N Sperlo wrote:
In reply to Osterkraut:
I appreciate the fact that this forum asks for clarification, so I am happy to correct myself.
In the area I work security, in my specific area, I am the LAW ENFORCEMENT. I don't blow up on comments like Paul Blart, and Rent-a-cop because I don't really care, but I know my job. When I am at work, my job is to enforce law and the city/county give me the title officer.
Hmmm... Law Enforcement + Officer = Law Enforcement Officer. LEO. Funny how that works, huh?
P.S. While working, I carry all rights to arrest that a police officer does.
Cool starry bra, but being a LEO doesn't change your status as a civilian!
Don't worry about the Paul Blart bit, if you were a real cop I'd call you Barney. 
tuna55
UberDork
1/15/13 3:01 p.m.
Small differences in our itnerpretations, but here is how I see those points being implemented by our very power hungry executive branch:
Beer Baron wrote:
Okay. I am not a lawyer, so my knowledge is limited.
"ordering stricter action against people who lie on gun sale background checks" - this is a bit vague. Presuming it means devote more LEO resources to find people who do this and prosecute them seeking the upper limit of possible penalties. I don't think he has the power to raise the possible penalties, and doesn't sound like what he's considering.
Changing the law to strengthen a penalty for an existing law (which should have a penalty written into said law) is a function of the legislature.
Beer Baron wrote:
"seeking to ensure more complete records in the federal background check database" - we're talking FBI and other law enforcement databases. This is absolutely the purview of the Executive Branch.
The talk I have heard is to keep a federal database of gun owners, which is certainly a function of the legislative branch, since a background check is all the FBI currently does.
Beer Baron wrote:
"striking limits on federal research into gun use" - sounds like a DOD or law enforcement thing. Again, something falling under the executive branch.
maybe, but there are budgetary constraints that this is going to rub up against.
Beer Baron wrote:
"ordering tougher penalties against gun trafficking" - this goes with number one, but pushes the line a bit more.
Same point as I have, depends on exactly what this ends up meaning.
Beer Baron wrote:
"giving schools flexibility to use grant money to improve safety" - depends a lot about the source of those grants. Either way, I'm all for the government giving schools and districts more control and fewer mandates on how they spend their resources.
Well, I could argue that the federal government has no power to implement a school at all, but I won't muddy the waters. If you take the current school system as precedent, then this is fine.
In reply to Osterkraut:
I get Barney all the time because of the revolver. The "one in the chamber" bit. The "pig" bit. The good guys joke around with you. The bad guys diss you until they need you while their being shot at by their rival gang and the police aren't coming.
tuna55 wrote:
Changing the law to strengthen a penalty for an existing law (which should have a penalty written into said law) is a function of the legislature.
I absolutely agree that changing the law is a function of the legislature. I suspect the president does too. I know that most crimes usually carry a range of possible penalties. I suspect he plans to play more within that leeway.
I'll leave out response to my other readings and yours because... it's all supposition on both our parts and we'll have to wait and see what he actually comes out with. I suspect he is floating ideas that go beyond the scope of his office to see what does and does not fly, and that he will end up with something that falls within the scope of his power.
You have a lot more faith in our CIC than I do.
I would like to see the WH response to this petition.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/eliminate-armed-guards-president-vice-president-and-their-families-and-establish-gun-free-zones/6RDGkxLK?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl
Bobzilla wrote:
You have a lot more faith in our CIC than I do.
Probably. Not sure if that is more a reflection of me or of the average of this board.
Actually, what I have the most faith in is the system as a whole. I expect the executive branch to try to gather more power to itself and the legislature to bicker like a bunch of junior high girls. I just have a fair amount of faith in the system as a whole to do a pretty decent job at limiting the ability of people who "know best" to substantially inflict their will on the people. This is also why I don't get too worried about an inefficient and wasteful government. If the government can't get things done, it's a lot harder to oppress people in any more than superficial ways.
I have faith in the system. I do not have faith in the person sitting in the big-boy chair. Everything he has done to date has shown him to be a power hungry egotist.
yamaha
SuperDork
1/15/13 3:37 p.m.
In reply to rainydave:
That isn't going to go over well.......nor does it look good if started by law abiding gun owners.
Bobzilla wrote:
I have faith in the system. I do not have faith in the person sitting in the big-boy chair. Everything he has done to date has shown him to be a power hungry egotist.
That is the type of personality you have to have to want to become president.
I love the governor of California. He's awesome. He would make a great president. He has stated that he would never ever ever want to run for that office or take that job.
I expect the president to come up with ideas that are beyond the scope of what he can get away with. I then expect someone else to say, "Nope, you can't do that. It is outside of the scope of your power." Then he says, "Well, crap. What can I do?" I expect the system to keep him in check.
Beer Baron said:
That is the type of personality you have to have to want to become president.
That can start a whole other very interesting conversation. Not necessarily around that specific job, but I recently read an article on a study done around the jobs taken by people with psychopathic tendencies.
rainydave wrote:
I would like to see the WH response to this petition.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/eliminate-armed-guards-president-vice-president-and-their-families-and-establish-gun-free-zones/6RDGkxLK?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl
Oh, my goodness! You mean secret service employees carry FIREARMS? That's crazy!
I must sign this petition!
N Sperlo wrote:
Beer Baron said:
That is the type of personality you have to have to want to become president.
That can start a whole other very interesting conversation. Not necessarily around that specific job, but I recently read *an article* on a study done around the jobs taken by people with psychopathic tendencies.
Side track!
Original quote said "power hungry egotist" not "psychopath". Very different. I think people seek the office of president because they genuinely and truly believe very strongly in what they are doing. They have an agenda and they seek power to push it because they really believe that is best. They actually mean well. That doesn't mean we don't need to keep them on a leash.
I picture "psychopaths" more as car salesmen who want to make a lot of money and don't care that they're suckering you into a car loan you will ultimately not be able to afford.
Was the "an article" supposed to be a link to something?
Beer Baron wrote:
N Sperlo wrote:
Beer Baron said:
That is the type of personality you have to have to want to become president.
That can start a whole other very interesting conversation. Not necessarily around that specific job, but I recently read *an article* on a study done around the jobs taken by people with psychopathic tendencies.
Side track!
Original quote said "power hungry egotist" not "psychopath". Very different. I think people seek the office of president because they genuinely and truly believe very strongly in what they are doing. They have an agenda and they seek power to push it because they really believe that is best. They actually mean well. That doesn't mean we don't need to keep them on a leash.
I picture "psychopaths" more as car salesmen who want to make a lot of money and don't care that they're suckering you into a car loan you will ultimately not be able to afford.
Was the "an article" supposed to be a link to something?
Right, but it makes for an interesting conversation. I was just referring to the "personality type" comment. You've got to be some type of personality to do anything, but I think this is the rant area for guns, not personality types. (and also, psychopaths often think they have a higher calling in life. A bit of a stretched connection, but hey, what can ya do?)
No, I don't think Obama is a psychopath, but its much more common than many think.
N Sperlo wrote:
Beer Baron said:
That is the type of personality you have to have to want to become president.
That can start a whole other very interesting conversation. Not necessarily around that specific job, but I recently read *an article* on a study done around the jobs taken by people with psychopathic tendencies.
Is being a women a profession? 
I keed I keed.
N Sperlo wrote:
1988RedT2 wrote:
rainydave wrote:
I would like to see the WH response to this petition.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/eliminate-armed-guards-president-vice-president-and-their-families-and-establish-gun-free-zones/6RDGkxLK?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl
Oh, my goodness! You mean secret service employees carry FIREARMS? That's crazy!
I must sign this petition!
Wow... thats... likely.
No sane person expects it to happen. Many of these petitions are put out there to promote a response from the administration.
rainydave wrote:
N Sperlo wrote:
1988RedT2 wrote:
rainydave wrote:
I would like to see the WH response to this petition.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/eliminate-armed-guards-president-vice-president-and-their-families-and-establish-gun-free-zones/6RDGkxLK?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl
Oh, my goodness! You mean secret service employees carry FIREARMS? That's crazy!
I must sign this petition!
Wow... thats... likely.
No sane person expects it to happen. Many of these petitions are put out there to promote a response from the administration.
I fully understand the reasoning. Its just... yea.
yamaha
SuperDork
1/15/13 5:20 p.m.
In reply to N Sperlo:
I still think that's in ill taste considering the current happenings. If I were president, I'd probably drive myself around incogneto though.....tell the secret service, "Go enjoy your parade, I'm going that way by myself."
yamaha wrote:
In reply to N Sperlo:
I still think that's in ill taste considering the current happenings. If I were president, I'd probably drive myself around incogneto though.....tell the secret service, "Go enjoy your parade, I'm going that way by myself."
I don't think he exactly gets to make that decision. I don't know though. There is a lot about the Secret Service that the public doesn't know.
Will
Dork
1/15/13 6:19 p.m.
Condolences to all those in NY. Fight it in the courts.
tuna55
UberDork
1/15/13 7:33 p.m.
I just wrote this to my Uncle (who lives in NY):
The end of my thought process is that gun control, and the adherence to the second amendment, with regard to today's weaponry and violent culture, is a terribly complicated and delicate matter. Nothing being voted on... nothing at all, will do anything to prevent the tragedy we saw in Sandy Hook, Webster, Columbine, Virginia Tech, and countless others. Unfortunately, a reasonable, well rounded discussion of the issues, and how best to reduce these killing sprees (the ever-dropping number does little to deaden the blow felt by the families of the victims) is not something our federal government is capable of doing. What we witness instead is mindless political pandering. A Governor or two with ambition to be president in 2016, a legislature which jumps at any chance to reduce the power of the populace beneath it, and a President, who, exactly like the last one, seeks to increase the power of the executive branch at any cost. What does that leave us? With less freedom, less personal safety, more reliance on government and the exact same likelihood to witness further tragedies.
dinger
Reader
1/16/13 8:49 a.m.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21032450
At 11:55 EST (16:55 GMT) on Wednesday, Mr Obama is expected to unveil the new proposals at the White House, flanked by children who wrote him letters after the Newtown shooting.
IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!! WHY DO YOU WANT TO KILL CHILDREN?!?!?
