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 to announce new executive action on guns

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   
As it seems there are a lot of Constitution wavers around who don't seem to know the first thing about their own laws, history, government and that very same Constitution:

Adopted on December 15, 1791.
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals (not just well regulated militia - which, btw, militias have to be regulated by the state in which they reside, you don't get to just form a gang in the woods and call yourselves a militia) while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.

So, your Constitution actually allowed for regulated state militias to be armed in case the federal gov came in all rough and mean. That was then changed by the Federal govt to allow INDIVIDUALS to own guns.

At no point has there been complete freedom for any citizen to own any gun, that was NEVER the case and it was NEVER the intention. Militias had the right initially, then citizens were granted that right WITH CONDITIONS.

In 1876 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled - "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence"

Read that again: "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution"

In 1939 the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".

This means that your local militia (which has to be regulated and have a mandate of operation from the state in which it resides) has the right to own guns without legislation from the federal government, which is reasonable considering this is why the 2nd existed in the first place.

That does not mean (nor has it ever meant) that all people across the country are permitted to own weapons without any legislation from the federal government.

Again, for those who have difficulty comprehending the Constitution they wave around so freely, gun ownership was initially for the well regulated militia in defense of a state against the federal government, should it be needed. It was extended to individuals, but that extension was made with the caveat that the federal government can create laws to limit or restrict that freedom.

If you want an outright freedom to own a gun in the US, you really should be a member of a state militia, they are the only group the Federal government cannot legislate against. The responsibility for those members lies with the individual state.
I hope that clears up some things




posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: vjr1113
i wonder what new checks will be proposed. im all for an IQ test and maybe some sort of ethical or psych test. weed out the crazies and fundamentalists.


I've read that the biggest thing is likely to be the licensing and monitoring of sellers. I believe one of the biggest loopholes is gun shows and events where people can purchase from unscrupulous dealers.

I think there's also a problem in some areas where people can get their hands on a gun before the background check is completed. Obviously that's not acceptable. No one should be able to buy any gun from anyone without the background check having been done and approved.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

I think you should make a thread with this post and your next.
Very informative and funny a Brit knows more than most Americans about the near holy constitution.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

i dont think it's enough though. it's a step in the right direction but most people that shoot up schools, concerts, hospitals for god's sake, do so for no good reason other than they are mentally unstable.

thats the double edge of gun rights. anyone can buy one.

id be more comfortable with an annual or monthly test for gun owners. the fact we have stricter laws for something like helicopters or cars is scary.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: vjr1113
i dont think it's enough though. it's a step in the right direction but most people that shoot up schools, concerts, hospitals for god's sake, do so for no good reason other than they are mentally unstable.


Oh I definitely agree that there is a serious problem in the US with mental health issues and how it is dealt with - or ignored.
I think one of the biggest problems I see, as an outsider, is that mental health has been degraded to nothing more than having the sniffles. Anyone feels a Human emotion and it's "depression" or "anxiety". People are popping pills after self-diagnosing themselves as being something or other when that's absolutely not what their problem is.

Being sad about something does not mean you have depression and need to medicate yourself, but that's something that has been allowed to happen, and it's led to people comparing genuine mental illness with their own overblown exaggerated "sadness".


originally posted by: vjr1113
thats the double edge of gun rights. anyone can buy one.


That's the first thing that needs to change.
If someone wants a gun they should have to buy it from a reputable, licensed, monitored, audited dealer. That should only be delivered to them after a complete and thorough background check. Anyone with any criminal history should be refused outright. Anyone with any history of mental illness should be refused outright, but with the possibility of review or perhaps monitored usage (such as at a gun range).


originally posted by: vjr1113
id be more comfortable with an annual or monthly test for gun owners. the fact we have stricter laws for something like helicopters or cars is scary.


Monthly would just be ridiculous. No government would be able to handle that and it would cost billions annually.
I think a federally controlled licensing situation would be best, with renewal every year. Anyone arrested and found guilty of a certain level of crime (for instance robbery, assault, stalking, hate crimes etc) should have all weapons confiscated and a lifetime ban.
I also think there should be harsh sentences for anyone selling a gun to someone without running a background check, or ignoring the results of it. They should be imprisoned for at least five years. They are responsible for selling a weapon, and if they sell it someone unchecked they should be held accountable and held up as an example to others.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

yea i guess a monthly would be hard to maintain. however, there is a chance to create a system that creates jobs and discourages people from owning an arsenal of weapons, which would solve the obscene number of guns that are in circulation.

i haven't really thought this out because im not a gun owner but im sure someone else can set up a better check and balance system better than me.

i do know by direct experience that most gang members get their firearms from legal gun owners that have bought their guns legally.
edit on 4-1-2016 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   
I don't think the system is that bad currently.
we have 3 major guns concerning gun violence
1. suicide
2. mass shootings in gun free zones by young unstable males
3. gang shooting in high poverty cities

how to combat these
suicide: intact family structure, good paying job, family and friends

mass shootings: ban gun free zones, mass shooters are wussies

3. gang shootings: legalize weed, intact family structure, good paying jobs, family and friends.

rifles kill few people, proposing "assault rifle"(tricked out semi-autos) ban makes someone look like an idiot. It's impact would be negligible.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: jellyrev
I don't think the system is that bad currently.
we have 3 major guns concerning gun violence
1. suicide
2. mass shootings in gun free zones by young unstable males
3. gang shooting in high poverty cities

how to combat these
suicide: intact family structure, good paying job, family and friends

mass shootings: ban gun free zones, mass shooters are wussies

3. gang shootings: legalize weed, intact family structure, good paying jobs, family and friends.

rifles kill few people, proposing "assault rifle"(tricked out semi-autos) ban makes someone look like an idiot. It's impact would be negligible.


You missed a few things. 1. Suicide. It's mental illness and depression. Good paying jobs family and friends doesn't cut it. You need better mental healthcare including screenings, trainings for teachers and educators and free access to mental health care. That also combats number 2. Mass shooting by mentally ill young white guys. 3. Gang violence does nothing by just legalizing weed. That's where you get the poverty cycle. When there is no perceived way out of poverty, then you have more crime.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 08:12 PM
link   
There is only so much we can do without taking away freedom. Jobs, family, friends all help. I don't claim to save the world nor should we drown the world in useless bureaucrats.


As an example

seriously mentally ill are 3-4 times more likely to commit violent crime than general population.

Black are 8 times more likely to commit homicide than whites in the USA.

If I ban guns from the mentally ill it would only be logical to ban them from blacks no? Does the utilitarian not want to be called racist? or do we love stereotyping mentally ill people as these violent monsters when they are 10 times more likely to be the victim than the average person.

Only about 7.5% of crimes committed by the mentally ill are committed directly because of their illness.

Much of the world is much poorer, real hunger, real poverty, yet in many places we do not see the crime rates of some US inner cities. cultural issue is cultural.

AS for the executive orders that may come, nothing will happen. People just won't listen.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Iamnotadoctor

None of his proposals add value one iota. No one can create a law that will prevent someone from murdering another individual. These orders will make it harder for law abiding citizens to defend themselves from criminals with firearms. If President Obama believes that guns don't defend people then he needs to immediately stop using his armed security. I will believe what he says if that happens. Until then, I will believe that he is trying to further divide the country by using controversial issues.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Iamnotadoctor

seems like its a blatant violation of hippa to make any one medical records including mental health records available to any one with out express consent so i dont see any of his stuff standing constitutional challenge,hippa either matters or it dosent ,i hear the house is debating defunding the atf over this,or at least the provisions related to his eos as relates to the budget of the atf

www.whitehouse.gov...


Include information from the Social Security Administration in the background check system about beneficiaries who are prohibited from possessing a firearm. Current law prohibits individuals from buying a gun if, because of a mental health issue, they are either a danger to themselves or others or are unable to manage their own affairs. The Social Security Administration (SSA) has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to ensure that appropriate information in its records is reported to NICS. The reporting that SSA, in consultation with the Department of Justice, is expected to require will cover appropriate records of the approximately 75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment, or who have been found by a state or federal court to be legally incompetent. The rulemaking will also provide a mechanism for people to seek relief from the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm for reasons related to mental health. Remove unnecessary legal barriers preventing States from reporting relevant information to the background check system. Although States generally report criminal history information to NICS, many continue to report little information about individuals who are prohibited by Federal law from possessing or receiving a gun for specific mental health reasons. Some State officials raised concerns about whether such reporting would be precluded by the Privacy Rule issued under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). Today, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a final rule expressly permitting certain HIPAA covered entities to provide to the NICS limited demographic and other necessary information about these individuals.
the government has no right to know any ones medical issues whatso ever unless they have been 5150ed
edit on 4-1-2016 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013
In 1876 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled - "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence"

Read that again: "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution"
_javascript:underline()


That 1876 case was United States vs Cruikshank (and largely re-iterated about a decade later in Presser vs Illinois) When the Supreme Court made that statement, they were arguing that the 2nd Amendment did not create or grant a right, because rather that it protected a fundamental, natural right that had always existed. That's the meaning of the part you quoted, where they stated that the right to bear arms is not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. Further, their position was that 2A (and the Bill of Rights as a whole) was only a restriction placed upon the Federal government and that while Congress could not pass legislation infringing upon 2A, the states could. Of course, this latter view, that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states, has since been discarded.

I started with that section because you so blatantly missed the point of the court's argument. But you're wrong about the original intent as well. The Constitution already provided Congress with the authority to arm, organize and train the Militia under Article 1 Section 8. There was, therefore, no need of a 2nd Amendment dealing only with a collective right of the militia. It would have been redundant.

2A states a purpose and a means achieving that purpose. That purpose is, indeed, to ensure the security of the free state through the militias and to ensure that they could never be disarmed. The means by which they achieved that purpose was the rest of it, by guaranteeing the right of the people...which was the same right of the individual citizenry as in the 1st and 4th amendments...to keep and bear arms so that the militias could form independently without the need to be armed by the government if necessary. In fact, the first Militia Act, passed in 1792 only a couple of months after the ratification of 2A, instructed militia members to provide their own privately owned weapons and ammunition.

Finally, regarding Miller vs US, you're generally right, but there's a catch. The US Supreme Court did, indeed, find that the 1934 NFA was Constitutional and that Congress could regulate weapons that did not have a clear application to militia service (and the weapon in question in Miller was a sawed off shotgun). This, however, leads one to an uncomfortable conclusion if you're for certain restrictions: the US Supreme Court actually seems to be arguing that Congress can ban grandpa's duck gun, but that weapons such as machine guns, assault rifles, and high capacity handguns are exactly the types of weapons protected by 2A, since these have obvious applications to militia service.




edit on 5-1-2016 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7




Yawn ,sucks to be in 3 states other than that its a Chihuahua barking at me right now. 
I'm waiting for them to come after me from this 


Last time I engaged a chihuahua I got 14 stitches and rabbies shots. Sometimes big things come in small packages.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

Do you even know how this all works??? Clearly you don't have a clue.

Please, go and research WHO the Militia is.
Here, let me help you out.
Title 10 USC 311. Militia composition and classes. All able-bodied americans from 17 to 45 years of age are members of the Militia. American women who are members of the national guard are members of the Militia. Former members of the U.S.Army, navy, air force and Marine corps are members of the Militia until 64 years of age. (described in 32-313). The national guard and naval militia are called the organized Militia. The unorganized militia is everyone in the militia who is not in the national guard or the naval militia.

Soooooo. Every able bodied American citizen is the militia.

Now, let's see if you understand the term infringement.
in·fringe
inˈfrinj/
verb
verb: infringe; 3rd person present: infringes; past tense: infringed; past participle: infringed; gerund or present participle: infringing

actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
"making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; More
disobey, defy, flout, fly in the face of;
disregard, ignore, neglect;
go beyond, overstep, exceed;
infract
"the statute infringed constitutionally guaranteed rights"
antonyms: obey, comply with
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
"his legal rights were being infringed"

Geez, to go beyond or overstep. Also, to exceed.

If the last part of the 2nd states "shall not be infringed", that is about a clear as it gets that NO LAWS will be made to infringe, go beyond, overstep or exceed it.

A background check is an infringement, it is a simple as it gets.
Restrictions placed on people procuring a firearm is infringement.


It is a sad that when a foreigner gets schooled on American law and history. But I guess it needs to happen more.


And no....no law makes it harder for criminal, who don't follow laws to begin with, to get a firearm.
That is the dumbest logic yet.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

yeah that is nice and all except one HUGE thing you got wrong.

The US Constitution does not "grant" rights to the people.

Maybe you need to go back and dust up your google-fu to try again later.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: macman

Yeah, there's that, too. The current version of the Militia Act effectively renders the militia argument against private firearms ownership irrelevant. The definition of 'militia' in US law, particularly that of 'unorganized' militia is such that it is essentially inclusive of everyone and, as a result, any rights supposedly conferred to the militia under 2A would therefore also apply to everyone. Likewise, one could also argue that any rights conferred to one group by 2A must also apply to everyone under the 14th amendment's equal protection clause as well.
edit on 5-1-2016 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: vor78

BINGO. Get that man a Ce-gar



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Why was my thread shut down and redirected here? It dealt with the issue of Obama increasing gun sales with his new laws. Different topic.
edit on 5-1-2016 by Konduit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 06:44 PM
link   
To put it into layman terms

The problem isn't guns

The problem and the point of these executive actions is to prevent deranged individuals with a history of mental illness, from walking into gun shops and walking out with an AK47 or AR15.

I thought law abiding gun owners would support these common sense actions, apparently not.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Don't worry Obama, the rest of the world are behind you..

.. even if your idiotic, gun toting, nut case, blood thirsty psychopathic redneck citizens are not.

Tighten those gun laws, stand up to the $$$ driven industry.




new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join