Executive Order

50 posts / 0 new
Last post
AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6559
Executive Order

Regardless of were you stand on the gun control issue, do you think President Obama should go through the normal channels to make gun laws, or do you think that it is ok for him to make Executive Orders on something so controversial?

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

I guess we will soon find out if those of us who said before he was re-elected that he would start pushing things through by executive order were right or not. Of course these kind of things should be legislated through Congress.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

I'm 100% fine with him using an Executive Order to get gun control legislation created. And I didn't vote for Obama in this last election or the one before it. I've never voted Democrat, in fact.

Republicans have proven that they won't work with ANYthing, even when common sense mandates that they ought to, so he needs to go over their heads to get anything done. This isn't about Obama, this is about obstinate republicans who have dedicated themselves to gridlock and non action, even when it works against the best wishes of their constituents and the nation at large, IMO.

I'm also hugely in favor of gun control, Obvs, so clearly that skews my opinion on the matter. If you hate the idea of your "rights" to weapons of mass destruction being limited in any way, of course you are going to be against this idea.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"Potter75" wrote:

I'm 100% fine with him using an Executive Order to get gun control legislation created. And I didn't vote for Obama in this last election or the one before it. I've never voted Democrat, in fact.

Republicans have proven that they won't work with ANYthing, even when common sense mandates that they ought to, so he needs to go over their heads to get anything done. This isn't about Obama, this is about obstinate republicans who have dedicated themselves to gridlock and non action, even when it works against the best wishes of their constituents and the nation at large, IMO.

I'm also hugely in favor of gun control, Obvs, so clearly that skews my opinion on the matter. If you hate the idea of your "rights" to weapons of mass destruction being limited in any way, of course you are going to be against this idea.

I agree with this, except that of course I did vote for Obama. However, while I am a registered Democrat, I actually do believe that the country benefits from having both sides work together. I think that having a diversity of thought and focus is beneficial to all of us, and I believe that having sane, thoughtful Conservatives and sane thoughtful Liberals working together and coming up with compromises is the best scenario for our country. However, it seems to me that most of the current batch of Republicans are not interested in working with anyone except to "Just Say No" as they have so proudly proclaimed. If someone won't work with you and is actively stopping you from getting anything done at all, you may have to side step them. That's a shame because your projects may well suffer from the lack of a different perspective, but it's better than never being able to get anything at all done.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6559

I do think there should be some basic gun control laws put into place, such as back ground checks and waiting times. However, I feel the proper way to get it done is through the checks and balance of Congress. The very reason there is a balance of power is so that no one person has that much control.

I will confess that I am ignorant on exactly how it works. Is there anything Congress can do to over ride an executive order?

Would you feel the same about Executive Order if it was a Republican president making an executive order banning abortion? Do you not feel that it would be better for major controversial issues to go through the proper channels?

ETA - What if the shoe was on the other foot. What if it was a Conservative president with a very sweeping conservative agenda that went against everything you believed in? Would you not want your representatives to dig their heals in and represent what you wanted and to say no change is better than change for the worse? If the issues were not gun control and universal healthcare, but instead were banning abortion, federal bans on gay marriage, removing minimum wage and other issues that you were really against. Wouldn't you hope that the president would work through Congress and not just give Executive order on huge controversial big ticket items? Keep in mind that what Obama does now will set the precedent for the future when it might not be a president that you support.

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

I think it is a horrible precedent for the President to make.. pun intended ;).
I do not think Executive Orders should be used for large policy. For one Executive Orders can be changed with the president, as far as I know.
Secondly, it should be reserved for emergencies and for issues that the public should or can not for some reason be privy too. I see the latter in cases of Executive Pardons. And the first in cases of war or national disasters of a high enough magnitude as to not wait to deal with.
It is way better in the long run for both sides of the issue to go through the Senate and the HOUSE.. There is a reason that there are checks and balances in our Constitution.
It just reeks again of throwing our Constitution out because there is a "better way"... Hope and Change are meaningless words ... Hope in WHAT.. Change to WHAT.. The WHAT is the important word, the rest can be used for ill or good.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I do think there should be some basic gun control laws put into place, such as back ground checks and waiting times. However, I feel the proper way to get it done is through the checks and balance of Congress. The very reason there is a balance of power is so that no one person has that much control.

I will confess that I am ignorant on exactly how it works. Is there anything Congress can do to over ride an executive order?

Would you feel the same about Executive Order if it was a Republican president making an executive order banning abortion? Do you not feel that it would be better for major controversial issues to go through the proper channels?

Well, in fairness, Republic presidents HAVE used plenty of Executive Orders, some of which were pretty controversial at the time. Here's a list of GWB's more controversial ones.

The top Bush executive orders that Obama should scrap immediately. - Slate Magazine

Having said that, I agree again that having both parties work together to come up with a compromise that hopefully everyone can live with is the best case scenario. But you can't work with people who have made it a matter of policy NOT to work with you, so that doesn't leave a lot of options if you want to get things done.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6559

Let's add in some other things that you are opening the door to when Obama is no longer the POTUS and someone else is. Doing away with term limits? Forced military service? Anything at all. I can as Rivergallery mentioned see in emergencies using something like this, but as an everyday way to go around the balance of power and congress? Horrible decision.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6559

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Well, in fairness, Republic presidents HAVE used plenty of Executive Orders, some of which were pretty controversial at the time. Here's a list of GWB's more controversial ones.

The top Bush executive orders that Obama should scrap immediately. - Slate Magazine

Having said that, I agree again that having both parties work together to come up with a compromise that hopefully everyone can live with is the best case scenario. But you can't work with people who have made it a matter of policy NOT to work with you, so that doesn't leave a lot of options if you want to get things done.

I don't know too many people that think President Bush was a wonderful President. I do not think the fact that he did it makes something a good idea.

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

double post

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Let's add in some other things that you are opening the door to when Obama is no longer the POTUS and someone else is. Doing away with term limits? Forced military service? Anything at all. I can as Rivergallery mentioned see in emergencies using something like this, but as an everyday way to go around the balance of power and congress? Horrible decision.

Bonita, you know that Republicans have used this aplenty? Right? This isn't, like, unique to Obama! YOu are talking like he would be the first ever to use it and everything could go to he!1 based upon this happening. Its silly doomsday fearmongering totally not based in any sort of reality or historical precedent.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I don't know too many people that think President Bush was a wonderful President. I do not think the fact that he did it makes something a good idea.

Okay, here are Ronald Reagan's for you instead.

Reagan Executive Orders Disposition Tables

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6559

"Potter75" wrote:

Bonita, you know that Republicans have used this aplenty? Right? This isn't, like, unique to Obama! YOu are talking like he would be the first ever to use it and everything could go to he!1 based upon this happening. Its silly doomsday fearmongering totally not based in any sort of reality or historical precedent.

Using EO to ban guns is huge in my opinion. Look even just on this board and how split we are on this issue.

ETA - It does not matter how many times something has happened in the past. It can still be a very bad idea. In the past, it was illegal for woman to vote and own property. Does that make it a good idea?

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Using EO to ban guns is huge in my opinion. Look even just on this board and how split we are on this issue.

He isn't going to ban all guns.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I don't know too many people that think President Bush was a wonderful President. I do not think the fact that he did it makes something a good idea.

I'm not saying that the fact that George W Bush did it makes it a totally great idea. I'm just responding to your question of "How would you feel if a Republican president did it?" and I'm saying, they do it too, and we lived.

Here is a list of all of the Executive Orders by President going back to Hoover.
Executive Orders Disposition Tables Index

In order to get the number, subtract the first number (in Obama's case, 13489) from the second number (13632). Since they go in order, this will tell you how many Executive Order each president has signed (and tell you that 13,632 have been signed so far!)

Obama - 143
George W Bush - 290
Clinton - 363
George HW Bush - 165
Ronald Reagan - 380

and so on. Obviously, not all of those were emergencies, and some were controversial. I guess all I'm really saying is, it happens, and it happens with every President. It's not unique to Obama.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6559

"Potter75" wrote:

He isn't going to ban all guns.

I wasn't saying that he was. Banning some guns, is still banning guns. (I am not saying that shouldn't happen. There are some guns that I do not feel need to be in the hands of civilians, I do not think it should be done by executive order though.)

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

ETA - It does not matter how many times something has happened in the past. It can still be a very bad idea. In the past, it was illegal for woman to vote and own property. Does that make it a good idea?

Well, blame the constitution then for allowing Executive Orders. To compare it to not allowing women to vote is not a valid argument.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4097

"Potter75" wrote:

I'm 100% fine with him using an Executive Order to get gun control legislation created. And I didn't vote for Obama in this last election or the one before it. I've never voted Democrat, in fact.

Republicans have proven that they won't work with ANYthing, even when common sense mandates that they ought to, so he needs to go over their heads to get anything done. This isn't about Obama, this is about obstinate republicans who have dedicated themselves to gridlock and non action, even when it works against the best wishes of their constituents and the nation at large, IMO.

I'm also hugely in favor of gun control, Obvs, so clearly that skews my opinion on the matter. If you hate the idea of your "rights" to weapons of mass destruction being limited in any way, of course you are going to be against this idea.

ITA with this. I think Obama will try to get gun control done the right way, but will resort to an Executive Order if he has to, because it's the right thing to do for our country at this time. I'm not too worried about future conservative Presidents abusing this power in the future. Executive Orders can be overturned by the Supreme Court. They also can't make an entirely new law -- only clarify or further an existing law -- so there's no risk of banning abortion or gay marriage because those would be making a new law. That's also going to limit what Obama will be able to do with an Executive Order on gun control.

And Rivergallery, the Constitution is exactly where I see that the President is given this authority. Article II, Section 3, says, "[the President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6559

"Potter75" wrote:

To compare it to not allowing women to vote is not a valid argument.

I do not understand your reasoning? Why is it not a valid argument to use woman not voting to say that just because something happened in the past does not mean it is right.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6559

"Spacers" wrote:

I'm not too worried about future conservative Presidents abusing this power in the future. Executive Orders can be overturned by the Supreme Court. They also can't make an entirely new law -- only clarify or further an existing law -- so there's no risk of banning abortion or gay marriage because those would be making a new law. That's also going to limit what Obama will be able to do with an Executive Order on gun control.

This is what I am looking for. I admit to not knowing all of the details. So Obama could not make a law banning assault weapons?

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I do not understand your reasoning? Why is it not a valid argument to use woman not voting to say that just because something happened in the past does not mean it is right.

Because use of Executive orders are constitutionally sound and there is mad historical and current/recent precedent for it. They are not an archaic practice nor are they bigoted or racist or exclusionary or historically dated or in any way related to the practice of not allowing women to vote or any other outdated practice. Your comparison does not make sense. It attempts to be emotional, but it isn't sound.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6559

"Potter75" wrote:

Because use of Executive orders are constitutionally sound and there is mad historical and current/recent precedent for it. They are not an archaic practice nor are they bigoted or racist or exclusionary or historically dated or in any way related to the practice of not allowing women to vote or any other outdated practice. Your comparison does not make sense. It attempts to be emotional, but it isn't sound.

It was a general comparison that just because something has happened in the past, does not mean it is right. It was not comparing it to EO or anything else specifically.

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Spacers" wrote:

ITA with this. I think Obama will try to get gun control done the right way, but will resort to an Executive Order if he has to, because it's the right thing to do for our country at this time. I'm not too worried about future conservative Presidents abusing this power in the future. Executive Orders can be overturned by the Supreme Court. They also can't make an entirely new law -- only clarify or further an existing law -- so there's no risk of banning abortion or gay marriage because those would be making a new law. That's also going to limit what Obama will be able to do with an Executive Order on gun control.

And Rivergallery, the Constitution is exactly where I see that the President is given this authority. Article II, Section 3, says, "[the President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

Do you think taking care that laws be faithfully executed is ... an executive order?

Joined: 05/23/12
Posts: 680

I'm totally in favor of it. I am very happy for gun control being pushed through by way of executive orders. It's apparently the only way to get things done. There could be unfortunately other issues which I oppose get pushed through by EO and I do worry about that.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4097

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

This is what I am looking for. I admit to not knowing all of the details. So Obama could not make a law banning assault weapons?

He could not make a *new* law banning assault weapons but he could take California's law or New York's law which bans them and extend it to all other states. He could extend the waiting period and background check laws that some states have, to all other states. He could establish a national gun registry. All of those, I believe, could be done by Executive Order.

Here's an interesting article on what both sides of the issue have wrong about the Second Amendment.
Mike Amato: Repealing the Second Amendment -- What the Left and Right Have Gotten Wrong

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6559

"Spacers" wrote:

He could not make a *new* law banning assault weapons but he could take California's law or New York's law which bans them and extend it to all other states. He could extend the waiting period and background check laws that some states have, to all other states. He could establish a national gun registry. All of those, I believe, could be done by Executive Order.

Thank you for the explanation. I do think though that the whole practice is terrible. Why have a congress at all? Where is the people representation at all?

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4097

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Thank you for the explanation. I do think though that the whole practice is terrible. Why have a congress at all? Where is the people representation at all?

The people elected him.

mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1533

I do not like EO when used on big issues like this, whichever side is using it. I like the checks and balances put into place. I also think given this political climate our nation is in right now, it will cause major issues if this is not done through the legislative channels

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

At least he was smart enought not to try and ban guns by executive order which would have exceeded his authority.

List of executive actions Obama plans to take as part of anti-gun violence plan | Fox News

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

I am curious how all the debaters that are so adamant about HIPAA laws being enforced feel about Obama wanting to bypass HIPAA for gun background checks.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

Read more: List of executive actions Obama plans to take as part of anti-gun violence plan | Fox News

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

I am adamant that my ignorant religious zealot of an employer not know about my abortion (hypothetical, I neither have an abortion or an employer) or my use of BCP so that he cant use it against me or fire me. I am adamant that no employer needs to know about their employees STD treatment, or their high blood pressure, it isn't their business, and fear of lack of privacy in the workplace could and would cause employees from getting the treatment that they need.

I could care less if a "system" flags a crazy person/stranger to the gun shop owner and turns them down in their application process for buying a gun. Just like I would be adamant that my employer not be able to poke into my personal credit for no reason, but if I apply for a credit card, or try to run my credit card at a store and get turned down for it, I don't feel that that is an invasion of my credit privacy.

Are you against mental health screenings, Gloria? That shocks me. I thought you blamed crazy people and drugs for the violence, I would think that this made you happy with Obama.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6559

Do you not think people will be less open with their doctors if they feel the doctor will report their findings to the government?

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Do you not think people will be less open with their doctors if they feel the doctor will report their findings to the government?

Dr's are already mandated reporters if they think that a patient is a danger to themselves or others.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

"Potter75" wrote:

Are you against mental health screenings, Gloria? That shocks me. I thought you blamed crazy people and drugs for the violence, I would think that this made you happy with Obama.

So who determines what is crazy? Should anyone who takes a drug for depression or has in the past be denied their 2nd amendment rights? It doesn't concern you at all who would be able to see this information and what judgements would be made based on someone's medical history?

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

So who determines what is crazy? Should anyone who takes a drug for depression or has in the past be denied their 2nd amendment rights? It doesn't concern you at all who would be able to see this information and what judgements would be made based on someone's medical history?

What do you think? I am in favor of less guns out there, so what do you THINK I'm going to say?

Who do you want to determine who is crazy? Its funny now that there is a chance to have mental health screening and a chance to have these people who are on these drugs that you were decrying kept from owning guns you are changing your tune..............funny but sadly not surprising.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

I wonder if this could include concealed weapons training for school officials?

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

Read more: List of executive actions Obama plans to take as part of anti-gun violence plan | Fox News

This school in Ohio just voted to arm their janitors, maybe they can use the money from this executive order to train them.

Ohio school district votes to allow janitors to carry guns on campus - NY Daily News

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

"Potter75" wrote:

What do you think? I am in favor of less guns out there, so what do you THINK I'm going to say?

Who do you want to determine who is crazy? Its funny now that there is a chance to have mental health screening and a chance to have these people who are on these drugs that you were decrying kept from owning guns you are changing your tune..............funny but sadly not surprising.

You do understand that a background check is not going to stop a crazy person from buying a gun if they want one right? It only affects whether they buy it from a gun dealer or a drug dealer.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

You do understand that a background check is not going to stop a crazy person from buying a gun if they want one right? It only affects whether they buy it from a gun dealer or a drug dealer.

Right, back to the "why bother to have any laws" argument. Gotcha. Why bother to have drug laws, or traffic laws, either? Yawn.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

Ya I'm thinking that we should check people when they go to buy a car and if any of them joined AA they shouldn't be able to buy a car because they might drive drunk.

Also it's possible that someone might yell "fire" in a crowded theater, so we are going to gag everyone as they go into the theater to make sure that doesn't happen.

Afer all we need to stop crimes before they happen right?

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Ya I'm thinking that we should check people when they go to buy a car and if any of them joined AA they shouldn't be able to buy a car because they might drive drunk.

Also it's possible that someone might yell "fire" in a crowded theater, so we are going to gag everyone as they go into the theater to make sure that doesn't happen.

Afer all we need to stop crimes before they happen right?

Its the people who are going to AA who should be able to buy cars, not the ones going to bars every weekend, I would think. Either way, these are not compelling arguments to me, these are silly. As is the idea that a kid like Adam Lanza is just going to trot down to to the local drug dealer and buy himself a semi automatic rifle. The kid was socially inept and a total frightened weirdo and lived in a rich, well off town where the local drug lords didn't exactly hang out on every corner with a sign up for little white boys to come buy guns. Do you really think that "buying high powered rifles" from ones local drug dealer is so easy to do? I don't.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

"Potter75" wrote:

Its the people who are going to AA who should be able to buy cars, not the ones going to bars every weekend, I would think. Either way, these are not compelling arguments to me, these are silly. As is the idea that a kid like Adam Lanza is just going to trot down to to the local drug dealer and buy himself a semi automatic rifle. The kid was socially inept and a total frightened weirdo and lived in a rich, well off town where the local drug lords didn't exactly hang out on every corner with a sign up for little white boys to come buy guns. Do you really think that "buying high powered rifles" from ones local drug dealer is so easy to do? I don't.

Just so you know an AR-15 is not a high powered rifle. It fact it has less power than most rifles that is why it is not allowed for hunting in some places because it is less likely to bring a large animal down.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Just so you know an AR-15 is not a high powered rifle. It fact it has less power than most rifles that is why it is not allowed for hunting in some places because it is less likely to bring a large animal down.

Oh, well in that case, it is perfect for mowing down small children. Didn't even leave any wounded. Just murdered.

And you neatly avoided my point about some crazy social outcast having no means of getting a gun from the "local drug lord". You throw that out there like we all have a handy local drug lord in our back pocket to buy guns from in case we are a little crazy on the side. It is not a strong argument.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

"Potter75" wrote:

Oh, well in that case, it is perfect for mowing down small children. Didn't even leave any wounded. Just murdered.

And you neatly avoided my point about some crazy social outcast having no means of getting a gun from the "local drug lord". You throw that out there like we all have a handy local drug lord in our back pocket to buy guns from in case we are a little crazy on the side. It is not a strong argument.

That was just a joke. They don't really have to go to a drug lord. Online classifieds will do.
Gun Classifieds, Buy and sell your firearms for FREE - gunlistings.org

Drug Lords are high tech these days.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6559

"Potter75" wrote:

And you neatly avoided my point about some crazy social outcast having no means of getting a gun from the "local drug lord". You throw that out there like we all have a handy local drug lord in our back pocket to buy guns from in case we are a little crazy on the side. It is not a strong argument.

If someone really wants a gun, they can get one. I Googled how to buy a gun in _____________, and many options came up. Albit, it is a lot easier to buy a gun here than it is in other cities.

ETA - Even in NY where it is one of the most difficult areas to buy a gun you can. ARMSLIST - Buffalo Gun Classifieds

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

That was just a joke. They don't really have to go to a drug lord. Online classifieds will do.
Gun Classifieds, Buy and sell your firearms for FREE - gunlistings.org

Drug Lords are high tech these days.

Excellent, if those listings are that easy to find they will be that easy to shut down once they are outlawed:)

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

"Potter75" wrote:

Excellent, if those listings are that easy to find they will be that easy to shut down once they are outlawed:)

Riggghhht. And 3 million AR-15 owners are just going to march down and turn theirs in.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Riggghhht. And 3 million AR-15 owners are just going to march down and turn theirs in.

Hey, if they become illegal and people don't want to do the right thing I will happily call them criminals. Thats up to them, of course.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I don't really understand what you want, Gloria. My impression was that you and the NRA think that "crazy people" are to blame for the shootings in this country, not guns. Now the President is trying to make it harder for "crazy people" to buy guns, and that's a bad thing, and we're back to the "criminals break laws" argument. Okay, so by that logic, why have any laws, since criminals will just break them anyway. Like, other than personally handing each American citizen a semi-automatic handgun and Rambo style bullet belt, is there anything at all that Obama could do that would think is a good move for dealing with gun violence in this country?

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I don't really understand what you want, Gloria. My impression was that you and the NRA think that "crazy people" are to blame for the shootings in this country, not guns. Now the President is trying to make it harder for "crazy people" to buy guns, and that's a bad thing, and we're back to the "criminals break laws" argument. Okay, so by that logic, why have any laws, since criminals will just break them anyway. Like, other than personally handing each American citizen a semi-automatic handgun and Rambo style bullet belt, is there anything at all that Obama could do that would think is a good move for dealing with gun violence in this country?

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Locking up all the guns in the world are not going to stop some crazy lunatic from killing people if thats what they want to do. It's not going to stop criminals from using guns to kill people either. Unless you can somehow get into a crazy person's brain and predict what they are going to do, you are not going to be able to stop them. All you can do is protect yourself as much as you can.

Most of the gun violence isn't from crazy people or mass shootings. It happens in inner cities in gangs or over drugs with HANDGUNS. That is where 67% of gun violence happens. If you want to stop gun violence that is where we need to focus. Instead of spending money trying to take AR-15s from law abiding citizens who don't use them for crimes, spend that money on programs to help these kids that are growing up in single parent homes. I saw one statistic that said a youth has a 3.8% greater chance of dying by gun violence just if they are in a single parent home. Spending another million on background checks for law abiding citizens isn't going to help, because those aren't the people that are shooting each other.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

Gloria - You want to spend money to benefit disadvantaged kids! That is so...progressive of you. I totally agree we need to do that. Smile I think we need to do other things too, but money for disadvantaged kids is something that we can agree on. Smile

Log in or register to post comments