Obama's order simplified

[stix213]

I have to go through a background check when I purchase a firearm, I don't see why someone else should be exempt just because they live in a free state. I get the counter-argument about incremental encroachment but I see this as a common sense approach. If you can pass a background check then no worries.

I don't see anywhere in the Constitution that gives the federal government the authority to regulate the private sale of a firearm between two people of the same state. And since it isn't provided for in the Constitution the 10A requires that power be reserved to the states or the people. That means individual states can setup whatever background check policies for private transfers they want, like in California, or purposely decide not to like in most states.

Personally I would like to see the various states set up background checks for all firearm transfers, but I don't want to see the federal government swooping in and assuming powers Constitutionally reserved for the states, because this won't be the only power from the states they steal.

[Snapping Twig]

The answer is not for ALL of us to follow the same "common sense" rules... The answer is to get rid of these nanny rules requiring us to go through the govt to sell private property.

There are more problems with this than you understand.

PS- do you realize you just used a liberal anti-gun talking point on a gun forum? ("common sense). What is common sense about laws that DID NOT prevent San Bernadino, Aurora, Oregon, etc....?

Fixed it for you.

All these laws were in place PLUS many more at the time San Bernadino happened.

They did absolutely NOTHING to prevent some crazy moose limbs from killing innocents.

[JagerDog]

Anyone who is unfit (had their rights removed by due process as you say) is, under any regime where the laws are rational, unfit to be in common society.

Period.

No gun law has EVER stopped a single shooter (I am including gangs, criminals, and suicides here). Those who wish to get one can, even in places with insanely tight gun laws and the balls to enforce them... like France or even Japan. Those who desire to do harm to another WILL DO SO.

Which is where the concept of "unfit" to be in general society. Since we cannot stop them or restrain them by any law such people should be removed from the general population for the good of the society.

The argument over the death penalty over the years has of course submerged the "other reason" nations had it, to permanently remove those unfit and harmful to general society. Not about prevention through fear but prevention in as removing their ability to cause harm.

A wolf attacks a flock of sheep, do you put that wolf in a cage for a few years then release it back right in the MIDDLE of the flock? No. Only a crazy person would do that. You kill the wolf.

All gun laws are infringements that extend beyond penalty for a harmful act done on another. Even the concepts of enhancements is shaky as the issue here is that our punishment system is ineffectual and so we think that more of an ineffectual punishment system will help, so it falls under the laws only someone who isn't mentally all there can find logical considering all crimes with gun enhancements are the crimes of a predator of society who should be dealt with as one deals with a rabid or dangerous known man eater. You remove them from society. Be that life or death is rather irrelevant. The idea is to cut the cancer from society before it metastasises and kills the host, as it has done in this country where the current dominant social order is one that glorifies all things criminal.

Since I don't believe in "pre-crime" no one should have rights removed until crime or due process has occurred.

I'd rather live with the dangers of too much freedom than the dangers posed by too little freedom.

Though (IMHO) the argument has merit, it's quite contrary to existing structure. I'm also not so sure that everyone who has had certain rights removed via due process needs to remain in a cage for the good of society. That's a broad brush.

I agree with whole heartedly with the bold.

[bountyhunter]

Basically, he doesn't want "weekend warriors" setting up at gun shows without being licensed and doing background checks on buyers. His order directs ATF to enforce already existing law which has been overlooked on many occasions as they don't have enough agents to troll the shows.

Which is a giant smackdown for him and all the gun grabbers since the main argument against new gun control laws is that they don't even enforce the laws that already exist.... which is true.

Enforce them first before you ask for more.

[Wes C Addle]

Lol at all the butthurt in this thread from my comment. Not all gun owners are of the same political background. IIRC, Bush II did more to hurt gun owners than all the 7 years of Obama's presidency. Remember the Fair Reporting Act of 2008? There was an addendum that the president signed to allow guns into national parks.

Some of you guys...dunno if you're playing the part or are actually as narrow-minded as you make yourselves out to be.

[rimfire78]

Here in California, you've been allowed sell your gun via an FFL transfer.
They are now saying though, that you can't sell your gun unless YOU are a licenced FFL holder.
So is the former then off the table under these new regs?

[sigstroker]

I have to go through a background check when I purchase a firearm, I don't see why someone else should be exempt just because they live in a free state. I get the counter-argument about incremental encroachment but I see this as a common sense approach. If you can pass a background check then no worries.

Attitudes like this are why people in free America hate Californians.

[sigstroker]

Lol at all the butthurt in this thread from my comment. Not all gun owners are of the same political background.

You don't like our Constitution, either get it changed or GTFO.

[Springfield45]

Lol at all the butthurt in this thread from my comment. Not all gun owners are of the same political background. IIRC, Bush II did more to hurt gun owners than all the 7 years of Obama's presidency. Remember the Fair Reporting Act of 2008? There was an addendum that the president signed to allow guns into national parks.

Some of you guys...dunno if you're playing the part or are actually as narrow-minded as you make yourselves out to be.

Many gun owners that have been paying attention for a while have come to realize that if you compromise an inch the anti's will take a mile. We are not willing to compromise any more. If they can't stop crimes with the laws they already got, they will never be able to stop them with more laws.

But it has never been about crime. It is about the people not having guns.

[skyscraper]

Lol at all the butthurt in this thread from my comment. Not all gun owners are of the same political background. IIRC, Bush II did more to hurt gun owners than all the 7 years of Obama's presidency. Remember the Fair Reporting Act of 2008? There was an addendum that the president signed to allow guns into national parks.

Some of you guys...dunno if you're playing the part or are actually as narrow-minded as you make yourselves out to be.

Sounds like you are butt hurt that you got called out. You are welcome to engage in a personal love affair with onama, just don't get mad when we don't join you.

[colossians323]

then I can only assume that you disregard 1934, 1968, and 1986 if that's the case.



edit: I highly doubt that you have SBRs, MGs and DDs LMFAO

You must live in Cali none of those are illegal in Nevada LMAO I guess you don't mind the infringement keep on serving serf

[colossians323]

Unfortunately there's no emoticon for sarcasm.

Made me nervous bro

[colossians323]

Lol at all the butthurt in this thread from my comment. Not all gun owners are of the same political background. IIRC, Bush II did more to hurt gun owners than all the 7 years of Obama's presidency. Remember the Fair Reporting Act of 2008? There was an addendum that the president signed to allow guns into national parks.

Some of you guys...dunno if you're playing the part or are actually as narrow-minded as you make yourselves out to be.

LOL at the lack of education, I guess you meant to say, not all gun owners are for the second amendment as written

[dustoff31]

Lol at all the butthurt in this thread from my comment. Not all gun owners are of the same political background.

That's very true. Some pretend that democrats do not intend to do what they have repeatedly said they want to do in regard to guns. Others are sane.

IIRC, Bush II did more to hurt gun owners than all the 7 years of Obama's presidency. Remember the Fair Reporting Act of 2008? There was an addendum that the president signed to allow guns into national parks.

Some of you guys...dunno if you're playing the part or are actually as narrow-minded as you make yourselves out to be.

You know that the rule change about guns in national parks was initiated under the Bush administration, right? But the paperwork wasn't completed until after he left office.

Obama signed the bill only because it was attached to something he wanted more than messing with gun owners.

[raceraxe]

Only way to monitor ppt is registration(already enforced in CA). Registration will lead to confiscation. Confiscation is their goal. Total control over unarmed population.