POTUS signing 23 Executive Orders.....Thoughts?

[ZTATactical]

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.

[miataeric1]

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.

[JonNC]

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.

[JonNC]

BTW, I'm not yelling at you in red Boz, just wanted it to be noticeable.

[tekarra]

The leader of the nation issuing orders (laws) without going through Congress!  Sounds dictatorial to me.

[bozwell]

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.

[JonNC]

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.

[armoredman]

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.

[JonNC]

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).

[Grendel]

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!

[Wobbly]

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.   

[czkali]

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.

[Czeetah]

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/

[ZTATactical]

It's ok when my guy does it.....Just be reasonable, do it my way.....

[czkali]

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/) doesn't care about saving a single child's life as claimed, i.e. they are hypocrites.