i am seriously happy for America as a non-American. Its very overdued.
This won't actually do anything but rile up conservative gun owners more. Even if it's something reasonable. Obama is already labeled as some kind of executive order issuing tyrant. Going for the guns isn't going to help that.
I want gun policy reform but I'd rather the republican party not be given something to unite behind.
But this is nonsense. Who does the protecting? The courts - i.e. the government. When private citizens try it they get roflstomped.
A problem a lot of people have is that they think that they way they think things ought to be is the way they actually are.
Obviously this is not going to happen anytime soon. But it is fun to speculate about.
There would be a massive refusal by law enforcement to enforce the law. Nullification ordinances would be passed within weeks in most of the south, midwest, and plains.
Attempts at federal enforcement would lead to secession movements springing up and active duty military would refuse to follow orders to suppress their countrymen.
There would be bloodshed, but surprisingly most of it would be in "blue" states, primarily because no red state will allow any enforcement to happen.
If it got to this point, I think we would be better off breaking up the U.S. because I don't think there would be any room for compromise. The U.S. could become more European/Canadian in structure as many want. And the other republic could continue the Lockean thing.
We would really have to make sure the sports leagues held together.
That sort is my point though. People who handguns or ar-15s for "target practice" are clearly doing for far more than shooting for fun. If the hobby was reduced to just shotgun owners for clay pigeon shooting purposes, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Also, you can't pretend ar-15s aren't a problem. We've had several very high profile mass shootings done with them recently. Any serious talk of gun control will inevitably circle back to banning ar-15 and similar weapons on account of this.
In a country where one of the "gives" is merely allowing research being done on gun violence, there will have to be a lot more give before we reach anything resembling fairness here. I see the gun control crowd getting louder and more powerful for a long time before the gun-owning advocates can legitimately take anything back.
Sure it can be. This one isn't. And you know that. Otherwise you wouldn't have adjusted your phrasing in a subsequent post.
If you're gonna argue for the wrong side of history at least make an effort and don't trip over your own intellectual dishonesty.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's an interesting definition of "illegal" you got there.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.
Appeal to authority.I hear the president is a pretty good lawyer.
Looks like you missed the entire second half of the sentence. It implies something rather important to the meaning of the statement.People thinking things should be the way they think they should be is not a problem, it's a tautology.
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.
I hear the president is a pretty good lawyer.
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.
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.
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
They don't. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how they work. He cannot make new law, all he can do is futz with how federal agencies enforce current law.
I thought I was agreeing with you.
What does XD mean?
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.
I don't think you understand the US doesn't dole out rights. The government has nothing to do with your right to defend yourself. In a socialist society it is the state that is supreme and provides and decides rights. This is a free society in which the only reason we have any government is to secure the rights which are SELF evident. There is no right to bear arms because the government said so, there is a right to bear arms because any human who wants to defend himself may do so and no government can infringe upon those rights. The bill of rights was made to codify more specifically the rights of PEOPLE that cannot be infringed upon because Republics are notoriously hard to keep over time.
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.
That's pretty surprising given all the attacks lately. I suppose you can't change the mentality of people when the culture has been ingrained since the constitution was written
I am not saying Obama's silly, unenforceable, meaningless executive order will lead to gun confiscation. That would be a "slippery slope" argument.
You can't civilize someone by force. Sustainable change has to come from inside out.And if that's the fear then you don't have a very civilised society in the first place, even more reason to act.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Courts are likely to though, as there is zero basis for this in the laws.
This isn't a loophole in the ATF's interpretation of the law, the background check law specifically only applies to FFLs, and the federal government doesn't have constitutional authority to regulate intrastate commerce.
If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers – as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause – have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."
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.
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.
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.
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.
That sort is my point though. People who handguns or ar-15s for "target practice" are clearly doing for far more than shooting for fun. If the hobby was reduced to just shotgun owners for clay pigeon shooting purposes, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
B] Also, you can't pretend ar-15s aren't a problem. We've had several very high profile mass shootings done with them recently.[/B] Any serious talk of gun control will inevitably circle back to banning ar-15 and similar weapons on account of this.
That's pretty surprising given all the attacks lately. I suppose you can't change the mentality of people when the culture has been ingrained since the constitution was written
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.
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.
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.
Like I said, shooting something like an AR-15 even for target practice is not really about target practice,.
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.
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.