Do you Agree with our President using Executive Action to Help Address the Critical Issue of Gun Violence?

SPC Andrew Griffin — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 09:51:55 -0500

Do you Agree with the steps President Obama is taking to address the Issue of Gun Violence is this Country? Is he wrong for trying to do something about it?

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2016 9:52 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 09:52:56 -0500

Not sure how to answer your question, but I will say the pic you used is a tad on the creepy side.

Response by Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin made Jan 5 at 2016 10:10 AM

Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 10:10:53 -0500

This is grand standing by the President and nothing more. He has threatened to use executive privilege to get the GOP all riled up in hopes to paint them as gun nuts. There is nothing significant he can do without Congress and he refuses to work with them to seek out reasonable and effective solutions. The President wants guns banned and knows he will never get that. So starting a campaign to demonize guns and their owners is all he can do.

Toward that end, the President's antics have actually attributed to more record gun ownership and sales.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jan 5 at 2016 10:30 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 10:30:20 -0500

No. His measures will have no effect on gun violence but will distract from his foreign policy failures.

Response by TSgt John Hotelling made Jan 5 at 2016 10:35 AM

TSgt John Hotelling — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 10:35:19 -0500

Absolutely NOT. His job is to make sure the laws are enforced it is congresses job to make laws not his. Besides that Why does the majority of legal law abiding citizens have to be punished for criminals. Also what part of SHALL NOT BR INFRINGED does he fail to understand He is violating his oath of office by failing to follow the constitution.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2016 10:36 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 10:36:17 -0500

I think the proper method for implementing changes in law for background checks is though legislation passed by Congress. To date, I have yet to hear any bill introduced by the President's allies to do that. Not now, and not when they were in the majority.
I think that if the President feels this issue is important, the timing is very suspect. Clearly this is a case of making this item an election year issue. If he really felt strongly about it, he could have done this the Constitutional way in his first years in office. Or done this executive order after any one of a number of mass shootings that have occurred. But he didn't, because the politics were different then.

Having said that, I am in favor of background checks for all gun purchases. This is common sense, in my mind.
I also think that this action will do next to nothing to end or reduce gun-related violence, because criminals will continue to get guns the way they always have.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Jan 5 at 2016 10:37 AM

Capt Richard I P. — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 10:37:22 -0500

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Response by SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT made Jan 5 at 2016 10:38 AM

SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 10:38:33 -0500

He needs to address the horrible situation in urban areas.
His home town Chicago #1 in murders especially black on black youths
Where the strictest gun laws do nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining weapons.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jan 5 at 2016 10:38 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 10:38:42 -0500

This assumes there is a "critical issue with Gun Violence."

We must first look at two things.

1) Why are we segregating Violence based on the Tool? It's just Violence.
2) Is there a "critical issue with (Gun) Violence?

Let's address 2) first. ALL Violence, to include "gun" violence has been on the (steady) decline for the last 40 years. That being said, is this really a "critical" issue? As gun sales are increasing EXPONENTIALLY, and VIOLENCE is decreasing steadily, we must look at your premise as false.

So, why should the President use Executive Action, which is designed ONLY in absence of Law, or to Clarify existing Law to "solve a problem" which does not actually exist?

Response by SFC Everett Oliver made Jan 5 at 2016 10:40 AM

SFC Everett Oliver — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 10:40:51 -0500

There is no doubt in my mind that the only thing the President can accomplish with his illegal move against the American people is to make it more difficult for an honest person to protect their own. He fails to admit that gun violence is created by criminals and terrorists, and all the laws in the world cannot stop a criminal from being a criminal, or a terrorist from being a terrorist. This latest bout of anti gun BS came out because of a terrorist attack, and he hasn't even admitted that. Don't step all over the 2ND Amendment to make a piss poor excuse to stop what never happened. An American criminal did not commit the shootings but two radical islamists did. One who happened to be a citizen, one who was supposedly a vetted immigrant, and the "President" wants my guns? I don't think I'll turn them over this year.....

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2016 10:45 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 10:45:34 -0500

SPC Andrew Griffin Great question!
It's not that he is using executive action to achieve a goal that is the problem.
He says he is doing it because Congress will not, which is not a true statement. Congress has done what he asked multiple times and in return asked him to consider amendments to the legislation to fix errors. Instead of considering amendments he uses executive orders to rewrite the law. His administration's law. Think about that.
He has used executive orders to block legislative action and to out flank members of Congress.
He uses it at his own discretion and not in the interests of the country or the population as a whole.
How do we know this? Because, he uses it on issues he wants to put through but doesn't use it if it's not something he's personally interested in, saying he has no power to act.

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Jan 5 at 2016 11:00 AM

SGT Ben Keen — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 11:00:29 -0500

Let's face it, those that commit violence with guns do not care about laws. Therefore, putting more laws in place will do nothing to stop the violence. Removing the laws are not the answer either. The answer to all this craziness is yet to be seen. Some will say understanding and tolerance is the answer but where do you start with that? "Respect" others yell but again, where do you start with that? "Remove all guns" comes from the back, yet from the front others yell "Not from my cold dead hands".

I think people should remember that violence has always been a part of the human existence. Since the earliest of men threw their first rock at their neighbor, violence has been on this earth. There is no clear cut answer to the problem.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2016 11:18 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 11:18:30 -0500

.... ... I really have nothing worthy of saying ... ... and not getting into trouble :P.

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Jan 5 at 2016 11:20 AM

SGT Bryon Sergent — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 11:20:49 -0500

I didn't know that the president could make Law even with an executive order! I thought only the Congress could make law. That was why the separation of powers and the reason the founding fathers separated it that way!

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2016 11:22 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 11:22:18 -0500

No, this is a dangerous and slippery slope. I have followed the administration closely on this topic and find a clear and present agenda that will open the door to more, sinister actions in the future. The following is just one example.

http://woundedamericanwarrior.com/breaking-heres-whats-inside-obamas-unconstitutional-gun-ban-legislation-of-2016

BREAKING: Here's What's inside Obama's Unconstitutional Gun Ban Legislation of 2016 — Freedom...

The scariest part in the description of the proposed bill is the part where it states “and for other purposes.” What exactly are those other purposes?

Response by SrA Jonathan Carbonaro made Jan 5 at 2016 11:23 AM

SrA Jonathan Carbonaro — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 11:23:43 -0500

Not just NO, but HELL NO.
I don't want someone who doesn't know which end is the dangerous end of a gun, telling me about Gun Violence.
I personally find it Funny, that a man that studied the Constitution, openly violates it so much. What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED does he not understand?

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Jan 5 at 2016 11:43 AM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 11:43:40 -0500

Yea, let's take guns away from the law abiding citizen, that way the criminal element will have free reign. Obama has motives, he's a smart dud, or those pulling his strings!

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2016 11:50 AM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 11:50:33 -0500

No, i don't agree. Executive Orders are not legislation and the US Constitution Article 1 Section 1 gives all legislative power to the congress. We saw what the left did during the bush administration regarding EO's and signing statements, why so quiet when the president is a democrat?

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Jan 5 at 2016 12:06 PM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 12:06:58 -0500

Well, no. The executive action intends to add more government oversight on the legal sale of firearms by smaller private sellers. Disregarding the executive overreach it represents for a moment, I simply cannot draw a linkage to how this will reduce violence. Where is the violence occurring? By whom? Will the criminals care at all about the new policy? Will it make a single criminal seller stop selling illegally? There appears to be no link between the root causes of violence and this new policy, other than to make unknowledgeable people "feel better".

Response by PO2 Mark Saffell made Jan 5 at 2016 12:46 PM

PO2 Mark Saffell — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 12:46:28 -0500

I do not agree with him on this. Its a BS way to make it harder for Americans to own a gun. Criminals don't buy there guns at Gin Shows. Why would a criminal pay full price for something they can buy on the street for $20.. and anyone with any brains knows this. Bad guys aren't going to pay to get into a gun show with cops all around and then pay full or nearly full price for something they can steal or buy for nothing. He is pandering to the left which may well backfire because it will get people out to vote the Dems out of office and cost HRC he chance.

Response by PO1 Glenn Boucher made Jan 5 at 2016 1:09 PM

PO1 Glenn Boucher — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 13:09:43 -0500

I have no problem with background checks being performed when purchasing a firearm. Even at gun shows make the potential sale and if the buyer passes a background check then they get the gun and the sale is finalized.
I know some people will say that its their right and that you should be able to get that gun on the spot if so desired. If we had a background check that worked that fast, like in the movies, then we could do it.
The thing I disagree with is that the President never fully addresses the criminals using guns on the street illegally. Yes he mentioned about the 15 year old kid getting killed while shielding 3 girls during some type of drive by shooting but that's about it.
Get the illegal guns off the streets and lock up those who use guns in the commission of a crime. Also prosecute those straw buyers to the full extent of the law and don't allow any plea bargaining for a reduced sentence.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Jan 5 at 2016 1:46 PM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 13:46:17 -0500

His illegal actions will have no impact on gun violence in America. This is just a political ploy to garner headlines and a continuation of his illegal power grab. When this ends up in court (and it will the first time someone is not allowed to buy a gun because of his "rules"), the court will deem it unlawful, just like they did his illegal immigration actions.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Jan 5 at 2016 2:00 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 14:00:26 -0500

President Obama is not wrong to address the Issue of Gun violence and as all presidents before him that have issued Executive Orders the US Constitution gives Presidents the power to do; citizens and congress have the power of the courts and vote to disagree.

Response by PO3 John Jeter made Jan 5 at 2016 2:42 PM

PO3 John Jeter — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 14:42:49 -0500

First he picks and chooses which laws he wants to abide by, then he tries to use executive action to subvert the legislative process in favor of his own agenda (Which seldom appears to be in the best interests of our country).

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2016 3:04 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 15:04:12 -0500

The Executive Action by the President will only work on law abiding citizens. I'm pretty sure criminals couldn't care less! Just another thumb in the eye of honest citizens.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2016 3:05 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 15:05:23 -0500

No, I do not agree with the CIC's approach to handling firearms related violence.
No, I do not think he is wrong for trying to do something about it

Listen-Unless the Chief Executive is about to unilaterally "ban" a wide swath of the weapons currently owned by a least 96 million Americans...this is little more than "legacy". Politically, he needs show that he "did something"...background checks are pretty much standard issue already; unless Hillary wins the election, it's over in less than a year anyway.

The real question is what would REALLY impact the safety of American citizens? Make a 9 mm handgun or a "military looking" .223 semi-automatic rifle illegal, and you've got some law abiding folks who will turn theirs in, reluctantly...some who will immediately become "criminals" because they won't (including a whole lot of tax paying, otherwise squeaky clean citizens)...and a vast majority of people who will simply do nothing until an officer of the law shows up to confiscate it. One, that could take a LONG time, two, cost a fortune, and three, create some serious "separation of powers" incidents when local authorities don't comply. Bottom line, it won't happen, and everyone knows it. Meanwhile, you simultaneously increase the volume of black market weapons sales, and put a large number of the population on "edge" that wasn't 24 hrs before. None of that equates to a "solution".

Killers, terrorists, organized criminals, militias, gangs...does anyone really think these parties will be seriously impacted by anything put on paper? Of course not. Career criminals don't buy guns...nut-jobs might, but will steal one if they can't. Sure, the mentally unstable guy in the 'Burbs is going to have a harder time getting a weapon than just going to Crazy Uncle Joe's closet or the local gun-show...and I'll admit that that is a good goal to have. Admitting that is, in fact, a good goal is important.

The problem I, and I believe most people have is that this could be accomplished by other, less intrusive (to the general public) means, and at its heart; None of this is about addressing "Crazy Uncle Joe" and the "gun show", as much as it is about re-creating American society into one where it is "abnormal" to have a weapon for one's own defense. More to the point, I believe that ideologically, the real "goal" is to re-condition society into one that "accepts" that only law enforcement and military personnel (and only while performing duty) should have that power. I don't have a tin foil hat, or think that's a default prelude to concentration camps...but I know enough proponents of "Gun Control" to believe that that's what most of them sincerely think being "civilized" is all about, and I don't concur.

All the currently proposed plan needs to fail is for a weapon, legal or otherwise...to get into the hands of someone with criminal/evil intent. This will happen...once is once too often. The real way to curb, reduce, prevent these tragedies is complex, but possible. First, let's stop looking for "syndromes" to attach to common human conditions. Classrooms are out of control because teachers don't have the legal right...or intestinal fortitude to control them. Young people feel out of place because we promote "inclusion" and "tolerance"...but glorify only physical perfection and idealize brutality. Kids grow up seeing that educators, parents, mentors don't have power and are afraid of everything...the guy with the gun isn't afraid. No one trusts authority to be either principled or powerful enough to counteract what they see on the streets and experience on a daily basis. Grown men and women dress up like comic book characters because reality is no longer good enough. Americans are constantly reminded that they are weaker because they live in the "First World"...demanded to pay observance of everyone's "feelings", but given no room to address their own. We are becoming ashamed of being ourselves, cynical about the future, and addicted to being "heard" (yeah, me too).

We need to re-instill the sense that free people are compassionate AND empowered. Instead of teaching people to fear weapons, let's teach people to respect them. Want less "wannabes"? Let's stop creating a "tacti-cult" that leads otherwise sensible humans to buy millions of dollars of MagPul-em gear each year, and bring back the idea that learning to shoot, hunt and survive is just a part of being a free citizen. Let's teach youths that sometimes, you end up with a black eye...and then you shake hands. Do all that, and less people will think it's "scary" to have to have a basic look into someone's background before selling them the power over life and death. Don't do that, and perfectly reasonable people like myself will assume that the legalistic, "trained pony" society we've created will take away our basic right to self-preservation simply because someone writes a two page comment on RP ;)

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Jan 5 at 2016 4:30 PM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 16:30:31 -0500

Obama gave a speech and rattles on if all the things this will not stop. And his only reason we might ave one person. Lol, tell that to the family who's child was hunted down and killed by a gang banger.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Jan 5 at 2016 5:35 PM

SSG Warren Swan — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 17:35:44 -0500

I FIRMLY believe his heart is in the right place, and while I'm no Obama-Stan, there is no one who could tell me otherwise, or at least make me believe it. I also BELIEVE his "advisers" are only serving themselves. But that isn't just an Obama thing, it happens with everyone in elected office. In ANY presidents case, the moment something happens, folks want instant answers, instant advise, and instant solutions. It's made this way by the news pundits (pick your poison on who you watch). So in Obama's case, I'll use ISIS. He was slow in making any decision. He finally makes one, and to lamestream media it wasn't enough. If it's not enough for you, then enlist and go over there and make a difference. Ok he takes the decision and adds more to it, again, not enough. We want BOG!! We want absolute destruction. We want to use nukes and make it a green parking lot for the next millennium. What I've noticed and I've begun calling folks out on various news sites is, the MOST WHO ARE CALLING FOR ALL OUT WAR, ARE THE ONES WHO WILL NOT GO. These folks range from the 18yr old who could go, but has better things to do, to the 80 year old who never served. but watched "Saving Private Ryan" and was touched. Back to the executive order, I have not read the whole thing, but from what's been reported so far; If you cannot manage your affairs yourself, the hell do you need a weapon for? You cannot pay your bills, but you feel you should have an AT-4 at your bedside in case the boogey man comes? No. At that point, you do not need a weapon any more. Gun shows. When I came home to VA, there was a gun show near the house and my neighbor dragged me there. This was in 10. At this show, all I needed to have to buy whatever I wanted was my VA drivers lisence or an active duty ID card. At the time I had both. There were no checks other than that. But the second part of that is if I only had a VA DL, I was good. That makes sense then, but not anymore. If you can buy a weapon legally, knock yourself out. I know I have a few more I want. At the same time, I'm willing and able to pass ANY check out there to see if I quality to get a weapon. All Obama has done is add another layer to what was already there, from what I've read so far. People see "executive order" and all hell breaks loose. If they looked at the executive orders that don't make the news he's passed, a few opinions would be changed, but not many. Too many people clearly HATE the MAN in office and cannot see anything past that. They claim to hate the policies, but when you look at what they type, it's plainly an all out assault on the character of the man in office. I think it's a hoot when I hear 2016 is going to be different!!! We're finally gonna be rid of Obama and his cronies who were stupid. 2016 will be different, but only in the sense that a new president will be in office in 2017 and he or she will have a new set of cronies who won't get it right to please everyone. Other than that, 2016/17 will be more of the same. Same faces in congress, same two parties screwing things up, same military that is kicking out folks faster than they can bring em in and up to speed. Let's not mention overworked. Obama is doing what he feels is right. You don't have to agree to it, you don't have to like it, but you will do it. And when the polls open, you can use your pen or whatever to bring in whatever candidate you want to; and nothing will change other than the name.

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Jan 5 at 2016 5:49 PM

Sgt Kelli Mays — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 17:49:32 -0500

NO! NO! NO! NO!...wait...did I say NO!!!!
I understand it's the thing Presidents do....they wave their magic wand and POOF! an executive order is in writing and that is that....but when it comes to the CONSTITUTION....NOPE! NO! Not even a hint of maybe.... The constitution is what it is and LAW IS LAW...LAW can only be changed BY THE PROCESS of CHECKS AND BALANCES> What the hell do we have checks and balances for?! Uh....let's see...SO THAT NO ONE PERSON CAN MAKE AN EXECUTIVE DECISION ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO MAKING OR CHANGING THE LAW! HEEEELLLLLLOOOOOO?????!!!!
Just because he put it to a vote in congress and it was turned down....whopty freaking do.....and yeah, ok...it seems like a change that actually kind of sort of makes sense....those who sell guns need to do it with a license and the right way...DUH! but he needs to do it the right way too. Oh my gosh...there you go getting me starting again....UGH!

OH MY GOSH! Don't even get me started with his FAKE....OH SO VERY FAKE TEARS he shed today while mentioning his beloved home town of CHICAGO! Holly crap...SPARE ME! UGH>>>> I'm throwing up...it made me so sick....why?? Because he should have addressed his home town or CHICAGO YEARS before this and all of the BLACK ON BLACK killing/murder sprees taking place time and time again in Chicago and some other areas.

OH MY GOSH! SERIOUSLY! The sales of GUNS and this added little something of putting fines and throwing GUN sellers into JAIL...is NOT going to stop BAD PEOPLE from getting GUNS and killing...HEEELLLLLLOOOOOO!?!?!?!

Response by SSG Jason Penn made Jan 5 at 2016 7:37 PM

SSG Jason Penn — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 19:37:35 -0500

In the powers enumerated by the Constitution, only Congress may make law. The Executive Orders are for establishing procedures and conduct of behavior for members of the Executive Branch. Executive Orders are not to conflict with the Constitution and only apply to the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government, they do not apply to the Judicial nor Legislative Branches and sure as Hell do not apply to the civilian sector. By signing this Executive Order, Barack Obama has committed treason on multiple levels: 1) Failing in his oath to support and defend the Constitution by taking measures to undermine the Bill of Rights. 2) Overstepping his enumerated powers by single handedly attempting to establish law that has not been passed by Congress. 3) Taking it upon himself to dictate his own will instead of representing the will of the people. Obama has previously not done a single thing that warrants impeachment by itself, but if you put all of his actions together, he has done more to warrant impeachment than Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton combined (both were impeached). But now, he has not only done something that warrants impeachment, but is also an act of treason. If the Republicans in power do nothing about this, then they are spineless and neither party deserves my vote!

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jan 6 at 2016 3:57 PM

PO1 John Miller — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 15:57:05 -0500

Criminals don't obey the law, that's why they're criminals. How are these Executive Actions going to prevent that?

Also, the underlying issue is not guns. It's crazy. You can't fix crazy by taking away the guns. Crazy people will figure out other ways to kill another person.

Response by PO2 Steven Erickson made Jan 6 at 2016 5:19 PM

PO2 Steven Erickson — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 17:19:31 -0500

DISCLAIMER: There are no earth-shattering, mind-blowing statements below:

In my Constitutional Constructionist view, this is easy, and applies to ANY PRESIDENT!!!!!!!

1. The Legislative Branch CREATES laws
2. The Executive Branch ENFORCES existing law

So, duh...
1. If the Executive Order (EO) CREATES new laws that were not created by Congress, that EO is ILLEGAL.
2. If the EO CHANGES existing law to the point it no longer meets the wording or intent of existing law, that EO is ILLEGAL.

Thus endeth the lesson...