-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
President Barack Obama preparing to issue Executive Order on gun control
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
- Status
Sho_Nuff82
Member
This is quite possibly the least we can do (aside from nothing, which much of the country does advocate) to address our gun violence problem.
Seems quite sensible timing really, and a way to break the NRA enforced status-quo.
Obama takes the flack as he leaves office from people who already hate him, the Republican party is imploding over Trump, Hilary inherits it and lets it stand.
Common-sense measures finally achieved.
timetokill
Banned
Similarly, a problem a lot of people have is that they think the way things ought to be should be just BE, regardless of legal precedent, constitutional protections, the will of the people, etc.
Besides, it's pretty well implied by the founders that if a government tries to take away those basic rights, you should probably throw them the fuck out. Hence, things like the 2nd amendment.
Good thinking.
I can't imagine the visuals of the armed protests in every major city and in front of the White House would be a good look for Obama or Democrats in general, either.
Fenderputty
Banned
The bolded is an assumption. AR-15's are a ton of fun to shoot. It was actually my wife's favorite gun she shot when I took her shooting with friends. Additionally the stats are pretty clear that they are very rarely used in gun violence. A couple high profile cases doesn't change this. This is why gun owners gloss over when AW bans are suggested. The ban itself will do jack shit to reduce gun violence and is a reactionary suggestion. Yet here you are lumping AR-15's in with handguns. It's a rather empty regulation that just limits my personal freedom as a responsible owner. A ton of handguns are owned for target shooting as well, but I would suspect a larger portion of handguns are owned for protection than any other gun type. They tuck into night stands by the bed nicely and are easily accessible.
Most gun owners don't support the NRA. It's the NRA and the right wing that prevents this type of study being done. Don't attack me, the gun owner who largely agrees we need massive regulation. Attack the single issue right wing voter and the NRA. I fucking hate the NRA. They're a large reason we can't get regulation and a large reason I have to deal with internet twats telling me I'm responsible for 30K gun deaths a year because I own a couple guns.
appaws
Banned
Jeez man, so negative. Yes, someday the super state will show that it is so beneficial and wonderful that it will be hard to believe that anyone didn't trust it.
Yes it is illegal, it overreaches beyond what is generally done in an executive order. It would probably be struck down under the reasoning of Youngstown.
There is a reason why the administration lawyers have been kicking this around for several years now and are finally doing it. The admin lawyers know that it has little chance of standing.
This is why our President is freaking awesome.
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
New gun law, executive order... It's just something else that won't be enforced.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
I hear the president is a pretty good lawyer.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
is there something i missed as far as a detail about what he's focusing on? seems like people are expecting him to do something that is going to be sweeping, but all i can guess is its going to be something "underwhelming" because it doesnt solve the main issue.
Dude Abides
Banned
People thinking things should be the way they think they should be is not a problem, it's a tautology.
So what? How many divisions does James Madison have?
tearsintherain
Member
Alternatively the Republican party coalesces around the "democrats want to take away your 2nd amendment" as a campaign platform, Hillary waffles around the entire issue making her supports sigh and energizes her opponents, and the people who like the right to own guns - the MAJORITY of the country in every poll, keep in mind - come out to vote en masse and elect republicans across the board in 2016.
I completely understand Obama for trying to do something on a problem he sees as addressable, but I do think this issue is going to backfire hard on the democrats. Just like Islam, guns are a discussion point where its super easy to demonize and obfuscate and turn into a "don't trust anyone but your family", which always plays well in elections.
"Who do you want to elect for the next 4 years? A democrat who wants to take away your guns, or a republican who will fight for your right to keep your family safe against Islamic terrorists?" is going to become a major campaign talking point, thanks to this.
That's an interesting definition of "illegal" you got there.
timetokill
Banned
Appeal to authority.
Besides, it was only like a week ago that he was calling for using the No Fly List as a basis for taking away a citizen's rights.
Looks like you missed the entire second half of the sentence. It implies something rather important to the meaning of the statement.
There are things that I want in this country but I don't think they should be instated in a wave of the hands, dictatorial manner.
It's clear the issue has to be forced at some point, the Republican party in complete disarray and at war with itself is probably the best time to. An independent Trump torpedoes them completely.
This whole issue plays on fear, and there will never be a risk-free time to do this politically. It's time to just grasp the nettle, because every week that goes by without doing anything is shameful in the face of recurring tragedies.
appaws
Banned
I'm better.
Obama knows this stretches Youngstown to and probably beyond the breaking point. This is a political decision and not a substantive one. I don't believe there will be any attempt to enforce this any time soon.
Also remember that the House has a lot to say about ATF funding.
Nobody, right, left, or center should support the government taking away rights based on a secret list with no due process or transparency. Forget about how much you hate guns and think about what it means in terms of profiling people of certain ethnic and regional origins with no accountability.
timetokill
Banned
Haha, hopefully you're not talking to me about that or else you didn't read my post correctly, nor do you have any idea of my stance XD
Once again I am reminded how insular GAF is. "People who own handguns and ARs for target practice must be up to something". I owned a gun purely for enjoyment, outgrew it and sold it. My friend is a lifelong gun enthusiast, nicest guy, bought an AR for target practice. My family from the South are not "up to something". My sister was not up to something when she did shooting as part of a decathlon. My friend's mom owns a handgun for self protection, and she goes target practicing to make sure she knows how to handle a gun (being responsible). I am born and raised in California, and a democrat. Stop this nonsense
appaws
Banned
I thought I was agreeing with you. I thought you were sarcastically implying that the no-fly list thing is bad.
What does XD mean?
The line with that seems blurred. An executive order makes something possible that wasn't before, or vice versa, so functionally to me it seems powerful enough to warrant criticism as a legal action. But I'm no lawyer so I don't know what I'm talking about.
tiredheadcrab
Member
Yeah I am all for closing the loopholes. I mean for fucks sake the couple in the recent mass shooting had a ton of ammunition and weapons. Lets think rationally about this.
timetokill
Banned
Yeah, we're agreeing! Haha it just seemed like that response "forget about how much you hate guns" had the "you" meaning me!
The No Fly List is a terrible idea.
XD is a smiley, back before emojis. It's basically a "laughing" emoticon.
Battersea Power Station
Member
Is there any empirical evidence to suggest that the potential executive order will cut down in gun deaths? If not, it's liable to incite even more ferver.
Let's look at the research, oh wait.
And if that's the fear then you don't have a very civilised society in the first place, even more reason to act.
But what about the right to own a firearm is "self" evident? Even in the late 1700s when the original document was penned there was nothing self evident about the simple ownership of a firearm for individual self-defense and they had to tie the idea to protection from governmental overreach and "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free STATE" they did not simply way "the right to bare arms is shall not be infringed upon". The State is to be protected by a right to bare arms, not the individual.
Even so, though, the rights laid out in the constitution aren't inherent. They were laid out hundreds of years ago by men who were struggling for compromise after a violent revolution. There is nothing about the document that is without question.
Forgetting that though, we've changed the bill of rights as it became apparent that the people writing it could not have built a perfect document or government to last without growth. It's clear that in 2015 the right to self-defense (which I am in favor of, obviously) is not necessarily tied to the right to own a firearm.
In fact, owning a firearm puts you in MORE danger than otherwise, so logically the right to self-defense should exclude ownership of one.
The idea is that, for example, he could tell the DEA not to go so hard on weed with an executive order, it would still be illegal just not prosecuted as harshly, but he can't straight up make it legal. The opposite is basically what he's doing here. He's just bringing private sellers under the same umbrella as businesses, as they're providing the same transaction. It'll be challenged, but I have a feeling it'll be upheld.
I was just thinking about this. It struck me that, if I was an American, the thought of banning all guns would immediately be terrifying because it would mean all the other nutjobs who have guns are the only ones who have them.
But that makes it a chicken/egg situation. You gotta fry the chicken or crack the egg. And cracking the egg clearly hasn't been working in light of this year's mass murder ratio.
How is it unenforceable? Its not like banning and destroying all guns. If requiring background checks by law is unenforceable and meaningless then by that logic almost all laws are unenforceable
Battersea Power Station
Member
You can't civilize someone by force. Sustainable change has to come from inside out.
I don't like guns, and I don't want then near me, but any (possible) legislature in the US will only increase gun sales. Guns are a symptom of a problem, and you can't cure a disease by treating the symptoms.
Have the government find ways to give parents more time at home, encourage community events and organizations so neighbors know one another, promote mixed use developments and public transportation, and watch gun crimes drop.
To be honest, those suggestion sounds like something the NRA would propose. There is no way for anything meaningful to come from any of that. Just words, like, let's focus on mental health. Ok. What are you proposing exactly? Uh nothing just it's not guns. Unless you are suggesting a socialism approach which isn't going to pass anytime soon anyway. Though maybe in 25 years.
7DollarHagane
Banned
Yep. Banning guns from a legal standpoint is about as effective as banning cigarettes to stop cancer or banning soda to stop obesity.
You have to get to the root of the problem or the problem will continue. Making guns harder to own legally is part of that, but a ban is just going to make things worse in this country and divide us even more.
People who want to cause mass violence and murders will find other ways. Or find guns other ways. What they won't find with a gun ban is help.
Speculation seems to be redefining/clarifying what "in the business of selling firearms" means.
Currently it's illegal to buy and sell guns for profit without becoming a federal firearms dealer. But there is no actual number of guns you can buy and sell before you need an FFL. It's about "intent" like say you buy a bunch of guns in the hope of flipping them later.
The thinking is they are going to put a hard limit on the amount you can buy or sell, like say 10 guns per year you have to get a FFL.
If this is true, doesn't seem like it will really do much besides annoy serious collectors.
Not sure how much more he can do though and not have it struck down.
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
The bill of rights is a further codifying of Self Evident rights to defend yourself and to bear arms. You keep talking about safety and security and I'm talking about what freedoms we have self evident in our human nature. So around and around we go but you ultimately have turned the government into a justification and the law as its dispenser. However that's not what the USA is about.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
Except when it does.
I mean, these are the actual words written by Justice Thomas in his dissention of Gonzales vs Raich:
While he paints it as a doomsday scenario, the logic holds up.
I'd really like to read the mental gymnastics that would allow for the ruling that medical marijuana impedes the ability of the government to stop drug trafficking, but another ruling that states that the 'gun show loophole' doesn't interfere with the Fed's ability to implement meaningful background checks. The only reason we haven't had the court rule on it yet is because Congress is too cowardly to put it in front of them.
It's fortuitous that the same branch of government that continually poses this question also holds the funding for such studies on a short leash, eh?
"Where's my evidence that more guns cause more homicides?"
*Scientists present evidence*
"Your funding is cut off for trying to politicize the issue."
More an appeal to common sense. The Obama administration knows that this will be ammo for the right and puts Hillary in a tough spot. They must believe that precedent is on their side or they wouldn't bother, he has nothing to gain from this in his last year in the presidency.
BTW, calling an executive order - one aimed at making people safer by universally enforcing laws that are already in place - 'dictatorial' is distasteful partisan rhetoric.
And I'm actually fascinated by the concern over the NF list sorting. On the one hand we have people complaining that we're not doing enough to make sure we're watching the "right people" due to political correctness...and on the other hand saying that having a list of potentially dangerous people is fine and dandy as long as you don't use it to prevent them from buying an arsenal of weapons. In other words, use overreaching surveillance to prevent crime, but not to prevent crime, you know? This f'n country man.
See above.
You're conflating the declaration and the bill of rights. Nowhere in the bill of rights does it say anything listed is self evident. The declaration of independence, where you got that line from, is a completely different document and you're doing your argument a disservice by acting otherwise. The self evident rights were to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Guns aren't listed there.
Handguns and rifles are easier to shoot than shotguns. Also, there is no appreciable difference between shooting at a stationary target opposed to a quickly moving clay one. Well, outside of the fact that the latter has someone swinging a gun around more focused on making a quick shot than making an accurate one. Stop talking about things you don't understand.
Sure in your imaginary world without statistics, they are 'a problem' just like there is a problem with airplanes being an unsafe form of transportation compared to driving. Unfortunately for you, we live in a world where statistics do apply.
So how did the ban on assault weapons help with the Paris attacks?
Calling them high profile cases is a major understatement. They are the incidents that are driving the conversation. Saying San Bernardino, Aurora, or Sandy Hook doesn't change things seriously is bordering on denial of reality. Like I said, shooting something like an AR-15 even for target practice is not really about target practice, as it is way too deadly of a weapon to fully justify merely for the sake of fun. Even if you insist that you are personally responsible, that doesn't change the fact that overall this is not happening. We agree that handguns need to be the main focus, but it can't be the only one.
You can't separate the people from the political movement they spawned. You'll inevitably take heat for the NRA actions even if you do personally support them as long as you're seen supporting the same general position. If you really can't stand defending your hobby you should seriously consider stop trying. After all, you're not being forced to argue in these threads.
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
the declaration of independence provided the basis for which the united states would have their own government instead of rule by England. Though the Bill of Rights, Constitution , and Declaration of Independence are 3 separate documents, that's because they served 3 parts of one purpose the founding of this democratic republic. The declaration of independence sets the justification for people having their self evident freedoms, and a government that SECURES those rights. The Constitution the laws that are in place for our government not citizens, our government ,to secure rights of all states that joined the union. The bill of rights FURTHER, FURTHER expands on life , liberty and pursuit of happiness with the original bill of rights. The Constitution consists of the rules and regulation for the Federal GOVERNMENT not citizens. Freedom means you don't have to list guns in the declaration of independence , as long as you don't infringe on others rights to life liberty and pursuit of happiness its none of the governments business on a national level.
Airlines have gone bankrupt because of perception of being unsafe. True, statistically, they're not the problem. Doesn't change the massive image problem they have, something the pro-gun advocates absolutely have to address. The biggest mistake they can make is pretend that culture never changes, and attempt to live in a vacuum against any future cultural changes. A regular reoccurrence of mass shootings with a specific type of weapon will guarantee, in the long-term, a major shift in cultural attitudes that will go against the pro-gun advocates.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Like seeing people who support the policy but disagree with the process. Maybe start voting for a functional fucking Congress on a regular enough basis.
This is a great move. As long as it holds legal muster (which it sounds like it does) who cares besides people who don't think background checks should be universal?
This is a great move. As long as it holds legal muster (which it sounds like it does) who cares besides people who don't think background checks should be universal?
It made it harder to achieve than it otherwise would have?
Indeed one car full of assault weapons was seized and never made it there to be used in the attacks.
Fenderputty
Banned
Only because mass shootings are more visible. Which is a shame. Limit clip size and make it mandatory for bullet assist clip removal on a federal level. The fact is very few gun related deaths are from AW. The majority of gun violence gets lost in this discussion because a single person dying doesn't make the media.
Yes it is and the statistics back up the claim. You shouting this over and over doesn't make it truer.
I don't support their position, nor the movement, nor the political powers that the NRA aligns with on the right. I'm fine with defending my hobby. I want change after all. I grow tired of defending my hobby from hyperbolic ignorant positions.
Is there some kind of organization we can join where gun owners can take a stand for sensible regulation? If there is, I've some how missed it. The NRA can go fuck itself 6 ways to Sunday, they don't represent me or anything I value.
- Status