RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (Full Version)

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



Message


itsSIRtou -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/6/2016 3:12:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou

Why? because the only true way the government can "turn evil" is to ELECT a president AND a congress (and in Germany's case a chancellor.) that IS evil to start with.

This is the problem right? IF 51% elected such a person, there is still 49% who will need their protection against this person. That's the problem with democracy is that it does not guarantee a good person will be elected. And what I think US did that was unique is to cover this problem by the 2nd Amendment. So people can protect themselves in such a scenerio.

In reality, most other countries choose to have blind faith that the military, police and the government will always work in their best interest and protect them, so they are the ones trusted with arms. Civilians are suppose to hide behind them for protection if shit happens.

The people who believe in the unlimited 2nd Amendment, clearly simply lacks this blind faith and if their own country was being attack, they would probably like to play a part in defending themselves too.

Fear based worked both ways. But both believe in a safer America with their point of view. Those who want guns, because they believe it will make them safer, and those who do not want guns, because they believe it will make them safer.




that's all well and good to a point.

the problem IS..... is that those who want guns, are their own worst enemy by allowing the freaks and nutcase people who are more likely to harm them than the government they "fear" ever has, to have the same arms they do.

AND said "freaks and nutcase people" ARE ACTUALLY killing them AND the people who don't want guns too. And the crazy thing is the ones who want guns are snow blind to this fact.

right along with the fact that many guns used in crimes against "want guns" & Don't want guns" people are stolen guns from other "wants guns" people.

So again their own worst enemy (and everyone else's) by being a secondary supplier to those "freaks & nutcases".

Their solution?? Just buy more guns that the "freaks & nutcases" can steal,... or let them buy at a gun show or private party sales.





LadyConstanze -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/6/2016 3:40:13 PM)

The thing I don't quite understand is why people are so much against gun control? I mean if a crime happens, you want to be able to trace the gun.
Then the cases where people with mental health issues caused damage with a gun, why is anybody against a background check unless there is something in their background that is a valid reason for them not having one (like a criminal record for violence or mental health issue)?
I'm always floored, in some places if your kids throw a party and you don't lock up the booze and they get into it, you can get seriously done for making alcohol accessible to people under the legal drinking age, parental responsibility, the stories where seriously bad accidents happen because people weren't responsible enough to have the gun where kids can't reach it, that's like "shit happens..." - personally I find that a lot worse than a kid getting drunk and puking his or her guts out.




BamaD -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/6/2016 3:48:26 PM)

The thing I don't quite understand is why people are so much against gun control? I mean if a crime happens, you want to be able to trace the gun.

How do they get the gun to trace it, unless they have already caught the criminal?




LadyConstanze -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/6/2016 4:03:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

The thing I don't quite understand is why people are so much against gun control? I mean if a crime happens, you want to be able to trace the gun.

How do they get the gun to trace it, unless they have already caught the criminal?


Actually sometimes, and this is not unheard of, the gun gets found even if the criminals don't... Thought that's pretty easy.

Or they catch a criminal, the guy bought a gun despite the fact that he should have been checked and was one who wouldn't have passed a background check, wouldn't it be in everybody's interest to close down the shop that sold the gun so irresponsibly?





DesideriScuri -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/6/2016 4:03:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
Why aren't we allowed to see this supposed EO. It isn't written down anywhere. Not even on the white house web site. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions as of 0530 mountain standard time 1/5/16. Is he afraid to allow the people to read it? Because he said it doesn't make it a law.


Maybe it has to be passed into law before we can find out what it says?




Phydeaux -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/6/2016 4:17:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

If Republicans don't know what's in the president's new gun policy, why do they hate it?
And if the NRA considers Obama's measures irrelevant, why is the group considering a lawsuit?

I wrote that a couple of days ago, one person responded with
quote:

Because he is trying to write and pass law, which is unconstitutional.

So far I havent seen much of anything calamitous as alex jones called it,
and nothing...unconstitutional.....
Any one have a more detailed opinion or comment?



I think you missed the point.

The president doesn't have the ability to pass laws. He executes existing ones. If he tries to pass a law passing it off as an executive order, it will be necessary to sue to block implimentation.

More or less it's all proceeding as I predicted several days ago.




BamaD -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/6/2016 5:03:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

The thing I don't quite understand is why people are so much against gun control? I mean if a crime happens, you want to be able to trace the gun.

How do they get the gun to trace it, unless they have already caught the criminal?


Actually sometimes, and this is not unheard of, the gun gets found even if the criminals don't... Thought that's pretty easy.

Or they catch a criminal, the guy bought a gun despite the fact that he should have been checked and was one who wouldn't have passed a background check, wouldn't it be in everybody's interest to close down the shop that sold the gun so irresponsibly?



Selling a gun to someone who can't pass the check would cost them their FFL, it would shut them down under current law, or were you unaware of that?
Even not having a record of the sale would cost them their license, so that if they sold the gun legally, it was stolen, and they didn't have a record of the legal sale it would still put them out of business. If they sold it off the books it would cost them their license.
That is covered what else do you want?
Or didn't you know this was the case?




BamaD -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/6/2016 5:07:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

If Republicans don't know what's in the president's new gun policy, why do they hate it?
And if the NRA considers Obama's measures irrelevant, why is the group considering a lawsuit?

I wrote that a couple of days ago, one person responded with
quote:

Because he is trying to write and pass law, which is unconstitutional.

So far I havent seen much of anything calamitous as alex jones called it,
and nothing...unconstitutional.....
Any one have a more detailed opinion or comment?

A. The mere fact of him writing a law is unconstitutional.
B. You don't think that it is at least questionalble to require doctors, who the AMA tells to ask if people have firearms, to report any mention of firearms the DHS?




servantforuse -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/6/2016 5:30:04 PM)

We already tried that with the ACA. We still don't know everything that is in that bill.




Phydeaux -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/6/2016 5:35:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

If Republicans don't know what's in the president's new gun policy, why do they hate it?
And if the NRA considers Obama's measures irrelevant, why is the group considering a lawsuit?

I wrote that a couple of days ago, one person responded with
quote:

Because he is trying to write and pass law, which is unconstitutional.

So far I havent seen much of anything calamitous as alex jones called it,
and nothing...unconstitutional.....
Any one have a more detailed opinion or comment?

A. The mere fact of him writing a law is unconstitutional.
B. You don't think that it is at least questionalble to require doctors, who the AMA tells to ask if people have firearms, to report any mention of firearms the DHS?



I want to elaborate on your point Bama.

We have a system of government. We the people have agree to be ruled by our Congress, our President, Our Supreme Court.

In turn, our President agreed to follow the same agreement, the constitution, and to obey and uphold our laws.

This is the reason the president writing law via executive order is a HUGE deal. It violates the agreement between the people and the government. You on the left may say - it doesn't violate what I think. Go ahead and mandate gun laws.

The problem is that then the next time there is a conservative president he may then abolish the income tax. Or cause the IRS to investigate his political enemies. It invites tit for tat violations - and the fabric of our agreement tears until one day it is torn asunder.




LadyConstanze -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/6/2016 5:46:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

The thing I don't quite understand is why people are so much against gun control? I mean if a crime happens, you want to be able to trace the gun.

How do they get the gun to trace it, unless they have already caught the criminal?


Actually sometimes, and this is not unheard of, the gun gets found even if the criminals don't... Thought that's pretty easy.

Or they catch a criminal, the guy bought a gun despite the fact that he should have been checked and was one who wouldn't have passed a background check, wouldn't it be in everybody's interest to close down the shop that sold the gun so irresponsibly?



Selling a gun to someone who can't pass the check would cost them their FFL, it would shut them down under current law, or were you unaware of that?
Even not having a record of the sale would cost them their license, so that if they sold the gun legally, it was stolen, and they didn't have a record of the legal sale it would still put them out of business. If they sold it off the books it would cost them their license.
That is covered what else do you want?
Or didn't you know this was the case?



Well, for that it makes a lot of sense if the gun is registered, and also to find out who purchased it... You seem to have skipped that part...

I do notice you tend to skip a lot of questions... Like if you find it desirable that somebody with a mental health problem can go and buy guns... Personally the feeling of somebody who's a bit crazy with a gun, it's a bit unsettling (I'm specifically thinking of Ted Nugent, the pedo who soiled his pants and rather have his kids adopted than pay for them, he's a big fan of guns). The whole thing that you have to lock your booze away so teens can't get to it but if your kids get your guns and people die, oh well...

Again, why would a person have a problem with a background check if they do not have something to hide? Nobody is taking the sacred holy cow away... Just like nobody takes your car away, you still need a driving licence though.

PS: Didn't you know about this little loophole at gun shows, or the private sellers don't need to record the sale or ask even for ID.....




Lucylastic -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/6/2016 5:55:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

If Republicans don't know what's in the president's new gun policy, why do they hate it?
And if the NRA considers Obama's measures irrelevant, why is the group considering a lawsuit?

I wrote that a couple of days ago, one person responded with
quote:

Because he is trying to write and pass law, which is unconstitutional.

So far I havent seen much of anything calamitous as alex jones called it,
and nothing...unconstitutional.....
Any one have a more detailed opinion or comment?



I think you missed the point.

The president doesn't have the ability to pass laws. He executes existing ones. If he tries to pass a law passing it off as an executive order, it will be necessary to sue to block implimentation.

More or less it's all proceeding as I predicted several days ago.


No
What is the new law exactly?




BamaD -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/6/2016 6:43:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

If Republicans don't know what's in the president's new gun policy, why do they hate it?
And if the NRA considers Obama's measures irrelevant, why is the group considering a lawsuit?

I wrote that a couple of days ago, one person responded with
quote:

Because he is trying to write and pass law, which is unconstitutional.

So far I havent seen much of anything calamitous as alex jones called it,
and nothing...unconstitutional.....
Any one have a more detailed opinion or comment?

A. The mere fact of him writing a law is unconstitutional.
B. You don't think that it is at least questionalble to require doctors, who the AMA tells to ask if people have firearms, to report any mention of firearms the DHS?



I want to elaborate on your point Bama.

We have a system of government. We the people have agree to be ruled by our Congress, our President, Our Supreme Court.

In turn, our President agreed to follow the same agreement, the constitution, and to obey and uphold our laws.

This is the reason the president writing law via executive order is a HUGE deal. It violates the agreement between the people and the government. You on the left may say - it doesn't violate what I think. Go ahead and mandate gun laws.

The problem is that then the next time there is a conservative president he may then abolish the income tax. Or cause the IRS to investigate his political enemies. It invites tit for tat violations - and the fabric of our agreement tears until one day it is torn asunder.

Never support power for your friends that you don't want your opponants to have.




BamaD -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/6/2016 6:46:33 PM)

Like if you find it desirable that somebody with a mental health problem can go and buy guns

Haven't paid attention have you, I have long decried the states refusing to enter it into the data base when someone is ajudicated to be a threat.




BamaD -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/6/2016 6:49:00 PM)

Well, for that it makes a lot of sense if the gun is registered, and also to find out who purchased it...

You said track the gun, not register. The main purpose of registration is confiscation.




BamaD -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/6/2016 6:55:02 PM)

PS: Didn't you know about this little loophole at gun shows, or the private sellers don't need to record the sale or ask even for ID.....


Didn't you know that private sellers don't need to do background checks, in some states, regardless of where they sell it. This is not a loophole, and most assuradly not a gun show loophole. They have to follow the law covering private sales in the state were the show is held. If they are from out of state the licensed or private dealer has to ship the firearm to a dealer in the buyers state who has to do a background check and verify that it is legal in their state.
No loophole there except in the jargon of gun grabbers.




ifmaz -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/6/2016 9:02:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze
...
Again, why would a person have a problem with a background check if they do not have something to hide? Nobody is taking the sacred holy cow away... Just like nobody takes your car away, you still need a driving licence though.


Do you have anything to hide? No? Then you should have no problems with giving me your passwords to your bank account and email.

quote:


PS: Didn't you know about this little loophole at gun shows, or the private sellers don't need to record the sale or ask even for ID.....


There are many, many bureaucratic issues involved with being an FFL. If you sell a firearm as an FFL you must keep that paperwork, the ATF-4473 form, for no fewer than 20 years per ATF regulations. The ATF can inspect your records every 12 months to make sure you are in compliance. The ATF will also make your information public. For a business with a proper storefront that's not usually a problem. For someone who inherited a few rifles from their deceased grandfather this is a huge hassle. As you have nothing to hide you should have no problem posting your name and address here as this is exactly what you want random citizens to do.

But mostly this is why there is opposition to arbitrarily classifying someone as a "firearms dealer":

quote:

ORIGINAL: https://www.atr.org/hillary-raise-firearm-dealer-fee-2500
With President Obama ordering Americans who sell just “one or two” guns to obtain a Federal Firearms License (FFL), Hillary Clinton’s strong support for a steep hike in the FFL takes on new importance.

Clinton is firmly on record in support of raising the gun dealer licensing fee to $2,500. The fee currently ranges from $30 to $200.

“Obama plans to require you to get a license to sell one gun,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “Hillary has already announced that the price of a license should be $2,500. This will make it prohibitively expensive for individuals to sell their own guns.”

As she testified before the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee on Sept. 30, 1993, Clinton was asked by Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.) if she supported the imposition of a new, 25 percent national sales tax on guns and a steep increase in dealer fees to $2,500. Clinton emphatically endorsed the hikes, stating: "I am all for that."

As reported by the Associated Press:

Sen. Bill Bradley, D-N.J., picked up Mrs. Clinton's support for his idea of slapping stiff taxes on ''purveyors of violence:'' a 25 percent sales tax on guns and $2,500 license fees for gun dealers.

''Speaking personally ... I'm all for that,'' said the first lady. But she stressed she was just speaking for herself.

''Well, let me say that there is no more important personal endorsement in the country today, and I thank you very much,'' said a pleased-as-punch Bradley.

After she publically endorsed the hikes in congressional testimony, she made sure that everyone understood how important this was to her, saying: "I am speaking personally, but I feel very strongly about that."

NBC Nightly News reported Clinton’s endorsement as follows:

NBC: "Others urge a hefty sales tax on guns, and much higher fees for gun dealers. Today, they got a powerful ally."

Clinton: "I'm all for that. I just don't know what else we're going to do to try to figure out how to get some handle on this violence."

Said Norquist: “Under the Obama-Clinton model, the cost of selling your best friend a $400 shotgun will be $2,900.”


By requiring practically everyone to obtain an FFL before privately selling their belongings and then upping the FFL fees to $2500 one has essentially encouraged a black market for firearms. Additionally, anyone selling a firearm at a gun show (or elsewhere) without an FFL would incur huge ($250,000) penalties and possible jail time.

All this to prevent 0.7% of criminals from obtaining a firearm at a gun show. It should also be noted the San Bernadino shooters obtained their firearms through a straw purchaser. The National Shooting Sports Foundation partnered with the ATF to educate firearm dealers about straw purchasing whereas other groups, like Mr. Bloomberg's Everytown USA, have done nothing to prevent straw purchasing. If the president truly wanted to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms he would have upped the penalties for straw purchasing or prosecuted every straw purchaser to the full extent of the law ($250,000 fine and 10 years in prison). Instead, the straw buyer who purchased a firearm used to murder a police officer was let go with year's probation and 180 days of home confinement and community service. Dontray Mills, who purchased and resold 27 firearms with a fake ID was sentenced to a year's probation. Is probation enough for people who knowingly purchase firearms for felons or other prohibited persons that cannot legally obtain a firearm of their own?

It's not all bad for firearm owners, however: the president's executive order eliminates the need for a chief law enforcement officer to sign off on NFA paperwork. NFA items have an additional $200 tax stamp and include suppressors, fully-automatic firearms, and short-barreled rifles (SBR). Previously one would have to wait for their law enforcement agency to process their paperwork, which could take weeks or months assuming the agency processed it at all. Courtesy of the president, however, now law enforcement is merely notified; they will do no additional background checking of their own.




BamaD -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/6/2016 11:56:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

The thing I don't quite understand is why people are so much against gun control? I mean if a crime happens, you want to be able to trace the gun.

How do they get the gun to trace it, unless they have already caught the criminal?


Actually sometimes, and this is not unheard of, the gun gets found even if the criminals don't... Thought that's pretty easy.

Or they catch a criminal, the guy bought a gun despite the fact that he should have been checked and was one who wouldn't have passed a background check, wouldn't it be in everybody's interest to close down the shop that sold the gun so irresponsibly?



Selling a gun to someone who can't pass the check would cost them their FFL, it would shut them down under current law, or were you unaware of that?
Even not having a record of the sale would cost them their license, so that if they sold the gun legally, it was stolen, and they didn't have a record of the legal sale it would still put them out of business. If they sold it off the books it would cost them their license.
That is covered what else do you want?
Or didn't you know this was the case?



Well, for that it makes a lot of sense if the gun is registered, and also to find out who purchased it... You seem to have skipped that part...

I do notice you tend to skip a lot of questions... Like if you find it desirable that somebody with a mental health problem can go and buy guns... Personally the feeling of somebody who's a bit crazy with a gun, it's a bit unsettling (I'm specifically thinking of Ted Nugent, the pedo who soiled his pants and rather have his kids adopted than pay for them, he's a big fan of guns). The whole thing that you have to lock your booze away so teens can't get to it but if your kids get your guns and people die, oh well...

Again, why would a person have a problem with a background check if they do not have something to hide? Nobody is taking the sacred holy cow away... Just like nobody takes your car away, you still need a driving licence though.

PS: Didn't you know about this little loophole at gun shows, or the private sellers don't need to record the sale or ask even for ID.....

What makes you think that someone who gets a gun illegally will redister it?




KenDckey -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/7/2016 12:52:29 AM)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-fact-check-obamas-gun-081616692.html

Fact Check summary. Seems the laws are already in place and have been for a long time as best as I can find.

What I don't understand is the lack of just enforcing the existing law.




lovmuffin -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/7/2016 3:41:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-fact-check-obamas-gun-081616692.html

Fact Check summary. Seems the laws are already in place and have been for a long time as best as I can find.

What I don't understand is the lack of just enforcing the existing law.


That's basically what I said. Obama is just trying to make hay out of the issue. It does the democrats more harm than good and increases the sales for guns and ammo.




Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875