Gun control failed in congress. It's happening anyway

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Edward14, Sep 19, 2013.

  1. Edward14

    Edward14 New Member

    22
    0
    0
    Gun control failed in congress. It's happening anyway !!!
    Between Newtown and the Navy Yard, President Obama launched 25 separate initiatives?and there's little the NRA can do to stop them.

    [​IMG]

    Gun control legislation failed loudly following the Newtown school shooting, but that has not stopped President Obama from leaving Congress behind to launch a broad gun control campaign of his own.
    Between the December 2012 massacre and the Navy Yard mass shooting Monday, Obama has taken 25 separate gun control initiatives, all of which came from executive actions that did not require congressional authorization.

    Read the article: http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/gun-control-failed-in-congress-it-s-happening-anyway-20130917
     
  2. Chainfire

    Chainfire Active Member

    5,093
    1
    38
    I read the list and I find no fault with the largest part of it. The whole premise of the article is intended for people to read the title and presume that some great gun grab has been foisted on us by the president. They depend on the tweet generation not reading the two articles to access the article accurately.

    In the five years the President has been in office, I have not lost any gun rights, and I challenge anyone here to come up with any Federal legislation that has made the purchase of firearms of ammunition more difficult.

    If you are upset that the President has tried to make it more difficult for felons or the mentally incompetent from legally accessing firearms, so be it. Personally I am fine with either having a more difficult time trying to arm themselves.

    The "slippery-slope" and "domino theories" as applied to the present subject, lost credibility with me during the build-up to the Vietnam war.
     

  3. rick-ky

    rick-ky New Member

    12
    0
    0
    I have to agree - certainly none of those executive actions sound like an assault on gun rights, and many of them are surprising only in that they had not already been in place. I don't understand in particular the opposition to background checks: how can we claim that the dramatic instances of gun violence are the result of inappropriate/unstable people getting guns they shouldn't have, while in the same breath opposing the safeguards that might have made it more difficult for them to get them?

    Certainly the bulk of the pro-gun-control argument is misguided and indicative of a lack of understanding of the subject; phrases like "a semi-automatic weapon may have been used" in news reports make me cringe, and most of the 'assault-weapons' features that they would like to ban are more cosmetic than functional and have more to do with giving the appearance of taking action than with any aspect of public safety. But like many issues, this is not something that is made better by angry shouting matches, and I think there's room for a whole lot more rational thought on both sides than I've been observing recently.
     
  4. WebleyFosbery38

    WebleyFosbery38 New Member

    7,510
    0
    0
    "Between the December 2012 massacre and the Navy Yard mass shooting Monday, Obama has taken 25 separate gun control initiatives, all of which came from executive actions that did not require congressional authorization"

    Mass Shooting and Massacre, really, those were massacres??? Hmmm, me thinks they are using scary words not facts to scare sheeples into giving up our rights FOOG!

    THE WHITE HOUSE
    Office of the Press Secretary
    EMBARGOED UNTIL THE START OF THE PRESIDENT’S REMARKS
    January 16, 2013
    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.
    Fettering- Make Relevant data available means no restrictions on sharing private data, no courts needed, wrong

    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.
    Fettering- Address unnecessary legal barriers, means no restrictions on sharing private data, no courts needed, wrong

    3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
    Fettering- States have different policies and laws, you cant mandate they act the same, Wrong

    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.
    Fettering- Like Mexican Druglords?, No actually he means US Citizens, wrong

    5. Propose rule making to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
    Fettering- This way they can eliminate that pesky grandfather clause thingy, wrong

    6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
    Fettering-No legal right to require an outside businesses involvement in a private sale of a legally owned firearm, wrong

    7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
    Fettering-Another waste of millions when there are already great campaigns being sponsored by Gun Owners, wrong

    8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
    Fettering- another law that limits the effectiveness of a weapon in an SD situation, wrong

    9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
    Fettering- says nothing about ensuring they are returned to their rightful owners if they commited no crime

    10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
    Im OK with this

    11. Nominate an ATF director.
    Fettering- no, close the ATF doors for good, they Fetter us


    12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
    Im OK with this but what he signed actually only sponsors more couselors after the fact, Wrong

    13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
    Fettering- the focus should be to prevent Violence and prosecute Crime period, Wrong

    14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
    Fettering- the focus should be to prevent Violence and prosecute Crime period, Wrong

    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.
    Fettering- when the technology is requested by the possible owners, industry will provide the solution we want, not before, Wrong

    16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
    Fettering- How about clarifying that its none of my Doctors F'n Business unless I say it is, Wrong

    17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
    Fettering- Ever hear of a little thing called HIPPA?????? Wrong

    18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
    Fettering- note they didnt say security officers, they mean counselors, Wrong

    19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
    Fettering- Dont need a law, each place should do that for themselves, based on their needs the same way we do fire drills, Wrong

    20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
    Im OK with this but it has nothing to do with legal gun ownership

    21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
    Im OK with this but it has nothing to do with legal gun ownership

    22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
    fettering- More HIPPA violations, Wrong

    23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
    Fettering, they are trying to link Firearm Ownership with Mental Instability, wrong



    Its all mostly BS aimed directly at legal firearm ownership in the USA and will do nothing to prevent criminal violence! They know the only real and lasting way to effect the 2A is a Constitutional Convention and a vote, neither of which has a Snowballs chance in hell of passing muster, so out comes the Dicto-Pen and were eating his crap until we can elect a Constitutional President!
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2013
  5. NC1760

    NC1760 New Member

    1,104
    0
    0
    Let the panic begin !!....

    Fear mongering... That's all this is. I'm gonna step on some toes here, but I also gotta speak my mind....
    ..Now before anyone plays the "the sheep will believe, follow, blah blah blah" song again... In a sense there are more than one kind of flock… 1) Those that are staunchly anti-gun and will use any opportunity to soap-box pulpit… but they failed last time even when they claimed to have “the momentum” of the public…
    2) Those that panic and buy at inflated prices simply out of fear… Retailers LOVE these people and they at least stimulate the economy, but 6 to 8 months to get ammo alone back on the shelves so I can go plinking??? DAMN THEM!! … and finally 3) The lockstep NRA member who won’t even consider any meaningful proposals to shore up background checks, close gun show loopholes, straw sales and parking lot deals (even ONE of those is one too many) or even agree that there needs to be a Federal national reciprocity for carry & conceal in all 50 states (BOTH sides claim it’s a “state's issue” ... thus keeping the current stalemate status quo of an "Us vs. Them"… but personally I feel for my fellow gun enthusiast in California, New York, Illinois, New England area, etc. etc. etc.) while they walk around advocating and performing open carry acts of stupidity that simply enforces the general public’s fear of guns & gun owners….. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/...to-grocery-store-to-face-no-criminal-charges/ .....an AR15 across your back to go to the Kroger ??? To "prove a point" ??? Really ???
    So honestly now, which one do you fall into ??? I FULLY expect some people to get upset here... but you need to be honest with yourself and realize when you're being snowed and herded into a panic situation by either side!!!
    Myself... I still prefer to call a “Sheepdog”. Concealed means concealed!! What the public doesn't know won't hurt them and I'm sure they'll be glad someone responsible IS prepared when a wolf shows up....

    Besides, MSNBC & Fox have reported he actually didn’t use any type of AR or “assault” weapon… The forum postings and comments left on social media are calling the networks and Anti’s to task… Hell, from another thread here, even CNN ran this commentary from one of its OWN writers; http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/17/opinion/granderson-gun-control-fail/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

    So to think that this is going to be as bad of a situation as last time in terms of public & media perception… or government interference … Don’t think so. Sure, SOME people will still panic slightly, but most of us are more level headed and even prepared this time around. We've been here before and we'll be here again (unfortunately).
     
  6. TDS92A

    TDS92A New Member

    2,747
    0
    0
    Acceptible Gun Control.

    Here are a few forms of Acceptible Gun Control that none of us seem to mind:

    1) Age limits on purchasing firearms.

    2) Felons being barred from owning or possessing firearms.

    3) Folks with specific mental problems being barred from owning or possessing firearms.

    4) Requiring attendence in a Firearm Training Class or providing a DD214 before getting a Carry Permit.

    This is my personal one; buying or selling a firearm from or to someone that I hardly know (Gun Shows) or even some family members, I am getting a background check.

    This is about all that I can come up with since I have not had the USDA not recommended amount of coffee just yet.

    Feel free to yell and scream if you like.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2013
  7. wittmeba

    wittmeba New Member

    1,097
    0
    0
    It seems our government is trying to do exactly what the better law enforcement suggests not doing.


    That is:

    Don't try to find some other reason to arrest someone just because you don't like what they are doing and what they are doing is perfectly legal.

    Our government can't find a way rightfully take our guns so they try in every way to make it difficult to own a gun by manipulating the associated laws.
     
  8. kryptar19

    kryptar19 New Member

    1,774
    0
    0
    THERE IS NO "GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    No matter where an FFL goes, they are REQUIRED to have the purchaser fill out a 4473 and do a background check.

    I should NOT have to do a background check to give a gun as a gift.
    I should NOT have to do a background check to sell a gun to my buddy.
     
  9. CrazedJava

    CrazedJava New Member

    848
    0
    0
    Good grief. I am so sick of this "sky is falling" attitude.

    Man up. Grow a pair. There is a fine line between staying vigilant and outright paranoia.

    Most of the Executive Actions/Orders were done post-Newtown. I'm sure there will be more. Obama feels the need to "do something" but he is increasingly looking like an empty suit to his own supporters.

    The gun control rhetoric is ALREADY dying down. They know it is a loser issue. As the facts have come out and media establishments have ended up with egg on their face there is a lot of foot shuffling and nervous glancing about in embarrassment, but no serious talk of gun control.

    This was not the mass shooting they were hoping for.

    However, we are not helping our case by panicking either. Be ever watchful and look for real threats. Let's not wear ourselves out over nothing.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2013
  10. S-101hat

    S-101hat New Member

    17
    0
    0
    The only one I have a problem with is the doctor asking if you own guns. The reason being is that it can be abused if the doctor is not pro 2nd amendment. They have the ability to rule you mentally disturbed or a danger to others, just because they don't agree with your views.
     
  11. DrumJunkie

    DrumJunkie New Member

    4,823
    0
    0
    :):):):):)
     
  12. WebleyFosbery38

    WebleyFosbery38 New Member

    7,510
    0
    0
    As a citizen of the "Once Great State of NY", I can attest to the fact that "they are coming after our guns by taking away rights". ONE AT A TIME. Its not fear mongering, its actually happening. NY and Cali are testbeds for what Feral Gun Control will look like once the Feds finally push it through. Kinda like Romneys Pre-Obama Care trial of Gov Mandated Healthcare, work out the bugs on the state level then push it through as tried and tested across the nation.

    As one of the 2 most populated states in the union, we have influence at the federal level that few states have. When I say we, I really mean them (Albanizers and HollyWeirds), 95% of my states counties have promised to fight the safe act.

    TD, I generally agree with most of your posts but lets not be hasty here, I disagree in part with these

    1) Age limits on purchasing firearms.
    age limits on purchasing without permission of a gaurdian

    2) Felons being barred from owning or possessing firearms.
    violent Offenders barred from owning or possessing firearms

    3) Folks with specific mental problems being barred from owning or possessing firearms.
    Only if those accused have easily accessible legal redress to seek the return of those rights

    4) Requiring attendance in a Firearm Training Class or providing a DD214 before getting a Carry Permit.
    Its a good idea but not a legal one, fettering is fettering even if its for our own good

    Really, were living the "Nobody needs 10 rounds to kill a deer" and "Military weapons are made for the Military" (Andy Coumo) mentality in NY; if your not careful, it will be your law next.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2013
  13. opaww

    opaww New Member

    4,899
    0
    0
    On page 20 of the osamaobama care act it forbids any medical personal from asking you about your guns, Thanks to Sen. Read.

    That out of the way, now just tell me how a background check would of stopped these shootings?

    The slime bag at the navy ship yard bought his shotgun legally and had a background check which he passed.

    The school shooter's mother bought the guns he used legally that he used, She passed a background check.

    The movie shooter passed a background check and walked away with his guns.

    The VT shooter bought his guns and a BG was done on him and he passed.

    Only one of the guns the VT shooter used was bought at a gun show and it is not clear if he had a BC or not on that one.

    A BC is a feel good law that really has not stopped any shootings, because when laws are passed there and many who will go around laws or simply ignore them.

    Would a BC of stopped the Boston bomber?

    Would a BC of stopped Timothy McVeigh?

    Would a BC of stopped the Time Squair Bomber?

    Would a BC of stopped Eric Robert Rudolph

    Would a BC of stopped Theodore "Ted" Kaczynski

    Would a BC of stopped Wade Michael Page, (He had a BC and passed it)

    Maybe if we pass a law requiring a BC for bombers we might stop some of the violence.

    Background checks have been in place sense the brady bill passed and most people pass the BC. If nothing is recorded to flag someone they pass.
     
  14. clr8ter

    clr8ter New Member

    4,015
    0
    0
    So, should a 14 YO be able to buy beer, too, with a parents permission?
     
  15. opaww

    opaww New Member

    4,899
    0
    0
    Before the GCA of 68 a 10 year old could go into a hardware store and flop own the money and walk out with a gun and ammo, not many even questioned them and we really did have less school shootings and common gang killings before they passed anti-right laws like this one.
     
  16. WebleyFosbery38

    WebleyFosbery38 New Member

    7,510
    0
    0
    OK, I will bite on this. Tell me more about this 14 year old who wants a beer.

    Is he driving anything after, will he be doing anything dangerous, is he gonna drink till he gets wasted?

    Is he responsible, has he been taught right and wrong and acted as he's been taught, has he proven to be trustworthy?

    Is his parent responsible enough to watch the amount his kid drinks and limit it if judgement of the kid turns bad?

    Do you think not giving a 14 year old a beer that wants one will stop him from getting that beer and having it and 6 others while not under the watchful eye of Mom and Dad? So I'm guessing you know my answer, all things being equal, they just arent. Each "Kid" and each "Parent" must be evaluated on their own merits, each situation is different.


    This deserves about 10 likes and a few high fives! That which they seek to remove from the choices will not prevent tragedies. They are called that for a reason.
    trag·e·dy
    noun \ˈtra-jə-dē\

    : a very bad event that causes great sadness and often involves someone's death

    : a very sad, unfortunate, or upsetting situation : something that causes strong feelings of sadness or regret

    : a play, movie, etc., that is serious and has a sad ending (such as the death of the main character)

    1,000 violent crimes happen in our nation every single day that include very few "Gun Crimes", Less than 1% if you include child and animal abuse, Assault, Rape and all forms of thuggery. They wish to limit "Violence committed with firearms" but that is a pretty tiny target that will encumber literally a hundred million citizens that pose no deadly threat to nobody ever.

    At the same moment they are wasting their time and spending hundreds of our $$$Billions$$$$ to limit "Tragedies that kill dozens";


    Gangs bangers stabbed and beat 100 of their rivals with baseball bats,

    Druglords and their missives killed hundreds more with their unregulated and untaxed products,

    Prostitutes living off the underbelly of society with the same tax and regulatory status as drug dealers gave 1000 clients aids and were beaten if they didnt hand over all the money after they did their job,

    Terrorists killed hundreds more with items not covered in any gun laws proposed,

    Hundreds of our sons and daughters are being sold as sex slaves in foreign lands

    A hundred thousand minority and non babies will be tossed in recycling containers.

    In the last 10 years, we willingly sent 100,000 of our young Men and Women to foreign lands to have thousands of them sent back in boxes and 50,000 of them have injuries that will never heal!

    So lets see if we can prevent crazy and evil people from committing crimes against 10's of people at the same damn time half a million citizens of this country are being violently attacked, injured and murdered that have nothing to do with guns!
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2013
  17. chloeshooter

    chloeshooter New Member

    2,565
    0
    0
    While there are many at the national level who would jump at any chance to [attempt to] grab all of our firearms, the beauty of the 2 Senators from every state feature of our Congress keeps much of this at bay. Plus, firearms ownership is enjoyed by many who happen to be Democrats, and the NRA provides a good lobby, demonized as it is by the left

    Be more concerned about the state you live in. If you look at CT, NY, CA and CO - plus others - you see that the states have a lot more to say about your gun ownership than the feds have over the years. Plus it is a heck of a lot easier to make your voice heard.
     
  18. CrazedJava

    CrazedJava New Member

    848
    0
    0
    What's happening in CA and NY is not going to pass at the Federal level. While Obama is making some noise again I can't tell if he's deluded enough to try it (and I almost hope he is) or if he is still pandering to his base because he is most comfortable in campaign mode.

    However, gun control failed spectacularly earlier this year and Dems are still licking their wounds. Now you have the Colorado recall on top of it. Oopsie. One of the state senators recalled was even in a "safe" Democratic district.

    That hasn't stopped them from squawking about it. As I posted elsewhere, I almost hope they try it again. It makes them look impotent and it would be great for the 2014 elections.
     
  19. TDS92A

    TDS92A New Member

    2,747
    0
    0
    Quoting DrumJunkie
    My response

    Originally Posted by TDS92A
    Here are a few forms of Acceptible Gun Control that none of us seem to mind:

    1) Age limits on purchasing firearms.

    Old enough to be issued a weapon then you should be old enough to buy one.]

    Good statement, however, the same could be said about alcohol. Old enough to enlist, old enough to drink. Neither of which are going to change any time soon.

    2) Felons being barred from owning or possessing firearms.

    Weather someone has served their time and paid their debt or not. If not then keep them in prison until they do. Otherwise they should be seen as a citizen with same rights

    I can agree with this if the felony commited was on the order of a "White Collar" crime with the sentence paid in full to include probation.

    3) Folks with specific mental problems being barred from owning or possessing firearms.

    Who is going to say who is what?

    First a Recognized Psychologist and second a Judge and or Jury.

    4) Requiring attendence in a Firearm Training Class or providing a DD214 before getting a Carry Permit.

    Any curtailing of the 2a is a violation of the Constitution.

    Nothing stated in item number 4 prevents anyone from possessing a firearm.

    This is my personal one; buying or selling a firearm from or to someone that I hardly know (Gun Shows) or even some family members, I am getting a background check.

    And you are able to do that how?
    Sell to who you want, If you are selling to an FFL then it will be dealt wit has such. But private sales there's n need to get the check. If you don't trust them then don't sell the weapon to them.


    Simple, I would approach an FFL at the Gun Show and ask them to run the back ground check and put the cost of the back ground check into the cost of the weapon that I am selling.

    This is about all that I can come up with since I have not had the USDA not recommended amount of coffee just yet.

    Feel free to yell and scream if you like.
     
  20. JimRau

    JimRau Active Member

    4,983
    0
    36

    When you get all the sand out of your ears you will realize there are already MORE THAN ENOUGH laws on the books which restrict those 'undesirable' people( along with the desirable people, US) you list from 'legally' obtaining guns and THEY DO NOT AND NEVER WILL NOT STOP THEM so why would you or any other AMERICAN support any further attempt to 'limit or restrict' our RIGHT to be armed. UNLESS you support the progressive agenda based on the belief that 'I am better than you therefore I know what is best for you'! :mad:
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2013