Yeah, California is more diverse and probably qualifies as weird to many. I haven't had the opportunity to visit New Hampshire, unfortunately.
Anyway, I wouldn't mind if you called me a freak; it's subjective. But, I'm not an irresponsible gun-shy freak, that's for sure.
So, where are you running across all these gun-shy irresponsible psychos today, Maggot?
(01-07-2016, 01:08 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Almost all use of Executive Order/Action draws the ire of the opposition party, people who disagree with what's being enacted, and people who dislike the President. And, there are those who decry all EOs/EAs as unconstitutional regardless of content or party or President. It's been that way for hundreds of years.
As posted upthread, the thousands of EO/EAs issued cover laws and policies across a multitude of topics; some more controversial than others. Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation" is one well-known Executive Order. Harry Truman used EO to desegregate schools. Franklin Roosevelt used EO to forbid banks from releasing gold coin or bullion; Executive Order 6102 forbade the hoarding of gold coin, bullion and gold certificates. George W. Bush used EO to restrict public access to the papers of former presidents. Bill Clinton used EOs to for environmental protection purposes. Etc...
Nothing in the Constitution says, "Executive Order or Executive Action", which fundamentalists often use to claim that EOs/EAs are therefore unlawful. But, the term 'executive power' used in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, refers to the title of President as the "executive". As so, he/she is instructed to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" per Article II, Section 3, Clause 5. Since all EO/EAs require a Constitutional justification, those two sections of the document are typically cited as justification.
Obama's Gun Violence Reduction EA is not a controversial one in terms of content, in my opinion. It's giving a broader scope of duties to government agencies in order for them to enforce existing laws as intended. The ATF will get more budget and staffing to ensure that gun dealers can't get around the licensing requirements and they'll get updated criteria for what constitutes a dealer to help close loopholes; they'll also get additional funding to enhance the National Ballistics database to better track illegal gun trafficking. That means more legal dealers, more background checks on potential buyers, more power and resources to pursue unlicensed/illegal dealers. The FBI will get more staff to run the anticipated higher volume of background checks, and do it more quickly so fewer people will get guns without a background check because the FBI wasn't able to complete it within the committed 3-day time frame.
Funding for smart gun technology research and mental health is also part of the 10 point EA. I think those points may need to go through Congress for approval though; we'll find out more details at the televised Town Hall Meeting tonight.
Personally, I doubt that any Republican politician will seriously challenge this EA with the Supreme Court, even if they are declaring now that they will (though some pro-gun groups or individuals might). I think such a challenge would fail with any set of Supreme Court Justices and it would be politically imprudent for any elected politician, almost all of whom have said they support universal background checks and more mental health focus, to challenge measures designed to curb gun violence. But, they have the right and the opportunity to challenge it if they want and a few EOs have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and overturned over the years.
Very few. This probably won't be overturned as none of it will come to fruition over the coming months.
(01-07-2016, 01:38 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Anyway, I wouldn't mind if you called me a freak; it's subjective. But, I'm not an irresponsible gun-shy freak, that's for sure.
I know this wasn't directed at me but I just wanted to say I don't consider you as either of those HotD. I look at you as more of a peace and love, kumbaya singing, cant we all just get along, kinda girl. Not that that is a bad thing. It is just that you are on the opposite end of the spectrum from me.
(01-07-2016, 01:38 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, California is more diverse and probably qualifies as weird to many. I haven't had the opportunity to visit New Hampshire, unfortunately.
Anyway, I wouldn't mind if you called me a freak; it's subjective. But, I'm not an irresponsible gun-shy freak, that's for sure.
So, where are you running across all these gun-shy irresponsible psychos today, Maggot?
Mostly on-line. Everyone around here has at least 2-3 guns at home and want to keep it that way. This executive action is mostly pandering to the left.
What was once moderates are now either far right or far left today, and the psychopaths are distributing the propaganda. This is the change. Let the good times roll.
If I ever get to Cali again we can go target practice out in the desert.
(01-07-2016, 02:22 PM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]Everyone around here has at least 2-3 guns at home
That's how it is where I grew up. Gun racks in the back windows. Hell, you could go to school and leave your gun in the rack, not me personally but I saw it all the time. Our world will never be like that again. It sounds corny to say it was a simpler more innocent time but it was.
I still have a gun rack in the back window of my truck.
Of course you do, Mr. NRA.
Where else would you put a gun during hunting season? Its not illegal.
A shotgun, a rifle and a console full of ammo too. I don't take that truck to town much though. I get some strange looks.
Times have changed and minds have become warped. Oh, well.
(01-07-2016, 02:19 PM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2016, 01:38 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Anyway, I wouldn't mind if you called me a freak; it's subjective. But, I'm not an irresponsible gun-shy freak, that's for sure.
I know this wasn't directed at me but I just wanted to say I don't consider you as either of those HotD. I look at you as more of a peace and love, kumbaya singing, cant we all just get along, kinda girl. Not that that is a bad thing. It is just that you are on the opposite end of the spectrum from me.
Rainbows and unicorns bro. Rainbows and unicorns.
(01-07-2016, 02:19 PM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2016, 01:38 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Anyway, I wouldn't mind if you called me a freak; it's subjective. But, I'm not an irresponsible gun-shy freak, that's for sure.
I know this wasn't directed at me but I just wanted to say I don't consider you as either of those HotD. I look at you as more of a peace and love, kumbaya singing, cant we all just get along, kinda girl. Not that that is a bad thing. It is just that you are on the opposite end of the spectrum from me.
Well, that's an unfitting characterization of me F.U., but it's your impression and not a bad one.
Anyway, you know from hundreds of posts and exchanges that I support measures to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people and children; measures to increase public safety without taking away rights to bear arms. You also know that I don't advocate bans, a registry, or quantity limits for gun owners and that I respect the Second Amendment (though we interpret parts of it differently).
If that's "the opposite end of the spectrum" in your mind, you don't have a spectrum, F.U. It's instead just two extremes for you with people who share some, but not all, of your views seen as "opposite" in your mind.
You've admitted previously to your 'me/us vs. them' extremist mentality, so it's not surprising or problematic that you view me and others who don't agree with all of your positions that way.
And, it's probably not surprising to you that I don't view you at the opposite end of the spectrum. That would be a false view. You're on one extreme and I'm somewhere in the middle ground.
Now why do you always have to post those long drawn out responses? I wasn't talking just about this gun issue. I was generalizing. You seam to be more of a glass is 1⁄2 full person and I am a glass is 1⁄2 empty most of the time. Yes we do have some common ground.
(01-07-2016, 02:53 PM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]Now why do you always have to post those long drawn out responses? I wasn't talking just about this gun issue. I was generalizing. You seam to be more of a glass is 1⁄2 full person and I am a glass is 1⁄2 empty most of the time. Yes we do have some common ground.
You don't have to read my long drawn out posts or respond to them, F.U. I'll still say what I mean, my way. And, I'll still read yours.
Anyway, your
1⁄
2 full vs.
1⁄
2 empty analogy doesn't fit "opposite ends of the spectrum." But, I get what you mean.
The slippery slope argument is the same put forth by some rabid pro-choice folks. As soon as limitations are put on late term abortions, the government is going to somehow magically put an end to ALL abortions (regardless of whether or not it completely defies the wishes of a majority of Americans. I support putting limitations on abortion and I'd like to get rid of the big, bad semi auto, high capacity guns but I don't give one fuck about the balance of the guns you own (the general/sane "you").
I was getting into my truck today and the ice on top of the snow was a slippery slope. I almost spilled my coffee.
I just read that my state has the lowest murder rate in the country and is one of the most lenient with guns 10th.
(01-07-2016, 03:03 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2016, 02:53 PM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]Now why do you always have to post those long drawn out responses? I wasn't talking just about this gun issue. I was generalizing. You seam to be more of a glass is 1⁄2 full person and I am a glass is 1⁄2 empty most of the time. Yes we do have some common ground.
You don't have to read my long drawn out posts or respond to them, F.U. I'll still say what I mean, my way. And, I'll still read yours.
Anyway, your 1⁄2 full vs. 1⁄2 empty analogy doesn't fit "opposite ends of the spectrum." But, I get what you mean.
In certain circles, being on the spectrum is enough.
(01-07-2016, 02:22 PM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]If I ever get to Cali again we can go target practice out in the desert.
You're very honest about the fact that being within the 'norm' for your area is of great value to you, and people and things outside of it get under your skin.
So, I don't expect you to make it to California again Maggot; I'd be afraid you'd have a heart attack being so far outside your comfort zone these days.
If for some reason you found yourself here again and survived the initial culture shock, however, there are places to shoot. I'm not a great aim, but target practice is fun (as long as I'm not the target
).
Biggie's neck of the woods is a very cool area and would probably be more comfortable and palatable for you than mine though -- a lot more open land, less diverse population, and generally much more conservative, I think (correct me if I'm wrong about that, Biggie).
(01-07-2016, 05:42 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2016, 03:03 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Anyway, your 1⁄2 full vs. 1⁄2 empty analogy doesn't fit "opposite ends of the spectrum." But, I get what you mean.
In certain circles, being on the spectrum is enough.
There is no spectrum in the
1⁄
2 full vs.
1⁄
2 empty scenario, in any circle. It's an either/or perception of a fixed value, Gunnar.
As I already confirmed, I understood what F.U. meant. He considers himself a
1⁄
2 empty kinda person and considers me a
1⁄
2 full kinda person; good enough.
And, there's more than enough room on the spectrum of gun control positions for F.U., me, and everybody else in this circle.