The Original CZ Forum
GENERAL => Right to Keep and Bear Arms => Topic started by: miataeric1 on January 16, 2013, 12:08:34 PM
-
I'm watching this live newscast of Obama right now and I'm NOT thrilled by what I'm hearing so far. Wanted to start this thread to discuss.
-
Watching it, getting sick to my stomach
-
Here's the list of the 23 EO's:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/01/16/read_president_obama_s_new_proposed_executive_orders_and_legislation_on.html
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.
-
Watching it, getting sick to my stomach
Agreed. Will he be grandfathering the hi-cap mags we already have? Will we be criminals now just for owning them from before? I sincerely hope the politicians that are threatening to impeach him will follow through.
-
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.
That one is interesting...this could be really exploited. Watching.
-
Jim, thanks for the list of what all he just signed. So from looking at them and listening to him, it sounds like he's calling for Congress to enact any sort of weapons and/or magazine capacity bans, so it looks like we may have some hope there still. I don't think he had the balls/clout to be able to try and pull something like that off on his own.
-
Looking at stuff from the New York Times, he looks to modify HIPPA to allow reporting to fed.gov anything they think should bar gun wonership on mental health reasons. Follow this - your doctor prescribed you Welbutrin in a micro does for some tough times you had back four years ago. This same doctor hates guns. HIPPA is modified, and he sends in a list of everyone he has every prescribed mental health style meds for over the years. Fill out the 4473, background check goes BING...denied, and maybe a nice note to the GunRunner General about someone who might be looked at, with a SWAT team...
OK, that's a WAY over the top scenario, but everything in government tends to go way over the top eventually.
-
Wow, those all seem quite reasonable on first read.
Devil is in the Details
-
That hypo is reaching a bit, but in general it's not these executive orders that are really the concern right now (at least for me). Real change (if any) will come from Congress. I personally don't have a big problem with strengthened background checks and laws requiring background checks for private firearm transactions, but I would certainly have a problem with a new assault weapons ban and/or a "high-capacity" magazine ban - especially ones without language grandfathering in existing weapons/magazines. That said, I'd be more worried if the GOP didn't hold a majority in the House. I just hope my trust in the GOP isn't misplaced.
-
I will have to respectfully disagree, box - it's nobody in government's business what I do with my lawfully held and lawfully transferred personal property, whether it be guns, gasoline, clothesline or that cup of sugar the neighbor want's to 'borrow'.
They get the no-privtae-sales in law, and you can bet the law requiring them to destroy any transaction records in 24 hours will be scrapped, as well changing the call-in reporting to add serial numbers.
One point - many states, mine included, do not require a background check if you posess a CCW permit...wonder if that's going away, too.
Yeah, it was a seriously over the top scenario, but I've seen and read of times our government has gone seriously over the top - can you imagine unleashing tanks and infantry on unarmed protesters camped out in front of the Capitol? It's already happened once...
-
BTW, he also wants to gut Curio and Relic standards, allowing ATFE to determine what a C&R eligible firearm is by removing the 50 years requirement - wanna bet all those Yugo SKS rifles would suddenly be non C&R? C&R would change drastically, and for the worse. He is panicked, you see - the very first AR-15s sold to civilians are now C&R eligible...
-
Again I think you're stretching. For one, private sales could simply have to go through a registered FFL - they wouldn't have to be banned. Also, such a requirement has absolutely nothing to do with transaction records, gun registration, CCW permits, and the like, beyond those are generally other examples of gun control. However, there's no causal connection between those scenarios.
To put it another way, law could be drafted in such a way that it doesn't restrict what you can do with your lawfully held property, beyond merely ensuring that you do not transfer it unlawfully to someone who can't pass a simple background check.
-
<snip> That said, I'd be more worried if the GOP didn't hold a majority in the House. I just hope my trust in the GOP isn't misplaced.
You trust any of them?
-
<snip> That said, I'd be more worried if the GOP didn't hold a majority in the House. I just hope my trust in the GOP isn't misplaced.
You trust any of them?
Relative to other politicians, yes. Beyond that? No.
-
I nearly broke my computer screen when the liar showed his concern for the deaths due to straw purchases, Oh like the guns the US Government put into the hands of the Mexican cartels?
Czeetah, I agree on first look they sound agreeable but it is in the implementation that the trouble comes.
If they make the changes seem palatable to the majority then they get the go ahead , Boiling the frog is all it amounts to.
"law could be drafted in such a way that it doesn't restrict what you can do with your lawfully held property"
The important word there is COULD there is no indication that they are implementing these laws for the greater good of gun owners.
I would trust none of the politicians, It is our job to hold their feet to the fire. Or just let them use there better judgment because they are so good at it.
-
Boz, again I respectfully disagree, and episodes in our own American history, (Athens, anyone?), tend to, in my mind, prove me right, but perhaps being born and raised in a state that has very few restrictions colors my thinking - we have had no registration, licensing, waiting periods, etc., in AZ for over 100 years, and it seems to work just fine for us. This also includes no restriction on private sales other than, "if you knowingly sell to a prohibited possessor, and get caught, you will face the music."
I've used this argument against 4th Amendment violations, and it works as well here, too, "The mere fact that I have nothing to hide gives nobody the right to look. " :)
But you are certainly entitled to your opinion, as diversity in politics without rancor is the backbone of the American political system.
-
I don't really see the parallel. "The mere fact that I have nothing to hide gives nobody the right to look." You seem to be making a privacy argument, but if you fail to pass a background check, it will be because of something that is public record. There's nothing private about information that is public record.
For that matter, I personally would prefer to do private sales via a FFL, and have done so in the past. For one, I don't plan to keep the paperwork for the required number of years, as I have enough crap in my house. For another, it almost certainly alleviates the seller of any responsibility in the transaction. You simply deliver the gun to the FFL and your responsibility in the transaction (as far as background checks/knowledge of who is a prohibited possessor/etc.) is done. It's then up to the buyer to jump through the requiresite hoops (background check, class 3 license, etc.) to collect his purchase, and for the FFL to manage the paperwork.
There are certainly poor ways it could be implemented and I'm not saying there aren't. That said, I don't really see any reason why a background check is required for a transaction from a license holder and it's not required from a non-license holder, and there are simple ways to make this area of the law more consistent.
-
A Right that is limited is not a Right, but a Privilege. A Privilege may be revoked or adjusted at any time. A Right may not. Some people here need to be reminded of this fact as it appears that some are happy to give up a Right if that means they're allowed(!) to continue doing what they want for now.
As for the OP, that's a list of 23 attempts to look good without actually accomplishing anything at all. If he could have enacted gun control by decree, you would be seeing it now, at this very moment. He can't, he knows it and he didn't. The Imperial One is hoping that Congress will pick up the ball and pass the unpleasant parts, but leave him squeaky clean.
That means: You need to focus your attention on your representatives even more so now than before. That's where the battle really is, not this list of empty verbiage and conflated nonsense.
-
Almost all of those EO's seem very reasonable. Of course I'm not so blinded by party lines, political rhetoric and paranoia that I call anything and everything the Obama administration does as wrong. I'm all for strengthening background checks and mental health. I didn't notice anything that is going to ban your guns or limit magazine capacities, nothing to justify people's irational fears that's brought on the current price gouging we're seeing.
Arizona's private transaction laws are very weak, what is so bad about having a bill of sale or reporting the serial number of the firearm you sold and the name of the person you sold it to? Comparing selling a firearm to a private party to letting your neighbor borrow sugar is a poor comparison. There are no laws preventing convicted felons or the mentally ill from owning sugar, those do apply to firearms and with Arizona's current laws on private sale, there is no way for you to know if the person you're selling a firearm to is even lawfully allowed to own one. Currently it is just an easy way for people who can't legally own a firearm to obtain one without a background check.
I don't believe Arizona's laws have worked "just fine" for us for over 100 years. Had there been stricter regulations on sales and perhaps a waiting period, Jared Loughner, an admitted drug abuser, a student who was required by his college to get mental health clearance to return to school, would not have so easily obtained the handgun he used to kill innocent people and severely wound Gabriel Giffords.
-
How much more will all this cost the Tax Payer ?
There are a few of these EO?s I feel are a violation of our right to privacy
#16 for one
I don?t feel my Doctor(s) need to know if I keep Guns in my home or not
-
No, Den, and it has been noted by a medical professional elsewhere that this feels like an attempt to make doctors into employees of the federal government, albeit unpaid ones.
-
And to using the FFL to do your citizens background checks are they going to do this for free? I would doubt so.
Some may not want to spend another $20-40 per transaction on top of a gun sale. What about relatives do I need to pay to have a background check on my children or wife? Giving a firearm that has been in the family but is worth less than $100 now costs enough it may not be worth giving.
Medical records. If you have ever had a diagnoses from the DSM then do you get an asterisk by your name? Can you get your records cleared without spending loads of money on Lawyers? Who will have your records?
It is not like there have been no problems with the no fly list, And it is upon the person wronged to prove innocence. As stated before it is all in the details.
-
Sure, it would be inconvenient to pay $20 for a background check when transferring a firearm to a friend or a relative. On the other hand, let's pretend I'm Joe Convict who just failed a background check because of felonies on my record. How is Joe Schmoe who's privately selling a gun on armslist supposed to know that I have felonies on my record? Why should I be able to purchase a firearm through a private individual with no background check (which, in this hypo, I would fail)? Where's the logic behind me being able to purchase a firearm through a private individual and not being able to purchase the exact same weapon through a licensed FFL?
It may just be me, but if I'm weighing the minor inconvenience of having to pay $20 extra to purchase a firearm through a FFL versus allowing everyone to purchase firearms without going through a background check, I come out in favor of requiring the background check.
-
Three Sherrifs in my state have sent VP Biden letters stating they will refuse to enforce unconstitutional gun laws.
http://www.businessinsider.com/tim-muellers-letter-to-joe-biden-2013-1
http://watchdog.org/66470/or-sheriffs-protest-obamas-proposed-gun-laws/
Obama bin laden is going to have a very tough time with this dictatorial insanity.
-
How much more will all this cost the Tax Payer ?
There are a few of these EO?s I feel are a violation of our right to privacy
#16 for one
I don?t feel my Doctor(s) need to know if I keep Guns in my home or not
You are misunderstanding this one. There is a section in 'Obamacare' that specifically states that Doctors are:
(http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/9905/acasm.jpg)
This EO clarifies that there is no requirement under law to ask, but that Healthcare providers may ask if they wish, and that further, there will be no penalty for either doing or not doing so, nor may any results be used to maintain records of ownership.
-
Bozwell
So I assume you would want only registered car dealers to be able to "transfer " your private car sales? You might sell it to someone who has lost or never had a drivers license. In my state you as a citizen you are supposed to know the person you are selling to, If you knowingly sell to a felon ( even though some felons can own guns) you are committing a crime.
$20 (which is rapidly becoming cheap) transfer is an inconvenience to some to others that can be hard to swallow. Remember people out there buy Hi-point handguns and cheap .22 rifles and single barrel shotguns. Many are not doing so because they like the platform as much as that's what they can afford. If the goals are to make it costly enough for those in the lower income brackets to get guns then adding taxes and fees should do the trick just as it has for smoking.
-
How about if the Feds mandate it at $100 per transfer for private sales? Or FFLs suddenly realize 'Hey, this is an opportunity to make some easy cash, lets charge those suckers $75 a pop for filling out a form and making a phone call, they ain't got no choice if they want that fancy pistol'. Are we still alright with it then?
-
Inmate Laughner did legally acquire a firearm, and passed a background check - system fail. Arizona laws work - we don't have Chicago's or DC's murder rate. If we could close off the drug corridor the feds ceded to the cartels, and quit having Border Patrol agents killed here with guns trafficked to the cartels by our own government, it would be even better.
Having said that, I will again state my opposition to "universal background checks' - they are unconstitutional and unnecessary. I sold guns for a living prior to the Brady Law, (which, BTW, would NOT have stopped Hinckly either), and things were just fine.
And I will add this regardless of how people like my anti co-worker instantly say, "that doesn't matter", if I sell a car to a guy legally not allowed to drive it, is that bad? If I sell a container of fertilizer to a terrorist on the watch list,( that I can't check), is that a bad thing? If I sell gasoline to a released arsonist, should I go to jail? Should we do background checks on all these people before selling them perfectly legal products? Go ahead, those products are not protected under the Constitution. However, I shall continue to blast it - the biggest mass murder of our lifetimes in the US was carried out with box cutters and airplanes - and I can buy any aircraft with no background check needed. I won't address box cutters - been down that road many times, and many refuse to see the connection.
So, again, and I apologize for being forceful in my tone, but I believe this to my core - it's none of their business what I do with my legally held, Constitutionally protected items, and allowing them to shut down something that has been done for 237 years across the country in the name of "safety" and "security", when in reality it provides neither, nah. See, you may have never been in a gun shop when a background check came back "denied"...and watch the cop standing next to him do nothing. Saw it more than once. System fail, and I refuse to trust it over my own self.Incidentally, the vast majrotiy of crime guns come from straw sales, which, Dear Leaders "statement" to the contrary, are already completely illegal...even the straw sales the feds encourage with Fast and Felony Stupid...off to the side, going after gun traffickers, can we expect Eric Holder to be arrested any time soon?
The other main ways are through theft, and the very last way is through purchasing.
Sorry for pontificating - I do that when I'm hungry, gotta go get some microwave pizza. ;)
-
I think the cost is $500 million. I just don't think he needed to have children there. I get the point but it seemed exploitive. If he really wants to better this country he better do something to make sure our kids arent $300,000.00 in debt per household. I think the figure is $140,000.00 per household now.
-
Bozwell
So I assume you would want only registered car dealers to be able to "transfer " your private car sales? You might sell it to someone who has lost or never had a drivers license. In my state you as a citizen you are supposed to know the person you are selling to, If you knowingly sell to a felon ( even though some felons can own guns) you are committing a crime.
$20 (which is rapidly becoming cheap) transfer is an inconvenience to some to others that can be hard to swallow. Remember people out there buy Hi-point handguns and cheap .22 rifles and single barrel shotguns. Many are not doing so because they like the platform as much as that's what they can afford. If the goals are to make it costly enough for those in the lower income brackets to get guns then adding taxes and fees should do the trick just as it has for smoking.
You're allowed to own a car without a driver's license. You aren't allowed to drive it (at least on main roads, unsure about private land), but you're entitled to own it. You aren't allowed to own a firearm if you have, say, a felony on your record and accordingly can't pass a background check. There's a difference. Same goes for any other misplaced analogies to selling fertilizer and the like.
As for infringing your rights and "it's none of their business what I do with my legally held, Constitutionally protected items", that's true up until what you do violates another law. What if you decide you want to sell your legally held CZ Phantom (we know it's a hypo because Aman wouldn't do that ;)) to a 5 year old (or, to make the hypo more realistic, a 17 year old who looks 25). Same analysis - same result? In both cases, you're selling the firearm to someone who isn't legally allowed to own the firearm. In both cases, it's property you legally own. Point being, simply because it's something you own doesn't mean you can do anything you want with it under the law.
And there are ways to implement such a system without going through a FFL. I don't believe the FBI even charges a fee (other than our tax dollars) for FFL's using NICS, and nothing says that this functionality couldn't be opened up to individuals as well, along with a way for individuals to prove that they did the check. There are numerous ways this could be implemented.
Would it prevent all gun crime? Of course not. Would it be a relatively harmless concession that could potentially be made, in order to avoid stricter requirements and bans? I think so. And just logically speaking, I just think we should have background checks for all transactions or no transactions. There's absolutely no logical reason you should be able to avoid an otherwise mandatory check, simply by buying from a private individual rather than a licensed FFL.
-
I think the cost is $500 million. I just don't think he needed to have children there. I get the point but it seemed exploitive. If he really wants to better this country he better do something to make sure our kids arent $300,000.00 in debt per household. I think the figure is $140,000.00 per household now.
Agreed, maybe we should have children write in about anti abortion issues, gang issues, drug issues, etc....then will he fix that too.
-
A Right that is limited is not a Right, but a Privilege. A Privilege may be revoked or adjusted at any time. A Right may not. Some people here need to be reminded of this fact as it appears that some are happy to give up a Right if that means they're allowed(!) to continue doing what they want for now.
As for the OP, that's a list of 23 attempts to look good without actually accomplishing anything at all. If he could have enacted gun control by decree, you would be seeing it now, at this very moment. He can't, he knows it and he didn't. The Imperial One is hoping that Congress will pick up the ball and pass the unpleasant parts, but leave him squeaky clean.
That means: You need to focus your attention on your representatives even more so now than before. That's where the battle really is, not this list of empty verbiage and conflated nonsense.
I couldn't agree with your statements more, Widge. Your words are sage, as always.
I am loving all of the very spirited debate and discussion on this so far. These are the types of discussions we need to engage in with others to hopefully continue a healthy and open exchange of ideas and to help rid people of the brainwashing that the WH and the media have flooded people with.
I have read many things that I strongly agree with, and some I don't agree with very much, but I feel it's important as a newer member in this community to get the ideas and viewpoints of those with much more experience and history with these types of "lightning rod" subjects.
-
Bozwell
So I assume you would want only registered car dealers to be able to "transfer " your private car sales? You might sell it to someone who has lost or never had a drivers license. In my state you as a citizen you are supposed to know the person you are selling to, If you knowingly sell to a felon ( even though some felons can own guns) you are committing a crime.
$20 (which is rapidly becoming cheap) transfer is an inconvenience to some to others that can be hard to swallow. Remember people out there buy Hi-point handguns and cheap .22 rifles and single barrel shotguns. Many are not doing so because they like the platform as much as that's what they can afford. If the goals are to make it costly enough for those in the lower income brackets to get guns then adding taxes and fees should do the trick just as it has for smoking.
You're allowed to own a car without a driver's license. You aren't allowed to drive it (at least on main roads, unsure about private land), but you're entitled to own it. You aren't allowed to own a firearm if you have, say, a felony on your record and accordingly can't pass a background check. There's a difference. Same goes for any other misplaced analogies to selling fertilizer and the like.
As for infringing your rights and "it's none of their business what I do with my legally held, Constitutionally protected items", that's true up until what you do violates another law. This is where we differ Boz, it's none of anyones business what I do unless it violates another person's right to life, liberty & property. What if you decide you want to sell your legally held CZ Phantom (we know it's a hypo because Aman wouldn't do that ;)) to a 5 year old (or, to make the hypo more realistic, a 17 year old who looks 25). Same analysis - same result? In both cases, you're selling the firearm to someone who isn't legally allowed to own the firearm. In both cases, it's property you legally own. Point being, simply because it's something you own doesn't mean you can do anything you want with it under the law.In the case of your hypo, the sale wouldn't take place, as long as you check the ID (and in the case of NC, their PPP or CHP.
And there are ways to implement such a system without going through a FFL. I don't believe the FBI even charges a fee (other than our tax dollars) for FFL's using NICS, and nothing says that this functionality couldn't be opened up to individuals as well, along with a way for individuals to prove that they did the check. There are numerous ways this could be implemented.
Would it prevent all gun crime? Of course not. Would it be a relatively harmless concession that could potentially be made, in order to avoid stricter requirements and bans? I think so. And just logically speaking, I just think we should have background checks for all transactions or no transactions. There's absolutely no logical reason you should be able to avoid an otherwise mandatory check, simply by buying from a private individual rather than a licensed FFL.
The part in bold is giving the mouse the cookie.
Just wait until the mouse comes back for the glass of milk.
IMO, there should be no restrictions AT ALL to firearms ownership unless the person in question is currently in custody (jail/prison/mental institution).
If the person can't be trusted with a gun, they why are you letting him/her run free among the population?
The only concession that I would make, is that once you have commited an act of violence with a firearm, you can no longer own one.
Other than that, if it harm none, do as ye will.
-
BTW, I'm not yelling at you in red Boz, just wanted it to be noticeable.
-
The leader of the nation issuing orders (laws) without going through Congress! Sounds dictatorial to me.
-
IMO, there should be no restrictions AT ALL to firearms ownership unless the person in question is currently in custody (jail/prison/mental institution).
We can agree to disagree on this. I think there's a line in between when someone forfeits their 2nd amendment rights (e.g., due to having committed a felony) and where they forfeit all their freedom for the rest of their life (e.g., life in prison).
In the case of your hypo, the sale wouldn't take place, as long as you check the ID (and in the case of NC, their PPP or CHP.
What's the difference between asking me as a citizen to check their ID, check their permit, etc. and asking me to call a phone number, give them a bit of the buyer's info, and get a yay/nay response? Moreover, at least here in Guilford, the permits given by the sheriff are printed on office paper - and even if they weren't, how is Joe Schmoe citizen to know what's forged and what's not? As a citizen, you already have a duty not to sell the firearm to a minor, someone you know is going to use it for a crime, and so on. I see no harm in incorporating a NICS check into the process.
-
IMO, there should be no restrictions AT ALL to firearms ownership unless the person in question is currently in custody (jail/prison/mental institution).
We can agree to disagree on this. I think there's a line in between when someone forfeits their 2nd amendment rights (e.g., due to having committed a felony) and where they forfeit all their freedom for the rest of their life (e.g., life in prison).
My point on the above, is that if you can't trust someone enough to possess a firearm, have they really been rehabilitated?
If they haven't been rehabilitated, why are they being released?
I completely understand your reasoning on someone forfeiting certain rights once they have commited a felony, but they should have ALL rights restored once they have been released.
In the case of your hypo, the sale wouldn't take place, as long as you check the ID (and in the case of NC, their PPP or CHP.
What's the difference between asking me as a citizen to check their ID, check their permit, etc. and asking me to call a phone number, give them a bit of the buyer's info, and get a yay/nay response? Moreover, at least here in Guilford, the permits given by the sheriff are printed on office paper - and even if they weren't, how is Joe Schmoe citizen to know what's forged and what's not? As a citizen, you already have a duty not to sell the firearm to a minor, someone you know is going to use it for a crime, and so on. I see no harm in incorporating a NICS check into the process.
I guess I just have a problem with the "mother may I" BS.
It's none of .gov's business what I buy, who I buy it from, how I use it or how I dispose of it.
To me, it's just that simple.
*Edited to add*
I have a spotless record, I'm not a felon, I pass NICS checks.
Because of my NC CHP, I'm now "on the grid" (AFIS) and I don't like it.
I've noticed a tendency among some gun owners (not speaking about anyone in particular, just in general) to have this self righteous, sanctimonoius attitude, that just smacks of "I'm a good guy, so is my buddy, we have guns, we can always get guns, but I'm not so sure that guy over there should have access to guns."
The 2nd Amendment should protect everyone or no one.
-
Gentlemen, we have a reputation for civility on this board that I would like to maintain. Everyone has the right, (1A), to their own opinions, and I respect that. I also wil reserve my own 1A right to respectfully disagree and attempt to politely present my side of the theory.
Remember, it's the left which has utilized the strategy of shout-down and demonize.
Carry on, with that in mind, please.
-
I hope your third line isn't in reference to my posts in this thread A-man (I even pointed that out in post #33, the large red text was to stand out in the quote box.)
I understand Boz's point of view and respect it (I once held the same POV).
-
Actually, on a point of order, no one on this board has a 1A right to say anything on this subject (except ArmoredMan as the owner), on this board, since it is not owned or operated by the Government. So it behooves people to remember, that while they may voice (or type in this case) their opinions, they should comply with the Board Owner's (and through him) the Mod's and other Admins requests to refrain from certain behaviors, or adhere to certain codes of conduct.
That said, everyone so far is doing so, therefore: Carry on!
-
This is a non-starter right out of the box, and here's why....
? There are just as many Democrat gun owners and supporters in Congress as Republicans. Just check the list of Dem congress members listed by the NRA as "gun friendly". Using guns, hunting and 2A rights are the ONE THING that gets bi-partisan support in Congress.
? Congress members all know that opposition to the NRA will get you booted out of office in most places in the country. That's why both Obama and Hillary were making pro-gun statements last August before the election. They knew they could not get re-elected using today's rhetoric before the election.
? At least 12 Dem senators are coming up for re-election in pro-hunting states. Gun bans of any type will not get them re-elected. All it takes is for 4 or 5 to loose to swing the balance to Republicans in the Senate. And some of these guys are loons in their own right (like Al Fraken - MN), and teetering on un-electable to begin with.
? For once the Republicans in the House did something right. They decided to allow the Senate to vote first on this measure. Presbo was thinking the House would vote first, then when it got blocked, do a lot of grandstanding to the media about "the lives of our children are being endangered by those killer Republicans", or such. But now look what the Senate is working on.... immigration and fiscal matters. No mention of "gun control" anywhere. And this is big, because the Dems set the agenda in the Senate. Make no mistake... the president runs the Dem party, but here we have the Dem leaders of the Senate ignoring the president.
Sure the media trumpets the 1 or 2 whackos and they get a lot more press, but don't you ever forget that it takes a majority vote of both houses to enact LAW.
Presbo will ultimately end up loosing big time on this issue. ;)
-
The hypocrisy of using the children as backdrops to his signing "event" is enormous.
?Because while there is no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely, no piece of legislation that will prevent every tragedy, every act of evil, if there?s even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there?s even one life that can be saved, then we?ve got an obligation to try,? - Presdient Obama
784,507 abortions reported to CDC for 2009 (most recent year for which statistics are available) and this figure is known to be low as California doesn't report to CDC and performs the most abortions of any state. If Obama were serious about doing something so "even one life that can be saved" he should use his executive orders to reduce if not ban abortion.
I understand his comment about saving even one life is in the context of so-called gun violence, but my point is the true agenda of the far left is laid bare when they claim they want to save children and do nothing about the violence to unborn infants.
-
The hypocrisy of using the children as backdrops to his signing "event" is enormous.
Kind of like this? Of course I totally agree it's a cheap maneuver. But everyone does it. It's not like this is some new thing and Obama broke ground.
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2013/01/17/flashback-george-w-bush-used-snowflake-children-as-props-in-2006/
(http://www.pensitoreview.com/Wordpress/wp-content/uploads/photo-bush-snowflake-children-2.jpg)
(http://nationalmemo.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/20060719-3_p071906kh-0118jpg-515h.jpg)
-
It's ok when my guy does it.....Just be reasonable, do it my way.....
-
Agreed, but please don't miss my point -- the use of kids as props for one pet agenda item is hypocrisy when other agenda items are diametrically opposed to saving a life. Get the difference?
Obama or any politician that uses kids as props for their own initiatives while doing nothing to stem the 50,000,000+ abortions since 1973 (http://www.numberofabortions.com/) (http://www.numberofabortions.com/)) doesn't care about saving a single child's life as claimed, i.e. they are hypocrites.
-
CZKALI you are correct.... If they were so worried about children they would ban abortion. I am not full blown anti abortion...when it comes to rape or the mothers saftey it becomes a little sticky. I use more for the point of argument. When you bring up banning abortion one of the first things that they come back with is that it will only force women to the back alley doctors and that it will not stop it. Well if that is the case the same goes with banning sporting rifles and high cap mags, it will only drive them to the black market and the criminal will not follow the law so only the law abiding will be the ones to follow the law putting them in more danger.
-
I don't really see the parallel. "The mere fact that I have nothing to hide gives nobody the right to look." You seem to be making a privacy argument, but if you fail to pass a background check, it will be because of something that is public record. There's nothing private about information that is public record.
For that matter, I personally would prefer to do private sales via a FFL, and have done so in the past. For one, I don't plan to keep the paperwork for the required number of years, as I have enough crap in my house. For another, it almost certainly alleviates the seller of any responsibility in the transaction. You simply deliver the gun to the FFL and your responsibility in the transaction (as far as background checks/knowledge of who is a prohibited possessor/etc.) is done. It's then up to the buyer to jump through the requiresite hoops (background check, class 3 license, etc.) to collect his purchase, and for the FFL to manage the paperwork.
There are certainly poor ways it could be implemented and I'm not saying there aren't. That said, I don't really see any reason why a background check is required for a transaction from a license holder and it's not required from a non-license holder, and there are simple ways to make this area of the law more consistent.
Boz.....
You know me. I'm not an "EBR" guy. I'm not a pistol guy. My rifles are bolt or lever action. I won't speak to handguns, but "IF" I had one (which I can't because I don't have a CCW) it would be a single action revolver in .357 to go with my lever guns. As for shotguns, I prefer them SxS.
So as you can see my guns are not much threatened by the current crop of gun control proposals.
But that is NOT the point. If those of us that aren't much interested in the "bad guns" don't stand shoulder to shoulder with the "EBR" and semi-auto guys now then they will lose their rights and OUR heads will be next on the chopping block.
You see Boz, the guys that are blabbering about "common sense gun control" are taking the incremental approach. Today, "common sense gun control" is semi-auto rifles and shotguns with "evil features" as well as semi-auto pistols with magazines that hold more than 7 rounds.
In 5 years "common sense gun control" will be lever action rifles that hold more than 5 rounds.
In a few more years it will be "who needs more than 2 shots to kill a deer?"
And then of course "Who needs more than 1 shot to kill a deer?"
You see Boz, the people that are howling about "common sense gun control" HATE ALL GUNS!
They are going after the semi-auto guys now, but they will be coming for you and me if we don't stop them now.
Get out there and buy yourself an EBR....with a 50 round drum magazine...and a "protruding pistol grip", flash suppressor and all that other "evil stuff". I'll bet dollars to donuts it doesn't turn you into a crazed school killer.
We have to stick with our semi-auto bretheren right now, 'cause if we don't, there will be nobody left to stick by us.
In closing, I leave you with the French National Anthem....with not so well done subtitles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K1q9Ntcr5g
-
Almost all of those EO's seem very reasonable. Of course I'm not so blinded by party lines, political rhetoric and paranoia that I call anything and everything the Obama administration does as wrong. I'm all for strengthening background checks and mental health. I didn't notice anything that is going to ban your guns or limit magazine capacities, nothing to justify people's irational fears that's brought on the current price gouging we're seeing.
Arizona's private transaction laws are very weak, what is so bad about having a bill of sale or reporting the serial number of the firearm you sold and the name of the person you sold it to? Comparing selling a firearm to a private party to letting your neighbor borrow sugar is a poor comparison. There are no laws preventing convicted felons or the mentally ill from owning sugar, those do apply to firearms and with Arizona's current laws on private sale, there is no way for you to know if the person you're selling a firearm to is even lawfully allowed to own one. Currently it is just an easy way for people who can't legally own a firearm to obtain one without a background check.
I don't believe Arizona's laws have worked "just fine" for us for over 100 years. Had there been stricter regulations on sales and perhaps a waiting period, Jared Loughner, an admitted drug abuser, a student who was required by his college to get mental health clearance to return to school, would not have so easily obtained the handgun he used to kill innocent people and severely wound Gabriel Giffords.
Sion.....You are wrong too. See my response to Boz above.
I would also point out to you that all this "common sense gun control" is claptrap. The loon that shot up the school 35 miles south of me and triggered this latest round of gun control nonsense had been turned down by NICS over a year ago because he LIED on the paperwork. THAT IS A FELONY! And you know what the Vice President said when asked why the loon wasn't prosecuted????
THE MORON VP said.... (I paraphrase)
"We don't have time to prosecute everyone that lies on gun paperwork."
You see...they "don't have time" so they just want to make things easy on themselves and outlaw all guns.
No. There is no such thing as "common sense gun control". Their is only an overreaching government trying to strip us of our RIGHTS. Make no mistake. That is what is going on.
-
How about if the Feds mandate it at $100 per transfer for private sales? Or FFLs suddenly realize 'Hey, this is an opportunity to make some easy cash, lets charge those suckers $75 a pop for filling out a form and making a phone call, they ain't got no choice if they want that fancy pistol'. Are we still alright with it then?
This is already happening and has been for years in some states. $50 is now CHEAP for a transfer in Ca. $50 to $75 is the norm in Ct. Luckily for me my FFL is a buddy and hunting and fishing partner. That said he still charges me $30 for a transfer. He charges others $50.