Obama acting on executive action

[Oldgringo]

This is political theater and him just trying to create a more divided populous. The more he can polarize the people, the better chance his fellow progressive liberal democrat has to win the election and further the demise of our country.

He is cheery picking what laws he wants to enforce and uphold and which ones he does not. Our impotent congress is letting him get away with it and we, the people, are letting congress continue to do nothing to stop him.

Have y'all noticed how the lame stream media is touting the spectacle to come? The lame stream media is stoking this debacle for ratings.

Now then, mojo84 hit the nail on the head when he mentioned the impotent, gutless congress. A congress that includes one of our Texas Senators and how many of our non-Representatives?

[myntalfloss]

Based on your contention-
If they haven't acted out yet, they haven't been arrested yet, therefore, a background check does no good.

Did you watch the video? What is explained there will do more to curb the "gun violence" in American than making more laws or doing more background checks. Just because you don't mind more background checks doesn't mean they would be effective in reducing crime.

It appears that you're assuming that the only thing that a background check would check would be if they have a history of gun related arrests. What I'm assuming is that they'll be looking for any evidence of anti-social behavior, domestic disputes, mental illness and the like. I don't want to get into a stats battle with anyone but I seem to recall a lot of these mass shooters had a history of mental illness and/or domestic diputes. Would you want a guy with multiple DUI's driving your child's school bus? Or, if your neighbor beats his wife and kids like a rented mule, would you want him to have a gun?. These guys don't just get up one morning and think, "Hey, it's too cold to play golf today, I think I'll load up and go kill a bunch of folks." There are markers out there and if we could find some of those guys with obvious defects, I think it would be good for all of us. Fewer shootings mean fewer anti-gun nuts.

[ScottDLS]

Based on your contention-
If they haven't acted out yet, they haven't been arrested yet, therefore, a background check does no good.

Did you watch the video? What is explained there will do more to curb the "gun violence" in American than making more laws or doing more background checks. Just because you don't mind more background checks doesn't mean they would be effective in reducing crime.

It appears that you're assuming that the only thing that a background check would check would be if they have a history of gun related arrests. What I'm assuming is that they'll be looking for any evidence of anti-social behavior, domestic disputes, mental illness and the like. I don't want to get into a stats battle with anyone but I seem to recall a lot of these mass shooters had a history of mental illness and/or domestic diputes. Would you want a guy with multiple DUI's driving your child's school bus? Or, if your neighbor beats his wife and kids like a rented mule, would you want him to have a gun?. These guys don't just get up one morning and think, "Hey, it's too cold to play golf today, I think I'll load up and go kill a bunch of folks." There are markers out there and if we could find some of those guys with obvious defects, I think it would be good for all of us. Fewer shootings mean fewer anti-gun nuts.

That IS all a background check will show under current law. The purpose is to determine if you are a prohibited person under existing law. If you want to add disqualifiers, then you would need legislation. Proposed legislation has been rejected multiple times by Democrat and Republican controlled Congresses, and for good reason.

[myntalfloss]

Both sides....are you kidding? You see reason from the other side?

I don't think you know what the word compromise means. It's not a compromise if I have a cake and you tell me that you're taking half of it. It's not a compromise if someone sticks a gun in my face and says if I hand over my wallet he won't shoot me....it's a mugging. Every battle over gun rights at the national level is either a mugging and ends with us losing more rights, or a stalemate. So just how do you think you're going to get a "compromise?" The ONLY place where this isn't true is at the state level...in SOME states, like Texas.

Actually, I see very little reason from either side and you're kinda making my point.

If you take your cake analogy (Hey, take the cake!), anyway, you've made the assumption that the cake is already yours. A better analogy would be if a cake is placed on the table but you resent having to share. So no, I'm not expecting a compromise. I'm expecting that folks on both sides will continue to villify, denigrate and distort each others positions and it will only get worse.

[cb1000rider]

VM, I largely get the same response from some people when I mention "compromise". Compromise isn't promoting that we give something up and get nothing, it's promoting that we both give something up and both gain something. No one that I know of promoting reasonable discussion or compromise is indicating that we should just make concessions.

Taking the view that compromise is impossible because they won't budge is inherently doing what we're accusing "them" of. "Slippery slope" is a great example of our side not budging on anything, yet we can easily identify that improvements need to be made - like better enforcement and background checks that actually work.

I grow tired of continued politicization of these issues. We won't discuss the facts, we just vilify the source.

I don't think we have the whole cake, otherwise I'd be fine with a stonewall. I think we've got part of the cake. I believe that there are ways to improve public safety and promote 2nd amendment rights.

[myntalfloss]

No offense taken, just frustrated in general. I really don't mean to take it out on anyone.

You are correct that "reasonable" means "reasonable" on both sides. Unfortunately, the other side of these issues are not "reasonable" in the sense we both intend. What we have to realize is that when we're asked to be "reasonable" that really does infer acquiescence, and an unwillingness to comply with their wishes is seen (and more importantly, played in the media) as unreasonable.

So unfortunately, it's the other side of these issues that are pushing to a "my way or the highway" mentality, and when you're up against that mindset, you simply can't afford to back down.

I wasn't speaking of the TSA in this case (although I *LOVE* the Thousands Sitting Around reference, and I ask permission to steal it), I was actually talking about the BATFE. I don't remember the specific details right now, but there was a case a few years ago in which a keyring and shoestring were deemed a full-auto weapon. In the back of my mind, I'm thinking someone had the poor sense to request a ruling from ATF on such a makeshift bumpfire device, but the point is that it was ruled a full-auto weapon.

And of course, the fact that you suggested the TSA actually makes both our points--that as paranoid as it seems, and as well-intentioned as some of these ideas may seem, the opportunity for abuse and misapplication is simply too great.

I'd love to be able to have "reasonable" discussions with the anti's around this, but I won't be lectured to by them anymore.

I appreciate and share your frustration. It appears that both sides have sucumbed to irrational, worst case senario fears and any suggestion of compromise is off the table.

[myntalfloss]

Does anyone else think we're kind of expressing a cognitive dissonance? We have insisted for years that 'guns don't kill people, people do',(which I firmly believe) and yet when Obama, (sorry, Satan) suggests checking out the people, not the guns, we get our panties in a wad. Is there anything that we law-abiding gun owners will accept without defaulting to the ‘black helicopters’ scenario?

They need to focus on enforcing the laws already in effect. There are plenty of known armed criminals that are running lose killing and robbing people. They need to focus on the criminals and leave the law abiding alone

I agree about focusing on laws in effect and known criminals. The problem seems to be with the unknown criminal. Most of these asshats that are giving us a bad name have a history of bad behavior but not until they act out with a gun do they become known. Background checks don't give me heartburn and I'd love to see a mandatory sentence for a crime with a gun to be stacked on top of any other sentences.

There are laws on the books for that, with mandatory prison time, but these are usually the first to be dropped in plea negotiations, according to many working on both sides of the crime sausage factory.

I don't know how you make it mandatory that filed charges cannot be dropped, or that the prosecution MUST file all possible charges. You can't ban plea bargaining without a hideous increase in judges and courtrooms and court appointed lawyers.

Shooting them in the act is the most efficient, no inefficient trial proceedings, no expensive prison stays, no bogus rehab programs, no recidivism, no probation foolishness, and you are pretty sure to shoot the right perp, no alibis about being in Peoria that night.

I'm with you on the difficulty of trying to put those kind of mandetory laws in effect but it could be done. As in the forfiture of property in drug cases.

Shooting the on the spot would certainly give me the warm and fuzzies. I often thought that what they should do with hijackers. Lead them off the plane and shoot 'em on the tarmac. If you think mandetory sentences would be hard to enact, can you imagine getting that passed.

And then there's the issue that most criminals are not caught in the act and given Texas' piss-poor record of getting capital cases overturned, there' d have to a big Mulligan clause in the law to cover the shooting of innocent people. But hey, can't make an omlet w/o breaking a few eggs, right?

[parabelum]

Sadly, I think that this EO will affect our Vet's first and foremost through the V.A.
Then, think about what qualifies as "mental disorder". Stalin and his ilk did similar thing, by twisting words/redefining the definitions, little by little, until only those that Government deemed "fit", according to their revised definitions of course, were able to posses a firearms. Then the party begins.

Again, I think their short term targets are Veterans, then, who knows....

[myntalfloss]

VM, I largely get the same response from some people when I mention "compromise". Compromise isn't promoting that we give something up and get nothing, it's promoting that we both give something up and both gain something. No one that I know of promoting reasonable discussion or compromise is indicating that we should just make concessions.

Taking the view that compromise is impossible because they won't budge is inherently doing what we're accusing "them" of. "Slippery slope" is a great example of our side not budging on anything, yet we can easily identify that improvements need to be made - like better enforcement and background checks that actually work.

I grow tired of continued politicization of these issues. We won't discuss the facts, we just vilify the source.

I don't think we have the whole cake, otherwise I'd be fine with a stonewall. I think we've got part of the cake. I believe that there are ways to improve public safety and promote 2nd amendment rights.

This sort of reasonableness will not be tolerated here. Stop it.

[cb1000rider]

Sadly, I think that this EO will affect our Vet's first and foremost through the V.A.
Then, think about what qualifies as "mental disorder". Stalin and his ilk did similar thing, by twisting words/redefining the definitions, little by little, until only those that Government deemed "fit", according to their revised definitions of course, were able to posses a firearms. Then the party begins.

I have great respect for our Vet's, but I don't think that being a Vet entitles you to a complete lifetime pass in terms of the mental facilities required for firearm ownership. We all age. It may disadvantage Vets as their healthcare is government sponsored because that's a direct link to the information and the private sector isn't as "available".

As near as I can tell the EO will start applying known social security statuses of people that have been somehow judged or adjudicated to be incapable of running their own affairs and essentially block subsequent firearm purchase attempts. Would you argue that these people should own firearms? IMHO, it's reasonable to make sure that there is a fair process around doing that adjudication and appealing any government action. I can easily argue that ignoring such a status is ridiculous... And expecting people who are mentally incapable to volunteer that on a form is just as ludicrous..

If you can show me where it redefines "mental disorder" or applies common mental disorders such as situational-depression as a trigger for a background check fail, please show me.... That's be much more concerning to me. I do know how badly the government can mess up medical fitness - I'm a pilot, there's a whole movement to remove the massive burden of "prove that you're physically capable" that the government applies to those of us who do it as a hobby.

[ELB]

Dave Kopel's take on the Executive Order(s):

Obama’s executive actions on guns: Legal analysis

[parabelum]

Sadly, I think that this EO will affect our Vet's first and foremost through the V.A.
Then, think about what qualifies as "mental disorder". Stalin and his ilk did similar thing, by twisting words/redefining the definitions, little by little, until only those that Government deemed "fit", according to their revised definitions of course, were able to posses a firearms. Then the party begins.

I have great respect for our Vet's, but I don't think that being a Vet entitles you to a complete lifetime pass in terms of the mental facilities required for firearm ownership. We all age. It may disadvantage Vets as their healthcare is government sponsored because that's a direct link to the information and the private sector isn't as "available".

As near as I can tell the EO will start applying known social security statuses of people that have been somehow judged or adjudicated to be incapable of running their own affairs and essentially block subsequent firearm purchase attempts. Would you argue that these people should own firearms? IMHO, it's reasonable to make sure that there is a fair process around doing that adjudication and appealing any government action. I can easily argue that ignoring such a status is ridiculous... And expecting people who are mentally incapable to volunteer that on a form is just as ludicrous..

If you can show me where it redefines "mental disorder" or applies common mental disorders such as situational-depression as a trigger for a background check fail, please show me.... That's be much more concerning to me. I do know how badly the government can mess up medical fitness - I'm a pilot, there's a whole movement to remove the massive burden of "prove that you're physically capable" that the government applies to those of us who do it as a hobby.

I can't point to a specific segment that has been redefined, since the wheels have just now begun to spin, however, using psychiatry to suppress political dissidents is not a new game, as you can see from the link below. Many more examples are out there to study.


http://www.jaapl.org/content/30/1/145.full.pdf


I get that everyone gets old, if they are blessed to get old of course. I'm also not suggesting that everyone gets a free pass for gun ownership regardless of their mental condition.
My concern is that the definition of mental disorder will be bastardized to fit the regime objectives, just like they have perverted virtually everything else. It's an upside down snow globe tyrannical regime, and I just don't trust them frankly.

[cb1000rider]

I share your concern. However, is it enough of a concern to justify total inaction? IE - are we so scared of what "might" happen that we don't implement what might be considered an obvious improvement?


The link you cited seems to indicate that any case where a financial trustee is in place will trigger a restriction. Again, valid concern, but I'm not 100% that's the implementation. Does that mean that someone has been adjudicated as "unfit"? I certainly hope not.

[parabelum]

I share your concern. However, is it enough of a concern to justify total inaction? IE - are we so scared of what "might" happen that we don't implement what might be considered an obvious improvement?


The link you cited seems to indicate that any case where a financial trustee is in place will trigger a restriction. Again, valid concern, but I'm not 100% that's the implementation. Does that mean that someone has been adjudicated as "unfit"? I certainly hope not.

I think we are beating a dead horse here.

We both agree on the main points. Our difference appears to be in the intent.
Maybe under different administration I'd feel more at ease, but this one, no sir.

[canvasbck]

Does anyone else think we're kind of expressing a cognitive dissonance? We have insisted for years that 'guns don't kill people, people do',(which I firmly believe) and yet when Obama, (sorry, Satan) suggests checking out the people, not the guns, we get our panties in a wad. Is there anything that we law-abiding gun owners will accept without defaulting to the ‘black helicopters’ scenario?

If your looking for compromise, here is my idea of compromise, and one that may make a difference in gun crimes:
1. Develop an online background check system accessible by citizens, straight up yes or no. No details
2. Require the background check be done for all sales at gunshows and internet gun sales, face to face individual sales not subject to background checks.
(anti's should love 1 and 2)
3. Repeal the NFA (no need to restrict access to class III weapons for citizens who have been background checked)
4. Increase mandatory minimums for crimes committed with firearms
5. National shall issue concealed carry

I'm certain that EVERYONE (including me) will find parts of this that they like, and parts they don't like.