Proposed executive actions on gun background checks

[gfull]

Obama is proposing some new actions on background checks.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/03/obama-administration-proposes-new-executive-actions-on-gun-background-checks/

[csaaphill]

yep and it aint pretty neither this will suck *removed* big time.





*profanity removed*

[stevemiller]

I dont see the change,if you are involuntarily committed (inpatient or outpatient)doesn't make a diff. does it?In the law as it is written today,it makes no distinction,does it?

[washelkhunter]

Executive orders or actions are not Laws, therefore We The People need not comply.

[rbinhood]

I think the intent of the executive orders is to make it tougher for people with mental health issues to get guns. If you look at many of the mass shootings that have occurred in the last  five years, many have involved people with significant mental health issues. Even the NRA has suggested that better screening and background checks would be a benefit.

[Expedition Scout]

I think the intent of the executive orders is to make it tougher for people with mental health issues to get guns. If you look at many of the mass shootings that have occurred in the last  five years, many have involved people with significant mental health issues. Even the NRA has suggested that better screening and background checks would be a benefit.

OK, but how many of them purchased the guns over the counter? 

[rbinhood]

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/21/colorado-theater-shooter-carried-4-guns-all-obtained-legally/

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2011/01/11/2208/tucson-shooter-was-troubled-could-still-buy-gun

Just two of many examples...

[snowpack]

they mention that 2 million people 'that weren't supposed to have firearms' were denied by the system currently in place.  Did DOJ pursue further or just let them go, to find another source?

[Expedition Scout]

So, what is the plan to catch the "many more examples" who have acquired weapons where a background check will not help. Additionally, how many people will this law keep from legally owning a weapon (their right) due to something in their past that may have never became an issue.

In a world of gun control, and yes increased background checks is a form of gun control, you will continue to reduce the amount of weapons on the streets and homes within the legal community. IMO, if a lawful armed individual was present in any of these cases, they would have been wholly different in outcome. We should be working on putting more weapons in more hands with proper training.

Bottom line is people who intend to kill will find a way! Gun, Knife, Rock, doesn't matter. But look at the difference between the other mass shootings and the new Aurora Colorado incident, you put a trained individual in close proximity to the active shooter, you will end the situation a lot faster, one way or the other. This fact was not put all over the news.

That is not posted to take away from the tragedy, my heart goes out to the parents and community, but I don't think further gun restrictions are going to change the issue.

My wife lived through a mass shooting and the one thing she prayed for was someone with a gun to end the madness. Not how our background check system had failed us.

She is now a responsibility/trained armed citizen.

[xd2005]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised by the comments on here...

Granted, csaaphill's comments are a given, considering his position that there should be absolutely no limits on types of firearms or who should possess them.

And Wash, there's nothing for "We the People" to follow in regards to these Executive Orders, so your comment makes absolutely no sense.

A year ago, everyone said how there should be no new laws, simply stronger enforcement of existing ones, including improvements to ensure the mentally ill were not able to obtain firearms. That is all this does, helps make it more difficult for the mentally ill to get firearms. Granted, I can understand why that would concern a few on here...

As for chasing down those that attempted to purchase but were denied, sure, we can chase them. But why not focus on those that were not denied and able to purchase? Yes, those denied could have obtained elsewhere, but those not denied needed no further steps. Again, these are people that do not legally qualify for firearms purchases, but were able to make them regardless because information was lacking in the system. This helps solve that problem.

And the argument that "people who intend to kill will find a way" is a bit old and too easily argued against. If Adam attacked an elementary school with rocks and knives, I guarantee the results would not have been the same. Small, intimate homicides can surely be carried out with alternative, legal weapons very easily. But mass casualty attacks are nowhere near as simple to conduct with these alternative weapons. There is a reason firearms are used. They are much faster and allow much more distance from an adversary. In fact, if you recall, at virtually the same time as the Sandy Hook incident, a knife attack occurred in China at a school. There, there were something like 23 injuries, no deaths. Tragic, of course, but you aren't going to convince me that a knife is a good alternative weapon in a mass attack.

[Expedition Scout]

I am not suggesting that a knife is a good weapon of choice in a mass attack, only as you pointed out with China, its a weapon that could be used. Sorry if that was misunderstood. I was only pointing out that any weapon could be used if the intent by the person is to do harm.

I am suggesting that the way to fight fire is with fire. My point is you can't stop  bad things from happening in this world no matter what the law. The only thing left at the end of the day is to be prepared to protect yourself when bad things happen.

This country was founded on Common Law: Two laws (Do all you have agreed to do) and (Do not encroach on other persons or their property). This is what everything was based on. All laws created needed to follow Common Law. Now we ignore Common Law and use Political Law or majority rules. The issue everyone needs to understand with majority rules, is what happens when the majority is against you? We can sit here and say that we should not let this guy or that guy have a weapon because of what ever the reason, because we are not the ones that reason effects. But once the president is set, that majority rules who can and who can't, isn't there a fear that one day the majority will rule against you?

It is already illegal to comment murder, however we can kill someone in self defense. Common Law (Do not encroach...) Our rights and liberties were defined and protected by Common Law. We should use the law that is already there to deal with it.

[bearpaw]

This is not something that should be done by executive order. Obama is overstepping. 

[rbinhood]

During the 8 years he was in office, George W. Bush issued 293 executive orders.
Obama has issued less executive orders than any modern president:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/obama-executive-orders-guns.html

[brush hunter]

Seen it coming. With Obama care when you go to the doctor and he or she asks what seems to be the problem, and you say you at all stressed that goes into a data base. And in the federal data base you now have mental health issues. 

[CAMPMEAT]

Another commie move by our corrupt government to satisfy THEIR wants, not ours. Like Bearpaw said, overstepping...............