Obama weighs expanding background checks through executive authority

On this episode of the constitutional lawyer totally ignoring what the constitution says. Because he is the totalitarian in chief. He really doesn't read the law. He does what ever floats his boat. As if the 23 executive orders was not enough. He wants to use his 'authority' to make something that is already law. Law again!.

I snip you not. Back when the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed it created the FFL system. Yes people by law anyone who sells firearms has to get a license from the state to do so, and by law they ALL have to perform background checks.

In response to the latest mass shooting during his presidency, President Obama is seriously considering circumventing Congress with his executive authority and imposing new background-check requirements for buyers who purchase weapons from high-volume gun dealers

Behold my magic pen. Kneel before it's glory!

Those 23 executive actions include my most favorite one. After YEARS of his party telling me corporations aren't people. They turn around, and say YES THEY ARE PEOPLE. So they have to submit to the background check. Cause that is what people have to do.

Everyone knows why the furor has gone around congress. Because Congress has shot him down consistently.

Our rights are subject to the kings benevolence.

For your reading pleasure:

The Gun Control Act mandated the licensing of individuals and companies engaged in the business of selling firearms. This provision effectively prohibited the direct mail order of firearms (except antique firearms) by consumers and mandated that anyone who wants to buy a gun in an interstate transaction from a source other than a private individual must do so through a federally licensed firearms dealer. The Act also banned unlicensed individuals from acquiring handguns outside their state of residence. The interstate purchase of long guns (rifles and shotguns) was not impeded by the Act so long as the seller is federally licensed and such a sale is allowed by both the state of purchase and the state of residence.

Gun Control Act of 1968

a reply to: neo96

Simply trying to bypass the law.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Now they can try to think of inventive ways to bypass / break the law and make it sound feasible even though it is completely illegal.

As always, resident Obama does all he can to usurp anything and everything.

And it all fails.

a reply to: neo96

Now, if he was going to pen an EO for background checks on the pharmaceutical companys, medical practitioners, psychologists and other licensed shrinks that peddle psychotropics that remain the common denominator regarding the tragedy he is riding the coat-tails of, then he would have my blessing.

Also if he was going to pen an EO for background checks on wall street execs and banksters who manage and determine economic (in)stability and (in)equality which creates disgruntled citizens whom get referred to medical practitioners, psychologists and other licensed shrinks that peddle psychotropics then he would also have my blessing.

But, LOL, that ain't gonna happen now innit?

LOL - yes, DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS............behold it, in all it's glory and f### the constitution.

I think he has a lot more things to seriously consider...........like getting a clue. Or how about seriously considering being a President for ALL the people. Is his time over yet, cause America is certainly done with the worst President of all time.

a reply to: neo96

They also need a grand "social issue" to make headlines to distract from the fiasco in Syria.

Timing is everything.

Don't dare put anything like this up to a vote of the people. Because that would end all these fantasies of the anti-second amendment folks...

I am coming to despise this President, and all he stands for.

a reply to: neo96

I feel safer!

It's almost funny what this clown does.

a reply to: neo96

But it's such a nice pen!

And please tell me the harm in more and better background checks? There's no downside.

a reply to: seagull

We also know well that the vote of the people isn't necessarily always the right thing to do. Don't use this argument unless you are willing to grant it for all.

originally posted by: amazing
And please tell me the harm in more and better background checks? There's no downside.

Because Holme's,Mercer,Lanza all bought their weapons LEGALLY or killed someone to get them.

Holme's and Mercers and Lanza weren't criminals until the day they acted.

There is NO screen for that.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: amazing
And please tell me the harm in more and better background checks? There's no downside.

Because Holme's,Mercer,Lanza all bought their weapons LEGALLY or killed someone to get them.

Holme's and Mercers and Lanza weren't criminals until the day the acted.

There is NO screen for that.

That's true, but still is not a case against better background checks. We want to curb gun violence, all gun violence, and better background checks IS one small piece of that.

I've posted before that the other pieces are mental health, Poverty reduction and addiction/alchoholism treatment and education.

I hope he does.

a reply to: okrian

What's wrong with a vote of the people in regards to changing the constitution?

That is part of the process as the Constitution enumerates.

It's already granted.

originally posted by: amazing
And please tell me the harm in more and better background checks? There's no downside.

It has nothing to do with harm. It has everything to do with making people who follow the law jump through more hoops while ingnoring reality and the three areas that should be concentrated on if you want to lower gun deaths. It's like saying I want no cavities then giving up sugar but not brushing your teeth.

The idiots pushing this stupidity ignore the obvious and jump on something so they can say I did something. Forget that something accomplished nothing. These people are morons. They shouldn't be taken serious at all, because by actions and lack of certain ones they aren't interested in solutions. They certainly don't care about gun violence as long as it stays in the inner cities and less desirable areas.

a reply to: amazing

That might be a slightly naive question to ask on a site like this.

"They put fluoride in our water to control our minds and I'm pretty sure Obama is a reptilian.... so, can I have a gun?"

lol

a reply to: amazing

Sorry I don't think I have to put up with what basically boils down to an enema from the state to practice my constitutional RIGHT.

And the background check does not prevent anything. The only thing it does is sell a FALSE sense of 'security'.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

NO!
You haven't learned the secret American gunowner hand shake

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: amazing

That might be a slightly naive question to ask on a site like this.

"They put fluoride in our water to control our minds and I'm pretty sure Obama is a reptilian.... so, can I have a gun?"

lol

Nice example of the Strawman fallacy.

Strawman Fallacy.