Need more guns. Is it local?

[Beavah]

I don't think I ever made that assertion, JoeBob. That's da straw man yeh keep puttin' up, not da Beavah.

 

What I'm pokin' fun at is da silly irrational fear being espoused. Some folks here in talkin' about da risks they need to defend against are really just spinning yarns, eh? They sound a bit like that nitwit Alex Jones who made a fool out of himself this week.

 

Having a well-trained hobbyist who maintains proficiency carry a gun around (for fun or fashion) doesn't bother me. It's one of da reasons I've been a strong proponent of "shall-issue" laws for concealed carry.

 

I'm an EMT as a hobbyist, eh? I keep it up from days on a rural VFD largely because of da Scouting stuff I do. I maintain proficiency at about double what's required for my license in terms of continuing ed and actual practice.

 

But I don't have any fantasies about rescuin' people with advance techniques, or steppin' into the mass casualty incident to save the day. I'm not doin' it because I believe society is in imminent danger; I'm not stockpiling medical supplies or specialty equipment; I'm not packin' a military field trauma medic's kit. Da risks in Scouting aren't high, and are typically all da usual stuff - adult cardiac events, cuts and scrapes and da occasional simple fracture or concussion. The long term outcomes aren't likely to be affected by my presence or absence. I don't "need" to do it. It's just a hobby, eh? I do it because I enjoy it and because some of the stuff I do is remote enough with a higher than average risk, but mostly because it helps me do a better job teachin' first aid.

 

If you're a firearm hobbyist with that approach, I'm right there with yeh. Maintain proficiency, do it as a hobby because it interests you, it makes yeh a better instructor, whatever. I'm one of those too, eh? At least when it comes to hunting or shotgun sports. Get and maintain da training for the level you're interested in, understand and work with and within da systems set up by your fellow citizens. No problem.

 

If yeh start to have fantasies about intervenin' with firepower in a mass casualty incident, if you're doin' it because yeh feel society is coming apart or you're afraid of rioters in East Nowhere, if you're stockpiling specialty equipment or ammo or think yeh need military gear for anything other than hobby use, if yeh aren't willing to get and maintain da training that matches your gear or intended use, if yeh aren't willing to work with and within da systems set up because yeh feel that's kowtowing to da tyrannical guvmint... well, that sort of thing makes me uncomfortable. We have wannabe EMTs too, eh? They can be a bit dangerous.

 

Beavah

 

[FScouter]

"Absurd" is in the eye of the beholder.

 

Looking at that NRA link, those 5,680 examples are from a period of time from the present going back to 1958. Seems like there would be more examples, but as you said, there may be some unreported incidents.

 

Here's some more data:

In the year 2011 there were 14,675 unintentional nonfatal firearm gunshot injuries in the United States. (per CDC statistics) As well, there may be unreported incidents.

 

You would think NRA could come up with a better case, if one could be made.

[Eagledad]

I'm curious if you approve of the presidents approach Beav.

 

From the AP:

 

""Some of those steps could be taken through executive action, without the approval of Congress.""

 

AP source:

 

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20130109/DA3MSESG2.html

 

Barry

 

 

[Papadaddy]

Congress is just a "bump in the road"...who needs 'em?

[Beavah]

Yah, Eagledad, did yeh read the piece?

 

The paragraph before the line you quoted said:

Other recommendations to the Biden group include making gun-trafficking a felony, getting the Justice Department to prosecute people caught lying on gun background-check forms and ordering federal agencies to send data to the National Gun Background Check Database. So the line you quote is correct. Increasing the Justice Department's priority on prosecuting people lying on background check forms and ordering federal agencies to integrate more data with the background check database can (and should) be done as a matter of ordinary executive prerogative.

 

Or were yeh asking me about da overall approach?

 

On da overall approach, I'd say it's too early to say, eh? They're just out talkin' to people at this point. I'm always concerned by railroad-style policymaking, because it tends to lead to poor policies. I understand the political realities that lead to such approaches, but I wish everyone would proceed more slowly and thoughtfully. That requires folks to behave like fellow Americans workin' on a problem, rather than politicians, so I'm never hopeful.

 

Beavah

 

 

[Stosh]

Third World dictators do this kind of stuff all the time.

 

If this happened elsewhere in the world, the US would be crying foul big-time!

[OldGreyEagle]

"I'm always concerned by railroad-style policymaking, because it tends to lead to poor policies."

 

You are correct sir, sorta like Obamacare n'cest pas?

 

 

Back to the thread

[Stosh]

The Executive Branch of our government is supposed to enforce the laws. The Legislative Branch is to make the laws, and the Judicial Branch is to evaluate their legality against the Constitution. (Government 101)

 

When all three Branches get dissolved into one, it is a dictatorship. This is one very slippery slope!

 

Our Founding Fathers had a clear vision of how a democracy is to work. Our politicians today haven't the foggiest idea what that was.

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmmm....

 

jblake47, did you read the piece?

 

Nuthin' like dissolving da branches of government was being proposed.

 

A paragraph mentioned three steps being discussed. One was making firearms trafficking a felony, which would require legislative action. Da other two steps were what I mentioned above, which (properly) require only executive action. The author of da article correctly indicated that.

 

I'm not quite sure how any rational human being takes an accurate statement by a third party author about da proper division of authority within da U.S. Constitutional system and gets from there to worries about "dictatorship" or "Third World Dictators".

 

What's more, none of da three proposed items were at all offensive. Firearms trafficking should be a felony. I think we want better data integration with the background check system, don't we? So that criminals don't get guns? And punishing people for lying on those forms just seems like a reasonable part of that, but probably too expensive to do for an extended period.

 

Did yeh have any real objection, other than your bizarre prejudice that anything President Obama does must be leading to dictatorship no matter what the evidence really is?

 

You are correct sir, sorta like Obamacare n'cest pas?

 

Yah, absolutely. And like da financial reform bill. Both are messes that got taken over in substantial part by lobbyists.

 

Beavah

 

 

[Twocubdad]

I read a different article on the same thing earlier in the day and my take away from that was the administration would act with or without Congress. Who knows.

[Beavah]

I read a different article on the same thing earlier in the day and my take away from that was the administration would act with or without Congress. Who knows.

 

A different article by whom I wonder? No doubt one that dropped the explanatory previous paragraph. By accident, I'm sure.

 

If yeh put on your thinking cap for half a sec, would that make any sense at all?

 

Seriously, folks. Get a grip. How much frothing at the mouth conspiracy nonsense are yeh really goin' to buy?

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Twocubdad]

I didn't WRITE it, just read it. It was a link from some Facebook post. If you're looking for a defense of modern online journalism, you've got the wrong guy. But yeah, it's plausible. Didn't the administration threaten something similar back in the fall? That's politics.

 

Edited to add:

 

Semi-raw footage (four minutes worth) at: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57563029-10391739/biden-meets-with-gun-safety-advocates/ Decide for yourself. Skip over to the about 3:40 in the clip.

 

(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

[Stosh]

Executive decrees are what dictators do. Bypassing the legislative process in a democracy is to bypass the people's representation. The number of such decrees is astounding with our current president. He has sworn to uphold the laws of this country, not make them up as he goes along.

 

One does not need to read between the lines on this to know that if a certain person doesn't get his way, he'll merely do what he wants regardless of what the people's elected representation has to say about it.

 

If one is reading this correctly, if the judicial branch is called into determine it's legality, and if it is inappropriate, the answer will still be, "too bad".

 

The Constitution was designed to protect us from tyranny. Executive decrees are nothing more than laws based on no representation of the people. It's time the people put a stop to such abuse of power in Washington. We did it once before, I hope we never have to do it again!

[scoutingagain]

Delusional paranoia aside, if one reads the article linked by Barry, as Beav notes, the executive branch is basically indicating that SOME actions don't require legislative approval and they are absolutely correct. Among those are increased enforcement of current legislation. Or do folks believe current gun laws shouldn't be enforced?

 

Some of the other articles have left out the qualifying statement and have implied much more that was actually said. These articles and the other thread where an MSNBC commentator took an NRA analogy about the appearance of guns and compared it to racism show everything in the media, particularly media with know biases need to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

Jeepers.

 

SA

 

 

[Beavah]

Yah, jblake47, I return to "get a grip." . And please, please, don't ever counsel Citizenship in da Nation MB.

 

Executive orders and decisions are part of da normal process of government. We have an Exectuive Branch to execute, eh? An executive order is nothing more or less than the CEO giving instructions to his subordinates. That's what we elect a president to do, eh? To run da executive branch as its leader and boss. Orders to the Joint Chiefs as Commander in Chief are a form of executive order. So is declaring that federal workers have a vacation day on December 31 because New Years falls on a Tuesday. Of the two, da risk of "dictatorship" comes more from da first than the second, I reckon.

 

Beavah