NRA

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

this is what scares me

Obama has nothing to lose now, he can not run again so his real "It's my way or the highway" persona will show through..

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Obama has nothing to lose now, he can not run again so his real "It's my way or the highway" persona will show through..

As an individual, Obama has nothing to lose. As a party, the Democrats were completely destroyed in the election after the last time they passed the FAWB.

This is why I think Obama is trying to exploit Executive Orders in order to push a gun-control agenda. It gives the Democratic legislators "plausible dependability" so that Republicans can't point at the incumbents during the next election and say "that guy voted to take away your freedoms. That guy found it less important to focus on a balanced budget and resolving our fiscal time bomb than the importance he put in making law-abiding citizens less safe in their own homes."

[Carl]

More stuff about background checks:

As of 2010, federal law does not prohibit members of terrorist organizations from purchasing or possessing firearms or explosives.

Between February 2004 and February 2010, 1,225 firearm and three explosives background checks for people on terrorist watch lists were processed through the federal background check system. Of these, 91% of the firearm transactions and 100% of the explosives transactions were allowed

Under federal law, individuals who have been convicted of a felony offense that would typically prohibit them from possessing firearms can lawfully possess firearms if their civil rights are restored by the requisite government entities. As of 2002, 15 states automatically restore the firearm rights of convicts upon their release from prison or completion of parole, and 6 other states automatically restore the firearm rights of juvenile convicts upon their release from prison or completion of parole.

To undergo a background check, prospective gun buyers are required by federal regulations to present "photo-identification issued by a government entity." Using fake driver's licenses bearing fictitious names, investigators with the Government Accountability Office had a 100% success rate buying firearms in five states that met the minimum requirements of the federal background check system. A 2001 report of this investigation states that the federal background check system "does not positively identify purchasers of firearms," and thus, people using fake IDs are not flagged by the system


Now, I do agree with having a background check system. Not everyone should be allowed to own a gun. But I have an issue with the government telling me I cannot legally and lawfully own a certain gun / # of bullets / size of magazine because someone who should have never had a gun in the first place committed a hideous crime, which in many cases could have been prevented if the government did what they were supposed to do (both support and enforce the all the current laws and regulations)

[Backbeach Jake]

Originally Posted by Carl

More stuff about background checks:

As of 2010, federal law does not prohibit members of terrorist organizations from purchasing or possessing firearms or explosives.

Between February 2004 and February 2010, 1,225 firearm and three explosives background checks for people on terrorist watch lists were processed through the federal background check system. Of these, 91% of the firearm transactions and 100% of the explosives transactions were allowed

Under federal law, individuals who have been convicted of a felony offense that would typically prohibit them from possessing firearms can lawfully possess firearms if their civil rights are restored by the requisite government entities. As of 2002, 15 states automatically restore the firearm rights of convicts upon their release from prison or completion of parole, and 6 other states automatically restore the firearm rights of juvenile convicts upon their release from prison or completion of parole.

To undergo a background check, prospective gun buyers are required by federal regulations to present "photo-identification issued by a government entity." Using fake driver's licenses bearing fictitious names, investigators with the Government Accountability Office had a 100% success rate buying firearms in five states that met the minimum requirements of the federal background check system. A 2001 report of this investigation states that the federal background check system "does not positively identify purchasers of firearms," and thus, people using fake IDs are not flagged by the system


Now, I do agree with having a background check system. Not everyone should be allowed to own a gun. But I have an issue with the government telling me I cannot legally and lawfully own a certain gun / # of bullets / size of magazine because someone who should have never had a gun in the first place committed a hideous crime, which in many cases could have been prevented if the government did what they were supposed to do (both support and enforce the all the current laws and regulations)

Amen.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

As an individual, Obama has nothing to lose. As a party, the Democrats were completely destroyed in the election after the last time they passed the FAWB.

The 1994 sweep didn't happen because of the assault weapons ban, if anything that was a late sideshow...the GOP was successful because they ran against excess attributed to longstanding control by Dem's and the Contract With America.

This is why I think Obama is trying to exploit Executive Orders in order to push a gun-control agenda. It gives the Democratic legislators "plausible dependability" so that Republicans can't point at the incumbents during the next election and say "that guy voted to take away your freedoms. That guy found it less important to focus on a balanced budget and resolving our fiscal time bomb than the importance he put in making law-abiding citizens less safe in their own homes."

I assume you meant plausible denialability?

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I assume you meant plausible denialability?

-spence

more likely..... "deniability"

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

more likely..... "deniability"

Yes, glad to see we can agree

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, glad to see we can agree

-spence

that would be difficult to determine...that's the second term you've used today that turns up nothing when you Google it couldn't even find that in the Urban Dictionary

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

that would be difficult to determine...that's the second term you've used today that turns up nothing when you Google it couldn't even find that in the Urban Dictionary

Legislative interp was meant to infer a lot of legislation has been interpreted and found Constitutional by the Judicial branch. Doubt it's a standard phrase...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

The 1994 sweep didn't happen because of the assault weapons ban, if anything that was a late sideshow...the GOP was successful because they ran against excess attributed to longstanding control by Dem's and the Contract With America.

Bill Clinton stated in his own memoirs that the 1994 sweep by the Republicans was a direct result of the Federal Assault Weapon ban. No disrespect spence, but I put more stock in the opinion of the person who was President during the political situation at the time over yours.

(edit: I tried to find a citation available online but you'll just have to read the book if anyone disagrees that Clinton made that statement.)

I assume you meant plausible denialability?

-spence

I did. That's what I get for using dictation software and not proofreading.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

The 1994 sweep didn't happen because of the assault weapons ban, if anything that was a late sideshow...the GOP was successful because they ran against excess attributed to longstanding control by Dem's and the Contract With America.
-spence

Because I like to make sure to cite specific claims I make, but also mostly because you decided to ignore my reply to the above, here's are two interesting points from a speech that Bill Clinton made yesterday:
"And Clinton said that passing the 1994 federal assault weapons ban “devastated” more than a dozen Democratic lawmakers in the 1994 midterms — and cost then-Speaker of the House Tom Foley (D-Wash.) his job and his seat in Congress."

and to close his remarks:
"“Do not be self-congratulatory about how brave you for being for this” gun control push, he said. “The only brave people are the people who are going to lose their jobs if they vote with you.”"

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...443_Page2.html