View Full Version : White House Gun Violence Reduction Executive Actions
Delivered today at noon EST.
Gun Violence Reduction Executive Actions
Today, the President is announcing that he and the Administration will:
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. 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.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. 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.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. 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.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
Richard :munchin
I see Armor-piercing ammunition is being talked about.
So all you hunters had better watch out.
Also long on the mental stuff. I told all you PTSD folks years ago you'd better watch out.
The following is a list, provided by the White House, of executive actions President Obama plans to take to address gun violence.
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
To include the VA no doubt!
2. 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.
Yes get rid of the HIPAA laws, cause we gotta know if you have gonorrhea before you get a gun!
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
You mean threaten to withhold more of the tax money paid by the citizen of that state? (Arizona, you guys are screwed!)
4. 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.
Like Vets!!!
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
One more bullshit hurdle to use so they can keep “stolen” guns!
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
Like that will help!
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
Right after we teach kindergarteners how to put condoms on cucumbers!
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
I knew some one was going to make a dollar off this…all your gun safes won’t meet standards, got to buy new ones!
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
Like in Fast-nFurious?
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
See #9
11. Nominate an ATF director.
They are probably better off with out one!
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
Like weapons training?
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
Like enforcing all those laws we have?
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
I doubt drugs and pharmaceuticals will even be part of the equation. Their answer is already defined…know they just need to work on HOW to formulate the question so it matches the answer….take away guns!
15. 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.
Oh this is promising…let’s make new guns!
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
They gotta fix Obama care?
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
Duhhhh
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
Kinda like the NRA asked for??? I hope the media makes fun of O for this one!
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
Please tell us how to react to an emergency , cause we won’t be able to figure it out on our own!
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
I thought Obama care was suppose to answer all our health care needs?
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
No issue with this one, Texas aint implementing the ACA exchanges!
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
Should this be number on one on the list?
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
Three crazy people sittin’ in a room to figure out how to deal with everyone else!
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/16/list-executive-actions-obama-plans-to-take-as-part-anti-gun-violence-plan/#ixzz2IA2etyKA
All that damn hoopla over nothing...that guy couldn’t lead ants to a picnic!
Thanks, Richard.
Subjective regarding mental health...
Looking for 10 round mags or less, ammo and AR restrictions to come up.
http://www.wral.com/obama-unveils-500-million-gun-violence-package/11987200/
This is a snippet from the 7th paragraph....
"This is the land of the free and the home of the brave, and always will be," Obama said, acknowledging the right to possess and bear firearms. "But we've also long realized ... that with rights come responsibilities."
I got an idea....how about the gov't take responsibility for the laws we already have on the books and enforce them to the fullest extent.....instead of all this plea bargain crap that lets someone out in 3 mos. VS the many yrs they should've served......
Badger52
01-16-2013, 12:14
Thank you Richard for synopsizing in a thread.
Bad Shakespeare.
The AP thing is stupid (and largely redundant) because gun-free-zone murder victims are all up-armored. M2 stuff has largely been the only stuff in large circulation anyway because it was the general battlefield round of the time. This was a nod to the LE, who don't fancy running into Walt Kowalski's Garand.
I wonder if his sycophants understand how little he really did (besides outright lie several times).
from Richard's .pdf
Encourage the development of innovative gun safety technology: Despite
rapid advances in technologies in recent years, there are few readily available
firearms that utilize these new technologies to help guard against unauthorized
access and use. The President is directing the Attorney General to work with
technology experts to review existing and emerging gun safety technologies, and
to issue a report on the availability and use of those technologies. In addition,
the Administration will issue a challenge to the private sector to develop
innovative and cost-effective gun safety technology and provide prizes for those
technologies that are proven to be reliable and effective.
I can see it now "MS Safe-Gun™ has encountered a fatal error. Do you wish to reboot?"
Oh wait, there are prizes?
TXGringo
01-16-2013, 12:25
from Richard's .pdf
I can see it now "MS Safe-Gun™ has encountered a fatal error. Do you wish to reboot?"
Oh wait, there are prizes?
Smells like Solyndra...
DJ Urbanovsky
01-16-2013, 14:09
My thoughts:
1) We know admin and specifically pres has anti gun agenda.
2) Admin will seize upon actual events, or engineer them to push their agenda. “Never let a crisis go to waste” and all that.
3) CT happened, and admin is like “Yes! We took this election, we’ve got the power, this event just went down, let’s use it to do this gun control thing now!” It was not even 48 hours later when Feinstein and co were in front of the cameras like the ghouls they are.
4) BHO took his photo ops, and then stepped up to the mic and opened his big yap. Along with the rest of the usual antis.
5) This was a big mistake, because as it turns out, at least on this issue, our lawmakers do not have the support of the people.
6) The people demonstrated this lack of support by voting with their pocketbooks across the nation. BHO = gun salesman of the decade, at least. Nearly THREE MILLION NICS checks in the past month? And that doesn’t count FTF sales. http://weaponsman.com/?p=6482 :cool:
7) The people demonstrated this lack of support by contacting their representatives in droves. And everybody is talking about this, even people who aren’t part of the culture. Added bonus - we have found out who some of the Benedict Arnolds among our elected representatives are. Remember this, and during the next election cycle, vote and remove those people from office.
8) Representatives want to keep their cushy jobs in DC. Say “We can’t/won’t sign off on this.” The only ones who would are those with the support from their nanny state constituents already, and the aforementioned turncoats. Nanny state reps lose nothing. Everybody else is in danger of getting fired.
9) Admin (and specifically pres) realizes they’ve lost this fight on actual legislation this time, but they can’t look weak and just slink away into the dark – so what’s happening now is their version of trash talking while walking away after they just got their asses kicked. “Mustn’t look weak. Weak = meat. Must look as if actually doing something.” Then yells the loud funny words. “Next time Imma kick your ASS!!!” And that’s what these EOs are. The act of an impotent, impudent buffoon who didn’t get his way, and who just got his dick knocked in the dirt. He has to do this so that his tribe doesn't eat him.
Delivered today at noon EST.
Gun Violence Reduction Executive Actions
Today, the President is announcing that he and the Administration will:
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. 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.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. 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.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.15. 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.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
Richard :munchin
OK, I may be a formerly blonde chic, but aren't the items highlighted things that are already on the books? If the highlighted things aren't already being done, someone's head should roll! Are you kidding me that he stated the need for law enforcement to trace weapons used in crimes. DUH
Streck-Fu
01-16-2013, 14:48
OK, I may be a formerly blonde chic, but aren't the items highlighted things that are already on the books?
But now he is emphaiszing that they need to be done better....
Did I need more pink? :p
Badger52
01-16-2013, 15:00
OK, I may be a formerly blonde chic, but aren't the items highlighted things that are already on the books? If the highlighted things aren't already being done, someone's head should roll! Are you kidding me that he stated the need for law enforcement to trace weapons used in crimes. DUHIt may interest you to know that it's not uncommon in cases of a clear self-defense incident for the (now exonerated) actual victim to have to pursue lengthy legal action to get the return of THEIR own property, to wit: their firearm. It is very seldom a part of the judgement, or determination that no charges need be brought.
So you shoot scumbag, it gets adjudicated through the local ADA as a defensible shoot, and they run a background check on you and you are in some new category based on the AG's direction from #4 and they still can't release it. These things are a kluge because they're listening to people who have no clue WTF they're talking about.
My fallback is simple like TS':
No.
It may interest you to know that it's not uncommon in cases of a clear self-defense incident for the (now exonerated) actual victim to have to pursue lengthy legal action to get the return of THEIR own property, to wit: their firearm. It is very seldom a part of the judgement, or determination that no charges need be brought.
So you shoot scumbag, it gets adjudicated through the local ADA as a defensible shoot, and they run a background check on you and you are in some new category based on the AG's direction from #4 and they still can't release it. These things are a kluge because they're listening to people who have no clue WTF they're talking about.
My fallback is simple like TS':
No.
FWIW, B&B Guns (the guys that "loaned" the LAPD the ARs used in the North Hollywood shootout) never got the guns back. They ended up going bankrupt from the lawsuits. I was a customer.
Pat
This whole thing has been an excellent diversion from Benghazi.
OK, I may be a formerly blonde chic, but aren't the items highlighted things that are already on the books? If the highlighted things aren't already being done, someone's head should roll! Are you kidding me that he stated the need for law enforcement to trace weapons used in crimes. DUH
I think this has more to do with making a defacto national registration. It is my understanding that to back trace a gun now they must start from the top down.
I.E. Go to the manufacturer, then to the distributor, then to local gun store and ask for 4473 then contact person on said form.
By closing all sales without background checks would essentially ban person to person sales. Ensuring that all sales now would have a 4473 and a "full background check" whatever that entails.
The problem is much of this stuff is ambiguous and will be up to the ATF's descretion to detail what this really means. And I don't know if you've gone through the NFA process lately but it doesn't instill confidence.
I think this has more to do with making a defacto national registration. It is my understanding that to back trace a gun now they must start from the top down.
I.E. Go to the manufacturer, then to the distributor, then to local gun store and ask for 4473 then contact person on said form.
By closing all sales without background checks would essentially ban person to person sales. Ensuring that all sales now would have a 4473 and a "full background check" whatever that entails.
The problem is much of this stuff is ambiguous and will be up to the ATF's descretion to detail what this really means. And I don't know if you've gone through the NFA process lately but it doesn't instill confidence.
I was just at the BX looking at the weapon I am going to purchase this weekend. When I asked if they were having problems with backlogs on background checks they told me the paperwork takes about 30 minutes to fill out and get put through online and I would walk out with my weapon after that. Unless I completely misunderstood what the salesman was telling me.
I personally don't have an issue with background checks on person-to-person sales.
I was just at the BX looking at the weapon I am going to purchase this weekend. When I asked if they were having problems with backlogs on background checks they told me the paperwork takes about 30 minutes to fill out and get put through online and I would walk out with my weapon after that. Unless I completely misunderstood what the salesman was telling me.
I personally don't have an issue with background checks on person-to-person sales.
That is probably just the NICS check. Which is an instant check to see if you are a felon or have been mentally adjudicated.
That is not the same as the NFA background check which involves fingerprinting, leo sign off, but that is currently reserved for items that fall under the National Firearms Act. (Suppressors, MG's, SBR, SBS) basically all the really fun stuff. My point was that we don't know what this full background check will entail.
As far as background checks on person to person sales. I don't feel that I should have to have a background check on my family and friends if I choose to sell them one of my personally owned firearms. This also will cost money because it will require the sale to go through an FFL and they are business to make money.
Also, there currently is no national database of firearms. So why is it so important to have every sale have a background check essentially requiring the sale to be on a government form unless they wish to be able to track every firearm in this country? Also, there are many guns in this country that have never been on a form 4473 ever. This would force these guns to then to be on the government books if you ever wish to sell them. This might also affect the rules regarding inheriting and gifting of firearms.
I'm trying not to put my tinfoil on, but it sure seems that these are just steps towards a national gun registry.
Streck-Fu
01-16-2013, 16:59
I was just at the BX looking at the weapon I am going to purchase this weekend. When I asked if they were having problems with backlogs on background checks they told me the paperwork takes about 30 minutes to fill out and get put through online and I would walk out with my weapon after that. Unless I completely misunderstood what the salesman was telling me.
Most FFLs around here have spent hours no hold trying to complete checks. If the BX can do it online, they seem to be using a different interface.
I personally don't have an issue with background checks on person-to-person sales.
I have bought and sold many weapons privately. Most often, I write up a Bill of Sale to include the DL # and or CCW license. I prefer to keep it out of the government's hands and lately have been wanting much less of a documented trail.
I was just at the BX looking at the weapon I am going to purchase this weekend. When I asked if they were having problems with backlogs on background checks they told me the paperwork takes about 30 minutes to fill out and get put through online and I would walk out with my weapon after that. Unless I completely misunderstood what the salesman was telling me.
I personally don't have an issue with background checks on person-to-person sales.
My last few gun purchases in Texas went kinda like that! Fill out the form, show CHL and they submit to the state...with a CHL no need to wait. Wife bought a gun, showed DL, and the only difference was she had to wait for the return approval...about 30 minutes.
My last few gun purchases in Texas went kinda like that! Fill out the form, show CHL and they submit to the state...with a CHL no need to wait. Wife bought a gun, showed DL, and the only difference was she had to wait for the return approval...about 30 minutes.
Same thing in AR.
Same thing in AR.
Might take longer if they could read. :rolleyes: :D
Might take longer if they could read. :rolleyes: :D
Line 6A:
Feller bot 2 long gunz, a short un, and 1 box ca'tridges. :D
Line 6A:
Feller bot 2 long gunz, a short un, and 1 box ca'tridges. :D
That was after somebody from the Board of Ed at the state capitol filled it in for the Feds - I saw the original and it read like the marquee for a porno movie house in Little Rock!
Line 6A:
XXXXXX XXX 2 XXXX, XXXXX XX, 1 XXX XXXX :p :D :D
I may as well go on record to say that this is one doc who damn sure won't be violating confidentiality to service an agenda.
Should laws or definitions about what is "confidential" be changed, I'll be taking stronger action.
:lifter
Doc, "you gots guns in your house?"
Patient, "no."
Doc, "why not?"
That is probably just the NICS check. Which is an instant check to see if you are a felon or have been mentally adjudicated.
That is not the same as the NFA background check which involves fingerprinting, leo sign off, but that is currently reserved for items that fall under the National Firearms Act. (Suppressors, MG's, SBR, SBS) basically all the really fun stuff. My point was that we don't know what this full background check will entail.
As far as background checks on person to person sales. I don't feel that I should have to have a background check on my family and friends if I choose to sell them one of my personally owned firearms. This also will cost money because it will require the sale to go through an FFL and they are business to make money.
Also, there currently is no national database of firearms. So why is it so important to have every sale have a background check essentially requiring the sale to be on a government form unless they wish to be able to track every firearm in this country? Also, there are many guns in this country that have never been on a form 4473 ever. This would force these guns to then to be on the government books if you ever wish to sell them. This might also affect the rules regarding inheriting and gifting of firearms.
I'm trying not to put my tinfoil on, but it sure seems that these are just steps towards a national gun registry.
I agree with you on all points except the person-to person sale. I can understand where you are coming from if you are selling to a member of the family, or gifting it to them. But what about the the guy that is selling on craigslist, or other such places. Shouldn't there be some kind of check for that? YOu don't know if you are selling to a felon, to a drug user, to someone who intends using it for nefarious purposes...
I agree with you on all points except the person-to person sale. I can understand where you are coming from if you are selling to a member of the family, or gifting it to them. But what about the the guy that is selling on craigslist, or other such places. Shouldn't there be some kind of check for that? YOu don't know if you are selling to a felon, to a drug user, to someone who intends using it for nefarious purposes...
I agree with afchic, exhibit #1
http://www.armslist.com/posts/864710/colorado-springs-colorado-rifles-for-sale--olympic-arms-m4-carbine
I agree with you on all points except the person-to person sale. I can understand where you are coming from if you are selling to a member of the family, or gifting it to them. But what about the the guy that is selling on craigslist, or other such places. Shouldn't there be some kind of check for that? YOu don't know if you are selling to a felon, to a drug user, to someone who intends using it for nefarious purposes...
I agree with afchic, exhibit #1
http://www.armslist.com/posts/864710/colorado-springs-colorado-rifles-for-sale--olympic-arms-m4-carbine
Who would pay for this background check and who will be liable (legally) if/when a false positive or negative alert happens?
To do background checks on possible tenants for rental houses, I have to get release forms, SSN, DL#s, pay +/- $50 a person (husband and wife = $100), and wait two days. Are the Leas going to open up their databases?
charlietwo
01-16-2013, 21:57
This whole thing has been an excellent diversion from Benghazi.
Couldn't help but lol at this.
What else is there to do? We live in interesting times.
Also, there currently is no national database of firearms.
Despite the law "officially" disallowing records to be kept by NICS in the long term, ever wondered why they still need a serial number read off when doing a "background" check? I think this should be changed to "No serial #" needed, just a yea or nay, and if an FFL is doing the calling, be able to know what category the flag is in, if denied for one to start an appeal process if needed.
As a non-FFL, it would be nice to have the *option* to have access to NICS for a private sale, but only if sans serial. Perhaps anonymously through a web form (plus an iPhone, iPad, Droid app) or an automated phone system.
5) This was a big mistake, because as it turns out, at least on this issue, our lawmakers do not have the support of the people.
6) The people demonstrated this lack of support by voting with their pocketbooks across the nation. BHO = gun salesman of the decade, at least. Nearly THREE MILLION NICS checks in the past month? And that doesn’t count FTF sales. http://weaponsman.com/?p=6482 :cool:
7) The people demonstrated this lack of support by contacting their representatives in droves. And everybody is talking about this, even people who aren’t part of the culture. Added bonus - we have found out who some of the Benedict Arnolds among our elected representatives are. Remember this, and during the next election cycle, vote and remove those people from office.
Polling data from Gallup on Americans' views of gun control are available here (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/Guns.aspx).
Do you really think the criminals buy at gun shows or from private parties? No they dont. They buy stolen weapons from their criminal friends. In fact at times they make sure the gun they are buying was stolen while they were in prison so they dont get slapped with the break in. It is noting more than a feel good measure that at best does noting but in reality is a way for the government to track who owns what ie assault rifle etc.
Here is an example of police abuse of firearm registration. A number of years ago in Sonoma County CA there was a double murder with zero suspects. The rifle used was a .22 cal that was not very common. There were about 20 or so known in the county. The judge signed off on search warrants for everyone in the couty that owned the type of rifle and the SWAT team hit EVERY residence that had one of these registed. Guess what, no one was charged every one of the confiscated rifles came back as not the rifle. Yes they took all of them and tested them over several months.
BTW craigslist does not allow firearms sales ;)
I guess it depends on what kind of criminal you are talking about. Like the petty thief, or someone who has a history of domestic abuse. How about someone who has a mental issues? Someone who was convicted of a white collar felony may try to purchase one through that venue as well. Hell we just had a huge gunshow in Belleville IL last weekend, do you think sellers knew every person they sold to, and were assured of their mental health, or their possible criminal background?
Craigslist may not, but there certainly are plenty of online resources out there that do, and you know that as well as I do, but thanks for the parsing ;)
Who would pay for this background check and who will be liable (legally) if/when a false positive or negative alert happens?To do background checks on possible tenants for rental houses, I have to get release forms, SSN, DL#s, pay +/- $50 a person (husband and wife = $100), and wait two days. Are the Leas going to open up their databases?
I would say the buyer has to pay for it, and provide the seller with somekind of paperwork stating said check was done, and nothing came back. That way if there was a false negative, the seller can prove due diligence was done.
As far as the Leas opening their databases, I honestly don't know who you are referring to.
Ret10Echo
01-17-2013, 08:40
Who would pay for this background check
You
The $50 per bullet tax.... The $8 per primer tax.... The brass tax...the tea tax, the paper tax...
Noooo problem. Well' get us one SWEEET datacenter with all your health records and personal information.. In fact, then we'll share it with insurance companies so they can deny you coverage because you are an evil "owner".
Better you move to one of them dope-smoking states and hang out.
You
Noooo problem. Well' get us one SWEEET datacenter with all your health records and personal information.. .
That's been the primary objective for years. That's how you get control and money.
Badger52
01-17-2013, 11:22
A new board, chaired by AG, who is also final arbiter in determining what other records from executive branch agencies (like Veterans Affairs) are deemed relevant to be furnished & included in NICS so they may 'update' what constitutes a prohibited person.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/01/16/presidential-memorandum-improving-availability-relevant-executive-branch
Streck-Fu
01-17-2013, 12:04
It will be interesting to see how 'relevant records' gets defined.
I guess it depends on what kind of criminal you are talking about. Like the petty thief, or someone who has a history of domestic abuse. How about someone who has a mental issues? Someone who was convicted of a white collar felony may try to purchase one through that venue as well.
How do you know the person to whom you just sold a camcorder isn't a child pornographer that will use the camera to film illegal kiddie porn in his basement? How do you know the person to whom you just sold your '01 Chevy Suburban doesn't have a history of self-destructive tendencies and will use it to plow through a crowded sidewalk tomorrow? How do you know the person to whom you just sold your collector's edition Louisville Slugger doesn't have a restraining order on him for domestic abuse and is driving right now to his ex-wife's house to bludgeon her to death (oh, and there are so many restrictions and hidden costs to getting a gun now that she can't get one to defend herself)?
Break-break
As a data point on the current wait for buying a gun, a co-worker started the process to buy a new S&W revolver at a local gun store a week ago today. She still hasn't heard back from them to come in and pay for it.
How do you know the person to whom you just sold a camcorder isn't a child pornographer that will use the camera to film illegal kiddie porn in his basement? How do you know the person to whom you just sold your '01 Chevy Suburban doesn't have a history of self-destructive tendencies and will use it to plow through a crowded sidewalk tomorrow? How do you know the person to whom you just sold your collector's edition Louisville Slugger doesn't have a restraining order on him for domestic abuse and is driving right now to his ex-wife's house to bludgeon her to death (oh, and there are so many restrictions and hidden costs to getting a gun now that she can't get one to defend herself)?
Break-break
As a data point on the current wait for buying a gun, a co-worker started the process to buy a new S&W revolver at a local gun store a week ago today. She still hasn't heard back from them to come in and pay for it.
No offense intended, but basically what you are saying is "It's not my problem" which to me is the same as someone saying to me "it's not my job".
Everyone here has very valid arguments in terms of protecting our 2nd ammendment rights. But unless those of us who value this are willing to even have a conversation about how there can be reasonable laws put in place, instead of the traditional "don't even think about limiting my 2nd ammendment right in any way shape or form", then we are part of the problem and not part of the solution.
Just as I tell my airmen, and many times my Colonels. Don't tell me what I can't do, tell me what I can do.
You're correct, it isn't my problem, just like it isn't a gun (or knife, or car, or golf club, or...) manufacturer's problem if someone uses one of their products illegally and injures/kills someone. Even with an NICS background check you can't be guaranteed that a buyer won't use the gun you just sold her to commit a crime tomorrow. I'm afraid that at least to me, acceding to universal background checks for ALL gun sales sounds an awful lot like "if there is even one thing that we can do to prevent any of these events...", when in fact the thing being done probably won't prevent the events.
As for giving up a little of our rights to "reasonable laws", I think that's already happened in 1934, 1968, 1986, 1990, 1993, 1994...at what point does the giving stop?
...........Just as I tell my airmen, and many times my Colonels. Don't tell me what I can't do, tell me what I can do.
At some point in time you have to ask "Are all the rules worth it?"
When you sell a used car to someone do you ask to see their drivers license and then run a check for DUI stops?
Do we need a law to be passed that when you sell a used car you need to check them for a License and DUI stops?
If it only saves one child................
At some point in time you have to ask "Are all the rules worth it?"
When you sell a used car to someone do you ask to see their drivers license and then run a check for DUI stops?
Do we need a law to be passed that when you sell a used car you need to check them for a License and DUI stops?
If it only saves one child................
I have sold a used car, and no I wouldn't sell it to someone who didn't have a valid license. I also wouldn't sell it to them unless they had proof they were insured. Same way a dealership does.
Would you be willing to put your child in a school that does not have a background check as far as the adults that are in contact with your child? In the same vain, would you want a teacher carrying a weapon in school who has not gone through a valid training class and is competent with said weapon, if it is going to be around your child? Or are you happy with any joe schmo teacher carrying a weapon. I know all of my kid's teachers, and to tell you the truth there is maybe one I would trust with a weapon around my child.
All I am saying is that the Bill of Rights, outlines individual rights, not privledges. And many of those Rights, have some caveats, such as not yelling fire in a crowded theater. Why is the 2nd ammendment so sacrosanct that reasonable people can't have a conversation on things such as background checks on person to person sales? If you have to have one buying from a gun store, and I am willing to bet most of us have bought weapons through a reputable dealer, why is there such heartburn about doing one for person to person sales?
Are most of the things that the POTUS put out yesterday rediculous, you bet they are. But by screaming you can't touch my guns in any form or fashion, we are the ones who come across as looking rediculous. That idiot that was on CNN with Pierce whats his nuts is case in point.
All I am saying is that the Bill of Rights, outlines individual rights, not privledges.
The way you wrote that makes it sound like you think that priveleges (something that can be given and taken away) are above rights (something that we are born with)...is that what you intended?
You're correct, it isn't my problem, just like it isn't a gun (or knife, or car, or golf club, or...) manufacturer's problem if someone uses one of their products illegally and injures/kills someone. Even with an NICS background check you can't be guaranteed that a buyer won't use the gun you just sold her to commit a crime tomorrow. I'm afraid that at least to me, acceding to universal background checks for ALL gun sales sounds an awful lot like "if there is even one thing that we can do to prevent any of these events...", when in fact the thing being done probably won't prevent the events.
As for giving up a little of our rights to "reasonable laws", I think that's already happened in 1934, 1968, 1986, 1990, 1993, 1994...at what point does the giving stop?
Would you feel the same way if someone purchased a weapon through a person to person sale, who couldn't pass a background check through a reputable dealer, and then that person uses the weapon to kill your wife or your child. It would become your problem then.
There is no way to cover every eventuality that exists out there, but a little due dilligence isn't a bad thing in my opinion.
The way you wrote that makes it sound like you think that priveleges (something that can be given and taken away) are above rights (something that we are born with)...is that what you intended?
Not even close. My point is that even rights, have some caveats that go along with them.
You have the right to free speech, but you are not allowed to libel someone. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater.
Fourth ammendment talks about illegal search and seizure, but we have discussed in this forum how even if the police have the wrong address, they can come into your home with a warrant
The fifth ammendment talks about emminent domain, but we know there are cases where emminent domain has beem up held by the court
Sixth ammendment talks about the rights of the accused face their accuser, but there are cases where classified information is involved and that can be waived.
Etc etc etc.
Privledges can be taken away, rights cannot, but they can have caveats.
Yes, I would be (and have been) willing to put my kids in the presence of adults with no background check, because I don't put full reliance on a system to protect them. Instead, I do my best to educate them on protecting themselves, recognizing that there is no such thing as perfect safety and there is risk even in getting out of bed in the morning. Are the background checks a "feel good" factor that potentially adds a layer of protection? Certainly, but absent a check I'm not going to avoid that environment entirely.
Just last night at our school's board meeting, the members were discussing the need to investigate options for improving school safety, to include the possibility of arming teachers. Our county sheriff believes in the idea so much that he's offered to provide them with training and waive all concealed carry permit fees if they apply. That said, I'm no advocate of randomly arming teachers or forcing those that aren't willing. I would, however, be ok with allowing any teacher that has received a CCP to carry in school. I'd much rather read about a teacher firing off a full magazine at a murderer and missing her completely, than a repeat of many of the Newtown teachers crouching behind a door, helpless, praying the murderer would pass them by.
The rights vs. privilege point is an excellent one, the main difference being a right can't be taken away (ok, shouldn't be taken away), while a privilege is arbitrarily revokable. Again, the US has had many "conversations" on gun rights in the last 100 years, and after each one, gun rights have been eroded a little bit more than before. Were this a call for scaling back the right of free speech/press/religion, a fair trail, limited search, etc. how much would freedom advocates be willing to concede?
Yes, I would be (and have been) willing to put my kids in the presence of adults with no background check, because I don't put full reliance on a system to protect them. Instead, I do my best to educate them on protecting themselves, recognizing that there is no such thing as perfect safety and there is risk even in getting out of bed in the morning. Are the background checks a "feel good" factor that potentially adds a layer of protection? Certainly, but absent a check I'm not going to avoid that environment entirely.
Just last night at our school's board meeting, the members were discussing the need to investigate options for improving school safety, to include the possibility of arming teachers. Our county sheriff believes in the idea so much that he's offered to provide them with training and waive all concealed carry permit fees if they apply. That said, I'm no advocate of randomly arming teachers or forcing those that aren't willing. I would, however, be ok with allowing any teacher that has received a CCP to carry in school. I'd much rather read about a teacher firing off a full magazine at a murderer and missing her completely, than a repeat of many of the Newtown teachers crouching behind a door, helpless, praying the murderer would pass them by.
The rights vs. privilege point is an excellent one, the main difference being a right can't be taken away (ok, shouldn't be taken away), while a privilege is arbitrarily revokable. Again, the US has had many "conversations" on gun rights in the last 100 years, and after each one, gun rights have been eroded a little bit more than before. Were this a call for scaling back the right of free speech/press/religion, a fair trail, limited search, etc. how much would freedom advocates be willing to concede?
I need to see if my mom was at that meeting :)
Yes I would rather them fire off a whole magazine and hit nothing, but what if they hit one of the kids by accident and kill them because they haven't been trained? My mom is a great lady, go to the Church office on a Wednesday and you can meet her. But I wouldn't want her in one of the classrooms, armed. Yes she has been through class, but she never goes to the range to practice and would be of great harm to herself and the kids with a weapon. If you tell her I said that I will deny it :D
The only thing Obama came out with yesterday that I agree with is the background check on person to person sales.
The rest of it is whitewash, and if some of those things need a Presidential Memorandum to get them done, well we are in worse shape than I thought.
you are not allowed to libel someone. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater.
Actually, you are not restrained from doing either by being forced to go through a background check. You will suffer the consequences of your decision to do so after the fact. The same should apply to the Second Amendment.
Pat
I have sold a used car, and no I wouldn't sell it to someone who didn't have a valid license. I also wouldn't sell it to them unless they had proof they were insured. Same way a dealership does.
Would you be willing to put your child in a school that does not have a background check as far as the adults that are in contact with your child? In the same vain, would you want a teacher carrying a weapon in school who has not gone through a valid training class and is competent with said weapon, if it is going to be around your child? Or are you happy with any joe schmo teacher carrying a weapon. I know all of my kid's teachers, and to tell you the truth there is maybe one I would trust with a weapon around my child.
All I am saying is that the Bill of Rights, outlines individual rights, not privledges. And many of those Rights, have some caveats, such as not yelling fire in a crowded theater. Why is the 2nd ammendment so sacrosanct that reasonable people can't have a conversation on things such as background checks on person to person sales? If you have to have one buying from a gun store, and I am willing to bet most of us have bought weapons through a reputable dealer, why is there such heartburn about doing one for person to person sales?
Are most of the things that the POTUS put out yesterday rediculous, you bet they are. But by screaming you can't touch my guns in any form or fashion, we are the ones who come across as looking rediculous. That idiot that was on CNN with Pierce whats his nuts is case in point.
Personally, I wonder if instead of "not one step back" for pro 2nd Amendment advocates maybe it should be, "What are you offering in return?"
The way I look at the 2nd Amendment is more of a responsibility than a right.
A responsibility for law abiding armed citizens to be a check and balance against the rise of a tyrannical government.
The President wants X, what is he offering in return?
He could start with acknowledging that an armed citizenry is a Constitutionally codified and free to the taxpayer branch of government.
Post 9/11 Americans went on an unprecedented spending spree and cacooned themselves at home with a couple hundred billion's worth of surround sound home theatre, granite counter tops, and commercial grade kitchens while a Few went to war.
I think it was a natural/instinctive behavior for most(not all) to go into a financially indebted McMansion mass media nitrous injected fetal position. The same way most people curl up on the ground when things go crazy town.
Fast forward nearly a decade and we've seen a similar-ish behavior. Increasing numbers of people purchasing firearms in a spike that looks like an internet stock share price circa 1998.
I wonder if the book "Wisdom of Crowds" by James Surowiecki would be relevant in helping to explain this behavior?
I think the majority of people understand and agree that some very serious fundamental problems exist in the US...specifically the political process. So they buy firearms.
A bit like a 747 sitting broken down on a runway. It doesn't take an aeronautical engineer to comprehend the plane(or nation) is broken. Firearms aren't going to fix the "plane" but they can keep it from being stolen and/or recover it if it's already been pinched. Until some smart folks can be hired to fix it properly.
I know a lot of folks on this forum aren't fans of labor unions(nor am I), but they did play an important role in improving workers rights and workplace conditions in the past.
Isn't this a bit like negotiations between shareholder/labor and management?
Or shouldn't it?
Firearms training and/or safe storage/control requirements? Super......now how about we talk about limiting special interest influence over the political process and how the 4th Estate is effectively owned by the 2nd Estate?
Personally, I think the 2nd Amendment stuff ties into EVERY fundamental problem the US faces.
It's pretty scary to think that there used to be a very broad and diverse ownership base in the 4th Estate of over 6000+ when I was in high school. Fast forward 25 years and it's largely in the hands of 6.
Maybe another analogy is Mutually Assured Destruction(MAD). Negotiations could be good....but citizens unilaterally disarming would be akin to the US unilaterally disarming against the Soviet Union at its zenith.
Just a bit of a rant....
ddoering
01-17-2013, 17:53
I think the majority of people understand and agree that some very serious fundamental problems exist in the US...specifically the political process. So they buy firearms.
Firearms are the continuation of politics by other means.:lifter
Have things changed?
When I was in the 7th SFGA at Fort Bragg in 1973, I purchased my Ruger Super Blackhawk .44mag pistol at a local gun shop on Bragg Blvd. To do so, I had to go down to the Cumberland County Court House to apply for a permit - cost $7 IIRC and took about a week for approval because of the background check the Cumberland County Sheriff's Dept did on such applications.
Richard :munchin
Have things changed?
When I was in the 7th SFGA at Fort Bragg in 1973, I purchased my Ruger Super Blackhawk .44mag pistol at a local gun shop on Bragg Blvd. To do so, I had to go down to the Cumberland County Court House to apply for a permit - cost $7 IIRC and took about a week for approval because of the background check the Cumberland County Sheriff's Dept did on such applications.
Richard :munchin
$7 in 1973?
That sounds like a fair whack 40 years ago.
Do you mind if I ask whether it was a pistol permit or concealed carry permit?
Looks like today the costs are $5 for pistol and $90 for CC.
$7 in 1973?
That sounds like a fair whack 40 years ago.
Do you mind if I ask whether it was a pistol permit or concealed carry permit?
Looks like today the costs are $5 for pistol and $90 for CC.
In '83, it was like 15 bucks, but you could get 5 permits to purchase. There was no concealed carry law back then.
I need to see if my mom was at that meeting :)
My kids have moved up to high school now, so your mom probably wasn't at that particular meeting. ;)
As for whether I'd want her armed in the school or not, even police and military units with much more than average training have friendly-fire incidents from time to time.
To answer your earlier question re: someone that's unstable killing one of my children, I can't begin to imagine the pain, sorrow, fury, emptiness, etc. I'd feel, but I hope I'd still be reasonable enough to recognize that the person that sold the killer the gun without a background check was as free of blame as the sales clerk at Lowe's that sold the killer the claw hammer that was used to cave in my child's skull, if that was the murder weapon instead of a gun.
For those with strong faith in the reliability of government databases of terrorists and criminals, know that there are many, many "false positive" hits against people whose only crime is to have a similar name (or biometric) to a real criminal, that the agencies that use them (e.g., TSA, FBI, TSC, DOD) employ a large number of adjudicators that spend hours to research positive hits to reduce (not eliminate) errors, and that even with this extra effort there are still glaring misidentifications that can take months or years to fix. You can make a safe bet there aren't enough resources to properly man adjudication processes for a nationwide NICS check on all firearms transactions. Wouldn't that be just delightful if you're denied a Constitutional right for years (or forever) due to a clerical error and a lumbering bureaucracy?
In 1942 the US Govt interred thousands of US citizens because they were of Japanese heritage. No trial or probable cause. Just because it was done in the past doesn't mean it was legal or right, just that it was done.
I don't think it's so simple. Ever hear of the Niihau Incident?
http://www.historynet.com/the-niihau-incident.htm
School books generally don't mention it and it kinda got OBE, but it does help to put the times in context and helps add to the explanation as to why something like this, right or not, was considered by many to be necessary at the time.
America is advanced citizenship and it's complicated - always has been and I don't see much changing.
Richard :munchin
Afchic
I must have missed the * after the phrase "shall not be infringed" and the corresponding footnotes for all these caveats to my right to bare arms that you keep referring to.
As far as the what would you do if this happened to your mom dad sister grandmother daughter etc. type questions I would be sad mad and every other emotion one would expect.
That doesn't mean that my emotional response to a tragedy should guide the logic behind the governing of an entire group of people.
Logic would suggest the odds of any of my loved ones being gunned down in this country in it's current state under it's current laws is very low.
It's just like all the threads about the tsa and the ridiculous rules they put in place under the guise of safety. It's all diminishing returns. You give up more and more freedom for marginally more safety.
An article identifying some additional tension in the current discussion.
Gun-Control Debate Pits First Amendment Against The Second Amendment
IBD
Victor Davis Hanson
January 17, 2013
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/011713-641102-gun-control-debate-causes-bitter-dispute-over-constitution.htm#ixzz2IHgp9IbG
The horrific Newtown, Conn., mass shooting has unleashed a frenzy to pass new gun-control legislation.
But the war over restricting firearms is not just between liberals and conservatives; it also pits the first two amendments to the U.S. Constitution against each other.
Apparently, in the sequential thinking of James Madison and the Founding Fathers, the right to free expression and the guarantee to own arms were the two most important personal liberties. But now these two cherished rights seem to be at odds with each other and have caused bitter exchanges between interpreters of the Constitution.
Many liberals believe there is no need to own semi-automatic assault rifles, magazines that hold more than 10 bullets, or even semi-automatic handguns. They argue that hunters and sportsmen don't need such rapid-firing guns to kill their game—and that slower-firing revolvers and pump- or bolt-action rifles are sufficient for home protection.
More Bullets, More Deaths?
Implicit to the liberal argument for tighter gun control is the belief that the ability to rapidly fire off lots of bullets either empowers — or indeed encourages—mass murderers to butcher the innocent.
Most conservatives offer rebuttals to all those points. Criminals will always break almost any law they choose. Connecticut, for example, has among the tightest gun-control laws in the nation. A murderer can pop in three 10-bullet clips in succession and still spray his targets almost as effectively as a shooter with a single 30-bullet magazine. Like a knife or bomb, a gun is a tool, and the human who misuses it is the only guilty party. An armed school guard might do more to stop a mass shooting on campus than a law outlawing the shooter's preferred weapon or magazine.
Homeowners should have the right to own weapons comparable to those of criminals, who often pack illicit semi-automatic handguns. If mass murders are the real concern, should ammonium nitrate be outlawed, given that Timothy McVeigh slaughtered 168 innocents in Oklahoma City with fertilizer? Banning semi-automatic weapons marks a slippery slope — each new restriction will soon lead to yet another rationalization to go after yet another type of gun.
A Well-Armed Populace
Liberals counter that just as free speech is curtailed (you cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded auditorium), the constitutional right to bear arms is no more infringed upon by the banning of semi-automatic, large magazine firearms than it is by current prohibitions against heavy machine guns.
Conservatives reply that the chief purpose of the Second Amendment was not necessarily just to ensure personal protection from criminals or the freedom to hunt with firearms, but in fact to guarantee that a well-armed populace might enjoy some parity to an all-powerful, centralized government. To the Founders, the notion that individual citizens had recourse to weapons comparable to those of federal authorities was a strong deterrent to government infringing upon constitutionally protected freedoms — rights that cannot simply be hacked away by presidential executive orders.
That may be why the brief Second Amendment explicitly cites the desirability of a militia. By intent, it was followed by the Third Amendment, which restricts the rights of an abusive government to quarter federal troops in citizens' homes.
So which amendment should we begin pruning to deal with monsters like those at Newtown and Columbine?
The Connecticut shooter, Adam Lanza, was known to be mentally unstable. He sat for hours transfixed with violent video games — in a popular culture of cheap Hollywood mayhem where bodies implode on the big screen without worry over the effect of such gratuitous carnage on the viewer.
Just as semi-automatic weapons mark a technological sea change from the flintlock muskets of the Founders' era, computer-simulated video dismemberment is a world away from the spirited political pamphleteering of the 18th century. If we talk of restricting the Second Amendment to protect us against modern technological breakthroughs, why not curtail the First Amendment as well?
How about an executive order to Hollywood to stop its graphic depictions of mass killings, perhaps limiting the nature and rationing the number of shootings that can appear in any one film? Can't we ban violent video games altogether in the same way we forbid child pornography? Isn't it past time for an executive order to curtail some of the rights of the mentally unstable — given that the gunmen in mass killings usually have a history of psychic disorders and often use mood-altering drugs?
If conservatives have ensured that there are millions of semi-automatic assault weapons in American society, liberals' unprecedented expansions of free expression have led to an alarming number of unhinged Americans on our streets, nursed on sick games like "Grand Theft Auto" and hours of watching odious movies such as "Natural Born Killers."
Legislating away the evil in men's heads and hearts can be a tricky — and sometimes unconstitutional — business.
In 1942 the US Govt interred thousands of US citizens because they were of Japanese heritage. No trial or probable cause. Just because it was done in the past doesn't mean it was legal or right, just that it was done.I think a cherry picking approach to history is not going to help opponents of gun control in this particular debate, especially if it involves the internment of Japanese Americans.
The American political right has made too many comments about how members of certain groups should be treated just because they're members of certain groups--especially since 9/11. Similarly, recent decades have seen the American political right offering firm views on how such topics should be studied and taught.
I do not think that the glaring intellectual inconsistencies will translate into political capital in the present debate.
IMO, a more prudent course of action is to keep this particular debate as narrowly as focused as possible. That is, contrast how the incumbent POTUS uses E.O.'s with how, as a presidential candidate, he criticized Bush the Younger for using E.O.'s, signing statements, and other measures to bypass the legislative process.
Badger52
01-18-2013, 17:34
Number 6, check. (http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2013/01/011613-ffl-open-letter-facilitating-transfers-of-firearms-between-private-individuals.pdf)
http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4582
http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4582Sounds like Mr. Glover has read selectively from works like Slavery's Constitution: From Revolution to Ratification (2009) and A Slaveholders' Union: Slavery, Politics, and the Constitution in the Early American Republic (2010)--if not also This Violent Empire: The Birth of an American National Identity (2010).
Sounds like Mr. Glover has read selectively from works like Slavery's Constitution: From Revolution to Ratification (2009) and A Slaveholders' Union: Slavery, Politics, and the Constitution in the Early American Republic (2010)--if not also This Violent Empire: The Birth of an American National Identity (2010).
As well as a bic lighter label or two.
As well as a bic lighter label or two.The guy has gone off the rails. And not just by making two too many Lethal Weapon films.
IMO, he and other politically vocal celebrities (regardless of POV) need to remember the Norman Lear Rule and also that every other fan is likely to disagree with what one says.
YMMV.
IMO, he and other politically vocal celebrities (regardless of POV) need to remember the Norman Lear Rule.
Wear a pork-pie hat to cover your chrome dome? :confused:
Pat
Wear a pork-pie hat to cover your chrome dome? :confused:
PatUse one's celebrity carefully IRT issues of interest lest one lose credibility.
IMO, Julia Louis-Dreyfus gets it, Alec Baldwin doesn't.
Stiletto11
01-18-2013, 19:21
Executive Orders on their face are not law but policy. The problem is the US has been under a declared emergency since 1933 (see Senate Report 93-549). "This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes."
Executive Orders on their face are not law but policy. The problem is the US has been under a declared emergency since 1933 (see Senate Report 93-549). "This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes."MOO, this point is one that should be hammered home in many debates over the current administration.
The POTUS claims his administration is the polar opposite of Bush the Younger's and other Republican presidents, but when you scratch beneath the surface, he has taken many of his predecessors' to the next level.
At the risk of sounding repetitively repetitious, parliamentarians need to stand up to the president on institutional grounds rather than on just political ideology alone.
If, as the president claims, his policy preferences are "common sense," then they will stand the test of congressional inquiry and debate.
I'd rant more, but it is almost time to howl at the moon.
Dozer523
01-19-2013, 00:36
A responsibility for law abiding armed citizens to be a check and balance against the rise of a tyrannical government.
He could start with acknowledging that an armed citizenry is a Constitutionally codified and free to the taxpayer branch of government.
Who are these tyrants for whom we must be so vigilant?
When has our government acted in a tyrannical manner?
Have we the people ever been called to rise up against our own government? If we did what had the greatest effect, bullets or votes and law suits?
And when have the unorganized gun owners exercised their rights against an enemy foreign or domestic?
And when did taxpayers become the fourth branch of the Federal Government?
SomethingWitty
01-19-2013, 00:47
Cross-posted from a different website, I thought I would share with you gents.
WARNING: long talk about political realities.
Political scientist here. I want to emphasize something to members of this sub. The NRA and other progun groups currently hold the advantage in the gun debate - the NRA has a high approval rating, gun laws are loose in most states, and the NRA and state affiliates are very well organized and good at stopping bad laws. The NRA has several hundred million dollars to throw around and can raise more if needed.
By themselves, the VPC, Brady crew, and Bloomberg's Mayor's Against Illegal (read: all) Guns can't force any new legislation. But that all changed, in my view, when Obama said he would put "everything I've got" into passing new gun control laws, including an AWB. I originally (stupidly) didn't think Obama would push hard for a new AWB. But if we take him at his word, he is going to.
Obama for America is was the president's election and re-election campaign. It is widely recognized to be one of the most effective political organizations in the nation. It has a ground operation in dozens and dozens of states. It spent a billion (with a B) dollars to defeat Mitt Romney in 2012. And it didn't just fade away after the 2012. It is currently gearing up to push for new gun laws by pressuring Congress.
“The president has the most exciting campaign apparatus ever built. It’s time to turn that loose,” senior Obama adviser Robert Gibbs told MSNBC on Wednesday.
From a political science perspective, Gibbs is right. Obama for America is one of the most effective political organizations in American history. And they don't even have to convince the American people anymore (they're for an assault weapons ban, though barely), they just have to convince a few dozen congressmen and senators.
If you think the NRA can stop them without you doing anything, you are dead wrong. The White House has an action plan in place and they are moving to deploy it. From the NYT:
The White House is planning a multifaceted effort to sell its plans, including speeches around the country by the president and vice president and concerted lobbying by interest groups to influence several dozen lawmakers from both parties seen as critical to passage.
And they're not alone. Bloomberg, the media, and the Brady Campaign are going to help them:
Mark Glaze, director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, said his group would focus on as many as 25 Congressional districts, including those of Democrats and Republicans. “We will be doing what we can do to make sure that sitting on their hands is the least safe place to be,” he said.
MAIG has millions upon millions of dollars. Combined with the money and huge ground game of OfA and the misleading research of the Brady Campaign and VPC, they are a force to be reckoned with. They will push an AWB, mag caps, and expanded background checks. Do not believe for a second that the NRA alone can stop them. America is becoming more and more suburban and fewer suburbanites own guns than ever before. At the same time, many swing Congressional districts are becoming primarily suburban. If the anti-gunners effectively target these few congressmen, they will pass an AWB.
Especially if you live in one of America's swing states or a swing congressional district, contact your congressman and Senators right now. Even if they're a Republican! Republicans won't fight for your rights if they think it's a losing issue.
TLDR: Obama is using his old campaign apparatus to push for an Assault Weapons Ban and it will be highly effective. Don't be complacent for a moment thinking the NRA can stand alone on this and win. Contact Congress now and donate whatever you can to the NRA, SAF, or any other gun rights group you prefer.
PS: I used to work on Capitol Hill, so I can answer questions about the most effective contact methods for reaching your national reps.
Cross-posted from a different website, I thought I would share with you gents.What is the source, who is the political scientist who wrote the piece?
SomethingWitty
01-19-2013, 01:18
What is the source, who is the political scientist who wrote the piece?
http://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/16u1sg/why_you_should_worry_about_the_possiblity_of_a/
Political scientist is not named. I would say the point is absolutely still valid whether or not someone went to college.
[The] [p]olitical scientist is not named. I would say the point is absolutely still valid whether or not someone went to college.What's next? Quoting from Wikipedia?:rolleyes:
Trapper John
01-19-2013, 08:46
MOO, this point is one that should be hammered home in many debates over the current administration.
The POTUS claims his administration is the polar opposite of Bush the Younger's and other Republican presidents, but when you scratch beneath the surface, he has taken many of his predecessors' to the next level.
At the risk of sounding repetitively repetitious, parliamentarians need to stand up to the president on institutional grounds rather than on just political ideology alone.
If, as the president claims, his policy preferences are "common sense," then they will stand the test of congressional inquiry and debate.
I'd rant more, but it is almost time to howl at the moon.
WOW! In my absence I have missed some really good discussions. Let me add my 2-cents to this. Sig, as usual you have grasped the central issue, IMO.
It seems to me that O's strategy all along has been "rope a dope" and the Congress has fallen into the trap. We have some of the most divisive and important issues facing us (Taxation, 2nd Amendment, Debt Limit, Health Care, Immigration, etc) since the Reconstruction era. O's "rope-a-dope" strategy is fueling the division and has effectively marginalized the Legislative Branch.
I am reminded of the words of the cartoon character, Pogo: "We have met the enemy and they is us!"
To restate the point you made: It is not about ideology, it's about Governance. Unfortunately, I don't think our chuckleheaded representatives on either side of the aisle are up to that task.
TXGringo
01-19-2013, 09:01
Who are these tyrants for whom we must be so vigilant?
When has our government acted in a tyrannical manner?
Have we the people ever been called to rise up against our own government? If we did what had the greatest effect, bullets or votes and law suits?
And when have the unorganized gun owners exercised their rights against an enemy foreign or domestic?
And when did taxpayers become the fourth branch of the Federal Government?
Something hasn't happened up to this point, therefore, it never will?
SomethingWitty
01-19-2013, 11:08
What's next? Quoting from Wikipedia?:rolleyes:
Would people go on the internet and tell lies?
Would people go on the internet and tell lies?
Hold on, let me google that up.
Ignoring the rights and wrongs of background checks, I amazed that there people out there who seem intelligent and yet they still are um "optimistic" enough to to think that background checks serve any purpose.
I know a guy who failed a background check and could not buy a gun (in this case it was an over/under for trap shooting). He swore that there was a mistake and that even though he had been charged with a felony in the past it had been dropped down to a misdemeanor.
I don't know if he was telling the truth or not. What I do know is that he went home and sent his wife to buy the gun for him. Just try proving that she did not buy it for herself (especially since she was a shooter).
One thing I have seen over the years is that there is no thug in the world so bad that he can't get a woman with a clean record to buy a gun for him.
One thing I have seen over the years is that there is no thug in the world so bad that he can't get a woman with a clean record to buy a gun for him.
I see your point.
OK, then. Let's ban females from gun ownership.
G'day Dozer,
I'll try to answer as best I can
Who are these tyrants for whom we must be so vigilant?
Government.
While I believe the US is one of a mere handful in the world to have a highly successful recipe for success and equality, it would require an immense amount of hubris and arrogance to ignore such events as slavery, Americans of Japanese ethnicity interned in WWII, local/state/federal treatment of Black folks, and treatment of Native Americans.
When has our government acted in a tyrannical manner?
Examples of varying degrees of tyranny over the history of the US up thru the 20th Century could be found in the Black, Native American, and Americans of Japanese ethnicity.
There's also that fascinating example of the video found elsewhere on this forum about the local community issue involving WWII veterans compelled to act against local political corruption in the Battle of Athens.
Have we the people ever been called to rise up against our own government?
The Battle of Athens example above.
You might also be able to add the likes of the Black Panthers, Malcolm X, and MLK use of the 2nd Amendment:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/
If we did what had the greatest effect, bullets or votes and law suits?
I would think votes and lawsuits would have the greatest overall net positive effect than bullets.....much like diplomacy and negotiation would have the greatest overall net positive effect than nuclear weapons.
Hence my use of the rough MAD analogy.
And when have the unorganized gun owners exercised their rights against an enemy foreign or domestic?
Battle of Athens, American Indian Movement, Civil Rights Movement?
While I personally wouldn't agree in all of the examples, I'm also not seeing things from all the participants perspectives, but the examples would qualify would they not?
And when did taxpayers become the fourth branch of the Federal Government?
What I wrote was:
"an armed citizenry is a Constitutionally codified and free to the taxpayer branch of government."
I hope I didn't accidentally cause any confusion with it, but that's how I see it.
It may be a bit of a stretch on my part, but I view an armed citizenry as a rather important check and balance ON government, effectively making it a quasi-branch OF government via it's very rarely used "veto" powers.
Right or wrong, that's how I perceive it.
What I find incredibly sad is how little coverage from mass media is focused on WHY gun sales are exploding.
To me it is an excellent example of the "Wisdom of Crowds" and worthy of inclusion if the book is ever updated.
I suspect the biggest single reason for so little coverage by mass media covering the 2nd Amendment's role in deterring tyranny is due to the fact that the richness in mass media ownership diversity has disappeared. When I was a kid there were over 6000 mass media outlet owners. Now there are a mere 6........controlling 85-90% of mass media content creation/distribution.
In my view, the 4th Estate has been "borg'd" by the 2nd Estate....making the role of the 2nd Amendment that much more important.
Just my amateur opinion.
Sounds like Mr. Glover has read selectively from works like Slavery's Constitution: From Revolution to Ratification (2009) and A Slaveholders' Union: Slavery, Politics, and the Constitution in the Early American Republic (2010)--if not also This Violent Empire: The Birth of an American National Identity (2010).
I wonder if Mr Glover is aware of the use of the 2nd Amendment by Black Civil War Veterans, Malcolm X, the Black Panthers, MLK, and AIM?
I wonder if it would make his head explode, or would he explain it away as the oppressed simply using the tools of the machine to bring down The Man? :)
What I find incredibly sad is how little coverage from mass media is focused on WHY gun sales are exploding.
Libs protect libs, no matter the truth.
Stiletto11
01-19-2013, 15:51
"Taxpayer Branch of Government"? Am I missing something here?
"Taxpayer Branch of Government"? Am I missing something here?
What I wrote was:
"an armed citizenry is a Constitutionally codified and free to the taxpayer branch of government."
The way I view it is:
3 taxpayer funded branches of government:
Executive
Legislative
Judicial
+ two non taxpayer funded "branches of government" in the form of critically important checks/balances against the 3 above, using the Estates of the realm societal hierarchy:
Free Press(4th Estate)
Armed Citizenry(3rd Estate)
A 21st Century point of view...
Richard :munchin
A 21st Century point of view...
Richard :munchin
lol That's hilarious! And true.
ddoering
01-19-2013, 17:34
I see your point.
OK, then. Let's ban females from gun ownership.
And from voting.:p
ddoering
01-19-2013, 17:36
Who are these tyrants for whom we must be so vigilant?
When has our government acted in a tyrannical manner?
Have we the people ever been called to rise up against our own government? If we did what had the greatest effect, bullets or votes and law suits?
And when have the unorganized gun owners exercised their rights against an enemy foreign or domestic?
And when did taxpayers become the fourth branch of the Federal Government?
Perhaps you should ask yourself why the mood in the country is so foul right now......
The guy that said the pen is mightier than the sword never ran into a determined individual with a sword.
ddoering
01-19-2013, 17:38
And when did taxpayers become the fourth branch of the Federal Government?
Last I saw, we the people are the government, speaking thru our elected officials.
Who are these tyrants for whom we must be so vigilant?
When has our government acted in a tyrannical manner?
Have we the people ever been called to rise up against our own government? If we did what had the greatest effect, bullets or votes and law suits?
And when have the unorganized gun owners exercised their rights against an enemy foreign or domestic?
Do you have a homeowners insurance policy? When was the last time your house burned down?
Do you have locks on your exterior doors? When was the last time your home was burglarized?
Tyranny is a neat thing to examine. Nazi Germany looked at Hitler as some sort of a god. For all of the people that died under his rule, there were a lot of Russians that thought Joseph Stalin had Russia's best interests in mind. Scads of people in Iraq refused to hide the opinion that they were better off under Saddam. Millions of Chinese thought Mao Zedong was a savior. A generation of Cubans thought that Fidel Castro had delivered them from tyranny.
Point of view has a lot to do with tyranny. Not to mention that fact that history is written by the victor. Tyranny is a bizarre thing. A population of sheep might view tyranny a lot differently than a group of sheep dogs outnumbered by rabid wolves.
...just a thought
Tyranny is a neat thing to examine. Nazi Germany looked at Hitler as some sort of a god. For all of the people that died under his rule, there were a lot of Russians that thought Joseph Stalin had Russia's best interests in mind. Scads of people in Iraq refused to hide the opinion that they were better off under Saddam. Millions of Chinese thought Mao Zedong was a savior. A generation of Cubans thought that Fidel Castro had delivered them from tyranny.
Point of view has a lot to do with tyranny. Not to mention that fact that history is written by the victor. Tyranny is a bizarre thing. A population of sheep might view tyranny a lot differently than a group of sheep dogs outnumbered by rabid wolves.
...just a thought
Applicable today, and reminds me of this:
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?"
Patrick Henry
GratefulCitizen
01-20-2013, 11:28
Applicable today, and reminds me of this:
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?"
Patrick Henry
An article addressing this theme:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/obama_playing_chicken_with_american_men.html
From the article:
If this man gives in and hands the officers his weapon, he will feel for the rest of his life that he has been broken -- that when push came to shove, he did not have the courage to stand up for his children's future.
This, in short, is how the federal officials who sent the officers to his door want him to feel, and how they want everyone to feel: weak, ineffectual, emasculated, and submissive.
It is how they want you to feel when federal agents molest your wife at the airport, and photograph your pubescent daughter in a naked scanner.
It is how they want you to feel about your "private" health records being permanently on file with a half dozen federal agencies, to be opened at their discretion.
It is how they want you to feel about the thousand bank-breaking regulations you are obliged to comb through and comply with in the names of "sustainability," "social justice," "anti-discrimination," and a dozen other fronts in the war on self-governance.
These indignities are meant to ease you through the process of acceptance, of acquiescence, of relinquishing all pretences of inviolable principle in the name of getting along.
Applicable today, and reminds me of this:
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?"
Patrick Henry
+1
Applicable today, and reminds me of this:
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?"
Patrick HenryIf Patrick Henry had had his way, the Constitution never would have been ratified, the Articles of Confederation would have remained in place, and the United States of America would have entered the nineteenth century without a central government strong enough to defend the nation's interests at home or abroad <<LINK (http://users.wfu.edu/zulick/340/henry.html)>>.
The framers were consistently concerned with the prospect of any single power becoming strong enough to exert political and economic hegemony over the European continent. How well would America have responded to Great Britain's encroachments of its sovereignty through the impressment of American sailors? How well would the confederated states of America have fared if Bonaparte (whom, Tolstoy reminds us, was viewed as the anti Christ), had triumphed in the Napoleonic Wars and then turned his eyes to the Western Hemisphere?
GratefulCitizen
01-20-2013, 12:15
Your argument addresses Henry's other views, not the one to which Dusty was referring.
This is the logical fallacy known as "denying the antecedent."
If Patrick Henry had had his way, the Constitution never would have been ratified, the Articles of Confederation would have remained in place, and the United States of America would have entered the nineteenth century without a central government strong enough to defend the nation's interests at home or abroad.
Ahhh screw gun control...they are just gonna take your bullets!
http://news.yahoo.com/whats-missing-u-gun-control-scramble-bullets-061240341.html
Ahhh screw gun control...they are just gonna take your bullets!
http://news.yahoo.com/whats-missing-u-gun-control-scramble-bullets-061240341.html
From link:
"Los Angeles has required dealers to log ammunition sales since 1998, and police there say they check logs regularly.
"This is something I think has made L.A. a safer place, really," said Los Angeles Police Department Captain Bill Hart, the head of the gangs and narcotics division.
lol Safer place?! That's relative.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/07/la-crime-lowest-big-cities.html
"Through the end of June, the city experienced just shy of 9,000 violent crimes, a category that includes homicides, rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults. The total marked a nearly 9% drop compared with the same time last year, according to LAPD figures. With 147 homicides committed so far this year, the rate of killing is about the same as 2010 and puts the city on pace to have fewer than 300 killings for the third consecutive year –- a historic benchmark that is four times lower than the peak Los Angeles reached in the late 1990s. Robbery and aggravated assaults also are down, and the number of rapes has risen slightly in 2012."
Snip
Stiletto11
01-21-2013, 15:10
Yup, there is crack missing from the evidence locker.
The only time that crime dropped significantly in this city is when Endeavour rolled through the streets last fall. :rolleyes: