Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, April 07, 2021

President Joe Biden plans to announce new executive actions on guns on Thursday, a person familiar with the plans said, fulfilling a commitment he made in the aftermath of two deadly shootings last month.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

The administration had also been considering action in other areas, including to alert law enforcement agencies when someone fails a federal background check. Gun control advocates say background check alerts could potentially flag troubled or criminal individuals who are trying to access weapons.

I can see why this is a good idea but don't see what the end game is.

So a person fails the back ground check. Who's going to look into why? What happens next?

Does that person get a visit from law enforcement? For what and what would the officer do? Are they going to surveil those individuals?

#1 | Posted by jpw at 2021-04-07 05:22 PM | Reply

#1 The cops can do a welfare check and shoot the failure to death, just to be on the safe side.

#2 | Posted by bored at 2021-04-07 06:31 PM | Reply

I hope the next President, if he is conservative, then takes executive action on Abortion.

#3 | Posted by boaz at 2021-04-07 08:07 PM | Reply

#1 | Posted by jpw

National database comes to mind...

Accessible to FBI and ATF primarily.

Local law authorities with a warrant I suppose.

Queue the morons about the 2nd and it's sacred place in no reasonable persons mind.

#2 | Posted by bored

You're channeling BOAZO...

#4 | Posted by billy_boy at 2021-04-07 08:09 PM | Reply

Queue the morons about the 2nd and it's sacred place in no reasonable persons mind.

No one cares what's in your stupid ass mind.

It's got a sacred place...in the constitution. That's all that matters.

#5 | Posted by boaz at 2021-04-07 08:11 PM | Reply

I hope the next President, if he is conservative, then takes executive action on Abortion.
#3 | POSTED BY BOAZ

And take away the #1 wedge issue for voters?

Fat chance!

#6 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-04-07 08:13 PM | Reply

- It's got a sacred place...in the constitution.

Yes it does... that gun ownership can be regulated as to what kind of gun, among other things.

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2021-04-07 08:23 PM | Reply

It's got a sacred place...in the constitution. That's all that matters.

#5 | Posted by boaz at 2021-04-07 08:11 PM | Reply

the one that talks about "a well regulated militia"

#8 | Posted by Scotty at 2021-04-07 08:25 PM | Reply

that gun ownership can be regulated as to what kind of gun, among other things.

Nope. But I know you dont understand written words..

the one that talks about "a well regulated militia"

No, the one that talks about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That's the one..

#9 | Posted by boaz at 2021-04-07 08:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And BTW, it literally says that, that the right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

I really dont understand what you liberals dont understand about that..

#10 | Posted by boaz at 2021-04-07 08:32 PM | Reply

I hope the next President, if he is conservative, then takes executive action on Abortion.
#3 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Dude. You're a moron. Sorry, that's an insult to morons.

The way to reduce abortions is sex education and easily available contraceptives - without parental consent needed for minors.

This has been demonstrated by numerous studies.

But you're an idiot, so what do you know. Nothing of value actually.

If abortions are banned, they will continue - except with a much higher fatality rate for women.

But you're OK with that because you're a POS misogynist far right-wing QTard.

The cat is out of the bag, morality by your definition cannot be achieved by legislation.

GFY

#11 | Posted by billy_boy at 2021-04-07 08:32 PM | Reply

It's got a sacred place...in the constitution. That's all that matters.

#5 | Posted by boaz at 2021-04-07 08:11 PM | Reply

What is an amendment, and why can the constitution be changed. Idiot.

You are not property, and are allowed to vote because of constitutional amendments.

Things change, and the Supreme Court has determined that reasonable restrictions may be placed on gun ownership.

What are you afraid of? Are you in possession of fire arms that have been used in a crime?

If so, yeah you should be a little scared.

GFY

#12 | Posted by billy_boy at 2021-04-07 08:48 PM | Reply

"The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment."

www.loc.gov

You must be thinking of NRA propaganda, Major B, not the law.

#13 | Posted by Corky at 2021-04-07 08:51 PM | Reply

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Boaz "the people" as in "we the people" refers to the group collective not the individual.

#14 | Posted by Scotty at 2021-04-07 09:38 PM | Reply

Whatever you idiots. You arent getting the people's right to own a firearm.

Get over it.

#15 | Posted by boaz at 2021-04-07 10:11 PM | Reply

#15

Whatever = current law.

Thread article is about what is possible under current law, not about NRA scare propaganda that someone is coming to take your gun away.

#16 | Posted by Corky at 2021-04-07 10:26 PM | Reply

You arent getting the people's right to own a firearm.

I don't think that's the question. The question might be can you wave it around in the grocery store "just 'cuz".

#17 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-04-07 10:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

National database comes to mind...

Accessible to FBI and ATF primarily.

Local law authorities with a warrant I suppose.

I've taken so much flack from lefties here for suggesting we fix and properly fund the NICS first before writing new laws and regulations.

This action seems to ignore those long standing issues unfortunately.

#18 | Posted by jpw at 2021-04-07 11:21 PM | Reply

And BTW, it literally says that, that the right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

I really dont understand what you liberals dont understand about that..

#10 | Posted by boaz

I really don't understand how you don't understand that it already is infringed.

As are all rights to some degree. None are absolute, including the 2nd.

#19 | Posted by jpw at 2021-04-07 11:22 PM | Reply

#13
... dangerous and unusual weapons.

Yes, a term of art i.e. not what you think it means. See the National Firearms Act for edification.

#20 | Posted by et_al at 2021-04-08 01:53 AM | Reply

#14
... "the people" as in "we the people" refers to the group collective not the individual.

Have you considered SC precedent to the contrary?

Have you considered the legal effect of a preamble on specifics later expressed?

Have you considered SC precedent that says "the people" refers to the "national community?"

Have you considered that "the militia" is statutorily defined as a subset of "the people" since one of the first acts of Congress?

Have you considered that definitional subset exists, in part, today?

#21 | Posted by et_al at 2021-04-08 02:20 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The question might be can you wave it around in the grocery store "just 'cuz".

"Waving" a weapon around in public is a crime I'm sure, but such a statement is what I would expect from someone like you.

#22 | Posted by boaz at 2021-04-08 10:31 AM | Reply

I come from a family full of cops...Grandfather, father AND mother, so guns have been a rather common item in my life. I inherited a locker packed with them, eventually, that would be the envy of any mouth-breathing gun nut. By the time I was 30, I'd sold them all, as I never felt I required them to feel safe in the first place. The 2nd Amendment is in dire need of a change to reflect the society it now has affect over, because it only addresses the technology and societal morays of the era it was written in. It would be impossible to successfully commit mass murder with a musket.

#23 | Posted by dutch46 at 2021-04-08 11:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Whatever you idiots. You arent getting the people's right to own a firearm.

Get over it.

#15 | Posted by boaz

Whatever you idiots. You arent getting the people's right to VOTE.

Get over it.

#24 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-04-08 11:41 AM | Reply

Another President using EOs to bypass democracy. And another party supporting it who demonized it in the past, along with the opposite party demonizing it today although they used the same tactics in the past.

I wonder if we will ever get anything new happening by Dems this term instead of more of the same from both parties.

#25 | Posted by humtake at 2021-04-08 12:07 PM | Reply

Let's just call it Bread & Circus.
This does nothing to address the underlying causes for violence, but it is sure good PR!!!

#26 | Posted by DMTDust at 2021-04-08 12:22 PM | Reply

Another President using EOs to bypass democracy.
#25 | Posted by humtake

A trump supporter complaining about democracy being bypassed.

Too stupid to see the irony.

#27 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-04-08 12:23 PM | Reply

Woo, lot's of political BS came from Biden in that speech. However, it's nice to have someone behind the podium again who can coherently communicate the BS without attacking everyone or bloating his own ego.

#28 | Posted by humtake at 2021-04-08 12:24 PM | Reply

If the Constitutional Rights are tied to the technology of the 1800's, then why are we seeing constitutional arguments on a computer screen? Shouldn't you have a messenger carry that parchment you wrote with a quill pen to the town square? Seriously. The 2nd has nothing to do with muskets, except during musket times.

#29 | Posted by DMTDust at 2021-04-08 12:25 PM | Reply

Is it just me, or is #29 being purposely obtuse?

#30 | Posted by dutch46 at 2021-04-08 01:24 PM | Reply

"If the Constitutional Rights are tied to the technology of the 1800's, then why are we seeing constitutional arguments on a computer screen?"

They're not.

Constitutional rights aren't even tied to most of the words in the Second Amendment.

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-08 01:39 PM | Reply

because it only addresses the technology and societal morays of the era it was written in.

#23 | POSTED BY DUTCH46 AT 2021-04-08 11:27 AM | FLAG:

It was an era of privately owned artillery batteries and warships. The Puckle Gun was 70 years old at the time and the founders were well versed in European military tech progression from the 1600s through the Napoleonic era.

Warships, tanks, and aircraft continued to be easy to import for civilian ownership right up until 9/11. Reactivating their weapons is more challenging but still possible to do legally.

#32 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-04-08 01:48 PM | Reply

This rhetoric by Biden is never going to change anything. It's simply more drivel. It does nothing to address the thought process that brings an individual to murder multiple people they don't even know. So they can't legally buy a gun. Now what? They get one another way.

#33 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-04-08 01:49 PM | Reply

Is it just me, or is #29 being purposely obtuse?

#30 | POSTED BY DUTCH46

It's a valid rebuttal and one I've never heard a good counter to.

#34 | Posted by jpw at 2021-04-08 02:38 PM | Reply

Constitutional rights aren't even tied to most of the words in the Second Amendment.
#31 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I love it how people cling to this, as if the current lay understanding of English is what was meant 2+ centuries ago.

It's pretty dishonest, though, considering the breakdown of the language in the 2nd has been analyzed and presented many times by posters here.

#35 | Posted by jpw at 2021-04-08 02:40 PM | Reply

Biden is appealing to the hand-wringers.

In the mean time, is there a firearm/ammo ETF or similar fund anyone can recommend investing in? I may as well make some money of this foolishness.

#36 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-04-08 03:08 PM | Reply

"Boaz "the people" as in "we the people" refers to the group collective not the individual."

Hi Scotty,

The "people" are referenced several times in the BoR.

Are the "people" referred to in the second amendment the same as those referred to in the other amendments?

If so, is it safe to assume that the rights afforded those specifically called out as "people" are the only ones to which the BoR applies?

Thanks!

#37 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-04-08 03:11 PM | Reply

as I never felt I required them to feel safe in the first place.

So, because YOU feel safe, you want to take the right of someone else who may not feel safe and make that decision for them?

The second amendment doesnt just belong to you to pick up whenever YOU want to. It belongs to all of us and we can use it at our discretion.

#38 | Posted by boaz at 2021-04-08 05:56 PM | Reply

Killing someone in your home seems like a huge pain in the ass. You've got police interviews, testimony in court, judgement by a grand jury. Sure you'll get off, but the headache seems like just another long, drawn-out act of theater by the authorities. And I say this a guy who keeps a .22 Ruger LCP in my locked desk drawer.

#39 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-08 06:19 PM | Reply

Whatever you idiots. You arent getting the people's right to own a firearm.

Get over it.

#15 | Posted by boaz

LOL

You're so pig headed that you don't understand no one is trying to take away your right to bear arms.

Why are you afraid of a little regulation and licensing?

Maybe you're a criminal, working for a drug cartel.

That sounds about right for you BOAZO.

GFY

#40 | Posted by billy_boy at 2021-04-08 09:22 PM | Reply

Boaz, always keep in mind that cursing is the last God-damned bastion of a fool.

#41 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-08 09:24 PM | Reply

The question might be can you wave it around in the grocery store "just 'cuz".

#17 | POSTED BY REDIAL AT 2021-04-07 10:31 PM | FLAG:

"It's complicated". The law will fall under different names and have different technical details in each state. Most of the time this is covered, and made illegal, under statues for Unlawful Display, Improper Exhibition of a Weapon, Brandishing, etc.

#42 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-04-09 08:40 AM | Reply

And BTW, it literally says that, that the right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
I really dont understand what you liberals dont understand about that..

#10 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2021-04-07 08:32 PM | REPLY

That doesn't mean that access to certain types of firearms, machine guns for example, can't be limited. In the next ten years, Dems will hold enough seats in the Senate to be able to nix the filibuster and then ban AR style rifles, AR style pistols (I didn't realize this was a thing until the Boulder mass shooting), magazines larger than ten-rounds, bullets capable of piercing body armor, etc. None of that violates "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED," because there are still plenty of guns out there for you to buy. Just like not all speech is free, ask Alex Jones, the government can still regulate certain types of firearms. Magazines, bullets, attachments like bump-stocks are not firearms so they can be regulated all day long. Certain states by law already ban "short barreled rifles," sawed off shotguns, etc as dangerous weapons which have all survived 2nd Amendment challenges.

#43 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2021-04-09 03:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2021 World Readable

Drudge Retort