Biden: 'The President Is Already Lining Up Some Additional Executive Actions' for Guns

reply to post by macman

Oh, the old "If you have nothing to hide" argument.

Wonder if they know they are using the Patriot Act argument for Gun Control..

Looks like Obama is trying to fiddle with background checks again for one of his EA's

news.yahoo.com...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama, moving swiftly after the Senate rejected a measure to expand background checks for gun buyers, acted on Friday to patch holes in the existing database dealers use to ensure they are not selling weapons to criminals or the mentally ill.

The Health and Human Services Department will issue a formal proposal on Friday to make sure one of its privacy laws does not prevent states from reporting information to the background check system.

So far, this is the only part of the new EA's I could find.

ETA - After a little more looking, I found this.

Biden Pledges New Executive Action on Gun Control, Obama Denies

The White House responded to Biden’s statements saying President Obama will not pursue any executive action on guns other than what he put forth in January.

The White House denied any additional action will be taken other than the 23 actions Obama announced in January.

Well, maybe all Obama will do is just talk more about the EA's he did in January.

reply to post by buni11687


Nice find.

I especially love this part:

Health and Human Services will ask for public comment on how the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act's privacy rule prevents some state agencies from reporting data to the background check system, and how best to remove those barriers.

National medical database and anyone who gets prescribed certain things will be a hit. Anyone who expresses feelings of sadness, anger or anxiety to their doctor will be a hit.

So the affect will be people who may need real help wont seek it out for fear of landing on some list and people who dont really need help will get stuck on some list just for talking to their doctor on an off day.

reply to post by MaxSteiner

I would question how you can claim that school shootings and cinema slayings and the like aren't a symptom of having guns

No, it is a symptom of how far done our society has gone in moral values and ethics. In the 1700's and 1800's, we had a much higher moral ethic in general, as most people were Christian and went to church regularly, and in general had a more reliable character. Over the years and decades, we have had a steady decay of moral values because of the programming and brainwashing. Let's look at that for a bit, shall we? We had Hollywood making increasingly violent movies and programming full of unwarranted and explicit sex scenes, violence, bizarre behavior, and so on. During the early settlement days and pioneer times, the average 10 year old boy would have a gun and know how to use it for defending the family against wolves and other critters in the wilderness. It would have been a rare thing for people to just go shoot somebody out of anger, with the exception of the Wild West there might have been some wild stuff but they dealt with it by laws.
Now, add in the brainwashing of secular humanism in the public schools. You cannot even mention anything Christian, and the traditional values have been sanitized out of everything because some people of other cultures and nations might get offended(boo hoo), and now we have eliminated the best sources of keeping people in line and moral. A hint for you, secular humanism, which basically runs the schools, has a basis of relative moral values, there is nothing absolute, and so any value can work it's way in. I have said this many times on these boards. The slippery slope syndrome really works here.
Let's add alcohol and drugs into the mix. In the Old West there was plenty of alcohol and you'd get thrown out of the saloon if you got too rowdy. But then, what, would you just fall off your horse drunk, or ride your horse into a passing carriage??????
Alcohol can really mess up a person's sense of appropriateness.

again, secular humanism has not been passing down the traditional values and mores which had kept people believing they had to behave in a certain way. Although we have law enforcement, this does not seem to be enough to stop nutty people from doing nutty things.
The breakdown of society has been a deliberate thing, as the ex KGB dissident Yuri Bezmenov has told us in his lectures around the country.
So it is more the breakdown of society that has to do with this thing than the presence of guns. We saw in China that someone went around with a knife, and now there's bombs killing people in various situations. Homemade bombs in backpacks and such.
How would you stop that? Eliminate backpacks?

ON the relative moral values of secular humanism which have replaced traditional religious values....let's look at that...
Here's a great webpage which breaks it down nicely.. (material used from the Humanist Manifesto of secular humanism as basis for breakdown.

credo.stormloader.com...

Their exposition on "Moral Education" is riddled with self contradiction. In fact, it is based on a self contradiction as is all relativism. All Moral systems even faulty ones must be based on some moral principles. Let me return to several statements made in the humanist definition of Moral Education, with emphases added:
1."We believe that moral development should be cultivated in children and young adults."
2."We do not believe that any particular sect can claim important values as their exclusive property; hence it is the duty of public education to deal with these values."
3."Although children should learn about the history of religious moral practices, these young minds should not be indoctrinated in a faith before they are mature enough to evaluate the merits for themselves."
4."Nor do we believe that any one church should impose its views..."

We have here a few imperatives or moral judgments arrived at by secular humanists. Others are: "We ought not to steal." or "Abortion should be permitted." Such imperatives can never be derived from merely factual or declarative premises. They either are moral principles or must derive from premises at least one of which is an absolute moral principle. Actually secular humanism sets up its own moral system based on its own moral principles, which are the subject matter of indoctrination.

We are familiar with the doublespeak of George Orwell's famous "Animal Farm" wherein slavery is termed "freedom", war is termed "peace", and totalitarian dictatorships are termed "peoples' democracies". Similarly, in the 'Declaration' immorality is termed "morality". and true morality is stigmatized as "immoral". Ethics is stood on its head as the Catholic Church (and other Christian communities) are lambasted as "immoral" for daring to baptize children and hand on the Faith "which comes to them from the Apostles". Such "democratic humanist" sentiments toward Christian practice are shared, interestingly enough, by the Communist persecutors of the Church wherever Marxism has triumphed.

Originally posted by Common Good
We are the reason he is here, he is not the reason why we are here.

Hes got to go people. Start the impeachment Process.

Trying to strip people of their power and rights over/of the second amendment should not be tolerated.

Govt doesnt grant us authority- we grant them authority, and they are about to get stripped of those powers
-by the people.

edit on 18-4-2013 by Common Good because: (no reason given)

Thank you CG. Your post is bumped with a star, because the most important
sentence of the 18th century ends with "... the consent of the governed."
There's a running five year average of 13% approval rating for Congress.
The rest of the Federal numbers are so cooked we've all got jobs now; and I believe
our next full time job (whether employed or not) should be an ouster: a big one.
This POTUS has already done a good job of stabbing his own support base;
and I thought the Republicans were supposed to go Whig first. It's like
"We're in the process right now of killing every major political faction here but
Goldman Sachs and the UN." And whatya gonna do about it.. we own the voting
machines too.

Originally posted by JDmOKI
reply to post by neo96

 

No matter if you're pro gun or anti gun, every American should be against any executive order of any kind. I am truly disturbed by this type of action.

Damn Right! The New Deal resulted in Congress delegating its legislative powers to the executive branch. Today when Congress passes a statute it is little more than an authorization for an executive agency to make the law by writing the regulations that implement it.

Prior to the New Deal, legislation was tightly written to minimize any executive branch interpretation. Only in this way can law be accountable to the people. If the executive branch that enforces the law also writes the law, "all legislative powers" are no longer vested in elected representatives in Congress. The Constitution is violated, and the separation of powers is breached.

The principle that power delegated to Congress by the people cannot be delegated by Congress to the executive branch was the mainstay of our political system. Until President Roosevelt overturned this principle by threatening to pack the Supreme Court, the executive branch had no role in interpreting the law.

John Marshall Harlan wrote: "That congress cannot delegate legislative power to the president is a principle universally recognized as vital to the integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordained by the Constitution."

We have had 7 decade of Imperial Presidencies as a result of the new deal legislation!

President Obama used "signing statements" hundreds of times to vitiate the meaning of statutes passed by Congress. In effect, Obama was vetoing the bills he signs into law by asserting unilateral authority as commander-in-chief to bypass or set aside the laws he signs. For example, Bush and Obama have both asserted that they had the power to ignore the McCain amendment against torture, to ignore the law that requires a warrant to spy on Americans, to ignore the prohibition against indefinite detention without charges or trial, and to ignore the Geneva Conventions to which the US is signatory.

will he add some executive actions against pressure cookers or do we just care about guns killing people?

First off, let it be known that I am cognizant in advance that I am probably wasting my time by responding to the aptly-monikered username, "LogicGrind"Logic (noun)

1. reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

Grind (noun)

1. a crushing or grating sound or motion.
   
2. hard, dull work.
   

Originally posted by LogicGrind
The word "scientific" simple means that it is conducted using scientific methodologies and protocols. If a poll is done correctly, it is very accurate.

You can continue to deny the accuracy of polls, [color=#90c917]but you are denying mathmatics and the scientific process.

Mr. LogicGrind, I am the very last person on the planet who would seek to deny mathematics and the ‘scientific process’ (sic), so I will put the following question to you – just one – and I would be very pleased if you could provide an answer.
* I am assuming that a poll is being conducted with the goal of scientific validity in mind, which is not a wise assumption with political polls, but let us assume regardless:

“Given that the entire mathematical foundation of polling rests on the assumption that choosing n people randomly from the population amounts to repeating the same Bernoulli trial n times, how does one negate a potential auto-correlating influence upon the sample mean (prior to computing the standard deviations) induced by the very selection methodology itself”?



for example:

• What if people who want more gun control are also more likely to pick-up the phone when an unknown number is ringing?
  
• What if gun-control supporters are more likely to answer the questions of the perfect stranger who has just called them for the purpose of asking them about their beliefs on gun-control?
  
• What if gun-control supporters are more self-conscious and/or politically-correct, with the result that they complete more polls because they do not want to come across as rude to the caller?
  
• I could go on all day…but I won't because political polls are bs.
  

Would it be possible to devise a poll which could quantify the validity of the above statements?
They must be quantified if they are to be corrected –> but in this case can be neither quantified nor corrected because it is an epistemological problem.

Originally posted by LogicGrind
The same arguments were made during the election and Nate Silver's statistical analysis. People saying no way it was accurate because the sample sizes were too small in all the polls.

But at the end of the day, Nate Silver was almost 100% accurate.

please remember that ‘guessing’ is very accurate as well
(as long as you guess correctly, that is!)

>Peace

reply to post by 3mperorConstantinE


I don't what else to tell you.

Polling is a valid and accepted mathematic process...it has been validated time and time again as being accurate despite people who don't like the results of a poll claiming otherwise.

You can deny it, I really don't mind, it doesn't change the reality that poll after poll comes up with the same answers about gun control...the majority support it.

Originally posted by LogicGrind
reply to post by 3mperorConstantinE

 

I don't what else to tell you.

Polling is a valid and accepted mathematic process...it has been validated time and time again as being accurate despite people who don't like the results of a poll claiming otherwise.

You can deny it, I really don't mind, [color=#90c917]it doesn't change the reality that poll after poll comes up with the same answers about gun control.

You don't know what else to tell me because you could not comprehend a single thing that I wrote.

Originally posted by LogicGrind

 

...the majority support it.

THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WHO WOULD ANSWER THEIR TELEPHONE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS OF A STRANGER WOULD ALSO SUPPORT MORE GUN CONTROL.

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen

Originally posted by SpaDe_
Very interesting! Any idea what exactly he intends to go after through these executive actions? Aren't executive actions just like a glorified to do list? What good will that do? Just more pandering to the anti gun crowd for political gain perhaps?

I good indication would be the 23 he already signed.
CNN

I would naturally expect this second wave of EO's to be even more extreme. If not, he would already have done them.

actions that he and his administration will do:This Country Is Going To The WOLVES.
1. "Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system."
THREAT
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."
THREAT
3. "Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system."
BRIBE
4. "Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks."
NOSEY
5. "Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun."
THREAT
6. "Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers."
THREAT
7. "Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign."
BRIBE
8. "Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission)."
THREAT Costing Americans More Money
9. "Issue a presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations."
STUPID That’s Their Job Already
10. "Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement."
SO THE LAW CAN RESELL THEM MORE EASILY
11. "Nominate an ATF director."
Blind Leading The Blind
12. "Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations."
ALREADY TRAINED IN SUCH SITUATIONS
13. "Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime."
LIKE THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE ALL ALONG
14. "Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."
WHAT THE HELL HAS THE CDC GOT TO DO WITH GUN CONTROL
15. "Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies."
TAKE AWAY ALL AMMUNITION & RENDER ALL FIREARMS USELESS
16. "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."
MORE NOSEY FRIGGIN DOCTORS
NYB
17. "Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities."
DO AWAY WITH PATIENT DOCTOR CONFIDELATY
18. "Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers."
MERCANIRIES ?
DUMB ONE’S PROBABLY
19. "Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education."
DIDN’T THIS KIND OF THING TAKE PLACE DURING THE CIVIL WAR?
THE UNION ARMY COULD TAKE CONTROL OF YOUR PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF THE UNION
20. "Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover."
OK LET ALL OF US TAX PAYERS TAKE CARE OF ALL THE NUTS
INSURANCE GOES UP
21. "Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges."
NO COMMENT
22. "Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations."
WE WILL ALL BE CLASSIFIED AS NUTTY TERROIST SOON
23. "Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health."
WELL HERE WE SEE THE JIST OF OBAMA CARE

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
with the exception of the Wild West there might have been some wild stuff but they dealt with it by laws.

Actually the wild west was not so wild. There has always been misconceptions about cowboys and indians style of shootouts but the fact as much like today there were really few shootouts and the ones that did happen were highly publicized. In the early 20th century you had a resurgence for western novels and writers like E.B. Cummings, Zane Grey and later Louis L'Amour romanticized the idea of good and evil gunslingers in the Old West.

The fact is like most armed societies they were alot more polite to each other than what is commonly portrayed..

reply to post by 3mperorConstantinE

You don't know what else to tell me because you could not comprehend a single thing that I wrote.

I don't know what to tell you because you are admittedly denying solid mathematics because the results don't match your own personal opinion.

THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WHO WOULD ANSWER THEIR TELEPHONE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS OF A STRANGER WOULD ALSO SUPPORT MORE GUN CONTROL.

reply to post by LogicGrind


Well, since polls seem to be your thing instead of the language of mathematics, here is one that says the majority of people are against extra gun control measures.

In the wake of the Senate defeat of a measure to expand background checks on gun purchases, an AP/GfK survey shows that, contrary to Obama's insistence that 90 percent of Americans favor tightened gun laws, there is a healthy — and increasing — resistance to the president's gun control plan, which includes a universal background check, a provision Second Amendment advocates warn will ultimately lead to a national registry of gun owners. While 49 percent of those polled in the survey said they think gun laws should be tightened up, the Associated Press noted that those numbers are down from 58 percent in January

As with any poll, it just depends on which website you go to.

Click here for more information.

What if its all one big dog and pony show, the bill gets slapped down on purpose, Obama steps in and says he has to enact E O's now. not sure where this is going to go, but my guts tell me we'll lose our rights no matter what happens.

Originally posted by gunshooter
What if its all one big dog and pony show, the bill gets slapped down on purpose, Obama steps in and says he has to enact E O's now.

not sure where this is going to go, but my guts tell me we'll lose our rights no matter what happens.

we don't lose anything that we don't voluntarily give up

just because some asshat in a suit, in washington, that i didn't vote for, says i don't have a right anymore, doesn't make it so. if that happens, and you stop exercising that right, that is a personal choice, not because of a law...you cannot "take away" constitutional rights on a whim...and it can't be done without an act of congress..

everyone really needs to stop with the "gonna take away our rights" nonsense...

Originally posted by 3mperorConstantinE
reply to post by LogicGrind

 

I don't know what to tell you because you are admittedly denying solid mathematics because the results don't match your own personal opinion.

You are incoherent.

Listen kiddo, I work in a field that makes the ‘mathematics of polling’ look like Kindergarten Crayon Time at your school, and you can see damn well that nothing I posted could even remotely be construed as being a personal opinion.

I gave you a mathematically epistemological reason for why certain types of polling are inherently, by there very nature, self-selecting, and hence pseudo-scientific.

It is not an opinion, contrary to what your sophomore year Statistics and Probability instructor taught you, but a fact.

Oh forget it, you get an ‘E’ for effort.

My point stands.
You can always come back to it when you've acquired the knowledge needed to intelligently debate.

let me ask you a few questions
1. is it ok for a convicted armed robber who was just released from jail to be sold a gun at a gun show?
2. a convict who was just released from jail, for a crime that you testified in court that you saw him do, you're ok with him buying a bushmaster 223, and a 45 colt semi-auto handgun in your towns local gunshow?
3. a convicted and jailed wife beater, for whom the wife testified against him, gets out of jail and buys several guns at a gun show in the same town, you are ok with that?

It doesn't surprise me one bit what Biden says

This guy is a well known loud mouth who says what he thinks, and they will try it again,

Originally posted by Daedalus

Originally posted by gunshooter
What if its all one big dog and pony show, the bill gets slapped down on purpose, Obama steps in and says he has to enact E O's now.

not sure where this is going to go, but my guts tell me we'll lose our rights no matter what happens.

we don't lose anything that we don't voluntarily give up

just because some asshat in a suit, in washington, that i didn't vote for, says i don't have a right anymore, doesn't make it so. if that happens, and you stop exercising that right, that is a personal choice, not because of a law...you cannot "take away" constitutional rights on a whim...and it can't be done without an act of congress..

everyone really needs to stop with the "gonna take away our rights" nonsense...

edit on 20-4-2013 by

Daedalus because: (no reason given)

Really? Please don't type another word to me until you have read this very carefully, then you may go and stick your foot in your mouth......... pudge.net...