14 Ways Obama Can Push Gun Control Without Congress

I think anyone whose gun is stolen and used in a crime because it wasn't securely locked should be held responsible in some way for the crime as well.

lol you carry a gun to protect yourself from liberals? and the second amendment actualy guarantees you the right to protect yourself with a firearm from stupid and ignorant liberals? I never realized that. Thank you for educating me on my rights. Those dangerous, violent liberals will never get me now.

 

"A well regulated militia" is an informative clause, and not a conditional clause. In no way, shape, or form does it mean that in order for citizen to own a firearm they must be part of "a well regulated militia". Instead, it means that in order for well regulated militias (which are essential to maintain a free state, from both internal and external threats) to be formed, citizens have the right to own firearms.

 

This made sense to me:

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.
Read it again:
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.
What does "well regulated" mean? In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.
What is the mechanism by which "proper discipline and training" is provided to members of this militia?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/25/1173770/-What-IS-a-well-regulated-militia

To me it means a militia first has to be formed.

However:

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.


The caveat being:

In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.

Interpretation (of the constitution) being king.

 

Bullshit. Nobody puts things into an Amendment to the US Constitution that have no meaning or relevance. Gun freaks can't figure out how to use this phrase to help their cause, so they find it convenient to ignore it.

You're digging your hole deeper. Nobody who is a member of any federal or state military organization performs his duties with a weapon that he or she personally owns. This is another concept that has no relevance in modern times. Your local National Guard unit isn't going to be short of guns if you don't have one at home to bring with you. They won't even allow you to use it.

Jefferson would probably laugh at us if he knew we were trying to take what he wrote about muskets and trying to apply it to the weapons of today. Or maybe he would just think it's sad and pathetic.

There's way too much rationalization going on with this topic. For example, the far right can't find anything specifically wrong with Obama's recent executive orders related to gun control, so they're attacking his right to issue them, even though they have no problem with Republican presidents doing the same thing. The bullshit is piling up deep.

Exactly. Machine guns have been illegal since the 1930's, and nobody seems to have a problem with it. When you accept that, you accept the concept of gun control.

Nobody wants to go back to the 1920's, when the Mafia was able to mass-murder police in Chicago anytime they wanted.

 

And I am not saying otherwise. The men who wrote the Constitution are on record saying that militias are vital to ensuring our country remains free from threats, both internal and external. As such, in order for that militia to be effective, the citizens have the right to arm themselves.

Digging my whole deeper? Are you really this ignorant about our Constitution? The militia, as intended by our Constitution, isn't the federal or state militarizes. Indeed, George Mason said "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." I'd say it is just as important now as it was then.

Really? Do you think he would feel the same way about our freedom of speech and expression in regards to what is said on television? The internet? Radios? These technologies certainly didn't exist when it was written. Should we care?

I'm not far right or a Republican so I can't really comment.

Automatic weapons (machine guns, as you call them) are not illegal. They are perfectly legal to own according to federal law.

 

Federal law strictly regulates machine guns (firearms that fire many rounds of ammunition, without manual reloading, with a single pull of the trigger).

Among other things, federal law:

1. requires all machine guns, except antique firearms, not in the U.S. government's possession to be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF);

2. bars private individuals from transferring or acquiring machine guns except those lawfully possessed and registered before May 19, 1986;
3. requires anyone transferring or manufacturing machine guns to get prior ATF approval and register the firearms;

4. with very limited exceptions, imposes a $200 excise tax whenever a machine gun is transferred;

5. bars interstate transport of machine guns without ATF approval; and

6. imposes harsh penalties for machine gun violations, including imprisonment of up to 10 years, a fine of up to $250,000, or both for possessing an unregistered machine gun.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/rpt/2009-R-0020.htm

and that is gun control.

 

Not arguing that. All I am saying is that owning an automatic weapons is completely legal here in the United States, contrary to what Karen posted.

Indeed it is. So?

 

Jon Stewart illustrated it great last night, when he said that if a meth freak or drunk comes in a gun shop and wants to buy an assault weapon, it's okay to sell it to him, but if he get's in his car and starts to drive away, the cops should take him down for driving under the influence.

 

I should tell you now that I generally don't have conversations with people who declare anyone with a different opinion to be ignorant.

That's one man's opinion. I'm not buying it. George Mason is not the ultimate expert on constitutional law. I'll stick with the dictionary definition of the word 'militia'.

I have no idea what Jefferson would think about all that. I'm sure he wasn't thinking about child pornography on the internet when he wrote the First Amendment, since photography hadn't been invented yet. He would definitely continue to defend an individual's right to express unpopular opinions, through any medium available. That's the core concept.

He did write and speak about the need for laws and legal systems to change over time. An excerpt from one of those speeches is engraved on an interior wall of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington. He makes an easy to understand analogy about the absurdity of an adult trying to wear clothes that fit him as a child.

If we could bring Jefferson back to life, I'm sure he would want to spend some quality time on the internet, getting up to speed on the latest thinking on a variety of topics, before commenting on anything. He was a cutting edge guy, for his time.

Yeah buddy, you just try that. Enjoy your time in prison.

Even drug gangs can't get their hands on them now. They are not refraining from using them on the streets out of respect for their victims. They have no mercy. Just like Al Capone had no mercy.

"If we outlaw machine guns, then only the criminals will have them."

"Machine guns don't kill 100 people at a time. People do. Take away their machine guns, and they will find another way to kill 100 people in a single minute."

"If we allow the government to outlaw machine guns, it's only a matter of time until they come to your house and take your hunting rifle. The Second Amendment will become a joke!"
​

All those statements could have been made in 1929, and all of them would have been wrong. See the parallels to today?

 

I am not calling you ignorant simply because you disagree with me. I said you were ignorant because you displayed an ignorance to what the Constitution actually says.

He is one of the men who wrote the 2nd Amendment.

Per dictionary.com:
1.a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2.a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3.all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4.a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

Fair enough. Though, you do claim to know what he would think about citizens owning modern firearms. How can you know one and not the other? Do you not see the hypocrisy in that?

Again, according to federal law, a citizen can own fully automatic weapons. I know multiple people who own anything from Uzis to MG42s. There are also numerous dealers around the country who sell them. All one has to do is pass the relevant background check and have the ability to afford one (they aren't cheap!). Here is one such dealer: http://www.impactguns.com/machine-guns.aspx

State and local laws may vary, obviously.

Yes they can, and they do. They do so illegally. Do you honestly think a gang involved in the illegal drug trade is going to give a shit about whether the guns they acquire are acquired legally?

Again, machine guns are legal to own according to federal law.

 

Actually i beleve the law strictly prohibits individuals from obtaining machine guns. i wouldn't call that completely legal.

i made the point about it being gun control because i'm finding that many people hear the word gun control and automatcally jump to the concluson that all guns are gong to be taen away from law-abiding citizens. This is far from the truth. Gun control at least in Obama's recent proposal and in past years simply means putting tighter restrictons on weapons capable of mass destruction.

 

As I told Karen, individuals are allowed to own automatic weapons (to include machine guns) brought into this country prior to 1986, and as long as they pass a background check and have the money to do so. I know multiple individuals who legally own such weapons.

Oh I agree that many people over react when they hear gun control. That said, every single weapon is capable of mass destruction. Personally, I don't think anyone is going to try and take my guns away and I agree with many of the Executive Orders Obama recently signed (namely background checks for all and improved screening for mental illness). Still, I do not believe that the types of weapons I own (which include an AR15) should be illegal for law abiding citizens to purchase.

 

Then I am done talking to you.

Eventually, you will learn that this kind of insult isn't a part of a worthwhile conversation, whether the other party agrees with you or not.

 

Insult? Are you serious?


ig·no·rant
[ig-ner-uh nt] Show IPA
adjective
1.
lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2.
lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3.
uninformed; unaware.
4.
due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.


There is no insult there. I am simply using the word to point out that you obviously don't understand what the 2nd Amendment is saying. You have a lack of knowledge about it, you are uninformed. I am not saying you are stupid.

 

It's obvious to you, because my opinion is different from yours. That isn't just a sign of ignorance; a more accurate and descriptive word is asshole.

 

Not just to me, Karen, but also to the men who wrote it and constitutional scholars throughout our nations history. Your problem here, I think, is simply one of a misunderstanding of sentence structure.

 

RJ... Real gun nuts re-load their own bullets. I've listened to em rhaposize about how more powerfull and accurate their handmade ones are.

Our President should seek the approval of Congress for any measure. Didn't we have enough of unilateralism already?

Well thankfully for US Federalism, Each state can carve out very strict gun controls for itself, like New York State did this week. Federalism brought marijuanna reform in Oregon and Colarado, it can allow firearms restrictions as well.

I'd be a wondering if Our President would give a shout out to Mayor Bloomberg and New York City who are fighting the good fight against illegal hand guns with the Stop n Frisk program. They catch a lot of heat for racial profiling. They confiscate lots of illegal pistols off the street and get little support for their efforts from the Progressive community.

It's one thing to vote in new laws. Where are the balls to enforce them.

 

That is what it really comes down to, IMO. I read some where (I'll try and find the link) that the DOJ only prosecuted something like 1% of people who falsified information on their form 4473s. That is the form you have to fill out when you buy an assault rifle or pistol. It went on to say that 1% has been the norm for a while. I think a lot of good can be done from enforcing existing laws, along with universal background checks and increased funding for mental illness identification and treatment.

UPDATE: Found the link! http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/opinion/avlon-obama-gun-control/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

 

In 2010, prosecutors considered just 22 cases of information falsification, according to a 2012 report to the Department of Justice by the Regional Justice Information Service. Forty additional background-check cases ended up before prosecutors for reasons related to unlawful gun possession.

In all, prosecutors pursued just 44 of those 62 cases. More than 72,600 applications were denied on the basis of a background check.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/18/b...e-who-lie-on-background-checks/#ixzz2IL7XIEBi

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf

 

You crack me up!

You are about to see what the majority REALLY thinks.

Obviously, you don't know an "assault weapon" from a real assault weapon. I can't get over the level of stupidity of some of you! Homicides have been falling for over 2 decades and are at less than 50% the level they were in 1980 and you think there is a crisis. It isn't us who are afraid, it's you clowns. Get a life and see if you can figure out what freedom means.