Executive Order - Expanded Background Checks

[TCassidy]

Every firearm dealer is required to have a FFL (Federal Firearms License).

A private seller is not a dealer. And a dealer is not a private seller.

And a licensed dealer may not sell any firearm to any other person without a NICs check by claiming it was a private sale.

The EO did nothing. It is typical window dressing. It means absolutely nothing.

 

[Aaron]

I support what he's doing or attempting to do with this Executive Order. Some may think it doesn't do anything . But doing nothing doesn't do anything either.

Somebody has to start somewhere in reeling in gun violence.

Questions the morality of a government's role in "reeling in" violence to unborn children, yet finds the government's impedance of free men to defend themselves wholly moral.

 

[TCassidy]

GOP aren't too concerned about illegal guns either.

What is an "Illegal gun?"

 

[InTheLight]

The EO did nothing. It is typical window dressing. It means absolutely nothing.

Not quite. By introducing the EO and including the murky phrase "any person in the business of selling firearms" needs a license and must perform background checks, Obama has effectively opened a new court case whereby "in the business" must be defined. That could lead to burdensome requirements for gun hobbyists and/or collectors. It could even lead to the awkward situation where if a father wants to pass down to his son or daughter a gun, the father needs to get a license and do a background check on his child.

 

[poncho]

It wasn't a dig. It was intended to point out that the government(federal, local and state) didn't just start bypassing due process or a whole lot of other rights.

What's false and divisive about what I said? Are you now gonna tell me that prosecutors aren't bypassing due process? What I said would only be divisive to the folks who think that due process is only for them.

And you know that I don't need folks in my good graces.

I'll be the first to tell you that government investigating itself is always going to find it did nothing wrong.

Are you saying that because government has a history of bypassing due process we shouldn't be concerned about it now?

Can you name which leaders in history have granted themselves the authority to execute their own citizens without due process and what they did with that authority?

What's false and divisive is trying to make police shootings look like they're all racially motivated. They aren't.

 

[poncho]

You don't really expect an answer , do you?

Ask Crabby to explain the difference between a democrat and a socialist.

 

[Don]

(picture too large, so I left it out)

And yet, you haven't answered any of my questions from the first page, have you?

At least Zaac tried....

 

[TCassidy]

Ask Crabby to explain the difference between a democrat and a socialist.

Simple. The Socialist admits he is a Socialist. The Democrat tries to deny it.

 

[poncho]

And yet, you haven't answered any of my questions from the first page, have you?

At least Zaac tried....

It would take more than repeating DNC talking points to answer them honestly Don.

 

[TCassidy]

Obama has effectively opened a new court case whereby "in the business" must be defined.

I disagree. He used the word "business." That means having a business license and if you sell guns from that business having an FFL. In other words, exactly as the present law reads. The whole thing is window dressing.

 

[poncho]

Under our system of government, only Congress can write federal laws and establish crimes. The president is on particularly thin constitutional ice here because his allies in Congress have proposed this very procedure as an amendment to existing law, and Congress has expressly rejected those proposals.

The president is without authority to negate the congressional will, and any attempt to do so will be invalidated by the courts. As well, by defining what an occasional seller is, beyond the congressional definition or the plain meaning of the words, the president is essentially interpreting the law, a job reserved for the courts.

By requiring physicians to report conversations with their patients about guns to the Department of Homeland Security, the president will be encouraging them to invade the physician-patient privilege; and I suspect that most doctors will ignore him.

Under the Constitution, fundamental liberties (speech, a free press, worship, self-defense, travel and privacy, to name a few) are accorded the highest protection from governmental intrusion. One can only lose a fundamental right by intentionally giving it up or via due process (a jury trial resulting in a conviction for criminal behavior). The president — whose support for the right to keep and bear arms is limited to the military, the police and his own heavily armed bodyguard — is happy to begin a slippery slope down into the dark hole of totalitarianism, whereby he or a future president can negate liberties if he hates or fears the exercising of them.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/6/andrew-napolitano-obama-has-no-authority-to-issue-/

 

[Crabtownboy]

Crabby - please explain how women are being denied birth control?

Six states currently permit pharmacists to refuse a woman prescribed contraception based on personal religious beliefs and an additional five states have a broadly worded refusal policy may apply to pharmacists or pharmacies, but does not specifically include them. This includes birth control pills and emergency contraception otherwise known as the morning after pill. Emergency contraception is FDA approved and available with or without prescription. It’s a time sensitive medication with a high success rate.

The six states permitting refusal are Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Missouri and South Dakota. The five states where the law is broadly worded include: Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Maine and Tennessee.

 

[Crabtownboy]

 

[Zaac]

I'll be the first to tell you that government investigating itself is always going to find it did nothing wrong.

Are you saying that because government has a history of bypassing due process we shouldn't be concerned about it now?

Nope. What I said is they bypassed it in other situations and continue to do so. So it shouldn't be unexpected that they do it in other areas.

Can you name which leaders in history have granted themselves the authority to execute their own citizens without due process and what they did with that authority?

I don't particularly care, but I imagine there's been several.

What's false and divisive is trying to make police shootings look like they're all racially motivated. They aren't.

What's false and divisive is the folks who look like the police who are doing the murdering trying to tell the folks who look like the murdered that it's not racially motivated.

You let me know how many white young men have been killed in the space of two seconds? You got white folks running around with guns in public and the police don't bat an eyelash.

You got white people shooting up stuff left and right , but amazingly they always see to be taken into custody.

What's false and divisive is the narrative for the police killings today is just like it was doing Jim Crow. And as was the case then, a lot of the folks who share the same skin color of the police don't think race has anything to do with it.

That's just like saying that all the angry white men were angry with GWB the same way they are with Obama.

 

[TCassidy]

Six states currently permit pharmacists to refuse a woman prescribed contraception based on personal religious beliefs and an additional five states have a broadly worded refusal policy may apply to pharmacists or pharmacies, but does not specifically include them.

Please list the states that have only ONE pharmacy or only ONE pharmacist. Thank you.

 

[Don]

Still waiting on you to address *any* of the questions I posed at the beginning of this thread....

 

[poncho]

Nope. What I said is they bypassed it in other situations and continue to do so. So it shouldn't be unexpected that they do it in other areas.



I don't particularly care, but I imagine there's been several.



What's false and divisive is the folks who look like the police who are doing the murdering trying to tell the folks who look like the murdered that it's not racially motivated.

You let me know how many white young men have been killed in the space of two seconds? You got white folks running around with guns in public and the police don't bat an eyelash.

You got white people shooting up stuff left and right , but amazingly they always see to be taken into custody.

What's false and divisive is the narrative for the police killings today is just like it was doing Jim Crow. And as was the case then, a lot of the folks who share the same skin color of the police don't think race has anything to do with it.

That's just like saying that all the angry white men were angry with GWB the same way they are with Obama.

What we have is a population that's been dumbed down and drugged up and taught from childhood to fear everyone else.

Answer me this Zaac why does every argument always have to end with one group compared with another? One president compared to another? One democrat compared to a republican?

What's that's got to do with anything? And how does constantly causing division between the races or any group help the situation?

The government views us all as a threat to it's power Zaac. It doesn't care what race color or creed we are in the government's eyes we're all a threat and the longer it can keep us divided into mindless bickering groups the better it's chances of success to enslave us all.

"Whitey" ain't the one doing the enslaving here, big corrupt government is.

It's not about "black vs white" or "Democrat vs Republican" or "Liberal vs conservative" it's about big Centralized government vs everyone's freedom. All of that "this vs that" stuff is a distraction meant to keep us all down on the plantation and dependent on the government by fighting with each other instead of uniting and making the government obey the rules agreed on in our contract.

Keeping people divided along racial or any other lines only makes it easier for big government to take all our freedom away. The enemy of the American people isn't other Americans. The enemy of the American people is big Centralized government because big Centralized government can only grow at the expense of *ALL American's freedoms.

*ALL includes every race color creed and religion.

 

[Don]

Still waiting on you to address *any* of the questions I posed at the beginning of this thread....

And there ya go, folks. CTB would rather post silly memes than actually discuss what I originally wrote and asked.

Thread's done. Mods, feel free to close it.

 

[Salty]

You don't really expect an answer , do you?

Yes, I do

 

[Salty]

So Crabby, if Walmart - decides to stop selling color TV's and only will sell B&W- are you saying the govt should make Walmart sell Color TV's.