Obama considering an executive order on gun control (Page 2)

Akrakowski - 2013-01-10 6:52 AM To equate the current gun debate to Nazi Germany is a distraction and a joke. Obama, and most rational Americans, are not calling for a ban on private gun ownership. We as Americans are absolutely allowed to determine limits on individual Constitutional rights (when does free speech become slander? when does freedom of the press become libelous? when does your right to the pursuit of happiness become a threat to the greater good and must be limited?) This is not un-American - it is the beauty of our democracy. I hope we can agree that as Americans, we have a Constitutional and moral right to debate where to draw the line as to which types of arms are appropriate for citizens to own. Even the NRA isn't calling for the 1934 law prohibiting ownership of fully automatic weapons to be overturned, nor are we saying our "right" to own arms like bazookas, tanks, nukes, etc. is being "infringed." As technology advances in the lethality of guns as well as the abiltity to make them safer for owners, we absolutely must be able to debate that.

pga_mike - 2013-01-10 9:22 AM

Never forget.

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.  Indeed I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order."
         --- Adolf Hitler

Note: I am in no way condemning our POTUS as a Nazi.  The perspective and possibility of evil on a much larger scale is dismissed in our country as impossible.  But we are young.

Akrakowski - 2013-01-10 9:52 AM To equate the current gun debate to Nazi Germany is a distraction and a joke. Obama, and most rational Americans, are not calling for a ban on private gun ownership. We as Americans are absolutely allowed to determine limits on individual Constitutional rights (when does free speech become slander? when does freedom of the press become libelous? when does your right to the pursuit of happiness become a threat to the greater good and must be limited?) This is not un-American - it is the beauty of our democracy. I hope we can agree that as Americans, we have a Constitutional and moral right to debate where to draw the line as to which types of arms are appropriate for citizens to own. Even the NRA isn't calling for the 1934 law prohibiting ownership of fully automatic weapons to be overturned, nor are we saying our "right" to own arms like bazookas, tanks, nukes, etc. is being "infringed." As technology advances in the lethality of guns as well as the abiltity to make them safer for owners, we absolutely must be able to debate that.

tuwood - 2013-01-10 7:28 AM

I seem to recall several Obama supporters going on and on last year before the election about how Obama doesn't want to take away our guns.  lol

running2far - 2013-01-10 7:12 AM True, but that was before an elementary school was shot up. I don't think he wants your guns, he wants to limit what guns you buy in the future. So if you don't have the guns, how can he take them?

running2far - 2013-01-10 10:12 AM True, but that was before an elementary school was shot up. I don't think he wants your guns, he wants to limit what guns you buy in the future. So if you don't have the guns, how can he take them?

pga_mike - 2013-01-10 9:22 AM

Never forget.

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.  Indeed I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order."
         --- Adolf Hitler

Note: I am in no way condemning our POTUS as a Nazi.  The perspective and possibility of evil on a much larger scale is dismissed in our country as impossible.  But we are young.

Jackemy1 - 2013-01-10 10:31 AM

Over the course of the recent gun debates, I am surprised so many dismiss tyrannical power as antiquated as the musket. Tyranny comes in many forms including "Tyranny of the majority", you know. The Constitution provides the basis for a government that minimizes the risk of tyranny in all its forms and in that the 2nd amendment plays a small but significant part.

Dismissing idea of tyranny as passe or to cite it as crazy points to more of a commentary on those that make them. Either they are unfamiliar with history or they are doomed to repeat it.

I am not suggesting that we should decay into a society of vigilantism. Far from it in fact. The 2nd amendment is and was the peoples last hope against tyranny when all other methods put into place - separation of powers, federalism, etc - fail to sufficiently protect the individual liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Finally, if we as Americans want to change the 2nd amendment let at least follow the rules and suggest and amendment to the Constitution, and not neglect it.

TriRSquared - 2013-01-10 8:36 AM

SLOW CLAP!!!

Well said...

BrianRunsPhilly - 2013-01-10 10:02 AM

You forgot this one:

"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed."

-- Adolf Hitler

Nobody in his administration is even remotely close to calling for an all-out ban on private gun ownership. You could actually listen to what he's said in interviews AFTER Newton:

OBAMA: We’re a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment. We’ve got a long tradition of hunting and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can protect themselves.

Big Appa - 2013-01-10 9:01 AM

I agree with you but in no way is a Simi auto rifle near a bazooka or tank and IMO should not be banned.

I think they might be able to pass a nationwide law making everyone more like CA with stricter back ground checks, 10 day wait, and 10 round magazine limit. I do not really like the wait or limit but I understand it.

ejshowers - 2013-01-10 7:59 AM

I prefer a Simi cabernet to a Simi Auto-rifle.

Jackemy1 - 2013-01-10 10:31 AM

Over the course of the recent gun debates, I am surprised so many dismiss tyrannical power as antiquated as the musket. Tyranny comes in many forms including "Tyranny of the majority", you know. The Constitution provides the basis for a government that minimizes the risk of tyranny in all its forms and in that the 2nd amendment plays a small but significant part.

Dismissing idea of tyranny as passe or to cite it as crazy points to more of a commentary on those that make them. Either they are unfamiliar with history or they are doomed to repeat it.

I am not suggesting that we should decay into a society of vigilantism. Far from it in fact. The 2nd amendment is and was the peoples last hope against tyranny when all other methods put into place - separation of powers, federalism, etc - fail to sufficiently protect the individual liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Finally, if we as Americans want to change the 2nd amendment let at least follow the rules and suggest and amendment to the Constitution, and not neglect it.

 

 

BrianRunsPhilly - 2013-01-10 8:02 AM

You forgot this one:

"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed."

-- Adolf Hitler

Nobody in his administration is even remotely close to calling for an all-out ban on private gun ownership. You could actually listen to what he's said in interviews AFTER Newton:

OBAMA: We’re a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment. We’ve got a long tradition of hunting and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can protect themselves.

Brock Samson - 2013-01-10 10:57 AM

Well....what is being said and what is being attempted or suggested aren't the same.  of course the administration isn't arguing for the complete banning of private gun ownership, because that is clearly unconstitutional.  However there are moves to take lawfully owned guns out of the hands of their owners.  For example, the proposed Ill. legislation that would make it illegal to posses any semi-automatic weapon.  (given that 80% of modern handguns and something like 40& of long guns are semi-automatic that's pretty close to disarming) 

Additionally, the Feinstein bill doesn't call for taking legally owned "assualt weapons" (whatever an assualt weapon is) from current owners...but the bill calls for a national registry of such firearms and makes their transfer illegal and...upon the death of the registered owner the firearm would revert to the Federal government, presumably for destruction.  So, the end effect is within a generation the total elimination of these types of firearms.

So yes, I am listening to what is being said, and more importantly what is being suggested.

Brock Samson - 2013-01-10 10:57 AM

Well....what is being said and what is being attempted or suggested aren't the same.  of course the administration isn't arguing for the complete banning of private gun ownership, because that is clearly unconstitutional.  However there are moves to take lawfully owned guns out of the hands of their owners.  For example, the proposed Ill. legislation that would make it illegal to posses any semi-automatic weapon.  (given that 80% of modern handguns and something like 40& of long guns are semi-automatic that's pretty close to disarming) 

Additionally, the Feinstein bill doesn't call for taking legally owned "assualt weapons" (whatever an assualt weapon is) from current owners...but the bill calls for a national registry of such firearms and makes their transfer illegal and...upon the death of the registered owner the firearm would revert to the Federal government, presumably for destruction.  So, the end effect is within a generation the total elimination of these types of firearms.

So yes, I am listening to what is being said, and more importantly what is being suggested.

kmanus - 2013-01-10 9:12 AM 

Except the 2A isn't about hunting or sports.  It's about protecting from a tyrannical government.  Self-defense, hunting, sporting are all benefits.

BrianRunsPhilly - 2013-01-10 8:13 AM

Maybe they implement a tax on ammo that's used to pay for police in schools? How many gun owners would be against this, or other measures that might actually do something for public safety and not just lip service? Maybe nothing happens? I don't know, but I do know that hyperbole and extremism makes for news, and politicians are egomaniacs.

drewb8 - 2013-01-10 10:19 AM I agree that that's its purpose, but if that's true, than what I struggle with, is how can you justify any sort of regulation on any kind of armament at all?  

Big Appa - 2013-01-10 11:21 AM

I think most would be. Take anything you own now say like a car and put an extra tax (yes more then there is now) on gas and see how many people complain.  It’s not just about the tax it’s that they are reacting to something in the wrong way and it will fix nothing. The problem with all of this is even if we are ok with what is being proposed it will do nothing to help what the original concern is. A lot of people agree with all of this are the ones that already do not like or fear firearms so they are perfectly ok with it all just like people that don’t drive don’t care about gas prices.

drewb8 - 2013-01-10 11:19 AM I agree that that's its purpose, but if that's true, than what I struggle with, is how can you justify any sort of regulation on any kind of armament at all?  

BrianRunsPhilly - 2013-01-10 8:31 AM

I guess I'm coming at this from the perspective that there will be governmental action related to guns, so what can be done that actually has some intelligence and meaningful impact? And that is also based in reality. Stating that guns should be banned is about as realistic as saying we should allow private citizens to own grenade launchers since the 2nd amendment doesn't have any stated restrictions.