US gun debate: Obama unveils gun control proposals

Originally posted by clearmind
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

you bring up a very good and not yet really talked about point.. a fundemental change in the way the govt works...so-to-speak

this sort of is setting a precident...he has got 4 years left..will this tactic be tried again? and what about presidents that follow? what will congress do or say about this, probably nothing....this is just the tip of the iceberg...

For everyone-- Obama DID promise to fundamentally change America.
He's also implementing the change throwing out the whole triumvirate system.
The thing that's killing me is the Congress and the SCOTUS are letting him
get away with it. And the former seems as unilateral as the Rathscabal.
Now we'll just call it suggestions or executive wordcrafting, so we can
circumvent the 30 day remark period before the suggestions get signed into
the register and become "law".
Where are the screams of "unconstitutional" from the 544 other people that are
supposed to matter in the process? The crickets are deafening even over in Illinois.

reply to post by Kali74

I've only fired a gun once when I was a little kid with my friends dad who was a Cop. We shot water baloons in the sand and I was actually a better shot than the adult police officer, right out of the gate believe it or not. Never even held one since, so I guess I'm not the one to invent the next smart gun, but just remember the term - smart gun, I'd like to think I've just coined it..?

Smart gun.

That's what's needed.

reply to post by derfreebie

For everyone-- Obama DID promise to fundamentally change America.
He's also implementing the change throwing out the whole triumvirate system.

Reaping what we sow?

The thing that's killing me is the Congress and the SCOTUS are letting him
get away with it. And the former seems as unilateral as the Rathscabal.
Now we'll just call it suggestions or executive wordcrafting, so we can
circumvent the 30 day remark period before the suggestions get signed into
the register and become "law".

Where are the screams of "unconstitutional" from the 544 other people that are
supposed to matter in the process? The crickets are deafening even over in Illinois.

Obviously, by design, they are on board with ‘the plan’…whatever that is; hence the claim of “false Left/Right paradigm” from so many on ATS.

Dems and Repubs are two peas in a pod who vote together on whatever TPTB want, and the SCOTUS are a group of appointed tools used to change the constitution to suit their desires.

For some strange reason...(NRA, Alex Jones) I was expecting a lot more. This just sounds like the executive orders are strengthening the previous laws and adding some more to the mental health aspects...ummm..1776 revolt starting stuff? No...

reply to post by ltheghost
You're reading it how they're intending it be read if your reaction is that soft. It's precisely the way it's best received from their perspective. What is changing is the whole balance of power between executive and legislative. The entire structure of Government is shifting and Obama is getting this done by default for lack of challenge out of Congress. They're so full of their own rank corruption and filth on Capital Hill, they don't even complain to save THEIR OWN power anymore. They're allowing it to be taken from them ..with nary a whisper. A couple are complaining, but there are over 500 members of the Untied States Congress. It takes more than a half dozen people getting whiny to do anything meaningful.

It only takes ONE President to do whatever he wants if they won't stand up. The Democrats failed utterly to stand in 2001 with the patriot act...and we're now seeing the Repubs fail on just as grand a scale ...worse, perhaps for the Constitutional issues this time...and so, we now see BOTH SIDES are basically indifferent to the nation and it's institutions or traditions.

Smart gun.

Sooner or later absolutely no one is going to have a gun, registered or not. It is the boiling frog analogy! Everything is satanical/luciferian in nature! Those that resist will be elliminated one way or another.

I am not suprised about anything anymore. Heck I am not even going to lose sleep over it.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by ltheghost

 

You're reading it how they're intending it be read if your reaction is that soft. It's precisely the way it's best received from their perspective. What is changing is the whole balance of power between executive and legislative. The entire structure of Government is shifting and Obama is getting this done by default for lack of challenge out of Congress. They're so full of their own rank corruption and filth on Capital Hill, they don't even complain to save THEIR OWN power anymore. They're allowing it to be taken from them ..with nary a whisper. A couple are complaining, but there are over 500 members of the Untied States Congress. It takes more than a half dozen people getting whiny to do anything meaningful.

It only takes ONE President to do whatever he wants if they won't stand up. The Democrats failed utterly to stand in 2001 with the patriot act...and we're now seeing the Repubs fail on just as grand a scale ...worse, perhaps for the Constitutional issues this time...and so, we now see BOTH SIDES are basically indifferent to the nation and it's institutions or traditions.

So you are going to pretend everything is happening now and not some 5,000 year old conspiracy?

Boy you have lots of learning to do. Good luck with your *democrat vs republican* THEATER OF THE ABSURD!

Simply stated
Those whom own guns legally will keep their guns, buy what they can and continue to root for guns.
Those whom are against guns will keep doing what they do.
Those whom have their guns illegally will do the same.
The only change is going to be the automatic weapons ban but those whom own them will not give them up whether they are illegal or not.

Not much will change...IMHO.

It's a major power grab, and like Seabag, I told you so.

Let's start the Impeachment proceedings now and just get on with it.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
It's a major power grab, and like Seabag, I told you so.

Let's start the Impeachment proceedings now and just get on with it.

Impeachment for what?

Just cause you feel like it?

I'm not into guns like the sporting enthusiasts and collectors, but I want the United States to preserve the same liberties and rights that my American ancestors have had down through the generations. I have ancestors who fought the British in the Revolutionary War to help gain freedom, independence, liberties, and rights for Americans. One thing Americans at that time were concerned about was preventing a tyrannical, dictatorial, fascist, centrally controlled government from enslaving its own people. The Second Amendment was put in place so that all of the good citizens of this country could keep and bear arms for the purpose of banding together as militias to defeat enemies both foreign and domestic, including domestic tyranny.

In my opinion, good citizens owning firearms are serving their patriotic duty to help protect liberty and freedom, as well as themselves and their neighbors. They are also serving as an added protection against any potential foreign invaders.

There does seem to be an ongoing agenda to play on the emotions of the masses in order to strip away the rights and liberties so many real American patriots fought for through the years.

It is especially disturbing that good citizens are increasingly being spied upon and there is now an attitude that the government can take a person's rights away by somehow judging him mentally dangerous. This sounds like Orwell's 1984 or Hitler's Germany or East Germany after the war when it was locked down by Stalin.

Our government buys 4 billion rounds of ammo for 'Homeland Security' and at the same time wants to restrict guns and ammo ownership for good citizens? Sounds like the early days of the Nazis, in my humble opinion.

If there ever was a tyrannical dictatorship in the USA vis a vis a total government crackdown, marshall law, etc. requiring a revolutionary insurrection by the American people, with total anarchy, rioting, and blood in the streets, I have a hard time, to be honest, actually envisioning Alex Jones at the front lines ranting and raving behind a sub-machine gun or assault rifle. No he would be at the very back line, shouting from a high powered megaphone, safe, sound, and chubby.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


I'm not a big fan of Alex Jones, either. On that we agree.

The other points in my post speak for themselves.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

I'm sorry but you're alone in reading Democrat or Republican into this now. I am referring to Legislative and Executive. This goes beyond party and then some. I wrote a thread on that this evening, in fact, so I'm not going to restate the whole thing here. However, the Congress is a split one right now with Republican and Democrat each holding a side of the legislative Branch.

If that doesn't make this above and beyond the parties when Congress as a whole seems happy to yell but do essentially nothing more? I'm not sure what ever could or can make the parties irrelevant for some. It started in 2001 for this immediate rush to power grab and centralize everything to one core....and change of power back and forth has happened several times for colors between both White House and the two houses of Congress.

This is NOT about party. Not after today. It's about separation and definition of power at the federal and down to state levels.

Originally posted by xedocodex

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
It's a major power grab, and like Seabag, I told you so.

Let's start the Impeachment proceedings now and just get on with it.

Impeachment for what?

Just cause you feel like it?

No, for Obama overreaching Executive powers and going around Congress to ban guns and make it harder to get them just because he feels like it. Even Bush didn't go this far. You really do not see how dictatorial and "Imperial" this guy is. Do you unconsciously like fascistic Totalitarian govt?

I guess I'm not the only one who thinks so.

Former Reagan Attorney General Edwin Meese, now a prominent emeritus official at the Heritage Foundation, became the latest conservative to warn that President Obama could risk impeachment if he takes executive action on reducing gun violence in an interview Monday night.
Speaking with Newsmax, Meese said Congress may have to consider impeaching Obama if he were “to try to override the Second Amendment in any way” with an executive order. He did allow that there are some executive actions related to guns that Obama could take wouldn’t be impeachable.

“It would be up to the Congress to take action, such as looking in to it to see if, in fact, he has really tried to override the Constitution itself,” Meese told Newsmax. “In which case, it would be up to them to determine what action they should take — and perhaps even to the point of impeachment.”

Read more: times247.com...

Here's another one

Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman threatened Monday afternoon that he would file articles of impeachment against President Barack Obama if he institutes gun control measures with an executive order.
Stockman warned that such executive orders would be “unconstitutional” and “infringe on our constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.”
Read more at www.wnd.com...

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by seabag

 

Reporting a gun stolen does little good if it was stolen (registered) in one state and used as in a crime in another state if there is no national registry.

A gun should be able to be tracked from manufacturing to each owner of that gun, just like cars are. That way you could see that Joe Schmo in Texas seems to be buying a lot of guns and then selling them in big cities around the nation that then always end up being reported stolen...hmmm...maybe there is something shady going on there.

edit on 16-1-2013 by xedocodex because: (no reason given)

most of those kinds of sales have already been tracked back to government ... see E Holder for details

as for your perceptions, they are exaggerated.
every gun manufacturer is required to keep the first shot (rifling pattern?) on file for "future identification". [i think that's what it's called but correct me if wrong]

no need for names and addresses.
gun "prints" (as stated above) seem to be working just fine in such cases.

what they want and certainly don't deserve is the ability to "identify" self-crafted guns, in-state sales and private exchanges of which they have -0- authority over.

ETA --> such a 'registry' would essentially destroy any "legal" DIY firearm currently produced.
and once the DIY producer has to bow to ATF and gubberment, there'll be no such thing as "limited regulation" ever again.
there shouldn't be ANY regulation but we're here so now we are forced to respond ... problem/reaction/solution ... so, how does this dynamic fit in with a "self-governed" society anyway ??

My thoughts after each EA.



1. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
--- Translation: Get rid of laws, particularly ones mentioned here that have no real relevance to our objective so people can claim ignorance, that prevent states from divulging information they feel the Federal Government doesn't need to know.

2. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
--- See translation of EA 1.

3. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
--- What? Does this mean the Attorney General's Office will be spending their time going file-by-file through each gun purchase? That is a local/state responsibility.

4. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
--- Translation: It may take an indefinite amount of time to run this full background check. We'll get back to you about returning your property.

5. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
--- Hm. I ride the fence on this one. I would support it as long as it didn't involve commercials showing one 6yo shooting another 6yo, something that really strikes a chord.. when the real issue is supposed to be defense from unfit people on a gun-wielding rampage.

6. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
-- Sure, thing. I presume they'll release the missing serial numbers for the weapons from Operation FaF?

7. Nominate an ATF director.
--- Seeing as this is an Executive Action rather than a [deserved] promotion, it makes me wonder if the appointment would be serving the larger agenda.

8. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
--- Would that be mental? We can medicate away gun violence? Or would that be termed a disease, where someone exhibiting a certain amount of 'symptoms' shouldn't be allowed near a weapon for fear of a massacre?

9. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
--- We need an Executive Action for this? How about common sense?

10. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
--- [insert the sound of a hand slapping a forehead]


Now this is 10 of the 23 Executive Actions. Some of the others have ambiguous language that sounds fairly responsible, however it's always the wording that makes me wonder...

Those times when the President sets a precedent.. [for further usurpation/infringement of rights]

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Congrats, you used "Imperial"...the new Right Wing buzzword.

Beware ATS...."Imperial" is coming.


And for real, the Heritage Foundation???

reply to post by xedocodex

what an utterly absurd suggestion.
are you forgetting about the 5th Amendment entirely or what ?

i do not have to, at any time, incriminate myself voluntarily ... that is also my/our right.
do you suggest prosecuting the owner of the car someone else drives while drunk and kills a pedestrian ?? it's the same ridiculous concept you're proposing.

do you suggest the owner of a campground be held accountable for the damage 2 guests do to one another ?

either way, what you are suggesting is a direct subversion of the 5th and that should be clear.