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

boards of FL wrote:

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?

It's a simple question. Does this executive order create a criminal act where there was not one before?

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

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?

It's a simple question. Does this executive order create a criminal act where there was not one before?

I'll play your semantic game just to see if there is a point lurking behind it.

Yes.  I suppose that if someone were to continue dealing guns in the shadows to random people without becoming licensed and conducting background checks, that would be considered a criminal act.

There you are.   Now let's see if you have a point, or if you're capable of addressing the central point of the thread.  Doubtful, but let's see.

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

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?

It's a simple question. Does this executive order create a criminal act where there was not one before?

I'll play your semantic game just to see if there is a point lurking behind it.

Yes.  I suppose that if someone were to continue dealing guns in the shadows to random people without becoming licensed and conducting background checks, that would be considered a criminal act.

There you are.   Now let's see if you have a point, or if you're capable of addressing the central point of the thread.  Doubtful, but let's see.

Then his order is not policy... it is not clarification of law... it is the creation of law and clearly unconstitutional.

I know you don't care... so lets leave it at that.

It's a simple question. Does this executive order create a criminal act where there was not one before?




All the time. You need to get familiar with the Federal register and how the executive works in creating rules and regulations within the framework of the law. You assume that executive power has crossed a line. It is a burden which you must meet in specifics. Not saying your concerns are not legitimate, but I think Boards has asked for a specific discussion which goes beyond dogma, and the devil is in the detail. I find NO violation of the law going after straw men who may or may not be getting guns from private sellers or gun dealers. The nexus is the straw nature of the transaction. If you can rebut that specific point, I am all ears and I would like specifics.

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

D

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.

You love to state the glaringly obvious (unlicensed people don't need to perform background checks to sell guns). I haven't missed the point and in spite of your opinion the distinction between "dealer" and "seller" is important to the rule of law - not "semantics" - the meaning of which is apparently not clear to you.

BTW you're 40% talking point is based on incredibly old and fragile data; don't believe me? Read this: http://www.factcheck.org/2013/03/guns-acquired-without-background-checks/

Obamas action does nothing to quell "seller" activity, merely reinforces what a "dealer" is and potentially gives the ATF more capability to track down those trying to pass themselves off as "sellers" when in fact they are dealers. I can't dumb it down any more than that.

There are also concerns as to his order of sharing of medical information... though I don't know the specifics of his order yet. Tittle 2 of hipaa law is pretty specific as to those qualifiers and exceptions however... and judicial reviews.

If due process is circumvented then I believe again it's extra-constitutional.

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

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?

It's a simple question. Does this executive order create a criminal act where there was not one before?

I'll play your semantic game just to see if there is a point lurking behind it.

Yes.  I suppose that if someone were to continue dealing guns in the shadows to random people without becoming licensed and conducting background checks, that would be considered a criminal act.

There you are.   Now let's see if you have a point, or if you're capable of addressing the central point of the thread.  Doubtful, but let's see.

Then his order is not policy... it is not clarification of law... it is the creation of law and clearly unconstitutional.

Not necessarily.  We could say that it is a clarification of the already existing laws that govern background checks, so as to prevent people from gaming the system by engaging in the sale of firearms without becoming a licensed dealer.  

So with that said, am I correct in assuming that you either 1) don't take specific objection to anything in this executive order or 2) you're simply once again in a situation where words fail you?  You don't have anything to add with respect to the actual subject matter of the thread - which is specific objections to the elements of the executive order?

Well who would have guessed!

(sprays air freshener)

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

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?

It's a simple question. Does this executive order create a criminal act where there was not one before?

I'll play your semantic game just to see if there is a point lurking behind it.

Yes.  I suppose that if someone were to continue dealing guns in the shadows to random people without becoming licensed and conducting background checks, that would be considered a criminal act.

There you are.   Now let's see if you have a point, or if you're capable of addressing the central point of the thread.  Doubtful, but let's see.

Then his order is not policy... it is not clarification of law... it is the creation of law and clearly unconstitutional.

Not necessarily.  We could say that it is a clarification of the already existing laws that govern background checks, so as to prevent people from gaming the system by engaging in the sale of firearms without becoming a licensed dealer.  

So with that said, am I correct in assuming that you either 1) don't take specific objection to anything in this executive order or 2) you're simply once again in a situation where words fail you?  You don't have anything to add with respect to the actual subject matter of the thread - which is specific objections to the elements of the executive order?

Well who would have guessed!

(sprays air freshener)

Let's say that obama decided to "clarify" existing dui laws. He orders that .01 is now the threshold for arrest.

Is that within his executive powers?

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:


D

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.

You love to state the glaringly obvious (unlicensed people don't need to perform background checks to sell guns). I haven't missed the point and in spite of your opinion the distinction between "dealer" and "seller" is important to the rule of law - not "semantics" - the meaning of which is apparently not clear to you.

I had to state the "glaringly obvious" because you didn't appear to grasp the "glaringly obvious".   You said that "there is not much to it" with respect to the executive order.  It is that very comment that required me to point out the "glaringly obvious".  The idea that background checks will be expanded to cover a blind spot that account for roughly 40% of gun sales is not reconcilable with the opinion that "there is not much to" the executive order.

gatorfan wrote:BTW you're 40% talking point is based on incredibly old and fragile data; don't believe me? Read this: http://www.factcheck.org/2013/03/guns-acquired-without-background-checks/

Obamas action does nothing to quell "seller" activity, merely reinforces what a "dealer" is and potentially gives the ATF more capability to track down those trying to pass themselves off as "sellers" when in fact they are dealers. I can't dumb it down any more than that.

There is no need to dumb that down for me as I am fairly clear on the executive order.   Here again "dealer" "seller" "unicorn" "insert any other word", are conducting roughly 40% of firearms sales and are not performing background checks.  This executive order will serve to lower that percentage.  And I really can't dumb that down any further for you.


Oh, and by the way, had you actually read the following post made by me on the previous page, you could have saved yourself the time in looking up and article about the 40% figure.

boards of FL wrote: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.

Obamas action does nothing to quell "seller" activity

I disagree. I think it has an immediate chilling effect on those who were participating in the straw purchases, and the funding of more ATF agents to address the same is something. The Philosophy is go slow on folks that are borderline and like my family transaction on the gun, make us aware. I had to wait for the background check after the gun was insured and transferred to the local gun dealer. I filled out the paperwork. Waited, and picked up the shotgun after the wait. I shared offices with a person who was a gun dealer. Twenty five years ago the ATF came into the office and had picked up the number of his gun purchases and suggested his activity with the resells required him to get a dealer license. He would have people come into the office all the time who were cops and military who loved guns and their collections, but some of these options have been available, but funding and pressure by ATF and Justice will make a difference in urban areas where these straw sales are going to felons and those guns become felony guns.

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

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?

It's a simple question. Does this executive order create a criminal act where there was not one before?

I'll play your semantic game just to see if there is a point lurking behind it.

Yes.  I suppose that if someone were to continue dealing guns in the shadows to random people without becoming licensed and conducting background checks, that would be considered a criminal act.

There you are.   Now let's see if you have a point, or if you're capable of addressing the central point of the thread.  Doubtful, but let's see.

Then his order is not policy... it is not clarification of law... it is the creation of law and clearly unconstitutional.

Not necessarily.  We could say that it is a clarification of the already existing laws that govern background checks, so as to prevent people from gaming the system by engaging in the sale of firearms without becoming a licensed dealer.  

So with that said, am I correct in assuming that you either 1) don't take specific objection to anything in this executive order or 2) you're simply once again in a situation where words fail you?  You don't have anything to add with respect to the actual subject matter of the thread - which is specific objections to the elements of the executive order?

Well who would have guessed!

(sprays air freshener)

Let's say that obama decided to "clarify" existing dui laws. He orders that .01 is now the threshold for arrest.

Is that within his executive powers?

I'm not entirely sure as I'm admittedly not an executive order expert.  So rather than confidently state an opinion that I know I can't reasonably support, I'll just say that I'm not entirely sure and that if such a decision were made, it would certainly be subjected to and have to stand up to legal scrutiny...just as this current executive order will.

That said, I suspect you're just as ignorant in the arena of executive orders as you are in every other arena of discussion on this forum.  But in spite of that fact, I also suspect that you are extremely confident in your opinion.  And just as is the case with everything else you say and post here, you're likely not able to support said opinion nor even coherently clarify it specifically.  Hell, you're probably five posts deep into this thread and you haven't even managed to address the underlying subject matter yet.

I actually posted an article about your kind earlier this morning.  The article is discussing the typical, mis-informed Trump supporter, though their comments on the mis-informed extend beyond just those who support Trump.

In 2000, James Kuklinski and other political scientists at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign established an important distinction: American citizens with incorrect information can be divided into two groups, the misinformed and the uniformed. The difference between the two is stark. Uninformed citizens don’t have any information at all, while those who are misinformed have information that conflicts with the best evidence and expert opinion. As Kuklinski and his colleagues established, in the U.S., the most misinformed citizens tend to be the most confident in their views and are also the strongest partisans. These folks fill the gaps in their knowledge base by using their existing belief systems. Once these inferences are stored into memory, they become “indistinguishable from hard data,” Kuklinski and his colleagues found.

And lastly, have you anything to say about the actual subject matter of the thread?  Or are you just here to shit yourself in the elevator as Damaged Eagle used to do before he deleted himself?  I feel like I've asked you this at least three times to no avail.

BoF - dude you are dense!

What percentage of sellers will be magically turned into dealers through this executive action thus requiring more background checks? 1%, 2%, what?

What percentage of shadow sales will then be affected? 1%, 2% or more, less, the same as before?

You don't even know the true number of sales without B/G checks.

The EA doesn't change the law or perhaps you missed that little bit......

There's not that much to it.......

gatorfan wrote:BoF - dude you are dense!

What percentage of sellers will be magically turned into dealers through this executive action thus requiring more background checks? 1%, 2%, what?

Some percentage greater than 0.

gatorfan wrote:What percentage of shadow sales will then be affected? 1%, 2% or more, less, the same as before?

Some percentage greater than 0.

gatorfan wrote:You don't even know the true number of sales without B/G checks.

The EA doesn't change the law or perhaps you missed that little bit......

There's not that much to it.......

I'm feeling the need to restate the "glaringly obvious" again.  The executive order will expand background checks to some portion of the 40% of gun sales that currently do not require background checks.  There is absolutely something to that.

And I already addressed your complaint about the % of gun sales that take place without background checks...twice.  Let's assume that 40% is inaccurate.  Fair enough.  What is the accurate number in your estimation?

Here, gatorfan:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/05/us-gun-sales-background-checks-data-obama

From the article, and I'm pretty sure I already pointed this out to you...twice:

Flawed though the statistic might be, there’s good reason to believe it’s still relevant. In 2015, Harvard University’s Injury Control Research Center estimated that 40% of gun owners did not undergo a background check when procuring their latest firearm. (This is a slightly different statistic, since it looks at the percentage of gun owners who undergo background checks rather than the percentage of guns owned by individuals who have undergone them.)

Overall, the Harvard researchers found that about 70% of gun owners purchased their most recent guns themselves (of which a third didn’t go through a background check) and 30% of gun owners obtained their guns through a transfer (such as a gift) or an exchange (of which two-thirds didn’t go through a background check).

That means that 40% of current gun owners overall didn’t undergo a background check – some 17.6 million people.

Now let's see your figures, gatorfan.

boards of FL wrote:Here, gatorfan:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/05/us-gun-sales-background-checks-data-obama

From the article, and I'm pretty sure I already pointed this out to you...twice:

Flawed though the statistic might be, there’s good reason to believe it’s still relevant. In 2015, Harvard University’s Injury Control Research Center estimated that 40% of gun owners did not undergo a background check when procuring their latest firearm. (This is a slightly different statistic, since it looks at the percentage of gun owners who undergo background checks rather than the percentage of guns owned by individuals who have undergone them.)

Overall, the Harvard researchers found that about 70% of gun owners purchased their most recent guns themselves (of which a third didn’t go through a background check) and 30% of gun owners obtained their guns through a transfer (such as a gift) or an exchange (of which two-thirds didn’t go through a background check).

That means that 40% of current gun owners overall didn’t undergo a background check – some 17.6 million people.

Now let's see your figures, gatorfan.

You can point things out 100 times if you have the time. It makes no difference.

While the exact number of guns is unknown it’s estimated to be over 350 million. My opinion is that there are many more gun “transactions” if you include commercial sales (B/G required), private sales (no B/G required), gifts, and thefts than people realize. I suspect MORE than 40% of transactions are done without B/G checks. And that won’t change, I can even agree with your “Some percentage greater than 0” although I find it amusing that you work so hard to defend something with so little confidence in it’s results.

LOL

gatorfan wrote:I suspect MORE than 40% of transactions are done without B/G checks.

Help me follow your logic here:

1.  More than 40% of gun sales - per you - take place in a context that does not require a background check.

2.  A new executive order is extending background checks to some portion of this 40% of gun sales.  


If 1 and 2 are true, how can you conclude that the % of transactions that are done without background checks "won't change"?   And further, how can you say that that "won't change" and the immediately follow up with a statement that effectively concedes that that will change?

gatorfan wrote: And that won’t change, I can even agree with your “Some percentage greater than 0” although I find it amusing that you work so hard to defend something with so little confidence in it’s results.

And I have no idea from where you're getting the idea that I have "so little confidence" in the results. 1, 2, 88, 99, 100 are all "some percentage greater than 0".  When I say "some percentage greater than 0", I'm saying that the executive order will in fact be effective to some degree.  

(Note to self:  In the future, dumb things down much much further when addressing gatorfan)

We do not purport to offer here a comprehensive list of all actions that the Administration might take to reduce gun violence. But we do highlight several important actions within the Administration's power that would ensure the federal gun laws are applied consistent with congressional intent. Among these steps are:

Clarifying which gun sellers are "engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, and therefore must obtain federal licenses and conduct background checks on would-be gun purchasers. Just as services like eBay and Craigslist allow Americans to offer a broad range of goods for sale online, numerous Internet services facilitate the sale of large numbers of firearms by unlicensed dealers, frequently without conducting any background checks. The failure of these high-volume sellers to obtain licenses and conduct background checks creates a ready source of firearms for dangerous criminals and other prohibited persons, and fuels the illegal gun trafficking that arms criminals and undermines efforts to reduce gun violence. The Administration should act to close this dangerous loophole.

http://www.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/Law%20Professor%20Statement%2011-12-15.pdf

boards of FL wrote:[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.

Oh yay...there's the health care connection. Pay more for your premiums if you own a gun. And who better to ask about guns in your home than your doctor!

I object to Obama's EO's because it's clear he's going to sick the ATF on a bunch of small potatoes hobbyists at Gun Shows in order to scare the bejesus out of the rest of America's gun owners.

This will have pretty much zero effect on gun crime ... and the EO's will be rescinded next January when the new Republican President comes in.

It's all pointless stuff .... intended to set up the issue of "sensible gun regulations" to give Hillary a slight edge with certain demographics in the general election.

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

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?

It's a simple question. Does this executive order create a criminal act where there was not one before?

I'll play your semantic game just to see if there is a point lurking behind it.

Yes.  I suppose that if someone were to continue dealing guns in the shadows to random people without becoming licensed and conducting background checks, that would be considered a criminal act.

There you are.   Now let's see if you have a point, or if you're capable of addressing the central point of the thread.  Doubtful, but let's see.

Then his order is not policy... it is not clarification of law... it is the creation of law and clearly unconstitutional.

Not necessarily.  We could say that it is a clarification of the already existing laws that govern background checks, so as to prevent people from gaming the system by engaging in the sale of firearms without becoming a licensed dealer.  

So with that said, am I correct in assuming that you either 1) don't take specific objection to anything in this executive order or 2) you're simply once again in a situation where words fail you?  You don't have anything to add with respect to the actual subject matter of the thread - which is specific objections to the elements of the executive order?

Well who would have guessed!

(sprays air freshener)

Let's say that obama decided to "clarify" existing dui laws. He orders that .01 is now the threshold for arrest.

Is that within his executive powers?

I'm not entirely sure as I'm admittedly not an executive order expert.  So rather than confidently state an opinion that I know I can't reasonably support, I'll just say that I'm not entirely sure and that if such a decision were made, it would certainly be subjected to and have to stand up to legal scrutiny...just as this current executive order will.

That said, I suspect you're just as ignorant in the arena of executive orders as you are in every other arena of discussion on this forum.  But in spite of that fact, I also suspect that you are extremely confident in your opinion.  And just as is the case with everything else you say and post here, you're likely not able to support said opinion nor even coherently clarify it specifically.  Hell, you're probably five posts deep into this thread and you haven't even managed to address the underlying subject matter yet.

I actually posted an article about your kind earlier this morning.  The article is discussing the typical, mis-informed Trump supporter, though their comments on the mis-informed extend beyond just those who support Trump.

In 2000, James Kuklinski and other political scientists at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign established an important distinction: American citizens with incorrect information can be divided into two groups, the misinformed and the uniformed. The difference between the two is stark. Uninformed citizens don’t have any information at all, while those who are misinformed have information that conflicts with the best evidence and expert opinion. As Kuklinski and his colleagues established, in the U.S., the most misinformed citizens tend to be the most confident in their views and are also the strongest partisans. These folks fill the gaps in their knowledge base by using their existing belief systems. Once these inferences are stored into memory, they become “indistinguishable from hard data,” Kuklinski and his colleagues found.

And lastly, have you anything to say about the actual subject matter of the thread?  Or are you just here to shit yourself in the elevator as Damaged Eagle used to do before he deleted himself?  I feel like I've asked you this at least three times to no avail.

It's amazing how nasty and immature you are. You admittedly don't know the constitutional limitations of an eo... and apparently don't understand the separations of power between the branches... but attack personally instead of using this as an opportunity to learn something. Why? I suspect because you just so desperately adore obama and would never confront his shortcomings or admit that he could do wrong. That's the definition of a useful idiot.

Btw... have you wondered why the no fly list exclusion isn't included in his executive edict?

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.

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.

Please point specifically to which mass murders would have been prevented by what semi-retired President Obama has ordered.

I can go into any gun store and buy a couple six shooters with no back ground check no questions ...black powder guns are exempt....but deadly...and they can't be matched to the bullet ..no rifling...

boards of FL wrote: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

Yes, let's dumb this down a bit.

Please point specifically to any of those bullet points and explain exactly how that point would have prevented any of the past mass murders.

Do you want feel good laws accomplishing nothing or do you want solutions?

A crossbow can penetrate all but the hardest bulletproof plate vests. They are really quiet also..

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote: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

Yes, let's dumb this down a bit.

Please point specifically to any of those bullet points and explain exactly how that point would have prevented any of the past mass murders.

Do you want feel good laws accomplishing nothing or do you want solutions?

I'm afraid a solution would require a politically incorrect focus on exactly who commits the vast majority of gun violence/crime and where it takes place. We all know they won't do that. Instead they prefer the feel good spread the blame game.

Very useful indeed to their ruling elite that wish to diminish individual liberty and subjugate the huddled masses.