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

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?

TEOTWAWKI wrote: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...

PkrBum wrote:I stated two "specific objections" to obama's executive edict. You just don't have a defense so you attack.

What a spoiled little shit you are.

EmeraldGhost wrote:

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?

EmeraldGhost wrote: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:I stated two "specific objections" to obama's executive edict. You just don't have a defense so you attack.

What a spoiled little shit you are.

Again, sorry everyone.

(sprays air freshener)

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:I stated two "specific objections" to obama's executive edict. You just don't have a defense so you attack.

What a spoiled little shit you are.

Again, sorry everyone.  

(sprays air freshener)

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

2)"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:

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

2)"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."

Salinsky wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

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

2)"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."

You're simply wrong on your first point.

He clearly framed his order as clarification and refinement of existing law.

I have heard medical professional discussing your second point, and some agree that there could be a problem, but it's not yet clear how this is to be handled.

I'm guessing that there are some damn fine lawyers who can figure that out.

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:I stated two "specific objections" to obama's executive edict. You just don't have a defense so you attack.

What a spoiled little shit you are.

Again, sorry everyone.  

(sprays air freshener)

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

2)"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."

I already addressed number 1.  Regarding number 2, specific medical records or diagnosis need not be shared.  There only needs to be a flag of some sort that would show up in a background check that would indicate whether or not someone is of the mental capacity to purchase a gun.  

In one hand we have the Colorado theater shooting.  In the other, we have the prospect of a gun dealer running a background check and simply being told, broadly, that James Holmes isn't of the mental capacity to purchase guns.  Hmmm.  That's a tough one.

Anything else? <--- Rhetorical question. Of course there isn't anything else. There never is.

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:I stated two "specific objections" to obama's executive edict. You just don't have a defense so you attack.

What a spoiled little shit you are.

Again, sorry everyone.  

(sprays air freshener)

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

2)"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."

I already addressed number 1.  Regarding number 2, specific medical records or diagnosis need not be shared.  There only needs to be a flag of some sort that would show up in a background check that would indicate whether or not someone is of the mental capacity to purchase a gun.  

In one hand we have the Colorado theater shooting.  In the other, we have the prospect of a gun dealer running a background check and simply being told, broadly, that James Holmes isn't of the mental capacity to purchase guns.  Hmmm.  That's a tough one.

Anything else?  <--- Rhetorical question.  Of course there isn't anything else.  There never is.

Where is the due process? You know... one of those silly antiquated inalienable rights.

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:I stated two "specific objections" to obama's executive edict. You just don't have a defense so you attack.

What a spoiled little shit you are.

Again, sorry everyone.  

(sprays air freshener)

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

2)"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."

I already addressed number 1.  Regarding number 2, specific medical records or diagnosis need not be shared.  There only needs to be a flag of some sort that would show up in a background check that would indicate whether or not someone is of the mental capacity to purchase a gun.  

In one hand we have the Colorado theater shooting.  In the other, we have the prospect of a gun dealer running a background check and simply being told, broadly, that James Holmes isn't of the mental capacity to purchase guns.  Hmmm.  That's a tough one.

Anything else?  <--- Rhetorical question.  Of course there isn't anything else.  There never is.

Where is the due process? You know... one of those silly antiquated inalienable rights.

Back to the idiotic rhetorical questions. Looks like we are in fact done here.

And, again, sorry everyone.

(sprays air freshener)

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:I stated two "specific objections" to obama's executive edict. You just don't have a defense so you attack.

What a spoiled little shit you are.

Again, sorry everyone.  

(sprays air freshener)

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

2)"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."

I already addressed number 1.  Regarding number 2, specific medical records or diagnosis need not be shared.  There only needs to be a flag of some sort that would show up in a background check that would indicate whether or not someone is of the mental capacity to purchase a gun.  

In one hand we have the Colorado theater shooting.  In the other, we have the prospect of a gun dealer running a background check and simply being told, broadly, that James Holmes isn't of the mental capacity to purchase guns.  Hmmm.  That's a tough one.

Anything else?  <--- Rhetorical question.  Of course there isn't anything else.  There never is.

Where is the due process? You know... one of those silly antiquated inalienable rights.

Back to the idiotic rhetorical questions.   Looks like we are in fact done here.

And, again, sorry everyone.  

(sprays air freshener)

Why don't you just say that you have no problem forfeiting your constitutional rights for a leftist edict? Step up comrade.

Wordslinger wrote:

EmeraldGhost wrote: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.

More than 80% of American's polled want background checks required for all firearm purchases.

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:I stated two "specific objections" to obama's executive edict. You just don't have a defense so you attack.

What a spoiled little shit you are.

Again, sorry everyone.  

(sprays air freshener)

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

2)"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."

I already addressed number 1.  Regarding number 2, specific medical records or diagnosis need not be shared.  There only needs to be a flag of some sort that would show up in a background check that would indicate whether or not someone is of the mental capacity to purchase a gun.  

In one hand we have the Colorado theater shooting.  In the other, we have the prospect of a gun dealer running a background check and simply being told, broadly, that James Holmes isn't of the mental capacity to purchase guns.  Hmmm.  That's a tough one.

Anything else?  <--- Rhetorical question.  Of course there isn't anything else.  There never is.

Where is the due process? You know... one of those silly antiquated inalienable rights.

Back to the idiotic rhetorical questions.   Looks like we are in fact done here.

And, again, sorry everyone.  

(sprays air freshener)

Why don't you just say that you have no problem forfeiting your constitutional rights for a leftist edict? Step up comrade.

Because I don't agree with that statement.  What - specific - part of the executive order are you suggesting is forfeiting my constitutional rights?

boards of FL wrote: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.

Markle wrote:The Executive Order accomplishes little or nothing and, in fact, creates more problems.

Why do Democrats and Progressives refuse to pass laws that really do reduce gun violence?

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:I stated two "specific objections" to obama's executive edict. You just don't have a defense so you attack.

What a spoiled little shit you are.

Again, sorry everyone.  

(sprays air freshener)

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

2)"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."

I already addressed number 1.  Regarding number 2, specific medical records or diagnosis need not be shared.  There only needs to be a flag of some sort that would show up in a background check that would indicate whether or not someone is of the mental capacity to purchase a gun.  

In one hand we have the Colorado theater shooting.  In the other, we have the prospect of a gun dealer running a background check and simply being told, broadly, that James Holmes isn't of the mental capacity to purchase guns.  Hmmm.  That's a tough one.

Anything else?  <--- Rhetorical question.  Of course there isn't anything else.  There never is.

Where is the due process? You know... one of those silly antiquated inalienable rights.

Back to the idiotic rhetorical questions.   Looks like we are in fact done here.

And, again, sorry everyone.  

(sprays air freshener)

Why don't you just say that you have no problem forfeiting your constitutional rights for a leftist edict? Step up comrade.

Because I don't agree with that statement.  What - specific - part of the executive order are you suggesting is forfeiting my constitutional rights?

PkrBum wrote:I'm not going to jump through hoops while you play willfully ignorant. See number two and read his edict yourself.

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

The Department of Health and Human Services is finalizing a rule to remove unnecessary legal barriers preventing States from reporting relevant information about people prohibited from possessing a gun for specific mental health reasons.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to ensure that appropriate information in its records is reported to NICS. The reporting that SSA, in consultation with the Department of Justice, is expected to require will cover appropriate records of the approximately 75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment, or who have been found by a state or federal court to be legally incompetent.

The rulemaking will also provide a mechanism for people to seek relief from the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm for reasons related to mental health. Remove unnecessary legal barriers preventing States from reporting relevant information to the background check system.

Although States generally report criminal history information to NICS, many continue to report little information about individuals who are prohibited by Federal law from possessing or receiving a gun for specific mental health reasons.

Some State officials raised concerns about whether such reporting would be precluded by the Privacy Rule issued under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). Today, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a final rule expressly permitting certain HIPAA covered entities to provide to the NICS limited demographic and other necessary information about these individuals.

boards of FL wrote:I already addressed number 1.  Regarding number 2, specific medical records or diagnosis need not be shared.  There only needs to be a flag of some sort that would show up in a background check that would indicate whether or not someone is of the mental capacity to purchase a gun.  

In one hand we have the Colorado theater shooting.  In the other, we have the prospect of a gun dealer running a background check and simply being told, broadly, that James Holmes isn't of the mental capacity to purchase guns.  Hmmm.  That's a tough one.