obama and guns

[Jamie6.5]

Perhaps you could provide a "lib identification checklist", so interested parties (including myself) can verify themselves ?

You just can't participate in this discussion without ridiculing the opposing viewpoint can you?

 

[Jamie6.5]

And this person works in the ATF? Makes me nauseous...

No doubt. But the progressives that support Obama seem to think the president's judgement is sound, and not at all opposed to their views on the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership.

After all, Obama only wants to put this guy in charge at the BATFE.
What could go wrong?!?

 

[chariot13]

I think it's FUD. Here is what FBI says :

A deny message from the NICS indicates the subject of the background check has been matched with a similar name and/or similar descriptive features located on a criminal history record with the following federally prohibitive criteria or state law:

18 U.S.C. §922 (g)(1)
Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a termexceeding one year

18 U.S.C. §922 (n)
Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year

18 U.S.C. §922 (g)(2)
Is a fugitive from justice

18 U.S.C. §922 (g)(3)
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance

18 U.S.C. §922 (g)(4)
Has been adjudicated as a mental defectiveor committed to a mental institution

18 U.S.C. §922 (g)(5)
Is Illegally or unlawfully in the United States

18 U.S.C. §922 (g)(6)
Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions

18 U.S.C. §922 (g)(7)
Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship

18 U.S.C. §922 (g)(8)
Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner

18 U.S.C. §922 (g)(9)
Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

Please reference the Federal Register, Volume 62, Number 124, Rules and Regulations, for more complete definitions of the prohibiting categories.

<broken link removed>

It looks pretty specific to me, unless the denials you are talking about originate from the state and not the feds.

Like i said. Its not because of any law that they are denying them, its because the NICS background check is not tailor made to handle solely 2nd ammendment issues. They will determine a flag on absolutely anything on your record including non violent misdameanors & non felony's. NICS is sponsored by the Brady Bill not the Constitution nor the Supreme Court, which is why it will ultimately be a supreme court issue that will clarify it better for you some day .

 

[DMax]

I'm only quoting this because I think it's absolutely awesome that someone exists out there that uses "Dr. Phil" as a credible, mainstream source of information.

You are the equivalent of a unicorn. Do you know that?

Thanks for proving my case Especially since I never mentioned your name you must have thought I was talking about you. Is it guilt or attention getting

 

[FourTeeFive]

I honestly just want someone to man up and say, "I don't know, but I think we'll lose something even though nothing has impacted my rights in the past four years."

Here you go:

I don't know, but I think we'll lose something even though nothing has impacted my rights in the past four years.

And that is based on Obama and his gang having a very anti-gun history in their past, and the possibility of them bringing that into the agenda during a second term.

 

[FourTeeFive]

I don't know, but I think we'll lose something even though nothing has impacted my rights in the past four years.

Actually, I do think that this has impacted my rights in the past four years:

Indefinite Military Detention Measure Passes On Bill Of Rights Day

 

[fd15k]

Like i said. Its not because of any law that they are denying them, its because the NICS background check is not tailor made to handle solely 2nd ammendment issues. They will determine a flag on absolutely anything on your record including non violent misdameanors & non felony's. NICS is sponsored by the Brady Bill not the Constitution nor the Supreme Court, which is why it will ultimately be a supreme court issue that will clarify it for you better some day .

Wait, I'm confused again. The citation I provided indicates, for example, that if one had been convicted of any crime which is punishable by a term exceeding one year, he would be prohibited, and NICS would catch that (assuming they have up to date records uploaded from the relevant state). Such prohibition is a part of the Federal Law, and not specific trick in the NICS. Perhaps you disagree with the federal law itself, but a person with something like that on his record buying a gun in the parking lot is currently committing a crime.

 

[chariot13]

Wait, I'm confused again. The citation I provided indicates, for example, that if one had been convicted of any crime which is punishable by a term exceeding one year, he would be prohibited, and NICS would catch that (assuming they have up to date records uploaded from the relevant state). Such prohibition is a part of the Federal Law, and not specific trick in the NICS. Perhaps you disagree with the federal law itself, but a person with something like that on his record buying a gun in the parking lot is currently committing a crime.

No you're confusing yourself. I stated that the people getting denied are not convicted of crimes punishable by a term exceeding one year. I am talking about people that have low forms of misdameanors & or bench probation. These are low class misdameanors that are not punishable by more than a year. It has been happening since the start of NICS & is something that will have to get worked out.

 

[fd15k]

No you're confusing yourself. I stated that the people getting denied are not convicted of crimes punishable by a term exceeding one year. I am talking about people that have low forms of misdameanors & or bench probation. These are low class misdameanors that are not punishable by more than a year. It has been happening since the start of NICS & is something that will have to get worked out.

FBI says they don't do that. I'd have to look at some additional information to understand what's going on.

 

[SonicBlue03]

ATM, that would be you, and fd15k. The ones in this discussion that keep making circular specious arguments on behalf of this admin that has broken more laws than I can name at the moment.

I won't say that, because I no longer have the right to hike, camp and explore some of the National Recreation Areas in the Southwest U.S.
Because our government, the one that armed a significant number of Mexican drug cartel members, has told me it's no longer safe to visit areas that were set aside for our citizens to enjoy.
Because there are armed Mexican drug activities in the area.

As far as what I see on the horizon?
If the health care laws passes SCOTUS muster this summer, I see it being used as an excuse for a gun and ammunition tax.
Trauma wards are expensive, and gunshot wounds tend to place people there.

As far as restrictions and regulations on guns, I see something akin to the AWB being enacted for "certain areas" designated as "high crime" like the border states. This is an idea that has already been floated by the ATF.

As far as SCOTUS appointments go, I have no doubt that Obama's future appointments will look much like his last two.
And they are no friend of the gun owner.

If Congress gets together on the reciprocity bill, I can easily envision a veto from this White House. If you can't, you're not paying attention.

There, happy now?

That's exactly what I was asking for. Thank you for being the first person to step up and detail out what you think will happen in the next four years.

 

[chariot13]

FBI says they don't do that. I'd have to look at some additional information to understand what's going on.

Yeah I don't know why it would be going on but its been happening to many people since the start of NICS. Sometimes they get a hold which is later approved & others its a denial. Its not very consistent but the fact that they would get a denial should cause concern for infringement.

 

[fd15k]

Yeah I don't know why it would be going on but its been happening to many people since the start of NICS. Sometimes they get a hold & others its a denial. Its not very consistent but the fact that they would get a denial should cause concern for infringement.

Well, whenever it is inconsistent with the law, there is an appeal process, and it is possible to establish a personal file with NICS to avoid repeated denials. People in some states also can bypass NICS by having a Carry License. So it's not a clear cut and final infringement.

 

[chariot13]

Well, whenever it is inconsistent with the law, there is an appeal process, and it is possible to establish a personal file with NICS to avoid repeated denials. People in some states also can bypass NICS by having a Carry License. So it's not a clear cut and final infringement.

There is an infringement. Laws are written to include what if's. They should be held to the same standard when granting freedom as when they wish to limit freedom. The idea of granting freedom happens in regard when we are talking about priveledge's. 'Rights' are way beyond the idea of being granted anything. So if you take the what if's that enable many laws to constitute a charge against someone & instead make any law that wishes to infringe upon a right, to also be held to that same standard that it esposes. An example is; you take one guy that goes to purchase a firearm & is placed on a hold & later approved 2 weeks later, well 2 weeks later he must use that firearm to defend his 'right' to life "legally". Take that same guy again & he goes to purchase a firearm & is placed on a hold & later denied 2 weeks later, well 2 weeks later he would of used that firearm to defend his 'right' to life "legally", but he could not. Thats Infringement.

 

[JGRuby]

jamie65
When we hold GWB accountable for taking us to war under false pretense, illegal wire tapping, and holding people in prison without charging them with a crime we can start talking about punishing Obama - until then I find a lot of hipocrisy in in your position.

James Ruby

 

[fd15k]

There is an infringement. Laws are written to include what if's. They should be held to the same standard when granting freedom as when they wish to limit freedom. The idea of granting freedom happens in regard when we are talking about priveledge's. 'Rights' are way beyond the idea of being granted anything. So if you take the what if's that enable many laws to constitute a charge against someone & instead make any law that wishes to infringe upon a right, to also be held to that same standard that it esposes. An example is; you take one guy that goes to purchase a firearm & is placed on a hold & later approved 2 weeks later, well 2 weeks later he must use that firearm to defend his 'right' to life "legally". Take that same guy again & he goes to purchase a firearm & is placed on a hold & later denied 2 weeks later, well 2 weeks later he would of used that firearm to defend his 'right' to life "legally", but he could not. Thats Infringement.

Your point is clear. That's exactly how 10 day waiting period in California looks like. But legal minds already came to conclusion that such "restriction" would likely survive Constitutional challenge. So the whole point is moot, especially with the NICS, which does such things at a minimum random rate, as opposed to systematic delay of CA-style waiting periods.

2010 NICS stats :

Total transactions: 14,409,616

In 2010, approximately 1.44 percent of the firearm background checks processed by the NICS Section received a final transaction status of deny.

Reason Total Percentage
Convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year 507,495 61.82%
or a misdemeanor punishable by more than two years
Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence Conviction 90,958 11.08%
Unlawful User/Addicted to a Controlled Substance 64,626 7.87%
Fugitive From Justice 62,955 7.67%
Protection/Restraining Order for Domestic Violence 35,972 4.38%
State Prohibitor 27,048 3.30%
Illegal/Unlawful Alien 10,252 1.25%
Under Indictment/Information 9,791 1.19%
Adjudicated Mental Health 6,103 0.74%
Federally Denied Persons File 5,097 0.62%
Dishonorable Discharge 547 0.07%
Renounced U.S. Citizenship 4 0.01%

Total is 820,888 (100%)

In 2010, the NICS Section received a total of 15,845 VAF applications
and appeal requests. Of those, a total of 2,304 received were submitted by persons denied by POC
state agencies. In 2010, the NICS Section’s research resulted in the overturn of 3,492 deny
transactions.

 

[Jamie6.5]

jamie65
When we hold GWB accountable for taking us to war under false pretense, illegal wire tapping, and holding people in prison without charging them with a crime we can start talking about punishing Obama - until then I find a lot of hipocrisy in in your position.

James Ruby

You find hypocrisy in the position of the congress JG, not me. I NEVER advocated for the patriot act.
Your hypocrisy seems to lie in the FACT that Bush signed into law a bill that passed both houses of Congress with supermajorities.
If he had not signed it, overriding his veto would have been easy. Now that your misunderstanding of how the legislation came about, (GWB didn't write it) we can move on.

As for the "false pretenses" have a look at what snopes says is true, in that these democrat leaders, in both houses of congress, the State Department and the WH, stated, often before Bush was in office, that they believed Saddam had WMDs and that the U.S. should take military action:
snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force &#8212; if necessary &#8212; to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Now that that issue is settled, and your misunderstanding of the event(s) are evident, we can move on to the illegal indefinite detention,...

Obama has continued it. Bush never promised to abolish GITMO's detention of terrorists.
But Obama did. And he has done nothing.
Will you hold him accountable?
Or just continue to attack the statements I have made, presenting the truth behind them here?

As for the illegal wiretapping by the NSA and the FISA court's decision on the matter:
NSA warrantless surveillance controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FISA court order
On January 18, 2007, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee "Court orders issued last week by a Judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court will enable the government to conduct electronic surveillance &#8211; very specifically, surveillance into or out of the United States where there is probable cause to believe that one of the communicants is a member or agent of al Qaeda or an associated terrorist organization &#8211; subject to the approval of the FISA Court. We believe that the court's orders will allow the necessary speed and agility the government needs to protect our Nation from the terrorist threat."[161] The ruling by the FISA Court was the result of a two-year effort between the White House and the court to find a way to obtain court approval that also would "allow the necessary speed and agility" to find terrorists, Gonzales said in a letter to the top committee members. The "innovative" court order on Jan. 10 will do that, Gonzales wrote. Senior Justice department officials would not say whether the orders provided individual warrants for each wiretap or whether the court had given blanket legal approval for the entire NSA program. The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that "without more information about what the secret FISA court has authorized, there is no way to determine whether the NSA's current activities are lawful."[162] Chip Pitts of Stanford Law School argues that substantial legal questions remain regarding the core NSA program as well as the related data mining program (and the use of National Security Letters), despite the government's apparently bringing the NSA program within the purview of the FISA law.[163]
[edit] FISCR Ruling of August 2008

In August 2008, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR) affirmed the constitutionality of the Protect America Act of 2007 in a heavily redacted opinion released on January 15, 2009, which is only the second such public ruling since the enactment of the FISA Act.

Even though what is being done is apparently legal within a specific framework, I never advocated for it, or Bush's "right" to do it.
In short, there is no hypocrisy there.
You and I both may not like the decision, but that doesn't change it's legality.

Furthermore, to a degree this is tied to the "war on terror" and the president's legal capabilities within the War Powers Act.
Flash forward to the recent NDAA law that Obama signed (after he said he wouldn't) that declared U.S. territory a "battlefield"?

Guess what? Your guy just used the patriot act, the NDAA and the FISA decision to give himself (and future office holders) a loophole in the surveillance of American citizens.
Will you hold him accountable JG?

Or is it you that's the hypocrite JG?

You have clearly failed to prove that my statements are hypocritical, so you should:
1) Hold your candidate accountable for his hypocrisies.
OR
2) spend your time and efforts here to turn your accusations of same on yourself or your candidate.
3) at least have the decency to meet your obligation(s) to your fellow gun owners and abstain from voting, or vote Republican.

One last thing. If we are going to be "intellectually honest" about holding George W. Bush accountable for the above issues it still wouldn't affect the outcome of the 2012 election.
Bush is no longer in office, or even eligible to hold it.
Newsflash: Bush ain't running!

So what is your excuse? Do you intend to hold every Republican candidate responsible/accountable for GWB's perceived failing?
Because that's what the kool-aide that the DNC and Obama offers up, amounts to.
I know this because that is the argument you are making.

You are advocating to vote democrat, despite this democrat president's abysmal/terrible performance, because you hate one Republican that has been out of office for over 3 years.

A vote for Obama is NOT a vote against George W. Bush.

 

[MikeSettles]

1. Sadam HAD WMDs: He used them against the Kurds and the Iranians. Mobile chemical labs were found buried in the desert after 2003. Several of his generals stated that the materials themselves were transported to Syria for safekeeping. He also spoofed our (and all Western) intel agencies, and his other possible opponents in the Gulf into believing that he had the stuff available in order to keep them at bay. Yes he had the stuff hidden away, and he made the world think that he had it ready to use. Bush, et al, were misled by an intelligence failure not only by our own agencies, but by many of our allies as well.

2. We can only judge the future by the past: Mr. Obama's past includes his evident attitude towards 2A and putting more limits on it, but the actions and attitudes of those with whom he surrounds himself. He hasn't done much toward limits during his first term, which is NO guarantee that he and his cronies won't during a second. Why take the chance?

3. Mr. Obama has recently shown that he is not above ignoring congress and the courts when it suits his purpose. Thruough the EPA, FDA, ATF, you name it other alphabet agencies, he can do immeasureable damage to the rights (not just 2A) which were guaranteed to us, but which it's quite evident we will not continue to enjoy without fighting for them. We have seen an incidious (sp) erosion of those rights since Theodore Roosevelt was elected. The second half of the 20th century saw an acceleration of limitations by government (at all levels) and a growing of the reach of government - at all levels, but especially the federal.

To me, the coming fight, including but not limited to November, is not about maintaining the status quo (which means accepting that what we have lost is forever gone), but in returning the power to We the People that we let go to the government over the past 100 years. In this, I believe that ANY of the current crop of Republicans (though I have reservations about all of them) is head and shoulders above the incumbent.

Cheers!

 

[fd15k]

1. Sadam HAD WMDs: He used them against the Kurds and the Iranians. Mobile chemical labs were found buried in the desert after 2003. Several of his generals stated that the materials themselves were transported to Syria for safekeeping. He also spoofed our (and all Western) intel agencies, and his other possible opponents in the Gulf into believing that he had the stuff available in order to keep them at bay. Yes he had the stuff hidden away, and he made the world think that he had it ready to use. Bush, et al, were misled by an intelligence failure not only by our own agencies, but by many of our allies as well.

What is the source of that info ?

The discovery by U.S. forces in Iraq of two mobile 'biological weapons laboratories' was touted by President Bush as clear evidence that Iraq possessed illegal weapons capabilities. However, it now is clear that these so-called labs were nothing more than hydrogen generation units based upon British technology acquired by Iraq in the 1980s, used to fill weather balloons in support of conventional artillery operations, and have absolutely no application for the production of biological agents.

&#8212; Scott Ritter, a former United Nations weapons inspector, wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle on September 8, 2003

 

[Burt Gummer]

Good article regarding that wonderful historical document that was known as the Bill of Rights: The Systematic Destruction of the Bill of Rights

As for the other nonsense above, attacking Iraq had nothing to do with WMDs just like Iran will have nothing to do with nukes, or Libya had anything to do with protecting the uprisings. Simple Empirical domination and submission of independent countries that do not bend a knee to the global central bankers. The same bankers that control our government and military lock, stock, and barrel. Like any tool, when we wear out we will be discarded and the Empire's run will be over. http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29383

 

[deadeye]

done