It's doing nothing to the second amendment. It's expanding background checks what we need at these gun shows! Since congress won't do anything I applaud the president for trying to do something. I agree this won't stop the senseless killing, but it will stop someone labeled dangerous from getting a gun.
Submitted by Bill C. (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 1:24pm
How does an expansion of background checks not have anything to do with the 2nd amendment? But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that, at least directly, it doesn't. Indirectly, I would argue it absolutely does. Background checks, as ineffective as they are, add to the burden of all involved, which necessarily increases the cost of doing business, and ultimately the product itself. This has the (un)intended effect of increasing the price of the end product, effectively making it a luxury item instead of a necessity item. Maybe people's right to enter the restroom should encounter the same level of process and procedure as trying to buy a firearm in order to understand what "shall not be infringed" means.
Submitted by Richard P (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 2:14pm
There are numerous laws on the book at the federal level, state level, and all the way down to the city/village level. Are the current laws which are not really being enforced doing anything to alleviate the situation? Chicago is a good example of what not to do. The gang bangers who are caught with guns are usually jailed and released and back out on the streets within days. Perhaps individuals who are not licensed and are caught with a gun should be tried in a federal court. Just a thought.
Submitted by Don S (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 1:30pm
Background check have been in-place for years but not enforced. It's time to enforce them.
No gun by it's self has ever hurt or killed anyone. Yet we implement gun laws.
We should be restricting the type of persons wanting to by guns.
Why punish responsible GUN OWNERS.
Submitted by CLB (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 1:30pm
I do not understand all the hype about background checks. In Texas we have been doing backgrounds checks for years. The laws are in place, they just need to be enforced, and then jail time for people doing wrong.
Submitted by Morris Williams (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 1:31pm
The problem with background checks in general is that they are prone to error. If carmakers made ignition systems with the same success rate as background checks, carmakers would go out of business. If the electricity in your home worked with the same effectiveness as background checks, you would be living in a 3rd world country.
Background checks are neither the problem, nor the solution. But they are an impediment in the process of acquiring a firearm, and they absolutely increase the costs of those firearms, and have effectively priced firearm ownership out of reach for many citizens that should legally otherwise be legally allowed to acquire one. More of the same won't fix any existing problem, it won't prevent any future problem, and it continues to infringe on a very simply phrased rule of law, written so that all can understand.
"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."
Submitted by Richard P (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 2:05pm
"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."- Since this was written, a "well regulated militia" has been established in every state. We call it the "National Guard". They are trained and equipped by the Army. Soldiers in the state National Guard (AKA the State Militia), are now issued their weapons which are properly stored in a place called the 'Armory'. It has been a very long time since they had to bring their squirrel muskets to weekend drill.
I am a gun owner and a veteran, but always find it ridiculous when the obsolete intent in the 2nd amendment is ignored, and it is interpreted as being a universal constitutional right to own guns without restrictions.
Submitted by JAF (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 4:02pm
POTUS says the bill will impose background checks on internet gun sales. Well, if you try to purchase a gun online currently it will only be shipped to someone with a dealers license. There you have to pass the background check before taking possession of the firearm. He's behind the times. With the gun shows every firearm purchased at a dealers booth you have to pass a background check as well. Private sales were just that, private. All this will do is push private sales into alleys. For those who want to do it the right way some dealers were charging minimal fees for running the background checks. Others, were charging upwards of $100.00 or more since you did not purchase the firearm from them. That is an undue burden on the buyer. There are existing laws now that impose added sentences for committing crimes with firearms. What really needs to be done is have these liberal judges impose these mandatory sentences and force the prisons to not release criminals early. Only then maybe, just maybe the criminals will understand the consequences of their actions.
Submitted by Jeff Brady (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 1:38pm
POTUS,
You are 100% Correct. King Obama has no clue regarding Gun Laws on the books.
This is just expanding more Government and another small step toward Marshal Law.
Submitted by mr. B. (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 2:09pm
It make a tear come to my eye to think of what this President has done to this country in just 7 years and what he and the democrat party is trying to do to the Constitution. He really has become "King" Obama as he spits on Congress and the Constitution by governing by executive order. Does "King" Obama have the power to actually SEE criminal intent? I say that we leave the Constitution intact and get a new President.
Submitted by Mazok1966 (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 1:43pm
Terrorist ATTACK the USA and our President blames firearms... Does anyone see a problem with this. This guy has no clue what the problem is he trying to strip our rights and liberties . Many Patriots have died for our way of life and to keep our great nation free . To let one man step upon those rights by sidestepping congress and the constitution would be a travesty and disrespect to all those who have died and served for our great nation . We as a people need to stand up and say enough this is our county our land this is a government by the people for the people . We as the people have a say in how our country is run and our laws ,we should not let the government ,or one person dictate what they feel is what we need . this is what freedom is about , the right to choose ones fate ,destiny and life ,its your choice. I for one would not give up any rights under any reasons ,I am a AMERICAN by birth in heart in life in soul and death and no one will ever take that away . May GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .
Submitted by Brendan B. (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 1:44pm
Enjoy this year by getting ready for the next person that will sidestep Congress and the Constitution. Everyone has the right to say or do as they wish, and hopefully realize the consequences thereof. For God and Country!!!
Submitted by John T LaRochelle : Jan 7, 2016 3:31pm
"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."
You may not like what it says, you may even disagree with what it says, but the language is plain. If you want the language changed, there is a procedure to do so through amending the Constitution. Executive action doesn't cut it, and is completely contrary to the actual law. It can even be considered as subversion of the Constitution. That's the problem.
Submitted by Richard P (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 1:58pm
All he is doing is trying to get the guns out of the hands of Law Abiding Citizens so he and the Democrats can take over this country. Just look at the shambles that he has created since taking over 7 years ago....
Submitted by Jerry S (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 1:58pm
It's pointless, feel-good Liberal spin! First off, the ENFORCERS of the CRIMINAL Justice System can't, don't and won't enforce the laws already on the books.
Submitted by John Wohlwend (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 2:03pm
I am a law-abiding gun owner. I don't mind background checks, but how can you possibly ID someone who appears OK today, but goes whacky tomorrow? And what about the dedicated terrorist who maintains a normal behavior outwardly?
I believe there is no viable fix without a "thought police" government, and who wants that?
Submitted by skrubby (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 2:06pm
Yeah, like the social degenerates and thugs follow the current gun laws. EXECUTIVE action more feel good blowhardery that will never be enforced and followed as closely as politicians follow their oath to office
You have to start somewhere, not sit around & knock someone who is trying.
Who in their right minds has to go out & buy a military AR rifle .
No use to have one with a 30= magazine.
Give me a break.
Crazy way for enjoyment.
Submitted by Jim E (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 2:11pm
Some people eat meat, some people don't. Who is anyone to try and tell someone else how to live? And last time I checked, I did not see the Army issuing AR-15s to soldiers, so calling it a military weapon is inaccurate. It "looks" military doesn't make it military. To imply that anyone wanting or needing an AR rifle is not in their right mind is disingenuous and a large part of the problem with our current society. How quickly people turn to name calling and derogatory remarks.
Submitted by Richard P (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 2:18pm
Every day people tell you and me how to live. We live in a world that is governed by man made laws. Some laws are liked better than others. It doesn't make it wrong if you don't like it.
Submitted by EH (not verified) : Jan 8, 2016 9:11pm
Trying? Obama does not engage the houses of Congress. Obama's plans are not "common sense" nor will thugs and gang members suddenly jump up and follow a new law or policy. One does not go out an buy a military rifle (automatic fire) without an intense ATF (DOJ) background investigation and state permitting of a Class III firearm. AR does not equal Assault Rifle, it's a brand copyright, Armalite Rifle, I believe, and they make semi-automatic rifles. If it's all black it is deemed too scary? What's the difference if the firearm and furniture is black or pink? Thirty-round magazines are used mostly by plinkers expending their cash round by round. What hobby gets your money? Cars? Planes? Parachuting? Boating? Fishing?
At no time, to my recollection, has Obama and crew addressed and resolved issues of violence itself.
Submitted by David (Wash) (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 3:01pm
I know it's an NRA staple, but it's also true. How about just enforcing the laws we already have. Secondly criminals don't care about laws, gun laws or any others. Of all the mass shootings I've heard about, I can't remember any reports of the perpetrators buying the guns at gun shows. Either they got them from family members, friends or bought them legally so adding background checks wouldn't have prevented any of them.
Submitted by John K (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 2:18pm
To solve a problem you have to identify the problem. Our current leader is only paying the debt to his billionaire supporters. What he has done will do little or nothing to reduce violence. Violence is the problem and until we recognize this and look at everything that is causing people to react violently we are just whistling in the wind. The list is long of things that need to be looked at so I won't try to list them here.
Submitted by Dick Turpin (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 2:18pm
To quote the Father of our Country......"When any nation mistrusts its citizens with guns it is sending a clear message...it no longer trusts its citizens because such a government has evil plans"......
Submitted by Larry Odom (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 2:18pm
This executive action will do nothing to keep guns from bad intent individuals, it is another power grab from the elitist more government control, hiring 200 more government employees is all we need for are bloated tax payer rolls this was nothing but bullshit.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 2:21pm
This executive action will do nothing to keep guns from bad intent individuals, it is another power grab from the elitist more government control, hiring 200 more government employees is all we need for are bloated tax payer rolls this was nothing but bullshit.
Submitted by Ken Z (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 2:24pm
Is this a way to take guns from veterans who have mental issues, PTSD? Is this
going to cause them not to seek help for fear of losing their right to own guns?
Submitted by David Myer (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 2:26pm
Please provide a sound basis for your "93%" stat, besides the White House's claim. I know I wasn't polled. And the latest "common sense" proposal for background checks includes registration, and supposedly disqualifies anyone receiving federal benefits who gets assistance with finances.
Submitted by David (Wash) (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 2:54pm
If you actually believe your owns statistics, please explain why they are not supported in these comments. Surely 93% of the comments here should support your claim. Why don't they?
"There are three kinds of lies, lies, damn lies, and statistics". Mark Twain
Submitted by Charles P. (not verified) : Jan 8, 2016 1:35am
Hillary (if she is elected) wants to hold gun manufacturers liable for crimes committed with the guns they manufacture and sell! Can you believe that????
Submitted by Cora (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 2:44pm
Nothing is mentioned about the black market on such things. How exactly are they going to control measures like those, since honest gun dealers are just that, honest ? Much like prohibition, it was not effective in keeping control over the Al Capone`s of our world !
Submitted by Elmer Ray Toller Jr. (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 2:41pm
A woman near our home (the Mayor's wife, no less) whacked her twin sister over the head with an oscillating fan the other day. Shhhhhhh, don't tell Obama, he'll write an Executive Order banning fans!
What we need is an Executive Order banning idiots in the White House!
Submitted by Cora (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 2:42pm
Also from some people making comments.
If we had a Congress that would do its job there would be no need for E.O's. The people elected in Congress want legislate because they are afraid they will lose their jobs by doing what's best for the country.
Submitted by Ed H. (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 7:00pm
This executive order is another example of our President abusing his authority, yet again. I don't deny there is a problem with enforcement of the current laws on the books but I think action should come as designed and provided within our constitution. If the President wants gun control he should lobby congress to strengthen the laws not unilaterally make a new law by executive order. We need to get the executive order under control so it doesn't circumvent the checks and balance system set up by the founders of this country. Making laws is not the Presidents job and he should no longer be allowed to dictate them.
Submitted by Mike Daily (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 2:42pm
I agree totally with Mr. Daily's comments. The use of Executive Order to create laws circumvents the entirety of the constitution and its system of checks and balances. No executive order should be read into existence without judicial review by the federal courts.
Submitted by J. Wahr (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 2:48pm
Some of what the President wants to do might be reasonable, but it should not be issued as an Executive Order. It is up to Congress to pass legislation, not the President. Also, more needs to be done to have the resources to adequately enforce current gun laws.
Submitted by Martin S (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 2:46pm
Any meaningful restriction or ban on auto/semi auto, and large clips would never get past the republicans or their owners - the nra. This new legislation is a waste of paper.
Submitted by Prate (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 2:49pm
I think your thought might be better put had you said, "Restriction or ban on auto/semi-auto and large clips would be meaningless since auto weapons in the hands of the general public were effectively outlawed by FDR in the 1930s, semi-autos have been around for over 100 years and most weapons use more or less large magazines!"
Submitted by tom carney (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 3:36pm
That would require a Attorney General who enforces the laws on the books and makes sure that all LEOs enforce those laws. Yes it would be tough when you also have state laws that are not the same from one state to another but the answer is not to add more checks but actually going after the "dealers" who sell stolen and imported weapons from across the border. But even the ATF can't maintain control of the ones they sold the drug cartels and locate them so guess we are asking for to much. Myself, I have never stopped serving my country. I do believe that my family and neighbors are very important and the present LEOs with all they have can't be everywhere so someone needs to protect our families.
Submitted by SteveKSFC retired (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 7:27pm
We Don't need more regulations, Just enforce the ones on the books already. What the D. A. , in the White House did was just Political. If he really wanted to do something able the senseless killing, he'd start in Chicago.
Submitted by George A. Oleen (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 3:09pm
If they want to cut down on gun violence ,pass and enforce a stop and frisk law and let the police do their jobs.have the justice department enforce the gun laws already on the books. If you get caught with a gun without concealed weapons permit you go to jail and don,t get your gun back.
Submitted by Richard J Demeester (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 3:17pm
This is why I question why I'm still a member of this organization. There a two choices that somewhat support the action taken and one against so as to rig the outcome. The first question asked is Did you hear or see the Presidents remarks or are you relying on the news or social media? If you vote is based on the news and/or social media you should not be voting.
Submitted by Bob S (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 3:24pm
In my 75 years I have never read the Bible. But due to exposure about Christianity from parents, teachers, priests, TV (Bishop Sheen), movies (Selznick, De Mille) I think I have a pretty good handle on Christianity. Or more topically, I have never read ACA, but from complaints all around I've decided it is not a good thing.
Submitted by Tom Carney (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 3:32pm
Tom, I don't know you and I don't want to be disrespectful but the main reason people lose their liberty is from the lack of information and knowledge. Don't you think it would have been better for you to have been more intellectually inquisitive than to rely on the interpretation of the Constitution and Christianity for you by others. Remember people and groups have agendas and they will lie to push their agenda. At least if you read and ponder on your own you can pick out the liars, thieves, and sociaopaths. This way you may knowingly join them or stay clear.
Submitted by Ed H. (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 6:53pm
The issue here is that the left wing of the Democratic party has, since Clinton's time, used public relations tools and outright lies to disarm Americans. My fear is they will do so, and then, without our permission, without permission of congress. they will spring some law or condition on all of us. They feel they must disarm us first. All the publicity, the laws, the preconditions, the restrictions made on firearms points to this. I can see no other reason for these 'abridgements'. It has been shown that a population with a lot of guns is a safer one than a population that has been disarmed. Compare say, Cheyenne WY with Boston, MA.
Submitted by Tom Carney (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 3:26pm
This is just one more step in the destruction of America. Next step is confiscation of all firearms and the total take over by the Whitehouse gang with no ability for Patriots to defend themselves. Why do you think we are allowing all these foreigners to enter our borders without background checks. The laws are on the books and have been for a long time. Unfortunately the Laws are not being upheld.
Submitted by David T (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 3:29pm
This is a disgusting attempt to overstep Presidential authority. Made more disgusting when being used by person who in the past taught Constitutional law. This man knows his actions are unconstitutional and is willing to violate his oath of office. People should also be aware the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment do not give citizens a right to gun ownership. The 2nd Amendment directs the Federal government not to interfere with our right to life and liberty, which are basic rights not needed to be enumerated. The Constitution limits and defines the powers of the Federal government, not those belonging to the people.
Submitted by Charles P. (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 3:31pm
Are you a Constitutional Lawyer? I wonder if you have even read the US Constitution. DoJ was consulted. When 20+ 1st graders get shot down at school and the spineless US Congress (Republican majority and some spineless Democrats) bury their heads in the sand and do nothing then something has to be done. I can't believe it took him this long to act.
Submitted by Ed H. (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 5:51pm
I keep hearing about the laws we have on the books are enough and we don't need additional laws on gun control etc. If that's the case then someone has already stepped on the 2nd Amendment. Why did the people who want to defend the 2nd Amendment now not defend it when all of these unenforced laws were being passed. The NRA, gun manufacturers, etc have been around a long time. Also if we have selective enforcement new laws need to be passed to throw the person in jail that is legally obligated to enforce the law and has chosen not to do so. So the old adage that we have laws on the books etc. doesn't cut it. The 2nd Amendment was written to support a country trying to find its way in the world without a tax base to support a free standing army of its own.
I think we should go back to a militia and not have a free standing army. This way we can see just how important it is to the people who advocate for the 2nd Amendment. They should be our 1st line of defense. You probably wouldnt have so many whining about the 2nd Amendment if they were all sent to the Middle East next week. Wayne LaPierre should be the first person to lead the troops into battle. The troops behind him should be the US Congress. They enjoy war as much as any group of Chicken Hawks outside the NRA. So let's enforce the 2nd Anendment and seen Wayne and the US Congress to the Middle East. I know I would feel much safer knowing that fine group has my back.
Submitted by Ed H. (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 5:44pm
The second Amendment is not about hunting, it is about being able to protect us, citizens of the US, in case a tyrant like King George was tries to overturn the Constitution and take over this Republic!!!!
Submitted by Robert in Sheri... (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 3:58pm
It was for states to have a well-regulated Militia, which we now call the National Guard. They have military issued weapons now, compared to back then when they showed up to weekend drill with a squirrel musket because the states couldn't afford to buy weapons for everyone. So, in reality, the original intent of the 2nd amendment is obsolete.
Submitted by JAF (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 4:11pm
All males over the age of 14 were in the militia. At least that was true in Virginia where my ancestors were in the militia. It was not an all volunteer organization. Governors and presidents are the only ones who can authorize a call up. Do you think that they will call us to keep them from becoming more powerful? Militias were to protect us from all enemies including those who would rule without the benefit of laws being passed by congress. Both parties have problems with presidents making laws.
Submitted by N. Harpole (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 4:23pm
You are absolutely correct. Finally an educated statement in the middle of emotional whining about liberals, etc. The right sees a monster around every corner when it's the right that wants to turn the clock back on all liberties we now enjoy. It's typical. They can't win the argument so they resort to threats. I wonder how a group sleeps at night knowing that Reagan had the mentally ill thrown out on the street to save money for the insurance industry. Now they say we don't need additional gun laws we need mental health programs. Regan helped the insurance industry save money and now the Republicans want the US taxpayer to pick up the tab. Actually the gun manufacturers and the insurance industry should pick up the tab. We should always remember. We send our troops into combat with guns etc. If the old adage of guns dont kill people, people kill people was correct we would send out troops into combat without them.
Submitted by Ed H. (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 5:14pm
I'm a registered Republican. Have been since my tour in Vietnam. I'm just not a fruit cake righty.
I'm sorry the truth hurts about Reagan. He also turned tail when on his watch 250 Marines were killed in Lebanon. The problem with righty is he puts his ideology ahead of his country. The country needs people from all walks and beliefs. One party or group doesn't have all of the right or wrong answers. Only narrow minded, blinder wearing simpletons do.
Submitted by Ed H. (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 6:31pm
The answer to crime is punishment, not more regulations. The direction of this country has changed. The federal govt is enabling a do nothing society, solely dependent on the generosity of the politicians, passing out free stuff. Frightening to remember that this country elected this person twice. Get ready for "Bernie". Obama is just blowing hot air and emotion about gun violence and he knows he can do very little about it. Beware of huge debt and tax increases to fund what is becoming a welfare country. Requirements and standards have been lowered to make it all seem normal and accepted.
Submitted by LLD, usmc (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 4:06pm
No matter how the Liberal Left spins this, I believe my ConLaw Professors, it is to maintain a completely civilian force to : 1) throw off the yoke of those who would enslave us.(uh oh...). And 2) to maintain a last line of defense from foreign invaders.
Submitted by Col. Steve (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 4:46pm
Do you really thing a Glock or AR-15 is any defense against the "yoke" ? The Government has UAV mounted rockets and weapons that laugh at yours. You are living in a Second Amendment fantasy.
Submitted by Army Vet (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 5:12pm
Col. you have already been enslaved and you gun has been with you the whole time. No shots fired. Did the government need to take it. No, you were enslaved while being distracted about petty issues. Your real rights were taken while you were out fighting windmills.
Submitted by Ed H. (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 6:20pm
Given our do nothing Congress, its about time someone took action to stop the killing. Congratulations, Mr. President. BTW, American Legion, get out of the gun debate and start working on soldier issues.
Submitted by Jim Poole (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 5:59pm
I agree completely with Mr. Poole. It's easy to offer up excuses why certain gun control actions won't work but in the interim nothing is accomplished but arguing about this issue. At least what the president did represents a move in the right direction to address this huge issue. And I'm not a supporter of much of what the president does--especially in regard to his foreign policy decisions or the lack thereof.
Submitted by DCC (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 7:13pm
Thank you Mr Poole for trying to interject some intelligence into this debate but it is like administering medicine to a corpse. What does the American Legion hope to accomplish by baiting the membership to fight among themselves. I should learn to ignore the "Big Q". Instead I will continue to work for and donate to the AL for the sake of Veterans in need but let my membership expire.
Submitted by Jim Creagan (not verified) : Jan 9, 2016 11:22pm
Yes ,check and make better background checks a reality. But last time I checked it was the job of congress to make things like that happen,not the wanna be King, Obama. What people are forgetting about the Sandy Hook shooting that is being used as a firebrand for this argument,is that he kid was mentally unstable and used his MOTHERS GUN ! Why was it not locked up securely ? Plus I am thinking if she had been a good parent she should have been more "on it" and tended the kid. Any way how is better background check gonna prevent the unlawful use of a gun that was bought legally ?
Submitted by F.D.C. (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 6:07pm
Should the President be protected by the automatic weapons carried by the Secret Service ???? It seems like the Secret Service has issues of getting drunk and having parties on a regular basis......so why does POTUS need the protection
Submitted by Protection (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 6:19pm
I'm all broken up about people losing their 2nd Amendment rights. So for the POTUS EO has done nothing to suppress anyone's 2nd Amendment rights. But every time I go into a public place I have to worry if a crazy person has a gun and if he/she will pull it out and start shooting. However what worries me more is if 50 good intended people pull their guns out to stop the crazy person and they all shoot each other and me. Talk about friendly fire.
Submitted by Ed H. (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 7:26pm
I believe that background checks are a good thing. I do not want to see more guns in the hands of nut jobs. I have a permit to carry, have passed background checks and have passed the concealed carry course to get my permit. Because I have the permit to carry I utilize it and carry a Sig when I travel. As far as I know there is nothing in the Executive Order that would in any way affect my status as a gun toting American.
Submitted by ottovandy (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 8:21pm
If Congress was so concerned, they would put forth some form of legislation. However, it's easier to "Obama bash" than it is to do your job, so that's what they do.
Submitted by kennethharrison... (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 8:34pm
I agree with a lot of the comments. King Obama is overstepping his bounds with executive action. There are enough laws on the books, they just need to be enforced. It is not that this is infringing on the 2nd amendment, that has already been done. As one comment said, the government that is concerned about it's citizens owning guns is already doing something crooked behind their backs. We need to fire everyone in both houses, replace with totally new leadership, and make them live under the laws and programs that they have enacted for the rest of us. This is not about the 2nd amendment but about setting the tone for the kingship. God help us all.
Submitted by anonymous (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 8:46pm
The comments about the archaic intention of the 2nd amendment do not get support from a 2010 US Supreme Court decision which couldn't be more clear. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER, (2008)
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
Submitted by Richard P (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 9:33pm
President Obama cries for the victims of gun violence yet strongly encourages the deaths of thousands of babies by abortion. These babies are also victims of violence, and he can really do something to stop it. To me his tears are hypocritical, His action is only political in nature and has no substance.
Submitted by James W (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 10:46pm
Abortion is a choice made typically by a woman who has no other alternative. Obama had nothing to do with it.
A person (persons) watching a move in a public theater minding their own business and gets shot by someone who has a gun but shouldn't is every U.S. citizens business.
Submitted by EH (not verified) : Jan 8, 2016 8:50pm
Obama Cites Communist China as the Goal for American Gun Control. There is no end to it, but this is another administration fallacy and they must be held accountable. Otherwise, with 13 months to go we will have lost most of our nation to these reprobates, and Congress will have made itself ineffective and near useless. A report said a mosque linked to Muslim brotherhood has received millions in federal grants - so why don't he do something to stop this. 170 or more women in Germany sexually attack by male Muslim refugee crowd News Years, knowing this he still wants to let in thousands and he wants our guns - There is something wrong with people that back this guy.
Submitted by So whats your point (not verified) : Jan 7, 2016 11:30pm
Abolishing Congress is probably the smartest thing he could do. Besides this Congress is afraid to do their job. Bush, Bush Lite, Saint Reagan, and others Republican and Democratic have issued EO's. The outrage among the right is because they know it's legal and they can't stop it unless they go to court. That want stop it, just delay it.
Obama is probably the best President this country has ever had. He hasn't sold arms to Iran for hostages but Reagan did. He hasn't pardoned his staff members who committed crimes and were convicted felons and he hasn't let the right wing inbreeders push him around. That's really what tees you guys off. He stands up for whats right for the country not what's right for inbreeding.
Submitted by EH (not verified) : Jan 8, 2016 8:35pm
You got to be kidding? Where have you been these past seven years? You must have been born just recently like yesterday. Every time I hear or read something like this I want to grab my trash can and barf. You have simply no idea of what it is being an American, if you are one. No wonder you just identified yourself as "EH" as in Empty Headed.
Submitted by Bob W. (not verified) : Jan 11, 2016 6:25pm
A man was talking to a group of people and asked, If you voted for president Obama please raise your hand. Quite a few put there put a hand up. Now the man says to them to take that hand and smack the snot out of yourself. What was he thinking ?
Submitted by Don A. (not verified) : Jan 8, 2016 9:38am
A persons other rights for example, free speech, and the others all hinge on the second amendment. Obama says he only wants certain guns, while God forbid if Clinton gets to be president she actually said she wants all guns banned. These people do what ever they want to do, but they fear the people if they are able and WILLING to defend themselves. Don't you remember when the Clinton's were young, college age, they went to USSR and stated they were for communism? You figure look at one state at the number of Hunters/Gun Owners/Veterans you have an instant at least 700,000 person army. That's why Japan never attacked in land forces too many gun owners. The people in this country need to wake up before its too late.
Submitted by Bill T. (not verified) : Jan 8, 2016 10:44am
Bill, could you put a link in the comments section that shows the dates and the comments made by the Clintons when they went to the USSR. If you can't do that then you are very typical of the right. You just make things up. It goes to show the character of the people who defend the indefensible beliefs and comments of the inbreed supporters of the right.
Submitted by EH (not verified) : Jan 8, 2016 8:24pm
You mean up his a.. no he already is an a.. maybe one of his gay advisors could make a slick suggestion...no. no just let that traitor keep sticking up the a.. of willing Americans. They will like it...oh yea!!!
Submitted by J. Johnson (not verified) : Jan 8, 2016 11:09pm
How about enforcing the death penalty in all the states. People who take a life should be put to death not jail . Why take guns from the good citizens of this great country defenseless against the criminals. I feel Texas has the right idea. Let the good people carry guns too. Obama's idea STINKS .
Submitted by Eugene R. Keefe (not verified) : Jan 8, 2016 12:45pm
The government will not be able to effectively take our guns away without expansion of the background check database, which is part of what Obama is proposing. The Feds are currently prohibited by law from computerizing gun ownership records (current ownership records are hardcopy only). Combining computerized ownership records with the expanded background check database is a necessary first step to gun confiscation. It may be years before the government has the ability to effectively do this. Having the ability doesn't necessarily mean they will do it, but I don't like the idea that they COULD possibly do it.
Submitted by B Mac (not verified) : Jan 8, 2016 2:46pm
something has to be done, Just inforce the laws that are on the books, and do better background checks on every one. also I do not know what the waiting time is on buying a gun but I think at lease 60 days to 90 day would be fair. also I think that a gun lock should be a law. And if you buy a gun you are responsible for that gun. And if you sell it the bill of sale should be notarized.
Submitted by william campbell (not verified) : Jan 9, 2016 12:57am
Seems to me that things ran better when the Congress made laws, the Executive branch enforced laws, and the judicial branch evaluated the constitutionality of the laws. Now things are all out of balance, trust is lost, control is questionable, and justice is often bought and sold, much like some modern leaders. Maybe it is time for the people to demand the 3 branches do their job and just their job.
Submitted by Fred Renfohs (not verified) : Jan 9, 2016 1:55am
In the absence of Congressional laws being crafted and put forth for a vote, what is the Executive branch supposed to do? The only thing that Congress has been interested in is attempting to repeal Affordable Health Care and maintaining their automatic annual raises. 48 attempts and counting. No budget, no new laws, nothing has come out of Congress, except contempt for the President and anything from the White House. We called what Congress hasn't done, dereliction of duty when I served my 23 years active duty.
Submitted by S. Russell (not verified) : Jan 10, 2016 3:55pm
No matter how one stands on the issue of gun control, background checks, etc., executive action in matters such as this is probably unconstitutional. To often Presidents feel the need to do something when our system needs to work. Let the President, make his proposals and then let the states act.
Submitted by S Smalley (not verified) : Jan 9, 2016 8:41am
Look at the stats for states and countries that allow open gun carry. Texas is one of the lowest crime rates in the united states. Where are the criminals and terrorists there? The cowards are afraid to get shot....so they stay away. Make it a law to learn how to use a gun and have every one carry. Watch crime drop then. Commies want to take your guns away so they can use the military against us... The founding fathers made sure we could have guns to keep the military and government in check. If they take our guns away only the criminals will have guns.
Submitted by Harold Fritz (not verified) : Jan 9, 2016 11:41am
That idiot in the Whitehouse is a dumbass. Everything bought has been bought legally. He is not trying to solve anything. You cannot stop a deranged lunatic from killing people. If law enforcement can have assault weapons with 20/30 round clips so can I as a United States citizen.
This idiot is not fixing the problem of rightfully purchased firearms getting into the hands of of ignorant people. He needs to stop threatening the people who do things right and go after felons with weapons.
Submitted by John weigel (not verified) : Jan 9, 2016 6:31pm
None of the mass shootings would have ended if so-called assault weapons ban had not been allowed to sunset in 2004.
It banned magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds and prevented a gun from having certain features, but it did not ban so-called assault weapons. Assault weapons is an invented term for semi-automatic rifle.
The law had a provision to sunset after 10 years. Congress did not not renew it.
The 2nd amendment is not about state controlled militias. It is about every free person being allowed to keep and bear arms. I urge every honest capable person to be an NRA member, get training, and own.
Submitted by Law2001 (not verified) : Feb 7, 2016 1:08am
Obama's executive action? Better stated as a dictatorial action. It is just like him...a complete dud. The right to bear arms was meant so that our ruling government would think twice about taking over as a dictatorship. The armed population would be able to fight back. Ever see scenes of the French storming the Bastille prison? They didn't have "the right to bear arms", so they had to attack with clubs, knives, pitchforks, stones. It wasn't until a group of French soldiers with cannon and muskets joined them that they took the prison. Hence, that's why we need to have "the right to bear arms"...to protect ourselves from self-appointed dictators.
Submitted by Bob W. (not verified) : Jan 11, 2016 6:15pm
The Second Amendment was written within the context of the times, the late 18th century. The intent was to stand down the Federal Army, and establish a "well regulated Militia" in each state. The states could not afford to arm each member of it's militia, therefore it was "necessary" to the security of the free state (which is contradictory given the fact that slavery was legal) to establish the right to keep and bear arms. In Colonial America, the British attempted to disarm the Colonials to prevent a militia from being a threat to them. The term "regulated", held different meanings in those days. "Regulated" most likely meant effective and formidable, which would not be possible with citizen-farmers armed with pitchforks and clubs. Without a formidable standing Federal Army, the new Republic had to rely on state militias for its defense, as well as for the state's own security. For a state militia to be "well regulated", in other words, properly equipped, it would be necessary for citizens to "keep and bear arms".
Today, each state still maintains a "well regulated militia". It is called the National Guard. Its members are properly trained and equipped by the Army at the expense of the state. They are issued their weapons, which are stored in a facility called the Armory. For the National Guard to be "well regulated", or properly equipped, it is no longer necessary to bring your own gun to weekend drill.
The 2nd Amendment is as obsolete as the 3rd, which prohibits the quartering of soldiers. Both of these amendments were products of the times, the late 18th century following British rule of the American Colonies and the Revolution.
Submitted by DP (not verified) : Jan 13, 2016 12:03pm
So who protects you when someone is breaking into your house with the intent to kill you? What do we do when the government decides it wants to imprison people without due process? The founders of our constitution were a smart group of people. Why do you think we have concealed carry? Every politician has armed guards to protect them. Do they not? Wonder why that is?
Submitted by rick miksell (not verified) : Jan 13, 2016 1:05pm
The 2nd amendment addresses the need for a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state. A well regulated (equipped) militia was not possible in late 18th century without individuals keeping their own firearms. It does not say anything about personal protection. A "well regulated militia" also means controlled and regulated by the state. Sounds to me like that is the National Guard, not anti-government separatists that want it their way.
I am debating the intent of the 2nd amendment when it was written. I am a gun owner myself, but I don't believe that the 2nd amendment guarantees that right as so many people wish to argue.
Submitted by DP (not verified) : Jan 13, 2016 1:56pm
I believe everyone should have a choice of whether to possess a firearm solely to protect their home and family. Those who opt to do so should be required/certified with proper training on its use and duly licensed. Follow up checks (quarterly, semi-annually, annually???) should be conducted. I do not think anyone should be allowed to carry arms concealed or openly in public (except maybe to training cites for re-certs). Of course, this restriction would not be applicable to law enforcement, military, etc. when in the proper performance of their duties.
Submitted by Amos Garnto (not verified) : Jan 14, 2016 4:35pm
The President had to act because Congress is either unable or unwilling to act. As soldiers and veterans we are willing to give up our lives for this nation. Congress won't even fall on a few Ideological GRENADES and thereby risk their jobs. Nobody is taking away anyone's arms, we need to act to keep arms out of the hands of dangerous people.
Submitted by Jared W Frick (not verified) : Jan 18, 2016 12:27pm
Comments
It's doing nothing to the
It's doing nothing to the second amendment. It's expanding background checks what we need at these gun shows! Since congress won't do anything I applaud the president for trying to do something. I agree this won't stop the senseless killing, but it will stop someone labeled dangerous from getting a gun.
How does an expansion of
How does an expansion of background checks not have anything to do with the 2nd amendment? But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that, at least directly, it doesn't. Indirectly, I would argue it absolutely does. Background checks, as ineffective as they are, add to the burden of all involved, which necessarily increases the cost of doing business, and ultimately the product itself. This has the (un)intended effect of increasing the price of the end product, effectively making it a luxury item instead of a necessity item. Maybe people's right to enter the restroom should encounter the same level of process and procedure as trying to buy a firearm in order to understand what "shall not be infringed" means.
There are numerous laws on
There are numerous laws on the book at the federal level, state level, and all the way down to the city/village level. Are the current laws which are not really being enforced doing anything to alleviate the situation? Chicago is a good example of what not to do. The gang bangers who are caught with guns are usually jailed and released and back out on the streets within days. Perhaps individuals who are not licensed and are caught with a gun should be tried in a federal court. Just a thought.
Background check have been in
Background check have been in-place for years but not enforced. It's time to enforce them.
No gun by it's self has ever hurt or killed anyone. Yet we implement gun laws.
We should be restricting the type of persons wanting to by guns.
Why punish responsible GUN OWNERS.
IT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A
IT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A MAJOR DISTRACTION FROM ALL OF HIS CURRENT AND ON GOING FAILURES ! IT IS A USELESS ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT...........
I do not understand all the
I do not understand all the hype about background checks. In Texas we have been doing backgrounds checks for years. The laws are in place, they just need to be enforced, and then jail time for people doing wrong.
The problem with background
The problem with background checks in general is that they are prone to error. If carmakers made ignition systems with the same success rate as background checks, carmakers would go out of business. If the electricity in your home worked with the same effectiveness as background checks, you would be living in a 3rd world country.
Background checks are neither the problem, nor the solution. But they are an impediment in the process of acquiring a firearm, and they absolutely increase the costs of those firearms, and have effectively priced firearm ownership out of reach for many citizens that should legally otherwise be legally allowed to acquire one. More of the same won't fix any existing problem, it won't prevent any future problem, and it continues to infringe on a very simply phrased rule of law, written so that all can understand.
"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."
"A well regulated Militia,
"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."- Since this was written, a "well regulated militia" has been established in every state. We call it the "National Guard". They are trained and equipped by the Army. Soldiers in the state National Guard (AKA the State Militia), are now issued their weapons which are properly stored in a place called the 'Armory'. It has been a very long time since they had to bring their squirrel muskets to weekend drill.
I am a gun owner and a veteran, but always find it ridiculous when the obsolete intent in the 2nd amendment is ignored, and it is interpreted as being a universal constitutional right to own guns without restrictions.
POTUS says the bill will
POTUS says the bill will impose background checks on internet gun sales. Well, if you try to purchase a gun online currently it will only be shipped to someone with a dealers license. There you have to pass the background check before taking possession of the firearm. He's behind the times. With the gun shows every firearm purchased at a dealers booth you have to pass a background check as well. Private sales were just that, private. All this will do is push private sales into alleys. For those who want to do it the right way some dealers were charging minimal fees for running the background checks. Others, were charging upwards of $100.00 or more since you did not purchase the firearm from them. That is an undue burden on the buyer. There are existing laws now that impose added sentences for committing crimes with firearms. What really needs to be done is have these liberal judges impose these mandatory sentences and force the prisons to not release criminals early. Only then maybe, just maybe the criminals will understand the consequences of their actions.
POTUS,
POTUS,
You are 100% Correct. King Obama has no clue regarding Gun Laws on the books.
This is just expanding more Government and another small step toward Marshal Law.
Enjoy this year by getting
Enjoy this year by getting ready for the next 'KING'.
It make a tear come to my eye
It make a tear come to my eye to think of what this President has done to this country in just 7 years and what he and the democrat party is trying to do to the Constitution. He really has become "King" Obama as he spits on Congress and the Constitution by governing by executive order. Does "King" Obama have the power to actually SEE criminal intent? I say that we leave the Constitution intact and get a new President.
Couldn't have said it better
Couldn't have said it better myself
Enjoy this year by getting
Enjoy this year by getting ready for the next 'KING'.
Terrorist ATTACK the USA and
Terrorist ATTACK the USA and our President blames firearms... Does anyone see a problem with this. This guy has no clue what the problem is he trying to strip our rights and liberties . Many Patriots have died for our way of life and to keep our great nation free . To let one man step upon those rights by sidestepping congress and the constitution would be a travesty and disrespect to all those who have died and served for our great nation . We as a people need to stand up and say enough this is our county our land this is a government by the people for the people . We as the people have a say in how our country is run and our laws ,we should not let the government ,or one person dictate what they feel is what we need . this is what freedom is about , the right to choose ones fate ,destiny and life ,its your choice. I for one would not give up any rights under any reasons ,I am a AMERICAN by birth in heart in life in soul and death and no one will ever take that away . May GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .
Enjoy this year by getting
Enjoy this year by getting ready for the next person that will sidestep Congress and the Constitution. Everyone has the right to say or do as they wish, and hopefully realize the consequences thereof. For God and Country!!!
If you have nothing to hide,
If you have nothing to hide, what's the problem?
"A well regulated Militia,
"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."
You may not like what it says, you may even disagree with what it says, but the language is plain. If you want the language changed, there is a procedure to do so through amending the Constitution. Executive action doesn't cut it, and is completely contrary to the actual law. It can even be considered as subversion of the Constitution. That's the problem.
Wasn't that question asked in
Wasn't that question asked in Germany/Poland/Russia in the 1930's? How did that work out?
All he is doing is trying to
All he is doing is trying to get the guns out of the hands of Law Abiding Citizens so he and the Democrats can take over this country. Just look at the shambles that he has created since taking over 7 years ago....
I know. He cleaned up W's
I know. He cleaned up W's mess. Short memory you have.
It's pointless, feel-good
It's pointless, feel-good Liberal spin! First off, the ENFORCERS of the CRIMINAL Justice System can't, don't and won't enforce the laws already on the books.
I am a law-abiding gun owner.
I am a law-abiding gun owner. I don't mind background checks, but how can you possibly ID someone who appears OK today, but goes whacky tomorrow? And what about the dedicated terrorist who maintains a normal behavior outwardly?
I believe there is no viable fix without a "thought police" government, and who wants that?
Yeah, like the social
Yeah, like the social degenerates and thugs follow the current gun laws. EXECUTIVE action more feel good blowhardery that will never be enforced and followed as closely as politicians follow their oath to office
You have to start somewhere,
You have to start somewhere, not sit around & knock someone who is trying.
Who in their right minds has to go out & buy a military AR rifle .
No use to have one with a 30= magazine.
Give me a break.
Crazy way for enjoyment.
Some people eat meat, some
Some people eat meat, some people don't. Who is anyone to try and tell someone else how to live? And last time I checked, I did not see the Army issuing AR-15s to soldiers, so calling it a military weapon is inaccurate. It "looks" military doesn't make it military. To imply that anyone wanting or needing an AR rifle is not in their right mind is disingenuous and a large part of the problem with our current society. How quickly people turn to name calling and derogatory remarks.
Every day people tell you and
Every day people tell you and me how to live. We live in a world that is governed by man made laws. Some laws are liked better than others. It doesn't make it wrong if you don't like it.
Trying? Obama does not engage
Trying? Obama does not engage the houses of Congress. Obama's plans are not "common sense" nor will thugs and gang members suddenly jump up and follow a new law or policy. One does not go out an buy a military rifle (automatic fire) without an intense ATF (DOJ) background investigation and state permitting of a Class III firearm. AR does not equal Assault Rifle, it's a brand copyright, Armalite Rifle, I believe, and they make semi-automatic rifles. If it's all black it is deemed too scary? What's the difference if the firearm and furniture is black or pink? Thirty-round magazines are used mostly by plinkers expending their cash round by round. What hobby gets your money? Cars? Planes? Parachuting? Boating? Fishing?
At no time, to my recollection, has Obama and crew addressed and resolved issues of violence itself.
I agree with the others, go
I agree with the others, go through Congress.
Tell people to write their Congressional Rep. .
Petitions
This will be from the people of the country!
I know it's an NRA staple,
I know it's an NRA staple, but it's also true. How about just enforcing the laws we already have. Secondly criminals don't care about laws, gun laws or any others. Of all the mass shootings I've heard about, I can't remember any reports of the perpetrators buying the guns at gun shows. Either they got them from family members, friends or bought them legally so adding background checks wouldn't have prevented any of them.
To solve a problem you have
To solve a problem you have to identify the problem. Our current leader is only paying the debt to his billionaire supporters. What he has done will do little or nothing to reduce violence. Violence is the problem and until we recognize this and look at everything that is causing people to react violently we are just whistling in the wind. The list is long of things that need to be looked at so I won't try to list them here.
To quote the Father of our
To quote the Father of our Country......"When any nation mistrusts its citizens with guns it is sending a clear message...it no longer trusts its citizens because such a government has evil plans"......
This executive action will do
This executive action will do nothing to keep guns from bad intent individuals, it is another power grab from the elitist more government control, hiring 200 more government employees is all we need for are bloated tax payer rolls this was nothing but bullshit.
This executive action will do
This executive action will do nothing to keep guns from bad intent individuals, it is another power grab from the elitist more government control, hiring 200 more government employees is all we need for are bloated tax payer rolls this was nothing but bullshit.
Is this a way to take guns
Is this a way to take guns from veterans who have mental issues, PTSD? Is this
going to cause them not to seek help for fear of losing their right to own guns?
93% of all Americans support
93% of all Americans support criminal background checks for all gun sales, but 78% of you in this poll are somehow offended. What does that make you?
Please provide a sound basis
Please provide a sound basis for your "93%" stat, besides the White House's claim. I know I wasn't polled. And the latest "common sense" proposal for background checks includes registration, and supposedly disqualifies anyone receiving federal benefits who gets assistance with finances.
If you actually believe your
If you actually believe your owns statistics, please explain why they are not supported in these comments. Surely 93% of the comments here should support your claim. Why don't they?
"There are three kinds of lies, lies, damn lies, and statistics". Mark Twain
It;s bad when people can,t
It;s bad when people can,t trust or believe the government. But it,s our right to protect ourselves and from the government
This fool in the White House
This fool in the White House is blaming guns for gun violence. Its like blaming cars for the actions of drunk drivers.
Hillary (if she is elected)
Hillary (if she is elected) wants to hold gun manufacturers liable for crimes committed with the guns they manufacture and sell! Can you believe that????
Enjoy this year by getting
Enjoy this year by getting ready for the next 'fool'.
Nothing is mentioned about
Nothing is mentioned about the black market on such things. How exactly are they going to control measures like those, since honest gun dealers are just that, honest ? Much like prohibition, it was not effective in keeping control over the Al Capone`s of our world !
A woman near our home (the
A woman near our home (the Mayor's wife, no less) whacked her twin sister over the head with an oscillating fan the other day. Shhhhhhh, don't tell Obama, he'll write an Executive Order banning fans!
What we need is an Executive Order banning idiots in the White House!
Enjoy this year by getting
Enjoy this year by getting ready for the next 'idiot'.
Also from some people making
Also from some people making comments.
If we had a Congress that would do its job there would be no need for E.O's. The people elected in Congress want legislate because they are afraid they will lose their jobs by doing what's best for the country.
This executive order is
This executive order is another example of our President abusing his authority, yet again. I don't deny there is a problem with enforcement of the current laws on the books but I think action should come as designed and provided within our constitution. If the President wants gun control he should lobby congress to strengthen the laws not unilaterally make a new law by executive order. We need to get the executive order under control so it doesn't circumvent the checks and balance system set up by the founders of this country. Making laws is not the Presidents job and he should no longer be allowed to dictate them.
I agree totally with Mr.
I agree totally with Mr. Daily's comments. The use of Executive Order to create laws circumvents the entirety of the constitution and its system of checks and balances. No executive order should be read into existence without judicial review by the federal courts.
Enjoy this year by getting
Enjoy this year by getting ready for the next 'abuser'.
Some of what the President
Some of what the President wants to do might be reasonable, but it should not be issued as an Executive Order. It is up to Congress to pass legislation, not the President. Also, more needs to be done to have the resources to adequately enforce current gun laws.
Any meaningful restriction or
Any meaningful restriction or ban on auto/semi auto, and large clips would never get past the republicans or their owners - the nra. This new legislation is a waste of paper.
I think your thought might be
I think your thought might be better put had you said, "Restriction or ban on auto/semi-auto and large clips would be meaningless since auto weapons in the hands of the general public were effectively outlawed by FDR in the 1930s, semi-autos have been around for over 100 years and most weapons use more or less large magazines!"
We have PLENTY of laws on the
We have PLENTY of laws on the books. What we need is someone who knows how to correctly enforce them.
That would require a Attorney
That would require a Attorney General who enforces the laws on the books and makes sure that all LEOs enforce those laws. Yes it would be tough when you also have state laws that are not the same from one state to another but the answer is not to add more checks but actually going after the "dealers" who sell stolen and imported weapons from across the border. But even the ATF can't maintain control of the ones they sold the drug cartels and locate them so guess we are asking for to much. Myself, I have never stopped serving my country. I do believe that my family and neighbors are very important and the present LEOs with all they have can't be everywhere so someone needs to protect our families.
We Don't need more
We Don't need more regulations, Just enforce the ones on the books already. What the D. A. , in the White House did was just Political. If he really wanted to do something able the senseless killing, he'd start in Chicago.
If they want to cut down on
If they want to cut down on gun violence ,pass and enforce a stop and frisk law and let the police do their jobs.have the justice department enforce the gun laws already on the books. If you get caught with a gun without concealed weapons permit you go to jail and don,t get your gun back.
This is why I question why I
This is why I question why I'm still a member of this organization. There a two choices that somewhat support the action taken and one against so as to rig the outcome. The first question asked is Did you hear or see the Presidents remarks or are you relying on the news or social media? If you vote is based on the news and/or social media you should not be voting.
In my 75 years I have never
In my 75 years I have never read the Bible. But due to exposure about Christianity from parents, teachers, priests, TV (Bishop Sheen), movies (Selznick, De Mille) I think I have a pretty good handle on Christianity. Or more topically, I have never read ACA, but from complaints all around I've decided it is not a good thing.
FOX News is some Christians
FOX News is some Christians 'BIBLE'.
Tom, I don't know you and I
Tom, I don't know you and I don't want to be disrespectful but the main reason people lose their liberty is from the lack of information and knowledge. Don't you think it would have been better for you to have been more intellectually inquisitive than to rely on the interpretation of the Constitution and Christianity for you by others. Remember people and groups have agendas and they will lie to push their agenda. At least if you read and ponder on your own you can pick out the liars, thieves, and sociaopaths. This way you may knowingly join them or stay clear.
The issue here is that the
The issue here is that the left wing of the Democratic party has, since Clinton's time, used public relations tools and outright lies to disarm Americans. My fear is they will do so, and then, without our permission, without permission of congress. they will spring some law or condition on all of us. They feel they must disarm us first. All the publicity, the laws, the preconditions, the restrictions made on firearms points to this. I can see no other reason for these 'abridgements'. It has been shown that a population with a lot of guns is a safer one than a population that has been disarmed. Compare say, Cheyenne WY with Boston, MA.
Enjoy this year by getting
Enjoy this year by getting ready for the 'Republican Party'.
Yea, the English and the
Yea, the English and the Japanese all go home at night waiting for the government to knock on the door and put them in jail.
Yes you should compare Boston vs Cheyenne. Per capita there are more people killed in Cheyenne with guns than in Boston.
This is just one more step in
This is just one more step in the destruction of America. Next step is confiscation of all firearms and the total take over by the Whitehouse gang with no ability for Patriots to defend themselves. Why do you think we are allowing all these foreigners to enter our borders without background checks. The laws are on the books and have been for a long time. Unfortunately the Laws are not being upheld.
Enjoy this year by getting
Enjoy this year by getting ready for the next 'White House Gang'.
This is a disgusting attempt
This is a disgusting attempt to overstep Presidential authority. Made more disgusting when being used by person who in the past taught Constitutional law. This man knows his actions are unconstitutional and is willing to violate his oath of office. People should also be aware the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment do not give citizens a right to gun ownership. The 2nd Amendment directs the Federal government not to interfere with our right to life and liberty, which are basic rights not needed to be enumerated. The Constitution limits and defines the powers of the Federal government, not those belonging to the people.
Enjoy this year by getting
Enjoy this year by getting ready for the next 'over stepper'.
Are you a Constitutional
Are you a Constitutional Lawyer? I wonder if you have even read the US Constitution. DoJ was consulted. When 20+ 1st graders get shot down at school and the spineless US Congress (Republican majority and some spineless Democrats) bury their heads in the sand and do nothing then something has to be done. I can't believe it took him this long to act.
Plenty of laws on the books.
Plenty of laws on the books. The ones we already have are not properly enforced.
I keep hearing about the laws
I keep hearing about the laws we have on the books are enough and we don't need additional laws on gun control etc. If that's the case then someone has already stepped on the 2nd Amendment. Why did the people who want to defend the 2nd Amendment now not defend it when all of these unenforced laws were being passed. The NRA, gun manufacturers, etc have been around a long time. Also if we have selective enforcement new laws need to be passed to throw the person in jail that is legally obligated to enforce the law and has chosen not to do so. So the old adage that we have laws on the books etc. doesn't cut it. The 2nd Amendment was written to support a country trying to find its way in the world without a tax base to support a free standing army of its own.
I think we should go back to a militia and not have a free standing army. This way we can see just how important it is to the people who advocate for the 2nd Amendment. They should be our 1st line of defense. You probably wouldnt have so many whining about the 2nd Amendment if they were all sent to the Middle East next week. Wayne LaPierre should be the first person to lead the troops into battle. The troops behind him should be the US Congress. They enjoy war as much as any group of Chicken Hawks outside the NRA. So let's enforce the 2nd Anendment and seen Wayne and the US Congress to the Middle East. I know I would feel much safer knowing that fine group has my back.
The second Amendment is not
The second Amendment is not about hunting, it is about being able to protect us, citizens of the US, in case a tyrant like King George was tries to overturn the Constitution and take over this Republic!!!!
It was for states to have a
It was for states to have a well-regulated Militia, which we now call the National Guard. They have military issued weapons now, compared to back then when they showed up to weekend drill with a squirrel musket because the states couldn't afford to buy weapons for everyone. So, in reality, the original intent of the 2nd amendment is obsolete.
All males over the age of 14
All males over the age of 14 were in the militia. At least that was true in Virginia where my ancestors were in the militia. It was not an all volunteer organization. Governors and presidents are the only ones who can authorize a call up. Do you think that they will call us to keep them from becoming more powerful? Militias were to protect us from all enemies including those who would rule without the benefit of laws being passed by congress. Both parties have problems with presidents making laws.
The second aenemt was to
The second aenemt was to protect us from our own goverment
You are absolutely correct.
You are absolutely correct. Finally an educated statement in the middle of emotional whining about liberals, etc. The right sees a monster around every corner when it's the right that wants to turn the clock back on all liberties we now enjoy. It's typical. They can't win the argument so they resort to threats. I wonder how a group sleeps at night knowing that Reagan had the mentally ill thrown out on the street to save money for the insurance industry. Now they say we don't need additional gun laws we need mental health programs. Regan helped the insurance industry save money and now the Republicans want the US taxpayer to pick up the tab. Actually the gun manufacturers and the insurance industry should pick up the tab. We should always remember. We send our troops into combat with guns etc. If the old adage of guns dont kill people, people kill people was correct we would send out troops into combat without them.
Great clown posting-----and
Great clown posting-----and the left continues to drag Regan back into this issue---Wow
I'm a registered Republican.
I'm a registered Republican. Have been since my tour in Vietnam. I'm just not a fruit cake righty.
I'm sorry the truth hurts about Reagan. He also turned tail when on his watch 250 Marines were killed in Lebanon. The problem with righty is he puts his ideology ahead of his country. The country needs people from all walks and beliefs. One party or group doesn't have all of the right or wrong answers. Only narrow minded, blinder wearing simpletons do.
I agree completely. Well said
I agree completely. Well said!
How many wars would we have
How many wars would we have if the politicians had to be on the front line? I'm sure they are all cowards
The answer to crime is
The answer to crime is punishment, not more regulations. The direction of this country has changed. The federal govt is enabling a do nothing society, solely dependent on the generosity of the politicians, passing out free stuff. Frightening to remember that this country elected this person twice. Get ready for "Bernie". Obama is just blowing hot air and emotion about gun violence and he knows he can do very little about it. Beware of huge debt and tax increases to fund what is becoming a welfare country. Requirements and standards have been lowered to make it all seem normal and accepted.
Enjoy this year by getting
Enjoy this year by getting ready for the 'UNKNOWN'.
when can we send him back to
when can we send him back to Chicago. Right into the middle of his home town into the "blacks law"
No matter how the Liberal
No matter how the Liberal Left spins this, I believe my ConLaw Professors, it is to maintain a completely civilian force to : 1) throw off the yoke of those who would enslave us.(uh oh...). And 2) to maintain a last line of defense from foreign invaders.
Do you really thing a Glock
Do you really thing a Glock or AR-15 is any defense against the "yoke" ? The Government has UAV mounted rockets and weapons that laugh at yours. You are living in a Second Amendment fantasy.
Col. you have already been
Col. you have already been enslaved and you gun has been with you the whole time. No shots fired. Did the government need to take it. No, you were enslaved while being distracted about petty issues. Your real rights were taken while you were out fighting windmills.
This action was a totally
This action was a totally useless political act that will have no effect on the problem of mass shootings in this country.
Given our do nothing Congress
Given our do nothing Congress, its about time someone took action to stop the killing. Congratulations, Mr. President. BTW, American Legion, get out of the gun debate and start working on soldier issues.
I agree completely with Mr.
I agree completely with Mr. Poole. It's easy to offer up excuses why certain gun control actions won't work but in the interim nothing is accomplished but arguing about this issue. At least what the president did represents a move in the right direction to address this huge issue. And I'm not a supporter of much of what the president does--especially in regard to his foreign policy decisions or the lack thereof.
Thank you Mr Poole for trying
Thank you Mr Poole for trying to interject some intelligence into this debate but it is like administering medicine to a corpse. What does the American Legion hope to accomplish by baiting the membership to fight among themselves. I should learn to ignore the "Big Q". Instead I will continue to work for and donate to the AL for the sake of Veterans in need but let my membership expire.
Yes ,check and make better
Yes ,check and make better background checks a reality. But last time I checked it was the job of congress to make things like that happen,not the wanna be King, Obama. What people are forgetting about the Sandy Hook shooting that is being used as a firebrand for this argument,is that he kid was mentally unstable and used his MOTHERS GUN ! Why was it not locked up securely ? Plus I am thinking if she had been a good parent she should have been more "on it" and tended the kid. Any way how is better background check gonna prevent the unlawful use of a gun that was bought legally ?
F.D.C. your pissing in the
F.D.C. your pissing in the wind talking to these people, their ties are to tight no air to what little brains they have.
Should the President be
Should the President be protected by the automatic weapons carried by the Secret Service ???? It seems like the Secret Service has issues of getting drunk and having parties on a regular basis......so why does POTUS need the protection
Ask Reagan, Lincoln, JFK.
Ask Reagan, Lincoln, JFK.
to sum it up, IMHO, the potus
to sum it up, IMHO, the potus is an IDIOT.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'm all broken up about
I'm all broken up about people losing their 2nd Amendment rights. So for the POTUS EO has done nothing to suppress anyone's 2nd Amendment rights. But every time I go into a public place I have to worry if a crazy person has a gun and if he/she will pull it out and start shooting. However what worries me more is if 50 good intended people pull their guns out to stop the crazy person and they all shoot each other and me. Talk about friendly fire.
Your stupid!!!
Your stupid!!!
Another Liberal voice..
Another Liberal voice..
I believe that background
I believe that background checks are a good thing. I do not want to see more guns in the hands of nut jobs. I have a permit to carry, have passed background checks and have passed the concealed carry course to get my permit. Because I have the permit to carry I utilize it and carry a Sig when I travel. As far as I know there is nothing in the Executive Order that would in any way affect my status as a gun toting American.
If Congress was so concerned,
If Congress was so concerned, they would put forth some form of legislation. However, it's easier to "Obama bash" than it is to do your job, so that's what they do.
I agree with a lot of the
I agree with a lot of the comments. King Obama is overstepping his bounds with executive action. There are enough laws on the books, they just need to be enforced. It is not that this is infringing on the 2nd amendment, that has already been done. As one comment said, the government that is concerned about it's citizens owning guns is already doing something crooked behind their backs. We need to fire everyone in both houses, replace with totally new leadership, and make them live under the laws and programs that they have enacted for the rest of us. This is not about the 2nd amendment but about setting the tone for the kingship. God help us all.
The comments about the
The comments about the archaic intention of the 2nd amendment do not get support from a 2010 US Supreme Court decision which couldn't be more clear. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER, (2008)
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
President Obama cries for the
President Obama cries for the victims of gun violence yet strongly encourages the deaths of thousands of babies by abortion. These babies are also victims of violence, and he can really do something to stop it. To me his tears are hypocritical, His action is only political in nature and has no substance.
Abortion is a choice made
Abortion is a choice made typically by a woman who has no other alternative. Obama had nothing to do with it.
A person (persons) watching a move in a public theater minding their own business and gets shot by someone who has a gun but shouldn't is every U.S. citizens business.
Obama Cites Communist China
Obama Cites Communist China as the Goal for American Gun Control. There is no end to it, but this is another administration fallacy and they must be held accountable. Otherwise, with 13 months to go we will have lost most of our nation to these reprobates, and Congress will have made itself ineffective and near useless. A report said a mosque linked to Muslim brotherhood has received millions in federal grants - so why don't he do something to stop this. 170 or more women in Germany sexually attack by male Muslim refugee crowd News Years, knowing this he still wants to let in thousands and he wants our guns - There is something wrong with people that back this guy.
OSAMA HAS BEEN NOT ACTING BY
OSAMA HAS BEEN NOT ACTING BY TO ME HJE DOUBLE TALKS ABOUT GUN
CONTROL PATRIOTS DONT SHOOT PEOPLE THEY PROTECT AMERICA
LIVE BY THE CONSTITUTION
OBAMA HAS BEEN NOT ACTING BUT
OBAMA HAS BEEN NOT ACTING BUT TO ME HE DOUBLE TALKS ABOUT GUN
CONTROL PATRIOTS DONT SHOOT PEOPLE THEY PROTECT AMERICA
LIVE BY THE CONSTITUTION
Guns don't kill people;
Guns don't kill people; people kill people. Obama doesn't even know the difference between semi-automatic, and an automatic weapon.
I am suprised,that he has not
I am suprised,that he has not abolished congress with the same pen,
He has shown us time after time he can make his own laws,
And we let him.
Abolishing Congress is
Abolishing Congress is probably the smartest thing he could do. Besides this Congress is afraid to do their job. Bush, Bush Lite, Saint Reagan, and others Republican and Democratic have issued EO's. The outrage among the right is because they know it's legal and they can't stop it unless they go to court. That want stop it, just delay it.
Obama is probably the best President this country has ever had. He hasn't sold arms to Iran for hostages but Reagan did. He hasn't pardoned his staff members who committed crimes and were convicted felons and he hasn't let the right wing inbreeders push him around. That's really what tees you guys off. He stands up for whats right for the country not what's right for inbreeding.
You got to be kidding? Where
You got to be kidding? Where have you been these past seven years? You must have been born just recently like yesterday. Every time I hear or read something like this I want to grab my trash can and barf. You have simply no idea of what it is being an American, if you are one. No wonder you just identified yourself as "EH" as in Empty Headed.
A man was talking to a group
A man was talking to a group of people and asked, If you voted for president Obama please raise your hand. Quite a few put there put a hand up. Now the man says to them to take that hand and smack the snot out of yourself. What was he thinking ?
A persons other rights for
A persons other rights for example, free speech, and the others all hinge on the second amendment. Obama says he only wants certain guns, while God forbid if Clinton gets to be president she actually said she wants all guns banned. These people do what ever they want to do, but they fear the people if they are able and WILLING to defend themselves. Don't you remember when the Clinton's were young, college age, they went to USSR and stated they were for communism? You figure look at one state at the number of Hunters/Gun Owners/Veterans you have an instant at least 700,000 person army. That's why Japan never attacked in land forces too many gun owners. The people in this country need to wake up before its too late.
Bill, could you put a link in
Bill, could you put a link in the comments section that shows the dates and the comments made by the Clintons when they went to the USSR. If you can't do that then you are very typical of the right. You just make things up. It goes to show the character of the people who defend the indefensible beliefs and comments of the inbreed supporters of the right.
Obama can shove his Executive
Obama can shove his Executive order up his a..!
Judge Roy Bean would have
Judge Roy Bean would have given these killers breakfast and hung them at noon.
You mean up his a.. no he
You mean up his a.. no he already is an a.. maybe one of his gay advisors could make a slick suggestion...no. no just let that traitor keep sticking up the a.. of willing Americans. They will like it...oh yea!!!
How about enforcing the death
How about enforcing the death penalty in all the states. People who take a life should be put to death not jail . Why take guns from the good citizens of this great country defenseless against the criminals. I feel Texas has the right idea. Let the good people carry guns too. Obama's idea STINKS .
The government will not be
The government will not be able to effectively take our guns away without expansion of the background check database, which is part of what Obama is proposing. The Feds are currently prohibited by law from computerizing gun ownership records (current ownership records are hardcopy only). Combining computerized ownership records with the expanded background check database is a necessary first step to gun confiscation. It may be years before the government has the ability to effectively do this. Having the ability doesn't necessarily mean they will do it, but I don't like the idea that they COULD possibly do it.
something has to be done,
something has to be done, Just inforce the laws that are on the books, and do better background checks on every one. also I do not know what the waiting time is on buying a gun but I think at lease 60 days to 90 day would be fair. also I think that a gun lock should be a law. And if you buy a gun you are responsible for that gun. And if you sell it the bill of sale should be notarized.
Seems to me that things ran
Seems to me that things ran better when the Congress made laws, the Executive branch enforced laws, and the judicial branch evaluated the constitutionality of the laws. Now things are all out of balance, trust is lost, control is questionable, and justice is often bought and sold, much like some modern leaders. Maybe it is time for the people to demand the 3 branches do their job and just their job.
In the absence of
In the absence of Congressional laws being crafted and put forth for a vote, what is the Executive branch supposed to do? The only thing that Congress has been interested in is attempting to repeal Affordable Health Care and maintaining their automatic annual raises. 48 attempts and counting. No budget, no new laws, nothing has come out of Congress, except contempt for the President and anything from the White House. We called what Congress hasn't done, dereliction of duty when I served my 23 years active duty.
No matter how one stands on
No matter how one stands on the issue of gun control, background checks, etc., executive action in matters such as this is probably unconstitutional. To often Presidents feel the need to do something when our system needs to work. Let the President, make his proposals and then let the states act.
Look at the stats for states
Look at the stats for states and countries that allow open gun carry. Texas is one of the lowest crime rates in the united states. Where are the criminals and terrorists there? The cowards are afraid to get shot....so they stay away. Make it a law to learn how to use a gun and have every one carry. Watch crime drop then. Commies want to take your guns away so they can use the military against us... The founding fathers made sure we could have guns to keep the military and government in check. If they take our guns away only the criminals will have guns.
That idiot in the Whitehouse
That idiot in the Whitehouse is a dumbass. Everything bought has been bought legally. He is not trying to solve anything. You cannot stop a deranged lunatic from killing people. If law enforcement can have assault weapons with 20/30 round clips so can I as a United States citizen.
This idiot is not fixing the problem of rightfully purchased firearms getting into the hands of of ignorant people. He needs to stop threatening the people who do things right and go after felons with weapons.
Remember the asult weapon
Remember the asult weapon band. How many of these mass shooting could have been avoided if W Bush had not allowed it to end after ten years ?
None of the mass shootings
None of the mass shootings would have ended if so-called assault weapons ban had not been allowed to sunset in 2004.
It banned magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds and prevented a gun from having certain features, but it did not ban so-called assault weapons. Assault weapons is an invented term for semi-automatic rifle.
The law had a provision to sunset after 10 years. Congress did not not renew it.
The 2nd amendment is not about state controlled militias. It is about every free person being allowed to keep and bear arms. I urge every honest capable person to be an NRA member, get training, and own.
Obama's executive action?
Obama's executive action? Better stated as a dictatorial action. It is just like him...a complete dud. The right to bear arms was meant so that our ruling government would think twice about taking over as a dictatorship. The armed population would be able to fight back. Ever see scenes of the French storming the Bastille prison? They didn't have "the right to bear arms", so they had to attack with clubs, knives, pitchforks, stones. It wasn't until a group of French soldiers with cannon and muskets joined them that they took the prison. Hence, that's why we need to have "the right to bear arms"...to protect ourselves from self-appointed dictators.
The Second Amendment was
The Second Amendment was written within the context of the times, the late 18th century. The intent was to stand down the Federal Army, and establish a "well regulated Militia" in each state. The states could not afford to arm each member of it's militia, therefore it was "necessary" to the security of the free state (which is contradictory given the fact that slavery was legal) to establish the right to keep and bear arms. In Colonial America, the British attempted to disarm the Colonials to prevent a militia from being a threat to them. The term "regulated", held different meanings in those days. "Regulated" most likely meant effective and formidable, which would not be possible with citizen-farmers armed with pitchforks and clubs. Without a formidable standing Federal Army, the new Republic had to rely on state militias for its defense, as well as for the state's own security. For a state militia to be "well regulated", in other words, properly equipped, it would be necessary for citizens to "keep and bear arms".
Today, each state still maintains a "well regulated militia". It is called the National Guard. Its members are properly trained and equipped by the Army at the expense of the state. They are issued their weapons, which are stored in a facility called the Armory. For the National Guard to be "well regulated", or properly equipped, it is no longer necessary to bring your own gun to weekend drill.
The 2nd Amendment is as obsolete as the 3rd, which prohibits the quartering of soldiers. Both of these amendments were products of the times, the late 18th century following British rule of the American Colonies and the Revolution.
So who protects you when
So who protects you when someone is breaking into your house with the intent to kill you? What do we do when the government decides it wants to imprison people without due process? The founders of our constitution were a smart group of people. Why do you think we have concealed carry? Every politician has armed guards to protect them. Do they not? Wonder why that is?
The 2nd amendment addresses
The 2nd amendment addresses the need for a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state. A well regulated (equipped) militia was not possible in late 18th century without individuals keeping their own firearms. It does not say anything about personal protection. A "well regulated militia" also means controlled and regulated by the state. Sounds to me like that is the National Guard, not anti-government separatists that want it their way.
I am debating the intent of the 2nd amendment when it was written. I am a gun owner myself, but I don't believe that the 2nd amendment guarantees that right as so many people wish to argue.
I believe everyone should
I believe everyone should have a choice of whether to possess a firearm solely to protect their home and family. Those who opt to do so should be required/certified with proper training on its use and duly licensed. Follow up checks (quarterly, semi-annually, annually???) should be conducted. I do not think anyone should be allowed to carry arms concealed or openly in public (except maybe to training cites for re-certs). Of course, this restriction would not be applicable to law enforcement, military, etc. when in the proper performance of their duties.
The President had to act
The President had to act because Congress is either unable or unwilling to act. As soldiers and veterans we are willing to give up our lives for this nation. Congress won't even fall on a few Ideological GRENADES and thereby risk their jobs. Nobody is taking away anyone's arms, we need to act to keep arms out of the hands of dangerous people.