White House Considering “Executive Action” On Guns, Drudge Reminds Who Else Went That Route

Vice President Joe Biden says the White House is considering end running Congress to implement some sort of gun control. From The Weekly Standard:

“The president is going to act,” said Biden, giving some comments to the press before a meeting with victims of gun violence. “There are executives orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required.”

Biden said that this is a moral issue and that “it’s critically important that we act.”

Matt Drudge proves that a picture (or two in this case) really are worth a thousand words…

DrudgeOnGunGrabbing

If you include Stalin with Hitler, does it still run afoul of Godwin’s law?

NY Dem. Calls Supporter of Opponent 'N' Word
Please go read and sign my White House petition
  • GarandFan

    Biden said that this is a moral issue and that “it’s critically important that we act.”

    Yeah! Just like the government acted in the “Tuskegee Experiment” and the interment of citizens of Japanese descent during WWII.

    Act in haste, repent at leisure. So will we be getting another “law” that has to be passed so that we can “see what’s in it”? That worked out so well last time.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      They’re still pushing the emotional response button, and screaming ‘We have to act NOW! No time to consider anything like whether it would do anything to help – action is needed now!’

      Now it’s ‘critically important’.300+ million guns, 100+ million gun owners. 1-2 nutcases a year, randomly killing about a bus-full of kids.

      And the only thing they can think to do is – like a grade-school teacher punishing the whole class for the actions of one – is to make rules to clamp down hard on the folks who didn’t do anything illegal in the first place.

      Are people really buying that bullshit, or just looking at them and going “Hey, slow down there – let’s make sure what we do will actually AFFECT the problem before you do your best to get many millions of gun owners pissed off.”?

      • Conservachef

        Sadly, JLawson, I think (at least some) people are listening to that bs and nodding along like good little bobblehead dolls.

        You have Dem politicians who are admitting that they have to push this hard while emotions are high. Seems like, if that’s the case, they know they’re selling bottled BS and they don’t care.

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          It’s not about the good of the country – you could save more kids by outlawing backyard pools.

          http://www.poseidon-tech.com/us/statistics.html

          It’s about control. They don’t want us to have the ability to say ‘No’ to a proposal and have it stick.

  • Sky__Captain

    I can foresee another million person march on Washington DC.
    This one will be armed, and go to the White House.
    Obama will be removed from office by this collection of persons.

    Sic semper tyrannis.

  • Sky__Captain

    Of course, I simply cannot wait for Wizbang’s collection of leftists to defend this unconstitutional threat.

    • Conservachef

      I imagine one or more of the following:
      (a) Buuushhh!
      (b) It’s for the Children! (TM)
      (c) Racism!

      And I’m only partially joking.

    • Brucehenry

      Well, you didn’t have to wait long to get up-votes on your call for an armed mob to remove a lawfully elected president.

      How patriotic you are!

      As are your up-voters.

      • Sky__Captain

        Go read my post again. At no point did I call for “an armed mob to remove a lawfully elected president”.

        I take exception to your accusation and demand an immediate retraction and apology.

        • Brucehenry

          lol

          EDIT: On second thought, gee, I’m sorry. I see now it wasn’t a “call” for an armed mob to remove the President, simply a prediction… a premonition, as it were.

          And your addition of the Latin phrase “Sic semper tyrannis,” the same phrase John Wilkes Booth shouted, didn’t connote approval of this predicted act AT ALL.

          • Sky__Captain

            So not only is Bruce Henry not able to debate, he also is incapable of apologizing for accusing others of “for an armed mob to remove a lawfully elected president”.

            Noted, little troll.

            Noted.

            And if I were a moderator here at Wizbang, your IP would be permanently blocked for your accusation and refusal to be civilized.

          • Brucehenry

            If you were a moderator here, the comment section would consist of three dudes telling each other, “Me, too!”

            EDIT: Which also seems to be Rodney’s ambition for Wizbang.

          • http://wizbangblog.com Kevin

            While not everyone may like Bruce, he generally contributes to discussions without behavior that has sent others off to the ban list. In the end that’s pretty much all we can ask of folks.

          • Wild_Willie

            I agree Kevin, but accusing a commenter of wanting to take up arms to overthrow a president can have serious implication especially is someone is phishing for this kind of vitriol. Bruce knows better and I had hoped he would offer an apology for that accusation. It isn’t about feeling, it is about right and wrong. ww

          • Brucehenry

            Bull Spit. What do YOU think the guy meant by “Sic Semper Tyrannis”?

            HE should apologize to ME, and to his fellow readers, for his insincerity and trying to weasel out of what he obviously meant.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            It’s both slanderous and libelous.

          • Ashmadia

            Off topic, but I don’t know how else to contact you. The “Blog View” link only shows articles from 2012

          • http://wizbangblog.com Kevin

            Thanks. I’ll fix that right now.

          • http://wizbangblog.com Kevin

            While not everyone may like Bruce, he generally contributes to discussions without behavior that has sent others off to the ban list. In the end that’s pretty much all we can ask of folks.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            You can always ask Kevin to do the needful.

          • Sky__Captain

            Since Bruce is acting quite cavalier and downright mocking about this, I have done so.

          • Brucehenry

            WATB.

          • jim_m

            Don’t make me think better of my support.

          • Brucehenry

            Sure jim. And keep on enabling this dude, who “predicted” an armed mob would depose the President of the United States. Ooops, I mean, “foresaw” this insurrection, and who doesn’t approve of it, you understand.

            You can tell by the sic semper tyrannis.

            Oh, and who takes his butthurt like a little girl, calling for the banning of anyone who disagrees with him and hurts his widdle feefees.

          • jim_m

            It’s got nothing to do with Sky Captain and his original post. I have posted my own response regarding my interpretation of his comment and I stand by that.

            I just think that you would do better by not being seen as being antagonistic. There have been occasions when you engage in really good discussions. There are others where you piss people off.

          • Brucehenry

            Fair enough, jim. But some people get all offended by snark. I’ll try not to be such an asshole if they’ll try not to get all butthurt over nothin’.

          • Commander_Chico

            The authoritarian mentality cannot tolerate any disagreement.

          • Brucehenry

            Fair enough, jim. But some people get all offended by snark. I’ll try not to be such an asshole if they’ll try not to get all butthurt over nothin’.

          • jim_m

            It’s got nothing to do with Sky Captain and his original post. I have posted my own response regarding my interpretation of his comment and I stand by that.

            I just think that you would do better by not being seen as being antagonistic. There have been occasions when you engage in really good discussions. There are others where you piss people off.

          • Brucehenry

            Sure jim. And keep on enabling this dude, who “predicted” an armed mob would depose the President of the United States. Ooops, I mean, “foresaw” this insurrection, and who doesn’t approve of it, you understand.

            You can tell by the sic semper tyrannis.

            Oh, and who takes his butthurt like a little girl, calling for the banning of anyone who disagrees with him and hurts his widdle feefees.

          • jim_m

            Don’t make me think better of my support.

          • Brucehenry

            WATB.

          • jim_m

            While I think that Bruce is a jerk. I don’t think that his behavior rises (or should I say sinks?) to the level demonstrated by Carl, Grumpy, Lee Ward, Bob Armstrong…

          • herddog505

            I don’t think that Bruce is a jerk at all, though I certainly don’t agree with him very often. I would say the same about several of our other resident lefties.

            Now, the clowns you mention have their pictures in the dictionary next to the word!

      • jim_m

        The call presupposes a government that has discarded the constitution so therefore is not as such a call to take real action. While I know that you would prefer a world where everyone who you disagree with would just knuckle under to fascist oppression, the rest of us will not.

        If the dems really do want to throw out the Constitution and govern by fiat as Biden suggests the duty is to oppose such tyranny.

        ( I actually think that this is just another trial balloon to see how much opposition it will create and that they will pull back from the brink, but then again a dem has introduced legislation for a constitutional repeal of the 22nd amendment)

        • Sky__Captain

          The Dimocrat in question, Jose Serano (Dimwit, NY) has introduced a repeal of the 22nd Admendment in the last 10 session of Congress. Each piece of said legislation has died in committee.

      • 914

        Even less time for you to collect down votes for your presumptive ignorant tripe.

      • retired.military

        You have to hate those 200+ year old documents. I know they are so passe.

        “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
        their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of
        Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to
        alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation
        on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem
        most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate
        that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient
        causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more
        disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by
        abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of
        abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to
        reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to
        throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security”

        • jim_m

          We have nothing to learn from dead white men. Or so the left tells us constantly.

        • jim_m

          We have nothing to learn from dead white men. Or so the left tells us constantly.

        • Brucehenry

          Well, RM, if you think Barack Obama = George III, you can join Alex Jones in Nutballville. No offense.

          • jim_m

            Of course not. George III had the excuse of being insane for significant periods of time. A far better parallel is Louis XVI , at least that is how obama sees himself. (yes I know the pic is for Louis XIV but the parallel is better for XVI, what with his condescending attitude toward those he rules over).

            Also, apart from losing the American Colonies, George III actually extended the empire significantly. As an expansionist George III is the polar opposite of obama.

          • Brucehenry

            Lol, Obama makes that outfit look gooood.

      • retired.military

        You have to hate those 200+ year old documents. I know they are so passe.

        “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
        their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of
        Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to
        alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation
        on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem
        most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate
        that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient
        causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more
        disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by
        abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of
        abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to
        reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to
        throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security”

      • sablegsd

        he’s a criminal, mass murdering traitor. he should be drug out by his ears and put in prison to await his trial. Oh, and he committed fraud, he is NOT a lawfully elected president. Never mind his momma’s alleged baby daddy was a British citizen.

  • 914

    ? weird stuff today

  • 914

    Well, at least this way Barry and Nancy wont have to bother with not reading whats in a bill.

  • JWH

    Does anybody know what the contemplated action actually is?

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      Right now, it’s a lot of political emoting making the most of a tragedy – and trying really hard to avoid dealing with the financial mess we’re in.

      The trouble, though, is that laws that come from that sort of hasty, emotionally-motivated maneuvering usually ends up causing a lot more trouble than they purportedly solve.

      I mean, geez – you’re looking at what 1-2 nutcases a year doing this stuff? Out of a population of 320 million or so, and maybe 100 million gun owners? What percentage of the population is that?

      Why does it feel like we’re in 3rd grade, and everyone in the class is being punished for the actions of one kid?

    • herddog505

      Whatever the gungrabbers think they can get away with.

  • jim_m

    I’m just waiting for the usual suspects to come along and justify how it is that they really aren’t a bunch of fascists. Keep denying all you want, the policies you support are all directed toward creating a totalitarian dictatorship.

  • Vagabond661

    I wish the government was this passionate about fixing the economy.

    • Evil Otto

      Trust me, you don’t wish that. Look at the damage they’re doing without being passionate about fixing the economy.

      • jim_m

        Amen. Passionate would be minting those Trillion dollar coins and creating hyperinflation that bankrupts the nation and makes us all poor.

      • jim_m

        Amen. Passionate would be minting those Trillion dollar coins and creating hyperinflation that bankrupts the nation and makes us all poor.

    • Evil Otto

      Trust me, you don’t wish that. Look at the damage they’re doing without being passionate about fixing the economy.

  • Sky__Captain

    Seen on the internet:

    “I can’t wait to be lectured about my gun rights by an Administration responsible for giving guns to Mexican drug cartel members.”

  • retired.military

    Welcome to Obamerica.

  • ackwired

    This is an example of both sides catering to their partisan bases. Biden says that Obama is going to do something regardless, and the right wing press reports his comments as if some crazy decision has been made. There is not much that Obama can do if congress does not go along.

    • jim_m

      Actually, since ATF controls gun sales he can make that process grind to a halt. Like Gibson guitar they can abuse federal authority to close gun shops or harass manufacturers. There are lots of extra legal ways that obama can abuse his office to get what he wants. He has already demonstrated that he will do so.

      • retired.military

        “He has already demonstrated that he will do so.

        REPEATEDLY

      • ackwired

        We’ll see if it is worth getting excited about. All that is going on now is both extremes pandering to their bases.

    • jim_m

      Actually, since ATF controls gun sales he can make that process grind to a halt. Like Gibson guitar they can abuse federal authority to close gun shops or harass manufacturers. There are lots of extra legal ways that obama can abuse his office to get what he wants. He has already demonstrated that he will do so.

    • Commander_Chico

      Agreed. They can’t do much if anything by executive order, but as the Drudge post shows, it will agitate the crazies on the right.

      That is a troubling political strategy – stirring up nutballs. Who knows where the person riding the tiger will end up? Reminds me of Nixon/Agnew and the left.

    • herddog505

      One word:

      Libya.

      If the president can make war without even informing Congress, then it seems to me that there isn’t much he can’t do.

  • ackwired

    This is an example of both sides catering to their partisan bases. Biden says that Obama is going to do something regardless, and the right wing press reports his comments as if some crazy decision has been made. There is not much that Obama can do if congress does not go along.

  • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

    Huh. This is… interesting.

    It seems that in their haste to cram socialized medicine down the throats of the American people, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Barack Obama overlooked Senate amendment 3276, Sec. 2716, part c.

    According to reports, that amendment says the government cannot collect “any information relating to the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.”

    CNN is calling it “a gift to the nation’s powerful gun lobby.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/09/Backfire-Obamacare-Forbids-Gun-and-Ammo-Registration

    The law of unintended consequences strikes again. See what happens when you rush a bill through, and don’t read the fine print?

    • jim_m

      I just saw this too and was about to post it. As they saw, this demonstrates how necessary it is to actually know what is in a bill. It could easily have been drafted the other way. They could easily slip in an amendment to any other big bill that repeals this.

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        Yeah.

        I’d love it if Congress would put into place a law that requires a bill to be about the stated purpose, and not allow any amendments. Won’t happen, though…

  • herddog505

    Question for our resident lefties:

    What would you do IF Barry actually did this? Let’s say that he follows in the footsteps of the fictional President Andrew Shepherd and announces that, “You cannot address crime prevention without getting rid of assault weapons and handguns. I consider them a threat to national security, and I will go door to door if I have to, but I’m gonna convince Americans that I’m right, and I’m gonna get the guns.”*

    My guess is that you’d cheer in the streets: “Yeah, he stuck it to those wingers! And f*ck the Constitution! YEAH!”

    Just remember the words of the Rev. Mr. Niemoeller…

    ====

    (*) “The American President” (1995). dir. Rob Reiner
    spoken by Michael Douglas
    http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0012912/quotes

    • Brucehenry

      Two questions for you.

      One, if Obama did WHAT? There is nothing specific in this article, just that executive action may be an option. I would think that some executive actions may be worse than others.

      I heard today that one executive action being considered is to actually prosecute those who try and fail a background check. (It is already illegal to try to pass a background check if you know you can’t.) Anything wrong with that?

      And two, why ask a question if you’re so sure you already know the answer?

      • herddog505

        1. If Barry made an executive order forbidding this or that type or firearm, magazine, or other accessory, and especially if he made an executive order to confiscate firearms;

        2. Because I’m hoping that I’m wrong.

        And we’re going to PROSECUTE people who fail a background check? I can understand wanting to investigate a little and perhaps (ahem) remind the person WHY they can’t purchase a firearm, but prosecute for merely filling out a form?

        And if it IS already illegal to try to pass a background check when you know you can’t, then why do we need an executive order to prosecute in the first place? Perhaps Barry can pass an executive order to prosecute people who knowingly circumvent firearms laws or entice or coerce others to do so. Oh, wait…

        • Brucehenry

          I heard on NPR that 75,000 background checks were failed last year (I think) and in that time period 45 prosecutions occurred. Do you think, if those statistics are accurate, that only 45 people had intent to circumvent the law? It is currently a felony to try to pass a background check you know, or should know, you will fail.

          Obama’s executive action could consist of ordering his DOJ to aggressively prosecute those who commit this felony, rather than letting them skate, as, it appears, is the current practice.

          • SCSIwuzzy

            Not everyone that fails a background check knows they will fail, or failed because they lied on paperwork, so expecting that a high percentage should be prosecuted is unrealistic. Unless the goal is to discourage people from even applying for permits.

            Add in that different states and even counties have different standards for issuing permits. In my county in PA, the CCW application needs 2 character witnesses, from PA and not related to you. It also has questions like “do you have a reputation for drunkeness or erratic behavior”.
            Depending on who is running your application down, you could fail for having too many pictures on facebook with a beer in your hand.
            One of my friends nearly got denied for just that, until he was able to demonstrate that all the pictures in question were from one day at a beer festival, and that the pretty lady with him in 90% of the photos was his wife, and that she clearly was wearing a designated drive wrist band. Once the nice lady at the sheriff’s office looked at the date stamps, the permit weent through.
            If he had been denied, should he have been taken to court and fined or even jailed?

          • SCSIwuzzy

            Now, someone with a felony conviction in their past that answers “no” to the felony question is a different story.

            Looking at your numbers, how many fraud ballots or voter registrations have been turned up in places like MN, Washington state and IL? Not many prosecutions there either… is it evidence that there is no crime being committed?

          • Brucehenry

            Well, those are good points. I don’t know if 45 out of 75,000 is way low or not.

            My point was that there may be “executive actions” that can be taken that would fall short of what a reasonable person would describe as “gun-grabbing.” Apocapyptic, over the top rhetoric and pictures of Hitler and Stalin seem a little premature without an idea of what the proposed “executive action” is.

            We don’t need to water the tree of liberty if the only executive action would be to get tougher enforcing existing statutes, do we? If Obama prosecutes 450 (not 45) out of 75,000, would that be reason for a million-man armed mob to remove him, as Cry_Captain “foresees”?

          • SCSIwuzzy

            I think that depends on the nature of the prosecutions. Many of those permits being turned down I expect were not federal, and thus the feds don’t have jurisdiction. Using Executive priv to extend jusridiction over all 50 states permit process, that would be HUGE, and a huge battle in congress and the courts as well.
            The criteria for prosecuting as well… Nazi Germany denied permits out of hand for the undesireables (as they defined them) and granted free access to the favored few. That is the attitude among many of the gun control pundits and politicians that rankles many on the pro 2nd ammendment side… they don’t want us to have guns, but they want to have guns or to have armed guards on their schools and homes.
            On the topic of enforcing existing statutes, you’ve yet to make the case that they aren’t when it comes to permits.
            While they are at it, think they will enforce the laws on imigration they choose to ignore? How about the one about passing a budget?

          • Brucehenry

            Well, again, my main point is the over-the-top reaction here and elsewhere before anyone knows what the proposed executive action will be.

          • jim_m

            So you are saying that there remains a possibility that obama will take a pro gun action? That’s funny. How long have you been mentally deficient? What’s it like living with a sub 86 IQ? Because only someone that stupid would still be thinking that anything promoted or declared by this administration is going to be anything but restricting 2nd amendment rights.

          • Brucehenry

            Quote: “I just think that you would do better by not being seen as antagonistic. There have been occasions where you engage in really good discussions. There are others where you piss people off.”

            Who said that recently? Three guesses!

          • jim_m

            LOL. Fair enough. But the point was that it is profoundly silly to make the claim that no one knows what the proposed action is that obama will take. The truth is that we do know. We know that it will be to make unnecessary, ill-considered and ineffectual restrictions on second amendment rights.

            obama has always been an anti-gun extremist. He has promised the left to go after gun rights. Biden’s commission is working on a decision that was formed before the commission was formed. Everyone knows this. It is evident in the nature of his meetings with pro gun people.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, I’ll wager whatever is proposed will be much less drastic than you fear. Not that that will stop wingnuts from foaming at the mouth about it, however innocuous it may or may not be.

          • jim_m

            As I said, whatever it will be will be unnecessary, ill-considered and ineffectual and therefore unjust. It will punish the innocent and erode their rights not in the name of anyone’s safety but in the name of advancing an ideological agenda to disarm a public and make them prey for a predacious government.

          • Brucehenry

            Gee, when you put it like that, it DOES sound scary!

          • jim_m

            Fine. Leave out the last 8 words and it still is what they are doing.

          • SCSIwuzzy

            Rather like the lefts’ over the top freakouts that abortion will be banned everytime a republican might be elected?

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah, like those.

          • herddog505

            Bruce, the problem is that we’ve heard it all before: we KNOW what you people want. Oh, you MIGHT be willing to let us keep the odd deer rifle or shotgun – subject to heavy regulations about how it’s to be kept locked up, limited ammo, etc. – but handguns? “Assault weapons”? Hi-cap clips? No, no, a thousand times no! After all, nobody “needs” those things, do they?

            Now, even democrats can figure out that a British-style gun ban won’t fly politically at this time, so they’ll take what they can get under the guise of being “reasonable”, such as banning those nasty hi-cap clips and the eeeeeevil assault weapons (who knew that a bayonet stud made a rifle so deadly?). Check out what DiFi has cooked up; among her proposals is a requirement that anybody who owns an “assault weapon” (which includes a World War II-era Garand, as I understand it) is that people who already own such a nasty, sooper-deadly weapon register with Uncle Sugar. Gosh, I wonder what THAT could lead to?

            Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

            Background check of owner and any transferee;

            Type and serial number of the firearm;

            Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;

            Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and

            Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.

            http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

            This isn’t some loony lefty columnist or talking head or blogger: this is a US senator.

            The governor of New York, another senior politician, goes even further:

            The governor then laid out several ideas for how the state would enforce stricter laws on those so-called “assault” weapons: “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it,” he said.

            http://forsearch.net/s/www.mediaite.com/online/new-york-gov-andrew-cuomo-on-gun-control-confiscation-could-be-an-option/

            So, I think that we’ve got a legitimate concern, don’t you?

          • jim_m

            After all, nobody “needs” those things, do they?

            If nobody needs them then why does the government need them to use against US citizens? (DEA, ICE, any SWAT team…)

          • Brucehenry

            Yes, be concerned. But this piece wasn’t about Feinstein or Cuomo, it was about how Obama = Hitler/Stalin, and what this communistofascist might do by executive action.

            EDIT: Oooops, I forgot what thread I was on! Well, in that case, you guys are all right and I’m wrong. Boy, is my face red!

          • herddog505

            Yes, we do worry about what he might do be executive order. Barry hasn’t exactly been shy about them, you know. And he’s promised “action” on guns. Somehow, I don’t get the idea that he means calling members of Congress or state governors up to the White House to hector them into passing laws.

          • sablegsd

            What part of he doesn’t have the right don’t you understand?

          • sablegsd

            You make me sick, you regressive commiecrat MOF. There have already been too many infringments, NOT ONE FUCKING MORE!

          • Brucehenry

            You, sir or madam, are a genius.

          • herddog505

            If it helps to (shall we say?) remind crooks that they are allowed to buy, or helps identify loons who need professional help (or even be tossed into the booby hatch), I think it would be a good idea. O’ course, I’m ignoring my objection to having to apply to the government to do something that is my constitutional right, the fact that there is no enumerated federal power to require / conduct background checks (DAMN that musty old document, eh?), AND the fact that, for the first century and a half or more of our country’s history, we didn’t have such a program and got along fairly well.

            However, if it turns out to be (as SCSIwuzzy suggests) a backdoor means to discourage people even applying, then that’s another matter.

          • SCSIwuzzy

            There is no enumeration about drivers licenses either… or the IRS
            For the background checks, I think it would all depend on the expense to the citizen, the time to return, the frequency and how many things can trigger a denial.
            Violent crimial past, RICO associations, losing your drivers license from drug/alcohol use, history of mental illness, dishonorable discharge from armed forces… I may be missing something else obvious, but those are reasonable restrictions.

          • herddog505

            Quibbling:

            The feds don’t issue drivers licenses (aside, I suppose, from military personnel or certain federal employees), so no enumerated power applies.

            In the case of the IRS, the Sixteenth Amendment gives Uncle Sugar the power to collect income taxes, and the “necessary and proper” clause of Art. I sec. 8 gives him the authority to have some body to collect them.

            As for background checks, I think that most people (including me) don’t object so long as the checks don’t become a backdoor way to deny Second Amendment rights*. Still, as we’re seeing with ObamaCare, gun control, EPA, etc., once the federal camel sticks its nose under the tent, it’s damned hard to keep the beast shoving all the way in. Better a tiny, limited federal government that can’t do much more than levy taxes, print money,** wage war, build roads, and keep wardheelers locked up in the Capitol than a leviathan that can do what it pleases, when it pleases, which seems to be the central argument of the left these days (and the reason that they detest the Constitution).

            ===

            (*) Here I am being hypocritical: I’m willing to live with an unconstitutional law / function of the federal government because I personally don’t object to it. Good heavens, could I be turning (gag) liberal in my advancing age???
            I also can’t resist pointing out that democrats are very experienced at using the law to f*ck over people they don’t like, e.g poll taxes, grandfather clauses and literacy tests to keep blacks from voting.

            (**) I think we can all agree that raising taxes and printing money are two things that the federal government is – lamentably – very good at doing.

          • SCSIwuzzy

            I was being snarky. Need to remember the html tag

          • herddog505

            Sorry.

          • SCSIwuzzy

            In the case of modern guns, I am ok with some over sight on who can own guns (see my list of exclusions), but I’d rather not have the government know what guns I own. Bad enough some asshats in NY publish a list of permit holders, I don’t doubt they would publish the make and model as well.

          • jim_m

            One of your exclusions is “History of mental illness”. What constitutes a mental illness? If you count depression or anxiety then you exclude a significant portion of the population.

            What constitutes a “History”? A doctor must submit a billing form with a diagnostic code. If that diagnostic code is depression or anxiety are we going to automatically ban such people from having a gun? Are we going to say that these codes are not sufficient evidence of a formal diagnosis? Then how do we record a formal diagnosis without formal commitment? WHat do we do with existing laws that make commitment impossible.?

          • Brucehenry

            Damn good questions, Jim.

            BTW, in case you missed it, here’s a link I found interesting:http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/?single_page=true

          • jim_m

            Seen that info elsewhere. It is a fact that governments have used gun control to promote racist agendas for centuries. It is a fact that gun control has been used as a prelude to violent oppression of the public in nation after nation.

            While you may foolishly suppose that such oppression could never happen here, on what do you base that? That it doesn’t always happen? Does 70+ years of oppression in Russia not demonstrate that there is a risk? Does the experience in Cuba and NAZI Germany not demonstrate that there is a risk?

            At what point does one decide that decades of state sponsored murder and an occasional genocide worth it in exchange for a school shooting? When the gun control measures suggested will not solve the problem the issue is not gun control but people control, and at what point will those who use false pretexts to assert control over others stop?

            As I have said before, most of the left does not tread this road with the intent of opening up death camps, but that is the very same road they are treading.

          • SCSIwuzzy

            That’s an existing exclusion on the ATF form today.
            Id be for tracking the crazies and those with incurable communicable diseases, but that has already been made impossible by the feel first think later crowd

          • sablegsd

            When is the regressive commicrat criminal mass murderer going to instruct his co-conspirator to prosecute, oh wait.

          • sablegsd

            When is the regressive commicrat criminal mass murderer going to instruct his co-conspirator to prosecute, oh wait.

          • jim_m

            Perhaps you should start with advocating the prosecution of David Gregory for violating the laws you are defending.

  • NMMNG

    Ha. the Hitler argument again. you lose.

    the gun control you fear was established in germany in 1928, before nazi’s had power. by 1938 those laws were overturned, the age for owning a firearm was lowered, and provisions regulating the amount and type of ammo an individual could own were dropped.

    The nazi’s made it easier for citizens to obtain and own firearms. hmm, who else likes doing that?

    • Brucehenry

      Citation needed

    • SCSIwuzzy

      Actually, it was 1919 that all firearms were banned in Germany, as well as ammunition. This was in part to comply with the treaty of Versailles.
      In 1928 the law was replaced allowing ownership of guns again, but a sep permit was needed to own, sell,carry or make guns.
      Hitler was not yet in power.
      In 1938, under Hitler, the law changed again. Permits were now only given to people that met criteria that met Nazi ideals. Jews, gypsies and gays, for instance, were not allowed to own guns.

      • SCSIwuzzy

        Oh, and govt employees and mebers of the Nazi party did not need the purchase permit to buy a gun. They did require permits to carry and own, however.

      • SCSIwuzzy

        oh and govt employees and party members didn’t need a permit to buy guns under Hitler.

  • JWH

    Apropos of nothing, does this call for less gun control or more gun control?

    http://cheezburger.com/6845010688

    • herddog505

      Sounds like a Darwin award to me.

      We had a fellow in my outfit who started wondering if his kevlar helmet was really bulletproof. Einstein decided to test the theory with his .357 Magnum revolver (happily, he had the good sense to put the helmet on the ground and not on somebody’s head).

      He was so outraged that the National Guard made him pay to replace the helmet.

      • JWH

        Sorry, you only qualify for the Darwin if you get yourself killed. No award here.

        • herddog505

          :-)

      • JWH

        Round about the late medieval/early Renaissance period, they did something similar. That is, armorers made armor heavier and heavier in part to stop these newfangled things called guns. Part of the process was actually shooting a gun at the armor … and you’d leave the bullet in so that a buyer could see that the armor was bulletproof.

        Or at least that’s what I read on the Internet, so it must be true.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE