Support NeoGAF

[Herbs]

If you want laughs watch cspan during the viewer calls.

John Oliver's updates on that host are amazing. He must pop a few Xanax before each show cuz he's so damn calm

 

[_woLf]

That's my president.

Drop the hammer, Bams.

 

[iamblades]

FFL holders and businesses already need to conduct background checks, it's private dealers who do not. Some states already require all dealers to do them, some just on handguns, some not at all.. but all FFL have too no matter what.

Any law wouldn't be aimed at gun shows, as that's just a way of making it sound good to the public, but truly be aimed at any private sale no matter where it is made.

It's an important distinction to make, but it doesn't matter much to pro-gun people as they know it's about private sale, and anti-gun people pretty much want to ban all guns. Those in the middle don't understand and just take the buzzword "gun show loophole" and think, yeah that's a good idea without understanding what it's really about.




Weren't most of those done legally with BGC though, meaning this law won't really effect that.. but what it could effect and help is with is tracking and reducing access to guns used in non-mass shootings.. it'll take awhile as there is so many guns on the streets already in criminals hands, but it will make some people more hesitant to private sell guns that can be tracked back to them and reduce straw purchases in the long run. Thus hopefully driving up the black market and making it harder to obtain.

Long run, should help somewhat reduce shootings, but it'd take awhile. Won't change mass-shootings.. as again.. most of those were already being done legally.

There is no such thing as a 'private dealer'.

If you are a dealer, you need an ffl, and if you have an ffl you have to do background checks.

I expect the attempt will be to try and change the definition of dealer, but I see no possible way under the law to do this in an enforceable way. So either the courts will overturn it, or there will be no possible way to enforce it.

 

[NervousXtian]

You drive a car, hand it to an unlicensed driver, and they drive, that's also illegal. Don't see the problem here.

Everyone handling a gun should be required to, at minimum, pass a safety course. Even the rural states require you to do this before you can legally hunt.

I can let anyone with a license drive my car, there's no license for a gun you can show anyone.

I can also let someone INTO my car without it being an issue, but in Washington you can't LEGALLY hand someone a gun at all.

 

[Arkeband]

Courts are likely to though, as there is zero basis for this in the laws.

This isn't a loophole in the ATF's interpretation of the law, the background check law specifically only applies to FFLs, and the federal government doesn't have constitutional authority to regulate intrastate commerce.

The basis is public safety, since guns have and will continue to evolve to become more efficient in killing.

 

[Cow Mengde]

Finally! Props to Obama for coming through on this.

 

[NervousXtian]

There is no such thing as a 'private dealer'.

If you are a dealer, you need an ffl, and if you have an ffl you have to do background checks.

I expect the attempt will be to try and change the definition of dealer, but I see no possible way under the law to do this in an enforceable way. So either the courts will overturn it, or there will be no possible way to enforce it.

I didn't specifically mean "dealer".. but at gun shows there is unlicensed people who sell guns that isn't their primary business. They are just considered a private party.

 

[HK-47]

Hard to say "both sides" in this argument when one extreme is represented with government power and the other side actually proposes reasonable measures. The problem is some gun owners see any sort of regulation as an extreme position.

He is probably referring to pie in the sky gun ban proponents

 

[B-Dubs]

Do you?

Executive Orders are legally binding. You have to go to the Supreme Court to overturn them and they have almost universally never done that. While it isn't specifically a law, it's the President ordering the agencies under him on how to proceed going forward.

They've been used to justify sending troops to war zones and even starting the Japanese internment camps in WW2.

They've also been used to integrate the military, bar racial discrimination in many instances and in Little Rock to force the integration of schools when they refused to do so. They aren't universally bad and acting like they are ignores all the good that's been done with them. They're a tool like any other.

 

[Cybit]

It's possible. There's a lot of republicans who are more centrist saying they'll vote Clinton if he runs and another group that just won't vote. If trump running suppresses the GOP vote but bolsters the DEM vote then it's possible. Though probably still really difficult. If trump runs 3rd party there's an argument to be made that this will actually increase GOP turnout and likely be bad for DEMS down ticket even though it would ensure a Hillary win.

A third party Trump run would probably hand the presidency to the Democrats, but the Democrats would get their shit pushed in w/r/t Congress. Lots of liberals (hell, see this thread) would just assume a Democratic presidency win and not bother to vote, while as the conservative Get Out the Vote campaign would be absolutely bonkers with both Trump and the GOP nominee pushing.

If you assume most people who come out to vote will vote down the line - ie if you vote a republican president, you will vote republican everything else, and likewise democratic president then democratic everything else - its still really to early to figure out what Trump vs Hillary would be like.

I could counter that just as many people who decide to stay home if Trump is on the ticket, there would be just as many democrats who are un-enthusiastic about Hillary and stay home. Historically older, white voters tend to be pretty reliable voters and its harder to get minorities and young people to get out and actually vote. Obama definitely energized the young into coming out. I think Hillary will definitely energize many women to come out, but will she get young people to come out? End of the day you are going to go out and spend an hour or two of your time because you believe in something, not to vote against someone else.

Historically as well voters tend to split control of President/Congress, and stick with incumbents. The majority of seats up for grabs will be held by incumbents. Democrats would need to pick up 30 seats to gain control in the House. In 2012 Obama won 209 congressional districts, the democrats currently control 188 of those (they lost 21 so far). So they'd have to win all those back plus 9 more districts that have traditionally voted Republican. Not impossible, but fairly difficult.

Only twice have more than 30 House seats switched hands during a presidential election - Ronald Reagan in 1980 and LJB in 1964 (a year after the Kennedy assassination).

I don't really have a problem with Obama passing this executive order, almost certainly it'll get shot down in courts and even if it doesn't, it doesn't really change much. 82% of guns used in mass shootings were purchased legally by the owner and passed a background check. The gun show loophole is real for sure, but people will just agree to meet up afterwards to conduct the sale so not really sure what its going to change. Online dealers can't directly ship guns to people, they must send them to a local FFL dealer who then runs a background check. But the whole thing is going to rile up a lot of people, not sure if it helps or hurts Hillary but it definitely helps Trump and the Republicans.

I understand where Obama's coming from on the EO - something needs to be done. Doubt it will survive the court challenge, but it's worth a shot at this point.

I have a bad feeling about Democratic GOTV operations in 2016. The assumed "inevitable" demographic victory is setting up for really low voter turnout, which could easily tilt many of the congressional elections.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

I just meant wanting a 'complete ban' on all guns, which, let's be honest just isn't going to happen and isn't reasonable.

I agree. And I think those people definitely represent the "extreme" end of the gun control argument. However, I don't think it's fair to characterize them as part of the problem. I've talked to plenty of people who favor a complete ban, and I never met one who therefore didn't support any incremental measures. If you're interested in a solution that's somewhere in the middle, and one side is absolutely intransigent, and the other side wants something impossible, but will take incremental step, then I don't think you can blame both sides.

 

[Arkeband]

I didn't specifically mean "dealer".. but at gun shows there is unlicensed people who sell guns that isn't their primary business. They are just considered a private party.

It's Always Sunny even had an episode about this!

 

[Vilix]

Except that the privilege is more important to the daily lives of Americans and the other isn't.

It still doesn't exclude the fact that you can't change one as easily as the other.

 

[SpaceHorror]

My Facebook wall is going to get interesting when word of this spreads.

 

[B-Dubs]

It still doesn't exclude the fact that you can't change one as easily as the other.

No but it's an example of how fucked up our priorities are that it's harder to gain access to something that is necessary for many Americans to live their lives than it is to buy something that isn't. Getting a gun should be at least as hard as getting a car.

 

[shinobi602]

I agree. And I think those people definitely represent the "extreme" end of the gun control argument. However, I don't think it's fair to characterize them as part of the problem. I've talked to plenty of people who favor a complete ban, and I never met one who therefore didn't support any incremental measures. If you're interested in a solution that's somewhere in the middle, and one side is absolutely intransigent, and the other side wants something impossible, but will take incremental step, then I don't think you can blame both sides.

Mhm that's true, and I do think the side that won't relinquish any sort of ground in controlling sales is the far bigger problem.

 

[TheOMan]

There is sticky points to this.

Say I go shooting with my brother, and I pick him up. The guns are in my truck, and we go out in the woods to plink some targets. It's not my gun I'm shooting, it's my brothers. It's now technically in my possession.

Did my brother need to BG check me, did he give me the gun legally? If I'm in the state of Washington, then yes he would need to do that. I am not allowed to handle his weapon unless we were to get a background check from a licensed dealer, then transfer it, then do the same to transfer it back to my brother.

If the law is done in a way such as I594 then it's directly effecting an issue that should not be an issue, the sharing of a firearm while both parties are still present.

Hopefully if he does something it puts in provisions for such things as shooting on private land or in places that are federally or state legal to shoot firearms (such as hunting, targeting shooting on federal or state land, etc). The fact that technically someone is a criminal for being handed a gun from their friend isn't the point of the law, but with I594 it makes that a criminal activity.

So - what if your brother loans you his car and you get in an accident and you are at fault? Genuine question as I'm not sure what happens with insurance and all that?

 

[HyperionX]

No but it's an example of how fucked up our priorities are that it's harder to gain access to something that is necessary for many Americans to live their lives than it is to buy something that isn't. Getting a gun should be at least as hard as getting a car.

A lot people can't bring themselves to admit the constitution is flat out wrong on this subject. The whole "it's a right" is really just an appeal to authority, when no rational analysis of the issue could ever give you the conclusion that gun ownership is a right.

 

[zsynqx]

A step in the right direction.

 

[Maxim726X]

Eh... I feel like this is potentially starting a bad trend, even though I agree with his stance on guns in America.

One that will almost certainly be repeated if a Republican is in office with a Democratic Senate.

 

[Piggus]

The machine gun type, that can spray countless bullets in minutes.

Um, what do you mean the "machine gun type"? You can't just go out and buy a machine gun. You pay a tax to the ATF, undergo a very extensive background check, wait approximately six months while all the paperwork is done, then you're allowed to pay the $15,000+ that they actually cost and are then subjected to random inspection at the discretion of the ATF.

If you're taking about those "scary" looking AR-15s that mass shooters seem to prefer, can you explain to me how that gun is any different from any other semi-automatic gun? How is it any different than a Mini-14 in how it could be used? And you do realize that an assault weapons ban would only change minor characteristics about the weapon and allow existing owners to keep their guns, yes?

People really need to do some basic research before advocating for something.

 

[SuperBanana]

Eh... I feel like this is potentially starting a bad trend, even though I agree with his stance on guns in America.

One that will almost certainly be repeated if a Republican is in office with a Democratic Senate.

What trend? Every President issues executive orders.

 

[PBY]

Um, what do you mean the "machine gun type"? You can't just go out and buy a machine gun. You pay a tax to the ATF, undergo a very extensive background check, wait approximately six months while all the paperwork is done, then you're allowed to pay the $15,000+ that they actually cost and are then subjected to random inspection at the discretion of the ATF.

If you're taking about those "scary" looking AR-15s that mass shooters seem to prefer, can you explain to me how that gun is any different from any other semi-automatic gun? How is it any different than a Mini-14 in how it could be used?

People really need to do some basic research before advocating for something.

Maybe we should ban semi automatic guns?

edit: And that bolded process, what is the downside to making that the process to buy any gun?

 

[Yaphett Kotto]

What trend? Every President issues executive orders.

And Obama doesn't even have that many versus others. Bush still has more and Roosevelt has issued thousands.

 

[iamblades]

And Obama doesn't even have that many versus others. Bush still has more and Roosevelt has issued thousands.

Roosevelt was a complete dictator that got away with it because of the depression and the world war, that's a pretty damn low bar.

 

[Angelus Errare]

THE NIG MOOSLIM PRESIDENT IS IMPLEMENTING SHARIA LAW!! BUY MORE GUNS!!!!!!!11 2ND AMENDMENT, 2ND AMENDMENT!!! FREEDUM!! MERICUH!!

isn't that akin to saying you can make any choices as long as they are these?

I mean, I don't like guns, never held one, have no interest of owning one, but it just doesn't seem like a good way to do it. From an outside perspective, it almost seems knee-jerk.

Knee-jerk? lol yea okay.

 

[Sub_Level]

Why would any sane person object to this? He's not taking your toys away.

Here are the arguments I have seen:

1. More bureaucracy and paperwork.

2. Plenty people involved in shootings went through background checks and purchased their gun from what was already considered a federally licensed dealer.

3. It is actually impossible to regulate every private transaction. Like buying weed. You can't regulate every household where a dad grandfathers his gun or every deal where a buyer agrees to meet a seller in a parking lot. And because there are already a huge amount of guns in circulation and in the wild, this is worth bringing up.

4. Its hard to say how many venues already require their gun vendors to be federally licensed. Even direct online stores can require buyers to go through an FFL.

5. Not a lot of people get denied by background checks. We're talking single digit percentage range. And beyond that, this is a point many gun control advocates and opponents will agree on: You can be perfectly sane when you buy a gun but it just takes one really bad day for you to hurt yourself or others. So a background check inherently has limited capabilities.

I fully support this but both critics and supporters can surely agree that this, if it is simply universal background checks, isn't gonna solve any problem. It may mitigate damage.

 

[Piggus]

Maybe we should ban semi automatic guns?

edit: And that bolded process, what is the downside to making that the process to buy any gun?

I would be supportive of such a process with a few minor changes, but the ATF can't keep up with the paperwork as is (hence the long wait time). The would need to expand their system, but I would be all for it. I also forgot to mention that your local sherif needs to sign off on an NFA purchase. So if he or she feels you don't have a good reason, they can deny your application.

The problem with banning semi-automatics is the term covers a huge variety of guns, many of which aren't necessarily more dangerous than a pump-action shotgun or revolver. It's putting something like a Ruger 10-22 (a small-caliber target rifle with a low capacity magazine) in the same category as an AK-47 or a Glock 19. Banning 80% of all guns is just as unlikely to happen as a complete gun ban.

The majority of Americans don't even support a ban on assault weapons, and that number continues to increase (FYI a few decades ago, 80% of the population wanted to ban them), so a law that would essentially ban almost all handguns and most rifles will never have meaningful support here.

 

[NervousXtian]

So - what if your brother loans you his car and you get in an accident and you are at fault? Genuine question as I'm not sure what happens with insurance and all that?

Depends on insurance you have depending, but I'd be liable. Much the same way if I do something stupid with my brothers gun I'd be liable.

 

[SaintMadeOfPlaster]

Clinton won't toss this though

Right, but that doesn't change the fact that Executive Orders aren't law and as soon as somebody who doesn't like it makes it to the presidency, it's as good as dead.

And that also doesn't take into account how hard these things are to enforce. Remember that immigrant Executive Order that happened a few years ago? It really didn't do much.

The president is supposed to enforce laws, not make them. Just because you support what it says doesn't mean it's how the US government is designed to work.

 

[Eighty Deuce]

Without a list of registered guns this EO means dick. It's unenforceable.

 

[hey_monkey]

Obama literally cannot do anything right in their minds anyway, so might as well just do what he wants to do regardless of what they think.

This is true. Obama could handfeed ten starving babies and it would just be politicizing the tragedy of hungry babies for his own gains and preparation for his third term takeover blah blah blah.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Without a list of registered guns this EO means dick. It's unenforceable.

tinfoil hat but I've always believed they keep a record of BG checks.

sure there will be some that don't comply but this will put a LOT more guns/owners in the "system"

I think full registration is an inevitability, but people will really freak out when that happens.

 

[PBY]

I would be supportive of such a process with a few minor changes, but the ATF can't keep up with the paperwork as is (hence the long wait time). The would need to expand their system, but I would be all for it. I also forgot to mention that your local sherif needs to sign off on an NFA purchase. So if he or she feels you don't have a good reason, they can deny your application.

The problem with banning semi-automatics is the term covers a huge variety of guns, many of which aren't necessarily more dangerous than a pump-action shotgun or revolver. It's putting something like a Ruger 10-22 (a small-caliber target rifle with a low capacity magazine) in the same category as an AK-47 or a Glock 19. Banning 80% of all guns is just as unlikely to happen as a complete gun ban.

The majority of Americans don't even support a ban on assault weapons, and that number continues to increase (FYI a few decades ago, 80% of the population wanted to ban them), so a law that would essentially ban almost all handguns and most rifles will never have meaningful support here.

I don't love this, but I'd be very happy if we get something even close to it.

 

[DonasaurusRex]

Time to buy more guns!

exxxxactly

 

[PBY]

exxxxactly

Shit like this makes me feel like gun owners are just all shitty people. Fucking why.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Roosevelt was a complete dictator that got away with it because of the depression and the world war, that's a pretty damn low bar.

Roosevelt is widely considered one of the greatest presidents of the 20th century. And Obama isn't even in his ballpark.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/every-presidents-executive-actions-in-one-chart/

As I posted on the last page, Obama is averaging less EOs per year than the last 21 American presidents, going back to Grover Cleveland. He has issued less overall than Bush, Clinton, or Reagan, our last 3 two-term presidents. The idea that Obama has abused his executive power, despite having maybe two or three executive orders that could even be considered controversial, has no basis in reality.

 

[Piggus]

exxxxactly

I bought one of those scary black long guns two days ago as well!

Shit like this makes me feel like gun owners are just all shitty people. Fucking why.

But the S&W M&P is a great budget AR.

 

[Megalosaro]

That FDR number of executive orders is ridiculous when you consider how many years he was in office

 

[Veritigo_X]

Glad the gun owners ITT have great arguments to contribute. True patriots :')

 

[PBY]

But the S&W M&P is a great budget AR.

You don't need a fucking AR. But - before I preach to you about something you most definitely know way more about than myself - what does one do with such a toy?

 

[Megalosaro]

Right, but that doesn't change the fact that Executive Orders aren't law and as soon as somebody who doesn't like it makes it to the presidency, it's as good as dead.

And that also doesn't take into account how hard these things are to enforce. Remember that immigrant Executive Order that happened a few years ago? It really didn't do much.

Like hell it didn't. My friends went from not working to making 80k a year because of it.

 

[Celegus]

Oh thank God.

I wanted to spend my Christmas defending my progressive beliefs against the onslaught of the pro-gun conservative family I'm surrounded by. I did want to cause rifts and fights and possibly end up being ignored by my wife until New Years. I really did, please understand that.

So glad my wife and I are completely on the same page on stuff like this, and that she isn't anything like the rest of her family. It makes visiting very tiring though. Most of the time I just keep quiet and try to ignore them, because "discussing" it only ends up with us being attacked.

 

[davepoobond]

whatever it is, its going to get sued so fast

 

[Piggus]

You don't need a fucking AR.

Well I can't argue with that. I didn't buy it because I needed it, I bought it because I wanted it.

EDIT: To answer the rest of your question, there's a place way outside of the town I live that's great for target shooting, and the AR is one of the more fun target guns. Stays locked up when not in use, of course.

 

[zelas]

Good. It's a shame that the checks in our politcal system are being abused in a way that this can't be actual legislation.

 

[VendettaRed07]

Lol FDR

As far as I'm concerned, we've actually only had 43 presidents... + 1 dictator.

 

[DonasaurusRex]

It's hilarious to think that transportation in America is treated with less respect than owning a toy that can be used to kill people.

you have the right to freely travel in the US but to operate a car is a licensed activity, which varies from state to state, some states you can mail in and get a "license" others you will have to get a lot of trainning and pass written and driving tests. The right to defend yourself isn't something that is legislated its something that all laws are to secure.

What is licensed is recreational usage of firearms or sustainable harvest of resources so hunting and trapping, which is why those are also licensed.

One is a fundamental right , and the other activities are licensed behaviors so driving and hunting and all the various levels that entails.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

When the NRA (read: gun manufacturers, or less than 5% of all gun owners) completely own a political party (Republicans), sometimes you have to take drastic measures.

Most people would agree that gun show loopholes and background checks not being universal are things that could be fixed without infringing on the rights of responsible gun owners. Therefore, common-sense solutions that our government could provide in this case are being held up by special interests.

This is sadly the truth. Sometimes we need to be reasonable. And if that happened we'd already have this.

If I want to give or sell my relative a gun we should be able to go to an FFL and get a quick check.

you have the right to freely travel in the US but to operate a car is a licensed activity, which varies from state to state, some states you can mail in and get a "license" others you will have to get a lot of trainning and pass written and driving tests. The right to defend yourself isn't something that is legislated its something that all laws are to secure.

What is licensed is recreational usage of firearms or sustainable harvest of resources so hunting and trapping, which is why those are also licensed.

One is a fundamental right , and the other activities are licensed behaviors so driving and hunting and all the various levels that entails.

Don't go making sense...

 

[Tyreese Victoria]

It's not surprising imo.

Terrorist are getting guns and killing us thus more guns is the answer.

Not to mention a huge subset of gun owners that believe their guns will make them heroes when they shoot the bad guy or the government comes to take their guns, etc.

I'm still think it's hilarious that these people think the fat asses of wal-mart will be able to wage guerilla warfare against the United States military, if they had some tyrant wanting to take their guns.

There's no solving the gun problem in America, it's going to rip the nation apart.