• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The NRA Should Support the President's Executive Action on Guns

Joe Steel

Joe Steel

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2007
Messages
3,054
Reaction score
560
Location
St. Louis, Missouri, USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The Presidents proposed Executive Actions to control guns almost certainly will bring a response by the NRA. Let's hope it's consistent with that organization's past statements. Wayne Lapierre has said "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Well, that's what the on focus background checks will do. It's aimed at ensuring only good guys get guns. How can the NRA be upset with that?
 
Joe Steel said:
The Presidents proposed Executive Actions to control guns almost certainly will bring a response by the NRA. Let's hope it's consistent with that organization's past statements. Wayne Lapierre has said "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Well, that's what the on focus background checks will do. It's aimed at ensuring only good guys get guns. How can the NRA be upset with that?
Click to expand...

Yet another post with no link to any policy specifics. Yes, many support the general idea of keeping guns out of the hands of known (convicted) criminals and those that have been adjudged to be criminally insane. Many also prefer that these known to be dangerous folks not be allowed to roam freely among us yet, that too, requires specifics to become law/policy.
 
Joe Steel said:
The Presidents proposed Executive Actions to control guns almost certainly will bring a response by the NRA. Let's hope it's consistent with that organization's past statements. Wayne Lapierre has said "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Well, that's what the on focus background checks will do. It's aimed at ensuring only good guys get guns. How can the NRA be upset with that?
Click to expand...

As far as I know, all we know of the upcoming action from Obama is leaked info and conjecture. I don't see this as something that we can expect the NRA to support. Perhaps we should wait to see exactly what the President comes out with, eh?
 
Mycroft said:
As far as I know, all we know of the upcoming action from Obama is leaked info and conjecture. I don't see this as something that we can expect the NRA to support. Perhaps we should wait to see exactly what the President comes out with, eh?
Click to expand...


Generally, the President has proposed expanding background checks. His proposals don't include this suggestion but it looks like a great idea:

Directing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to identify which prohibited persons are most likely to commit crimes after failing a background check when attempting to buy a gun; to prosecute these individuals for illegally attempting to obtain firearms; and to inform state law enforcement whenever a prohibited person in their state fails a background check. It is common sense that law enforcement has a strong interest in knowing when anyone the law deems too dangerous to buy a gun attempts to do so. The Administration should act to ensure prompt and appropriate follow-up by law enforcement when prohibited persons attempt to buy guns.

http://www.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/Law Professor Statement 11-12-15.pdf
Click to expand...
 
Joe Steel said:
The Presidents proposed Executive Actions to control guns almost certainly will bring a response by the NRA. Let's hope it's consistent with that organization's past statements. Wayne Lapierre has said "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Well, that's what the on focus background checks will do. It's aimed at ensuring only good guys get guns. How can the NRA be upset with that?
Click to expand...

BS and more BS. Obama's definition of a bad guy with a gun is not a black thug who might "look like his son" but a NRA member who is going to vote against his party in the next election.
 
Joe Steel said:
It's been all over the news; but if you insist.... Obama's plan to tighten gun laws sets up rematch with powerful gun rights group NRA | Fox News
Click to expand...

So, basically, Obama wishes to ignore the current law completely and consider anyone that sells (some number of?) guns as a "gun dealer" subject to the same terms and conditions of a legally defined and federally licensed and regulated gun dealer. The obvious objection will be that the POTUS cannot make or change the law defining what a gun dealer subject to FFL requirements is. How, exactly, does Obama propose to regulate some (subject to change based on Obama's current mood, pen and phone?) gun sellers as if they were, in fact, legally defined gun dealers?
 
Joe Steel said:
The Presidents proposed Executive Actions to control guns almost certainly will bring a response by the NRA. Let's hope it's consistent with that organization's past statements. Wayne Lapierre has said "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Well, that's what the on focus background checks will do. It's aimed at ensuring only good guys get guns. How can the NRA be upset with that?
Click to expand...

Because it means that there's a remote possibility that fewer guns will be sold, that the gun manufacturers just might make a few dollars less...and that would violate the NRA's Corollary to the Second Amendment: "Ever-increasing firearm sales being crucial to the stock prices of firearm manufacturers, the rights of violent felons, sex offenders, sociopaths, and terrorists to legally purchase firearms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Because it means that there's a remote possibility that fewer guns will be sold, that the gun manufacturers just might make a few dollars less...and that would violate the NRA's Corollary to the Second Amendment: "Ever-increasing firearm sales being crucial to the stock prices of firearm manufacturers, the rights of violent felons, sex offenders, sociopaths, and terrorists to legally purchase firearms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"
Click to expand...

Reminding us we never should confuse the NRA with a legitimate policy forming organization. It's an industry pressure group.
 
TurtleDude said:
BS and more BS. Obama's definition of a bad guy with a gun is not a black thug who might "look like his son" but a NRA member who is going to vote against his party in the next election.
Click to expand...

Black thug? I'm more worried about welfare cowboys like the Bundy clan who have just recently called on local "militias," mostly white, to seize a federally owned building. If that's the NRA's conception of good guys with guns, maybe we should do more background-checking.
 
Joe Steel said:
Reminding us we never should confuse the NRA with a legitimate policy forming organization. It's an industry pressure group.
Click to expand...

And Obama reminds us he shouldn't be confused with a constitutional scholor, nothing in the constitution allows for the federal regulation of intrastate private transactions
 
Joe Steel said:
The Presidents proposed Executive Actions to control guns almost certainly will bring a response by the NRA. Let's hope it's consistent with that organization's past statements. Wayne Lapierre has said "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Well, that's what the on focus background checks will do. It's aimed at ensuring only good guys get guns. How can the NRA be upset with that?
Click to expand...
You know what gets me? The President shouldn't even need an executive order in getting this done; the lawmaking branch has just as much a responsibility to take more constructive involvement with this just as much as anyone--especially with all of these crazy shootings the public has been witnessing for some time now from nuts being able to get almost any kind of gun.

Yet again, it just isn't the NRA's fault. Here we have a congress that is resubmitting a Bill to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. Like something magical is going to happen and he is going to sign it this time. Unreal! :roll: With all the things that needs to be looked at, like background checks, these lawmakers decide to beat on a dead horse.
 
Joe Steel said:
Black thug? I'm more worried about welfare cowboys like the Bundy clan who have just recently called on local "militias," mostly white, to seize a federally owned building. If that's the NRA's conception of good guys with guns, maybe we should do more background-checking.
Click to expand...

of course you are, black thugs rarely vote and when they do its for "very liberal" candidates.
 
TurtleDude said:
BS and more BS. Obama's definition of a bad guy with a gun is not a black thug who might "look like his son" but a NRA member who is going to vote against his party in the next election.
Click to expand...
Just one reason why a gun owner like me will never join the NRA. I seen my father drop out a long time ago and I will continue a family tradition. :shrug:
 
Joe Steel said:
The Presidents proposed Executive Actions to control guns almost certainly will bring a response by the NRA. Let's hope it's consistent with that organization's past statements. Wayne Lapierre has said "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Well, that's what the on focus background checks will do. It's aimed at ensuring only good guys get guns. How can the NRA be upset with that?
Click to expand...

Everyone should be greatly concerned at a president, whom failing to get the House and Senate to agree with his proposals uses "Executive orders" to get his way. His actions undermine our government system, he is going against the will of the people and setting a precedent that I find abhorrent.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Because it means that there's a remote possibility that fewer guns will be sold, that the gun manufacturers just might make a few dollars less...and that would violate the NRA's Corollary to the Second Amendment: "Ever-increasing firearm sales being crucial to the stock prices of firearm manufacturers, the rights of violent felons, sex offenders, sociopaths, and terrorists to legally purchase firearms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with preventing "violent felons, sex offenders, sociopaths, and terrorists" from legally purchasing firearms...if that is the will of the people. (though I'm not so sure sex offenders should be included in that group) But when our government attempts to infringe upon the right of all other people in order to prevent those you've listed from legally purchasing firearms, then those attempts are wrong.

In other words, we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The government MUST find a better way to do the good part without doing the bad part.
 
Bob N said:
You know what gets me? The President shouldn't even need an executive order in getting this done; the lawmaking branch has just as much a responsibility to take more constructive involvement with this just as much as anyone--especially with all of these crazy shootings the public has been witnessing for some time now from nuts being able to get almost any kind of gun.

Yet again, it just isn't the NRA's fault. Here we have a congress that is resubmitting a Bill to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. Like something magical is going to happen and he is going to sign it this time. Unreal! :roll: With all the things that needs to be looked at, like background checks, these lawmakers decide to beat on a dead horse.
Click to expand...

Translation-Conservative politicians BAD

tell us Bob-what exactly is passing an unconstitutional background check requirement on INTRAstate sales going to do when the brady bill didn't do a damn thing in decreasing violent crime

and how is that going to be enforced without complete registration of the 300 million guns that are not registered (and thus the government cannot prove when one gun was sold to another person)
 
Renae said:
Everyone should be greatly concerned at a president, whom failing to get the House and Senate to agree with his proposals uses "Executive orders" to get his way. His actions undermine our government system, he is going against the will of the people and setting a precedent that I find abhorrent.
Click to expand...

that's why I call him the Lyin King!
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Because it means that there's a remote possibility that fewer guns will be sold, that the gun manufacturers just might make a few dollars less...and that would violate the NRA's Corollary to the Second Amendment: "Ever-increasing firearm sales being crucial to the stock prices of firearm manufacturers, the rights of violent felons, sex offenders, sociopaths, and terrorists to legally purchase firearms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"
Click to expand...

Actually, every time Obama pipes up about more "reasonable restrictions" on gun sales then legal gun sales shoot up. The idea that criminals would surely obey new laws ignores the reality of the current nationwide ban on many "recreational" drugs - those "banned" drugs now support a multi-billion dollar per year industry run completely by criminals and, according to many, fuel much of the current gang/drug related gun violence. Keep on talking is the NRA message to Obama. ;)
 
Last edited:
Crovax said:
And Obama reminds us he shouldn't be confused with a constitutional scholor, nothing in the constitution allows for the federal regulation of intrastate private transactions
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that makes any difference. And, if it does, smart lawyers can get around it.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Because it means that there's a remote possibility that fewer guns will be sold, that the gun manufacturers just might make a few dollars less...and that would violate the NRA's Corollary to the Second Amendment: "Ever-increasing firearm sales being crucial to the stock prices of firearm manufacturers, the rights of violent felons, sex offenders, sociopaths, and terrorists to legally purchase firearms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"
Click to expand...

The executive action will only hit the secondary market for guns so I don't think the gun manufacturers are too worried about the proposed executive order. If anything it will drive up their sales even more.
 
Mycroft said:
There is nothing wrong with preventing "violent felons, sex offenders, sociopaths, and terrorists" from legally purchasing firearms...if that is the will of the people. (though I'm not so sure sex offenders should be included in that group) But when our government attempts to infringe upon the right of all other people in order to prevent those you've listed from legally purchasing firearms, then those attempts are wrong.

In other words, we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The government MUST find a better way to do the good part without doing the bad part.
Click to expand...

Problem is, there's no effective way to keep the felons et al from legally purchasing firearms without the gun control measures that y'all refuse to even consider.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Problem is, there's no effective way to keep the felons et al from legally purchasing firearms without the gun control measures that y'all refuse to even consider.
Click to expand...

that's because all the crap the Banite movement proposes is more likely to impact honest gun owners and prevent them rom getting guns than it will criminals

but of course that is what people like you actually intend I suspect

felons cannot legally even touch a firearm. if felons don't worry about the consequences of using guns illegal, why would they worry about the consequences of yet another lesser offense
 
Renae said:
Everyone should be greatly concerned at a president, whom failing to get the House and Senate to agree with his proposals uses "Executive orders" to get his way. His actions undermine our government system, he is going against the will of the people and setting a precedent that I find abhorrent.
Click to expand...

Maybe not.

Although Obama’s use of executive powers follows longstanding presidential tradition, it has proven controversial. Some have suggested – incorrectly – that executive action on guns would be unauthorized under the Constitution or undermine the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. In fact, however, the Second Amendment gives the government wide leeway to regulate guns to enhance public safety. Moreover, the Constitution vests Obama with the obligation to insure that congressional mandates “be faithfully executed,” enabling him to take executive action.

Obama Can and Should Do More to Reduce Gun Violence | ACS
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom