Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Presidents Bush and Clinton Also Used Executive Orders to Reform Gun Laws
Republicans are threatening to impeach Obama over executive action on gun control, but many presidents have issued executive orders on gun control, including George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
First Larry Pratt went impeachment nuts and then yesterday, Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) threatened that he would file articles of impeachment against President Barack Obama if he uses the power of his office to address gun control.
Stockman, who must not be familiar with the Constitution or history, claimed an executive order would be “unconstitutional” and “infringe on our constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.” Stockman seems to get his news from the Daily Caller, Drudge and Fox News, because he believes, “If the president is allowed to suspend constitutional rights on his own personal whims, our free republic has effectively ceased to exist.”
President Obama hinted he might use executive action to address gun violence in his presser Monday. And then, Monday night Rep. Jackie Speier told Chris Matthews of MSNBC, “Vice President Joe Biden indicated there were some 19 areas he was able to identify that the president could take action on through executive order. He didn’t go into detail on what they might be, but suffice it to say, there will be some considered that will not require Congressional action.”
This translates in Republicanese to the demise of our Republic, also known as a Democrat not even using all of the executive power Republicans grant to their own party when they’re in power. Republicans are apparently unfamiliar with the constitutional legitimacy of using the executive office in this manner. Here are the facts:
In 1952, the Supreme Court ruled that executive orders could not make new law. Executive orders are therefore supposed to be about enforcing a current law or helping manage the enforcement of a current law. This is a matter of interpretation, and subject to argument on both sides. Whatever the President does, it will no doubt end up being challenged and argued in court (as it should be).
In 1989, then President George H.W. Bush issued an executive order halting the importation of some semi-automatic firearms after a mass school shooting Stockton, California. He based his executive order on the 1968 Gun Control Act and used it to ban the shipment of what could be considered “assault weapons” unless they were used for sporting purposes. (Question: Did the free republic cease to exist then?)
In 1998, then President Bill Clinton also issued an executive order to ban the importation of more than 50 semiautomatic “assault weapons” that had been modified to get through that “sporting purposes” exemption.
In 2001, Clinton moved again via executive order, banning the importation of assault pistols.
One issue that Obama could address via executive order would be the sale of firearms, which is not covered under the Second Amendment. Obama could base this on the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, which levied a tax on the transfer of firearms. The President could use an executive order to institute a database and background checks centered on the sale of firearms; in other words, managing an existing law.
But Obama could also follow George W. Bush’s example and use the “security” of the nation in order to justify just about any law he wanted to impose regarding gun safety (I’m not advocating this, but it’s worth mentioning since Republicans don’t seem to understand how their abuses of power can be used against them later).
Obama, a constitutional lawyer, appears to have used his executive power well within the law for gun regulation so far. Reuters reports, “A federal appeals court signaled on Wednesday it was prepared to uphold a regulation designed to detect the sale of semi-automatic rifles to Mexican drug cartels, one of the few gun control measures put forward so far by the Obama administration.” Republicans have also tried to defund this gun reporting regulation.
Almost all of the gun control measures we’ve undertaken have come on the heels of a tragedy. In 1934 after the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, FDR signed the National Firearms Act (mentioned above as a possible basis for Obama’s executive order) and in 2007, after the Virginia Tech massacre, President George W. Bush expanded the federal background check database.
Freshman Stockman is threatening to “defund the White House” if Obama dares to use his office as if he were the President. Duly noted.
Stockman served a term in Congress from 1995 to 1997 (suggesting that he might know what happened in 1989 and 1998), but reality may not be playing a large role here as Stockman is the guy who introduced “The Safe Schools Act” this month, a bill aimed at repealing federal laws mandating gun free zones around schools.
Update Jan 16: The President will sign 23 executive orders to supplement his call for gun safety legislation.
Related Posts :
Republican Governor Phil Bryant of Mississippi is calling for an unconstitutional remedy for what he see ...
After his gun control announcement, Republicans immediately called President Obama a dictator and an imp ...
An interesting and overlooked part of President Obama's Executive Order on Presidential Records is that Obam ...
Sarah Jones wrote here the other day about the unconstitutional responses of Republicans who claim Obama ...
The President's bold and sweeping Plan to protect our children and our communities by reducing gun viole ...
91 Responses to Presidents Bush and Clinton Also Used Executive Orders to Reform Gun Laws
Public Service Advertisements
buckeyewill
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 8:24 am
Why not use Executive Action on the debt ceiling game the GOP is trying to run????
djchefron
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 8:31 am
No.I know your we are frustrated with the clowns known as the republican party but no negotiation,lifelines or bailouts.Congress has a constitutional duty to pay its debts and the sooner the media points that out the sooner we can stop all these gimmick ideas.
Boner get your loons in order and pay your debts.
BIG BLACK BUBBA
Jan. 19th, 2013 at 8:29 pm
NO. Obama is trying to claim future spending as existing debt. Get informed!
djchefron
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 8:37 am
There was a post a few weeks back on foreign gun manufacturers selling semi assault weapons.Use your first executive order and shut that down then go from there.
As far as impeachment.Two words.Please proceed.
I speak for the majority of voters “MAKE OUR DAY”
Anonymous Coward
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 6:46 pm
LOL it’ll be to late he’ll be gone. And I garuntee the Republicans will keep a majority but FWI BOTH PARTIES ARE GARBAGE.
Reynardine
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 8:39 am
I’ve lived a tolerably long time, and I don’t think I’ve seen such a Party of Spite.
Singhx
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 9:28 am
“…Bush was a Life Member of the National Rifle Association and had campaigned as a “Pro-gun” candidate with the NRA’s endorsement in 1988. However, in March 1989 he placed a temporary ban on the import of certain semiautomatic rifles.[51] This action cost him endorsement from the NRA in 1992. Bush publicly resigned his life membership in the organization after losing the election and receiving a form letter from NRA depicting agents of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms as “jack-booted thugs”. He called the NRA letter a “vicious slander on good people”…from Wikipedia
Why didn’t they start impeachment hearings or threaten secession or civil war? Where was their “battle cry” then? And where is George Sr. in this insane dialogue with the NRA; why doesn’t he (or his surrogate) speak up?
Reynardine
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 10:02 am
In all justice, Singh, Bush, Sr. is gravely ill.
SinghX
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 7:23 pm
True dat, but…he’s been quiet like a church mouse watching a man of the clothe defile a child for some time now. Perhaps someone told him “shut up, old man” when he wanted to sound off on the NRA…Bob Doyle still shows up and gives testimony when he wants to lend a voice…I donno.
Bammit
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 11:58 am
Why didn’t the Republic cease to exist when Bush #1 issued an Executive order halting importation of certain guns?
Because in that instance and all the other instances listed by Sarah Jones had NOTHING to do with the 2nd amendment. They had everything to do with importation. That power is within the purview of the president.
However, Stockton’s comments were directed at any attempt by Obama to subvert the 2nd amendment through use of Executive order. THAT would be unconstitutional and grounds for impeachment.
Reading comprehension. Try it. It saves lives.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 12:05 pm
that is not true. Each state and the federal government has the right to ban assault weapons as determined by the Supreme Court. The only way that Obama could get in trouble would be to try to take away the normal shotgun pistol and rifle weapons. He cannot get in trouble for banning assault weapons even if you were to try it.
it would not have been grounds for impeachment. The Supreme Court would’ve said that what he did was not legal and it would’ve been dropped right there. The president is not committing a high crime and doing what you think is impeachable.
fast
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 1:09 pm
The 2nd amendment dosent say pistols and rifles…it sez arms which includes are means of defense!!
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 1:59 pm
sorry, the Supreme Court already said pistols rifles and guns. The government has the right to ban anything above that as evidenced by the bans by previous administrations
Cathy Sweeney
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 4:54 pm
First of all, if you don’t know the difference between “our” and “are”, then you are showing your lack of education. Your comments are in in fact, entirely
forgettable.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 5:47 pm
We dont do spelling/grammar cop here thank you
Bandit401
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 7:00 pm
There is no such thing as “assault weapon”. It as a buzzword that someone in the media made up to sell a story and everyone(including some politicians) jumped on board.
The closest thing is “Assault rifle”, but very few civilians own one of them because they are selective-fire weapons and unless you have $20,000 laying around for a transferable(Made before 1986) M-16 and can wait for 6 months or more for the BATF Form 4 to be returned, then all that is left is your so-called “normal” rifles.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 7:26 pm
Blah blah blah. You know exactly what is being discussed.
Your issue is with the Supreme COurt not me.
AllKnowing
Jan. 16th, 2013 at 3:39 am
So just exactly what is a “normal” pistol, rifle or shotgun? Do they all propel a projectile? The fallacy of Cuomo’s ban: “any military characteristic.” Doesn’t a military rifle shoot a projectile? Well there’s yer one characteristic. When the Second Amendment was written there were black powder muskets. When the First Amendment was written there were Gutenberg type presses, does that mean we can only be protected by Gutenberg press printed documents? You liberals are tunnel visioned deniers of the truth.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 16th, 2013 at 9:14 am
And your arguments are hilarious!
Your problem is with the Supreme Court not me
mjh
Jan. 16th, 2013 at 3:06 pm
When the First Amendment was written there were Gutenberg type presses, does that mean we can only be protected by Gutenberg press printed documents? You liberals are tunnel visioned deniers of the truth.
Gutenberg press — invented 1436
First amendment — adopted 1791
Please change your name to “NonKnowing”
.
BIG BLACK BUBBA
Jan. 19th, 2013 at 8:32 pm
Define assault weapon!
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 19th, 2013 at 8:53 pm
The SCOTUS already did. Look it up. Or look up what NY is banning
Terri
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 1:24 pm
Link to where it says executive orders can only be used for importation. LOL. That’s a joke.
Executive orders can be used on all preexisting laws, you clown. Try not to mix in with the thinking public.
Sarah Jones
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 3:08 pm
Bammit,
First of all, the second amendment says nothing about regulating the sale of guns.
This point has been argued before and lost: “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
Indeed, it gets worse for your argument, “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”
The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”
Second of all, as to your point about importation — Clinton and Bush EOs were not based on the sales law I referred to as an example of an existing law that could be modified via EO. I made this point in the article (speaking of reading comprehension). The President can use any law he pleases, and he doesn’t need Representative Stockman’s approval or his obviously hysterical and flawed reasoning.
At any rate, even if your presumption were accurate (and it’s not), I am unsure where you came up with the idea that sales laws are limited to imports, esp since:
The law it’s based on regulated sales here in the U.S. via a tax.
Perhaps you missed the section on executive orders being based on existing laws – not just one law.
You may not like it, but that’s the power the President has.
AllKnowing
Jan. 16th, 2013 at 3:56 am
What is the definition of “infringed?” Is a ban an infringement? How about a tax, especially an exorbitant one? How about a public record or a mountain of paperwork or any one of the myriad of it can haves and it can’t haves. Please rip that lawyers brain right out of your head and see the purity of the most concise sentence in the entire Constitution. “THE EDGE, there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over.”
― Hunter S. Thompson
jomo
Jan. 16th, 2013 at 7:27 pm
Can you provide a link to the case from which you are quoting the judicial opinion?
Larry Dillon
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 9:52 am
Cool Beans.The House can impeach.Just like Clinton.The Senate will reject it.Just like Clinton.The Presidents popularity will go through the roof.Just like Clinton.The GOP will end up with egg on their face.Just like with Clinton.
Its irrelevant.Tea-Nuts are on life-support and if they cause the Country to default,America will “pull the plug” on the Tea-Nut Nation…I betcha.
Mary
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 10:02 am
The bush/cheney war machine killed thousands of men women children. No talk of impeachment. This clearly shows that the gun nuts care more about guns then human beings.20 small children killed not a problem. ALL that mattes is no one try any regulation of their precious weapons. Truly pathetic.
mjh
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 12:59 pm
The bush/cheney war machine killed thousands of men women children. No talk of impeachment.
The Dumbya/Shooter war machine also outed a covert CIA agent for political retribution, which is illegal.
There was no talk of impeachment then, either — anybody who brought it up was accused of being treasonous . . .
.
Reynardine
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 10:05 am
In truth, I think the Dextrosphere and the Teacaucus are in cahoots to supply and spur an armed insurrection.
djchefron
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 10:11 am
Well,look at the bright side.It would cull the population of the lunatic fringe.
SinghX
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 7:31 pm
Please put one of your fingers on the tip of your nose and say “you’re toopid”.
knight4444
Jan. 17th, 2013 at 8:00 am
@kevin with individuals like yourself it’s easy to understand why your party is in the crapper! stop belly aching about this mythical “LIBERAL” media when conservatives have a 24/7 propaganda machine (FUX) and a 10 to 1 advantage in radio! lol you republicans take zero pride in educating yourselves!
mohamed
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 1:20 pm
Bring it on. Pseudo-intellectual idealists and their words against rightists and their guns. A insurrection that should last about a millisecond.
mjh
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 3:57 pm
A insurrection that should last about a millisecond.
Got that right.
All that’s needed is one or two bunker-buster bombs dropped on that compound in Idaho that the gun-nuts are building — the insurrection won’t even last that long . . .
.
Bandit401
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 7:32 pm
There you go – claiming to care about saving lives, but then talk about blowing-up people with a bomb!
Hypocrites one and all!
Maybe if you came down from your pedestal you might breath more oxygen and think straight!
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 7:34 pm
Apparently you were in such a hurry to call someone a name you didnt read it in context
djchefron
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 4:47 pm
You are right it will last milliseconds.GO WOLVERINES!!!!!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=c...
Bob Moench
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 10:19 am
For me, the final sentence clearly lays out the agenda of one side of the argument. ~ “Stockman is the guy who introduced “The Safe Schools Act” this month, a bill aimed at repealing federal laws mandating gun free zones around schools.” ~ I represent the flip side of that coin. Expand the gun free zones…make the “campus areas” much larger, with more restricted access. You should not be able to get onto school grounds with a gun, Period
Joe
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 11:51 am
The flaw in your thinking is that those who do not obey the law are the ones who are committing these acts. No law will make a lawless individual obey it. Our politicians for the most part are surrounded by trained personal carrying guns to protect them from the same lawless individuals that go into public places and stsrt shooting. A fact the media never reported until the pretrial hearing of the man who went into the movie house in Aroura, Colorado. He drove past 3 cienama’s that had NO sign posted regarding firearms to the one that had the no firearms posted in the front of the building. The law abiding customers didn’t have a way to defend themselves when he went on his shooting spree. The other cienama’s he drove past to go to that one could have had someone in that theater who could have shoot back and minimized the death toll. Shouldn’t our children in school have the same protection as our politicians
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 12:07 pm
I think you need to consider that the shooter had set off a bunch of smoke bombs and no one could even see the shooter. If there was someone towards the back the started shooting at the shooter who could’ve very well moved after he started, how many people could have been killed shot in the back of the head by the second shooter? I don’t think you can use the idea that if someone was armed that this would’ve been stopped. If they didn’t do a perfect headshot through all that smoke they would not have killed him as he was wearing body armor.
the_harbinger
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 11:02 pm
The purpose of self defense is to stop the attack. Many times an attacker will fold just by being confronted by eqaul force. If the defenders counter attack kills the attacker it is on the attackers own head. Again, self defense is about stopping an attack against you others. There are areas that an armoured attaker can be shot to stop or slow their attack such as arms or hands or even the weapon itself. And for the record, the movie shooter specifically picked that theater because it was the only theater to ban legal concealed carry by law abiding citizens (at the time). He had a theater much closer to his appartment. Lets use common sense and stop this society that worships death – from vampires and werewolves to sucides and abortion.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 11:20 pm
You know of course that he didnt pick that theater because of a no weapons zone. That is hilarious. He picked it because people were dressed in costumes and he could get in without being detected.
I see the law abiding crap again.
Yes, the culture of the gun. Death
the_harbinger
Jan. 16th, 2013 at 6:29 pm
So I suppose the GA woman who shot the intruder in her home was actually not protecting her twin children? Because she used a gun to defend herself and her family from an intruder she is part of the society of death?
Wow. As it says in Proverbs 14:7
“Stay away from a foolish man, for you will not find knowledge on his lips.”
And the very man who desires to save the guilty by making unjust laws has brought death to the small infants in Illinois by voting against allowing babies who survived abortion attempts to live even though the child is outside the womb.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 16th, 2013 at 6:35 pm
Somehow you are equating the woman in Ga to the shooter in a smoke filled theater? Must really suck to be you. Thats a bigger leap then the starship enterprise can make
As far as your proverbs go, not really interested in your particular cult
knight4444
Jan. 17th, 2013 at 8:06 am
Oh boy here comes the Pat Robertson wing of the freak show gop! be careful quoting scripture friend!
mjh
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 12:54 pm
No law will make a lawless individual obey it.
So, let’s not have the law — right?
I suppose, since DUI laws haven’t stopped all DUI’s, there’s no sense in having them, either . . .
.
Rome5982
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 1:28 pm
Expanding “gun free zones” means nothing to lunatics who carry out mass murders….obviously since the school was already a “gun free zone” in the first place. All it does is limit law abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves….and you…..if a lunatic initiates this violence. Creation of “gun free zones” PROMOTES criminal attacks (unless there is also some level of armed security present)
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 1:42 pm
I don’t agree that gun free zones promotes criminal activity. What are gun free zones? Usually schools or other public buildings. What you are saying is that in America today you have to have guns on every corner of the block to protect yourself. That is a problem within itself because the protectors become the people you need to protect yourself from in time.
I do agree that a gun free zone means absolutely nothing to someone who was going to shoot someone. It is absolutely irrelevant. How often is criminal activity taking part in a gun free zone? When we have a massacre such as in a theater or in a school? That is pretty rare. No one has lost the right to limit themselves to being defended when in general it’s not even required.
If we have reached the point where if you go into a theater or a school or any other gun free zone and you have to carry defensive weapons then what it says about America is that we have too many guns. Are we have too many people with too many guns. This is not the kind of country that we want. Every time there’s a killing people go out and buy another gun. It’s just like going to war in Iraq. We kill one they kill one. It’s called escalation and it’s not going to happen here.
mjh
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 4:00 pm
Creation of “gun free zones” PROMOTES criminal attacks
And, police are not obligated to protect the public . . .
And, guns are not designed to kill . . .
And, the words “well regulated” in the 2nd Amendment don’t mean regulation is needed . . .
And down the rightwingnut rabbit-hole we go!
.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 4:16 pm
If police are not obligated to protect the public, then why did I get a speeding ticket with my 68 Dodge Coronet 440 doing 142 MPH on my way to upper Michigan to Deer hunt?
Splain that!
mug
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 7:10 pm
I was just repeating what another gun-nut said in another thread on gun control a couple of weeks ago …
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 7:23 pm
Its cool. besides I was out cooking supper and didnt even see it till now
JAMES CLEGG
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 7:23 pm
Now that sounds like bragging!
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 7:24 pm
Yep :) The dreams of a man in his old age are the deeds of a man in his prime.
Bandit401
Jan. 16th, 2013 at 2:08 am
I know you’re only trolling, but I’ll bite!
You were given a speeding ticket because you were breaking the law and and officer happened to catch you doing it!
As of 2010 there were 256 officers/100,000 citizens that means that each officer has roughly 390 citizens to “protect”. There is no possible way that they can protect individual citizens, and the courts have consistently upheld that. They are only held responsible for the “Community at large”
I have a 1973 Javelin AMX with a 460HP 401 with a Borg-Warner T-10 4-speed. This car is capable of 140+ MPH, but because I obey the laws, the only time it has gone over the speed limit is at the dragstrip. LEGALLY! Because I don’t have the intent to break the law, even though I could take my car and cause havoc and run over people.
Deni
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 10:56 am
Thanks for changing your font, much better!
Bushy Brown
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 12:00 pm
As the author did not accurately point out, even through executive order, gun ownership was not impacted.
The readers must realize, the executive action was banning imports, not ownership. Yes, assault weapons are the main target; but does that executive action infringe upon the “right to bear arms”? That’s a rhetorical question. People can still own other assault weapons that are sold within the country. Just not the ones which are banned from being imported.
It merely reduces the buffet line of assault weapons that can be acquired. It’s like banning fish imports from China because of high levels of mercury. That doesn’t stop me from eating fish.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 12:03 pm
it’s not really a rhetorical question, because the Supreme Court already said that this type of action is completely legal whether it’s done by the president or the Congress. There are various bans across the states on assault weapons. Some of the bans, I should say most of the bans have been removed. I think it was New York that just last night reinstated one although I haven’t read the particulars of that case.
Bushy Brown
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 12:34 pm
Re-reading over what I had written, it wasn’t that clear. It was a rhetorical question meant to be in context of “banning imports, not gun ownership”. So, to rephrase the question, “does banning imports infringe upon the right to bear arms?”
The simple answer is, “no.” My supporting statement to back it up was the example of banning the import of fish in China more than a couple years ago because of concerns of mercury levels. That didn’t stop seafood lovers from continuing to indulge in fish.
The banning of importing of assault weapons was also an effort to reduce illegal shipment of weapons and shipment of [illegally or legally] modified weapons, and prosecuting those who did so.
FDR’s National Firearms Act wasn’t a ban, but rather levied a high excise tax on ownership for two types of assault weapons. It’s saying, “Want the privilege of owning a machine gun? Then you have to pay up.” It’s like the tax on cigarettes.
Just an FYI, my post makes no assumptions on the content of the potential executive order. So I don’t know to what extent it would regulate or increase gun control, or impact gun ownership.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 1:10 pm
s far as banning fish from china stopping anyone from eating fish, why would it? The poison has been removed from the table.
it is going to be interesting to see what the result of Joe Biden’s reports are. From what I have been reading there is no impact on current gun ownership. My reading also tells me there will be no ban on assault weapons which is very disappointing to me because I believe they are entirely unnecessary. I think it’s going to focus more on background checks and anything they can do to prevent guns from falling in the wrong hands. I also think it’s going to impact how you store your guns to prevent them from being stolen. We all talk about criminals having guns and in my opinion where did they get these guns? They get them from law-abiding citizens because they steal them from your homes. That is not the only reason of course. We all know that you can go into gun houses and buy as many weapons as you want and sell them to whoever you want even across the Mexican border. I think there may be some limitations on how much ammo you can buy and how many weapons you can buy one time. I am pretty sure there will be a national database of guns sold and ammo sold going forward
The Sandy Hook shooter had purchased 6300 rounds of ammo just before his rampage. With a database he might’ve been caught before he was able to start.
Tom
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 1:28 pm
Who said Obama is going to ban guns? The author mentioned background checks etc. If that’s the same thing as banning guns, then so is restricting guns that can be imported.
Republicans claimed that Clinton was banning guns, that his order restricted their rights. Check out the court cases.
stratta
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 12:03 pm
We dont want people to have guns cause they may hurt someone, yet it is “in all justice that bush sr is gravely ill” What a bunch of hypocrites.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 12:26 pm
So is it going to be fair of us now to take any comment made by you or anyone from the GOP as representing all of the GOP?
BayouVoodoo
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 10:02 pm
Um, the comment was saying that Bush Sr COULDN’T comment publicly on the gun issue because he’s been gravely ill….NOT that he deserved to be sick. Reading comprehension is your friend.
knight4444
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 12:16 pm
Wow the republican party playing suicide politics? I truly believe this party is trying it’s best to become irrelevant! Their hatred of democrats is so out of control their cutting off their nose to spite their face! Hey I like Obama but he really doesn’t need to be a three dimensional chess master! the gop is self destruct mode! Bottom line there aren’t enough hateful, under educated, racist, homophobic, anti women, anti science, anti youth, phony patriotic individuals in the country to keep them a major party. The good news is my generation the ”baby boomers” aren’t as influent as previous years! unfortunately my generation saw the assassination of great men like JFK, MLK, Bobby Kennedy, great civil rights heroes and obviously learned Nothing from those tragic events. But generation Y isn’t as toxic and hateful! young people voted for LGBT candidates and won!! and reelected Obama! generation Y voted for Obama 64 to 37 over Rommey! so heres another one of MANY reasons the republican party must radically change LMAO or fade into history!! I vote FADE!!
Justin
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 12:26 pm
Just to clarify, I’m not a member of the NRA, NAG, or any other firearms group. I’m not a republican nor a member of the Tea Party. First, just because previous presidents have used an executive order on something doesn’t make it right or legal.
Second, weapons bans do nothing except disarm the honest people. Don’t believe? CT already has an “assault” weapon ban in place, and SandyHook was already a “gunfree” zone. Chicago has the strictest gun control measures in the nation, yet statistically leads the nation both in violent crime, and crime committed with guns.
Third, naming a semi-automatic weapon “assault” because it is black, looks military-ish, and has a slightly higher capacity magazine is simply an issue of semantics. Nearly every rifle and handgun sold in the US is of the semi-automatic variety. Even most hunting rifles now have “cartridges” that are quickly replaceable, and can even have drum or other high capacity style magazines attached to them.
Finally, what most concerns me about the new potential firearms regulations most is, the idea that people will be required to register all firearms. Some say good, they should be. But if you know history, this is the exact same process as has happened throughout history, as countries turned from being free states into tyrannies.
The 2nd amendment is not about hunting or even self defense, but about the ability of the people to protect themselves from invading forces, or even their own government. Read the founding fathers, its all there. I say all of this without any vitriol, or anger, just trying to point out some things. Carry on.
knight4444
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 2:25 pm
I strongly suggests You read the 2 admendment! and tell everybody what well regulated militia you belong to! you conservatives are hilarious! even if you guys actually understand the 2 admendment you have to consider your little boy fantasies of being Rambo and the government (which isn’t after you) coming to get won’t work! no matter what weapons you buy the government will always have something bigger and badder!! Anyway I thought you republicans worshipped on bended knee our military!!???? which is it patriotic republican crusaders?? you guys are so schizoid!! now go do your “THUMBS DOWN ROUTINE” LOL
mjh
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 4:14 pm
The 2nd amendment is not about hunting or even self defense, but about the ability of the people to protect themselves from invading forces, or even their own government.
*sigh* Once again — here is the complete text of the Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It says NOTHING about the “right” to take up arms against your own government.
And, once again, I keep asking the question: WHAT CRITERIA do you gun-nuts use to determine WHEN it’s proper to take up arms against your own government?
Is it only when a black guy gets in the White House? All this talk about armed rebellion didn’t start until that happened . . .
I say all of this without any vitriol, or anger
No — just ignorance . . .
.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 7:52 pm
Can you describe how he is distributing wealth? What he has done thats socialist?. Can you do it without consulting the emails they send you?>
Britain is not a socialist nation. You just proved you have no idea what socialism is
Can you describe the tyranny foisted on you?
mjh
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 12:56 pm
Republicans are threatening to impeach Obama over executive action on gun control, but many presidents have issued executive orders on gun control, including George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
But GHW Bush and Clinton had much lighter skin than President Obama, so . . .
.
RX7
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 1:22 pm
First Bengazhi, now gun control. I wonder what will be their next excuse. Those dudes make political satire works look more like realistic portrayals.
Tom
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 1:30 pm
How about Fast and Furious? LOL. But now they’re fighting against his order to restrict gun trafficking from Mexico.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 1:57 pm
fast and furious and the Bush plan before it are very small potatoes in comparison to the amount of guns that Americans buy in gun houses on the Mexican border and then sell across the border illegally. In fact it doesn’t even register on the Peter meter.
secondly, Obama had nothing to do with fast and furious. He didn’t even know about it. Now is that all you’ve got?
knight4444
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 2:42 pm
@RX7 and Justin I wouldn’t use the word ”satire” in talking about the democrats!! every since you guys trotted out Richard “TRICKY DICK” Nixon you party has been one huge cluster f**k of ”satire” and I’m being polite! your who’s who list of political cartoon characters has been surreal! with the Bachmann’s, Gringrich’s, Perry’s, Rommey’s North’s Santorum’s, Bob Packwood’s, Larry Craig’s of the freak show you call a political party! I’d stay away from calling ANYTHING “SATIRE”
knight4444
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 3:37 pm
It’s hilarious reading these republican Fux news opinion heres! and how they stroke each other hitting the “THUMBS UP” button OMG! @RX7 @TOM @JUSTINE if I were you I’d A- get a qualified therapist to find out why I’m a republican! B- I’d research material myself rather than watch the american version of the Goebbels project I mean FUX news. C- I’d wonder what happened to my gop!! what happened to respectable politicians like Eisenhower? sorry guys he was the last decent republican! so boys why don’t you put you’re sizeable intelligence into those three areas I gave you!!?? rather than come here talking about Bengazhi!! and ”fast and furious”that old news boys! lol doesn’t FUX keep you guys updated?? its 1/15/13 boys!!
mug
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 7:22 pm
“fast and furious was dereliction of duty at its finest”
I agree.
Fast and Furious began as Project Gunrunner, a Laredo, TX ATF Bureau office initiative in 2005, that was expanded nationally in 2006.
So, Kev — who was president in 2006, as well as former TX governor?
Still wanna talk about “dereliction of duty”?
.
djchefron
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 7:43 pm
Cat got Kevin’s tongue or maybe in their world view those years didn’t exist.BTW have they found bush yet,I mean he was MIA at the convention.
mjh
Jan. 16th, 2013 at 1:25 am
BTW — the “mug” that keeps showing up is me, mjh.
I blame the autocorrect on iPhone5 . . .
.
DowneastDiva
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 3:04 pm
I’m really tired of these politicians that don’t know our history and have never read the Constitution. Who the heck nominates these losers? We really have to kick these morons to the curb, how can they represent the American ppl when they know nothing about America or our laws? If their IQ where a half point lower, they’d be a plant.
Bob
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 4:50 pm
So far Justin has it about right on the Second Amendment. Read Federalist Paper # 46 which predates the amendment to see what the original intent was. And if you look at what was going on in other states you’ll see that self defense, including collective self defense, was included in the original intent. Face it–the founding fathers didn’t trust government and wanted the people to retain certain power. It’s written in the Constitution! Gun ownership was one of those individual rights.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 5:46 pm
And?
mjh
Jan. 16th, 2013 at 1:29 am
Face it–the founding fathers didn’t trust government and wanted the people to retain certain power.
They didn’t trust government — which is why they established a strong central one.
Rightwingnuts: STILL not thinking before they type . . .
.
djchefron
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 9:12 pm
I’m flabbergasted I am really at a lost.Not all but most of the people arguing over how many guns they can own fighting tooth and nail over any regulations see no problem with legislating against a woman’s vagina or as they refer to them those icky lady thingees.SMDH
ENDIF
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 10:08 pm
“Both” sides of this argument mostly ignore the source of the problem:
- Shredded social safety nets that allow people to become so desperate or victimized or deranged that they decide to harm others. The US has become a vast experiment in social darwinism.
- The Drug War that props up violent cartels and gangs that commit most crime, particularly violent crime, particularly gun crime. The same Drug War that leads to no knock SWAT raids for pot, to property confiscations, to casual users put in gang run prisons with hardened criminals.
Neither guards at every building and guns in every hand, nor total disarmament will make a damn bit of difference until we address both of those systemic failures.
“There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.”
Henry David Thoreau
Bandit401
Jan. 16th, 2013 at 9:13 pm
Good point – well said.
KatzKids
Jan. 16th, 2013 at 10:09 am
All this talk about “imported” weapons. It’s true, they must be stopped, but how about stopping the across state lines movement of guns? The RWnutz love to throw up the murders in cities in strong gun control areas as examples that gun control doesn’t work. The main reason is that the guns are brought in from those states with few restrictions or controls. Felons, the mentally ill, or just anyone can walk into most of the gun shows & a lot of their gun stores & walk out with as many weapons as they can pay for or carry, with no questions asked and they’re doing it every day.
How do criminals get guns? They easily get them from the everyone-needs-as-many-guns-as-they-can-get-RWinger States, and from the homes of those “responsible” gun owners who are so paranoid they never properly store their weapons.
Until gun laws are universally applied over all states the mayhem will continue.
Bandit401
Jan. 16th, 2013 at 9:06 pm
Interstate sale of guns without an FFL is already illegal! Felons, the mentally ill & any other disqualified individuals are already banned from owning firearms. Gun sales to them is already a felony and no one accept for another felon is going to sell a firearm to them!
There is no such thing as an “unlicensed” gun-dealer at a gun show! The only dealer at gun-shows that are unlicensed sell clothes, trinkets, knives, etc.
ALL gun-dealers(FFL) are required by federal law to perform a NICS background check. Only a private sale between two individuals (not a dealer) doesn’t require a background and even then they are forbidden by federal law from selling to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms. Some states regulate private sales as well. Keep in mind that many of the “private” sales are unrestricted antiques, hunting rifles, Etc. Not Mass sales of “Fully automatic assault combat war rifles” like the media would like everyone to think!
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 16th, 2013 at 9:17 pm
So you are saying that Americans do not buy any quantity of weapons they need and sell them over the Mexican border?
That there is no gun show loophole?
Bandit401
Jan. 16th, 2013 at 11:06 pm
No! Do you know why? Because firearms go for a premium here and selling them over the Mexican border would cost them money and the point of it would be to make a profit!
29,000 firearms were seized in a 2 year period by mexican officials of which 5,114 were confirmed to have come from the United States. This means that 83% of crime guns recovered in Mexico have not been or cannot be traced to America.
Besides…wait for it…wait for it…the government has made sure to get plenty of guns over the border!
The so-called gun-show loophole is individuals selling to each other like you would sell a 4 wheeler to an individual. Would you sell a 4 wheeler to a mentally ill person? Probably not! Same with guns – but definitely not!
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics only 0.8% of prison inmates reported acquiring firearms used in their crimes “At a gun show” Does it happen – Probably, but far less often than in years past and far from the “free-for-all, get anything you want and walk out that day” that the latest media feeding frenzy would have us believe.
I have been to several dozen shows and not once has a dealer failed to check me! The one private sale I had was when I sold my 1873 Winchester.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 16th, 2013 at 11:14 pm
Bullshit. Weapons go across the borders like water down the Rio sold by Americans. Firearms are not at a premium, especially when the gun houses are in on it.
articles.washingtonpost.c...
www.huffingtonpost.com/20...