Yesterday I got around to reading the executive order that Obama issued on firearms. I also watched the town hall meeting last night and it struck me at how crazy this whole thing is. What obama has ordered is so minimal that it's barely worth a blurb in the newspaper. It's also, in one specific part, what republicans have been clamoring for which is tighter restrictions on the mentally ill to have access to guns. I would love to hear a counterpoint to what seems so obvious to me so I can understand the other side of this issue. When providing a counterpoint, please don't spew NRA rhetoric or fear mongering, and focus on the actual executive order and what it says. I'm genuinely curious because I can't find the logical other side of the argument.
It isnt a logical counter argument. They will argue well he didnt go through congress and you can tell them a lot of Presidents issue executive orders on things like this that someone is going to hate. These are very small changes and common sense changes at that. but let the outrage continue.
You assume here that NRA rhetoric can't possibly focus on facts and that only the President can do that. Lol. "OBAMA: "A violent felon can buy the exact same weapon over the Internet with no background check, no questions asked." THE FACTS: It's not that straightforward. In fact, federally licensed gun dealers are required by law to conduct background checks for gun purchases no matter where the sale takes place - in a store, at a gun show or online. While private gun sales can be conducted over the Internet, if the sale involves people in different states, a licensed gun dealer in the state where the gun is going still has to be involved in the transfer. Regardless of the seller, it is illegal for a convicted felon to buy or possess a gun unless they have had their rights restored. But prohibited buyers have evaded the law to buy guns." "OBAMA: "We're going to require firearms dealers to report more lost or stolen guns on a timely basis." THE FACTS: The effect of this is unclear because the government already requires gun dealers to report all lost or stolen guns within 48 hours of discovering that they are missing. This is true for guns in their shops or those being sent to them." And in true executive fashion, Obama did not say how much faster he wants the reporting to be or how he would achieve that. "OBAMA: "Anybody in the business of selling firearms must get a license and conduct background checks, or be subject to criminal prosecutions. It doesn't matter whether you're doing it over the Internet or at a gun show. It's not where you do it, but what you do." THE FACTS: "In the business" is the key condition for coming under this requirement, and the definition may have a lot of wiggle room. Federal law defines people who "repetitively buy and sell firearms with the principal motive of making a profit" as being "engaged in the business" of selling guns and requires them to be licensed. The license process includes a $200 application fee and a criminal background check. People who only occasionally sell guns from their personal collections don't have to apply for a license. The law does not specify how many guns a person has to sell to be considered "engaged in the business" of selling guns and neither did Obama. His new guidance defines a dealer as one whose "principal motive" is profit." "OBAMA: "Even after San Bernardino, they've (Congress) refused to make it harder for terror suspects who can't get on a plane to buy semi-automatic weapons." THE FACTS: That's at least in part because gun ownership is a constitutional right and getting on an airplane isn't. Being placed on the government's no-fly list is a process that generally is not subjected to an independent legal review or a judicial process such as a courtroom trial. A person can be barred from boarding a U.S. airline based merely on suspicion that he or she might pose a threat. Having one's name removed from the no-fly list is arduous and can take years. The bar is higher, such as a criminal conviction, for the government to take away a person's constitutional right to own a firearm." What a freaking insult to invoke the San Bernardino incident to blame Congress for not making things harder for terrorists. Geebus H Feist....it is our own government's security process failures that allowed those two terrorists into the country in the first place! And it has nothing to do with mass murderers in the way we typically think of them. None of Obama's policies are going to stop or slow a mass murderer. None. Did you watch or listen to Chris Kyle's widow? She was spot on. "She argued that stricter control in the form of background checks would not be an effective tool to combat mass murder. “I don’t know that any of them would have been stopped by a background check… So I think part it we have to recognize is we cannot outlaw murder. Because the people who are murdering are breaking the law, but they also don’t have the moral code that we have. So they can do the same amount of damage with a pipe bomb. The problem is that they want to murder.”
A couple of things. First, the problem is that folks aren't registering as gun dealers who are gun dealers. I agree that an individual who sells a gun now and then, shouldn't have to register, but those that make money buying and selling guns have been able to evade registering. What's the harm in getting those folks to register. Do you think gun sales should be able to happen over the internet when the seller sells multiple guns a year is not licensed or registered to sell guns? If you don't think that should happen, then why are you against this? [/quote] So, what's wrong with this. Are you against reporting lost or stolen guns? Once again, what's the problem here? I don't understand your outrage but whatever. Probably nothing he did in these actions would have stopped that from happening. Doesn't mean it couldn't stop someone else. I respect Chris Kyle's wife and what he's done for our country and the way he died was terrible, but she came across as the dumbest person I've ever heard in my life. I mean that. She meandered around and said nothing concrete about why the laws were bad. She's doing exactly what you're doing by saying, this isn't going to stop criminals. And you may be absolutely right but it certainly won't help them, and it won't hurt you, so what's the problem? Okay, so why try anything? You do realize that not all people are killed in mass shootings. Gang violence and other violent crimes are also an issue. The actions won't change anything for you so if they stop one gun crime, what's the harm.
The problem with all of it is he's using incorrect information to base these executive orders on. He's also attempting to put into place, policies that are not measurable or effective, nor will they do a thing to stop mass killings. He should be putting more time and effort into identifying mental health issues and giving law enforcement the tools they need to recognize those problems and to effectively deal with them. He's going after law abiding citizens and they aren't the problem. I would call it anger, not outrage. However, it's absolutely political bullshit to lay blame on Congress for doing nothing AFTER a crime that was committed just over a month ago. The biggest issue there was how those scum got into the country and there is no place for discussing gun laws in terms of stopping that situation. A neighbor saw suspicious activity but didn't report it out of fear should would be accused of profiling.....thank you Mr. President. The problem is using executive orders to limit what is currently a constitutional right. He's trying to fix the wrong problem. So you think gang members will follow executive orders or work within the law? The majority of gun deaths are by suicide. What he's suggesting won't slow that trend one bit. Criminals will have guns. It's the law abiding folks who won't. That's a problem IMO. And how do you know it won't change anything for me? It's already tough to buy ammo these days and prices are ridiculous. Consumers don't trust the man. Again, using executive order on this issue is bullshit.
How many gangbangers do you think obtained their firearms legally? I'm sure very few. Almost all of them already have criminal records and can't legally own a gun, but they all do. I doubt that there are very many people who make their living from selling guns who are not already licensed firearms dealers. What Barakmed's usurpation of the second amendment does is to allow the government to define anybody who sells even 2 or 3 guns as a dealer. If a gun collector dies and his widow rents a table at a gun show and sells part of her husband's collection without doing background checks she could defacto become a criminal - never mind that she wouldn't even have the facilities or the knowhow to conduct background checks.
