"I have executive powers over guns..." - It's starting...

reply to post by chiefsmom


You hit on a good point. If he is allowed to do something normally controlled by Congress, future Presidents can do essentially the same thing. The next few Presidents may not think like they wish them to and bypass Congress by Executive order to say, ban abortions,ban gay marriage,ban homosexuality. It is a slippery slope we are on. Both sides better look at the future unintended consequences that could occur.

he has powers that were givin to him this is not anything new guys executive orders arent very new.

Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by chiefsmom

 

You hit on a good point. If he is allowed to do something normally controlled by Congress, future Presidents can do essentially the same thing. The next few Presidents may not think like they wish them to and bypass Congress by Executive order to say, ban abortions,ban gay marriage,ban homosexuality. It is a slippery slope we are on. Both sides better look at the future unintended consequences that could occur.

The future is until this executive order thing is nipped it will get out of hand. It will change when we do something. French revolution they were tired of rich aristocrats what did they do. it seems we are overdue for some true bloodshed and sacrifice on the homefront not anywhere else. I say we hunger games that # and revolt against the state. lol

Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by chiefsmom

 

You hit on a good point. If he is allowed to do something normally controlled by Congress, future Presidents can do essentially the same thing. The next few Presidents may not think like they wish them to and bypass Congress by Executive order to say, ban abortions,ban gay marriage,ban homosexuality. It is a slippery slope we are on. Both sides better look at the future unintended consequences that could occur.

As others have said before, power, once given, is rarely voluntarily given back... regardless of "party." It seems that all presidents since the first Bush (and many argue well before that) have worked toward a very specific agenda (again, regardless of party affiliation) to erode the rights and freedoms of the American people and to undermine the constitution... in many cases, with the drooling, mob-mentality will of the people firmly supporting the stripping of those rights. The American people have gladly bent right over and BEGGED the Fed to bugger us.

Things really seem to be speeding up toward the ultimate goal. No telling what the end-game is, but as fast as things are moving, it feels like it could be close.

Yes, this is just a tiny step in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, the US has already taken several of those, and the writing is on the wall.

I think what honest Abe was rattling on about was that: In order to govern ourselves efficiently, we need elected officials. These elected officials will need to be given Power. Power corrupts, and sooner or later you're bound to land up with a few rotten eggs, so you had BETTER make sure you don't give ANY of them too much power - as his successor might just take advantage.

Looking at how America and the UK were hoodwinked into invading Iraq (and the war continues, for goodness sake!), I think we had all better come up with a backup plan.

On the + side, everything in history has so far turned out for the better - and I mean that there have been a vast number of lucky breaks we've received - eg. Hitler sending a big portion of his armies south to assist Italy, where if he hadn't done that, we may all be speaking German.

So, I think we're on the right track, for now. Let's keep it that way.

Coming back to elected officials... They are actually no longer necessary. We now have efficient communications technology and could easily set up Wikipedia-like communities for managing legislation. While we're at it we could find a new banking system that doesn't rely on debt.

Originally posted by CristobalColonic
You sure have to be an irrational, fretful and somewhat loony people to think a handgun will save you from governmental "tyranny".

Yes, one would, if that were the thought process. Thankfully, it's not. Your argument is a reduction to the absurd, which no one is arguing in favor of, so why do people keep arguing against it?.

If Americans are so scared of their leaders subjugating them, why stay in the country?

Because it's our country. Would you voluntarily abandon your own house to invasive hooligans? if so, where do you live?

Originally posted by nenothtu
Originally posted by CristobalColonic

If Americans are so scared of their leaders subjugating them, why stay in the country?

Because it's our country. Would you voluntarily abandon your own house to invasive hooligans? if so, where do you live?

I'd love to give you more than one star for this reply. It's sad that it even has to be said, but well done sir!

God. And the OVERWHELMING majority of America wants it to start. And it isn't going to end anytime soon. Guns WILL be regulated. It IS going to happen.

reply to post by superman2012


Thank you for your intelligent contribution to this thread! They get few and far between when discussing this subject!

Originally posted by MrSmith
www.cnn.com...

Read the article people, and since I know most of you wont I'll post some quotes.

(CNN) -- The gun lobby is "ginning up" fears the federal government will use the Newtown shooting tragedy, exactly one month ago, to seize Americans' guns, President Barack Obama said Monday. At least part of the frenzy is little more than marketing, he implied. "It's certainly good for business," the president said, responding to a question about a spike in weapons sales and applications for background checks after the massacre at Connecticut's Sandy Hook Elementary School left 27 people dead, 20 of them children. "Part of the challenge we confront is that even the slightest hint of some sensible, responsible legislation in this area fans this notion that somehow, 'Here it comes, everybody's guns are going to be taken away,'" Obama said.

There you go. From Obama himself. Hes not going to take away the guns, he just wants to talk about ways to make them safer (ie: tougher regulations to obtain, etc).

All you guys are doing to pushing a marketing campaign designed by the gun people to scare you into buying more guns. Its actually brilliant by them.

But this is a lie. Go to any gun shop flooded with gun buyers and they will tell you...."we havent even be running any advertising. Thanks Obama!"

THERE IS NO MARKETING CAMPAIGN by the "GUN PEOPLE"!!!! Its a reaction to press, proof that americans can read between the lines of bull slock.

Originally posted by larphillips

Originally posted by GradientWell
so that being said anyone can walk into wal mart as long as you are 18 and buy a rifle but its not happening. Why where is that guy who bought that shotgun behind the counter at wal mart and killed a whole bunch of people with it. If they were so easy to get to and they are such a threat prove those areas where you buy those guns are are threats.

Which would lead one to believe that these shootings have the potential to be set-ups or put out there for show in order to further an agenda. I've made this point before in other threads, but the tragic shooting in Newton was the first time that I ever saw the press go out of their way (in nearly every single report, regardless of the outlet... even Fox News) to report the BRAND NAMES of the firearms used. Normal reporting of an incident is to mention the type (rifle, handgun, shotgun, etc.), caliber (9mm, .357, etc.) and if they want to add some flair, they go with their common misnomer 'assault weapon.' But in this case, all you heard was Glock, Sig-Sauer, and especially Bushmaster. The gun types and manufacturers were put out in a very deliberate and purposeful way. Again, I found it odd, as I never remember a shooting in the past where the brand names were mentioned in such a way or with such frequency.

CNN was flasshing pics of the guns for hours that night. Before the bodies were even moved off the gounds!

Hitler also brought the germans an anti smoking policy, and we know how that ended.
sorry but i don't see the link between gun control and a facist overlord declaring war on poland.
how what ended, we won and remembered that war is bad, well so are lethal weapons

reply to post by IBelieveInAliens


There is a lot more gun violence in a lot of other countries than the US. And other countries don't cares what our laws are on gun possession. The truth if you look into the facts yourself it would prove that an arm populace has a lot fewer homicides and robberies and thefts than countries that outlaw the possession of guns.

Originally posted by ausername

Originally posted by Prezbo369

It's merely projection, and after seeing all the bat**** crazy people like Alex Jones recently, the argument for guns isn't being presented very well at all.

Which is exactly why the agenda driven media pulled forward the extremists and lunatics like Alex Jones, to invalidate all valid arguments for gun rights.

Yep, they need to put an ugly face on the thing. Maybe even Jones is part of the plan.

Originally posted by listerofsmeg
Hitler also brought the germans an anti smoking policy, and we know how that ended.
sorry but i don't see the link between gun control and a facist overlord declaring war on poland.
how what ended, we won and remembered that war is bad, well so are lethal weapons

edit on 15/1/2013 by listerofsmeg because: (no reason given)

It was ok for citizens to use state issued arms for state reasons but the people themselves having arms as a part of natural rights????.....Well lets just say that Hitler got a bunch of state armed germans to disarm the Polish.


By the way...do any of you remember when the US was trying to disarm the Iriqis? Lots of problems and it didnt look good to anyone not even american citizens. Anyway the US military stoped this effort and told the Iraqis that they could keep their personal weapons and ammo.....and things cooled down a great deal.

reply to post by flyandi


I'm just wondering but has England become Fascist Germany yet?

reply to post by Gazrok



You are right of course. Most of them are stolen from law abiding citizens to be used in crime.

A simple equation with no politics in it is this:

More guns = More gun activity.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by flyandi

 

I'm just wondering but has England become Fascist Germany yet?

edit on 15-1-2013 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)

again stupidity at its finest, Jokers intentions is to draw conclusions based off of the fact that England has a gun ban and hasn't turned into Nazi Germany yet but completely ignores the fact that our government is amassing weapons of war at an alarming rate. Obama bots will be Obama bots till they are literally hit in the face with the loss of their rights

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by flyandi

 

I'm just wondering but has England become Fascist Germany yet?

edit on 15-1-2013 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)

sorry double post

reply to post by larphillips


Well the republicans did let the first gun bill fade into oblivion.