Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think that both sides of the gun debate are generally ignorant of what the 2nd Amendment was really about. This is unfortunate. We've become so addicted to memes and soundbites that the majority of people simply can't focus on anything for more that about 30 seconds. Bottom line: Gun regulations are as old as the 2nd Amendment itself. The only sensible debate concerns what are the best regulations to have, and what are the best ways to enforce them. On that score, Obama's proposals are not outrageous, and they really don't have much of anything to do with the 2nd Amendment. He is certainly not proposing anything that violates the 2nd Amendment. At worst, his proposals will simply fail to have any effect because congress won't allocate money to fund them.
im going to watch and give it thought.
but lets just be clear that Obamas most recent foray into the gun control debate, wont have any effect but not because of congress.... rather because what he has proposed does nothing to stop bad actors. It just makes it harder for law abiding citizens from getting and or selling some firearm they own.
Why not? Automobiles kill more people than guns, it isn't even a Constitutional Right to own one, and unregulated private cash sales of automobiles happen all the time. And depending on use, they don't even all have to be registered.
So the executive order on gun control designed to keep “mentally ill” people from buying guns, does that mean that someone diagnosed with bipolar disorder under the care of a physician on medication will not be able to exercise his or her second amendment right? What about if they are police officers? What about a vet who suffers from PTSD?
but lets just be clear that Obamas most recent foray into the gun control debate, wont have any effect but not because of congress.... rather because what he has proposed does nothing to stop bad actors. It just makes it harder for law abiding citizens from getting and or selling some firearm they own.
It is always the end goal of all anti gun politicians, to restrict the rights of people who are not committing crimes to achieve the ultimate goal of disarmament of the poor, minorities and middle class, leaving only the wealthy and criminals able to protect themselves.
So one of the goals of the President was to have more people have to be licensed dealers in an attempt to track more gun sales. Curiously Bill Clinton started the exact opposite during his presidency because;
"In 1994, ATF officials complained that many FFLs were not actually “engaged in the business” and oversight of the small sellers was cumbersome, if not impossible. “Probably 70 percent of the people holding licenses shouldn’t hold them".
So one of the goals of the President was to have more people have to be licensed dealers in an attempt to track more gun sales. Curiously Bill Clinton started the exact opposite during his presidency because;
"In 1994, ATF officials complained that many FFLs were not actually “engaged in the business” and oversight of the small sellers was cumbersome, if not impossible. “Probably 70 percent of the people holding licenses shouldn’t hold them".
Well, obviously, in the current world view of the democrats, that makes perfect sense.
It definitely makes as much sense as "Let's pass a law or rule or regulation so we can say we did SOMETHING, even if it turns out to be useless!"
Or Pelosi's infamous... "...we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it..." because, you know, with all that transparency Obama promised, NO ONE including Congress knew what was in the ACA (Obamacare) before the Dems singlehandedly passed it completely without any R votes.
Obama issues an order, which is not law, which cannot be enforced. In clear violation of the Constitution of the United States, and beyond his Constitutional authority, Obama "orders" (mandates) background checks for online & gun show sales.
This is unenforceable, as it is not law. Obama has no authority to make law. Secondly, "executive orders" may only apply to the administration and government agencies. They do not apply to private institutions, citizens, etc.
Therefore, there is nothing to compel anyone to follow his "order."
Obama is not a King, though he may think he is. Do not comply.
Dang, the man is asking for one to the temple.
Is he going to be the sacrifice for the anti-gun agenda?
So one of the goals of the President was to have more people have to be licensed dealers in an attempt to track more gun sales. Curiously Bill Clinton started the exact opposite during his presidency because;
"In 1994, ATF officials complained that many FFLs were not actually “engaged in the business” and oversight of the small sellers was cumbersome, if not impossible. “Probably 70 percent of the people holding licenses shouldn’t hold them".
If Obama has violated the Constitution, I am sure that there is a Constitutionally friendly Federal Court in a city near you that will decide whether it is or isn't. That too is how the Constitution works.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
