Obama considers executive action on guns

[Ashotep]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-to-consider-executive-action-on-gun-background-checks/

This won't go over well if he does.

[Harry_Dresden]

Well intended gesture but it falls short of addressing many issues like home gun storage and criminal punishment. Obama has he's hands tied by powerful lobbies and is looking more and more like a failed President.

[mbrn30000]

watch the paranoid idiots burn up the internet. he is coming for your guns and bible. better barricade the trailer park. UN trucks and black helicopters are coming for you.

[preacherman76]

Gun dealerships already do this.

Id just like to say, I think 0bama doesn't give a crap about gun violence. He's got more blood on his hands then just about anyone. He just wants more control. Especially before Americans figure out how bad 0bama screwed us with the TPP.

[+OverSword]

watch the paranoid idiots burn up the internet. he is coming for your guns and bible. better barricade the trailer park. UN trucks and black helicopters are coming for you.

So far I've heard that from exactly one person

[preacherman76]

Well intended gesture but it falls short of addressing many issues like home gun storage and criminal punishment. Obama has he's hands tied by powerful lobbies and is looking more and more like a failed President.

No he has his hands tied by the constitution, solidified by the Bill of Rights. He has no authority on this matter.

[preacherman76]

I have no problem saying 0bama is a power hungry globalist piece of trash. If you don't like it, so what? The man has already called for full confiscation twice in the last month.

[Harry_Dresden]

No he has his hands tied by the constitution, solidified by the Bill of Rights. He has no authority on this matter.

The right to keep and bare arms is so outdated. Obama has no made no secret of his desire to do more and the fact that he can't proves that he can't. The NRA is a lobby group right?

[preacherman76]

The right to keep and bare arms is so outdated. Obama has no made no secret of his desire to do more and the fact that he can't proves that he can't. The NRA is a lobby group right?

0bama seems to do things he isn't allowed to all the time. I'll never let my guard down.

Outdated? There are people still alive today who saw what happens when tyrannical leaders take away peoples guns. Forget that, and forget you.

The NRA is a lobby group. Still has nothing to do with the fact that the second amendment is written in stone.

[+and-then]

0bama seems to do things he isn't allowed to all the time. I'll never let my guard down.

Outdated? There are people still alive today who saw what happens when tyrannical leaders take away peoples guns. Forget that, and forget you.

The NRA is a lobby group. Still has nothing to do with the fact that the second amendment is written in stone.

If he uses his pen on this one, the Democrats will howl just like the Republicans. The second amendment is the last vestige of liberty he has yet to besmirch. He can use the pen and he will effectively create problems for (legal) gun buyers and sellers. It will do zero to stop illegal purchasers/sellers. My guess is that the net effect will be to drive down sales for the next 16 months or so. The effect it will have on the Democrats in '16 might well be catastrophic. If they support him on this then their done...stick a fork in them.

[Agent0range]

What kind of idiot thinks a background check is not necessary to purchase a gun? Oh..the same type of idiot that posts on here 20 times a day...

[preacherman76]

But we already have background checks. Who's complaining?

Problem here is another president thinking he can make laws on his own. Even if they already exist.

[+and-then]

But we already have background checks. Who's complaining?

Problem here is another president thinking he can make laws on his own. Even if they already exist.

From the article: The new order, however, would make clear what it means to be "in the business" of selling firearms. The intent will be to encroach on the rights of individuals buying and selling amongst themselves. It sounds like (not enough info) an attempt to increase the number of sales that are required to go through a FFL source. In so doing a larger number of sales will be recorded and traceable. The short term solution will simply be to continue business as usual and ignore the law. It will be tough to enforce without a BATF force to run stings. Edited October 9, 2015 by and then

[+and-then]

What kind of idiot thinks a background check is not necessary to purchase a gun? Oh..the same type of idiot that posts on here 20 times a day...

Or maybe an idiot who doesn't actually READ the article...just sayin...

[preacherman76]

From the article: The new order, however, would make clear what it means to be "in the business" of selling firearms. The intent will be to encroach on the rights of individuals buying and selling amongst themselves. It sounds like (not enough info) an attempt to increase the number of sales that are required to go through a FFL source. In so doing a larger number of sales will be recorded and traceable. The short term solution will simply be to continue business as usual and ignore the law. It will be tough to enforce without a BATF force to run stings.

True and then. I only own one gun that I actually bought in a store. My Father gave me the rest of them. My boys will one day get those.

[Hawken]

Next thing you know Obama will perform background checks to purchase a screwdriver in hardware stores.

[PersonFromPorlock]

It drives the Liberals crazy to know that sovereignty (embodied in the power to destroy) belongs to We the People, instead of to the enlightened government class. That's why they want a disarmed public, so there won't be any doubt about whose government it is. And yes, they do want a disarmed public; check the gun laws in DC, NYC, and Chicago, which the Liberals own and where they adamantly refuse to losen the controls one iota.

[+and-then]

True and then. I only own one gun that I actually bought in a store. My Father gave me the rest of them. My boys will one day get those.

I usually buy from individuals, even at gun shows, and I met a guy a few months back who told me that he'd gotten in a financial bind and had to pawn his dad's guns. When he went in to claim them he was forced to fill out a yellow sheet. I would have been FURIOUS!

[+and-then]

It drives the Liberals crazy to know that sovereignty (embodied in the power to destroy) belongs to We the People, instead of to the enlightened government class. That's why they want a disarmed public, so there won't be any doubt about whose government it is. And yes, they do want a disarmed public; check the gun laws in DC, NYC, and Chicago, which the Liberals own and where they adamantly refuse to losen the controls one iota.

The one thing they lack is the balls to make it a reality!

[Ashotep]

If he does this it will guarantee a republican president and will make the democrats mad as well as republicans. Not all democrats are for stricter gun control laws. That's where people like Hillary and Obama make a big mistake. They will lose these people's vote to a republican.

Already you have to go through a back ground check. The only change I would be okay with is giviing them 7 days instead of 3 to do a background check. If they had a couple of more days Roof probably wouldn't have gotten a gun.

Most people that know they can't get one legally usually find illegal means to buy one, so how is tougher gun laws going to help that.

[spartan max2]

I'm confused how far executive orders can go now in days.

It really appears like am executive order can be anything a president says it is

[docyabut2]

It is sad but people that have to give up thier guns because of people killing people have a chance of a political take over. I go with Carson, the Nazis took the guns away and looked what happen.

Edited October 10, 2015 by docyabut2

[Gunn]

I'm confused how far executive orders can go now in days.

It really appears like am executive order can be anything a president says it is

Depends on whether it's constitutional or not. He could make his decree, but if the supreme court finds it unconstitutional then he's SOL.

[Michelle]

Depends on whether it's constitutional or not. He could make his decree, but if the supreme court finds it unconstitutional then he's SOL.

The problem is, like during hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. Who authorized the authorities to confiscate the guns from the people who decided not to evacuate? With all of the looting and killing that was going on, the last thing the people needed was the government coming in taking the only protection people had away from them.

I will never forget the little old lady, who would not leave because they wouldn't let her pets on board the bus to evacuate. She stayed to take care of them, in a relatively safe area. The "authorities" raided her house and demanded she give up her guns, but they couldn't force her to leave the area against her will. I wouldn't leave my pets to starve to death either.

Sometimes you can't wait for the courts to decide.

Edited October 10, 2015 by Michelle

[Hawken]

It comes down to this if ever in this scenario, Kill or be killed. If you asked any soldier that served in the military

that was in combat they will tell you this. So if one's life was in danger, what would one do?