bighulksmash
Legend
He is not .
Donald Trump running for president
- Thread starter LiftWithDonuts
- Start date
He is not .
De__eB
Well-known member
Which of Obama's proposed regulations would in any way infringe on the ability of any law abiding citizen of the United States to bear arms?
Do the mandated background checks in private transactions delaying your purchase of a firearm from a non-FFL seller by five minues infringe on your rights to bear arms?
No, it doesn't.
Does the provision for mental health data on a state-by-state basis (this is very important, as every state has different mental capacity restrictions on gun possession already) to be shared into the national instant background check database infringe on the rights of any person who is not already legally prohibited from possessing a firearm to bear arms?
No, it doesn't.
Does the allocation of additional federal law enforcement personnel to the enforcement of existing gun regulations infringe on anybody's right to bear arms?
No, it doesn't.
Does the suggestion that gun manufacturers explore new technology that has many useful and realistic applications for law-abiding gun owners infringe on anybody's right to bear arms?
No, it doesn't.
Nothing Obama brought up contravenes the 2nd amendment.
De__eB
Well-known member
I believe that Obama is a supporter of the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms, and as a senior constitutional law lecturer, I think he knows more about constitutional law than you do, and is more qualified than any of us are to speak on what the government can constitutionally do to regulate firearm transactions without infringing on the rights of citizens.
ax1
Legend
I dont support any of them.
ax1
Legend
Big difference between being a constitutional scholar and actually following it.
Gutterpump
Banned
I think we all need laser guns. Pew pew pew
ax1
Legend
I would agree in cases where one criminally infringes on the rights of others he may lose his own constitutional rights through due process, but I dont think that would prevent them getting a gun anyways or use another means to cause harm. I would not violent offender to own a gun in many cases, in that case they will do fine in prison.
thebigt
Legend
let me rephrase...do you believe that he is doing everything possible[with in the law]to weaken the 2nd amendment....I truly believe he would revoke the 2nd amendment if he could lawfully do so.
De__eB
Well-known member
I think that there are many things he could do within the law via executive authority or via an appeal to his party members in the legislative branch to significantly weaken the second amendment.
That he is not doing these things suggests strongly to me that he is not interested in weakening the second amendment.
I think the notion that he would repeal the 2nd amendment given the power is absurd.
ax1
Legend
What's more important than that Constitution is my own opinion and I can share with you. Outside of weapons of mass destruction which I do not consider as "arms" I do not support government regulation of firearms, only due process for criminals. Now for the Constitution, I dont interpret the original Constitution as allowing government to regulate an individual's right's to bear arms. The main purpose in my interpretation of the 2nd amendment is for equal powers to government and to ward of potential tyranny from government itself whether its foreign or domestic, so no limits to the type of gun or amounts of ammo.
I can live and compromise my political beliefs and have some regulations, its not like the worst thing on the planet, but I do not like compromising what I have to go through here in NY.
thebigt
Legend
fortunately being uneducated and illiterate in legalese does not exclude me from a right to an opinion, I will exercise that right and strongly disagree with you.
since I assume neither of us are privy to what Obama really thinks, opinions are all that is being expressed here!!!
ax1
Legend
He has ignored the 1st (using the wwi 1913 espionage act and issuing subpoenas to journalists,) 2nd (which I know you disagree with,) 3rd Amendment (executive order National Defense Resources Preparedness Act in regard to military dwelling in private quarters,) 4th (support for the NSA, National Defense Authorization Act) 5th (national defense authorization act,) 6th (see 5th) just to name a few examples to start.
Considering his unconstitutional history and his love for the Australian model for gun control, it wouldn't surprise me one bit he would wipe the 2nd Amendment away with the flick of a pen.
De__eB
Well-known member
What, you can't read minds? I thought everybody could read minds.
That said, observable behavior and knowledge of what the president could do if he wanted strongly supports the notion that he is not hellbent on destroying the 2nd amendment.
youngandfree
Well-known member
He knows how to subvert the Constitution better than you do is what you meant to say.
As to the smart gun technology with a bracelet, everyone that has ever used a Bluetooth ear piece with their phone knows it always stays connected and never ever disconnects, so what could go wrong when you need to defend your life with a Bluetooth connected device.
No thanks.
youngandfree
Well-known member
Do you believe a physically disabled vet, getting social security, that has a fiduciary handle their finances should be declared "incompetent" and thus denied the right to purchase or own a firearm?
It's written into his new regulations, and previously the VA has declared someone using a fiduciary, without distinguishing if it's for physical or mental issues, is declared incompetent.
De__eB
Well-known member
No, it's not written into his new regulations.
No, using a fiduciary to handle your finances does not deem one incompetent and ineligible to purchase a firearm under any new regulation Obama ha proposed.
All his regulation does is establish a legal framework for HHS to report mental health information that would *already* preclude someone from possessing a firearm to NICS. Currently the provision of that information is not allowed for by the law, so mental health restrictions on purchasing firearms are effectively meaningless since that information has no way of finding its way into NICS.
I do not think a schizophrenic who has openly discussed his intent to kill people should be allowed to purchase a firearm. But what specific mental issues preclude someone from firearm purchase and possession is defined differently by each and every state, if you feel that your state has unconstitutional "mental health" restrictions on firearm ownership, your issue is with your state government, not the federal government, because those regulations exist now.
CJNator
Well-known member
Regulations don't protect anyone, felons(or anyone) can get firearms off the street easy. **** when I was in high school I could have bought a gun easy and I was in a upper class area. Regulations only keep law abiding individuals from getting them, you state the idea behind regulations; I'm stating reality. Also I think they are stating how they are more worried about people having guns here rather then having more troops there.
ax1
Legend
Are his regulations written for the public to observe yet? I remember this happening during Obamacare, and of course it was thousands of pages long and then changes were always being implemented in the final second including those that nothing to do with the bill.
De__eB
Well-known member
Please clearly define what citizen or subset of citizens who can currently legally purchase a firearm you think will no longer be able to do so under the proposed regulatory changes?
And yes, I am a great deal more concerned about keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them here than I am about our continued interference in middle east geopolitical conflicts that created the environment that allows for groups like ISIS to exist and project force in the first place.
10,000 Americans will be murdered with firearms this year, another 20,000 will commit suicide with firearms this year.
I think that any efforts we can make to reduce these numbers without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens to bear arms is the right thing to do, and has the potential to save a lot more American lives than sending more troops to combat ISIS does.
De__eB
Well-known member
The final rules for his regulations are not published yet, no, as he has just now directed various regulatory agencies to author and publish them.
And why are you calling it Obamacare? Why aren't you calling it Congresscare? Because the buffoons serving in our bought congress bear the majority of responsibility for that mess, and ultimately healthcare will not be fixed as long as our country is legislated by a bought congress, because no other branch of government has the legal authority to make sweeping change in healthcare.
That said, the affordable care act while clearly deficient, was still better than the literally nothing that many voting against the ACA would have had the government do about healthcare.
ax1
Legend
Its not every-bodies concern what they choose to do with themselves. Its sad but its not my problem.
10,000 is statistically small in a country of 300 million with open borders. There are alternatives to reducing these homicides such as ending the war on drugs, improving the economy, enforcing our borders, and keeping violent criminals longer in jail are just some methods. Also, allowing people to bear arms can reduce homicides and which has been shown to work in cities such as Detroit after the police chief called on the citizens to arm themselves, totally opposite of whats happening in Chicago.
ax1
Legend
I call it Obamacare because that is the common terminology. If you want me to call it what I think I should call it I would call it Corporatecare. I didnt vote for any of the active members in congress, you are right I put the blame on them as well along with the recent voters who actually thought Republicans were really going to try to repeal it.
My rates went up after ACA I was one of the people that had my plan dropped, so its hard to convince me to agree with voting over not voting.
CJNator
Well-known member
I speak about regulations generally, will regulations get to the point where firearms must be confiscated from law abiding citizens most likely but I can't predict the future.
You can't stop people from getting what they want. People will get what they want no matter what regulations. As for what is happening in the middle east I posted a video perfect depicting US foreign policy and how the middle east is the way it is now. I disagree with the US being there generally.
Tell me this, if someone wanted to commit a crime would they get a marked gun or unmarked off the street?
ax1
Legend
Tell me about it, I have a perfect record and clean bill of health but I cant have a carry on. Its a local thing, but this is when the government needs to step in and enforce the Constitution.
JudoJosh
Pro Virili Parte
yea!!!!.. well except the data actually shows the exact opposite...
And before the, I thought you unsubbed comment, I did but since De__eB quoted my post it popped up on my notification pane so against my better judgement I allowed my cursor to wander back in.
Anywho, I just skimmed some of the recent post and this one caught my eye. I have a feeling (a pretty confident one too) about where you stand on the prevalence of guns but if you claim to be one who values evidence, then you are in for an upset because the actual data we have on this, albeit rather limited but data nonetheless, paints a picture you might not be happy with.
Sorry for your gun lots
youngandfree
Well-known member
You don't think using a fiduciary makes you incompetent, but you aren't writing the rules. They do, and have declared as much.
Invalid Link Removed
youngandfree
Well-known member
1,000 people per day die at the hands of doctors who ****ed up. My dad was one of them this year. It's a much bigger problem. Those 20,000 suicides would have killed themselves with something else.
ax1
Legend
I was referencing Detroit which has real stats along with the Police Chief calling people out to arm themselves. Guns = less crime. Its a fact.
No only has homicides dropped, but all types of crime such as carjackings, robberies, etc....I know one stat from 2013-2014 alone robberies dropped close to 40%.
De__eB
Well-known member
And who says we shouldn't be addressing that?
There is a pretty key difference there mind you. Doctors **** up in the process of trying to save lives, some level of error is inevitable, that of course doesn't mean we shouldn't seek to minimize it.
--
Suicidal feelings are very prevalent, and unfortunately, a lot of people will commit suicide no matter what we do, but most people who are even desperately suicidal can be talked down from their mental state, and express that they are glad they did not end their lives.
De__eB
Well-known member
I wonder how he got his weapon
Probably like any other ISIS sympathizer, legally.
Not making a very strong case against gun regulations.
ax1
Legend
If there are ISIS sympathizers in this country wanting to commit autocracies I would say it would make a very strong case against gun regulations. Its to easy to go out in shooting sprees in many places in the country. Bad people get guns and do what they want, but good people cant legally carry them to deter or minimize the crime.
youngandfree
Well-known member
Wrong it was a stolen police issued gun.
ax1
Legend
Id have to look at the stats. I bet (not claiming for now) many of these cities if gun crime was reduced by gun regulation, Id have to see if lacked people with guns to begin with due to already strong regulation, lack of education and propaganda. Then I wanna see the general crime trends after stronger gun regulation including non-gun related such as break ins, etc....
De__eB
Well-known member
It's almost like most people do not suddenly morph into Jack Bauer in a crisis situation because they have never trained for that eventuality.
ax1
Legend
Just like they reportedly had police issued gun in San-Bernadino? Interesting.
De__eB
Well-known member
Not a very strong argument against proximity based firearm technology.
youngandfree
Well-known member
Doctor **** ups are the 3 highest killer of americans, behind heart disease and cancer. FWIW, my dad's death was lazy negligence in the ER. More than 10 times the number of people murdered with a gun.
youngandfree
Well-known member
But you know the police forces and military will never adopt it, so it's a moot point. It's another example that criminals don't buy guns legally.
JudoJosh
Pro Virili Parte
YEAH! If people care so much about lives then how come no one is doing anything to lessen hospital care related death or cancer or heart disease. All everyone ever talks about is guns and they don't do anything about the real threats clearly showing their motives... wait.. what.. there are enormous efforts being made to lessen the deaths related to those as well.. well, gee now my comment seems foolish
JudoJosh
Pro Virili Parte
Exactly. Roughly 40% of guns purchased and used in crimes are purchased via private transaction. If only the president would pass a policy focusing on private transactions and leave gun store ones aloe..... like say he can pass an executive order that requires background checks to be done on private transactions. This would have a pretty negligible effect on guns purchased through traditional legal channels (gun stores) and would target a significant percent of the demo that the criminals do get their guns from.. but nooooo.. obummer is too busy hitler-ing to care
De__eB
Well-known member
No, I don't know that, in fact police forces are some of the most likely adopters of the technology, because they result in significant officer safety improvements if the officers firearm cannot be wrested away and used against him.
CJNator
Well-known member
As much as the Constitution "helps" or is a good argument against gun control I look at the moral aspect of regulations generally. The idea of regulations is to regulate the free market to help people but in reality its regulating our freedom in a way. People can claim its to help us all they want but reality it only limits our freedom for "security".
De__eB
Well-known member
I don't know man, when I'm selling a firearm in person to someone I don't know, spending a 5 minute phone call to my local PD to consult NICS and make sure that person is not a criminal and give myself a much stronger civil liability defense against the crimes said person intends to commit sounds super inconvenient and terrible for my rights.
Requiring NICS consults on private firearm transactions will stop exactly 0 gun purchase by people who are legally allowed to purchase a firearm.
It will prevent a nonzero number of crimes.
It will take someone not in the business of selling firearms 5 minutes to do.
Unless you're actually in the business of selling firearms and just don't want to get an FFL, I'm not sure you can make the argument that 5 minutes once? twice? a year is a critical infringement of your rights.
youngandfree
Well-known member
ax1
Legend
Presidents job is not to rule like a dictator and install policy at the stroke of his pen.
Maybe if he didnt support the idea of instantly criminalizing good people from having guns on them people and simply do his job which is to enforce the very Constitution he took oath to people can do a better job at defending themselves and family.
De__eB
Well-known member
That's ridiculous.
By what means do you think you have any property rights, or rights at all for that matter? (Hint: regulations)