Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns

Originally posted by unityemissions
Biden is well known for "goofing" and not saying the correct thing. He's a funky guy whose mind thinks much faster than most, so him talking about an EO related to guns could actually have very little to do with guns.

Biden self-corrected his statement on the fly. Vice President Biden said "There are executives orders, there's executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet. But we're compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required."

The second part is what I believe he really meant. Executive action will be a policy shift; such as directing ATF to increase their case load or widen their net; Homeland Security to crack down on x or y. Those types of policy changes are within the authority of the President, but still are under the responsibility of Congress and the Judiciary to ensure they are Constitutional.

reply to post by beezzer


Meh, you can choose you starting point all you want, but the problem is an integral of many factors.

I think we can attempt to improve the "mental healthcare" system all we want, but think it's the incorrect focus.

The social institutions attempt to mitigate the damage of an ass-backwards culture.

I think it's the duty of the local communities to make sure their inhabitants are well cared for.

You won't find a satisfied mass-murderer out there. The community has failed these individuals, and innocent people pay the price.

The "mental healthcare" is but a weak attempt to right the wrong within all our hearts.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

 

How would an ordinary citizen force a judicial review? The process for challenging the constitutionality of acts of Congress is fairly established....what is the track record for overturning Executive Orders? Where was the Constitutional Challenge when they side barred the "assault shotguns" from the original Assault Weapons Ban (sunset after 10 yrs) to be declared "Destructive Devices" (same as hand grenades under the Gun Control Act) which require a special Class 3 FFL for transfer (with the extensive background check and transfer fees, etc) because they did not have a "sporting purpose" by being able to accept a magazine (fixed drum shotguns also)? Now the "non-sporting" precedent by the BATF(E no "E" back then) which is the Executive Branch will be used for ordinary assault style semi-auto rifles that can accept a magazine. Start by overturning the EO to make a so-called "non-sporting" purpose shotgun a "Destructive Device" before it is too late.

well you make a solid point, does anyone know if executive orders hold up in a court of law?

here's something i found that say's this

A presidential executive order (EO) is a directive issued to federal agencies, department heads, or other federal employees by the President of the United States under his statutory or constitutional powers.

In many ways, presidential executive orders are similar to written orders, or instructions issued by the president of a corporation to its department heads or directors.

Thirty days after being published in the Federal Register, executive orders become law. While they do bypass the U.S. Congress and the standard legislative law making process, no part of an executive order may direct the agencies to conduct illegal or unconstitutional activities.

source. usgovinfo.about.com...

so there it is and i would certainly think that SCOTUS would throw a garbage EO out the window, such as this one.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by unityemissions


. . .The most that will happen for this is either something unrelated directly to gun control (like improving the mental health system) , . . .

Now that is something we actually agree on.

Gun crimes are just the symptoms of the true infliction. Mental Illness. Since the 1980's there have been drastic cuts in mental health facilities all across the US. This really needs to be examined.

Along with the pharmaceutical connection. A very large portion (if not nearly all) of people that engage in these types (mass shootings/etc) incidents are typically drugged up on some prescription of SSRI (anti-depressants)

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by unityemissions


. . .The most that will happen for this is either something unrelated directly to gun control (like improving the mental health system) , . . .

Now that is something we actually agree on.

Gun crimes are just the symptoms of the true infliction. Mental Illness. Since the 1980's there have been drastic cuts in mental health facilities all across the US. This really needs to be examined.

Along with the pharmaceutical connection. A very large portion (if not nearly all) of people that engage in these types (mass shootings/etc) incidents are typically drugged up on some prescription of SSRI (anti-depressants)

Why is it that we're the only ones connecting the dots?

(rhetorical)

reply to post by unityemissions

Not so.
He doesn't care, so long as his ideals are pushed through.
Think Cloward and Piven.

He is that arrogant and ignorant to do what is being proposed.

Originally posted by unityemissions


You won't find a satisfied mass-murderer out there. The community has failed these individuals, and innocent people pay the price.

So, metal defect only happens when people aren't taken care of?

NO..........Mental defect or break happens anywhere, even in a Utopian vacuum.

reply to post by LittleBlackEagle


Good info.

For instance, in 1952 President Truman issued an executive order which directed seizure of steel mills as part of the Korean War effort. The Supreme Court rejected the executive order in the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer case, and Truman was forced to retreat. In the majority opinion Justice Black wrote that executive orders, "must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself." The concurring opinion of Justice Jackson was more lenient, but as a whole the Court agreed that a president's executive orders may not go beyond the Constitution, and they may not directly contradict an act of Congress.

As noted by the Congressional Research Service, the Youngstown decision still applies in the modern era, and was used to declare an executive order from President Clinton unconstitutional in 1996.

In addition, executive order can be, and historically have been, repealed by acts of Congress or a subsequent executive order from another president. If Congress was really upset about an executive order on gun control they could revoke the measure through law or get the White House to reverse course by threatening the funding of whatever department may implement the order.

obama-would-be-limited-executive-order-on-gun-contr ol

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by unityemissions

 

Not so.
He doesn't care, so long as his ideals are pushed through.
Think Cloward and Piven.

He is that arrogant and ignorant to do what is being proposed.

Are you honestly going to claim that any of us are different?

That any human being in a position of power doesn't attempt to push their beliefs or ideals on other people in belief that things will improve?

Name me one US president who didn't' act like this.

It's something which is required of a leader.

WHAT is being proposed? WHO is proposing it. You're just running away with YOUR OWN beliefs. It's your shadow, mang. I regret to inform you that you'll never catch it, so it's best to simply keep watch when it's cast and realize what effects it may have on you.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by unityemissions


You won't find a satisfied mass-murderer out there. The community has failed these individuals, and innocent people pay the price.

So, metal defect only happens when people aren't taken care of?

NO..........Mental defect or break happens anywhere, even in a Utopian vacuum.

Mediocre mind thinking.

That is all.

reply to post by unityemissions

What shadow????


The writing IS on the wall and it is very plainly written.
Is it that hard for you to see?
His ideals are that of Marxism, Progressivism, and Liberalism. All are rooted deeply in removing firearms from the public, so as to control them without possibility of uprisings.

reply to post by unityemissions


I don't share the unrealistic view of everyone taking care of everyone else.
I care for me and mine, and expect you and everyone else to do the same.

The real issue is that there is no personal responsibility within our society, especially within this generation between 16-28. They have been told they are special, that their feelings are the utmost importance, that they can't be punished for doing something if that is what they feel they should do.
No repercussions for actions.
Same goes for the Baby-boomer jackholes that raised them this way. They are to blame.

There is no shame in being an alcoholic or drug user, as it is now a disease.
Same goes for overweight. It is the fault of McDonalds and is a disease as well.
Same goes for people in debt. It is the fault of the evil bankster.


All Bull Crap.

I'm not an American. When i was a child there was a school shooting in America.

My inocent child logic thought: "If you just take the guns away from everyone no one will get shot"

Now that I'm older and wiser; DO NOT give up your right to bear arms America.

If you do the the future of the World and yourselves is doomed.

We are counting on you Amercia,

Stay strong on this.

God bless.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by unityemissions

 

I don't share the unrealistic view of everyone taking care of everyone else.
I care for me and mine, and expect you and everyone else to do the same.

Thanks for being a part of the problem.

The real issue is that there is no personal responsibility within our society, especially within this generation between 16-28. They have been told they are special, that their feelings are the utmost importance, that they can't be punished for doing something if that is what they feel they should do.

Are you aware that the crime rate for this age group has gone down, that college entrants have gone up, and that more people are doing community service now than ever in the past? Your claims are rubbish, and not evidenced. It's your shadow which is attaching onto beliefs that are a sham. Confirmation bias.

No repercussions for actions.

Karma doesn't skip a beat.

Same goes for the Baby-boomer jackholes that raised them this way. They are to blame.

Baby boomers You're missing a generation there, buddy.

There is no shame in being an alcoholic or drug user, as it is now a disease.
Same goes for overweight. It is the fault of McDonalds and is a disease as well.
Same goes for people in debt. It is the fault of the evil bankster.


All Bull Crap.

This is the result of a very simplistic mind which doesn't integrate enough factors to see the Forrest from the trees. I don't blame you. Just as you are. Hope you realize I'm just doing my part to counter-balance this poor reasoning. Nothing all too personal, but you don't seem to think with a high degree of fluidity. Right is right, and wrong is wrong. Pretty sure I transcended that moral stage before entering the 3rd grade.

reply to post by beezzer


People don't want to admit that the phrama-lobby is light-years more powerful than the gun-lobby. The gun lobby and "guns" are the easy target and with these drug-makers big-win with the PPAC ("Obamacare") they will continue to hide in the shadows as guns and their owners are demonized.

Originally posted by unityemissions


Thanks for being a part of the problem.

What problem is that? Not wanting to have to care for everyone else?
Geez, I am a father and a husband. I didn't realize that EVERYONE else needs me to be their father and husband as well.

Originally posted by unityemissions

Are you aware that the crime rate for this age group has gone down, that college entrants have gone up, and that more people are doing community service now than ever in the past? Your claims are rubbish, and not evidenced. It's your shadow which is attaching onto beliefs that are a sham. Confirmation bias.

And what statistics are you pulling your information from? AS what I read, that age range is seeing more criminal interaction.
Community service is up? Of course it is, as jobs are down. People are bored and need an outlet.
As for what I stated, that they are the most narcissistic generation yet? What does that have to do with you claim of crime stats?
The evidence is based within the Occupy crowd and just about any group like them.
Doofus hipsters going on TV yelling because the job offered doesn't meet some unrealistic goal of $80k a year.
Naive College kids protesting over something they can't even explain.
So yeah, they are the problem.

Originally posted by unityemissions

Karma doesn't skip a beat.

Don't believe in Karma.
I believe in action, reaction and consequences.

Originally posted by unityemissions

Baby boomers

You're missing a generation there, buddy.

They were/are the beginning to the end.

Originally posted by unityemissions

This is the result of a very simplistic mind which doesn't integrate enough factors to see the Forrest from the trees. I don't blame you. Just as you are. Hope you realize I'm just doing my part to counter-balance this poor reasoning. Nothing all too personal, but you don't seem to think with a high degree of fluidity. Right is right, and wrong is wrong. Pretty sure I transcended that moral stage before entering the 3rd grade.

Yep, me to simple to understand complex things.
Me just leave you and others smarties to solve problem.

It is very simplistic. It only gets muddied and complex when someone wants to take into account for factors outside of the issue. Like the progressive idea for criminal prosecution to have a persons childhood brought into account. Things are simple. Did you, or did you not.

This is silly, I've seen more illegally owned guns in my life than I have ones that were owned legally (not including cops guns).

Ben Swann said in his Reality Check a statistic I was not familiar with, saying there are 88 legally owned firearms per 100 people in the US. He didn't mention that the 88:100 were only the guns that are traceable and owned legally. That said, they cant take the guns from the American public. A good chunk of the military wouldn't participate in confinscating them, there is to much "out of my cold dead hands" mentality in the US to even try it.

If they did try to confinscate legally owned weapons this country would fall into all out anarchy over night. That isn't in anyones best interest. This is about money, plain and simple.. restricting sales, more requirement's for permits and etc. The war on drugs put more drugs in the street, this would play out similarly. They can put all the more restrictions they want into place, all it does is make guns illegal.. it doesn't remove them.

reply to post by macman


Cool, well we obviously have vastly different brain-firing patterns for perceiving the world and how to interact with it.

We're not going to see eye to eye. If I had to pin down your MBTI, I'd guess ISTJ.

Anyways, enjoy your day. I'm off to go help my community.

Peace.

reply to post by LittleBlackEagle


An executive order that violates the bill of rights is null and void.

Bypassing Congress to revise or delete the 2nd Amendment is a treasonable act. Disagree?

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle

 

An executive order that violates the bill of rights is null and void.

Bypassing Congress to revise or delete the 2nd Amendment is a treasonable act. Disagree?

edit on 1/9/2013 by sad_eyed_lady because: punctuation

No, it is not an act of treason.

Although, if a majority of the House agrees, they could impeach him. It wouldn't go anywhere, but they could do it.