Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby KrytenKoro » Fri Dec 11, 2015 10:42 pm UTC

using the tools of the Bush Administration.

It's certainly not the nationwide push the conspiracies alleged, but DAMN dood, you know how fucked up and Kafkaesque the no fly list is, why would you want it to become -more- unconstitutional and oppressive?
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Dec 11, 2015 11:00 pm UTC

Don't think he can pull it off, but yeah, it's a pretty jacked up approach. I literally can't think of a worse way for Obama to approach this. Not only is it heavy on irony/hypocrisy, it's wildly unlikely to be effective.

But hey, I guess if the right is appreciating due process a little more, that's something.

His executive actions vs private sellers will likewise probably not amount to much. Questionable in terms of legality, enforcability is really sketchy, and he's comin' up on the end of his term. If it gets too broad, it just won't survive the inevitible court challenges.

Edit: Link to list of proposed executive actions http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/summary-president-obama-gun-proposals.aspx Most of that stuff is tilting at windmills or is utterly redundant. For instance, straw purchasers already face 10 years in prison and huge fines* for each instance, so...how much are you really gonna boost that? At some point increasing penalties just doesn't do a lot for deterrence.

*If memory serves, half a million dollars.

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby Vahir » Sat Dec 12, 2015 2:46 pm UTC

Gun ownership is* a privilege, not a right. If the government doesn't think you're trustworthy enough to have a gun, then you probably shouldn't have a gun.



*Or in the case of the United States, should be

curtis95112
Posts: 638
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:23 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby curtis95112 » Sun Dec 13, 2015 12:23 pm UTC

I think you're missing the point of having guns, validity of said point notwithstanding.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Роберт wrote:Sure, but at least they hit the intended target that time.

Well, if you shoot enough people, you're bound to get the right one eventually.

Thats the best description of the USA ever.

Mutex
Posts: 1469
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby Mutex » Sun Dec 13, 2015 1:51 pm UTC

Vahir wrote:Gun ownership is* a privilege, not a right. If the government doesn't think you're trustworthy enough to have a gun, then you probably shouldn't have a gun.



*Or in the case of the United States, should be


Well, if the government has valid reasons to believe you're dangerous enough to be denied your right to travel, or not be watched all the time, then yeah, probably best not to let you have guns and explosives.

Introducing this new measure isn't the problem, it makes sense in isolation. The problem is the total lack of due process, which the GOP for some reason weren't bothered about before.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6797
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby sardia » Sun Dec 13, 2015 5:05 pm UTC

the GOP doesn't have a problem with the lack of due process they have a Problem with the fact that it has the words guns and 'can't have' in the same sentence. If any other right was abridged, then they wouldn't say a word.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby KrytenKoro » Sun Dec 13, 2015 9:17 pm UTC

sardia wrote:the GOP doesn't have a problem with the lack of due process they have a Problem with the fact that it has the words guns and 'can't have' in the same sentence. If any other right was abridged, then they wouldn't say a word.

I'm not saying that the GOP isn't being hypocritical here. He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.

But the No-fly list is fucked as all hell, and it's moronic of the president to suggest that it is, in the least, a valid metric to choose who to deprive of their Constitutional rights. Its record of failure is well-documented.
Last edited by KrytenKoro on Mon Dec 14, 2015 4:06 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
Link
Posts: 1404
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:33 am UTC
Location: ᘝᓄᘈᖉᐣ
Contact:

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby Link » Sun Dec 13, 2015 10:05 pm UTC

From what I gather, Obama would repeal the Second Amendment in half a heartbeat if he could. This isn't about keeping guns away from people who aren't responsible enough to carry them; it's about keeping guns away from everyone -- or at least getting as close to that as possible without violating the constitution. The fact that it's plugged into a rather fucked-up loophole only makes it more effective. It's daring, that's for sure, but it may just be mad enough to work.

In any case, this isn't the first time in the past few months that I've had the feeling Obama's gone "full YOLO" because his term is ending. Kudos to him!

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Dec 14, 2015 1:35 pm UTC

Vahir wrote:Gun ownership is* a privilege, not a right. If the government doesn't think you're trustworthy enough to have a gun, then you probably shouldn't have a gun.


If the government can PROVE you are dangerous, then sure. Yknow, with evidence, and trials, and appeals available. That whole due process thing.

Without that, "what the government thinks" is kind of unchecked and scary. For guns, or most anything else.

sardia wrote:the GOP doesn't have a problem with the lack of due process they have a Problem with the fact that it has the words guns and 'can't have' in the same sentence. If any other right was abridged, then they wouldn't say a word.


This is very likely indeed, but hey...kudos for them rediscovering an appreciation for due process. It's a silver lining here. Hopefully it sticks.

Link wrote:From what I gather, Obama would repeal the Second Amendment in half a heartbeat if he could. This isn't about keeping guns away from people who aren't responsible enough to carry them; it's about keeping guns away from everyone -- or at least getting as close to that as possible without violating the constitution. The fact that it's plugged into a rather fucked-up loophole only makes it more effective. It's daring, that's for sure, but it may just be mad enough to work.


Well, yes. Both sides are on the side they are primarily because they are for/against guns. Due process is a secondary consideration all round. Cheery thought.

cphite
Posts: 1362
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby cphite » Mon Dec 14, 2015 3:33 pm UTC

Vahir wrote:Gun ownership is* a privilege, not a right. If the government doesn't think you're trustworthy enough to have a gun, then you probably shouldn't have a gun.


Assuming, of course, you believe the government is trustworthy enough to make that call.

cphite
Posts: 1362
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby cphite » Mon Dec 14, 2015 3:52 pm UTC

Link wrote:From what I gather, Obama would repeal the Second Amendment in half a heartbeat if he could. This isn't about keeping guns away from people who aren't responsible enough to carry them; it's about keeping guns away from everyone -- or at least getting as close to that as possible without violating the constitution. The fact that it's plugged into a rather fucked-up loophole only makes it more effective. It's daring, that's for sure, but it may just be mad enough to work.


Obama would scrap any part of the Constitution he could if it would advance his ideology. His whole administration thus far has been about pushing (and often crossing) the bounds of the Constitution.

In any case, this isn't the first time in the past few months that I've had the feeling Obama's gone "full YOLO" because his term is ending. Kudos to him!


Ironically - and as is so often the case - his actions are on track to actually harm his (and I am guessing your) cause in the long run. By skipping the legitimate process and trying to do this on his own, he basically clears the way for the next administration to easily reverse what he's put into place; or if that doesn't happen, for his changes to be undone in the court system.

Before he was actually elected, I actually kinda liked the guy... not so much on the issues, but on the whole "rule of law" thing. Numerous times he pointed out - correctly - where the government, particularly the Bush II administration, was acting outside the bounds of the Constitution, or at least seriously pressing it. I figured that even if I didn't agree with him on the issues, I could at least take comfort in the fact that he would take the rule of law seriously. Holy damn was I wrong about that :shock:

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Dec 14, 2015 4:39 pm UTC

cphite wrote:Ironically - and as is so often the case - his actions are on track to actually harm his (and I am guessing your) cause in the long run. By skipping the legitimate process and trying to do this on his own, he basically clears the way for the next administration to easily reverse what he's put into place; or if that doesn't happen, for his changes to be undone in the court system.


Nah. None of the big things are actually happening. The stuff Obama can pull off by executive order is fairly trivial in actual results, so he's not really acheiving even temporary gains. All his big goals require congress signing on, which ain't gonna happen.

It's nice that we've abandoned the ol' "nobody is coming for your guns, you cousin humping redneck" line, though, and folks are starting to get more honest about what they want.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/5/1427845/-Effective-Gun-Control-A-National-Semi-Auto-Ban
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amitai-etzioni/needed-domestic-disarmame_b_8739712.html

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby Vahir » Mon Dec 14, 2015 4:57 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
Vahir wrote:Gun ownership is* a privilege, not a right. If the government doesn't think you're trustworthy enough to have a gun, then you probably shouldn't have a gun.


Assuming, of course, you believe the government is trustworthy enough to make that call.


Even assuming they get 90% of people on the list completely wrong, I still think it's a net benefit in cost/gain terms. Oh dear, some people will be unfairly stopped from playing with guns. I'm crying here.

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby PeteP » Mon Dec 14, 2015 5:06 pm UTC

Link wrote:From what I gather, Obama would repeal the Second Amendment in half a heartbeat if he could. This isn't about keeping guns away from people who aren't responsible enough to carry them; it's about keeping guns away from everyone -- or at least getting as close to that as possible without violating the constitution. The fact that it's plugged into a rather fucked-up loophole only makes it more effective. It's daring, that's for sure, but it may just be mad enough to work.

In any case, this isn't the first time in the past few months that I've had the feeling Obama's gone "full YOLO" because his term is ending. Kudos to him!

I am all for gun control, but applying any limitations to a subgroup of people should be based on good criteria or not be done at all. (Also effective? The number of people on that list is relatively small so in what way is it effective?)

User avatar
Link
Posts: 1404
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:33 am UTC
Location: ᘝᓄᘈᖉᐣ
Contact:

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby Link » Mon Dec 14, 2015 6:29 pm UTC

PeteP wrote:I am all for gun control, but applying any limitations to a subgroup of people should be based on good criteria or not be done at all. (Also effective? The number of people on that list is relatively small so in what way is it effective?)

It is indeed problematic that the no-fly lists are messed up, but the idea of "if you aren't allowed on an aeroplane, you aren't allowed to own a gun" is, in the optimal case, a decent criterion. As for being effective, at least it's a start. If you're trying to limit guns within the bounds of the US constitution, it's difficult to get any progress.

cphite wrote:Ironically - and as is so often the case - his actions are on track to actually harm his (and I am guessing your) cause in the long run. By skipping the legitimate process and trying to do this on his own, he basically clears the way for the next administration to easily reverse what he's put into place; or if that doesn't happen, for his changes to be undone in the court system.
That could be true. On the other hand, it could also mean that the laws around due process for the no-fly lists are improved while leaving the no-guns clause intact.

And yeah, like most people who aren't from the US, I think the Second Amendment is pretty ridiculous. I don't think any civilian should be allowed to own anything of which the sole purpose is harming others (or threatening to do so) -- at least not without a good reason, a clean criminal record, a psychological profile, a decent amount of training, and regular re-evaluation of all of that.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Dec 14, 2015 6:48 pm UTC

Vahir wrote:
cphite wrote:
Vahir wrote:Gun ownership is* a privilege, not a right. If the government doesn't think you're trustworthy enough to have a gun, then you probably shouldn't have a gun.


Assuming, of course, you believe the government is trustworthy enough to make that call.


Even assuming they get 90% of people on the list completely wrong, I still think it's a net benefit in cost/gain terms. Oh dear, some people will be unfairly stopped from playing with guns. I'm crying here.


If you believe that your goals are more important than freedom and due process, you don't believe in freedom and due process.

Link wrote:And yeah, like most people who aren't from the US, I think the Second Amendment is pretty ridiculous. I don't think any civilian should be allowed to own anything of which the sole purpose is harming others (or threatening to do so) -- at least not without a good reason, a clean criminal record, a psychological profile, a decent amount of training, and regular re-evaluation of all of that.


...the sole purpose is not harming others. The vast, vast majority of guns have never been used to harm anyone. This is a basic misunderstanding of gun culture.

But at least if you're aiming to repeal the second amendment, you're going about it in an honest, straightforward fashion. Amendments have been used to change things before, it's an option. It is deeply, deeply unlikely to happen in this case, given the reality of what people want and care about, but it can still be pursued.

Finding creative ways to pursue the same ends by trying to avoid the bother of legal checks and balances is rather more concerning.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6797
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby sardia » Mon Dec 14, 2015 8:16 pm UTC

It deeply offends me when Republicans get more rights than other Americans. If they only care when their rights are violated, then we aren't a country. You defend the whole constitution, not just the parts you like.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Dec 14, 2015 8:37 pm UTC

sardia wrote:It deeply offends me when Republicans get more rights than other Americans. If they only care when their rights are violated, then we aren't a country. You defend the whole constitution, not just the parts you like.


Meh. The ACLU manages to be entirely unconcerned about the second amendment, while being very concerned with others.

If you think this is something exclusive to one side, you're missing the problem with this proposal.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5402
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby mosc » Mon Dec 14, 2015 8:39 pm UTC

Obama should just say "I'm banning all muslims from owning guns". Then Republicans would have to support it ;)

I find this a little bit of a run around background checks. Gun lobbies seem completely opposed to background checks being directly associated with gun purchase or any kind of enforceable registry requirement. The no-fly list is an extreme example but it at least shows that there may be somebody, somewhere, in some situation, that you should probably consult some form of clearance against before handing a firearm to at a gun show.

Tyndmyr wrote:Meh. The ACLU manages to be entirely unconcerned about the second amendment, while being very concerned with others.
You know the ACLU also respects criminal background checks for all kinds of things. They have huge swaths of policy positions on when they are reasonable and when they are not. You should, you know, actually try learning about the subject.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Dec 14, 2015 8:48 pm UTC

mosc wrote:Obama should just say "I'm banning all muslims from owning guns". Then Republicans would have to support it ;)


I would wager that the no-fly list is at least a little anti-muslim. Or mildly racist or whatever. Certainly, I note that one of my friends with a darker shade of skin and a bushy beard seems to be randomly selected for additional screening with some frequency.

I'll grant that this isn't a statistically significant sample or anything, but at a minimum, the no-fly list is a reaction to Islamic terrorism, and there's no good way to verify that it isn't racist, religion-biased, etc, and there's some reason to suspect that it is. In short, this proposal is not so very different from yours(though I'm aware you're saying it in jest).

I find this a little bit of a run around background checks. Gun lobbies seem completely opposed to background checks being directly associated with gun purchase or any kind of enforceable registry requirement. The no-fly list is an extreme example but it at least shows that there may be somebody, somewhere, in some situation, that you should probably consult some form of clearance against before handing a firearm to at a gun show.


Background checks are already routine save for the private sale exception*. Presence at a gun show does not increase or reduce necessary background checks.

I also note that the no-fly list probably functions fairly poorly as a background check. Not only is there a significant chance of a false positive, there's a huge likelihood of a false negative, since you're not really checking criminal history, mental health, etc directly. It's...not really the same thing. Even if you're really pro-background check, hopefully you'll accept that "not on the no fly list" isn't a very good criteria.

*This is a federal exception. States may(and many do) set stricter standards.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5402
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby mosc » Mon Dec 14, 2015 9:09 pm UTC

It's not a great background check criteria but if it's applied without exception at point of sale than it's superior to the gutted background check laws we have today. We have ZERO exceptionless background checking on gun purchases today.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6797
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby sardia » Mon Dec 14, 2015 9:20 pm UTC

Are the Republicans advocating for all people on the list to be given due process or are they just demanding the reference to guns be removed? Because why should I care when a crappy system stays just as crappy?

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby KrytenKoro » Mon Dec 14, 2015 9:52 pm UTC

Vahir wrote:
cphite wrote:
Vahir wrote:Gun ownership is* a privilege, not a right. If the government doesn't think you're trustworthy enough to have a gun, then you probably shouldn't have a gun.


Assuming, of course, you believe the government is trustworthy enough to make that call.


Even assuming they get 90% of people on the list completely wrong, I still think it's a net benefit in cost/gain terms. Oh dear, some people will be unfairly stopped from playing with guns. I'm crying here.

Because the NSA has shown us that normalizing the government's ability to take away constitutionally-guaranteed rights by unchecked fiat doesn't lead to any kind of erosion of civil liberties, yes?

Even if you think gun control is a jolly good idea, as I happen to, the complete disregard for rule of law inherent in this push should still be troubling.

Are the Republicans advocating for all people on the list to be given due process or are they just demanding the reference to guns be removed? Because why should I care when a crappy system stays just as crappy?

Obama is giving a reason for a group, who was previously the primary objectors to the crappy system, to instead support and normalize it.

It's getting much crappier, because now, who's still trying to fight the no-fly list itself?
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Dec 14, 2015 10:18 pm UTC

mosc wrote:It's not a great background check criteria but if it's applied without exception at point of sale than it's superior to the gutted background check laws we have today. We have ZERO exceptionless background checking on gun purchases today.


How on earth would a private seller check to see if someone is on the no fly list, when you can't even check to see if YOU are on the no fly list*?

How could that even work?

sardia wrote:Are the Republicans advocating for all people on the list to be given due process or are they just demanding the reference to guns be removed? Because why should I care when a crappy system stays just as crappy?


This is a new proposal. It isn't a republican demand for improvement, it's a democratic proposal to make the no fly list apply to more things. IE, firearm purchases.

So, it's making a troublesome system crappier. Another link, because it doesn't seem as if you read the one in the OP: http://www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9865756/no-fly-list

*Well, you can buy an airline ticket, but in terms of practicality, that doesn't help much.

Cradarc
Posts: 455
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 11:30 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby Cradarc » Mon Dec 14, 2015 10:46 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:How on earth would a private seller check to see if someone is on the no fly list, when you can't even check to see if YOU are on the no fly list*?

How could that even work?

I'm guessing it would be like a background check on a secure government database. It won't explicitly say the person is on a no-fly list, but the result just says whether or not they are eligible to purchase the firearm in question.


Anyways, is preventing more people from owning guns really a bad thing in practice? I understand that it challenges the 2nd Amendment and all that, but from an ethical standpoint, what's so bad about it? How is allowing more people to purchase firearms beneficial to society?
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 300 character limit.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6797
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby sardia » Mon Dec 14, 2015 11:27 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:This is a new proposal. It isn't a republican demand for improvement, it's a democratic proposal to make the no fly list apply to more things. IE, firearm purchases.

So, it's making a troublesome system crappier. Another link, because it doesn't seem as if you read the one in the OP: http://www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9865756/no-fly-list

*Well, you can buy an airline ticket, but in terms of practicality, that doesn't help much.

Correction, it makes a troublesome system crappier for gun owners. It doesn't make it any worse for me or groups I represent. Violation of civil liberties? They were already violated, now we're just spreading the pain around. We already told the country that this list was an awful idea. If the Republicans don't have the balls to call for the removal of the list, you get no sympathy from me. Especially since all they are doing is looking out for their gun owners and not anyone else who's stuck on this list.

cphite
Posts: 1362
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby cphite » Tue Dec 15, 2015 1:00 am UTC

cphite wrote:Ironically - and as is so often the case - his actions are on track to actually harm his (and I am guessing your) cause in the long run. By skipping the legitimate process and trying to do this on his own, he basically clears the way for the next administration to easily reverse what he's put into place; or if that doesn't happen, for his changes to be undone in the court system.


That could be true. On the other hand, it could also mean that the laws around due process for the no-fly lists are improved while leaving the no-guns clause intact.


I don't believe the government should take rights away just because they think you might do something. Bear in mind, the vast majority of people on the no-fly list haven't actually committed any crime, much less act of terror; they're there because of who they know, where they live, or even what their name happens to be. Over the years plenty of people - some very young children - have been found to be listed because they had a similar name to someone else, or some various data glitch. The no-fly list should be abandoned, not leveraged to abuse people further.

Here in the USA, we have a right to bear arms. By definition, that means it's not something the government grants us permission to do; it's something we deny the government permission to restrict. While we do make exceptions for violent criminals, the mentally unbalanced, and so forth... we don't allow the government to deny us this right based on secret criteria they've used to decide that we might do something. Because the moment we allow that, we risk other rights being denied in the same manner.

And yeah, like most people who aren't from the US, I think the Second Amendment is pretty ridiculous. I don't think any civilian should be allowed to own anything of which the sole purpose is harming others (or threatening to do so) -- at least not without a good reason, a clean criminal record, a psychological profile, a decent amount of training, and regular re-evaluation of all of that.


That's okay... most of us who support the Second Amendment think that not having the right to bear arms is pretty ridiculous. :wink: We hold it to be as dear as the rights to speech, property, person, etc.

For the vast majority of gun owners, the "sole purpose" is not to hurt other people.

cphite
Posts: 1362
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby cphite » Tue Dec 15, 2015 1:07 am UTC

sardia wrote:It deeply offends me when Republicans get more rights than other Americans.


Democrats and members of other political parties have exactly the same rights as republicans when it comes to gun ownership.

Indeed, there are a lot of democrats and other non-republicans who own and carry guns. And even if there are more republicans who do, the fact that one group makes greater use of the same right does not equate to that group having "more" rights than anyone else.

If they only care when their rights are violated, then we aren't a country.


Can you cite an example of a republican insisting that strictly republican gun rights be upheld?

You defend the whole constitution, not just the parts you like.


Did you intend for that to be ironic or was it accidental?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6797
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby sardia » Tue Dec 15, 2015 3:15 am UTC

cphite wrote:
Democrats and members of other political parties have exactly the same rights as republicans when it comes to gun ownership.

Indeed, there are a lot of democrats and other non-republicans who own and carry guns. And even if there are more republicans who do, the fact that one group makes greater use of the same right does not equate to that group having "more" rights than anyone else.
Can you cite an example of a republican insisting that strictly republican gun rights be upheld?

Did you intend for that to be ironic or was it accidental?
No they don't have the same rights, because the rights to privacy and due process here aren't equally given. When Republicans weren't on the no-fly-list, the GOP said tough shit cause they might be terrorists and they were afraid for their lives. Now that guns are mentioned and it might possibly inconvenience some GOP guys, all of a sudden it's a major breach of the constitution?
I'm citing this OP's link as an example that Obama is using the previously legal and kosher no-fly-list on gun owning terrorists, and how that was perfectly ok so long as Republicans weren't violated. If the GOP only recently rediscovered the travesty that is the no-fly-list, then yay I'm with you. But they aren't. It's very ironic that they are deploring the lack of due process except they don't care about due process. They just want the words guns and "can't have" removed.
I guess you're calling me out on being a hypocrite somehow that I found the GOP's newly rediscovered due process defense bemusing.

Tell me, what percent of the GOP is calling for the list to be repealed?
PS I like how you said the right to guns was equally given, and yet you papered over the right to due process given equally under the law.

jewish_scientist
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:15 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby jewish_scientist » Tue Dec 15, 2015 2:53 pm UTC

Sometimes I wonder if politicians see issues like this; each issue being supported because it helps achieve something else. During his campaign, Obama was against toture advanced interrogation; now that he is president he supports it, or at least turns a blind eye to it. That issue was just a means, he never cared about those being tortured interrogated beyond what they could do for him. It is the same here. He was against the No Fly List because it was inline with his 'Bush overstepped his bounds' position; now he is for the No Fly List because he can use it for his 'limit who can have guns' position. However, I am willing to bet that the only reason he opposed the actions of Bush's administration and supports gun restriction was because those issues furthered something else and he only wanted/wants that something else because it supports a third thing.

P.S. Did you know that going to a trial in order to testify against the No Fly List can get you on the No Fly List? Also, there is another subsection of the population that is allowed to buy guns even though allowing these people access guns is a danger to the general public.
"You are not running off with Cow-Skull Man Dracula Skeletor!"
-Socrates

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Dec 15, 2015 5:23 pm UTC

Cradarc wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:How on earth would a private seller check to see if someone is on the no fly list, when you can't even check to see if YOU are on the no fly list*?

How could that even work?

I'm guessing it would be like a background check on a secure government database. It won't explicitly say the person is on a no-fly list, but the result just says whether or not they are eligible to purchase the firearm in question.


And if the answer is no, you have a way to check, yes? If private sellers can put in such a request then...by default, literally anyone can. So, the information can be accessed by anyone. The word "secure" becomes meaningless.

Anyways, is preventing more people from owning guns really a bad thing in practice? I understand that it challenges the 2nd Amendment and all that, but from an ethical standpoint, what's so bad about it? How is allowing more people to purchase firearms beneficial to society?


That's sort of a seperate question. And, frankly, everyone is on board with *some* restrictions, as even gun owners are pretty okay with violent criminals losing gun ownership rights. But it's not quite as simple as "anything that restricts guns is good". This way is particularly harmful to due process, and frankly, even if you're for restricting guns overall, it provides you fairly little gain in that. The tradeoff is pretty horrible.

sardia wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:This is a new proposal. It isn't a republican demand for improvement, it's a democratic proposal to make the no fly list apply to more things. IE, firearm purchases.

So, it's making a troublesome system crappier. Another link, because it doesn't seem as if you read the one in the OP: http://www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9865756/no-fly-list

*Well, you can buy an airline ticket, but in terms of practicality, that doesn't help much.

Correction, it makes a troublesome system crappier for gun owners. It doesn't make it any worse for me or groups I represent. Violation of civil liberties? They were already violated, now we're just spreading the pain around. We already told the country that this list was an awful idea. If the Republicans don't have the balls to call for the removal of the list, you get no sympathy from me. Especially since all they are doing is looking out for their gun owners and not anyone else who's stuck on this list.


Just the intersection of gun owners and people on the no fly list. Basic math tells me that can't be all that large a percentage of US gun owners. So, in practice, what are you really gaining here? Just spite and a "victory" over the hated republicans? It's okay to strip civil liberties when YOU do it, because they do it too?

To someone like me, who's not in either party, this translates to "both of these parties are awful, and will throw civil liberties under a bus in a heartbeat".

sardia wrote:No they don't have the same rights, because the rights to privacy and due process here aren't equally given. When Republicans weren't on the no-fly-list, the GOP said tough shit cause they might be terrorists and they were afraid for their lives. Now that guns are mentioned and it might possibly inconvenience some GOP guys, all of a sudden it's a major breach of the constitution?


I do not think that "republicans being on the no fly list" is a change here. I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

And, not being able to fly would also rate as an inconvenience, I think. If you're on the no fly list, it's always inconveniencing. This merely makes it more so, but with regards to an issue the republicans care about more than democrats. Flying, I think, is something that would affect both parties pretty equally. So before, while it was still bad from a due process standpoint, it wasn't particularly biased in effect.

Mutex
Posts: 1469
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby Mutex » Tue Dec 15, 2015 6:58 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Just the intersection of gun owners and people on the no fly list. Basic math tells me that can't be all that large a percentage of US gun owners. So, in practice, what are you really gaining here? Just spite and a "victory" over the hated republicans? It's okay to strip civil liberties when YOU do it, because they do it too?


What ALL Americans are gaining in something you touched on in the first reply to this whole thread. The GOP either have to explain why people the government doesn't trust to travel should be allowed guns, or argue that the list they created in the first place should be trashed. Hopefully the latter.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Dec 15, 2015 7:27 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Just the intersection of gun owners and people on the no fly list. Basic math tells me that can't be all that large a percentage of US gun owners. So, in practice, what are you really gaining here? Just spite and a "victory" over the hated republicans? It's okay to strip civil liberties when YOU do it, because they do it too?


What ALL Americans are gaining in something you touched on in the first reply to this whole thread. The GOP either have to explain why people the government doesn't trust to travel should be allowed guns, or argue that the list they created in the first place should be trashed. Hopefully the latter.


The idea that discovering hypocrisy somehow automatically results in a win is one of the strangest ideas regarding politics.

Nah. The GOP just has to yell at the democrats for wanting to take yer guns, and also, look how horribly unfair they are, while not even blinking and examining the list at all. The GOP is not composed of perfectly logical machines who cannot abide inconsistency.

cphite
Posts: 1362
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby cphite » Tue Dec 15, 2015 8:23 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
cphite wrote:Did you intend for that to be ironic or was it accidental?


No they don't have the same rights, because the rights to privacy and due process here aren't equally given. When Republicans weren't on the no-fly-list, the GOP said tough shit cause they might be terrorists and they were afraid for their lives. Now that guns are mentioned and it might possibly inconvenience some GOP guys, all of a sudden it's a major breach of the constitution?


So what you have there is an example of a political party being hypocritical on an issue; but that isn't even remotely the same thing as having "different rights" from anyone else.

I'm citing this OP's link as an example that Obama is using the previously legal and kosher no-fly-list on gun owning terrorists, and how that was perfectly ok so long as Republicans weren't violated.


First off, it wasn't just republicans who came up with the list; nor has it only been republicans who supported it afterwards. There are plenty of democrats who support the no-fly list and a whole lot of other bullshit.

Second... again, you're not showing an example of different rights. Republicans aren't being afforded any additional or different "rights" in regards to the no-fly list.

If the GOP only recently rediscovered the travesty that is the no-fly-list, then yay I'm with you. But they aren't. It's very ironic that they are deploring the lack of due process except they don't care about due process. They just want the words guns and "can't have" removed.


Some of the GOP. As well as some democrats. It's not nearly as monolithic are you're implying.

I guess you're calling me out on being a hypocrite somehow that I found the GOP's newly rediscovered due process defense bemusing.


I haven't called you anything of the sort.

Tell me, what percent of the GOP is calling for the list to be repealed?


No idea; not nearly as many as it should be.

PS I like how you said the right to guns was equally given, and yet you papered over the right to due process given equally under the law.


I think you may be confused as to what the term "due process" actually means. Due process means that the State must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person; in other words, the State must follow all legal procedures set by statute and court practice, including notice of rights, for each and every individual so as to avoid prejudicial or unequal treatment.

Speaking out against something that you were in favor of previously, or vice-versa, is generally hypocritical; but it has nothing to do with due process.

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby Vahir » Tue Dec 15, 2015 8:34 pm UTC

Okay, who here, by a show of hands, supports the no-fly list in its current state?

I'm pretty sure the answer is "nobody".

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5402
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby mosc » Tue Dec 15, 2015 9:21 pm UTC

Vahir wrote:Okay, who here, by a show of hands, supports the no-fly list in its current state?

I'm pretty sure the answer is "nobody".

After a cross-country red eye flight with a screaming 1 year old, I think the list is rather short.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6797
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby sardia » Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:21 am UTC

This would be an ideal opportunity for the extreme left and right wings to come together here and roll back this list. Or at least give it some due process. I'm kinda hoping for some sort of an odd couple coalition a la the anti prison coalition, but this year is shaping up to be a GOP year. Lots of fear, and national security, right up GOP alley, not that they actually know how to fix it, but they sure are confident about it.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Dec 16, 2015 3:04 pm UTC

sardia wrote:This would be an ideal opportunity for the extreme left and right wings to come together here...


"look, we realized we're both crazy, and we've decided to not be that..."

Yeah, I'm not gonna hold my breath.

cphite
Posts: 1362
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby cphite » Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:02 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
sardia wrote:This would be an ideal opportunity for the extreme left and right wings to come together here...


"look, we realized we're both crazy, and we've decided to not be that..."

Yeah, I'm not gonna hold my breath.


I for one agree with Sardia. We need to get these people together, all of them, all in one place... and then cover that place with concrete.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6797
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby sardia » Wed Dec 16, 2015 8:13 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
sardia wrote:This would be an ideal opportunity for the extreme left and right wings to come together here...


"look, we realized we're both crazy, and we've decided to not be that..."

Yeah, I'm not gonna hold my breath.


I for one agree with Sardia. We need to get these people together, all of them, all in one place... and then cover that place with concrete.

This isn't about convincing the moderates. The fat left and the far right both are skeptical of government intrusions in the name of security. If you can seize that under current, you'll have a majority on killing the list.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests