Obama: executive action to expand background checks

[Mr. AR50]

They mean nothing because people don't understand the process.  They perceive the president like a king and congress like his minions.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe that is exactly how Obama and the current congress see themselves. One way or another, it is time for them to go.

[Wolfie]

From around FDR to 1996. The Democrats had a stranglehold on both branches of Congress. But the GOP was able to win Presidentials. So what the GOP did was make the role of President stronger during these years. Now what is happening is that the electoral college is not in the GOPs favor and if they do not win in 2016 I doubt you will see a GOP potus for a long time.

So now the GOP is in a bind. What do they do? This is what they are doing, NOTHING. Hoping they can take the WH in 2016. The GOP runs a autocratic operation when they have a executive in charge whether it be federal, state or local. The GOP legislature never stopped Bush. In NYS the biggest spender in history Pataki was never stopped by his GOP senate.

Republicans only complain when they lose these executive seats.

btw: I am for a strong legislative branch as prescribed.

[Geeman]

The GOP won't win for a long time... REALLY?

It really doesn't matter, but I don't think you understand the game either.  Its a bunch of lawyers and wealthy folk playing games.  Its good cop, bad cop and they take turns painting satan's horns or halos on each other.

Bottom line is it makes little difference up and until the people stand up and decide they want a change. 

I still feel we are a long ways away from that, but there certainly seems to be some stress fractures in the insider foundation in the Republican party.  Tea Party, Patriot, and others rising from grass roots are creating turmoil and the more the GOP tries to maintain the big government policies that chip away at god given rights, the more problems they create for themselves.

I'd be willing to bet the change will rise from the Republican Party.  If not, a third party will rise and over take it.  There are simply more and more folks that are discontent with the way its going.

Why not the Democrats?  The party has slid so far to the left that Debbie What's her name Schultz couldn't tell us the difference between the Democrats and the Socialists.  Its no small wonder.  The Democrat platform and the planks of the Communist manifesto are indistinguishable from each other.  Add the big money from Soros into Occupy Wallstreet, Black Lives Matter, and the like and the only threat is if their puppet, internally funded victim groups turn on their master and consume it.

Greg

[redbaron007]

From around FDR to 1996. The Democrats had a stranglehold on both branches of Congress. But the GOP was able to win Presidentials. So what the GOP did was make the role of President stronger during these years. Now what is happening is that the electoral college is not in the GOPs favor and if they do not win in 2016 I doubt you will see a GOP potus for a long time.

So now the GOP is in a bind. What do they do? This is what they are doing, NOTHING. Hoping they can take the WH in 2016. The GOP runs a autocratic operation when they have a executive in charge whether it be federal, state or local. The GOP legislature never stopped Bush. In NYS the biggest spender in history Pataki was never stopped by his GOP senate.

Republicans only complain when they lose these executive seats.

btw: I am for a strong legislative branch as prescribed.

Please expand on the Bold above?

The GOP legislature never stopped Bush.

Were they suppose to? Bush got everything he wanted? Did the Dems attempt to stop him? Not until 2006-07.

Wolfie is a Democrat Underground participant & Occupy Democrat member. What else would one expect to espouse from the lips?

Getting back on track....I still haven't seen any additional info his proposed changes.

[sqlbullet]

What I have seen is the Republican party in my state, Utah, taxes and spends with the best of them.

We also saw that when the republicans controlled congress and the white house.  They don't spend on social programs though.

It is why I rarely have anything to say in hardcore political debates where sides are being chosen.  both sides are horrible.


--Edit

Lets get back on point here about background checks.

[Wolfie]

Background checks for national reciprocity.

Whats the NRA waiting for.

[sqlbullet]

I would like to get more.

But I agree that the NRA should have a compromise proposal in play so it can't be a talking point to beat up pro-gun candidates.  Make the anti-gun crowd the bad guys for saying no to UBG.

[Geeman]

Background checks for national reciprocity.

Whats the NRA waiting for.

Unalienable means cannot be sold, bartered, traded.  If the right specified in the Bill of Rights are the same as those in the Declaration of Independence, there is no way to complete your trade off.

INFRINGEMENT: A breaking into; a trespass or encroachment upon; a violation of a law, regulation, contract, or right.

Sorry, but as I see it, the NRA couldn't even if it wanted to.  I wouldn't want them to.  If they did, I wouldn't feel obliged to comply on Constitutional grounds.

Greg

[sqlbullet]

Greg, I hear what you are saying.

But the NRA has a long history of compromising.  They WROTE the 68 GCA, for example.

The goal here is to compromise in a way that expands our gun rights, not limits them.  Today, the various States limit my constitutional rights, and a court case to correct that is both a long way off and likely not terribly winnable.

Congress can act to set a tone for national reciprocity very easily, and it would take effect immediately.  Some states (California, New York, New Jersy, Illinois) will likely immediately challenge it on 10th amendment grounds, but will probably lose as this is the regulation of the second amendment.

Better yet, properly structured, the proposal can win us back a bunch of our rights.  We can stipulate a records system that is one-way only*.

The goal of the proposal is to define a dialog, and move the ball into their court, effectively shutting them up about universal background checks.  They can either then give us back some rights in the short term, or they can stop making it a talking point.  Either way, we win.

[Geeman]

I guess you can bargain away those rights. 

You can shut up the other side... No way.  Ball in their court, nope.  Its not our side vs theirs.  Its them collectively vs our rights.

Knowing the mechanism they use to do things they are forbidden to do is enough to make one ill.  Knowing that mechanism is the only way to defend against their perverted game.

Bottom line, bargain away.  It is really is of no consequence.  Unalienable means that any loss could be found void if and when it becomes a constriction on an individual basis.

Greg

[Wolfie]

Do convicted felons, those with dishonorable discharges and those with domestic incident reports have unalienable rights?

That group of people had their rights taken away. The Constitution makes no distinction as to who can carry, but society through its legislators have already done that. Its called precedent aka case law.

Time to strengthen our rights now because if Hillary gets in its all over.

[Geeman]

Do convicted felons, those with dishonorable discharges and those with domestic incident reports have unalienable rights?

That group of people had their rights taken away. The Constitution makes no distinction as to who can carry, but society through its legislators have already done that. Its called precedent aka case law.

Time to strengthen our rights now because if Hillary gets in its all over.

Be very careful what you wish for:

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

The book raises a concern that everyone can be charged with felonies.  There are so many laws that on average, you probably will commit three felonies before you go to bed tonight.  Perhaps you should have your rights stripped.  You, perhaps, are only one aggressive prosecutor away from exactly that.  Of course, the prosecutor is also likely committing felonies along the way.

A run away government is dangerous.  Is it possible the use of "felony convictions" could be used to strip you of all "God given" rights, just because they were ordered from higher ups to arrest and prosecute?  I have bad news for you.  The legal system isn't concerned about "justice" but instead the "appearance of justice".  In other words, as long as they put on a good show, they will do what they will do.  Show up as a defendant, the odds are greatly against you.

Greg

[Wolfie]

There you have it, nothing is permanent. And no I do not wish for it. I wish for better rights for gun owners.

[gandog56]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/12/10/white-house-finalizing-plan-to-take-major-gun-control-action-using-executive-authority-valerie-jarrett-says/

He's just going to bypass Congress apparently.

That's exactly what he does every time he can't get his socialist methods passed. Nothing new there.