Obama May Change His Mind On Assault Weapons Ban

[DEB]

Reading this eased my fears a bit.

I personally have no issue with strengthening background checks, eliminating private sales without a BG check (that may infuriate some here)

It doesn't infuriate me. It just makes me shake my head. Do you realize what you are saying? If I want to sell a firearm to my daughter, under that scenario, I would have to pay for a background check. Does that even make sense to you? Because it if does, I think you need to think about it a little more clearly. Would you mind if the government checked your background before you sold your house? Your car? Any other possession? NONE of those things are constitutionally protected. Guns are. Yet you would allow an intrusion that you would never think of allowing for mere possessions.

It's no wonder America is in trouble when we've departed so far from an understanding of the Constitution.

No need to be condescending. Sometimes, people have different opinions on how problems should be solved. If in your life, there are no differing opinions, then congratulations on being able to surround yourself with like minded people. But don't be rude, asking rhetorical questions. Besides, paying for a BG check to transfer a gun to your daughter is no different than paying to transfer a car title. So do you have issues with FFLs doing a background check, because you clearly do when it comes to private checks? I don't understand your logic.

Looks like I stirred the pot. What I am attempting to convey is that all sides need to come to the table with a solution, and my personal belief is that we won't fix the issue of firearms falling into the hands of criminals or the insane, but an attempt at doing so is what we should aim for. This is how politics work, compromise. The likelihood that things will remain as-is are slim to none. So time to think outside the box. It isn't about constitutionality, it's about being able to compromise with those who are creating legislation.

We can dig in our heels, not budge an inch, and lose a lot. Or we can compromise.

The topic of allowing CHL in 51% bars comes up a bit. And those connected to the TX legislature say it won't happen, and don't even ask for it because that would get a bill killed, and take with it all of the other things we are trying to pass. That's called compromise - lots of us want that, but won't take it forward in legislature because it has no chance of passing.

I don't want any of this. I wish it had never gotten to this point. But I'm being honest with myself and others - no one will end up in a good place by being bull headed.

Stripes Dude, even if I do not agree with you, I do really appreciate your comments. It makes me re-evaluate my position and my reasoning that goes along with it. I do hope you and others will continue to post their true feelings and don't feel attacked. Compromise to me is an Orwelian double speak ala 1984. Reading the comments on this forum gives me hope again. During the last AWB, there wasn't an active internet as there is today. Maybe, this time we can fight what is coming down the pipeline.

[jimlongley]

Sounds like a head fake to me.

He has a fake head? I knew it, I knew there had to be an explanation.

[C-dub]

On second thought, I do believe I'll compromise. You leave my rights alone and quit threatening my right to keep and bear arms and I'll help address the real problems that lead to these heinous acts such as the breakdown of the family, elimination of God on society, education for helping to identify and treat the mentally ill and security in what is now known as "gun free zones" including schools.

That's the only compromise I'm willing to make. Now, are you elitist anti-gun liberals willing to compromise?

Here's a better one. We'll use the leftist version of compromise: Go as far to the right as possible, and when that fails, back down 20% and call it a deal.

Example: Every citizen should be allowed unfettered access to all weapons, up to and including nuclear weapons, tanks, and grenade launchers. Then, when the libs heads start exploding, we'll just back it down to repeal of the NFA, and other gun control acts. That way they'll "win" in that we can't have nukes, but we'll win in that we'll have gotten back everything that's been lost.

I like it.

[K.Mooneyham]

I just want to clarify something. I wanted to show an example of what I considered compromise...that is, BOTH sides give up something to get something. That is the way compromise is supposed to work, right? It was not my intent to attack Stripes Dude in the very least and if that individual felt so, I sincerely apologize. Personally, I don't think that I, a law-abiding citizen, especially since I have a CHL (so obviously I've already been background checked) should require any further background checks before I sell MY property to a person I deem acceptable to receive such property. It is the responsibility of the person I sell it to not to misuse said property in violation of the law. Now, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't sell a firearm to anyone face-to-face (non-FFL sale) who wasn't a relative, close friend, or a fellow CHLer. But that is a standard I am setting for myself. YMMMV.

[JJVP]

We can dig in our heels, not budge an inch, and lose a lot. Or we can compromise.

My recommendation is that WE dig in our heels, not budge an inch, and retain our rights as granted by God and affirmed by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. Not interested in compromising and losing my rights..

[mamabearCali]

We have "compromised" again and again and again...and all we seem to do is lose ground when we are willing to "compromise." This particular administration's view of compromise is "be reasonable, do it my way". Look at everything else that has been "compromise"....the healthcare bill, the tax deals of late, the fiscal cliff, sequestration, again and again and again when we are willing to compromise they get everything and we get nada. NO MAS! BASTA! (No more, Enough) This admin has a take no prisoner attitude...fine so do I. Here I stand and not one inch farther will I go.

[2firfun50]

Here's an actual case:

The specific benefit is called the “Aid and Assistance/Housebound” and is meant for veterans so disabled that they cannot take care of themselves at all. It allows a small stipend to help a designated caretaker provide for the severely-disabled vet. Sgt. Wayne Irelan of Arkansas, wounded in combat in Iraq and awarded the Purple Heart, made the mistake of signing up for this benefit.

For the Irelans to receive this benefit the VA first declared Wayne’s PTSD to be so bad that he was considered “mentally incompetent,” and his wife Lana was designated his caretaker. Only Wayne apparently didn’t realize what else he was signing up for besides that small amount of money.

Any vet declared to be mentally incompetent instantly loses his rights to own firearms or ammunition. And those rights are stripped regardless of what that vet has actually done.

You read that correctly. All it takes is a declaration by some government bureaucrat, and a veteran’s rights–the exact same rights guaranteed by the Constitution he swore to defend with his own life–can be stripped away. Even if the vet hasn’t done anything wrong.

About a year after he started receiving the Aid and Assistance/Housebound stipend, Wayne Irelan got a letter from the Arkansas State Police saying his Arkansas concealed carry permit had been revoked.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/0 ... bear-arms/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Protecting civil liberties while protecting the public is tough. I do think about a mentally disabled vet waking up and feeling the need to sweep the "town" of insurgents. It would only need to happen once.

[RottenApple]

Protecting civil liberties while protecting the public is tough. I do think about a mentally disabled vet waking up and feeling the need to sweep the "town" of insurgents. It would only need to happen once.

Maybe so. But we supposedly have due process in this country. This vet, and who knows how many others, have had their rights stripped from them without due process. And that is just plain wrong.

[2firfun50]

To those who as "why do you need" (fill in the blank), the question is irrelevant. Only I can decide what I need or want. When it comes to the right to keep and bear arms, I will decide what I need, not you, not my neighbors and not the government.

Now that's pure gold right there

yeppers, while I don't feel the need in my urban environment for a .223 or .308, one of those neat 9mm rifles that are good to 50-100 meters is real interesting.

[K.Mooneyham]

Here's an actual case:

The specific benefit is called the “Aid and Assistance/Housebound” and is meant for veterans so disabled that they cannot take care of themselves at all. It allows a small stipend to help a designated caretaker provide for the severely-disabled vet. Sgt. Wayne Irelan of Arkansas, wounded in combat in Iraq and awarded the Purple Heart, made the mistake of signing up for this benefit.

For the Irelans to receive this benefit the VA first declared Wayne’s PTSD to be so bad that he was considered “mentally incompetent,” and his wife Lana was designated his caretaker. Only Wayne apparently didn’t realize what else he was signing up for besides that small amount of money.

Any vet declared to be mentally incompetent instantly loses his rights to own firearms or ammunition. And those rights are stripped regardless of what that vet has actually done.

You read that correctly. All it takes is a declaration by some government bureaucrat, and a veteran’s rights–the exact same rights guaranteed by the Constitution he swore to defend with his own life–can be stripped away. Even if the vet hasn’t done anything wrong.

About a year after he started receiving the Aid and Assistance/Housebound stipend, Wayne Irelan got a letter from the Arkansas State Police saying his Arkansas concealed carry permit had been revoked.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/0 ... bear-arms/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Protecting civil liberties while protecting the public is tough. I do think about a mentally disabled vet waking up and feeling the need to sweep the "town" of insurgents. It would only need to happen once.

Did the veterans of any of our previous wars, some of which had some seriously hideous combat that certainly left their mental mark, wake and decide to "sweep a town for __________ (fill in the blank with German or Japanese soldiers, North Korean or Chinese communists, Viet Cong or NVA, etc.). Was there a push to put those vets on a "list" without due process? I don't want any veteran who is in a truly bad place mentally to harm themselves or others...but arbitrarily putting combat veterans on said list without due process simply because they asked for some help just doesn't seem right, not after what those folks went through in service of this nation.

[tallmike]

Here's an actual case:

The specific benefit is called the “Aid and Assistance/Housebound” and is meant for veterans so disabled that they cannot take care of themselves at all. It allows a small stipend to help a designated caretaker provide for the severely-disabled vet. Sgt. Wayne Irelan of Arkansas, wounded in combat in Iraq and awarded the Purple Heart, made the mistake of signing up for this benefit.

For the Irelans to receive this benefit the VA first declared Wayne’s PTSD to be so bad that he was considered “mentally incompetent,” and his wife Lana was designated his caretaker. Only Wayne apparently didn’t realize what else he was signing up for besides that small amount of money.

Any vet declared to be mentally incompetent instantly loses his rights to own firearms or ammunition. And those rights are stripped regardless of what that vet has actually done.

You read that correctly. All it takes is a declaration by some government bureaucrat, and a veteran’s rights–the exact same rights guaranteed by the Constitution he swore to defend with his own life–can be stripped away. Even if the vet hasn’t done anything wrong.

About a year after he started receiving the Aid and Assistance/Housebound stipend, Wayne Irelan got a letter from the Arkansas State Police saying his Arkansas concealed carry permit had been revoked.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/0 ... bear-arms/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Protecting civil liberties while protecting the public is tough. I do think about a mentally disabled vet waking up and feeling the need to sweep the "town" of insurgents. It would only need to happen once.

The "aid and assistance" money that his spouse got is a very small amount of money, but to get it they had to say that his PTSD was so severe that she needed to stay home from work to take care of him full time. Since the disability was a mental issue and he was stating the mental issue was so severe that he needed a caretaker, a doctor declared him unable to take care of himself due to severe mental issues and she was declared his caretaker.

Was he really that severely impaired? I don't know, but he obviously convinced at least 1 VA doctor that he was. If someone requires a full time caretaker due to a mental disability, don't we want their doctor to say something?

[RottenApple]

The "aid and assistance" money that his spouse got is a very small amount of money, but to get it they had to say that his PTSD was so severe that she needed to stay home from work to take care of him full time. Since the disability was a mental issue and he was stating the mental issue was so severe that he needed a caretaker, a doctor declared him unable to take care of himself due to severe mental issues and she was declared his caretaker.

Was he really that severely impaired? I don't know, but he obviously convinced at least 1 VA doctor that he was. If someone requires a full time caretaker due to a mental disability, don't we want their doctor to say something?

Yes. But a person's Constitutionally protected rights should not be taken away without due process. I'm sorry, but a doctor's opinion does NOT meet the requirements. There should have been a competency hearing, complete with jury, in order to strip him of his RKBA.

[suthdj]

I agree with the head fake they see the ppl are rallying against them and don't stand a chance so they are just regrouping and waiting for the next slaughter to say see we told you so, now lets get this done and they will push in the very heat of the moment when we are relaxed. Now how long will it take them to arrange the next mass shooting <-- yes conspiracy thoughts coming out must suppress, must suppress .

[baldeagle]

Learn from experience. Liberals agreed to compromise with Ronald Reagan. In exchange for amnesty for illegal aliens, they would pass new laws tightening up immigration requirements, including penalties for employers who hired illegals. Reagan granted amnesty, and the liberals said oh, we're sorry, did we promise you legislation? Well, we haven't gotten to that yet. Maybe next Congress......or never....