-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Obama to Announce New Executive Action concerning guns:
- Thread starter edseas2
- Start date
the_shootist
Banned
**** that Kenyan Muslim *******
He can take his EOs and shove them up his gay ass...he should like that
Last edited:
71montess
NES Member
Serious answer, incremental gun confiscation, this is the first real try.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2015
- Messages
- 324
- Likes
- 43
I feel it won't do any good to prevent crime.
On top of that every few years the regs get a little tighter and tighter. When someone mentions mass confiscation I dont see that happening there would be too much resistance. Instead just tighten up the rules and regs every couple of years until it is too difficult or nearly impossible to own, carry, or purchase a firearm. Baby steps for the gun control groups. Little by little so moderates will say "that law is minor" "it's no big deal" but when you lump all of these "little things" together it is actual a big deal.
If you follow the logical progression, the checks are registration.
And what follows registration ?
Look at how things progressed in the UK and Australia and you have your answer.
If you look at most of the past mass shootings (charleston, va tech, dc navy yard, aurora, AZ, oregon, etc) they all passed background checks buying the guns.
Gang bangers use stolen guns or have girlfriends straw buy. Checks do nothing but be a 'we're doing something' effort for the sheep.
Jason m
NES Member
Do I need a background check for free speech? Do I need a background check for free trade across state lines? Or any of the other amendments that give me life and liberty, no.
It's bad enough I need papers just to buy the firearms I own, or to let my Gov overlords register and track my business on my purchasing them. F that, the more we let them chip the close we get to loosing them.
Jason.
Asaltweapon
NES Member
You can't be effin serious?
xtry51
NES Member
This
So... Is this for real? Can the 0 really ban all private sales without an FFL? Or is this just fear mongering. We all know he would love to do this, but can he really? I thought laws had to be passed and such. I don't see this executive order thing in the constitution as a way for the pres to do whatever he wants with no law being passed.
Sent via Tapatalk on my Android phone. Good news; Tapatalk sucks less than it used to.
Sent via Tapatalk on my Android phone. Good news; Tapatalk sucks less than it used to.
Mr. Brownstone
NES Member
I think there is a lot of confusion as to what a "Background Check" entails. Under current law there are things that will come up on an NICS background check that will prevent you from purchasing firearms. (NICS background checks are required for ALL purchases made from FFL dealers, including at gun shows.)
1) You are a felon. Not even a violent felon. If you have been convicted of any crime that carries with it a sentence of 2 years or more, you are done (for life) possessing firearms. (*This means, that if you have ever been convicted of a DWI in MA after 1994, you can no longer legally handle firearms or ammunition in the entire United States. FOREVER.)
2) You have been committed by a judge to a mental institution. This rarely happens, and to be honest, most of the people this happens to, can't t get it together enough to stop eating trash or wipe their backsides to pull of any sort of attack with a gun. Not trying to be insensitive here, but most of the people you think are a little wacky, will never be committed to a mental institution.
The rest are self reported things; like if you are a marijuana user, have ever renounced your us citizenship, or been dishonorably discharged from the military (although that may actually come up as well in the BC)
Adam Lanza would have passed a background check. He didn't need to, his mom passed one and he killed her and took her firearms. James Holmes passed a background check. Ft. Hood shooter, passed. I could go on, but do I need to? Expanded background checks would not have stopped any of these shootings under the current definitions of a prohibited person. The numbskulls in San Bernadino passed one, and we're not on any terror watch or no fly lists.
Remember that if you want to make something a law, phrases like "mentally ill" or "prone to violence" need to be defined. This means that you actually have to come up with a definition for mentally ill.
Is it someone who went to the shrink and is depressed over a divorce? Is it someone who is really mad at their boss for firing them, and maybe once said, "Id like to kill that guy?"Who decides? Does the shrink? Do they have to go before a judge? Is there any way back? Due process? Or once you are on the list are you done forever?
The bill that was being considered federally and was shot down, that is now being considered at the state level; would have prohibited people on the "terror watch list" and "no fly list"from owning firearms.
There is zero definition for what makes a person a terror suspect, and zero due process for getting off the list. Someone in TSA or FBI says you are a terrorist, bam, you are on the list. (Judging by peoples Facebook posts the past month or so, this means that any middle aged, Christian, white guy, who doesn't like abortion, and plans to vote for Trump is a terrorist.)
You want to know why gun owners who are aware of current law(ME) are unwilling to bend and find "common sense" "middle ground" gun reform. It's because of things I mentioned above.
Our Constitution was written to protect freedom above all else. It sometimes allows criminals to walk free because it requires proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" to deprive a person of life, liberty, and property. It allows people to say things we don't like and find to be offensive, so that our rights to express ourselves are protected.
We don't change the rules because someone that we "know"did it, was found not guilty. We don't suspend due process due to the severity or heinousness of a crime. The process is imperfect, but it is designed to protect freedom above all else. Every time we pass a knee jerk law that restricts liberty in favor of perceived safety, we let the terrorists and criminals win.
None of us wants to see mass killings. Just because I disagree with you on how to stop them doesn't t make me less sickened than you are when they happen.
*The definition of a felon in current federal law with respect to firearms prohibits people who have ever been convicted of DWI in MA because of the potential penalty of 2 ½ years (which no one ever gets) There is no restoration of rights, or process for doing so after the conviction. What does a DWI when you are 21 years old have to do with owning a firearm when you are 50? Nothing.
Last edited:
cfbackrow
NES Member
def a slippery slope that leads to no good for 2A
Do you do a background check on that squishy whore you screw? Which is more legal and which is more dangerous, selling a firearm FTF with someone that produces state required ID and signing a bill of sale, or what you walked away with for a funjoy with the primary brain!!
Happy Phuckinn News Years and go back to your hole arrsswipe!!
Mr. Brownstone
NES Member
xtry51
NES Member
Of course he can. And the ATF will go right along with him and ruin people's lives. But I'm 100% sure all the good cops will stop all this by arresting the President.
"Universal background check" == making private sales of firearms illegal. And the only way to actually enforce it is to also require mandatory registration of gun owners and their guns.
Historically, confiscation has always followed registration.
Historically, mass killing of "undesirables" and/or genocide follows confiscation.
So, yeah, it's a touchy subject.
mikeyp
NES Member
This is an Executive Action, not an Executive Order. An Executive Action is just a "hey Congress, or someone, please do this" http://uspolitics.about.com/od/Gun-Control/a/Executive-Actions-Versus-Executive-Orders.htm It really has no power, unless people give it power. Neither should be considered laws as only Congress can write laws.
headednorth
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 26,661
- Likes
- 49,197
I read a great essay regarding the history of gun control in Great Britain which I havnt been able to find since. Talk about a slippery slope. Started off with the British gov fully behind a well armed public and within a few generations they had regulated and/or banned everything down to toys, replicas, airguns, and knives over three inches. I found a short recap of the history, wish I could find the original pdf I had read.
Any mention of additional regulation of firearms, regardless of what the subject is, should be met with a quick, "No. Absolutely not." before the speaker even has a chance to finish their first sentence.
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle558-20100221-07.html
Any mention of additional regulation of firearms, regardless of what the subject is, should be met with a quick, "No. Absolutely not." before the speaker even has a chance to finish their first sentence.
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle558-20100221-07.html
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
Really. If you need to ask you are part of the problem with people getting bent over.
Repeat and memorize this until it is every part of your fiber:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Last edited:
Laura
NES Member
I'm trying to stay ahead of this and really build up my long gun collection before this door slams shut on us. We need to collectively push back...
