The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 1881 - 1900 of total 6484 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
jghedge

climber
Jan 14, 2013 - 01:25am PT
Here's what Chaz is having a seizure over

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/01/joe-biden-and-the-gun-control-debate.html#ixzz2HvcGJ6IF


The latest round of gun-grabbing speculation on the right was set off by Bidenís saying on Wednesday, ďThe President is going to act. There are executive orders, executive action that can be taken, we havenít decided what that is yet.Ē But there was no need for pro-gun people to panic. A final decision may not have been made, but the broad strokes of what President Obama would do with only the powers of his office, and without congressional approval, have been made fairly clear, both in Bidenís own statements and in the positions taken by some of the major gun-control advocacy groups that took part in the meetings.

One of the things that Obama is likely to do on his own is to work to shore up the database that is used to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. The law already requires federal agencies to submit records that contain information about people who are, for various reasons, prohibited from owning firearms, but at least some of those agencies havenít been complying fully. In a letter to Obama sent shortly after Newtown, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the organization co-chaired by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, called on Obama to ďissue an executive order requiring all federal agency heads to certify twice annually, in writing, to the U.S. Attorney General that their agency has submitted all relevant records to NICS.Ē (There are other steps Obama could take in this area as well, some of which Biden discussed in his public remarks on Thursday.)

Obama could also, without Congressí input, simply direct Attorney General Eric Holder to shift his departmentís priorities in order to put a new emphasis on prosecutions for violations of gun laws that are already on the books, but which are currently less than vigorously enforced.

Beyond that, the Presidentís options are limited. He could potentially go further and, for example, ban foreign imports of certain kinds of guns, as George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton both did, but that ground has , let the impeachment palready been trod, and there have been no indications thus far that Obama intends to go back over it.



Beefing up the databases and enforcement of existing laws - obviously unconstitutional, let the impeachment hearings proceed


Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Jan 14, 2013 - 01:40am PT
That doesn't require executive oirder. Biden must be talking about more severe measures.
QITNL

climber
Jan 14, 2013 - 01:42am PT
Chaz, you're making things up - it's all spelled out in the very first link you posted above:

So why would Biden have uttered this?:

"The president is going to act. There are executives orders, there's executive action that can be taken."

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/joe-biden-guarantees-presiden-obama-bypass-reluctant-republicans-cement-new-gun-control-laws-article-1.1237010

Did you read it?
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Jan 14, 2013 - 01:46am PT
"...there's executive action that can be taken."


Like what? Be specific.

Make sure to list things that actually require executive order to accomplish, mot that *shore up the data base* crap jghedge suggests ( because that is something that doesn;t require executive order )
jghedge

climber
Jan 14, 2013 - 01:51am PT
"Like what? Be specific."

The latest round of gun-grabbing speculation on the right was set off by Bidenís saying on Wednesday, ďThe President is going to act. There are executive orders, executive action that can be taken, we havenít decided what that is yet.Ē But there was no need for pro-gun people to panic. A final decision may not have been made, but the broad strokes of what President Obama would do with only the powers of his office, and without congressional approval, have been made fairly clear, both in Bidenís own statements and in the positions taken by some of the major gun-control advocacy groups that took part in the meetings.

One of the things that Obama is likely to do on his own is to work to shore up the database that is used to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. The law already requires federal agencies to submit records that contain information about people who are, for various reasons, prohibited from owning firearms, but at least some of those agencies havenít been complying fully. In a letter to Obama sent shortly after Newtown, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the organization co-chaired by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, called on Obama to ďissue an executive order requiring all federal agency heads to certify twice annually, in writing, to the U.S. Attorney General that their agency has submitted all relevant records to NICS.Ē (There are other steps Obama could take in this area as well, some of which Biden discussed in his public remarks on Thursday.)

Obama could also, without Congressí input, simply direct Attorney General Eric Holder to shift his departmentís priorities in order to put a new emphasis on prosecutions for violations of gun laws that are already on the books, but which are currently less than vigorously enforced.

Beyond that, the Presidentís options are limited. He could potentially go further and, for example, ban foreign imports of certain kinds of guns, as George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton both did, but that ground has , let the impeachment palready been trod, and there have been no indications thus far that Obama intends to go back over it.



Is any of this getting through to you?
QITNL

climber
Jan 14, 2013 - 01:51am PT
"Like what? Be specific."
From the article that you posted:

Despite such rhetoric, the moves Obama could make unilaterally are numerous but limited in scope. Sources said Bidenís group is eyeing less-than-dramatic steps Obama could take by executive action ó most of them recommendations made previously by Mayor Bloomberg.

They include improving federal mental health programs and requiring all federal agencies to send information to a national database used for gun background checks.

Other executive actions on the table include ordering the Justice Department to step up prosecutions ó now almost nonexistent ó of people caught lying on forms used for background checks.

In addition, Obama could use [sic] his recess appointment power to install a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, a post left vacant for the last six years due to holds by Senate Republicans.

Read it at least once: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/joe-biden-guarantees-presiden-obama-bypass-reluctant-republicans-cement-new-gun-control-laws-article-1.1237010#ixzz2HvjfmOL8
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Jan 14, 2013 - 02:00am PT
What the executive branch is authorized to do is to enforce laws created by Congress. In fact that's it's main job; execute laws - hence the "executive" designation.

If laws need executive "shoring up", it's only because these laws have been poorly executed.

Obama needs some sort of *executive order* just to do his job?

If there is some Federal Law, that if it were only *shored up* would have prevented school kids from being murdered, then Obama is to blame for ignoring it for four years. Should'a shored it up as Job One, four years ago.

I believe Biden and Obama want to do more than just to *shore up* existing laws.
jghedge

climber
Jan 14, 2013 - 02:06am PT
"I believe Biden and Obama want to do more than just to *shore up* existing laws."

Go away
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Jan 14, 2013 - 02:12am PT
So what exactly does the Justice Department need an executive order to do, that it can't do right now without executive order?

Was executive order required to let assault weapons "walk" into Mexico as part of the "Fast And Furious" actions? If "Fast And Furious" was done on executive order, then Obama has some explaining to do. If "Fast And Furious" required no executive order, then what exactly does Obama plan on doing now that does require executive order?

Are you trying to say that you don't know what Obama is planning, but you support it anyway? You CAN'T be that naive, can you?

I know kids who are wiser than that!
PAUL SOUZA

Trad climber
Central Valley, CA
Jan 14, 2013 - 02:55am PT
Dave Kos

Trad climber
Temecula
Jan 14, 2013 - 08:54am PT
If there is some Federal Law, that if it were only *shored up* would have prevented school kids from being murdered, then Obama is to blame for ignoring it for four years. Should'a shored it up as Job One, four years ago.

Of course Chaz - it's always Obama's fault. Four years ago, "job one" should have been tweaking gun law enforcement - not the economic crash or the two wars we were fighting. You are so very astute in your hindsight.


So what exactly does the Justice Department need an executive order to do, that it can't do right now without executive order?

Chaz has obviously never managed anybody or anything.

Did your boss ever tell you specifically what to do, Chaz?



After the Gulf Of Tonkin Resolution, the entire Vietnam War was directed by executive orders.

Oh, wait ... we are talking about American history and facts ... Chaz will have none of that!

No go ahead and ask another question, keep reminding us how clueless you are...
couchmaster

climber
pdx
Jan 14, 2013 - 10:01am PT
Great debate here with the issues explained well from the 2nd amendment supporter IMO. The interviewer is going all Jhedge.

tooth

Trad climber
B.C.
Jan 14, 2013 - 10:19am PT
Good points Paul. That's what I can't figure out. Everyone wants to be like the UK with one point, so they are willing to 'legistlate' your society to be like that while burying their head in the sand to the reality of overall violence and what will happen to the US if this happens.

They think they can trade mass murders for an increase in violence, when in reality both will increase.

And yet countries which have rules almost exactly like what these guys have proposed have mass shootings of which the US has not yet seen.


Their problem is that they think they can cherry pick example countries who they think they can emulate while ignoring many more who have the same rate of gun ownership and much higher gun violence rates. That's the definition of a pipe dream and jhedge and others are chain smokers.


Why don't they quote any other countries with tight gun laws like, Honduras, El Salvador, Jamaca, Venezuela, Belize, Guatemala, Zambia, Uganda, Malawi, South Africa, Columbia, Tobago, Ukrane, PI, Haiti.... it's because they found the one with one low gun kill number. But they had to ignore all the other numbers and 30 other countries to make their point.


















The fatal flaw in their argument to become Britian is that they forget that they aren't starting a new country from scratch. They forget the reality of where they already are. Hundreds of thousands or millions of defensive gun uses per year.

Unlike these guys, the average American is actually quite intelligent, and the first question they ask themselves will be, if we restrict guns from the only half of that equation that laws could, what would happen 2 million more times in this country? You got it. Violence would soar to UK levels.











So the vote would be down to, do we attempt to curb mass shootings of 20 people at once while risking even greater numbers of mass shootings and guaranteeing a higher overall violent crime rate?







Executive order or congressional decision, the question still remains the same.


Crimpergirl

Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
Jan 14, 2013 - 11:37am PT
This morning the FBI released their preliminary numbers for 2012 - overall violent and property crime have increased. This on the heels of NCVS data finding the same a month or so ago regarding 2011. So we don't even have to be like England - we get mass murders AND an increase in violence.

edit: If you want to check out the release, it's here: http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2013/january/early-2012-crime-statistics/early-2012-crime-statistics
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Jan 14, 2013 - 11:58am PT
actually Mr. Chaz, the "executive order" that is being talked about, at least where I read, is one that prioritizes enforcement of the current laws, such as prosecuting people for providing false information on their gun permit forms... an act which is supported by the NRA by the way... as the chief executive, the President is within his powers to direct the administration of the laws.

your paranoia seems to be a bit over the top.... but you are apparently in good company as gun sales and the popularity of "patriot organizations" seem to surge when Democratic administrations are voted into office by the majority of the populace, which is how a democracy works. It is the role of the judicial branch to guarantee that the rights of the minorities are not trampled in that process.

I do not miss the 1960s which seemed to be a decade of political assassinations in which individuals used fire arms to express their dissatisfaction with popular political figures. Perhaps that is the price of liberty which you seem to tell us we should be happy to pay for the "right to bare arms."

You might gather that I do not think that that price is worth it.
crankster

Trad climber
South Lake Tahoe, CA
Jan 14, 2013 - 12:35pm PT
Credit: crankster
fear

Ice climber
hartford, ct
Jan 14, 2013 - 01:02pm PT
Good points tooth....

There are two issues here but few people will actually read this since they can go on posting internet links to this and that.

1) Mass random killings - not reflected well in statistics

2) Targeted criminal violence - reflected in statistics

The root of each problem is different. The possible solutions therefore to each issue are likely different. But most people can't seem to keep the two apart, especially when scary

black firearms are used.

Let me try to elucidate:

#1 involves the will of an individual(or more than 1) to kill as many random people as possible. They generally seem to kill themselves or have little regard for their own well being.

Any "Legislation" to prevent this is problematic as there is no shortage of ways to kill unarmed civilians en masse with a little creativity. Likewise "stiff penalty" laws are equally useless. So getting to the ROOT of this will is the only way to prevent such atrocities.

#2 involves the will of an individual (or many) to commit typical crimes for personal gain. Most of these murders revolve around money and/or drugs at some point in the chain. The

perps generally care about their well being and may fear punishment. We already have laws disigned to prevent this sort of thing but there is room for improvement. We already

have penalties designed to prevent this sort of thing but there is room for improvement.


So to talk about laws limiting or banning this or that to prevent or mitigate #1 is absurd. Banning "AR-style rifles" or limiting magazine size is simply placating the general grass chewing public. If your psychotic intent is to kill MANY RANDOM people, a firearm is pretty far down on the list as a means of doing that. Horrifying yes, efficient no. If you could magically change access to firearms, the means would simply shift. This is not difficult logic to follow.

To address the bulk of crimes in #2, which has nothing to do with #1, you first look to the root causes (i.e. inner city violence, illegal drugs, gangs, poverty, education). This is the most bang for the buck and where the biggest improvements will happen. Secondly we could shore up access to firearms with background checks and evaluations. As I believe the 2nd does convey a 'right', such licensing needs to be relatively inexpensive for the applicant and contain a much more cohesive set of regulations state-to-state than we have now. If I'm licensed to carry in CT, I should be able to do so in New Mexico. Like driving licenses. I also think real training should be mandatory for carrying open or concealed outside of one's home. This training should also be cheap, and encouraged. I also agree that sales of centerfire firearms should be processed, at a minmal fee, by an FFL so that the appropriate checks can be performed. To help prevent straw-man type purchases, have laws with real teeth, like a 25 year mandatory sentence. Of course that means Eric Holder and Co. should go straight to jail.


Firearm legislation is not going to change the root causes of violence even in #2. It may help mitigate it somewhat as most criminals do not want to spend more time in prison than they already do. To make any real meaningful improvements in #2 violence requires a lot more work than simply passing legislation.


jghedge

climber
Jan 14, 2013 - 01:02pm PT
"This morning the FBI released their preliminary numbers for 2012 - overall violent and property crime have increased."

Of course it has. As if 300 million guns are going to have a benign effect on society...
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jan 14, 2013 - 01:06pm PT
It ISNT guns causing the increase in crime,, its the ECONOMY or lack there of...Leading into the last great depression,, theft and other crimes were rampant as well.. Times get tough,, people get desperate..
jghedge

climber
Jan 14, 2013 - 01:14pm PT
"It ISNT guns causing the increase in crime,, its the ECONOMY or lack there of...Leading into the last great depression,, theft and other crimes were rampant as well.. Times get tough,, people get desperate.."

Desperate people buy guns, or steal them, and use them. Obviously.

All the more reason to control them, or better yet ban them altogether.

Messages 1881 - 1900 of total 6484 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews