NRA refuses to debate Obama

Started by Wolfie, January 07 2016 07:34:50 PM MST

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4
User actions

Rojo27

#30
January 10 2016 02:30:23 PM MST
Quote from: Wolfie on January 10 2016 12:07:22 PM MST
Two-thirds of Americans support President Obama's initiative, announced this week, that would increase the reach of federal criminal background checks for those purchasing firearms at gun shows or on-line, according to a new national CNN/Opinion Research poll.

The president's bid to close the "gun show loophole" is backed by a 67-32 percent margin, although only 41 percent of those polled believe it will serve to reduce the scourge of gun violence in America.

You're just a one trick pony...  You appear to continue to cling to that narrative (as it seems to fit your ideological persuasion) in spite of the fact the complete poll you cherry pick from again doesn't support the point your desperately trying to make.    Based on polling data from this and several others polls done last week - Barry's EO and WH/CNN publicity circus stunt achieved very, very little.  So great, hope they do try and use it in coming election.

Done

Charlie_Zulu

#32
January 10 2016 03:15:41 PM MST
Quote from: Wolfie on January 10 2016 12:07:22 PM MST
Two-thirds of Americans support President Obama's initiative, announced this week, that would increase the reach of federal criminal background checks for those purchasing firearms at gun shows or on-line, according to a new national CNN/Opinion Research poll.

The president's bid to close the "gun show loophole" is backed by a 67-32 percent margin, although only 41 percent of those polled believe it will serve to reduce the scourge of gun violence in America.

Keep perusing the liberal rags (from a Joel Connelly piece in the Seattle Post-Intellegencer) to try and continue to make us believe the liberal line.  Please....  ???

I know you've bought into it.  Not much of the rest of us here seem to have.

10-4

#33
January 10 2016 03:16:31 PM MST
From the linked Washington Post article above:  A third potential reason for issuing a guidance of this sort is political: to respond to the political demand for action. Issuing a guidance document with substantial fanfare is a way to create the impression of action and satisfy relevant constituencies. To the typical, rationally ignorant voter, it may appear that the administration is doing something significant.

DM1906

#34
January 10 2016 03:31:00 PM MST Last Edit: January 10 2016 03:33:09 PM MST by DM1906
Quote from: Wolfie on January 10 2016 11:53:15 AM MST
You need more cops to enforce the 1.8 million that attempted to buy guns. Just like you need more border cops. Congress needs to allocate the resources to enforce the law.

Horse hockey!

A better application of "his" DOJ budget would easily cover all of it, including "more border cops". "More money", and "more government" is never the right answer.

There is no "1.8 million unlawful attempts to acquire firearms" stopped by background checks. Most declined applications are not criminal in nature, at all. Many, if not most, of them were for arbitrary, undisclosed reasons, while others were typographical or incomplete application denials, or reasons not previously known by the applicant (such as a tax lien or traffic warrant). Those that are delayed or returned for further/incomplete information are classed as "declined". I had one declined while I was active duty LEO, due to an ink smear, and another recently because the FFL signature "strayed out of the box".

Fact: Anyone who knows they may fail a background check, doesn't want the attention, or whatever reason, simply will not apply. If they want firearms, they will get them another way. Fortunately (for them), and unfortunately (for us), they will not be burdened with background check delays, waiting periods, taxes, firearm registration association, restricted firearms/devices, or excessive retail market pricing. Essentially, due to the "common sense gun control" measures, only criminals have opportunity to fully exercise their Constitutionally protected rights, while non-criminals in the same attempt become criminals due to those laws, and for no other reason.
Life's tough. It's tougher if you're stupid. -- The Duke

Wolfie

#35
January 10 2016 04:08:33 PM MST
Someone else mentioned the 1.8 I just responded.

sqlbullet

#37
January 10 2016 04:26:27 PM MST
I have a good friend and 10mm owner who failed a background check.  When buying his Witness 10mm in fact.

I am sure he is a statistic now of one of the people that was successfully denied access to a gun.

Heaven help us. A man who had a bench warrant for failure to pay a littering fine was denied access to a gun.  In point of fact, he had paid the fine, the court just fouled up the paperwork.

This is one of the reasons I agree that statistics are hard to swallow often, and hard questions need to be asked about the source of the data.

10-4

#38
January 10 2016 05:13:28 PM MST
Which brings up the Obama desire to forbid gun purchases by anyone on the "No Fly List".  How do you get on this magical list - and how do you get off?  If your last name is Smith you're going to have a difficult time aren't you?

In my opinion it's not the guns - it's the people.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE

Captain O

#39
January 10 2016 06:45:31 PM MST
Quote from: sqlbullet on January 08 2016 07:49:40 PM MST
Quote from: Wolfie on January 08 2016 02:54:56 PM MST
I do not think he should circumvent congress either. But most people are for background checks and reporting lost or stolen guns. I understand why some here do not want the background checks, but not reporting a lost or stolen gun?

Who would be against that?

If your gun was lost or stolen and not reported. And a perp killed someone with your gun and its recovered on the scene, guess who gets a visit.

I would be.

1.  I have a lot of items in my safe that are legally "guns".  It would not be unthinkable for one of the 12 AR lowers I have that aren't yet built up to disappear and me not notice.  And I may not build some of them for years to come.  Should I be a criminal because I don't do inventory and one of my six kids friends had sticky fingers?

2.  It is not in harmony with freedom to burden subjects of the government with this kind of requirement.  In a truly free country I do not commit a crime until I abrogate the rights, freedoms or privileges of another.  Me failing to report a stolen weapon does not intrude on the rights of another.

3.  The law would ultimately be struct down on fifth amendment grounds.  If I had come into criminal possession of a prohibited gun, that was then stolen, a requirement to report would require me to incriminate myself.  Similar cases on gun issues have already been ruled in this way.

I am certain I could go on, but I will stop as I think the point is sufficiently made.

There you have it! His EO is completely unconstitutional and will be overturned. The 'Socialist In Chief" is flying his colors to the full!
Captain O

"The Administration of Justice should be tempered by mercy, but mercy should never interfere with the true Administration of Justice".- Captain O

"Living well is the best revenge". - George Herbert

This post is approved by Arf, The Wonder Chicken.

sqlbullet

#40
January 10 2016 07:30:04 PM MST
His executive brief doesn't extend the law.  All he did was restate the existing law and give a directive to increase scrutiny on certain buyers to ensure their acts are legal.

redbaron007

#42
January 11 2016 12:44:22 PM MST
Quote from: 10-4 on January 10 2016 03:12:56 PM MST
Obama did nothing except waste our time while fooling some. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/05/new-atf-guidance-on-gun-sales-is-legally-meaningless-or-else-it-would-be-unlawful/

I don't disagree with the this columnist's comments; however, he is writing based upon face value of the directives/guidance. As with many things in politics, the devil is in the details; in these recent actions, the details will be open for interpretation based upon the political party in control. This is the problem with the directives/guidance, we are not sure how they will interpret these comments in their enforcement processes. This is the great unknown and is troubling.
Some days it's just good to be lucky; rather than just good looking!

Wolfie

#43
January 11 2016 01:06:14 PM MST
Read all the comments and links.

Looks like this, a majority of Americans like Obama's plan but a majority does not like him doing it via Executive Action.

sqlbullet

#44
January 11 2016 01:28:35 PM MST
Commenters are decidedly NOT an accurate random sample.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4
User actions