The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 15, 2013, 01:09 PM   #26
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
pturner67, I think you are conflating executive orders and intended leadership attempts from the bully pulpit.

Obama can't EO an AWB or magazine ban. He can't EO background checks. He may try to push an agenda for Congress to consider, and do his best to sell it, but he can't do the things you suggest via EO.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 15, 2013, 01:09 PM   #27
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,889
Quote:
I think they will get something. About 60% of the population wants to see some action.
I agree with Obama "It should be as easy to get mental health care as it is to buy an assault rifle". Trouble is, that would cost real money.
While a fairly large number of people polled favor vauge proposals such as "stricter gun laws," when the pollster starts asking about more specific measures, such as an assault weapons ban, the number of people favoring it begins dropping off fairly dramatically. Likewise, the most reputable poll numbers on the issue are fairly old now (mid to late December) and the emotional reaction fades with each passing day.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old January 15, 2013, 01:58 PM   #28
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,319
Quote:
Can this partly explain why he appeared to put Biden in charge of gun control?
Yep. He wants to disengage himself from the issue while looking like he's doing something on the issue. The best way to do that? Appoint a panel.

Panels talk. Then they talk some more. A few months later, they publish a report, all nicely double-spaced with a pretty cover. By that point, the public is more concerned with other issues, so it gets forgotten. The point is, the President can say "I did something."

Quote:
About 60% of the population wants to see some action.
Actually, about 60% of people who actually answer the phone at dinner time and agree to talk to pollsters want to see some action. Those folks don't always indicate a general cross-section of the population.

That said, New York just gave us a very effective (if not morbid) argument not to give an inch. Their bill is very much in line with what Feinstein and others said they wanted, and it's a good indicator of what can happen when folks "just want to do something" without considering the consequences.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 15, 2013, 02:15 PM   #29
bird_dog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 26, 2004
Posts: 211
Quote:
That said, New York just gave us a very effective (if not morbid) argument not to give an inch. Their bill is very much in line with what Feinstein and others said they wanted, and it's a good indicator of what can happen when folks "just want to do something" without considering the consequences.
NY resident here. I'm sitting here, listening to the state assembly 'discuss' the proposal that's already passed the state senate.

The ramifications for this new legislation are mind-blowing. By making 8+ magazines (in my case, handguns) illegal, they don't NEED to confiscate anything. They're wiping out a whole class of handgun, by not allowing you to carry it due to the magazine restriction. Whether or not that flies in the face of the Heller ruling or not, THEY ARE TRYING IT.

In keeping with this discussion, keep in mind that Cuomo will be running for president soon. Imagine that? The insanity of this legislation would likely move to the national spectrum. Depending on what he drops on us tomorrow, Obama might look moderate by comparison.
bird_dog is offline  
Old January 15, 2013, 02:33 PM   #30
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Location: Mesquite Jungle Desert, West Texas, USA
Posts: 2,467
Polls can easily be manipulated.

While people that are anti will voice their opinion, the pro crowd doesn't think there's much of an issue.... This happens with any debate, not just guns.

Imagine you love to play UNO with your family, it's a ritual every Thursday night. There's also a group that hates UNO and wants it banned and other people and celebrities share this feeling. All the while, you are unaware of this.

Many people never watch the boring ole news, so it is possible that there's folks out there that don't know this is going on.
__________________
Navin R. Johnson: "He hates these cans!!!! Stay away from the cans!!!!"
rickyrick is offline  
Old January 15, 2013, 02:40 PM   #31
pturner67
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 26, 2006
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 658
bird_dog...are they outright banning without any grandfather clause whatsoever?
pturner67 is offline  
Old January 15, 2013, 02:55 PM   #32
dlb435
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2009
Posts: 654
Doing "something" will not necessarily have to be effective. If it sounds good that will be enough. We all know what kind of action would be effective (I will not list them here for good reason)
Excectutive action would just be either enforcing or strengthening laws already on the books. Still, it takes money to do this. You can pass all the laws you want but if you don't provide funding, nothing happens.
Obama has gone out of his way to avoid the gun issue. This hasn't made some on the left happy but Obama is a politician. He knows a loosing cause when he sees it.
So far it looks like three different parts to the new gun control legislation.
1. Background checks to include mental health issues. (good chance of this)
2. All gun sales to be background checked. (unenforcable, but it sounds good)
3. Ban assault rifles and hi-cap mags. (probably will not get through a Republican majority House)
That's what I see for the present. One more nut case shooting up a large group of people and all bets are off. I, for one, would be very pleased to never hear about a mass shooting ever again.
dlb435 is offline  
Old January 15, 2013, 02:59 PM   #33
bird_dog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 26, 2004
Posts: 211
Quote:
bird_dog...are they outright banning without any grandfather clause whatsoever?
I'm just reading the actual verbage now. It's confusing (not surprisingly). It looks to grandfather, yes, but also requires magazines capable of carrying more than 7 to only be loaded with 7. And another part says magazines of 10 or more must be sold out-of-state or to a dealer within a year. Whether or not this is only referring to 'assault rifles' is very unclear. It appears to mean all semi-handguns, as well. So, my 1911 would be good to go, but my Ruger P345 (because it has ONE more cartridge capacity) would not?

It appears that NO semi-automatic handguns with a capacity of 8 or more will be legal to sell! I did a text-search to see if there was anything about not having this affect .22 rimfire handguns. There doesn't appear to be. There also doesn't seem to be any mention of revolvers that carry more than 7. Wonder how that will pan out? You can't squirrel hunt with a 9 shot 22 anymore?

I'm sure others are reading it in more detail and with a smarter eye than me but it sure looks bad at first pass-through.
bird_dog is offline  
Old January 15, 2013, 05:08 PM   #34
coachteet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 7, 2008
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 122
Considering that the Republican majority Senate is willing take us to the brink of federal default over the debt limit (and will likely do the same thing again soon), and went to the final moment to kick the can down the road on the fiscal cliff, I tend to agree with dlb345. I think the mental health part could gain traction, depending on practicality (I cannot personally find a real world scenario that would work). Everything else would be a (too) steep hill to climb. Anything can happen. But a new gun control law that would actually pass into law wont likely involve high capacity mags or "assault weapons". He will introduce tough gun control legislation, but it is going to be more of a gesture.

I heard on the news a few minutes ago that one of the EO possibilities included allowing federal grant money to be used for improving school safety, which I feel is a good thing. Actually, all of the EO stuff sounds to me like the president cracking down on strictly enforcing current laws.

"The executive actions could include giving the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention authority to conduct national research on guns, more aggressive enforcement of existing gun laws and pushing for wider sharing of existing gun databases among federal and state agencies, members of Congress in the meeting said. "
coachteet is offline  
Old January 15, 2013, 05:15 PM   #35
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Yes, but...

If the EO were promulgated, authorizing CDC to research firearm issues, all Congress would have to do is refuse to fund the CDC for any such program.

EOs can provide guidance and emphasis, but only Congress authorizes funding.
MLeake is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09940 seconds with 9 queries