The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
President Obama Announces Planned Executive Orders for Gun Control
Quid
Definitely not a bananaRegistered User regular
Definitely not a bananaRegistered User regular
Today President Obama has stated he is issuing a series of executive actions to reduce gun violence.
The details can be found here though it doesn't seem that he's issued the order just yet. Going off the White House's site though expanded background checks at the least seem to be the plan. Not everything else has been verified. But regardless, the overall goal seems like a fantastic step forward. Background checks, research on guns, seller reporting, etc. My only worry at this that if it gets put in to executive action SCOTUS might possibly strike some or all of it down.
The details can be found here though it doesn't seem that he's issued the order just yet. Going off the White House's site though expanded background checks at the least seem to be the plan. Not everything else has been verified. But regardless, the overall goal seems like a fantastic step forward. Background checks, research on guns, seller reporting, etc. My only worry at this that if it gets put in to executive action SCOTUS might possibly strike some or all of it down.
Quid on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
pleasepaypreacher.net
Honestly this is win win for Obama, if the supremes strike anything down it limits executive power when he's not in office, if they don't hey some new gun control!
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yes, that was Fox News host Andrea Tantaros responding to Obama tearing up during the speech with "I would check that podium for a raw onion."
Fuck you so very much, Fox News.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
They already were saying he was coming for their guns. I mean this "OH NOES PEOPLE WILL BE ANGRY THAT ARE ALREADY ANGRY!" talking point is ridic, because again they already are angry.
Though I figure when the supremes strike it, they'll use some bush v gore bullshit to make the decision have no reach.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I was under the impression the Supreme Court has already held up Executive Order's constitutionality w.r.t. clarifying bills, and as best as I can the only thing that isn't a budget proposal, sternly worded letter, or clarification is "I am saying that the seller is responsible for reporting stolen guns," which I guess you could argue is infringing on Congress.
I know it's optics for fighting back against this, but this seems like a very mild way to attempt to tighten gun sale loopholes.
None of it is ever unconstitutional, but the GOP knows with this group of Supremes, the letter of the consitution matters not at all, like say with the VRA.
pleasepaypreacher.net
IANAL and I do not grasp all of the complexities surrounding this, but: it seems like what precisely the 2nd Amendment does and does not encompass has not been tested very rigorously in the legal system yet. Given that the upper limits of what exactly a right to bear arms means haven't yet been established, it seems like one could make the argument that background checks are a violation of a constitutional right (i.e. it should not matter what my mental health is like or what my background is, the constitution says I have the inherent & inalienable right to stockpile weapons).
I think that would be a dumb argument, mind you (and I have no idea how that shakes-out in terms of legalese), but I can see a sort of internal consistency.
Course with this SCOTUS I half expect to see a 5-4 Obama is a dodo head decision.
If only we had stronger shout control.
Shouts don't kill people, legislators who prevent gun control reform kill people.
And on the basis that you know, there is an entire amendment dedicated to the right to own firearms.
But, as I mentioned in [chat], "If we don't pass this gun control, the epidemic of safer streets every year, year after year for a quarter century will continue!" Any talk of gun control should only be in the context that we've seen a drastic drop in violent crime without any.
This is ideological zealotry being passed on the basis that the media abuses their 1st amendment rights to present a deliberately misleading and morally unconscionable falsehood of high crime and extreme danger at every turn, when the reality is exactly the opposite. Anyone who chooses not to smoke, drink excessively, eat excessively, or drive like an asshole is very likely to die of old age, but people don't believe it. In fact, the media has so effectively lied to people that the substantial majority of Americans are drastically wrong about crime rates.
If we want to pass "common sense" laws regarding constitutionally protected rights, every crime story run by any news network in America should be required to both start and end with, "And violent crime is lower than it has ever been in your lifetimes (may not apply to geriatrics, but I haven't bothered looking at data more than half a century old)..."
And despite your argument about constitutionality, the Supreme Court has (again, as far as I'm aware) upheld background checks and executive orders clarifying laws as constitutional. What he has done seems, on its face, to be constitutionally.
Next, despite a decrease in violent crime mass shootings have increased and the United States still has significantly higher murder and gun crime rates than almost any first world country.
Finally, "imperial presidency" my ass. Obama has issued less executive orders than any president since Grover Cleaveland (the first time).
Er, which part should be unconstitutional? Supposedly there are multiple orders. I could see some of them potentially being the case. But why should background checks or DoD research on guns be unconstitutional?
Also dang man cut back on the accusatory adjectives
Like... It's not changing anything except you now are committing an illegal act by doing something that shouldn't have been possible anyway?
Edit: no snark. WTF am I missing?
But no, I'm sure Obama, who relied on a lengthy "kill list" of individuals half a world away whose assassinations via drone missile he personally authorized for years, is just overcome with emotion at the shooting deaths of some Americans he's never met.
Fox is only wrong in that he wouldn't need an onion.
If you could narrow this down, that would be great.
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
you realize he's had to get up in front of the country and talk about this shit, after mass shootings, more times than anyone here can actually keep track of and has met with the families of a lot of the victims.
http://www.people-press.org/2015/08/13/continued-bipartisan-support-for-expanded-background-checks-on-gun-sales/
http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/section-2-opinions-of-gun-owners-non-gun-owners/
The substance of the proposed changes appears to be the result of heavy triangulation for maximum bipartisan appeal among the public.
Adding some common sense changes isn't going stall or make crime explode or something.
Also, thanks for the laugh, I really needed it. Imperial presidency.... hoo-boy, you crack me up
I find it reasonable for someone to cry when thinking about the kids at Newtown, especially someone who met with the families.
He wouldn't need an onion because it's sad, regardless of your assumptions on how he feels when he authorizes those lists.
@milski Do you know if background checks specifically have had a test in federal court yet?
NRA should award Obama sportsman of the year, anytime he talks about guns their supporters make more money than ever.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The onion is always relevant here.
"Report: Increase In Gun Sales To Be Most Concrete Result Of Obama’s Pro-Gun-Control Speech"
http://www.theonion.com/article/report-increase-gun-sales-be-most-concrete-result--51456
pleasepaypreacher.net
As I understand it, it's the right to bear arms, not specifically firearms. Why is it that "arms" is so often interpreted to mean "guns"?
My former brother-in-law is a staunch Republican. Owns and maintains a fair few guns of varying types. Reloads his own ammo. Is, basically, pretty clued up on this stuff. One Halloween, he dressed as a samurai, in an obi rather than armor, but wore a sheathed katana as part of it. Yet he wouldn't take one step outside his front door for fear of being seen carrying an offensive weapon in public. And this is a guy who has and uses a concealed carry license, and who I've been target shooting outdoors with, in one of the most Republican states in the Union.
And he was probably right.
So, once more - why is the Second Amendment always apparently interpreted to be about guns?
Steam | XBL
Also, if you're going on the rest of the internet, there's a few arguments being made that the mental health provisions are super scary. People are afraid of being put on "a list" for having mental health issues, or w/e. And yet since mental health is the scapegoat for gun control, what can you do?
Mental health is such a giant catch-all. It could be something like, you have claustrophobia.
Estimates are also that >25% of the population suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in any given year, which means even more will have a mental health issue at some point in their lives.
So there is a correlation between violent crime and lead in the environment. Correlation is not causation, but we do know that lead is a neurotoxin that can change a person's behavior (much like mercury). Is there a correlation between higher gun ownership and lower crime rates? Considering that crime has been dropping in countries like the UK where gun ownership is highly restricted, I don't think there is, but if anybody has some actual scientific evidence one way or the other let me know. Same with high incarceration rates vs low incarceration rates and whatever other possible causes (like economic ones I would be very interested in seeing).
I think it's disingenuous to say that since crime is already falling, we don't need to do anything at all. At the very least keeping weapons away from the mentally ill should be something most people can agree on.
I'm not sure I see your point. There is no indication that Obama is going to use this to track the medical records of everybody with any form of mental health, nor that minor mental health diagnoses will be reason to prevent purchasing of a firearm. I think it's kind of paranoid to assume that would be the case given just how safe the rest of the provision is with moderately expanding current laws.
Suicides are the oft neglected argument for gun control "People will just kill themselves with another method" actually ease of use is a major factor in suicide.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Unfortunately people who argue against gun control don't see suicide as a problem worth preventing even if they believe that it's preventable via ease-of-use. Again, if you take a round of the internet you can already see people pointing out "well the number Obama quoted includes suicides, which aren't real gun violence."
Yeah it's much easier to commit suicide with a firearm than most other methods. Like who even knows how to tie a noose in this day and age? I am certainly against making it easier for people to kill themselves than it already is.