Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/index.php)
-   Political Threads (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/forumdisplay.php?f=66)
-   -   Executive Order background checks (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/showthread.php?t=89773)

Jim in CT 01-06-2016 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DZ (Post 1090170)
The way I look at it is if these new rules won't make a difference anyway then no one should have a problem with them. The left were thrown a bone that they think will make a difference - the right say the new orders won't make a difference anyway. No constitutional rights were violated. Everyone wins.

The only people who don't win, are the law-abiding people in places like Chicago, who deserve better than a few regualations that will allow Obama to spike the football, but do nothing to make those people safer.

PaulS 01-06-2016 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 1090181)
So there's no penalty if you ignore this ? Cool
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I've asked a few simple question bc I don't know yet it seems like you either don't know or are just giving snarky responses.

Rockport24 01-06-2016 12:05 PM

Since Obama got all teared up when discussing Newtown, can someone please explain how any of these new "laws" would have prevented that terrible tragedy?

I mean, this POS stole his mother's guns, killed her, then proceeded with the rest of the atrocity. His mother passed all of the very strict regs in CT to legally obtain her guns (which, like MA, requires one to pass a criminal background check to even be licensed to possess a gun!)

Slipknot 01-06-2016 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1090165)
I still have not found anything that says he created a new law or a new crime. Can you pls. tell me what I should be looking for?

I thought the action just closed the gun show loop hole (which I would have thought the gun store owners would have wanted since I assumed the gun show sales competed against the owners) and added more agents and prevents the mentally ill and those on the terror watch list from getting guns (are those the laws you're talking about).


The Action is not an order until it goes thru congress
The conflict is that it is not just about gunshow loopholes, there are 5 things added, some of them slippery slopes.

They need to fix what they have for background checks before the potus tries to appease gun control advocates.

38 states report less than 80% of felonies which allowed mass murderers in the past to get thru the checks. I know we can do better

Slipknot 01-06-2016 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockport24 (Post 1090192)
Since Obama got all teared up when discussing Newtown, can someone please explain how any of these new "laws" would have prevented that terrible tragedy?

I mean, this POS stole his mother's guns, killed her, then proceeded with the rest of the atrocity. His mother passed all of the very strict regs in CT to legally obtain her guns (which, like MA, requires one to pass a criminal background check to even be licensed to possess a gun!)

because he's trying to add in restrictions about mental health


I don't understand why he does this crap, it just drives people away from the left toward the right

The Dad Fisherman 01-06-2016 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1090098)
I think it goes back to people making a quick decision (say you unexpectedly get fired and think your life is over). Once you have not succeeded you'll probably get some help. With a gun there are probably few 2nd chances.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and sometimes when you fail you're #^&#^&#^&#^&ed up for the rest of your life....

http://frater.com/suicidelist.html

and not a lot of wiggle room on some of these methods either....

http://lostallhope.com/suicide-metho...lethal-methods

9 out of 10 times when you try hanging yourself you succeed....and the other 1 probably doesn't re-try it again because they can only eat soup through a straw due to the irreparable brain damage they suffered...

Slipknot 01-06-2016 12:18 PM

watch this and learn the truth

https://www.nranews.com/series/wayne...kground-checks

PaulS 01-06-2016 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slipknot (Post 1090193)
The Action is not an order until it goes thru congress
The conflict is that it is not just about gunshow loopholes, there are 5 things added, some of them slippery slopes.

They need to fix what they have for background checks before the potus tries to appease gun control advocates.

38 states report less than 80% of felonies which allowed mass murderers in the past to get thru the checks. I know we can do better

So this should have been entitled "executive action" instead of "executive order" since what he did was an executive action. The article I just read quoted Pres. Obama as He noted that many of the actions he's calling for can only be imposed through legislative action.

"Congress still needs to act," Obama said"

And from another article:

In short ...
A presidential executive order "is a directive issued to federal agencies, department heads, or other federal employees by the President of the United States under his statutory or constitutional powers," according to Robert Longley, writing at usgovinfo.about.com. "In many ways, presidential executive orders are similar to written orders, or instructions issued by the president of a corporation to its department heads or directors."
By contrast, a presidential executive action is kind of a catch-all term, writes NBC, which quoted an unnamed administration official in 2011 as saying: "It just means something the executive branch does. The use of any of a number of tools in the executive branch's toolbox."

Political writer Tom Murse says: "[Most] executive actions carry no legal weight. Those that do actually set policy can be invalidated by the courts or undone by legislation passed by Congress."
Murse writes:
"The terms executive action and executive order are not interchangeable. Executive orders are legally binding and published in the Federal Register.

"A good way to think of executive actions is a wish list of policies the president would like to see enacted."

buckman 01-06-2016 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1090201)

"A good way to think of executive actions is a wish list of policies the president would like to see enacted."

Not to be snarky but if that's his wish , most of this can be done with out a big dog and pony show . What's the point of taking shots at the GOP . Yea we know he "cares " deeply but what has he done . His justice department doesn't care
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Slipknot 01-06-2016 01:32 PM

OK,
so if it's an order then congress would need to un-do it

well as I've said before, they should fix the system they have and stop blaming the guns for these tragedies he is crying about and find the real root of the issue

Rockport24 01-06-2016 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slipknot (Post 1090195)
because he's trying to add in restrictions about mental health


I don't understand why he does this crap, it just drives people away from the left toward the right

agreed on the second sentence! But let's say there was a mental health check required to buy a gun, the mother likely would have still passed it and she's the one who bought the guns, not her son who killed her and the everyone else!

Bottom line: It would have done NOTHING to stop Newtown. Obama can cry us all a river, these actions won't stop this kind of thing from happening again.

PaulS 01-06-2016 03:51 PM

So the first stuff I quoted meant it was an executive action. I just saw an other article stating it was an executive order:mad:

Just wasting time on a slow day.

spence 01-06-2016 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockport24 (Post 1090212)
agreed on the second sentence! But let's say there was a mental health check required to buy a gun, the mother likely would have still passed it and she's the one who bought the guns, not her son who killed her and the everyone else!

Bottom line: It would have done NOTHING to stop Newtown. Obama can cry us all a river, these actions won't stop this kind of thing from happening again.

Perhaps there's a solution here where liability could be factored in. If you have a son with known mental issues, you should be responsible for preventing that person access to your weapons.

buckman 01-06-2016 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1090218)
Perhaps there's a solution here where liability could be factored in. If you have a son with known mental issues, you should be responsible for preventing that person access to your weapons.

I forget . Isn't she dead ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence 01-06-2016 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 1090220)
I forget . Isn't she dead ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She likely wouldn't be had she ensured her son didn't have access to her weapons.

Check this out...

http://www.cabelas.com/product/shoot...gclsrc%3Daw.ds

spence 01-06-2016 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1090063)
Here it is...let's say 250 get shot in Chicago in an average weekend. If we put these rules in place, how many less shootings can we expect in Chicago in an average weekend, as a direct result of these regulations? 3? 5?

Given the number of guns already in the system most of these actions are a longer-term value proposition. If someone from Chicago can drive to a gun show in Texas and load up on handguns without a background check the local laws are never going be effective aside from perhaps increased penalties.

Yes, gang violence is a big issue but the easy availability of illegal guns is a major contributor to that violence. I read the ATF believes a majority of them come from only 8% of dealers but without good data and tracking they're hamstrung to clamp down.

It seems like a solid majority want universal background checks...even NRA membership. It's a piece of the puzzle, not the entire solution.

I had to get fingerprinted for my TSAPreCheck, I believe you have to get fingerprinted for a CCW, I've never owned a car that the Government wasn't aware of the VIN number.

The idea that creating a Federal database is going to make it easier for the Government to confiscate your weapons is just paranoid fearmongering to keep the NRA executives in power.

The Dad Fisherman 01-06-2016 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1090218)
Perhaps there's a solution here where liability could be factored in. If you have a son with known mental issues, you should be responsible for preventing that person access to your weapons.

.....and this executive order fixes that how???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence 01-06-2016 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1090228)
.....and this executive order fixes that how???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, it would start by removing barriers to mental health reporting. The proposed HR 4269 would provide the law to require grandfathered but newly restricted weapons to be locked up.

buckman 01-06-2016 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1090223)
She likely wouldn't be had she ensured her son didn't have access to her weapons.

Check this out...

http://www.cabelas.com/product/shoot...gclsrc%3Daw.ds

True and that's how mine are stored .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

buckman 01-06-2016 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1090229)
Well, it would start by removing barriers to mental health reporting. The proposed HR 4269 would provide the law to require grandfathered but newly restricted weapons to be locked up.

I see the liability being shifted to the doctors .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Dad Fisherman 01-06-2016 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1090229)
Well, it would start by removing barriers to mental health reporting. The proposed HR 4269 would provide the law to require grandfathered but newly restricted weapons to be locked up.

I thought HR 4269 prohibits the sale of certain weapons.

And whoopie.....a law that requires them to be locked.....but she trusts her kid and still doesn't lock them up.....no effect on crisis at all....but everybody sure feels better
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ecduzitgood 01-06-2016 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1090223)
She likely wouldn't be had she ensured her son didn't have access to her weapons.

Check this out...

http://www.cabelas.com/product/shoot...gclsrc%3Daw.ds

Do we know that they weren't locked up and maybe he surprised her when she unlocked the safe or whatever.
A person would only have to let their guard down once at the wrong time and access to a gun can be had.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ecduzitgood 01-06-2016 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1090225)
Given the number of guns already in the system most of these actions are a longer-term value proposition. If someone from Chicago can drive to a gun show in Texas and load up on handguns without a background check the local laws are never going be effective aside from perhaps increased penalties.

Yes, gang violence is a big issue but the easy availability of illegal guns is a major contributor to that violence. I read the ATF believes a majority of them come from only 8% of dealers but without good data and tracking they're hamstrung to clamp down.

It seems like a solid majority want universal background checks...even NRA membership. It's a piece of the puzzle, not the entire solution.

I had to get fingerprinted for my TSAPreCheck, I believe you have to get fingerprinted for a CCW, I've never owned a car that the Government wasn't aware of the VIN number.

The idea that creating a Federal database is going to make it easier for the Government to confiscate your weapons is just paranoid fearmongering to keep the NRA executives in power.

Problem is that if they do choose to confiscate guns like Australia did they destroy them so family heirlooms and collectoins are gone forever.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PaulS 01-07-2016 08:38 AM

From Wikipedia:

"There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with capitalization or punctuation differences. Differences exist between the drafted and ratified copies, the signed copies on display, and various published transcriptions.[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]

The importance (or lack thereof) of these differences has been the source of debate regarding the meaning and interpretation of the amendment, particularly regarding the importance of the prefatory clause.


One version was passed by the Congress.[24][25][26][27][28]

As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives, with the rest of the original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights prepared by scribe William Lambert:[29]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:[30]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Playing devil's advocate here - my question is: Where does it say you can sell arms (ie guns)?

scottw 01-07-2016 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1090328)

Playing devil's advocate here - my question is: Where does it say you can sell arms (ie guns)?


why would it?...read the entire Bill Of Rights...it is a list of restrictions on government and guarantees and protections of individual liberty....

PaulS 01-07-2016 09:34 AM

I was hoping for a more spirited debate than that.

Jim in CT 01-07-2016 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1090225)
Given the number of guns already in the system most of these actions are a longer-term value proposition. If someone from Chicago can drive to a gun show in Texas and load up on handguns without a background check the local laws are never going be effective aside from perhaps increased penalties.

Yes, gang violence is a big issue but the easy availability of illegal guns is a major contributor to that violence. I read the ATF believes a majority of them come from only 8% of dealers but without good data and tracking they're hamstrung to clamp down.

It seems like a solid majority want universal background checks...even NRA membership. It's a piece of the puzzle, not the entire solution.

I had to get fingerprinted for my TSAPreCheck, I believe you have to get fingerprinted for a CCW, I've never owned a car that the Government wasn't aware of the VIN number.

The idea that creating a Federal database is going to make it easier for the Government to confiscate your weapons is just paranoid fearmongering to keep the NRA executives in power.

"Given the number of guns already in the system most of these actions are a longer-term value proposition"

Agreed. Those guns in circulation will be there for 100 years. Obama's regs will have no real effectr.

Spence, if someone with a bad background decides they want to kill someone, do you really believe these regs will stop him? There are all kinds of ways for people who would fail background checks, to get guns.

"The idea that creating a Federal database is going to make it easier for the Government to confiscate your weapons is just paranoid "

Agreed on that.

This is such a small thing, in terms of making us safer. The effect on crime rates will barely be a rounding error.

Jim in CT 01-07-2016 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1090228)
.....and this executive order fixes that how???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It does absolutely NOTHING that would have changed what happened in Newtown. Zip.

scottw 01-07-2016 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1090334)
I was hoping for a more spirited debate than that.

it was silly question...

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

ThrowingTimber 01-07-2016 10:45 AM

What is NICS and how does it work?

"Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms. "

Congrats. Hussein obama has given you something thats been in place for quite a bit.

Stay the course maybe he'll give you a pizza party or maybe even taco tuesday 😱


Posted from my

iPhone/Mobile device

Rockport24 01-07-2016 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1090223)
She likely wouldn't be had she ensured her son didn't have access to her weapons.

Check this out...

http://www.cabelas.com/product/shoot...gclsrc%3Daw.ds

Totally agree with you Spence! (wow!)
I think the negligence of the mother had a lot to do with this tragedy. I don't agree that more laws would have prevented it. A better mental health system that picked up on this kid and a more involved parent that could have picked up on it? Absolutely. It seems like you are implying that if the government knew that the son had a mental illness then they should have not allowed the mother to purchase guns, which seems like a stretch.

Still the fact remains Obama is doing nothing that could have prevented it.

Rockport24 01-07-2016 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1090225)
Given the number of guns already in the system most of these actions are a longer-term value proposition. If someone from Chicago can drive to a gun show in Texas and load up on handguns without a background check the local laws are never going be effective aside from perhaps increased penalties.

Yes, gang violence is a big issue but the easy availability of illegal guns is a major contributor to that violence. I read the ATF believes a majority of them come from only 8% of dealers but without good data and tracking they're hamstrung to clamp down.

It seems like a solid majority want universal background checks...even NRA membership. It's a piece of the puzzle, not the entire solution.

I had to get fingerprinted for my TSAPreCheck, I believe you have to get fingerprinted for a CCW, I've never owned a car that the Government wasn't aware of the VIN number.

The idea that creating a Federal database is going to make it easier for the Government to confiscate your weapons is just paranoid fearmongering to keep the NRA executives in power.

Why not hire a few hundred more ATF agents and dedicate them to stopping the gun flow into Chicago? Even if they are purchased legally in texas, they are not be transferred legally in Chicago! Why hasn't Obama done this via executive order, which is fully his right to do? No, instead we are going to hire more people to do background checks, the majority of which will be of law-abiding citizens. Why don't we have law enforcement actually go after the known criminal activity?

buckman 01-07-2016 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockport24 (Post 1090349)
Why not hire a few hundred more ATF agents and dedicate them to stopping the gun flow into Chicago? Even if they are purchased legally in texas, they are not be transferred legally in Chicago! Why hasn't Obama done this via executive order, which is fully his right to do? No, instead we are going to hire more people to do background checks, the majority of which will be of law-abiding citizens. Why don't we have law enforcement actually go after the known criminal activity?

Because he doesn't want to put in jail his constituency
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Rockport24 01-07-2016 02:19 PM

LOL! true! and I don't think he has ever fake cried about all these kids killed in chicago either

PaulS 01-07-2016 03:05 PM

The Virginia Tech shooter was mentally ill.

buckman 01-07-2016 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1090393)
The Virginia Tech shooter was mentally ill.

I have to assume anyone that takes the life of an innocent person has a screw loose somewhere
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Rockport24 01-07-2016 03:57 PM

Yes he was - so the question is how do we prevent someone like that from getting a gun? Do doctors have to become government informants now?

Nebe 01-07-2016 04:00 PM

Um. I would think that anyone who shoots anyone not in self defense is considered mentally ill. Or have we all been conditioned into thinking that it's normal human behavior to bust a cap in a few asses ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PaulS 01-07-2016 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockport24 (Post 1090399)
Yes he was - so the question is how do we prevent someone like that from getting a gun? Do doctors have to become government informants now?

You mentioned newtown a few times and have said this wouldn't have done anything to prevent it from happening. Maybe it would have prevented VT.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence 01-07-2016 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1090237)
I thought HR 4269 prohibits the sale of certain weapons.

And whoopie.....a law that requires them to be locked.....but she trusts her kid and still doesn't lock them up.....no effect on crisis at all....but everybody sure feels better
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The sale...I don't think it takes anything away.

As for the rest, this is the boring drum you keep beating. It's like if rules aren't perfect they're worthless. Tell that to the auto regulators.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:42 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com