Forum republicans: Step up and state your specific objections to Obama's recent executive order involving guns

I'm interested in hearing what your specific objections are. Note that I'm not looking for "bad ideas fail" or "they're taking our guns!!!" but, rather, I'm looking for your specific objections to the executive order. What part of this executive order do you feel is bad policy and why. I'm looking for your analysis of the policy itself and why you dislike it.

Can any forum republican state a coherent opinion that specifically addresses the actual details of the executive order? I suspect the answer there is "no", but let's see.

My only criticism would be that I think more could have been done earlier under executive order. Cities have been begging for better enforcement on gun shops which have felony guns in mass coming to particular gun shops, yet nothing has been done to get convictions on straw purchases and felons buying guns. I understand that the fifty or so million for more ATF agents was just added to this most recently passed spending bill, but I think it is fair criticism of the President to have pushed for this in his first administration, but I understand that his hands were cuffed because of folks in the house and senate afraid that talking about guns would impact his election. I find the criticism of these actions as being an attack on the second amendment to be silly, but the question remains..........a great many people died as a result of these loopholes which could have been closed much earlier than the eighth year.

boards of FL wrote:I'm interested in hearing what your specific objections are.  Note that I'm not looking for "bad ideas fail" or "they're taking our guns!!!" but, rather, I'm looking for your specific objections to the executive order.  What part of this executive order do you feel is bad policy and why.  I'm looking for your analysis of the policy itself and why you dislike it.

Can any forum republican state a coherent opinion that specifically addresses the actual details of the executive order?  I suspect the answer there is "no", but let's see.

I did not hear his speech but did read it along with the order.

This is an across the board comment: Gun violence? No, it's people who are conducting the violence through the use of a gun.

Hiring 200 more ATF agents - Sounds like they are setting up for seizure of guns, raids on gun shows, etc. Will the ATF approach gangs and find the source of buying and selling weapons? More deaths from gang wars, it would seem to me, than mental deficient or religious zealot shootings.

What if someone has a gun that was handed down from great great grandpa and it's never been registered? Is an ATF agent going to be checking ID at the rifle ranges? The place where normal folks practice their shooting skills?

Hobbyists and hunters will be the ones who bear the brunt of scrutiny from the over zealous checking - which by the way will not keep the next nut case from shooting another mass of innocents.

More government intrusion over an issue that is magnified by the few and the normal law abiding citizen pays the price of that intrusion. Mass shootings will happen no matter what this President executively orders.

93% of Americans do not want felons having guns. What cities are calling felony guns(guns which have been used in a shooting) are coming from specific gun shops where it is obvious that straw persons are bypassing rules and feeding the gangs. I listened on the radio yesterday that one gun shop on the chicago indiana border which I have spoken about before when I go over and play poker in Indiana had 1500 felony gun connections in a year. That there were allegations that large amounts of cash were brought in and folks leaving with bags of guns as straw purchases. All over the nation cities have been begging the justice department and ATF to go after these felony gun shops. This is not about interfering with second amendment rights......this is about doing what is right and what the people want done, and a paid lobby group fighting any attempt to make gun safety a priority. This should have been done five years ago is my only criticism.

2seaoat wrote:93% of Americans do not want felons having guns.  What cities are calling felony guns(guns which have been used in a shooting) are coming from specific gun shops where it is obvious that straw persons are bypassing rules and feeding the gangs.  I listened on the radio yesterday that one gun shop on the chicago indiana border which I have spoken about before when I go over and play poker in Indiana had 1500 felony gun connections in a year.   That there were allegations that large amounts of cash were brought in and folks leaving with bags of guns as straw purchases.   All over the nation cities have been begging the justice department and ATF to go after these felony gun shops.   This is not about interfering with second amendment rights......this is about doing what is right and what the people want done, and a paid lobby group fighting any attempt to make gun safety a priority.  This should have been done five years ago is my only criticism.

You and I both know that, no matter the law, if someone wants a gun they will get a gun. Mentally unstable or spot on genius with no issues.

Another knee jerk, we can't control peoples actions but the masses look for us to do something approach, so lets make an order/law to make everyone feel better.

Another knee jerk, we can't control peoples actions but the masses look for us to do something approach, so lets make an order/law to make everyone feel better.


You know better than that......you are arguing it is silly to put up a traffic signal where repeated death and injury has happened in an intersection. Your argument is that folks will just ignore the rules and regulations. That is an absurd proposition which presupposes that government is incompetent and rules cannot provide improved safety. This is such an illogical approach to real problems, that it has caused normally rational people to simple fall in line with well crafted propaganda which has replaced common sense with irrational fear that gun safety cannot be approved without taking rights away. We can chew gum and walk. The worse part you know better.

2seaoat wrote:Another knee jerk, we can't control peoples actions but the masses look for us to do something approach, so lets make an order/law to make everyone feel better.


You know better than that......you are arguing it is silly to put up a traffic signal where repeated death and injury has happened in an intersection.   Your argument is that folks will just ignore the rules and regulations.   That is an absurd proposition which presupposes that government is incompetent and rules cannot provide improved safety.   This is such an illogical approach to real problems, that it has caused normally rational people to simple fall in line with well crafted propaganda which has replaced common sense with irrational fear that gun safety cannot be approved without taking rights away.  We can chew gum and walk.   The worse part you know better.

You know better, too, my argument. And I'm not arguing with you this morning for the sake of arguing.

Pissing in the wind will not stop what this order is aiming to stop.

This order will put more government hold onto the average American who owns gun for hobby or hunting.

Plain and simple.

And your reference to traffic code to prevent accidents is really a far stretch.

This order will put more government hold onto the average American who owns gun for hobby or hunting.


Yes, but the small burden will be outweighed by starting a process to get guns out of the hands of gang bangers. Nobody proposes a government decision to put a traffic stoplight will stop all injuries at that intersection. Nobody will argue that it costs money to put that traffic signal up. Nobody will argue that some folks just ignore speed limits and traffic devices, and cause accidents regardless of the signal. I will not argue either that this traffic light will not inconvenience some folks who are going to work every day who have been careful at that intersection. I am simply making the argument that this should have been done five years ago, and that it will save lives and the burden is simply not a rational impediment to improvements in safety. Government has function. When they do not do their job to care for the general welfare of our citizens, then we poison children in Flint, and we allow felony gun shops to flood the gun traffic of felony guns used in crime in communities.......lets try to put up traffic controls and save lives. Too many have died.

SheWrites wrote:This order will put more government hold onto the average American who owns gun for hobby or hunting.  

How?  What part of the executive order are you referring to here? Let's be specific.

Really there is not much to it. A little more funding, a few more agents, and a few ways to better enforce current laws. Nothing wrong with that. Won't change a thing about the root causes of criminal behavior but you have to tilt at the windmills.

Gun violence in the United States is a very real problem.

It is not a "windmill".

Here is a proper example of "tilting at windmills" ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/us/politics/house-votes-to-send-bill-to-repeal-health-law-to-obamas-desk.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

Salinsky wrote:Gun violence in the United States is a very real problem.

It is not a "windmill".

Here is a proper example of "tilting at windmills" ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/us/politics/house-votes-to-send-bill-to-repeal-health-law-to-obamas-desk.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

Really? Gun violence is a real problem but the little efforts to address them will not solve the problem. As I said before.

Some things that might help:

Crime sentencing reform
Minor drug crime rehabilitation instead of jail
Access to mental health treatment
An overhaul of education system
Realistic workforce education
Real penalties for felons caught with weapons

gatorfan wrote:Really there is not much to it. A little more funding, a few more agents, and a few ways to better enforce current laws. Nothing wrong with that. Won't change a thing about the root causes of criminal behavior but you have to tilt at the windmills.

Doesn't it address the gaping blind spot of sales processed by unlicensed dealers which require no background checks?

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:Really there is not much to it. A little more funding, a few more agents, and a few ways to better enforce current laws. Nothing wrong with that. Won't change a thing about the root causes of criminal behavior but you have to tilt at the windmills.

Doesn't it address the gaping blind spot of sales processed by unlicensed dealers which require no background checks?

"Gaping blind spot" - hardly that, more like ineffective enforcement of current law.

Current law already addressed the issue but the law hasn't been effectively enforced. Perhaps additional funding, clarification of the definition of "dealer" (I believe the AG spoke to that pretty effectively) and also more agents for enforcement will slow some "dealers", you have to start somewhere but it's going to be a long road.

boards of FL wrote:I'm interested in hearing what your specific objections are.  Note that I'm not looking for "bad ideas fail" or "they're taking our guns!!!" but, rather, I'm looking for your specific objections to the executive order.  What part of this executive order do you feel is bad policy and why.  I'm looking for your analysis of the policy itself and why you dislike it.

Can any forum republican state a coherent opinion that specifically addresses the actual details of the executive order?  I suspect the answer there is "no", but let's see.

Do you have a government permit to ask that question?

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:Really there is not much to it. A little more funding, a few more agents, and a few ways to better enforce current laws. Nothing wrong with that. Won't change a thing about the root causes of criminal behavior but you have to tilt at the windmills.

Doesn't it address the gaping blind spot of sales processed by unlicensed dealers which require no background checks?

"Gaping blind spot" - hardly that, more like ineffective enforcement of current law.

Current law already addressed the issue but the law hasn't been effectively enforced. Perhaps additional funding, clarification of the definition of "dealer" (I believe the AG spoke to that pretty effectively) and also more agents for enforcement will slow some "dealers", you have to start somewhere but it's going to be a long road.

Current law doesn't require one to be a licensed dealer in order to engage in selling firearms. People who engage in selling firearms who aren't licensed aren't required to process background checks. That addresses your idea that current law already requires background checks for sales by unlicensed dealers.

Some admittedly dated research estimates that roughly 40% of gun sales or transfers occur in an unlicensed environment in which no background checks are conducted. More recent research by Harvard corroborates the 40% figure though with fairly small sample sizes (3000 observations). We would likely have better data for this if the CDC were allowed to conduct such research, though nearly all funding for such research has been shut down. I assume I don't have to explain to you why there is and who is behind a moratorium on CDC research into gun violence and gun purchase.

Point being, this is absolutely a "gaping blind spot" that is being directly address by Obama's executive order.

Do you have a government permit to ask that question?


I get your frustration with government and your attempt to show that regulation of one right under the bill of rights will lead to possible infringements on other rights. However, I cannot walk into a courtroom and stand up and exercise my right of freedom of speech. My speech is regulated and restricted. There are thousands of examples of freedom of speech being qualified as all our rights under the bill of rights have been qualified by the Supreme Court. It was a real pain in the asz to get my dad's double barrel shotgun sent from a cousin in California to me. My dad had given my uncle the shotgun as they both were avid hunters, and as little boys they hunted on property they leased outside Stuttgart Germany. My cousin who has no children wanted to make sure that the gun would stay in the family and that my son would get the gun. It was a real pain getting the gun sent to a registered gun dealer and doing all the forms, but the burden was really so minor and the transfer costs so small that no reasonable person would consider that their rights were being taken away, anymore than we understand that there are restrictions on speech.

I think we have lost our collective mind trying to line up on all issues with a us and them mentality which honestly has hurt America to its core. Bob is right about one fundamental tenet......if we could just treat each other as we expect to be treated we could make great progress in reversing this trend and find out none of us are safe and secure until we all care about each other and when that happens, none of us will ever go without.

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:Really there is not much to it. A little more funding, a few more agents, and a few ways to better enforce current laws. Nothing wrong with that. Won't change a thing about the root causes of criminal behavior but you have to tilt at the windmills.

Doesn't it address the gaping blind spot of sales processed by unlicensed dealers which require no background checks?

"Gaping blind spot" - hardly that, more like ineffective enforcement of current law.

Current law already addressed the issue but the law hasn't been effectively enforced. Perhaps additional funding, clarification of the definition of "dealer" (I believe the AG spoke to that pretty effectively) and also more agents for enforcement will slow some "dealers", you have to start somewhere but it's going to be a long road.

Current law doesn't require one to be a licensed dealer in order to engage in selling firearms.  People who engage in selling firearms who aren't licensed aren't required to process background checks.  That addresses your idea that current law already requires background checks for sales by unlicensed dealers.

Don’t confuse “dealer” with “seller”.

The McClure-Volkmer Act defines dealer as “ “engaged in the business,” as applied to a firearms dealer, as “a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms.”

A seller is a person who “makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.”

Obamas action is meant to tighten up who can be considered a dealer, as I said before the law hasn't been effectively enforced.

So whatever......take it to the end of the road but we are essentially on the same sheet of music.

" Current law doesn't require one to be a licensed dealer in order to engage in selling firearms. People who engage in selling firearms who aren't licensed aren't required to process background checks. That addresses your idea that current law already requires background checks for sales by unlicensed dealers."

Then you acknowledge that what obama has done is not "policy"... nor is it a clarification of an existing law?

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:Really there is not much to it. A little more funding, a few more agents, and a few ways to better enforce current laws. Nothing wrong with that. Won't change a thing about the root causes of criminal behavior but you have to tilt at the windmills.

Doesn't it address the gaping blind spot of sales processed by unlicensed dealers which require no background checks?

"Gaping blind spot" - hardly that, more like ineffective enforcement of current law.

Current law already addressed the issue but the law hasn't been effectively enforced. Perhaps additional funding, clarification of the definition of "dealer" (I believe the AG spoke to that pretty effectively) and also more agents for enforcement will slow some "dealers", you have to start somewhere but it's going to be a long road.

Current law doesn't require one to be a licensed dealer in order to engage in selling firearms.  People who engage in selling firearms who aren't licensed aren't required to process background checks.  That addresses your idea that current law already requires background checks for sales by unlicensed dealers.

Don’t confuse “dealer” with “seller”.

The McClure-Volkmer Act defines dealer as “ “engaged in the business,” as applied to a firearms dealer, as “a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms.”

A seller is a person who “makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.”

Obamas action is meant to tighten up who can be considered a dealer, as I said before the law hasn't been effectively enforced.

So whatever......take it to the end of the road but we are essentially on the same sheet of music.

While you're playing a game of "dealer" "seller" semantics, the point that 40% of gun sales are processed without background checks is flying well over your head.  

Let's say we I call them "dealers".  40% of gun sales are without background checks.

Let's say you call them "sellers".  40% of gun sales are without background checks.

Let's say we both call them "unicorns".  40% of gun sales are without background checks.

Regardless of what you call yourself, if you are not a licensed dealer and yet you engaging in the act of selling guns, your gun sales do not require background checks.  

That is the point that you're missing when you play semantics, and that is the point that the executive order directly addresses.

PkrBum wrote:" Current law doesn't require one to be a licensed dealer in order to engage in selling firearms. People who engage in selling firearms who aren't licensed aren't required to process background checks. That addresses your idea that current law already requires background checks for sales by unlicensed dealers."

Then you acknowledge that what obama has done is not "policy"... nor is it a clarification of an existing law?

The executive order addresses the current blind spot that allows unlicensed dealers (or sellers, unicorns, whatever you want to call them) to engage in the act of selling guns without performing a background check.

You can call that whatever you want.

Have you any specific objection to this executive order? That was the question.

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:" Current law doesn't require one to be a licensed dealer in order to engage in selling firearms. People who engage in selling firearms who aren't licensed aren't required to process background checks. That addresses your idea that current law already requires background checks for sales by unlicensed dealers."

Then you acknowledge that what obama has done is not "policy"... nor is it a clarification of an existing law?

The executive order addresses the current blind spot that allows unlicensed dealers (or sellers, unicorns, whatever you want to call them) to engage in the act of selling guns without performing a background check.

Then it's creating a criminal act where there was not one before?

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:" Current law doesn't require one to be a licensed dealer in order to engage in selling firearms. People who engage in selling firearms who aren't licensed aren't required to process background checks. That addresses your idea that current law already requires background checks for sales by unlicensed dealers."

Then you acknowledge that what obama has done is not "policy"... nor is it a clarification of an existing law?

The executive order addresses the current blind spot that allows unlicensed dealers (or sellers, unicorns, whatever you want to call them) to engage in the act of selling guns without performing a background check.  

Then it's creating a criminal act where there was not one before?

It requires that people who engage in the sale of firearms conduct those sales as licensed dealers who conduct background checks, among other things.

Feel free to restate that in whatever context suits you.

Here again, do you have a problem with any specific part of this executive order?  Do you disagree with the concept of background checks?

2seaoat wrote:Do you have a government permit to ask that question?


I get your frustration with government and your attempt to show that regulation of one right under the bill of rights will lead to possible infringements on other rights.  However, I cannot walk into a courtroom and stand up and exercise my right of freedom of speech.  My speech is regulated and restricted.  There are thousands of examples of freedom of speech being qualified as all our rights under the bill of rights have been qualified by the Supreme Court.  It was a real pain in the asz to get my dad's double barrel shotgun sent from a cousin in California to me.  My dad had given my uncle the shotgun as they both were avid hunters, and as little boys they hunted on property they leased outside Stuttgart Germany.  My cousin who has no children wanted to make sure that the gun would stay in the family and that my son would get the gun.  It was a real pain getting the gun sent to a registered gun dealer and doing all the forms, but the burden was really so minor and the transfer costs so small that no reasonable person would consider that their rights were being taken away, anymore than we understand that there are restrictions on speech.

I think we have lost our collective mind trying to line up on all issues with a us and them mentality which honestly has hurt America to its core.  Bob is right about one fundamental tenet......if we could just treat each other as we expect to be treated we could make great progress in reversing this trend and find out none of us are safe and secure until we all care about each other and when that happens, none of us will ever go without.

So .... in summary. "No" ... you don't have a government permit to say the things you say & ask the questions you ask here on this public forum.

Don't you know small children and ill-informed or intellectually-challenged persons who could be harmed by some of the things you post on here?

I'm assuming you at least had a background check done, then? Yes?

Interesting.   Perhaps now is a good time to check the score.

From our republicans so far, we have seen the following:

- Vague conspiritorial speculation that ATF agents are "Takin r GunZ!!!"

- The classic NRA line "If they would just enforce the already existing law" that could apply to anything and doesn't specifically address the executive order in question

- The classic NRA line "This is just government sticking it to responsible gun owners!" that could apply to anything and doesn't specifically address the executive order in question

- The usual series of idiotic rhetorical questions from PkrDumb

- And, lastly, an attempt to draw an equivalence between a guy selling arms without a license to random people without conducting background checks, to the act of engaging in conversation on an internet forum


But guess what we haven't seen yet?

boards of FL wrote:I'm interested in hearing what your specific objections are.  Note that I'm not looking for "bad ideas fail" or "they're taking our guns!!!" but, rather, I'm looking for your specific objections to the executive order.  What part of this executive order do you feel is bad policy and why.  I'm looking for your analysis of the policy itself and why you dislike it.

Let's dumb this down a bit.

Do any forum republicans object to any of these bullet points?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our