NRA Says Congress Won't Pass Weapons Ban

VoiceOfReason2, I am aware of your 12 years of police duty. Thanks for your service. (No, I’m not clairvoyant; you posted a comment last year stating that). That is why I thought you were the best candidate to field my inquiries. You are correct, I do not (currently) object to your example of “violence based misdemeanor”: although I don’t necessarily endorse it, either. To be honest, I have not given the matter enough thought to form an intelligent opinion. I see the logic in denying those with anger management issues a firearm but for how long: 1 year; 5 years; 10 years; life? What of those that eventually grow up, mature and lose their violent tendencies? Shall we deprive them of their Second Amendment right for a 20-year-old, misdemeanor offense? I share your contempt for those that can smack around a family member. Is one of the rights you’d like to deny them oxygen? LoL. DON’T ANSWER THAT! I strongly agree with your refusal to register your weapons and, IF I owned any, I would certainly refuse to register them as well.

knoll911 – Perhaps you are correct, “some people do not even realize that every President has used them (“EOs” = Executive Orders) . But that is not the issue. The issue for every American SHOULD be … have (or ARE) presidents exceeding their constitutionally defined authority when they issue EOs. That brings me to, “where are you getting your definition of what an EO is/does? It can't be the Constitution, because it is not defined there.”. Actually, yes it is. The constitution clearly tells us there are three branches of government. These three branches are separate with specific constitutionally granted authorities. The Legislative Branch (Congress), has the constitutional authority to write law. The Executive Branch (president), has the constitutional authority to enforce laws passed by Congress and appoint members of cabinet subject to the approval Congress and veto laws passed by Congress; which, of course …. Congress has the authority to override. If you are not getting it yet … I'll phrase it another way. According to the constitution, Congress writes laws, not the president. Therefor, an EO issued by the president, that goes beyond dealing with the Executive Branch … and 'infringes' (separation of powers concept) on the Legislative Branch ….... IS IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION. As for your reference to Article II (section 3 or otherwise), the limits on the Executive Branch ARE NOT VAQUE! The Executive Branch is constrained by ….... Congress ….......

Truth Matters, if your statistics are anywhere close, it speaks for itself. I have always seen a lot of truth in movies like Red Dawn. I pity any country that thinks they can successfully attack and occupy the United States.

Weapons ban rather than registering all guns. We are on the same page. I will never voluntarily register my current guns. I have to admit I do not know what the current guidelines are for restricting someone from purchasing a gun. To your question about child support, if the only offense a person has committed is a non violent misdemeanor, then no, I don’t think they should be restricted from owning a gun. I don’t think you objected to my example of “violence based misdemeanor” being added to list if I read your commit correctly. I stand by that one. Something I did not list in my background was 12 years in law enforcement. What I did see in those 12 years, anyone that can smack around a family member is capable of anything and they should have no right to own a gun. There are a lot of other rights I would deny them, but I don’t have the final say on that one.

VoiceOfReason2, thank you for the clarification. I see that you clearly understand the significance between rights and privileges. I’ll leave it at that, other than to say, I hope America (or at least the 2 dozen readers of this dying site) are paying attention. Regarding WHO should be able to purchase guns, I did not, initially, find anything objectionable in your original post. However, you now open the door to other specific groups (such as “violence based misdemeanor”). I understand (please correct me if I’m wrong) that a person in arrears for child support is ineligible to purchase firearms. If the person in question has never been convicted of a violent crime do you believe it is reasonable to deny his or her Second Amendment Right simply for owing money? Regarding banning specific weapons, I understand and appreciate your logic regarding throwing them a crumb. To be honest, I would rather see a weapons ban of specific arms rather than a registration of existing firearms. (Although my position remains that government has no authority to meddle with our rights). We did, after all, survive Clinton’s ban and (just being realistic) bans do NOT stop the sale of those weapons or magazines. (Just as Prohibition did not stop the sale of alcohol).

roadrunner.com from last post.- We should fear our own government,with, out of control spending, socialism, and a president who seems to think he has a better way than the American Way. my own words...

HERE IS SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT... Adding up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion....There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin... Allow me to restate that number:600,000... Over the last several months, Wisconsin's hunters became the eigth largest army in the world!! MORE MEN UNDER ARMS THAN IN IRAN! More than France and Germany combined. America will be forever safe from foreign invasion with that kind of homegrown firepower. 600,000 in the woods of Wisconsin to hunt and not one person was killed.

A little clarification for Jim Schu. First, I agree with your assessment on rights versus privilege. The line between a carry conceal permit and the argument, why should I need a permit could be debated all day. The advantage I see to the carry permit being required by law is it does at least ensure that someone has had a minimum of hands on training/experience with a firearm. I am pretty sure that if anyone (not already prohibited – convicted felons, ect..) could carry a concealed weapon without a permit, there would be some percentage of people that would buy a gun, stick it in their waist band and venture out amongst us without ever firing it or knowing anything about their gun. It is a trade of that I am willing to live with. As far as some gun restrictions I am referring to expanded back ground checks. They could go beyond just checking for a felony criminal record. Do you have a violence based misdemeanor conviction (domestic violence would be one example) Are you a US citizen? Do you have a history of mental illness? This one gets tricky. How do you obtain and track this information with the HIPA laws? I don’t have an answer in regards to type of gun. I think this is just a crumb we throw the anti-gun groups to keep them at bay. Let’s face it. It would be easy to get around the assault rifle ban. Buy a Remington 30-06 automatic deer rifle and change out the stocks and grips with some aftermarket hardware (folding stock, high capacity clip, so on) and you are in business.

Issachar- I am not comparing Washington's EOs to Obama's or any other President's. I am pointing out the fact that some people do not even realize that every President has used them. Further, where are you getting your definition of what an EO is/does? It can't be the Constitution, because it is not defined there. Nor are any of those stipulations that you so cleverly placed in all caps as to make them more reliable I guess? I certainly don't know who told you that Congress has to pass an EO in order for it to carry the full force of the law. That would defeat the whole purpose of an EO. By the way, the Constitution places rather vague limits on the Executive Branch, as has Congress in the past 2 centuries or so. See Article II Section 3. Oh, and if you want to try to tell me George Washington didn't have EOs that supposedly violated the Constitution,then you need to do some more reading. See Washington's "Neutrality Order".

knoll911 - Some facts concerning Executive Orders: They carry the full force of law WHEN based on the president's CONSTITUTIONAL authority, AND, CONGRESS PASSED the Executive Order into law; Executive Orders direct federal agencies and officials in their IMPLEMENTATION OF CONGRESSIONAL LAWS AND POLICIES; A federal court can 'enforce' an Executive Order IF … CONGRESS ENACTED IT AND IT DOES NOT CONTRADICT FEDERAL LAW. When discussing Executive Orders … one might want to consider whether or not the Executive Branch exceeds the constitutional authority 'granted' to ONE of three branches of our government by, We The People. PS: George Washington's first issued Executive Order DID NOT violate the constitution because it in no way could have been construed as exceeding Executive Branch authority as limited by the constitution.