Obama weighs expanding background checks through executive authority

originally posted by: neo96
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...

Are you sure you are reading this correctly? It's saying that any military surplus guns sent overseas to another country cannot be bought and taken back into the country. Not that it is illegal to buy a gun overseas and bring it to the states.

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.

I'm not sure what this has to do with a person willing his gun to an heir.

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.

The problem is that is never the actual intent of gun grabber bills. It never just stops at background check. Then it is registering. Then it will be confiscation once they decide they don't like the guns you own.

You give an inch and they will take a mile.

They have not been shy about saying what they really want which is total confiscation.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Are you sure you are reading this correctly? I

Yep that is what CURIO and RELIC collectors do COLLECT.

Antique, and military surplus arms.

(GunNews.com) — Barack Obama’s new strategy for attacking gun owners specifically targets collectors and competitors by blocking returns of surplus military rifles over six decades old, and reveals his extremist anti-gun attitude, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said last week.

www.gunnews.com...

a reply to: neo96

How exactly is it infringing on your rights to own a gun? If they run a background check on you will you be denied ownership of a gun? If not, how is it infringing on your rights? Those who are not allowed to own guns are the only ones who will be denied gun ownership. What's so hard to understand about that?

When an employer runs a background check on you, are they infringing on your right to work as stated in the UDHR?

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: neo96

How exactly is it infringing on your rights to own a gun? If they run a background check on you will you be denied ownership of a gun? If not, how is it infringing on your rights? Those who are not allowed to own guns are the only ones who will be denied gun ownership. What's so hard to understand about that?

When an employer runs a background check on you, are they infringing on your right to work as stated in the UDHR?

Again, you are totally missing the point. I think most gun owners probably don't have an issue with background checks in theory. I know I have a problem with felons and other certified nut jobs buying guns. Where they have an issue is the creation of a database of legal gun owners which invariably will be the next step. once that databsae is created, then confiscation is not that far off.

Remember when those anti-gun "journalist" in NJ I believe published names and addresses of concealed weapon licensees?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

How exactly is it infringing on your rights to own a gun? I

I can't believe I have to break out the definitions here:

verb (used with object), infringed, infringing. 1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule. verb (used without object), infringed, infringing. 2. to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon): Don't infringe on his privacy.

dictionary.reference.com...

verb (used with object), denied, denying. 1. to state that (something declared or believed to be true) is not true: to deny an accusation. 2. to refuse to agree or accede to: to deny a petition. 3. to withhold the possession, use, or enjoyment of: to deny access to secret information. 4. to withhold something from, or refuse to grant a request of: to deny a beggar. 5. to refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disown; disavow; repudiate: to deny one's gods. 6. to withhold (someone) from accessibility to a visitor: The secretary denied his employer to all those without appointments. 7. Obsolete. to refuse to take or accept.

dictionary.reference.com...

verb (used with object), disparaged, disparaging. 1. to speak of or treat slightingly; depreciate; belittle: Do not disparage good manners.

dictionary.reference.com...

verb (used with object), abridged, abridging. 1. to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents: to abridge a reference book. 2. to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail: to abridge a visit; to abridge one's freedom. 3. to deprive; cut off.

dictionary.reference.com...

Infringe,deny,disparage,abridge.

All mean the same thing.

All gun control violates the Bill of Rights, and the 14th amendments.

a reply to: neo96

That isn't what you said originally. You implied that it was illegal to buy guns overseas and ship them back home. Then you implied that people aren't allowed to will their guns to heirs anymore. Both of those statements are untrue, even after you posted your links. You are trying to move the goal posts now.

Here's your fist claim:

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

They CAN buy guns overseas and ship them home. Just not guns that were sent overseas as part of the military's military surplus exchange program.

Here's your second claim:

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.

You didn't even post an EO that remotely addressed this. Instead you opted to post something about corporations having to go through background checks before buying a gun.

Damn neo, I'm on YOUR side of the argument for this issue and you STILL can't talk to me honestly...

a reply to: Edumakated

So why was the Gun Control Act signed in 1968? Was that a bad law to enact? It's not in the Constitution yet it was made part of federal law. Do you believe convicted felons should be allowed to own guns? If not, what's the big deal about making it harder for them to buy a gun with this bill? If you're not a convicted felon, your rights aren't infringed in any way.

a reply to: neo96

The Gun Control Act violates the 2nd Amendment, I don't see you crying over that though. Like Jefferson said, laws should be updated to fit the times. In today's America, mass shootings are common. Why shouldn't the laws be updated to deal with that fact?

I see you ignored my other question. Does an employer running a background check violate your right to work as stated in the UDHR?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Here's your fist claim:

That is no claim. That is a FACT.

The president’s new gun control measures, announced by Vice President Joe Biden, will prevent the recovery of thousands of military-surplus M-1 Garand rifles that are valued by collectors, competitors and historic reenactors. These firearms were loaned or donated to South Korea decades ago.

www.gunnews.com...

Even bother READING the source?

You didn't even post an EO that remotely addressed this. Instead you opted to post something about corporations having to go through background checks before buying a gun

That is the corporate, and gun TRUST loop hole Obama closed.

Dude stop TROLLING.

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.

www.washingtonpost.com...

WHAT does that say?

originally posted by: neo96

WHAT does that say?

It says the same thing it said before. That corporations have to go through a background check to buy a gun. It doesn't ban corporations from buying guns nor does it say anything about guns not being able to be willed to heirs.

You know what. I don't even care. You want to nash your teeth and fight someone who is also pro-gun, do it to someone else. I really don't care about these toothless EO's that Obama is proposing.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Bad law gets signed all the time. Part of the problem with bad law is that is very difficult to get these laws overturned or corrected.

It is already illegal for convicted felons to own firearms. Period. A new background check law does not make it harder for felons.

Most of these laws are already on the books either federally or locally.

By definition, criminals do not follow the law. Your local thug is not going into his neighborhood gun store to purchase a firearm, nor is he going to gun shows. He buys them in back alleys from other criminals. Most of the guns they do use are stolen.

Logically, if criminals are not using legally owned firearms, creating additional laws will not apply to them. I don't get why this is so difficult to understand.

As for the crazed mass shooters. Many of them also obtain their firearms illegally like in the case of Lanza. If someone has not been found insane and purchases their firearms legally, there is absolutely nothing we can do to stop those scenarios. NOTHING.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

But a corporation isn't a person. At least I am told so often by Obama supporters.

a reply to: Edumakated

You don't think the Gun Control Act was a bad law though, you said you don't want felons owning guns in a previous post. They were allowed to own guns up until that law was signed.

And yes, it does make it more difficult for them to buy guns. Right now all they have to do is walk into a high volume dealer and buy a gun. Those dealers do not check the books to see whether they are felons or not, that's the whole point of a background check.

No, it doesn't prevent them from going into an alley and buying one but I'm sure they'd much rather go to these high volume dealers instead of a back alley.

If the Gun Control Act is a good law, what's so bad about it being enforced with background checks being mandatory at all legitimate dealers?

a reply to: neo96

A corporation isn't a person just like a school of fish isn't called a fish. I'm not an Obama supporter either.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Yeah well corporations don't have rap sheets.

Second.

a reply to: neo96

So? What's your point?

Can you answer my question? Is an employer infringing on your right to work as stated in the UDHR when they run a background check on you?

ETA: Since you don't want to answer, I'll take that as a "no".

a reply to: neo96

Let's make it even harder for the law abiding to get guns so only the government and criminals have them! BRILLIANT!

It doesn't matter what he does. I don't understand why people get so wrapped around "Executive Orders". They are not "law". Just because the media and the ignorant, treat them as such..doesn't make it so. Congress passes and makes "law". An "Executive Order"? Is just that, an "order". The COTUS is the "law". Americans need to start holding feet to fire. We don't "vote" for kings. We "select"... "Presidents" with "enumerated" powers/authority. If he wants a "law"? He needs to "purpose"... ( per. The COTUS ) ...it to Congress. That's "The "law"!

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Edumakated

You don't think the Gun Control Act was a bad law though, you said you don't want felons owning guns in a previous post. They were allowed to own guns up until that law was signed.

And yes, it does make it more difficult for them to buy guns. Rig Right now all they have to do is walk into a high volume dealer and buy a gun. Those dealers do not check the books to see whether they are felons or not, that's the whole point of a background check.it doesn't prevent them from going into an alley and buying one but I'm sure they'd much rather go to these high volume dealers instead of a back alley.

If the Gun Control Act is a good law, what's so bad about it being enforced with background checks being mandatory at all legitimate dealers?

That statement is completely false. High volume dealers are required by law to run a back ground check. The only people who are not required to run back ground checks are private sales between two persons from the same state.

You are arguing for something you have no clue about. That is what most ant-gun people do, argue without knowing the facts. How can you expect to be taken seriously when you are so uniformed? Learn the laws then try to make a point, don't just repeat what you hear on lefty news sites.