| Posted By |
Message |
| Pages: [1] 2 |
2BadSoSad
LIF Adult
Member since 8/12 6791 total posts
Name:
|
Executive Action on gun control
Im not looking to start a debate, I back the president and I am glad someone finally did something, anything. Someone tried.
I am asking bc I honestly don't understand, for those against the measures taken - why? Why don't you support a measure that helps close the gun show loophole, why do you not support stricter background checks?
I totally get it if he was trying to take away the right to bear arms, if he was trying to literally take guns away.
I do not understand, and I don't mean that in a passive aggressive way, I truly do not understand what someone could have against stricter gun control laws?
Whether you think they will have an impact or not, why else be opposed to them, why be opposed to trying something?
Im not asking to start a debate, I am asking to truly understand the other viewpoint on this. Can someone help?
|
Posted 1/5/16 6:47 PM  |
| |
|
Long Island Weddings
Long Island's Largest Bridal Resource |
ANewDayHasCome
Love multiplies, not divides
Member since 11/12 14481 total posts
Name:
Me
|
Executive Action on gun control
I support it, but I think it will only do so much. Sandy hook and so many others, the guns were legally obtained with a background check.
|
| Posted 1/5/16 6:58 PM |
| |
|
stinger
LIF Adult
Member since 11/11 4971 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Executive Action on gun control
Posted by 2BadSoSad
Im not looking to start a debate, I back the president and I am glad someone finally did something, anything. Someone tried.
I am asking bc I honestly don't understand, for those against the measures taken - why? Why don't you support a measure that helps close the gun show loophole, why do you not support stricter background checks?
I totally get it if he was trying to take away the right to bear arms, if he was trying to literally take guns away.
I do not understand, and I don't mean that in a passive aggressive way, I truly do not understand what someone could have against stricter gun control laws?
Whether you think they will have an impact or not, why else be opposed to them, why be opposed to trying something?
Im not asking to start a debate, I am asking to truly understand the other viewpoint on this. Can someone help?
I think this is a great question. I'm also curious what people against gun control (not taking rights away just making sure the wrong people don't have guns) think the answer is to the rise in gun violence? What are the proposed solutions that are brought to the table?
|
| Posted 1/5/16 7:04 PM |
| |
|
alli3131
Peanut is here!!!!!!
Member since 5/09 18388 total posts
Name:
Allison
|
Executive Action on gun control
People hang their hat on the right to bear arms argument but that consitutional right is not an ablotule right and it wasn't meant that you me and joe blow down the street all have the right to arm ourselves. It means we hve the right to bear arms to protect the state.
It drives me crazy when people try to use this.
|
| Posted 1/5/16 7:50 PM |
| |
|
MissJones
I need a nap!
Member since 5/05 22150 total posts
Name:
|
Executive Action on gun control
As a mom and a teacher of kids the same age as Sandy hook, I just don't get why people are opposing this. Nobody needs guns that can wipe out 15 people in a minute.
|
| Posted 1/5/16 8:10 PM |
| |
|
2BadSoSad
LIF Adult
Member since 8/12 6791 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Executive Action on gun control
I don't want this to turn into a debate off the topic of question, I want people who oppose this to be able to come in and explain why without being attacked. I get that some people who oppose gun control oppose tampering with their second amendment right, I get that some people who are supporters don't believe that everyday joe needs a gun that has the power to kill multiple people in .02 seconds. But that is not the question at hand - why specifically oppose the measures in this order, which if I have all correct are:
Require ALL who deal in guns to require background checks
Hire more federal officers to enforce existing laws
Propose $500mil to mental health, including mental health checks included with background checks
Conduct research into Smart Gun Safety
None of which, as far as I can tell, violate the 2nd amendment at all. These all seem like logical non-invasive steps to take which allows both sides to have their cake and eat it too. I am just curious as to this order specifically, what about it one opposes about it and why.
I would like an honest answer. I personally, will not take you to task for your answer or require you to defend it here on this board, I just really want to try to understand what the opposition to this could be, bc I genuinely do not understand.
|
| Posted 1/5/16 8:20 PM |
| |
|
sunnyplus3
:)
Member since 11/05 8749 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Executive Action on gun control
I will give my honest reply but I will not defend my position or get into a pissing match about it.
My husband is a military firearm (no handguns) collector here in NY. Target practice is a hobby of ours, we have competed in matches and we are very highly trained in gun safety. his brothers are firearm (hunting, handguns, military) collectors in Florida.
Over the years my husband and his brothers have bought and/or sold many firearms from and to each other or other members of gun clubs.
Sometimes depending on the type of firearm or the location of the buyer or the seller the gun would need to be transferred through an FFL but not always.
By saying that ANYONE that sells more than two guns a year must become an FFL (as difficult as obtaining a liquor license) or sell through an FFL is basically saying that all guns will enter into a registry of sorts.
The guns are not the problem, the mentally ill and destructive people using them are the problem.
The drug dealers, violent criminals and convicted felons will continue to circumvent this new required system just as
they've avoided complying with all other laws.
This will leave tens of thousands of guns (many assault style rifles) in the hands of the most volatile people in our country.
It has been required in NY state for decades that people obtain a license to own a pistol/handgun. Most of the gun related murders in NYC each year are committed with unregistered/defaced handguns. It has been a national law for decades that Felons may not posses firearms without obtaining a relief from civil disabilities (nearly impossible to get unless you live in an area you need to hunt to live)
Yet just last week there were two felons (the only ones I noticed news reports about on LI) that were arrested for other crimes while possessing illegal firearms.
So the law abiding citizens that have never received as much as traffic ticket nor are they mentally unstable in anyway will be entered into a registry of sorts. This registry could ( and many people believe it will) be the pathway our government would eventually use to "collect" all the firearms.
That would completely strip us of our second amendment right and is incredibly dangerous to the stability of the country because there are people in areas outside NY that will fight to keep their firearms.
Now, I will say that I'm all in favor of better background checks, more agents, I'm all in favor of required waiting periods, etc. I'm in healthcare so I don't know how this could be HIPAA compliant but there must be a rating system or someway to communicate to the agency conducting the background check that a person is not mentally well enough to posses a firearm at that time. I'm in favor of life in prison sentences for straw buyers that sell guns used to commit violent crimes.
I believe in all of that, but I cannot get behind the FFL requirement for people that have safely collected firearms or need them to hunt or protect livestock in order to transfer 2 or more guns a year.
I'm also in favor of our political parties learning to work together to draft laws that are more about what most of the people want and not what speaks to their own political agenda. Being an election year I'm especially unhappy about it.
In my humble opinion this call by the president is a very slippery slope.
Message edited 1/5/2016 9:26:20 PM.
|
| Posted 1/5/16 9:21 PM |
| |
|
2BadSoSad
LIF Adult
Member since 8/12 6791 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Executive Action on gun control
thank you.
|
| Posted 1/5/16 9:34 PM |
| |
|
quasi3
LIF Adult
Member since 7/07 1764 total posts
Name:
Stacey
|
Re: Executive Action on gun control
Posted by sunnyplus3
I will give my honest reply but I will not defend my position or get into a pissing match about it.
My husband is a military firearm (no handguns) collector here in NY. Target practice is a hobby of ours, we have competed in matches and we are very highly trained in gun safety. his brothers are firearm (hunting, handguns, military) collectors in Florida.
Over the years my husband and his brothers have bought and/or sold many firearms from and to each other or other members of gun clubs.
Sometimes depending on the type of firearm or the location of the buyer or the seller the gun would need to be transferred through an FFL but not always.
By saying that ANYONE that sells more than two guns a year must become an FFL (as difficult as obtaining a liquor license) or sell through an FFL is basically saying that all guns will enter into a registry of sorts.
The guns are not the problem, the mentally ill and destructive people using them are the problem.
The drug dealers, violent criminals and convicted felons will continue to circumvent this new required system just as
they've avoided complying with all other laws.
This will leave tens of thousands of guns (many assault style rifles) in the hands of the most volatile people in our country.
It has been required in NY state for decades that people obtain a license to own a pistol/handgun. Most of the gun related murders in NYC each year are committed with unregistered/defaced handguns. It has been a national law for decades that Felons may not posses firearms without obtaining a relief from civil disabilities (nearly impossible to get unless you live in an area you need to hunt to live)
Yet just last week there were two felons (the only ones I noticed news reports about on LI) that were arrested for other crimes while possessing illegal firearms.
So the law abiding citizens that have never received as much as traffic ticket nor are they mentally unstable in anyway will be entered into a registry of sorts. This registry could ( and many people believe it will) be the pathway our government would eventually use to "collect" all the firearms.
That would completely strip us of our second amendment right and is incredibly dangerous to the stability of the country because there are people in areas outside NY that will fight to keep their firearms.
Now, I will say that I'm all in favor of better background checks, more agents, I'm all in favor of required waiting periods, etc. I'm in healthcare so I don't know how this could be HIPAA compliant but there must be a rating system or someway to communicate to the agency conducting the background check that a person is not mentally well enough to posses a firearm at that time. I'm in favor of life in prison sentences for straw buyers that sell guns used to commit violent crimes.
I believe in all of that, but I cannot get behind the FFL requirement for people that have safely collected firearms or need them to hunt or protect livestock in order to transfer 2 or more guns a year.
I'm also in favor of our political parties learning to work together to draft laws that are more about what most of the people want and not what speaks to their own political agenda. Being an election year I'm especially unhappy about it.
In my humble opinion this call by the president is a very slippery slope.
Well said.
|
| Posted 1/5/16 10:26 PM |
| |
|
MrsMick
Baby #2 debuts in March 2016!
Member since 9/09 1977 total posts
Name:
Michele
|
Re: Executive Action on gun control
Posted by sunnyplus3
I will give my honest reply but I will not defend my position or get into a pissing match about it.
My husband is a military firearm (no handguns) collector here in NY. Target practice is a hobby of ours, we have competed in matches and we are very highly trained in gun safety. his brothers are firearm (hunting, handguns, military) collectors in Florida.
Over the years my husband and his brothers have bought and/or sold many firearms from and to each other or other members of gun clubs.
Sometimes depending on the type of firearm or the location of the buyer or the seller the gun would need to be transferred through an FFL but not always.
By saying that ANYONE that sells more than two guns a year must become an FFL (as difficult as obtaining a liquor license) or sell through an FFL is basically saying that all guns will enter into a registry of sorts.
The guns are not the problem, the mentally ill and destructive people using them are the problem.
The drug dealers, violent criminals and convicted felons will continue to circumvent this new required system just as
they've avoided complying with all other laws.
This will leave tens of thousands of guns (many assault style rifles) in the hands of the most volatile people in our country.
It has been required in NY state for decades that people obtain a license to own a pistol/handgun. Most of the gun related murders in NYC each year are committed with unregistered/defaced handguns. It has been a national law for decades that Felons may not posses firearms without obtaining a relief from civil disabilities (nearly impossible to get unless you live in an area you need to hunt to live)
Yet just last week there were two felons (the only ones I noticed news reports about on LI) that were arrested for other crimes while possessing illegal firearms.
So the law abiding citizens that have never received as much as traffic ticket nor are they mentally unstable in anyway will be entered into a registry of sorts. This registry could ( and many people believe it will) be the pathway our government would eventually use to "collect" all the firearms.
That would completely strip us of our second amendment right and is incredibly dangerous to the stability of the country because there are people in areas outside NY that will fight to keep their firearms.
Now, I will say that I'm all in favor of better background checks, more agents, I'm all in favor of required waiting periods, etc. I'm in healthcare so I don't know how this could be HIPAA compliant but there must be a rating system or someway to communicate to the agency conducting the background check that a person is not mentally well enough to posses a firearm at that time. I'm in favor of life in prison sentences for straw buyers that sell guns used to commit violent crimes.
I believe in all of that, but I cannot get behind the FFL requirement for people that have safely collected firearms or need them to hunt or protect livestock in order to transfer 2 or more guns a year.
I'm also in favor of our political parties learning to work together to draft laws that are more about what most of the people want and not what speaks to their own political agenda. Being an election year I'm especially unhappy about it.
In my humble opinion this call by the president is a very slippery slope.
So very well said.
Also to add which you mentioned- this will leave criminals with the guns and the rest of us defenseless. In the history of mass shootings which are often planned and thought out by the shooter. The shooting in Colorado- the shooter initially planned to shoot up an airport but knew he couldn't succeed because if airport security so he chose a movie theater. The shooter in Charleston chose the church instead of a college because again, he knew he could get away with it in a church- kill more defenseless people. The college is likely more secure with armed security guards.
So if everyone registers their guns which is the beginning of confiscation- whether you can see that or not, all the criminals will still have access to firearms. There wil probably be more mass shootings because they will know they can do it with less and less people armed.
I also came across this on Facebook which is so very well said and I agree with wholeheartedly:
Dear Mr. President, I just saw you on the news saying that you want Congress to "do something, do anything" about Gun Control.
It is precisely this thoughtless "do anything" approach to violence that is absolutely wrong for America! I urge you to start by thoughtfully dealing with bad guys and sick people who commit violent acts. Keep bad guys out by protecting our borders. Keep bad guys in prison when they use guns to commit crimes. Spend some of the trillions of taxpayer dollars that you flush down overseas toilets identifying and treating America's mentally ill. Don't just do "anything." Do something positive and thoughtful...for a change.
Oh, and happy new year to the men and women who protect your family with high capacity, automatic weapons...the same kind of protection deserved by every American family!! -Elbert Guillory
|
| Posted 1/6/16 6:50 AM |
| |
|
Xelindrya
Mommy's little YouTube Star!
Member since 8/05 14470 total posts
Name:
Veronica
|
Re: Executive Action on gun control
Posted by MrsMick
Posted by sunnyplus3
I will give my honest reply but I will not defend my position or get into a pissing match about it.
My husband is a military firearm (no handguns) collector here in NY. Target practice is a hobby of ours, we have competed in matches and we are very highly trained in gun safety. his brothers are firearm (hunting, handguns, military) collectors in Florida.
Over the years my husband and his brothers have bought and/or sold many firearms from and to each other or other members of gun clubs.
Sometimes depending on the type of firearm or the location of the buyer or the seller the gun would need to be transferred through an FFL but not always.
By saying that ANYONE that sells more than two guns a year must become an FFL (as difficult as obtaining a liquor license) or sell through an FFL is basically saying that all guns will enter into a registry of sorts.
The guns are not the problem, the mentally ill and destructive people using them are the problem.
The drug dealers, violent criminals and convicted felons will continue to circumvent this new required system just as
they've avoided complying with all other laws.
This will leave tens of thousands of guns (many assault style rifles) in the hands of the most volatile people in our country.
It has been required in NY state for decades that people obtain a license to own a pistol/handgun. Most of the gun related murders in NYC each year are committed with unregistered/defaced handguns. It has been a national law for decades that Felons may not posses firearms without obtaining a relief from civil disabilities (nearly impossible to get unless you live in an area you need to hunt to live)
Yet just last week there were two felons (the only ones I noticed news reports about on LI) that were arrested for other crimes while possessing illegal firearms.
So the law abiding citizens that have never received as much as traffic ticket nor are they mentally unstable in anyway will be entered into a registry of sorts. This registry could ( and many people believe it will) be the pathway our government would eventually use to "collect" all the firearms.
That would completely strip us of our second amendment right and is incredibly dangerous to the stability of the country because there are people in areas outside NY that will fight to keep their firearms.
Now, I will say that I'm all in favor of better background checks, more agents, I'm all in favor of required waiting periods, etc. I'm in healthcare so I don't know how this could be HIPAA compliant but there must be a rating system or someway to communicate to the agency conducting the background check that a person is not mentally well enough to posses a firearm at that time. I'm in favor of life in prison sentences for straw buyers that sell guns used to commit violent crimes.
I believe in all of that, but I cannot get behind the FFL requirement for people that have safely collected firearms or need them to hunt or protect livestock in order to transfer 2 or more guns a year.
I'm also in favor of our political parties learning to work together to draft laws that are more about what most of the people want and not what speaks to their own political agenda. Being an election year I'm especially unhappy about it.
In my humble opinion this call by the president is a very slippery slope.
So very well said.
Also to add which you mentioned- this will leave criminals with the guns and the rest of us defenseless. In the history of mass shootings which are often planned and thought out by the shooter. The shooting in Colorado- the shooter initially planned to shoot up an airport but knew he couldn't succeed because if airport security so he chose a movie theater. The shooter in Charleston chose the church instead of a college because again, he knew he could get away with it in a church- kill more defenseless people. The college is likely more secure with armed security guards.
So if everyone registers their guns which is the beginning of confiscation- whether you can see that or not, all the criminals will still have access to firearms. There wil probably be more mass shootings because they will know they can do it with less and less people armed.
I also came across this on Facebook which is so very well said and I agree with wholeheartedly:
Dear Mr. President, I just saw you on the news saying that you want Congress to "do something, do anything" about Gun Control.
It is precisely this thoughtless "do anything" approach to violence that is absolutely wrong for America! I urge you to start by thoughtfully dealing with bad guys and sick people who commit violent acts. Keep bad guys out by protecting our borders. Keep bad guys in prison when they use guns to commit crimes. Spend some of the trillions of taxpayer dollars that you flush down overseas toilets identifying and treating America's mentally ill. Don't just do "anything." Do something positive and thoughtful...for a change.
Oh, and happy new year to the men and women who protect your family with high capacity, automatic weapons...the same kind of protection deserved by every American family!! -Elbert Guillory
I agree. Plus I find it frustrating that the solution doesn't involve the government overseeing themselves. They are by far the more guilty party of providing weapons to faceless nameless criminals without any background checks. Fast and Furious anyone?
|
| Posted 1/6/16 9:04 AM |
| |
|
HomeIsWithU
Baby #2 on the way!
Member since 9/07 7816 total posts
Name:
Jenn
|
Re: Executive Action on gun control
Posted by sunnyplus3
I will give my honest reply but I will not defend my position or get into a pissing match about it.
My husband is a military firearm (no handguns) collector here in NY. Target practice is a hobby of ours, we have competed in matches and we are very highly trained in gun safety. his brothers are firearm (hunting, handguns, military) collectors in Florida.
Over the years my husband and his brothers have bought and/or sold many firearms from and to each other or other members of gun clubs.
Sometimes depending on the type of firearm or the location of the buyer or the seller the gun would need to be transferred through an FFL but not always.
By saying that ANYONE that sells more than two guns a year must become an FFL (as difficult as obtaining a liquor license) or sell through an FFL is basically saying that all guns will enter into a registry of sorts.
The guns are not the problem, the mentally ill and destructive people using them are the problem.
The drug dealers, violent criminals and convicted felons will continue to circumvent this new required system just as
they've avoided complying with all other laws.
This will leave tens of thousands of guns (many assault style rifles) in the hands of the most volatile people in our country.
It has been required in NY state for decades that people obtain a license to own a pistol/handgun. Most of the gun related murders in NYC each year are committed with unregistered/defaced handguns. It has been a national law for decades that Felons may not posses firearms without obtaining a relief from civil disabilities (nearly impossible to get unless you live in an area you need to hunt to live)
Yet just last week there were two felons (the only ones I noticed news reports about on LI) that were arrested for other crimes while possessing illegal firearms.
So the law abiding citizens that have never received as much as traffic ticket nor are they mentally unstable in anyway will be entered into a registry of sorts. This registry could ( and many people believe it will) be the pathway our government would eventually use to "collect" all the firearms.
That would completely strip us of our second amendment right and is incredibly dangerous to the stability of the country because there are people in areas outside NY that will fight to keep their firearms.
Now, I will say that I'm all in favor of better background checks, more agents, I'm all in favor of required waiting periods, etc. I'm in healthcare so I don't know how this could be HIPAA compliant but there must be a rating system or someway to communicate to the agency conducting the background check that a person is not mentally well enough to posses a firearm at that time. I'm in favor of life in prison sentences for straw buyers that sell guns used to commit violent crimes.
I believe in all of that, but I cannot get behind the FFL requirement for people that have safely collected firearms or need them to hunt or protect livestock in order to transfer 2 or more guns a year.
I'm also in favor of our political parties learning to work together to draft laws that are more about what most of the people want and not what speaks to their own political agenda. Being an election year I'm especially unhappy about it.
In my humble opinion this call by the president is a very slippery slope.
 Very well said.
|
| Posted 1/6/16 9:09 AM |
| |
|
2BadSoSad
LIF Adult
Member since 8/12 6791 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Executive Action on gun control
I disagree with a lot of the opposing viewpoint and don't see it the same way, but thanks for sharing.
|
| Posted 1/6/16 12:04 PM |
| |
|
casey31
Mommy of 3!
Member since 5/05 2967 total posts
Name:
Mommy to two boys and a girl
|
Re: Executive Action on gun control
My issue is that this is a slippery slope in terms of how the power of the presidency is interpreted. I don't like Obama for many reasons but his constant Executive Actions go farther than determining HOW existing laws should be enforced. The president cannot write laws - only determine how they can be enforced.
If a Republican president gets in can't he say "well yes, Roe v Wade is law but I am writing an Executive Action to save lifes and require mandatory waiting periods before abortions in all states."
To me, he is a bit too King like and it is creating a slippery slope.
|
| Posted 1/6/16 12:30 PM |
| |
|
blu6385
Member since 5/08 8351 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Executive Action on gun control
I feel like people who are against gun control always say it just a start for them to take guns away which I think is the most ridiculous answer unless you can tell the future no one has no idea what will happen and I think everyone should actually start complaining when they actually try to take guns away from all people.
will any action take guns away from bad guys NO just like drugs are illegal and people still get it; people will always get guns.
but for anyone to complain about background checks and that it will take longer to own a gun and have to register to be able to sell guns/trade guns will always baffle me. who cares just do it there a lot of thing we a required to do I am sure we don't want to do but we do it right what's so different about this. if we were truly are the land of the free we would have no laws and anyone can do what they want but we all could imagine how our society would turn out.
|
| Posted 1/6/16 12:34 PM |
| |
|
blu6385
Member since 5/08 8351 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Executive Action on gun control
Posted by casey31
My issue is that this is a slippery slope in terms of how the power of the presidency is interpreted. I don't like Obama for many reasons but his constant Executive Actions go farther than determining HOW existing laws should be enforced. The president cannot write laws - only determine how they can be enforced.
If a Republican president gets in can't he say "well yes, Roe v Wade is law but I am writing an Executive Action to save lifes and require mandatory waiting periods before abortions in all states."
To me, he is a bit too King like and it is creating a slippery slope.
so you are against the fact the president just ordered it and no matter what president did it you would have a problem with this
but if it was voted on by congress and passed you would then have no problem with this action for gun control?
not trying to be snarky either just wondering
|
| Posted 1/6/16 12:35 PM |
| |
|
mommyagain3
LIF Infant
Member since 6/15 144 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Executive Action on gun control
My concern with the executive action is that I don’t believe it to be a true attempt at gun control but more of an act of political posturing and a way to further divide the political parties and the American people. I say this because Obama can sign this action but it’s still needs congressional funding to be effective in any way shape or form. Congress is NOT going to fund this action so it never actually gets put into play. So basically this is all to save face and look good to some of the American people. He’s throwing a Hail Mary with no one down field.
|
| Posted 1/6/16 12:50 PM |
| |
|
MrsMick
Baby #2 debuts in March 2016!
Member since 9/09 1977 total posts
Name:
Michele
|
Re: Executive Action on gun control
Posted by casey31
My issue is that this is a slippery slope in terms of how the power of the presidency is interpreted. I don't like Obama for many reasons but his constant Executive Actions go farther than determining HOW existing laws should be enforced. The president cannot write laws - only determine how they can be enforced.
If a Republican president gets in can't he say "well yes, Roe v Wade is law but I am writing an Executive Action to save lifes and require mandatory waiting periods before abortions in all states."
To me, he is a bit too King like and it is creating a slippery slope.
I agree with everything mentioned here. So true- 100% IMO.
|
| Posted 1/6/16 12:55 PM |
| |
|
casey31
Mommy of 3!
Member since 5/05 2967 total posts
Name:
Mommy to two boys and a girl
|
Re: Executive Action on gun control
Posted by blu6385
Posted by casey31
My issue is that this is a slippery slope in terms of how the power of the presidency is interpreted. I don't like Obama for many reasons but his constant Executive Actions go farther than determining HOW existing laws should be enforced. The president cannot write laws - only determine how they can be enforced.
If a Republican president gets in can't he say "well yes, Roe v Wade is law but I am writing an Executive Action to save lifes and require mandatory waiting periods before abortions in all states."
To me, he is a bit too King like and it is creating a slippery slope.
so you are against the fact the president just ordered it and no matter what president did it you would have a problem with this
but if it was voted on by congress and passed you would then have no problem with this action for gun control?
not trying to be snarky either just wondering
Yes, I would be more comfortable with it. I feel that if it were a law written by Congress it (to me) is more likely to reflect the will of the people.
|
| Posted 1/6/16 1:05 PM |
| |
|
casey31
Mommy of 3!
Member since 5/05 2967 total posts
Name:
Mommy to two boys and a girl
|
Re: Executive Action on gun control
Posted by mommyagain3
My concern with the executive action is that I don’t believe it to be a true attempt at gun control but more of an act of political posturing and a way to further divide the political parties and the American people. I say this because Obama can sign this action but it’s still needs congressional funding to be effective in any way shape or form. Congress is NOT going to fund this action so it never actually gets put into play. So basically this is all to save face and look good to some of the American people. He’s throwing a Hail Mary with no one down field.
Agree with this!
|
| Posted 1/6/16 1:06 PM |
| |
|
ElizaRags35
My 2 Girls
Member since 2/09 20494 total posts
Name:
Me
|
Re: Executive Action on gun control
Posted by casey31
My issue is that this is a slippery slope in terms of how the power of the presidency is interpreted. I don't like Obama for many reasons but his constant Executive Actions go farther than determining HOW existing laws should be enforced. The president cannot write laws - only determine how they can be enforced.
If a Republican president gets in can't he say "well yes, Roe v Wade is law but I am writing an Executive Action to save lifes and require mandatory waiting periods before abortions in all states."
To me, he is a bit too King like and it is creating a slippery slope.
When you say "constant Executive Actions", how many do you think he has signed? How many has he signed in comparison to other 2 term presidents in recent years?
I bet the comparison would surprise you.
ETA: In case you wanted to know...
Message edited 1/6/2016 3:01:51 PM.
|
| Posted 1/6/16 2:59 PM |
| |
|
ElizaRags35
My 2 Girls
Member since 2/09 20494 total posts
Name:
Me
|
Executive Action on gun control
I think it's about time someone did something about the ongoing mental health and gun violence problem that is plaguing our country. Congress sure as hell wasn't going to do anything. They're too busy trying to overturn the ACA or defund parenthood for the umpteenth time.
|
| Posted 1/6/16 3:00 PM |
| |
|
sunnyplus3
:)
Member since 11/05 8749 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Executive Action on gun control
The OP really asked nicely for everyone to stay on this specific topic of the presidents executive action regarding gun control and not become adversarial. It's amazing how difficult it is for some LIF people to comply with a very simple, polite request.
|
| Posted 1/6/16 3:38 PM |
| |
|
mommy2Alex
3 babies for me :)
Member since 5/05 6683 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Executive Action on gun control
Posted by casey31
My issue is that this is a slippery slope in terms of how the power of the presidency is interpreted. I don't like Obama for many reasons but his constant Executive Actions go farther than determining HOW existing laws should be enforced. The president cannot write laws - only determine how they can be enforced.
If a Republican president gets in can't he say "well yes, Roe v Wade is law but I am writing an Executive Action to save lifes and require mandatory waiting periods before abortions in all states."
To me, he is a bit too King like and it is creating a slippery slope.
This! Anything he thinks he can't get done in Congress he just uses his pen. And he has no problem saying he doesn't need Congress that he has the power of the pen. This is not how our Country was intended to operate and I think he pushes the boundaries on so many levels.
|
| Posted 1/6/16 4:20 PM |
| |
|
ElizaRags35
My 2 Girls
Member since 2/09 20494 total posts
Name:
Me
|
Re: Executive Action on gun control
Posted by sunnyplus3
The OP really asked nicely for everyone to stay on this specific topic of the presidents executive action regarding gun control and not become adversarial. It's amazing how difficult it is for some LIF people to comply with a very simple, polite request.
It is extremely frustrating when falsehoods are spread and people take them as face value, which is evident here. I'm over it. Sorry.
Message edited 1/6/2016 5:34:14 PM.
|
| Posted 1/6/16 5:33 PM |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 |
