View Full Version : President Obama: We must seek agreement on gun reforms
http://azstarnet.com/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html
Looks like he's trying to drum up support for gun control....
Badger52
03-14-2011, 14:15
I think one facet of this is a goal to completely end private sales, of any kind. Since legislating behavior in other areas has worked so well.
greenberetTFS
03-14-2011, 14:16
But I have more faith in the American people than that. Most gun-control advocates know that most gun owners are responsible citizens. Most gun owners know that the word "commonsense" isn't a code word for "confiscation." /Arizona Daily Star/POTUS
If he said this,I don't really think he means it!.............:eek:
Big Teddy :munchin
And, in fact, my administration has not curtailed the rights of gun owners - it has expanded them, including allowing people to carry their guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.
It's not your call dumba$$. Didn't you go to law school? :confused:
It's not your call dumba$$. Didn't you go to law school? :confused:Sure it is. He could have vetoed the bill or issued an executive order.
Compromise on gun laws mean more gun laws.
While it sounds good not let crazy people have guns how will you define who is crazy?
To the left who wants this law Tea Party folks are crazy - Republicans are crazy - Religious folks are crazy (except Muslims) - in fact anybody who would want to buy a gun is crazy.
Talk about Catch-22.
Sure it is. He could have vetoed the bill or issued an executive order.
As far as I understand he couldn't have used an Executive Order to nullify a law passed by congress or an issue settled by the courts. He could have used one to set regulatory rules in the absence of either though. I could be wrong though, I'm not a lawyer.
Sure it is. He could have vetoed the bill or issued an executive order.
Sigba,
Next you're gonna tell me that he'll sign a law to nationalize 1/5th of the economy!
:D
Sigba:mad:Is this how John Bigboote felt before he strayed from his lane one last time? <<LINK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQtjY3KbqfE)>>:p
MOO, the current president has taken a big step back from the anti-second amendment rhetoric of his campaign and the early days of his administration.
Has the light gone on? Has he figured out that the Bill of Rights is not the a la carte affair many Americans think it is? Or is he just positioning himself for 2012?
Leave him alone. The more he hints at gun control the lower his approval.
He's back down to -20 on Rasmussen.
Dems like CCW, too.
Well, I'm truly surprised it's taken him this long to bring up gun control laws. We all should have known it was only a matter of time. The National Parks law was another surprise.
My advice would be to continue to support the NRA and hopefully some more common sense voters show up in 2012.
il_bandit
03-14-2011, 16:19
President Obama is not likely going to get enough support to really do anything to the gun laws now. Enough people are waiting for a third case to go to the Supreme Court.
Texas_Shooter
03-14-2011, 16:30
No more gun laws. You are just hurting law abiding citizens, that's it.
And, in fact, my administration has not curtailed the rights of gun owners - it has expanded them, including allowing people to carry their guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.
Quick, someone go tell HuffPo (a bastion of impartial reporting) they "misremembered" how concealed carry in national parks came about:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/06/bush-admin-overturns-ban_n_148959.html
Here is a good idea for some 'gun reform' lets change our current guns laws to fall in line with what some guys who grew up in Europe had in mind...
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
That would be a change to the current laws wouldn't it?
GratefulCitizen
03-14-2011, 20:54
I think there should be a quota system implemented for gun ownership.
This would accurately reflect the diversity of opinion.
Any compromise should closely match with actual public opinion.
There is a way to make sure that the quotas of gun ownership match exactly with the opinions...
Everyone who is pro-gun should be required, by law, to possess guns.
Everyone who is anti-gun should be prohibited, by law, from possessing guns.
Problem solved.
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2011/03/they-really-think-they-can-get-away.html
craigepo
03-14-2011, 21:39
While it sounds good not let crazy people have guns how will you define who is crazy?
Anybody who has had a guardian appointed by a court of law. Of course, those people should also lose their right to vote, but that argument is for another day.
dr. mabuse
03-14-2011, 22:57
*
Stingray
03-15-2011, 00:54
I think there should be a quota system implemented for gun ownership.
This would accurately reflect the diversity of opinion.
Any compromise should closely match with actual public opinion.
There is a way to make sure that the quotas of gun ownership match exactly with the opinions...
Everyone who is pro-gun should be required, by law, to possess guns.
Everyone who is anti-gun should be prohibited, by law, from possessing guns.
Problem solved.
I have read some excellent ideas on this bb. This idea, GratefulCitizen, is certainly up there with the best.
It has been said that he didn't actually know it was in there when he signed it.:munchin
Not a shocker...
Anybody who has had a guardian appointed by a court of law. Of course, those people should also lose their right to vote, but that argument is for another day.
What if you get a serious anti-gun judge who starts appointing guardians to everyone just to remove their 2A right?
Here in TN our judges don't care much about the law or higher court precedence...
craigepo
03-15-2011, 15:17
What if you get a serious anti-gun judge who starts appointing guardians to everyone just to remove their 2A right?
Here in TN our judges don't care much about the law or higher court precedence...
Having a guardian appointed is no small matter. To appoint a guardian, a court is essentially taking away a person's right to make decisions. The court case gets very complicated very quickly. The person has a right to a jury, gets free legal counsel. The burden of proof is high as well.
The Court has to find that the person is incapable of making decisions/taking care of his/herself. When the court appoints a guardian for a person, the person no longer has the ability to contract, make medical decisions. Almost always, there is a physician who testifies, with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the person is unable to make decisions for himself. Essentially, the person is under a total legal disability.
Also, the guardianship has to be filed by somebody; quite often this is a family member, sometimes the county public administrator. Additionally, the person can come back at a later time and prove that he has regained his faculties.
Stated differently, a guardianship is not filed to take away a person's gun rights, and it would be impossible to prove such a case if gun ownership was a person's sole intention in filing the matter.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/15/obama-gun-laws-congress_n_836138.html
Obama Looking For Ways Around Congress On Gun Policy
With Reporting By Lucia Graves
WASHINGTON -- Faced with a Congress hostile to even slight restrictions of Second Amendment rights, the Obama administration is exploring potential changes to gun laws that can be secured strictly through executive action, administration officials say.
The Department of Justice held the first in what is expected to be a series of meetings on Tuesday afternoon with a group of stakeholders in the ongoing gun-policy debates. Before the meeting, officials said part of the discussion was expected to center around the White House's options for shaping policy on its own or through its adjoining agencies and departments -- on issues ranging from beefing up background checks to encouraging better data-sharing.
Administration officials said talk of executive orders or agency action are among a host of options that President Barack Obama and his advisers are considering. “The purpose of these discussions is to be a productive exchange of good ideas from folks across the spectrum,” one official said. “We think that’s a good place to start.”
Earlier in the day, House Democrats joined New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to offer another possible starting point, announcing legislation that would make fundamental changes to the nation’s gun background check system. Sponsored by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), a longtime gun control advocate, the bill mirrors one introduced late last month by another New York Democrat, Sen. Chuck Schumer.
“Too often, any serious discussion about guns devolves into ideological arguments that have nothing to do with the real problem,” Bloomberg, a co-founder of the coalition Mayors Against Illegal Guns, told reporters at a press event outside the Capitol. “Our coalition strongly believes in the Second Amendment. We also know from experience that we can keep guns away from dangerous people without imposing burdens on law-abiding gun owners."
For gun control advocates, however, executive action remains a more promising -- albeit more limited -- vehicle for reform than Congress. On Monday, The Huffington Post first reported that the Justice Department was convening meetings with groups from across the ideological spectrum in an effort to chart potential policy changes to Second Amendment law.
The discussions were meant to build a broad coalition around the elements of reform Obama had outlined a day earlier in an op-ed for the Arizona Daily Star, including stronger state-to-state coordination, expedited background checks and greater enforcement of the laws already on the books, especially with regard to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
But the coalition-building didn’t start off on a promising note. The National Rifle Association responded to the op-ed by arguing that Obama had missed the point “entirely” in ignoring lax law enforcement and shortcomings in the nation's mental health system.
The NRA’s response crystallized what administration officials and gun control advocates have long known to be a major potential roadblock in any reform effort: a policy approach that gives off even the hint of restricting access to firearms will be met with forceful opposition by the gun lobby and its allies.
Even when Democrats attempted to limit the ability of outside interest groups to make anonymous campaign donations, they ultimately exempted the NRA for fear that the group would derail the entire enterprise. And so, the conversation has drifted towards executive action.
“We need tougher laws, but there’s a lot we can and should be doing to enforce the laws we have,” said Mark Glaze, the executive director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns. “Sometimes it’s a question of manpower and money, but in many cases it’s just a question of political will. We think the president knows that and is getting there.”
The extent to which Obama can change gun law without the hand of Congress is not, gun control activists say, wholly insignificant. Though they say they'd prefer longer-lasting, broader legislative responses to shootings like that which occurred in Tucson, Ariz., in early January, there are notable gaps that can be filled with presidential action.
With respect to the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), a Clinton-era rule had prevented the military from reporting to the Federal Bureau of Investigation that the alleged shooter, Jared Loughner, had been rejected as a recruit for failing a drug test. Obama could reverse that without Congress, Glaze and an administration official said.
As for other possible actions that can be taken without Congress, Mayors Against Illegal Guns has compiled a wishlist of sorts, suggesting that the national background-check system enforce the requirement that all federal agencies report individuals forbidden under federal law from purchasing guns; that the White House restructure regulations requiring that the FBI destroy firearm-purchase records after 90 days; that the FBI, DOJ and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives be more aggressive in pursuing federal prosecutions against those individuals who illegally attempted to buy firearms; and that the latter agency ramp up undercover investigations of sales at gun shows.
Never let a crisis go to waste.....
greenberetTFS
03-16-2011, 19:34
I think there should be a quota system implemented for gun ownership.
Everyone who is pro-gun should be required, by law, to possess guns.
Everyone who is anti-gun should be prohibited, by law, from possessing guns.
Problem solved.
I sincerely believe GC has hit it right on target!...........:lifter:lifter:lifter
Big Teddy :munchin