It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama weighs expanding background checks through executive authority

page: 2
21
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   


I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

-Thomas Jefferson


I have no issue with the laws being amended or adjusted to keep up with the times just as Jefferson said here, it is essential in my opinion. Requiring background checks to own a gun is not a bad idea at all and I have no issue with it.

I think people are just too set in their ways to allow progress to take place. What's the issue with requiring a background check? If you are fit to own a gun, your rights aren't being infringed one bit. As of now any felon with a gun record can buy a gun no problems at the high volume dealers, I see that as an issue personally.
edit on 10/9/2015 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

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 don't only oppose background checks but, all firearms registries for the reason that the state has demonstrated its inability to keep that data secure (not to mention its misuse). It is the same reason I opposed the mandatory centralization of everybody's health records.

We used to have a saying here in the US that has fallen by the wayside, 'innocent until proven guilty'. What you propose is to turn that axiom on its head.
edit on 9-10-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1




I have no issue with the laws being amended or adjusted to keep up with the times just as Jefferson said here, it is essential in my opinion. Requiring background checks to own a gun is not a bad idea at all and I have no issue with it.


Is that so ?

Then how come we don't have to ask the state for permission to practice our RIGHT to free speech, and our RIGHT to vote ?

'Nothing' wrong there eh.

Well I guess so if one thinks our RIGHTS come from the STATE.

For over 220 YEARS the background check DID NOT EXIST.
edit on 9-10-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   
The FBI denied 72,659 attempted gun buys in 2010

I couldn't find a more recent data.

Sure that's a small drop in the bucket, but that's still almost 73,000 people that shouldn't have guns that couldn't get them. I realize it's not THE answer but it is part of the solution. I'm sure it's close to the same every year.


That's over 400,000 Guns NOT sold to people that shouldn't have had them. Then add to that that the registration process is fraught with problems including communications between state and federal government, numerous loopholes etc., and you can see that there could be, some estimates at least 25,000 guns sold each year to people that should have them. (convicted felons)

Again what's the problem? Let's make the registration process better. That's just common sense.


edit on 9-10-2015 by amazing because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

More EO's huh? So nothing much to worry about since EO's don't have much authority beyond telling how executive parts of the government should function. Same as the other EO's that Obama signed on gun control.

*Yawn* More fake outrage over nothing involving gun control. Guns will be no more restricted or banned after any EO's Obama signs than they were before he signed them.
edit on 9-10-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

You have to be registered to vote. Free speech isn't the same thing as owning a gun, one can kill the other one can't.

Our rights are owned by ourselves, not the state. Requiring a background check to own a gun is not taking your rights away.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
The FBI denied 72,659 attempted gun buys in 2010

I couldn't find a more recent data.

Sure that's a small drop in the bucket, but that's still almost 73,000 people that shouldn't have guns that couldn't get them. I realize it's not THE answer but it is part of the solution. I'm sure it's close to the same every year.


That's over 400,000 Guns NOT sold to people that shouldn't have had them. Then add to that that the registration process is fraught with problems including communications between state and federal government, numerous loopholes etc., and you can see that there could be, some estimates at least 25,000 guns sold each year to people that should have them. (convicted felons)

Again what's the problem? Let's make the registration process better. That's just common sense.



That's 400,000 guns not sold legally while nothing was done to then stop those denied from purchasing private or from the black market. Nothing was stopped but the point of sale orgin. But you felt better saying it helped.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1


I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

-Thomas Jefferson


I have no issue with the laws being amended or adjusted to keep up with the times just as Jefferson said here, it is essential in my opinion. Requiring background checks to own a gun is not a bad idea at all and I have no issue with it.

I think people are just too set in their ways to allow progress to take place. What's the issue with requiring a background check? If you are fit to own a gun, your rights aren't being infringed one bit. As of now any felon with a gun record can buy a gun no problems at the high volume dealers, I see that as an issue personally.



With the exception of a few private sales never once made a purchase without a background check. Unless the eo deals with black market sales background checks exactly what progress do you think is getting accomplished?



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Tell that to millions of curio and relic collectors that can no longer buy weapons over seas.

Because of Obama's 'executive orders'.

Tell that to millions of Americans that can no longer leave their weapons to their family member now they are forfeit to the state when they die.

Yawn is right because Obama and his supporters have no idea of what they are talking about.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Sorry to break it here,

But speech, and the wrong choice at the voting booth has killed more people than any gun owner has.

That is a FACT.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neo96

More EO's huh? So nothing much to worry about since EO's don't have much authority beyond telling how executive parts of the government should function. Same as the other EO's that Obama signed on gun control.

*Yawn* More fake outrage over nothing involving gun control. Guns will be no more restricted or banned after any EO's Obama signs than they were before he signed them.


Since every gun owner legal and illegal tells all the anti gun extremist to get bent then reality you may be right. Same thing for new laws. But then why support new eos or laws If they aren't doing anything? If not to feel better that something was done but nothing was accomplished?
edit on 9-10-2015 by Reallyfolks because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Tell that to millions of curio and relic collectors that can no longer buy weapons over seas.


Which EO was this exactly?


Because of Obama's 'executive orders'.

Tell that to millions of Americans that can no longer leave their weapons to their family member now they are forfeit to the state when they die.


Give me the EO number for this one too.


Yawn is right because Obama and his supporters have no idea of what they are talking about.


I'm pretty sure you haven't actually named an EO here. Here's the 23 EO's that Obama signed a while back. Feel free to point out the two that you are referring to above, because I don't see either of them in those EO's.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: amazing
The FBI denied 72,659 attempted gun buys in 2010

I couldn't find a more recent data.

Sure that's a small drop in the bucket, but that's still almost 73,000 people that shouldn't have guns that couldn't get them. I realize it's not THE answer but it is part of the solution. I'm sure it's close to the same every year.


That's over 400,000 Guns NOT sold to people that shouldn't have had them. Then add to that that the registration process is fraught with problems including communications between state and federal government, numerous loopholes etc., and you can see that there could be, some estimates at least 25,000 guns sold each year to people that should have them. (convicted felons)

Again what's the problem? Let's make the registration process better. That's just common sense.



That's 400,000 guns not sold legally while nothing was done to then stop those denied from purchasing private or from the black market. Nothing was stopped but the point of sale orgin. But you felt better saying it helped.


It does help. You want all those guns sold to convicted felons etc.? Why? Why is that okay with you?

I'm the first to say that I want the right to own a gun and I want less government in my life, but I do want waiting lists and gun registration and back ground checks. Don't you?

I'll also state it again since you missed it. This is not the only solution it's one small part...the biggest is anti poverty measures and way, way more mental healthcare.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I'll use an argument straight out of the gun enthusiast playbook here: speech and voting don't kill people, people kill people.

I am an advocate of gun ownership but requiring a background check is not a bad idea. Why do you think it is? Is it taking your right to own a gun away from you?



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Which EO was this exactly?




Also, the administration said it will deny requests to bring military-grade firearms back into the U.S. to private entities, with a few exceptions, such as for museums. Currently, when the U.S. provides military firearms to its allies, either as direct commercial sales or through the foreign military sales or military assistance programs, those firearms may not be imported back into the United States without U.S. government approval.


2013.

www.washingtontimes.com...




The White House announced Thursday it would close two gun sale loopholes through executive authority, by subjecting gun purchases by corporations and trusts to background checks and banning almost all re-imports of military surplus firearms to private entities


2013

www.washingtonpost.com...

Which NO mass shooter used to obtain their weapons.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: amazing
The FBI denied 72,659 attempted gun buys in 2010

I couldn't find a more recent data.

Sure that's a small drop in the bucket, but that's still almost 73,000 people that shouldn't have guns that couldn't get them. I realize it's not THE answer but it is part of the solution. I'm sure it's close to the same every year.


That's over 400,000 Guns NOT sold to people that shouldn't have had them. Then add to that that the registration process is fraught with problems including communications between state and federal government, numerous loopholes etc., and you can see that there could be, some estimates at least 25,000 guns sold each year to people that should have them. (convicted felons)

Again what's the problem? Let's make the registration process better. That's just common sense.



That's 400,000 guns not sold legally while nothing was done to then stop those denied from purchasing private or from the black market. Nothing was stopped but the point of sale orgin. But you felt better saying it helped.


It does help. You want all those guns sold to convicted felons etc.? Why? Why is that okay with you?

I'm the first to say that I want the right to own a gun and I want less government in my life, but I do want waiting lists and gun registration and back ground checks. Don't you?

I'll also state it again since you missed it. This is not the only solution it's one small part...the biggest is anti poverty measures and way, way more mental healthcare.


No but unlike people pushing for this stupidity I have an actual clue where to look and areas to concentrate to lower gun deaths and prevent criminals from getting guns.

We have background checks already and as you stated it has prevented sales. But we have private sales and a rather large black market that everyone ignores because they know it can't be stopped. So we can't stop that, jeez let's make more laws to push more people to alternative methods of purchasing while not addressing those other methods at all. Brilliant.

Don't like the overall gun death numbers? 60% are suicides. Not accidents, not homicides. Want to lower gun deaths, suicide outreach is the way to go. Unless you can find a way to prevent non criminal suicidal people from legally purchasing a gun.

Don't like the homicide numbers. While schools and theatres get the publicity they are a small part of numbers. Concentrate in the inner cities and less desirable areas. But in all honestly even the anti nutters don't care as long as it stays there.

I see the problem but I also see where the problem is. It's the difference between me and a moron like Obama. I say show me the plans for dealing with overflow sales to the black market and private sector, suicide reduction, and the areas such as inner cities where the most homicide happens. The boy idiot in charge says more background checks and the lemmings fall in line.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1




I am an advocate of gun ownership but requiring a background check is not a bad idea. Why do you think it is? Is it taking your right to own a gun away from you?


I will say it again it is a VIOLATION of the BILL of RIGHTS, and the 14th amendments.

It did not exist for over 220 years.

People don't have to ask the state for permission to practice their constitutional rights.

For those than can't read the second amendment where it says, 'The People's right to keep and bear arms shall not be INFRINGED.

Background checks INFRINGE that RIGHT.

They double down in the rest of the Bill of RIGHT in the 9th when it says can not be construed to DENY or DISPARAGE.

Means the same thing as infringe.

They lay the smackdown AGAIN in the 14th



Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


www.legendsofamerica.com...

Do not tread on my civil liberties.

It's VERBOTEN.


edit on 9-10-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Whew, that will put those criminals in place! I feel safer already!

Funny thing about shootings and criminals. Murder is illegal. Buying a gun without a background check is, well semi illegal. They DO it anyway. All more restrictions do is absolutely nothing but waste time and money that could be spent elsewhere.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Reallyfolks

I certainly never said I supported them. To me, they are a waste of time and effort. Just feel good politics to make it look like Obama is doing something.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Reallyfolks

I certainly never said I supported them. To me, they are a waste of time and effort. Just feel good politics to make it look like Obama is doing something.



My bad I should have said why do people and not why do you support it. You got me on that.....something I am working on.




top topics



 
21
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join