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

reply to post by chiefsmom


Let it be known, if Barack Insane Obama does this, there WILL be organized resistance. Guns are our line in the sand.

reply to post by superman2012

Hitler, then, came into power when this regulation was in effect … so, yes, Hitler, by default, did have a gun control policy — but only because it was forced on Germany.

I'm not defending this monster, only showing you that the thing most often repeated by the pro-gun people is a fallacy.

Hitler used that gun control regulation to disarm his people and then proceeded to murder 10 million of them, it doesn't matter who put it in place. It matters that it was there and he used it to murder millions like every other government used it to do the same. Where is the fallacy?

Originally posted by lobotomizemecapin
NO president has the power to issue executive orders to remove constitutional rights. Just because Obama claims he can doesnt make it so. Who the hell does he think he is? How much more does he have to prove his anti-constitutional and anti-american extremism before people open their eyes?

He's not threatening to remove any constitutional rights....He's not threatening to confiscate guns.

He obviously had a team of lawyers analyze the laws and some things are able to be done through executive order. The things are probably things such as require longer background checks, and a delay in purchasing guns. If you think he is saying he has the authority to confiscate people's guns, you're not being rational and just reading what you want to read.

Look, he's not going to do anything unconstitutional, especially with an issue as big as gun control. Maybe you should learn about what the constitution allows before accusing him of being anti-constitutional....the constitution is NOT some fluffy duffy document that gives everyone peace and freedom. It gives our government the right to go into any country and kill whomever they want. It gives them the authority to do whatever they want to if there's a national security threat. These are just 2 things that were in the ORIGINAL constitution.

On a side note, it doesn't matter at all how you interpret the constitution, it only matters how the supreme court interprets it.

And before you begin....I'm pro gun, pro constitution(but there obviously need to be updates), and especially pro-rationality. The most that will come out of any legislation on gun control is a semi-auto weapons ban. That's it. If you think they will confiscate all guns, you are being delusional. They aren't going to confiscate all guns and install socialism, I don't care how many times you hear it on Fox News.

reply to post by superman2012


yeah and under her bill even the grandfathred weapons cant be sold and that in of its self is a form of confiscation if i cant sell my guns to my kids that means that when i die the government gets to seize them so thats how shes gonna get them

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
reply to post by superman2012

 

yeah and under her bill even the grandfathred weapons cant be sold and that in of its self is a form of confiscation if i cant sell my guns to my kids that means that when i die the government gets to seize them so thats how shes gonna get them

You would sell guns to your kids? why not just give them the guns?

reply to post by flyandi

President Obama just said in a Press Conference that he will use his "executive" powers to introduce gun control measures...

So is obama basically saying he's declaring himself king then? Last I knew he still has a congress and senate to answer to.
If he's declaring himself about our constitution then I would think that should call for immediate impechment hearings.

reply to post by superman2012


the public can have rocket launchers,machine guns,sub-machine guns,silencers,short barrel shot guns and rifles and destructive devices we just need to pay a tax on them so now they are not banned just regulated to the point that most people with out tens of thousands of dollars can not acquire the more pricey items

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by lobotomizemecapin
NO president has the power to issue executive orders to remove constitutional rights. Just because Obama claims he can doesnt make it so. Who the hell does he think he is? How much more does he have to prove his anti-constitutional and anti-american extremism before people open their eyes?

He's not threatening to remove any constitutional rights....He's not threatening to confiscate guns.

He obviously had a team of lawyers analyze the laws and some things are able to be done through executive order. The things are probably things such as require longer background checks, and a delay in purchasing guns. If you think he is saying he has the authority to confiscate people's guns, you're not being rational and just reading what you want to read.

Look, he's not going to do anything unconstitutional, especially with an issue as big as gun control. Maybe you should learn about what the constitution allows before accusing him of being anti-constitutional....the constitution is NOT some fluffy duffy document that gives everyone peace and freedom. It gives our government the right to go into any country and kill whomever they want. It gives them the authority to do whatever they want to if there's a national security threat. These are just 2 things that were in the ORIGINAL constitution.

On a side note, it doesn't matter at all how you interpret the constitution, it only matters how the supreme court interprets it.

And before you begin....I'm pro gun, pro constitution(but there obviously need to be updates), and especially pro-rationality. The most that will come out of any legislation on gun control is a semi-auto weapons ban. That's it. If you think they will confiscate all guns, you are being delusional. They aren't going to confiscate all guns and install socialism, I don't care how many times you hear it on Fox News.

edit on 14-1-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)

If he is threatening to infringe upon the second amendment then he is indeed acting in an anti-constitutional manner.

Originally posted by streetfightingman
reply to post by flyandi

 

The rich and the poor have to live together. I keep getting this feeling though they enjoy hurting us
because we're not as smart as them. We didn't build the guitars, and harmonize the measurements so we're deemed "unworthy." But we're all capable of creating anything we want, and learning anything we want, and it's those with consistent signs of responsibility and moral high ground that should and can rationalize with dictators given the appropriate military support and citizen engagement in politics and the finer sciences of life.

edit on 14-1-2013 by streetfightingman because: (no reason given)

Well, we can But it takes some very big factories and millions of dollars to turn out their products. There are backyard creators, artisans.

The harmonics? I know they took the 432 scale, the solfeggio and PHI, and all that is, from micro to macro, and tuned it to the mind bending, negative 440. They are masters at deception and lies. But they're the weakest beings alive. Pathetic and weak beings require slaves.

Just to fire up some creative ideas. Hemp Stone is very nice for homes, trailers, auto's, instruments. And if they regulate hemp so much its hard to get like this artist finds, well, Corn Husks work well too mixed in with the lime.

hempworld.com...

I don't see why they're the ones with all the brains, they're are the ones with the money, and the restrictive laws trying to make its so you can't create and sell in your own home.

They're weak, spinnly vampiric, pale, pasty, slavers. Pathetic ones.

Originally posted by Ghost375
Look, he's not going to do anything unconstitutional, especially with an issue as big as gun control.

Executive orders are by their very nature, unconstitutional. Ask anybody from New Orleans during Katrina about what they can or can't do with your guns. Bush already suspended the Posse Comitatus act and withdrew us from the War Crimes Treaty, and 9-11 gave them unprecednted powers of detention and tossing out rights to a trial... The foundation has already been laid down and, to my understanding, there's really no limit to an exectuvive order, the man can write whatever he likes on it, and presto it's policy.

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by Ghost375
Look, he's not going to do anything unconstitutional, especially with an issue as big as gun control.

Executive orders are by their very nature, unconstitutional. Ask anybody from New Orleans during Katrina about what they can or can't do with your guns. Bush already suspended the Posse Comitatus act and withdrew us from the War Crimes Treaty, and 9-11 gave them unprecednted powers of detention and tossing out rights to a trial... The foundation has already been laid down and, to my understanding, there's really no limit to an exectuvive order, the man can write whatever he likes on it, and presto it's policy.

They are not unconstitutional they only apply to the executive branch period. The problem is people think they apply unilaterally and alphabet agencies which are executive agencies enforce them unilaterally which "IS" unconstitutional.

reply to post by Wertdagf


most-likely correct,but the men who launch those missiles have family's who are not always on military bases and if it comes down to full on civil war like some seem to think will be happening i bet you it will be the "soft targets" getting hit,no one will storm a military base but they will hit the family's/friends/loved ones of those who would betray the constitution.as that historically is how insurgents win by creating terror and strife and generaly breaking the morale of those who have invaded

we dont have to stop hell fire rockets we just need to stop the people who fire them(and those who would replace them) and unless they are gonna be on duty 24/7 and take in every government loyalists family's friends and associates into protection there will be consequences

look at how the Vietnamese kicked us out of their country we were bombing them with b52's and they were running supplies through the jungle on the backs of bicycles for Christ sake. and look into how we were claiming to have killed them by the millions because we with our advanced military tech had monitoring gear on the ground to detect troops......they pissed on the sensors and we came in and carpet bombed them thinking we were killing them by the thousands when it was 3 dudes pissing in the woods then laughing their butts off when we dropped millions of dollars worth of bombs on empty jungle.advanced tech only gets you so far and does not guarantee a victory

reply to post by Merlin Lawndart


Preaching to the choir there!
I live in MI!
You can't go anywhere right now without this subject coming up, heatedly.

reply to post by RalagaNarHallas

Sorry, I'm still learning. I should have stayed with the example I was talking about and not tried to get fancy with my own conjecture. Sawed off shotguns were ruled against.

reply to post by Ghost375


it was an expression and you knew that just spitting hairs in your reply,and under her bill GIVING or SELLING them would be ILLEGAL thus when the owner of said gun dies the government gets it and that is the problem alot of people have with her bill,not to mention it wont stop with this Fienestines total goal is the 100% removal of firearms from Americans as she hates guns.

Nope

Hitler didn't do anything to guns when he came to power. His most powerful tool to control people was his massive propaganda machine.

In other news---

Larry Pratt "Background checks are a waste of time"

Gun Owners Of America Executive Director Larry Pratt told Fox News Sunday‘s Chris Wallace this week that he is opposed to background checks for gun owners because they are “false security.” He added that he believed it was a waste of time because “there’s really no way to spot these problems.”

Link

All of these threads are just massive paranoia. People have been saying that Obama will confiscate everyone's guns since he was elected in 2008.

Nothing will happen. These right wing news networks and right wing nut jobs are just banking on people with irrational fears of the government implementing gun confiscation raids.

reply to post by Wertdagf


if the feds attacked the rebels the feds would be forced into a ground war, not only would they be destroying there own infrastructure if missiles were used, they would also be setting themselves up as the bad guy, thus making more Americans join the rebels. if it goes down there will be very few if any missels used id say at the biggest tanks, and air drone recon, which would be hard to fight but not impossible

Originally posted by muse7
All of these threads are just massive paranoia. People have been saying that Obama will confiscate everyone's guns since he was elected in 2008.

The major difference here is that this isn't 'people' talking, this is the chief executive talking... and unless you are privy to his personal intentions, you're guessing like the rest of us.

reply to post by DocHolidaze

What about if the state controlled media said that the rebels were terrorists acting against the US (after leading them to attack first of course). It wouldn't be that hard. Look at your group of friends. How easy would it be to make the hot head in your group hit someone for not much of a reason?

reply to post by muse7


Hitler was part of the deregulation of guns, along with other restrictions being lifted.