Changing national gun laws without congress???

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Hmmm. Bunnies and pancakes. My favorite! Want to know something? There are at least two, out there, that know exactly what I was "on about".. That don't make you stupid. Just, special.

a reply to: lifecitizen

So your government didn't confiscate your guns?

a reply to: shooterbrody

Yes that is true.

But us not having any guns isn't true.

en.wikipedia.org...

I love ATS for this reason. Forigners can make comments about the USA.,.. not even having a working hypothesis about our "laws". Or how our government works to outlaw the very law, they swore to "uphold and deffend ".

a reply to: murphy22

You have a big problem with gun violence. Them's just the facts Ma'am.

a reply to: lifecitizen

I disagree I think we have a larger problem with heart disease and cancer. Any executive orders to fix these problems?

a reply to: shooterbrody

You disagree that you have a problem with gun violence? We're not talking about heart disease or cancer. Every country has those problems. But not every county has a gun problem like you guys do.

a reply to: lifecitizen

This thread was not about gun violence it was about a sitting president issuing an executive order restricting citizens rights. You, being from a country whose government confiscated its citizens guns, are trying to make this thread about gun violence. In reference to your gun problem... commenten.wikipedia.org...:List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate.jpg there are at least a dozen countries worse than us. At least we are still free to defend ourselves.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: lifecitizen

This thread was not about gun violence it was about a sitting president issuing an executive order restricting citizens rights. You, being from a country whose government confiscated its citizens guns, are trying to make this thread about gun violence. In reference to your gun problem... commenten.wikipedia.org...:List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate.jpg there are at least a dozen countries worse than us. At least we are still free to defend ourselves.

Not to mention this:



crimeresearch.org...

a reply to: murphy22
wrong, here is a site. just one of many. but they have to be delivered to a ffl and have a background check done.
www.gunbroker.com...

and their how to buy page.

link to that page.
GunBroker.com Help Center

originally posted by: lifecitizen
a reply to: shooterbrody

You disagree that you have a problem with gun violence? We're not talking about heart disease or cancer. Every country has those problems. But not every county has a gun problem like you guys do.

There is a world-wide problem being manifested through those who do not value their own lives or the lives of other humans. In the U.S. it can manifest in extreme violation of and disregard for the spirit of the 2nd Amendment and what it stands for. If most U.S. citizens were violating the 2nd Amendment I would say it would be time to ban gun ownership but that is not the case.

I may regret making that statement and it may sound naive but there it is. It's something I was contemplating.

The vast majority of guns used in 15 recent mass shootings, including at least two of the guns used in the San Bernardino attack, were bought legally and with a federal background check. At least eight gunmen had criminal histories or documented mental health problems that did not prevent them from obtaining their weapons.

How they got their guns

The Gun Control Act and the Brady Law.

Read them people.

The truth shall set you free.

a reply to: shooterbrody

This is within Obama's powers if he wants to do it. The way Executive Orders work is that they cannot create a law, but they can define certain details of that law as well as who that law applies to. To give a small analogy:

Congress passes a law that it's illegal to run a red light.

An EO can create an exception to that saying people who drive blue cars can still run red lights.
A later EO can state that people who drive green cars get double the fine for running red lights.
And a still later EO can say that running a yellow light is just as illegal as running a red light. (Congress could then pass a bill legalizing running yellow lights if they chose to do so, which would overwrite this EO).

That said, the things Obama is talking about doing are pretty minor. I think it's unlikely he'll do them actually because they won't reduce gun crime and if the Democrats pass an anti gun bill but have no results to show for it, it will seriously weaken their future position on the issue. This is a case where it's better to complain about something than doing something about it, even when they have the power to do so.

a reply to: Sunwolf

An American site that seems to be anti Obama. The guy who is in charge is a Fox News columnist.

ShooterBrady, your link went to a page on files.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: shooterbrody

This is within Obama's powers if he wants to do it. The way Executive Orders work is that they cannot create a law, but they can define certain details of that law as well as who that law applies to. To give a small analogy:

Congress passes a law that it's illegal to run a red light.

An EO can create an exception to that saying people who drive blue cars can still run red lights.
A later EO can state that people who drive green cars get double the fine for running red lights.
And a still later EO can say that running a yellow light is just as illegal as running a red light. (Congress could then pass a bill legalizing running yellow lights if they chose to do so, which would overwrite this EO).

That said, the things Obama is talking about doing are pretty minor. I think it's unlikely he'll do them actually because they won't reduce gun crime and if the Democrats pass an anti gun bill but have no results to show for it, it will seriously weaken their future position on the issue. This is a case where it's better to complain about something than doing something about it, even when they have the power to do so.

except his idea of extending background checks has already been ruled against by the SCOTUS. If he does go the XO route the injunction will hit his desk before he clicks his pen closed.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
He has threatened to do this many times.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama's advisers are finalizing a proposal that would expand background checks on gun sales without congressional approval.

hosted.ap.org...

I really can't believe a sitting American president would try this.




He cannot do this!! it is illegal and violates that part of the Constitution, which was originally put in to leave the public armed, and in the correct state to kick out, bad governments, like the British. , so its no wonder that surveillance, security shakedowns , have got to the point of tedium, and they now want to protect you, from armed extremist, that certain sections of the Government set up in the first place!
I swear I vie jumped in to some parallel Universe, from a place where no one worried about much, where people were reasonably happy, to a place where people walk around talking to their hands, and the police arrest people for smoking, and homosexuality is actively encouraged to a point where same sex marriages are the preferred option. Where the f$%#@ am I?





White House adviser Valerie Jarrett says the president has asked his team to complete a proposal and submit it for his review "in short order." She says the recommendations will include measures to expand background checks

If you think gun sales were big on black friday they will be huge when the general public gets wind of this.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

I would have to read up on what he tried before, gun rights aren't something I follow closely. However, it goes back to what I said. Any small step on gun control will almost certainly be ineffective while also being wildly unpopular which makes it a poor position to take politically.

If you're going to do something unpopular it needs to have tangible benefits right away and this proposal by Obama don't do that. Therefore it's doing nothing but giving his party a talking point in the upcoming elections.

a reply to: Aazadan

Well then I highly suggest reading the 2nd,9th,10th, and 14th amendments.

If that doesn't help go read a Trump thread about how wrong it is to infringe on muslim rights.

But it's right as rain to infringe on gun owners rights.

Should be enlightening.

When freedom shivers in the cold shadow of true peril, it's always the patriots who first hear the call.

originally posted by: lifecitizen
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Adam Lanza was in a gang? or he was a terrorist?

James Holmes- was in a gang or was a terrorist?

That's just two I can think of off the top of my head. I will find a link for 2015 and I think you'll find most of them are lone gunmen. Not a gang, or a terrorist.

The FBI defines mass murder as 3 or more people being murdered during any one event.

timelines.latimes.com... link to US mass shootings for 2015.

I dont think these rates are at all comparable to other countries. Noone does gun violence like America does.

Two out of how many?? List all of the rest, and who was involved, then you might have a clearer picture.

The real topic is spree shooters, not "mass" shooters. Some guy ticked off and killing his family can be a "mass" shooter. They aren't the same. Yes, when the gang and terorist cases are removed, the rates are quite comparable.