. But I guess if you hate a group enough you will come up with any excuse to try to paint them as evil. Now were are the resident trolls screaming "it's all the cons fault"?

jlf1961 -> RE: Executive Orders (1/16/2013 4:19:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi I will admit I just skimmed the list, but I don't see any problems with it. jlf....It certainly sounds like that is what he is suggesting. Not sure why some people have so much problem blaming the guy who actually did it. But I guess if you hate a group enough you will come up with any excuse to try to paint them as evil. Now were are the resident trolls screaming "it's all the cons fault"? The NRA has always supported the LEGAL ownership of guns, and has supported efforts and laws to restrict guns in the hands of criminals. I guess what the person is trying to imply is that all gun owners are child killers and criminals. Funny I have not killed any children or committed any criminal act, but I guess I need to start.

muhly22222 -> RE: Executive Orders (1/16/2013 5:02:48 PM)
I certainly can't say that any of those are unreasonable. Compared to some of the predictions that I heard, they're downright vanilla. As they're written in that article, I even think that they are appropriate subjects for executive orders, given that they regulate actions taken by the executive branch in enforcing the laws passed by Congress. The only one that worries me in the slightest is the provision for maximizing enforcement efforts and prosecuting gun violence, and then only because, historically, "getting tough on crime" usually means just increasing the penalties without making any provision to address any root causes. Federal gun sentences are already very harsh; I don't know that it would do a whole lot of good to raise them higher. If more law enforcement resources are directed (in a wise manner, of course) towards detecting and preventing illegal gun violence (i.e., not self-defense), that will hopefully have some effect.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Executive Orders (1/16/2013 5:05:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl 23.. read em ..... grab your tin foil hats for you conspiracy nut cases. [;)] http://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-executive-actions-on-gun-control-2013-1#ixzz2IAfg7OIT The List: Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system. (Shouldn't this already be in place, or are they adding more Federal Agencies to the list?) Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.(Gotta wonder if this is a good idea in this day and age what with hackers breaking into databases, and all) Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.(Here's another one that makes me scratch my head and wonder why that isn't already being done. Unless, of course, they are requesting more categories of info) Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.(This could go very wrong.) Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.(Provided the seizure was legal, I have no problem with this one.) Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.(Not necessarily a bad thing, but I'm open to pros/cons for further review.) Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.(Might let the NRA create it. Even if they don't, it's not a bad idea to promote.) Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).(This could go wrong, too.) Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.(Again, surprised this isn't already happening.) Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.(This is a good idea.) Nominate an ATF director.(An EO for a "To Do List" item?!?) Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.(It's a damn good idea to include school officials, and possibly all school employees; don't law enforcement and first responders already have this training?!?) Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.(Have to wonder what that means.) Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.(The CDC?!?) Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.(Not a bad idea at all. Brownie points if he "double dog dares" or "triple dog dares" the private sector...) Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.(While it doesn't prohibit it, why would doctors be the ones to ask?) Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.(Is this making it mandatory? It would be akin to the requirement to investigate/report possible child abuse. Not necessarily a bad idea, if done right.) Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.(Not sure what a "school resource officer" is, so I'm not seeing any connection.) Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.(I would much rather see this come out as a guideline only.) Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.(What State Health Officials don't know that stuff yet?) Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.(Um, huh? What does this have to do with gun control?) Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.(Another "To Do List" item. Sheesh!) Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.(I'm hoping it's not like a ship launching with the champagne bottle and all. That would hurt one or both of them!) On their face, these EO's are mild, and seem more like he is pushing 23 out so as to make it look like he's doing something about it. I'm not saying he isn't, but it's almost like everything he's doing is primarily behind the scenes, so he's rolling these out almost as a photo op. I don't doubt he's got a full plate, and I don't doubt most of it isn't in the limelight. There are a few, though, that could get downright nasty. We'll have to see how it all turns out.

tazzygirl -> RE: Executive Orders (1/16/2013 5:07:09 PM)
Thats not what he is saying. There are ways for a convicted felon to get the right to own guns. And the NRA was behind that push.

epiphiny43 -> RE: Executive Orders (1/16/2013 5:16:51 PM)
What has worked well and ignored widely, is full efforts by Federal District Attorneys IN CONCERT with local officials to bring maximum penalties to bear on illegal gun use and possession. In the one city this was policy, illegal gun carry (The one metric gun banners won't discuss) dropped hugely. Guns in citizen's possession are not the root of violence, it's easy acquisition of deadly force by criminals that produces body counts and IS REMEDIABLE. In the city where the Feds and local LEOs stopped arguing over territory and worked together murder, hold ups and other gun related crimes plummeted. The word soon got around that being caught carrying illegally got a fed penitentary time worse than many offenses in state prisons. Nobody liked this and most stopped carrying guns. We don't need new gun laws aimed at law abiding citizens, we need Actual enforcement of the many laws on the books now for misuse of firearms. If the POTA had a few Federal Attorneys with the poorest records prosecuting these problems removed or demoted, we'd soon see a transformation of American society. It isn't helping that so many federal appointments in enforcement and the judiciary are unfilled, held hostage to the ideology of the rabid right. It's fine for them to have a litmus test of ideology for judges and bureaucrats but unpatriotic for anyone else to question their candidates?

jlf1961 -> RE: Executive Orders (1/16/2013 5:17:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Thats not what he is saying. There are ways for a convicted felon to get the right to own guns. And the NRA was behind that push. Actually, the NRA was not behind that push, the ACLU was behind that push. And that is not true in all states. Of course this assumes that once a felon always a felon and therefore the person does not deserve to have his rights of citizenship restored after serving his time. Most felons that complete their sentence, jail time plus parole do not end up back in prison. Should those people continue to be citizens without full rights of every other citizen? And the question I asked was: quote: So you are asserting that members of the NRA are actively murdering teens and children in the US? Do you have links to prove this point?

tazzygirl -> RE: Executive Orders (1/16/2013 5:29:50 PM)
quote: Most felons that complete their sentence, jail time plus parole do not end up back in prison. Should those people continue to be citizens without full rights of every other citizen? http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/reentry/recidivism.cfm In my opinion, yes. Violent felons should not have their gun rights returned to them under any circumstance.

jlf1961 -> RE: Executive Orders (1/16/2013 5:37:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Most felons that complete their sentence, jail time plus parole do not end up back in prison. Should those people continue to be citizens without full rights of every other citizen? http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/reentry/recidivism.cfm In my opinion, yes. Violent felons should not have their gun rights returned to them under any circumstance. YOu still have not addressed the question I posed in response to the statement "the NRA is killing our children>" As for violent criminals getting their gun rights back, the majority of prisoners in both state and federal systems are not violent criminals. Our penal system is full to over crowding with non violent offenders that are getting hit with mandatory sentences By the way, your source does not specify if the person has completed all his sentence or was still on parole when he committed another crime. In point of fact there is no study on just those who have completed their entire sentence. I know I looked.

tazzygirl -> RE: Executive Orders (1/16/2013 6:32:04 PM)
quote: As for violent criminals getting their gun rights back, the majority of prisoners in both state and federal systems are not violent criminals. Our penal system is full to over crowding with non violent offenders that are getting hit with mandatory sentences .. What does the percentage of violent to nonviolent felons have to do with anything? As to your question... you didnt ask me. Under federal law, people with felony convictions forfeit their right to bear arms. Yet every year, thousands of felons across the country have those rights reinstated, often with little or no review. In several states, they include people convicted of violent crimes, including first-degree murder and manslaughter, an examination by The New York Times has found. While previously a small number of felons were able to reclaim their gun rights, the process became commonplace in many states in the late 1980s, after Congress started allowing state laws to dictate these reinstatements — part of an overhaul of federal gun laws orchestrated by the National Rifle Association. The restoration movement has gathered force in recent years, as gun rights advocates have sought to capitalize on the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/felons-finding-it-easy-to-regain-gun-rights.html?pagewanted=all Do you think I give fuck what an accountant who was cooking books and snagged up a felony conviction does after prison? I would hope you give one about what the violent felon does afterwards.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Executive Orders (1/16/2013 6:36:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl 23.. read em ..... grab your tin foil hats for you conspiracy nut cases. [;)] http://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-executive-actions-on-gun-control-2013-1#ixzz2IAfg7OIT As someone who has multiple guns (and intends to keep every one), other than: "16) Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes." Which seems like an open door to ultimately demand that doctors do so.... Sounds flawlessly logical to me.

tazzygirl -> RE: Executive Orders (1/16/2013 6:51:41 PM)
No, I think there was something recently about that.... http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/medicare.asp March 2012.... http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/16/drudge-and-limbaugh-misrepresent-what-obama-and/192286 Apparently Florida tried to make the asking illegal.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Executive Orders (1/16/2013 7:30:38 PM)
These executive orders will subvert HIPAA, and place anyone with 'a mental illness' (a term without a legal definition) on the same FBI/Homeland Security watch lists as convicted felons and known terrorists without the benefit of any form of due process. And of course on BATF do not sell lists. Because every single person who has a mental illness, disability, or issue is dangerous right? You know, like Aspergers? Post partum depresson? Mild agoraphobia? Sado-masochistic paraphilia? Now all open to being disenfranchised. The big difference is that before, in order to lose your franchise as a citizen, you had to have been adjudicated either guilty of a felony, domestic violence, or as mentally incompetent ( i.e. proven a danger to yourself and others). 'Adjudicated' as in 'by a judge', after hearing your defense. Under the new plan, random bureaucrats or therapists can place anyone in that status by fiat. No hearing, no appeal. Just liek the old days in the USSR. You know who is alllowed to practice 'therapy' in the US today? Among other folks, people with a 120 hour certificate, or preachers. That's right, any ordained minister can practice addiction and subtance abuse therapy, domestic violence therapy, 'pray away the gay' therapy... and now, they can refer people to the 'dangerous' watch list. In the next state over from me, a free online Universal Life Church certificate and a few bucks to the county clerk is all it takes to make one legally an ordained minister. But Hey, no problem. Don't see the issue. Looks good. Not unreasonable. Only DesideriScuri caught how far this hysteria may well go.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875