DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... President Obama, before you try that gun grab, I have a WARNING for you…

Well Arch the financial ability to up and go..there was a time where 100$ after paying for your immediate bills may as well have been a million$ Hell not even paying bills having no electric or gas..no car..acceptance that you have no way out..generations of your family is in the same cycle its all you know.

You get put into the legal system and cant just "go" also the heavy reliance on the "system" Man its so dynamic the reasons why.

For me my father come back from Nam and was certified nuts...my mother wouldnt leave and he didnt get his stuff straightened out till my brother and I was damn near grown.

I told the reasons why I left my senior year in a previous thread here...I was lucky I had a family member take me in after my parents not talking to them through my childhood. I was the one who reached out for help to leave and that was the reason my whole family started speaking again and my father got help for his mental health issues. Finished my senior yr in Ohio and shortly after went to the Corp.

I can tell you it IS as bad as people say...Varying levels of bad depending on city or place but still BAD. I just happen to be in one of the worst in the country.

I had a come to Jesus moment when my best friend in the world got murdered, executed shot in the back of the head on his knees at 17yrs old..I was supposed to be there not him...and while many other people I knew died through my youth for some reason that hit home...and did what I had to do to leave.

The only thing I did right was do enough to pass school and not drop out. My mother made sure of it. Plus I got to eat at school so I went.

Its not as simple as just GO...and to people not living it I understand why they would think its that easy.

Wouldnt matter if he did dont think it would be constitutional anyway..and if he did I wouldnt follow anyway while it went through the courts.



This I could get behind...but the rest of what was proposed sounded like a bunch of crap that Dems wanted anyway even before this happened that it would have zero effect on stopping squat.

I feel pretty strongly about this one also.

I agree with you. I just thought it was news that fit well with this thread.

I think he already has in January 2013 and again in January 2016.



The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release January 04, 2016

FACT SHEET: New Executive Actions to Reduce Gun Violence and Make Our Communities Safer

"...while Congress has repeatedly failed to take action and pass laws that would expand background checks and reduce gun violence, today, building on the significant steps that have already been taken over the past several years, the Administration is announcing a series of commonsense executive actions designed to: ..."

The article, from the White House, then goes on to explain what the executive action contains.

www.whitehouse.gov

I enjoyed the read Pit. Just sounded like a bunch of regurgitated ant-gun talking points...nothing earth shattering new.

Though out of the whole article I did agree with what I quoted....depending on who their definition of terorist is.

I have read our own gov considers me one...white male middle aged who believes in the constitution and owns and carries firearms...soooo..depending on what the definition of who they deem a terrorist is my only sticking point.

I believe youre correct...ddubia. I'm sure of it after Sandy Hook happened.

See the main point of my issue with the whole we need 'more gun control' after any major event is, where is this talk on every other day of the year? It is only when an 'assault' rifle is used that this comes up because it catches headlines and sounds scary.

Also I just have a natural distrust for anyone in politics doing anything that is reasonable. I would like to see what reasonable gun control measures are in their opinion because I don't trust politicians as far as I can kick them. I mean it was sickening how quickly the focus of this event turned to the weapon instead of the person actually responsible..though it is not even surprising anymore. This topic just always reeks of politics and not putting the blame where it belongs.

I just did a quick check, didn't find that. But I seem to remember he threatened to take action about Assault Rifles.., Not hand guns or shotguns.. Just AR's.

That's a little different than wanting to take all your guns away, but I do get your point.

Something I want to clear up about my position on guns.

I don't own any guns, more of a car guy to be honest. I can, if I chose to do so, run my car at high speed into a crowd of people and I don't want to think of the carnage I could create.

But I had to get a learners permit first, then a drivers license and I had to tested both on the road and in a classroom.

Not sure at all if that is done with Guns. You would know better than I. But I do think it should be.

I have no problem with a responsible person owning AR's. Or any guns for that matter. But how do you determine who's responsible and who isn't.

Figure that out and maybe there is a solution in there somewhere that will satisfy everyone.

I guess it depends on how aware one is of the political scene because its been non stop talk of gun control and the scary black guns need banned talk for 8yrs now. I understand why their is talk and is being pushed heavily after 1 of these events but make no mistake the left and some of the right have been in gun control talk for a good while now.

Did like your post though...

Hey Daman maybe I missed it but dub was saying he did say executive order not on a particular gun...maybe I missed that part.


But Obummer share did threaten to use it...or look into if he could whatever.

One other comment on this that you said....about driving and what you needed to do in order to do so...My only problem with that line of thinking is 2nd amendment is supposed to be a protected right...driving is not its a privileged.

Thats my only beef when someone mentions this.

Yeah, I'm fully aware that it is somewhat ongoing but all of the masses just come out of the woodworks when they could have cared less the day before.

While gun ownership is a right, so is free speech. Yet you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre or yell bomb on a plane. So while we do have rights, there is a precedent for putting certain limitations on such rights.

Just sayin'.

Pit we already have limitations on the 2nd...and while my view is extreme to some people but "shall not be infringed" means just that to me.

Ive had a many discussion with people saying you want felons to have guns??? Well how pure do I want to believe in my belief of Shall not be infringed...and have went back and forth with myself over that.

My point on the car thing is...its not one of the founding principles of our country and is a privledge not a right so it seems like a moot point IN MY MIND.

I edited my above post to include this link to www.whitehouse.gov that explains the executive actions he announced in January 4, 2016.



Here's another...

Obama’s gun control order runs into first legal challenge

Published time: 19 Jan, 2016 20:28

A lawsuit is challenging President Obama’s recent executive order, which attempts to expand government restrictions on gun sales.

The lawsuit argues that the action illegally attempts to circumvent Congress’ legislative power.

Conservative advocacy group Freedom Watch on Monday challenged Obama’s executive order on guns, which instructed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and other agencies to reinterpret legislation passed by Congress. The president justified this by saying he was closing what he called a “loophole” that allowed certain sales to occur without a background check.


"The president states that he is doing so purely because he does not like the legislative decisions of the Congress,” wrote Freedom Watch founder Larry Klayman. "These actions are unconstitutional abuses of the president’s and executive branch’s role in our nation’s constitutional architecture and exceed the powers of the president as set forth in the US Constitution.”

The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleges that President Obama doesn’t have the legal authority to redefine laws that Congress passed. The new interpretation allows the ATF to extend its enforcement activities to people who do not make their livelihood selling firearms and require them to perform background checks. This previous limitation on jurisdiction was known by its detractors as the “gun show loophole.”

This is only the first lawsuit challenging the January 4 executive order that many experts predicted to be controversial both politically and legally.

Klayman also argues that the executive order violates due process by containing overly-vague language about prohibiting mental health.

"Obama is changing under such background checks a person prohibited from buying a gun from one formally adjudicated by a court of law to be mentally incompetent to anyone who – vaguely – has a mental health 'issue,'” Klayman said in a statement. “Thus, the due process protection of a court ruling is being lost. Obama ordered the Social Security Administration to report to the firearm background check database people on disability payments for reasons that may indicate 'issues' of mental health.

"Obama is working to require doctors to report those with (poorly defined) issues. Everyone living in same household may lose right to possess a gun."

In addition to Barack Obama, Klayman’s lawsuit names Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Thomas Brandon, director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives as defendants.

link

Thanks for digging that up...I'm to lazy at the moment..celebrating the Cavs win till early in the morning has me hurting at the moment and feeling lazy.

I might miss my flight due to my impulse to over indulge in Patron lastnight

Thanks for the information ddub.

It's funny how people clings to the "shall not infringe", even though it's written in an amendment

Do I have to post the definition of amendment again?

The 13th is an amendment too. Does that mean we really don't have to follow that one?

You have to follow it until it's get changed.

The point is, it can be changed.

What was he point of your post again? You're on a roll with useless dribble lately.

Do that for me if you will.

I cling to nothing but thems the words...and I'm fully aware what amendment means...fully aware what a right means compared to a privilege also...which is my only point of contention to the comparison to driving and gun laws.

Let me edit gun laws to the Right To Bare Arms..

whois "we"? That's pretty nasty.

All of the Constitution has to be followed, otherwise it's useless. What was your point? It can be changed? Keep trying.

Well it can be changed but if its so easy well go ahead and abolish the 2nd...I posted a video on this before I left on how to do this very procedure and it didnt get much response.

act of amending or the state of being amended.
2.
an alteration of or addition to a motion, bill, constitution, etc.
3.
a change made by correction, addition, or deletion:
The editors made few amendments to the manuscript.
4.
Horticulture. a soil-conditioning substance that promotes plant growth indirectly by improving such soil qualities as porosity, moisture retention, and pH balance.


It's funny because we add and make changes to amendments throughout history.

So whatever language they put inside the amendment, doesn't change the fact that you can still change said amendment.

And there's a valid reason why the founding fathers choose to make the constitution like this. They knew the constitution would have to evolve with the times.

Now, to be clear, I've said before that I'm for responsible gun ownership, whatever that means.

I'm just putting to bed this notion that the 2nd amendment can't be touched. That's false.

See my answer above.

And liberal have been trying to parse the word 'militia' for a 100 years or so, to change the meaning. It it was easy, they wouldn't try the executive order game or try compiling secret lists that go around due process.

So now defining interpretation of this is a liberal thing now?

If that was true, why are a increasing amount of conservatives now talking about more gun control?

Lemme guess, cause their closet liberals, right?

"Anybody that doesn't see it like me is a liberal"

I dont know who has said this...but using executive orders isnt how it should be done.

My point was at the EXTREME of MY viewpoint shall not be infringed meant just that.

Man the constitution is a complex subject...and I dont find it to be a breathable document...hell I could be wrong in that argument but its my OPINION Swish.

Those are the ones that are spineless. I would like to see those 'conservatives' voted out, as they are too deep in the popularity game in DC.

No I find them Elitist fools who dont want to follow the constitution anyway and would strip away as many rights as they could..as fast as any liberal would.

But its all opinion not stating anything as fact.

I see where you're coming from with that. I wasn't sure which is why I asked.



This is what Wiki says regarding the Second Ammendment:


In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.

In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.

In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie [correct until proven otherwise], to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare".

Despite these decisions, the debate between various organizations regarding gun control and gun rights continues.



I think the Supreme Court rulings in 2008, 2010 and 2016 were very important, recent rulings. I also think it would take a monumental push to change them any further in favor of short-sighted gun control attempts.

The Right of free speech only covers the freedom of the Press and the People to speak against the Government, you can not be found guilty of a crime for doing it.

That is it. You are not free to speak your mind about others or you can be convicted of Liable.

Speech is also limited in many other ways.

Ok. But what I'm saying is a ton of people cling to the "shall not infringe".

So all I'm getting at is that it could very well be changed. As far as the executive order, if it's implemented, isn't that what the checks and balances is for?

But you know what's crazy about this bro? That's not a whole lot of uproar on the right wing side complaining about it. The usual suspects, sure.

But two days ago, even the ultra conservative bill o'reilly said on Fox News that we needed some sort of gun control.

That's how you know crap has gotten out of control.

That's the only point I was making, though. The 2nd amendment, just like any other amendment, can be legally touched. Those amendments are not etched in stone.

Hey Dub is it not open to the supreme court judges to interpret what they think the constitution meant?? and there bias has been to show through on how they rule??

From either side of the isle they beliefs align..its the one thing I hate about the judges.

Bill O'Reilly is not an ultra conservative. He might be in your eyes. Of course they can all be changed. It damn well shouldn't, though. Once the government controls guns, that's when we all start to lose rights.

Those are excellent cases you brought up.

My professor in business law said something along the lines of most people thought of the 2nd amendment and well regulated militia as the national guard, as they are funded by the state.

But regardless, the fact that there are so many debates, interpretations, and rulings on this topic shows that there is no set precedence on this topic.

And there may come a time where there's additional language added, or they remove it completely, or they give even MORE rights for gun owners.

You just never know which way, but at the end of the day, it can certainly be touched.

Holy cow Swish Ultra conservative Bill Oreilly??? that guy tends to be so far off on gun stuff that I dont label him conservative...maybe others do.

Holy crap you have me looking at my alignment of how far right am I if Bill is ultra conservative

We will see where the bulk of the right is if anything gets done...if little kids got killed and nothing was done I'm not sure a bunch of gays being killed makes the difference either.

We'll see