Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Merged two similar threads. Watch the pure politics.
What a genius idea, though!
What a genius idea, though!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Obama starts gun control
- Thread starter Sefner
- Start date
RampantAndroid
New member
Executive orders will bypass congress!
Not bypass...interpret. That said, it won't bypass SCOTUS and the lower courts. Maybe NRA or someone will get a judge to say that the law cannot be enforced until all court cases go through.
not to mention that an agency needs funding to enforce an executive order...Congress can refuse to approve funding to enforce it.
The courts have overturned executive orders from Truman and Clinton. Wonder what the SCOTUS would have to say on an executive order that conflicts with the 2nd Amendment rulings?
The courts have overturned executive orders from Truman and Clinton. Wonder what the SCOTUS would have to say on an executive order that conflicts with the 2nd Amendment rulings?
Bernie Lomax
New member
Politically, I have no idea why the Administration would think pushing gun control now is a wise move. They are standing in a house fire bathed in gasoline and apparently their first thought was "Hey, let's kiss that rattlesnake while we're at it."
It could be that Obama has decided that no matter what he does, he has no chance in '12 anyway, so he's going to ram as much of his agenda down the country's throat as he can. As the saying goes, in for a penny, in for a pound.
Last edited:
GoOfY-FoOt
New member
Simply bewildering...I can't in my 42 years of living, remember any other president, who so emphatically polarized a nation.
Perhaps Lyndon Johnson when he sent troops into Vietnam, but that was a tad bit before my time...Any old-timers here that can attest to the American climate during that era, in relation to the present?
I think the last time that things were this heated over something so personal, led us into Civil War...
(Mods: I'm not advocating, just surmising)
Perhaps Lyndon Johnson when he sent troops into Vietnam, but that was a tad bit before my time...Any old-timers here that can attest to the American climate during that era, in relation to the present?
I think the last time that things were this heated over something so personal, led us into Civil War...
(Mods: I'm not advocating, just surmising)
Carry_24/7
New member
Come on! Bush was less polarizing?!? Obama would not have been possible without Bush paving the way with extreme incompetence, national/international embarrassment and corruption.
Guys, relax...no matter what Glenn Beck says, no one is taking our guns, or ammo, or carry permits.
Guys, relax...no matter what Glenn Beck says, no one is taking our guns, or ammo, or carry permits.
youngunz4life
New member
in reply to goofy, you had some good surmising. I would like to say that you might've gone back too far. Hoover before roosevelt was elected over him had people in a major tizzy. they were in an uproar. he lost re-election handedly in 1932...paving the way for roosevelt for 4terms 1933-1945(FDR was in his 4th term when he passed).
I agree w/carry's last line twp posts ago, but I do worry about a "seed being planted" in the wrong place
I agree w/carry's last line twp posts ago, but I do worry about a "seed being planted" in the wrong place
Executive Orders; are these true?
#12425
Interpol can operate freely within the USA enjoying TOTAL Diplomatic Immunity and now under Obama even free from FOIA Requests. (UN AGENDA 21)
EO #13575 Rural Council made up of EPA, DHS,Dept of Def, DOA, and others to determine if Private property is over or under used and determine if it should be reassigned or purchased by the Federal Govt.(UN AGENDA 21)
PDD (Presidential Directive) #51 The Council of 10 (State Governors) Chosen by Obama will rule over a redistricted "United States" reaportioned into '10 Regions' normal state functions will fall under the Council of 10's rule. Counselors may appoint leutenants without review at thier personel discresion without review or oversight by any elected power below that of POTUS (UN Agenda 21)
OBTW I just read all of Carry 24-7's posts, he's from South Africa? Sounds Pretty "Sinful" to me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF0ukVVyVHs
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF0ukVVyVHs
#12425
Interpol can operate freely within the USA enjoying TOTAL Diplomatic Immunity and now under Obama even free from FOIA Requests. (UN AGENDA 21)
EO #13575 Rural Council made up of EPA, DHS,Dept of Def, DOA, and others to determine if Private property is over or under used and determine if it should be reassigned or purchased by the Federal Govt.(UN AGENDA 21)
PDD (Presidential Directive) #51 The Council of 10 (State Governors) Chosen by Obama will rule over a redistricted "United States" reaportioned into '10 Regions' normal state functions will fall under the Council of 10's rule. Counselors may appoint leutenants without review at thier personel discresion without review or oversight by any elected power below that of POTUS (UN Agenda 21)
OBTW I just read all of Carry 24-7's posts, he's from South Africa? Sounds Pretty "Sinful" to me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF0ukVVyVHs
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF0ukVVyVHs
Last edited:
Carry_24/7
New member
YounGunz; i'd say your comment is well put.
In my time on earth (40 years), i've only seen gun laws go more in our favor. Yes, there have been hickups, but overall, the situation steadily moves towards the good.
But, anyway, let the ammo hoarding begin....
In my time on earth (40 years), i've only seen gun laws go more in our favor. Yes, there have been hickups, but overall, the situation steadily moves towards the good.
But, anyway, let the ammo hoarding begin....
GoOfY-FoOt
New member
In my time on earth (40 years), i've only seen gun laws go more in our favor. Yes, there have been hickups
So, was the Assault Weapons Ban, "in our favor" or a "hickup" (hiccup)?
And to answer your prior question, Bush was polarizing, but there were still many more middle-of-the-road fans of Bush, who liked some things and not others, that he did, or didn't do. It seems with the current administration, that there is really no luke-warm sentiment. At least, I haven't found any.
I never really looked at our country's population in the anti-gun/pro-gun light, even as much as we discuss the differences on TFL, but that seems to be where we are right now, in regard to our country's division.
It all boils down to power, control and money, IMO.
You need one to get the other two. If you don't have any of them, you must make deals with those that do, to continue your quest.
We here at TFL, have a passion for our country, our rights, and our obvious past-times, but as such, we stand in the way of those that wish to acquire those things, mentioned above.
With respect to the 2A movement,
we advance with rationality, respect, and common-sense, and they throw sensationalism, grandstanding and deceptive tactics at the wall, to see what sticks.
Therefore, the battle wages on.
Last edited:
Carry_24/7
New member
Yes, for some the Assault Weapons Ban was a step backwards, yet "personally" I don't consider it an issue, while I know others do. I have no "assault" rifles, no ARs, no AK-47s, no Tec-9s, no magazines that hang 6" below my pistols, etc, and nor do I want or need them. I do not crave automatic weapons or suppressors.
I guess everyone has their issues with certain legislation. From my eyes, I have seen nothing but improvement, but I do understand that such improvement is through my personal lenses.
I guess everyone has their issues with certain legislation. From my eyes, I have seen nothing but improvement, but I do understand that such improvement is through my personal lenses.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
As my mind consolidated my beliefs on the RKBA, I find that the AWB was an attack on the central tenets of it.
One crucial point is the defense against tyranny. Many regard worrying about that as paranoid. But given the extremes of left and right, the increasing drumbeat of fanatics, political and religious, suggests to me it is a possibility.
History suggests to me that very civilized countries can become monstrous in a short period of time. We see in the recent past and currently, unarmed populace that are killed and oppressed.
The probability of a disaster that disrupts our veneer of civilization is possible. Droughts, Katrina - etc. - suggest the need for reasonable efficacious weaponery.
Thus, the limits were a blow to a central core of our BOR.
Further, one might argue that rights can be limited if too liberal an expression of the rights is truly dangerous to society.
However, solid research conclusively demonstrated that the AWB had NO effect on any know crime indices. Thus, without compelling evidence - the state doesn' t limit our freedoms based on simple appearance or biases.
Not long ago, races were oppressed as they were as seen as risks to living in polite society.
The recent SCOTUS decision on video games speaks to the same issues, a minor risk (which is debateable) cannot limit a right for the entire country.
Thus, the new proposals - whatever they are - will have no effect in preventing future incidents. They are political theatre or based on decisions from folks that don't know the research or appreciate the threats to freedom.
Both sides of the political world engage in political theatre with social issues that constrain liberty. To avoid a flame on, I'll not speak to the nuttiness of the right but it's the same game.
Thus, having folks with ARs or AKs and a 30 round mag, is not something to be controlled based on political/liberty considerations or even proven criminological analyses.
Reasonble and fun sporting uses and hunting could be handled with single shot rifles, singe shot handguns and O/U shotguns, but that's not the point
One crucial point is the defense against tyranny. Many regard worrying about that as paranoid. But given the extremes of left and right, the increasing drumbeat of fanatics, political and religious, suggests to me it is a possibility.
History suggests to me that very civilized countries can become monstrous in a short period of time. We see in the recent past and currently, unarmed populace that are killed and oppressed.
The probability of a disaster that disrupts our veneer of civilization is possible. Droughts, Katrina - etc. - suggest the need for reasonable efficacious weaponery.
Thus, the limits were a blow to a central core of our BOR.
Further, one might argue that rights can be limited if too liberal an expression of the rights is truly dangerous to society.
However, solid research conclusively demonstrated that the AWB had NO effect on any know crime indices. Thus, without compelling evidence - the state doesn' t limit our freedoms based on simple appearance or biases.
Not long ago, races were oppressed as they were as seen as risks to living in polite society.
The recent SCOTUS decision on video games speaks to the same issues, a minor risk (which is debateable) cannot limit a right for the entire country.
Thus, the new proposals - whatever they are - will have no effect in preventing future incidents. They are political theatre or based on decisions from folks that don't know the research or appreciate the threats to freedom.
Both sides of the political world engage in political theatre with social issues that constrain liberty. To avoid a flame on, I'll not speak to the nuttiness of the right but it's the same game.
Thus, having folks with ARs or AKs and a 30 round mag, is not something to be controlled based on political/liberty considerations or even proven criminological analyses.
Reasonble and fun sporting uses and hunting could be handled with single shot rifles, singe shot handguns and O/U shotguns, but that's not the point
Mike Irwin
Staff
Yes, PDD 51 is absolutely TRUE.
Know why it's true?
Because it's on Utoob...
God, of all days when I so need the rolly eyes guy!
All three of those supposed items contain just the tiniest germ of truth about what was supposedly in them, which was then wildly inflated and exaggerated by hysterical conspiracy theorists.
Sure it's in the President's power to totally circumvent Congress and setting up to rule by dictat.
Sigh.
Know why it's true?
Because it's on Utoob...
God, of all days when I so need the rolly eyes guy!
All three of those supposed items contain just the tiniest germ of truth about what was supposedly in them, which was then wildly inflated and exaggerated by hysterical conspiracy theorists.
Sure it's in the President's power to totally circumvent Congress and setting up to rule by dictat.
Sigh.
Carry_24/7
New member
GEM: I see your point. I always looked at it from a more personal point of view.
That was an informative post.
That was an informative post.
Receievd today from the NRA-ILA http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=6982
Obama Administration Plans New Gun Control
Obama Administration Plans New Gun Control
Friday, July 08, 2011
As we pass the six-month anniversary of the tragic Tucson shooting, multiple press reports indicate the Obama administration is planning to unveil new, but unspecified, gun control initiatives.
At a Thursday briefing, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said, "As you know, the President directed the Attorney General to form working groups with key stakeholders to identify common-sense measures that would improve Americans' safety and security while fully respecting Second Amendment rights. That process is well underway at the Department of Justice with stakeholders on all sides working through these complex issues. And we expect to have some more specific announcements in the near future."
Carney provided no further details on the initiatives, but he isn't the only one saying something is in the works. According to a related article on NPR.org, U.S. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) said, “I have spoken to the president. He is with me on [gun control], and it's just going to be when that opportunity comes forward that we're going to be able to go forward.” And longtime anti-gun activist Sarah Brady has said that in March, the president told her “I just want you to know that we are working on [gun control] ... We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”
Rest assured we'll report any significant developments in the weeks ahea
Copyright 2011, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683
I find the validity of that statement highly suspect. Even if it were true, there's no way a President would say so directly to anybody outside a very close, trusted circle. I somehow doubt Sarah Brady is part of that circle.Sarah Brady has said that in March, the president told her “I just want you to know that we are working on [gun control] ... We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”
Heck, let the administration try. The ensuing litigation would set some fun precedents.
Silver Bullet
New member
Obama would not have been possible without Bush paving the way with extreme incompetence, national/international embarrassment and corruption.
Affirming RKBA via Heller: Justices John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas. I'm glad I voted for Bush !