Gun Violence Reduction Executive Action-Your Thoughts

Two Peas is Closing
Click here to visit our final product sale. Click here to visit our FAQ page regarding the closing of Two Peas.

Posted 1/16/2013 by FLCindy in NSBR Board
< 1 2 3 >
 

*maureen*
Bad Wolf

PeaNut 191,892
February 2005
Posts: 6,033
Layouts: 0
Loc: Wheaton

Posted: 1/17/2013 7:18:41 AM
Mrs. Tyler, I posted as a synopsis of the thread the following statement:


No it was much more like, "how dare he sign an executive order taking away my second amendment rights, doesn't he know how the government is supposed to work." Turns out he does.


You suggested that I was wrong and needed to go back and read the thread. I then posted your first four comments on the previously mentioned thread to prove my point. Everything else you rebutted with is not relevant. I was simply pointing out that my synopsis was not incorrect.

And Wren walk, this:


But I do think that by reposting those bordering on hysteria posts you have probably precipitated a full-body "wig-out". You will now have to suffer an extra long, unecessarily wordy, rhetoric filled dissertation on the parts you obviously didn't understand.



Was pretty much dead on.

TinaFB
the lunatics have taken over the asylum

PeaNut 25,135
November 2001
Posts: 25,984
Layouts: 349
Loc: Maryland

Posted: 1/17/2013 7:42:23 AM

Like being able to have your house searched by CPS because you didn't want to talk about guns with your doctor.

Just to be clear, CPS has no legal right to search your house. The social workers aren't automatically given a blanket search warrant when they're hired. A search of your home, including drawers and closets, isn't standard practice in a CPS investigation anyway. Regardless, you can refuse to let them in, just as you can refuse to talk to the doctor about guns in your home.

At any rate, I'm really not sure why it can't be handled with a polite, "If we had guns, we would make sure they are stored safely. Thank you for your concern."


Tina


missbitts
Rampage!

PeaNut 273,938
August 2006
Posts: 5,447
Layouts: 50
Loc: On the right side.

Posted: 1/17/2013 9:09:13 AM
I know CPS can't come search your house. My point was that the doctor-patient conversation does little good to provide actual protection to children in homes with guns unless it is made possible to go search those homes if the patient reveals potentially unsafe gun conditions. It might lead to a scenario like NO posted, but I'd be willing to bet those are few and far between.

I have no problem with doctors asking these questions. But I do have a problem that a simple refusal is considered by some to be cause for a CPS referral.

enjoytotheend
Ancient Ancestor of Pea

PeaNut 359,333
January 2008
Posts: 5,185
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/17/2013 9:15:07 AM
He is abusing his executive power. There is a reason there are checks and balances in place. It should have gone through Congress and the Senate. He seems to think He is God and can set whatever rules he wants regardless of the Constitution or the correct way laws are suppose to go through. He just doesn't care about the Constitution or about anything other than his own agenda. It is sickening. And I am all for gun reform. But I am also all for my right to bear arms contained in that little document he has forgotten called the Constitution!

*maureen*
Bad Wolf

PeaNut 191,892
February 2005
Posts: 6,033
Layouts: 0
Loc: Wheaton

Posted: 1/17/2013 10:42:35 AM

He is abusing his executive power. There is a reason there are checks and balances in place. It should have gone through Congress and the Senate. He seems to think He is God and can set whatever rules he wants regardless of the Constitution or the correct way laws are suppose to go through.


Please tell me which part of the executive order is an abuse of executive power and which of the points violates the constitution?

mapchic
Top Tier Pea

PeaNut 31,157
February 2002
Posts: 12,615
Layouts: 55
Loc: Chicagoland

Posted: 1/17/2013 12:33:14 PM


Couple that with his encouragement of doctors to report people they feel are unstable, and Eric "Fast and furious" holder being in charge of defining who should be identified as too mentally ill to be near guns, and you have a perfect storm of very real government overreach. And an open door to all kinds of bad things.
Yes, G-d forbid we consider getting weapons out if the hands of mentally unstable people. We wouldn't want to infringe on their rights, much better to wait until they do something violent to themselves or others before we act.
I think the concern is that the government can use claims of 'mental illness' as an excuse to take the civil rights of any citizen. Putting the Attorney General (who is a lawyer - not a doctor) in charge of making medical decisions doesn't make much sense.

It is a tactic that has been used by leaders in a variety of times and places. Claim that those who disagree with you are automatically 'mentally ill' and then take their civil rights or imprison them. Putting definitions of mental illness and the power to strip citizens of civil rights because of that claim into the hands of a political appointee seems like a recipe for trouble.

I wholeheartedly agree that we should create a process or system where mental health professionals can contribute warnings tot he NICS database which is used for background checks. I just think it should be medically based and controlled - not politically.




"When someone asks you 'think about what Jesus would do', remember that a valid option is to freak out and turn over tables" -- Unknown

“I am a Roman Catholic - the one true faith, (the Microsoft of Christianity) and I know Roman Catholicism is the one true faith because Roman Catholicism tells me it’s the one true faith... And if you remember from earlier in this sentence Roman Catholicism is the one true faith – so how could it be wrong?” ~ Stephen Colbert ‘The Word’ 11-28-06

Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit

leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.

PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 22,257
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.

Posted: 1/17/2013 2:20:13 PM
Buyers of firearms from licensed firearm dealers already fill out ATF form 4473 where they are asked a series of questions, including one of mental illness.

The person filling out this form, who is the person buying the firearm, signs the form under threat of federal felony charges if they give false information.

It is not the job of these licensed firearm dealers to instruct the buyers how to resell these weapons, and I gather this is what is behind the meaning behind number 6 in the OP. That's just bizarre to the extreme.




I don't know how they can tighten the medical history question. MANY people get a prescription for depression to help them get through a personal tragedy. Are they going to be denied because they took this prescription in the past, or if they are currently on it?

These prescriptions can have very serious effects if a patient doesn't take them as prescribed, and if they are suddenly stopped, a patient can become temporarily mentally unstable.

There seems to be a strong link to some of these young men who have gone on these sprees and this kind of depression, so this is a genuine question and not something hypothetical.

Where is this boundary of personal medical history going to be drawn?

Our medical information - including our genetic predisposition to certain diseases - is becoming digitalized and kept in big data bases. Because health insurance is so entwined with employment, employers already pick and choose employees who are less likely to up their insurance rates. Now, an individual's 2nd amendment rights are going to be re-evaluated based on ...... prescriptions? What will be the criteria to make these assessments? Where is this heading?




Am I concerned that any presidential administration can slowly erode our rights as presently interpreted by the Supreme Court through executive orders and authority given to non-elected "Czars"? You betcha. We all should be.

Am I concerned that the media has a definitive bias in what they present and how this affects who voters elect into office? You betcha.

Here's * a clip of Bob Schieffer on 1/15/2013...


...Let's remember: there was considerable opposition when Lyndon Johnson went to the Congress and...presented some of the most comprehensive civil rights legislation in the history of this country. Most people told him he couldn't get it done, but he figured out a way to do it. And that's what Barack Obama is going to have to do...what happened in Newtown was probably the worst day in this country's history since 9/11. We found Osama bin Laden. We tracked him down. We changed the way that we dealt with that problem. Surely, finding Osama bin Laden; surely, passing civil rights legislation, as Lyndon Johnson was able to do; and before that, surely, defeating the Nazis, was a much more formidable task than taking on the gun lobby.


(*I Googled for the clip. I am not familiar with the blog this links to. I'm linking to it solely for the clip of Schieffer.)

Comparing the NRA - a group made up of individual American citizens across the nation - to the Nazis, Osama bin Laden and those against civil rights.


How does that in any way help define new legislation for mental illness and how it pertains to firearms?






If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.



Fraidyscrapper
She calls me a Fun Sucker

PeaNut 38,100
May 2002
Posts: 13,565
Layouts: 0
Loc: Jersey Strong

Posted: 1/17/2013 5:16:59 PM
What am I missing in Schieffer's comment?

You have chosen to say he is calling gun-owners racist Nazis. I don't see that in the statement. He is talking about the task of leading difficult legislation through Congress. Five pages of Robert Caro shows us the array of skills that takes with an oppositional legislature.

Now. I didn't hear the original. Maybe the rest is in what was truncated.


"The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country." - Robert F. Kennedy

Fraidyscrapper
She calls me a Fun Sucker

PeaNut 38,100
May 2002
Posts: 13,565
Layouts: 0
Loc: Jersey Strong

Posted: 1/17/2013 5:45:33 PM
Yes, they were all formidable foes that required a President to use extraordinary skills to motivate Congress. Which is what he said.


"The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country." - Robert F. Kennedy
Uploaded with iPhone client

wren*walk
PeaAddict

PeaNut 481,431
September 2010
Posts: 1,822
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/17/2013 7:04:06 PM

You don't get it and I don't expect you to try though.










Maureen, I told you so. You are just so darn dim. How could you not understand that directly quoting someone using their EXACT words is the dirtiest trick in debating? Obviously you are not very bright. How do you even function?









*maureen*
Bad Wolf

PeaNut 191,892
February 2005
Posts: 6,033
Layouts: 0
Loc: Wheaton

Posted: 1/17/2013 8:21:38 PM
Wren, I'd be insulted if it wasn't such a joke. I'm way more concerned that my image is going to be tarnished because I've been defending the President, I hope I don't turn democrat. You can't catch that can you?

jodster70
To the right, To the right

PeaNut 51,257
October 2002
Posts: 6,307
Layouts: 28
Loc: Usually NSBR, an un"pea"dictable place :)

Posted: 1/17/2013 8:24:46 PM

I think the concern is that the government can use claims of 'mental illness' as an excuse to take the civil rights of any citizen. Putting the Attorney General (who is a lawyer - not a doctor) in charge of making medical decisions doesn't make much sense.

It is a tactic that has been used by leaders in a variety of times and places. Claim that those who disagree with you are automatically 'mentally ill' and then take their civil rights or imprison them. Putting definitions of mental illness and the power to strip citizens of civil rights because of that claim into the hands of a political appointee seems like a recipe for trouble.

I wholeheartedly agree that we should create a process or system where mental health professionals can contribute warnings tot he NICS database which is used for background checks. I just think it should be medically based and controlled - not politically.


Exactly Mapchic.


**Jody**

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
Patrick Henry

wren*walk
PeaAddict

PeaNut 481,431
September 2010
Posts: 1,822
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/17/2013 8:48:18 PM

I'm way more concerned that my image is going to be tarnished because I've been defending the President, I hope I don't turn democrat. You can't catch that can you?




No you can't catch it. Apart from my husband I am surrounded by conservatives and they don't show the slightest sign of catching the disease.







Fraidyscrapper
She calls me a Fun Sucker

PeaNut 38,100
May 2002
Posts: 13,565
Layouts: 0
Loc: Jersey Strong

Posted: 1/17/2013 8:52:52 PM
That addressed to me, Mrs. T? I expressed no opinion whatsoever. Merely my interpretation of Mr. Scheiffer's statement. One's personal stance on the Johnson presidency doesn't mean we can't analyze what he did to get Congress to pass civil right legislation, does it?


"The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country." - Robert F. Kennedy
Uploaded with iPhone client

leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.

PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 22,257
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.

Posted: 1/17/2013 10:52:38 PM

One's personal stance on the Johnson presidency doesn't mean we can't analyze what he did to get Congress to pass civil right legislation, does it?


The civil rights legislation that passed because of the Republican votes, if we're going to talk actual history here.


What was my point in linking Schieffer actually speaking, with no abridgements to what was quoted? That "news journalists" are definitively biased.







If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.



maddiesmum
BucketHead

PeaNut 574,034
December 2012
Posts: 975
Layouts: 0
Loc: Obamaland

Posted: 1/17/2013 11:41:33 PM

Let's remember: there was considerable opposition when Lyndon Johnson went to the Congress and...presented some of the most comprehensive civil rights legislation in the history of this country. Most people told him he couldn't get it done, but he figured out a way to do it. And that's what Barack Obama is going to have to do...what happened in Newtown was probably the worst day in this country's history since 9/11. We found Osama bin Laden. We tracked him down. We changed the way that we dealt with that problem. Surely, finding Osama bin Laden; surely, passing civil rights legislation, as Lyndon Johnson was able to do; and before that, surely, defeating the Nazis, was a much more formidable task than taking on the gun lobby.

Outrageous. Absolutely outrageous.


I don't know why that's outrageous. It sounds exactly correct to me. IMHO the NRA is a terrorist organization. They've bought their way into government by bribing politicians to vote against any legislation that isn't in their best interest. To call them "lobbyists" is incorrect; they use bribery to get their way, and always have. Many members of my family have cancelled their membership in the NRA because of these methods and the organization's refusal to engage in any meaningful discussion.

I hope Obama does everything he can to change the gun laws in this country. We need sensible regulations to protect our constituency from the gun violence that pervades every segment of society.

mapchic
Top Tier Pea

PeaNut 31,157
February 2002
Posts: 12,615
Layouts: 55
Loc: Chicagoland

Posted: 1/18/2013 12:22:44 AM

IMHO the NRA is a terrorist organization. They've bought their way into government by bribing politicians to vote against any legislation that isn't in their best interest. To call them "lobbyists" is incorrect; they use bribery to get their way, and always have.
You honestly think that 4.25 million of your fellow citizens (who are most likely armed) are terrorists?

The reality is the the NRA is an organization of 4.25 million your fellow citizens who are focused on protecting the basic civil right to bear arms for all Americans (even those who don't want to exercise it) The reason that many politicians listen to the NRA is not about money nearly as much as it is about votes.

The NRA is particularly effective at getting voters to the polls who care about this issue. There are many gun rights supporters who are single issue voters on this topic while there are very few who support gun control who are quite as committed.




"When someone asks you 'think about what Jesus would do', remember that a valid option is to freak out and turn over tables" -- Unknown

“I am a Roman Catholic - the one true faith, (the Microsoft of Christianity) and I know Roman Catholicism is the one true faith because Roman Catholicism tells me it’s the one true faith... And if you remember from earlier in this sentence Roman Catholicism is the one true faith – so how could it be wrong?” ~ Stephen Colbert ‘The Word’ 11-28-06

Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit

Long ago Barney
Ancient Ancestor of Pea

PeaNut 141,410
April 2004
Posts: 8,454
Layouts: 0
Loc: Arizona

Posted: 1/18/2013 12:39:12 AM
I saw this on Facebook. It's exactly how I feel: you like how other countries made it illegal to own a firearm. Then how about you take your happy ass there and let us who do want to own firearms live here and we'll both have what we want and not change any laws!! Solution! Problem solved!


Uploaded with iPhone client

maddiesmum
BucketHead

PeaNut 574,034
December 2012
Posts: 975
Layouts: 0
Loc: Obamaland

Posted: 1/18/2013 12:48:13 AM

You honestly think that 4.25 million of your fellow citizens (who are most likely armed) are terrorists?


I most certainly do. The NRA wants to circumvent democracy to make sure it gets it's way and it does so using any means necessary. Last I checked 4.25 million Americans is not a majority of Americans. (300 million plus)

This country desperately needs sensible restrictions and laws regarding guns and gun control. How many more 6 and 7 year olds have to be murdered before we wake up? If you're a law-abiding gun owner you have nothing to worry about. Want guns for protection? Want guns to hunt? Acquire and maintain them legally and I have no problems with you at all. Neither of those activities require a weapon capable of 90 shots at a time like the AR-15. Nobody needs that type of weapon but our military.

Pull your head out of your anti-Obama ass and see the forest for the trees. We need to do everything we can to prevent Aurora, CO and Newtown, CT and all the other senseless gun violence that threatens the lives of each and every one of us.

maddiesmum
BucketHead

PeaNut 574,034
December 2012
Posts: 975
Layouts: 0
Loc: Obamaland

Posted: 1/18/2013 12:53:05 AM

Then how about you take your happy ass there


Why don't I? Because this is my country too and I have the right to decide to make changes that I want. Are you stupid? Why don't you leave if you don't like the changes to gun laws that are coming and coming soon?


jodster70
To the right, To the right

PeaNut 51,257
October 2002
Posts: 6,307
Layouts: 28
Loc: Usually NSBR, an un"pea"dictable place :)

Posted: 1/18/2013 1:34:46 AM
MaddieKsmom,

I'm going to say this as politely as I can.

It is citizens like you (on both sides) that keep us from being able to reasonably discuss an issue in our country and come to compromise.

I don't have any respect for you or anyone else who throws around horrible accusations about their fellow citizens.

My husband is a member of the NRA. Accusing someone of being a terrorist is a serious thing. I've always thought you were a little hot-headed, but this is beyond the pale. On ignore you go.


**Jody**

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
Patrick Henry

lynlam
Don'tcha wish your girlfriend had spurs like mine?

PeaNut 46,248
August 2002
Posts: 6,800
Layouts: 41
Loc: Ohio

Posted: 1/18/2013 5:59:14 AM
"Why don't I? Because this is my country too and I have the right to decide to make changes that I want. "
------------
Oh , that's right. I forgot that the 2nd amendment actually reads "shall not be infringed-except by maddiesmum when she decides what changes should be made to her country".





"We demand entire freedom of action and then expect the government in some miraculous way to save us from the consequences of our own acts... Self-government means self-reliance." Calvin Coolidge

Lynlam, the second-tier Pea, paid (except it appears she is not) political shill.
Uploaded with iPhone client

lynlam
Don'tcha wish your girlfriend had spurs like mine?

PeaNut 46,248
August 2002
Posts: 6,800
Layouts: 41
Loc: Ohio

Posted: 1/18/2013 6:11:37 AM
"I most certainly do. The NRA wants to circumvent democracy to make sure it gets it's way and it does so using any means necessary. Last I checked 4.25 million Americans is not a majority of Americans. (300 million plus) "
-------------------

I knew I should not have come back to this thread.

How in your mind, is the NRA "circumventing democracy"? That is seriously asinine thinking. The NRA is defending the 2nd amendment. The only entities circumventing democracy are the emotion driven, common sense eschewing, constitution hating liberal power and gun grabbers who cheer Obama and his "right" to regulate our rights by executive order.

And let me use your logic in a different way....if all NRA members (and all gun owners by extension in your mind) are terrorists because a few individuals commit horrendous crimes and kill lots of innocents, then you would also agree that all Muslims are terrorists because a handful commit terrible crimes and kill lots of innocents too, right?

FTR, no I do not believe that all muslims should be judged by the actions of a few, not in the least. But I have seen many liberal peas handslap here when someone paints them with a broad brush. So I think it's fair to ask why it's okay to paint millions and millions of Americans with a broad brush over this issue?





"We demand entire freedom of action and then expect the government in some miraculous way to save us from the consequences of our own acts... Self-government means self-reliance." Calvin Coolidge

Lynlam, the second-tier Pea, paid (except it appears she is not) political shill.
Uploaded with iPhone client

Krazyscrapper
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 131,612
February 2004
Posts: 2,912
Layouts: 0
Loc: Sonoma County

Posted: 1/18/2013 6:25:23 AM
Actually the NRA is dangerous because of the power they have over common sense gun control. The leadership is a bunch of paranoid individuals who believe if they give an inch the government is going to take away their guns.

To understand how dangerous they are all you have to do is look at their track record and their influence on legislation.

Do some research on the subject and see what you find. Its kind of amazing in a scary way.

lynlam
Don'tcha wish your girlfriend had spurs like mine?

PeaNut 46,248
August 2002
Posts: 6,800
Layouts: 41
Loc: Ohio

Posted: 1/18/2013 6:28:05 AM
"Yes, G-d forbid we consider getting weapons out if the hands of mentally unstable people. We wouldn't want to infringe on their rights, much better to wait until they do something violent to themselves or others before we act."
---------------------------

Map chic already answered this perfectly. But I will add something....

You obviously trust this administration, so you have no problem giving them the power to determine who is worthy of exercising their constitutional rights and who isn't, because hey, you aren't mentally ill and you don't want a gun, therefore it doesn't affect you, right?

Fast forward a few years. The pendulum has swung hard, hard right. The current President issues executive orders that decree that all women seeking abortions be forced to undergo mental exams and sonograms to make sure they are stable enough to make the decision to end the life of their child. And he gives his militant pro-life AG the job of determining who is stable and who is not, and the ability to force women deemed unstable into institutions where they are forced to carry to term.

You would be okay with all of that? Because if it saves lives, we should all be okay with stripping away out constitutional rights, right?





"We demand entire freedom of action and then expect the government in some miraculous way to save us from the consequences of our own acts... Self-government means self-reliance." Calvin Coolidge

Lynlam, the second-tier Pea, paid (except it appears she is not) political shill.
Uploaded with iPhone client

lynlam
Don'tcha wish your girlfriend had spurs like mine?

PeaNut 46,248
August 2002
Posts: 6,800
Layouts: 41
Loc: Ohio

Posted: 1/18/2013 6:36:22 AM
No, krazy. It isn't scary at all. It's their job. It's what they were founded to do. Maybe I am not the one who needs to do research?

You only find it scary because they don't agree with your brand of "common sense".

And the gun onward of this country HAVE already given a mile and then some to the anti gun lobby over the years. Back when the fight was on for the background check system we have now, it was argued that it would be the first step towards gun registration. The anti gun lobby assured that that would never ever ever happen, cross their hearts and hope to die. Well they had their fingers crossed behind their backs. That is absolutely their goal, and without fail, in history, once registration is achieved, confiscation follows.
So no. I refuse to budge another inch. It's time to stop punishing the legal gun owners for the actions of the criminals. Nothing that has been proposed would have prevented sandy hook. Nothing. This isn't about saving lives, it's about political power. Until you recognize that, we have no common ground to find.





"We demand entire freedom of action and then expect the government in some miraculous way to save us from the consequences of our own acts... Self-government means self-reliance." Calvin Coolidge

Lynlam, the second-tier Pea, paid (except it appears she is not) political shill.
Uploaded with iPhone client

Krazyscrapper
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 131,612
February 2004
Posts: 2,912
Layouts: 0
Loc: Sonoma County

Posted: 1/18/2013 6:41:14 AM
Well lynlam I consider you part of the paranoid group and therefore part of the problem.

obliolait
PeaAddict

PeaNut 550,788
April 2012
Posts: 1,482
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/18/2013 6:52:38 AM
thank goodness for john stewart and his team who manage to dig up archival footage of the hypocrisy of pro gun pundits whose idiotic comments lynlam regurgitates. http://delishows.com/the-daily-show-season-18-episode-46-lena-dunham.html

obliolait
PeaAddict

PeaNut 550,788
April 2012
Posts: 1,482
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/18/2013 6:55:35 AM

The pendulum has swung hard, hard right. The current President issues executive orders that decree that all women seeking abortions be forced to undergo mental exams and sonograms to make sure they are stable enough to make the decision to end the life of their child.


abortion is a medical procedure to terminate a fetus which science and the supreme court do not consider a life form. it should require as much of a mental evaluation as the removal of an ingrown toe nail. you really are a pathetic piece of shit and it is sad that you can raise children to share your anti-humanist religious and bigoted bullshit.

obliolait
PeaAddict

PeaNut 550,788
April 2012
Posts: 1,482
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/18/2013 6:58:13 AM

it's about political power


what paranoia. obama's directives are intended to open a national dialog. if you want a political power play, look to GW Bush's administration and their every effort to circumvent the constitution.

*maureen*
Bad Wolf

PeaNut 191,892
February 2005
Posts: 6,033
Layouts: 0
Loc: Wheaton

Posted: 1/18/2013 7:02:33 AM

You obviously trust this administration, so you have no problem giving them the power to determine who is worthy of exercising their constitutional rights and who isn't, because hey, you aren't mentally ill and you don't want a gun, therefore it doesn't affect you, right?


Actually Lynlam, I am a gun owner and have complied with all the laws in Illinois to own one. I've submitted to a background check, I have a FOID card that requires renewal every 10 years. I comply with the 3 day waiting period on new purchases. None of those things has infringed on my rights. Never has anyone tried to take away
my gun. Never have I been denied my second amendment right. I think you can comply with reasonable laws and still be handgun owner, it doesn't have to be all or nothing.


Uploaded with iPhone client

*maureen*
Bad Wolf

PeaNut 191,892
February 2005
Posts: 6,033
Layouts: 0
Loc: Wheaton

Posted: 1/18/2013 7:32:16 AM
There is a difference between giving up freedom and advocating for safety of the general public. Background checks and waiting periods aren't giving up freedom. In the end the result is the same, you have a handgun. Unless you're mentally unstable or a convicted criminal in which case you should have a gun in the first place.


Uploaded with iPhone client

lespea
I Typo & I don't care

PeaNut 270,444
July 2006
Posts: 11,062
Layouts: 54
Loc: Here.

Posted: 1/18/2013 7:32:31 AM
It looks like a bunch of that should have already been done and fluff. Information should be put into the background check program. Duh.

16. Why would a doctor want to know if you own a gun?? I've seen countless docs and none of them ever asked me about it.


- - - The glass isn't half full or half empty. It's just twice as big as it needs to be. Downsize your life. <3 - - -

obliolait
PeaAddict

PeaNut 550,788
April 2012
Posts: 1,482
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/18/2013 7:36:19 AM
It's insane to compare drunk driving with gun violence. But of course, we could establish networks of surprise road blocks to search for illegal weapons as we do to catch intoxicated drivers...

Not all issues warrant direct comparison. This is why, as a society, we fund social science research.

As for this absolutist view that ideas set forth in the constitution are immutable, I am personally bothered by any such doctrine. Our society has advanced in terms of social justice well beyond the notion of equality held by the founders. They are not gods. Their foresight was VERY limited by the hegemony of the time and they certainly could not foresee our circumstances in relation to technology. The absolutist view is similar to the divine rights of kings.

WillowJane
Running the Marathon, Not the Sprint

PeaNut 110,589
October 2003
Posts: 7,100
Layouts: 8
Loc: Texas

Posted: 1/18/2013 8:10:41 AM
As LesPea said, the majority of the EO's are things that should have already been done or are already on the books. Most of the EC's listed are not being enforced/executed at the Federal level but local law enforcement have already taken action. The ones where there has been a lack of work:


    1. "Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system."

    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."

    3. "Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system."

    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."

    5. "Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun."

    6. "Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers."

    7. "Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign."

    8. "Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission)."

    9. "Issue a presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations."

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

    11. "Nominate an ATF director."

    12. "Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations."

    13. "Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime."

    14. "Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."

    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."

    17. "Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities."

    19. "Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education."




~*kristina*~
Typical Liberal Pea

PeaNut 55,230
November 2002
Posts: 18,604
Layouts: 106
Loc: Fly Over Country

Posted: 1/18/2013 8:17:53 AM

As for this absolutist view that ideas set forth in the constitution are immutable, I am personally bothered by any such doctrine. Our society has advanced in terms of social justice well beyond the notion of equality held by the founders. They are not gods. Their foresight was VERY limited by the hegemony of the time and they certainly could not foresee our circumstances in relation to technology. The absolutist view is similar to the divine rights of kings.


Oblioliat - I gotta say I may not always agree with you, but this statement is absolutely right on and I agree 100%.





*maureen*
Bad Wolf

PeaNut 191,892
February 2005
Posts: 6,033
Layouts: 0
Loc: Wheaton

Posted: 1/18/2013 8:38:50 AM


There is a difference between giving up freedom and advocating for safety of the general public. Background checks and waiting periods aren't giving up freedom. In the end the result is the same, you have a handgun. Unless you're mentally unstable or a convicted criminal in which case you should have a gun in the first place.



As LesPea said, the majority of the EO's are things that should have already been done or are already on the books. Most of the EC's listed are not being enforced/executed at the Federal level but local law enforcement have already taken action. The ones where there has been a lack of work:



I'm not trying to be obtuse or snarky, but I don't understand what your response has to do with my comment. I was making a comment on freedom not on executive orders.

WillowJane
Running the Marathon, Not the Sprint

PeaNut 110,589
October 2003
Posts: 7,100
Layouts: 8
Loc: Texas

Posted: 1/18/2013 8:50:03 AM
Hi Maureen,

I did not mean to re-post your statement - my mistake. I haven't had enough coffee this morning and my heater is out making my fingers and brain cold.

I will fix my post.

WJ

*maureen*
Bad Wolf

PeaNut 191,892
February 2005
Posts: 6,033
Layouts: 0
Loc: Wheaton

Posted: 1/18/2013 8:55:25 AM
Brrr! Hope you get that solved very quickly!

obliolait
PeaAddict

PeaNut 550,788
April 2012
Posts: 1,482
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/18/2013 9:05:55 AM

As LesPea said, the majority of the EO's are things that should have already been done or are already on the books. Most of the EC's listed are not being enforced/executed at the Federal level but local law enforcement have already taken action.


we have to recognize and fight against complacency at all human scales from government to individuals. The directives are proactive measures to do just that. The one thing lacking is a national dialog because the right is intent on comparing obama to hitler.

mapchic
Top Tier Pea

PeaNut 31,157
February 2002
Posts: 12,615
Layouts: 55
Loc: Chicagoland

Posted: 1/18/2013 1:42:10 PM

The NRA wants to circumvent democracy to make sure it gets it's way and it does so using any means necessary.
How has the NRA done anything to 'circumvent democracy'? I think what they do is work hard within the bounds of our system of government to inform their members and encourage those members to vote and contact their representatives.

What do you mean by 'any means necessary'? What have they done that is illegal? You are writing as though they are some type of criminal enterprise or terrorist organization... but the NRA is very law abiding and has a great deal of focus on informing others about gun laws and the constitution.

Calling a group a 'terrorist organization' is one heck of an accusation. What have they done to deserve that? Very seriously, we are talking about 4.25 million armed individuals.

If they are terrorists then those who oppose gun ownership would be much more scared to speak out than they seem to be. Those who oppose gun rights seem very confident that their fellow citizens who are on the other side of the issue are reasonable and not going to act as terrorists would.


If you're a law-abiding gun owner you have nothing to worry about. Want guns for protection? Want guns to hunt? Acquire and maintain them legally and I have no problems with you at all.
The constitution says nothing about hunting or protection. There are millions and millions of law abiding gun owners and yes, they do have something to worry about when politicians and their supporters are talking about outlawing guns or certain gun features.


Neither of those activities require a weapon capable of 90 shots at a time like the AR-15. Nobody needs that type of weapon but our military.
You do realize that the AR-15 shoots one bullet at a time just like any other gun don't you? The AR-15 which is legal to own is not a machine gun or an automatic weapon. It shoots one bullet per pull of the trigger... just like a revolver. I have no idea where you got the idea that it is capable of '90 shots at a time' but that is bad information.

All this talk that people have judging what other people might 'need'. This is a basic civil rights issue. Do you judge other civil rights questions on whether or not people 'need' those particular civil rights? I mean - do you argue that Rosa Parks didn't 'need' to sit in the front of the bus? Of course not - because you know that civil rights are basic human rights that should be protected for everyone in society.


We need to do everything we can to prevent Aurora, CO and Newtown, CT and all the other senseless gun violence that threatens the lives of each and every one of us.
Agreed. What in the list of executive Orders would have stopped those events from occurring?

Which of those Executive Actions will do anything to stop the bloodbath in Chicago? We have a Newtown a month here in Chicago... but nobody seems to care. I think it's mostly because what the violence in Chciago proves is that gun control has failed. Terribly, terribly failed.


Actually the NRA is dangerous because of the power they have over common sense gun control. The leadership is a bunch of paranoid individuals who believe if they give an inch the government is going to take away their guns.

To understand how dangerous they are all you have to do is look at their track record and their influence on legislation.

Do some research on the subject and see what you find. Its kind of amazing in a scary way.
Can you point me to some articles or resources you think I should read to understand this position?

The NRA represents it's members. They have learned that they need to stand firm in their defense of the 2nd amendment through experience... where gun owners have 'given an inch' and found themselves a mile away.

What is dangerous about their influence? All sorts of groups work to influence legislation... would you say that the Brady Center is 'dangerous' because of the work they do to influence gun legislation?

It's interesting that those who are defending the 2nd amendment and civil rights are called 'paranoid' while those who are calling their fellow citizens terrorists think their positions are totally reasonable.






"When someone asks you 'think about what Jesus would do', remember that a valid option is to freak out and turn over tables" -- Unknown

“I am a Roman Catholic - the one true faith, (the Microsoft of Christianity) and I know Roman Catholicism is the one true faith because Roman Catholicism tells me it’s the one true faith... And if you remember from earlier in this sentence Roman Catholicism is the one true faith – so how could it be wrong?” ~ Stephen Colbert ‘The Word’ 11-28-06

Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit

Krazyscrapper
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 131,612
February 2004
Posts: 2,912
Layouts: 0
Loc: Sonoma County

Posted: 1/18/2013 2:50:30 PM

Can you point me to some articles or resources you think I should read to understand this position?

The NRA represents it's members. They have learned that they need to stand firm in their defense of the 2nd amendment through experience... where gun owners have 'given an inch' and found themselves a mile away.

What is dangerous about their influence? All sorts of groups work to influence legislation... would you say that the Brady Center is 'dangerous' because of the work they do to influence gun legislation?

It's interesting that those who are defending the 2nd amendment and civil rights are called 'paranoid' while those who are calling their fellow citizens terrorists think their positions are totally reasonable.



Yes I could point you in the right direction about articles etc on how much influence the NRA has when it comes to gun control. But I'm not. I think its better if you look for yourself. If you really want to know you'll do your own research. It will mean more if you do it yourself. That is what I do. If I see something I don't understand I find stuff on both sides and make my own decison. The articles are out there, you just need to look.

Listen I'm not the one who thinks that if there is a national data base listing all the guns it will become a vehicle for the government to come and take away my guns. There is nothing in the history of this country to even suggest that would happen so I really find that anyone thinks that way a bit strange.

Look nothing is absolute. Nothing. But for a lot of the 2nd amendment supporters they don't want any limitations. None at all. And that is the problem. And for those who don't see this is a problem there is nothing more to be said.


WillowJane
Running the Marathon, Not the Sprint

PeaNut 110,589
October 2003
Posts: 7,100
Layouts: 8
Loc: Texas

Posted: 1/18/2013 3:54:30 PM
    Look nothing is absolute. Nothing. But for a lot of the 2nd amendment supporters they don't want any limitations. None at all. And that is the problem. And for those who don't see this is a problem there is nothing more to be said.


We are not saying we don't want limitations. We are saying limitations exists - that the federal government is not doing the job to enforce what is already on the books. If the Federal government can't do the job in front of them they don't need to add more to the plate.

A database already exists that documents the serial number of every gun sold and to whom. Our government is so disorganized when it comes to harnessing the power of IT. They can't get their arms around the data they do have and use it in a manner than would be helpful to the groups on both sides of the gun debate.

Those are two very real, very current problems in this entire debate. Without these statistics, making a good decision it very hard.

mapchic
Top Tier Pea

PeaNut 31,157
February 2002
Posts: 12,615
Layouts: 55
Loc: Chicagoland

Posted: 1/18/2013 5:10:24 PM

Listen I'm not the one who thinks that if there is a national data base listing all the guns it will become a vehicle for the government to come and take away my guns. There is nothing in the history of this country to even suggest that would happen so I really find that anyone thinks that way a bit strange.
Actually, there is plenty in the history of this country that more than suggests it will happen - it already has happened.

An Assault Weapons Control Act was passed in California in 1989. That law required registration of specific guns which were listed as well as guns with particular characteristics. The reading of the law was changed and there were adjustments to the law which outlawed weapons which had previously been legal. Those who had followed the law by registering their guns were then informed that they had to hand the (now illegal) guns in to local law enforcement.

New York City started requiring the registration of long guns (rifles and shotguns) in the 1960s. In 1991 those guns were outlawed and were required to be turned in.

New York has just passed a law requiring a statewide registration of guns. The governor has spoken out in favor of gun confiscation or mandatory sales to the state (basically confiscation - but you get paid for losing your civil rights).


It hasn't even taken registration before guns were confiscated by the state here in America. Just ask the Japanese on the west coast or in Hawaii who were stripped of all firearms following the attack on Pearl Harbor. You can also ask the residents of New Orleans who had their guns confiscated in the wake of hurricane Katrina.

Confiscation of firearms held legally by law abiding citizens is a real concern. Not one that people who don't own guns would ever really think about... but it doesn't mean it hasn't happened before and it couldn't happen again.





"When someone asks you 'think about what Jesus would do', remember that a valid option is to freak out and turn over tables" -- Unknown

“I am a Roman Catholic - the one true faith, (the Microsoft of Christianity) and I know Roman Catholicism is the one true faith because Roman Catholicism tells me it’s the one true faith... And if you remember from earlier in this sentence Roman Catholicism is the one true faith – so how could it be wrong?” ~ Stephen Colbert ‘The Word’ 11-28-06

Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit

Enough
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 553,030
April 2012
Posts: 2,637
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/18/2013 5:50:08 PM
Mapchic, I just want to say, I really appreciate your thoughtful and knowledgeable posts on the subject. Aslan too. You both discuss respectfully, rationally and stick to the subject.

Long ago Barney
Ancient Ancestor of Pea

PeaNut 141,410
April 2004
Posts: 8,454
Layouts: 0
Loc: Arizona

Posted: 1/18/2013 8:13:28 PM
The NRA hasn't circumvented democracy, our potus has circumvented democracy by issuing an executive order. He is USING the Connecticut tragedy to further his agenda.


Uploaded with iPhone client

Krazyscrapper
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 131,612
February 2004
Posts: 2,912
Layouts: 0
Loc: Sonoma County

Posted: 1/18/2013 8:23:04 PM
Long ago Barney what is the President's agenda?

jodster70
To the right, To the right

PeaNut 51,257
October 2002
Posts: 6,307
Layouts: 28
Loc: Usually NSBR, an un"pea"dictable place :)

Posted: 1/18/2013 8:27:18 PM

Mapchic is easily the most patient and courteous gun rights advocate on this board - possibly the most knowledgeable. She doesnt' deserve your condescending 'go look for the articles that support my opinion yourself so they'll mean more to you' AT ALL.


ITA. I have always respected Mapchic, but have gained a whole new level of respect for her in the last month.


**Jody**

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
Patrick Henry

I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!

PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 20,385
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando

Posted: 1/18/2013 9:18:41 PM

It's time to stop punishing the legal gun owners for the actions of the criminals.


I have a problem this statement. Let's say I go to the gun store and purchase a gun, wait 3 days, come up clean on a background check, and get my gun. I go home, think about it, decide for whatever reason, I really don't want it. I live in the State of Florida, where I can legally sell a gun to anyone, I don't have to check anything about their background, criminal history, metal state etc. I am not even required to make out a bill of sale.

So, I sell my legally purchased gun to my next door neighbor. He's a nice guy, has a good job, a wife and two kids...if I'm not mistaken, in the State of Florida, he is now a legal gun owner. Two days after I sell him my gun, he and his wife get into an argument, he shoots her and the kids... He's now a criminal.

It seems to me a lot of people are legal gun owners, right before they become criminals. Although the Sandy Hook shooter was not the owner of the weapons used, I understand his mother was, and allowed him to use them. I understand he went to the shooting range and used her guns, and nobody stopped him, or his mother from letting him use them. It was all legal, until he became a criminal.

Part of the problem the Federal Govt. has in dealing with these issue, is every State has different laws. Nobody in Florida cares if you drive down from Illinois and take home a truck load of guns...which may have all been purchased legally, and are now in the hands of Chicago criminals...I think a lot of legal gun owners are part of the problem.

This is not an all, or nothing problem, but I'm getting tired of hearing how 'legal gun owners' are being blamed for criminal actions. It's not that cut and dried....and the Constitution has held this country together for 240 years, through a bloody civil war, all kinds of drama and trauma, and it's not going to fall apart of gun control.

maddiesmum
BucketHead

PeaNut 574,034
December 2012
Posts: 975
Layouts: 0
Loc: Obamaland

Posted: 1/18/2013 11:06:17 PM

I just have a near physical reaction to LBJ


Holy cow! What a drama queen.
< 1 2 3 >
Show/Hide Icons . Show/Hide Signatures
Hide
{{ title }}
{{ icon }}
{{ body }}
{{ footer }}