Executive Order to Deal With Guns

[Speed Daemon]

The problem with that is that the Supreme Court flat out disagrees with you.

No, that's not true. Maybe 5/9 of the Supreme Court disagrees with me, but that's the same 5/9 that lost all credibility by bringing partisan politics into the court. The film Judgment at Nuremberg is a good reminder of what kind of future people like that are making for themselves.

The finest legal minds in the country have made their arguments before the finest legal minds in the country and have concluded that the Second Amendment does in fact protect the rights of private citizens to own guns.

And...? What's your point?

 

[A.Nonymous]

And...? What's your point?

The point is that arguing that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to private citizens is moot because the supreme legal body in the land has ruled otherwise.

 

[Speed Daemon]

The point is that arguing that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to private citizens is moot because the supreme legal body in the land has ruled otherwise.

And what's the point of that? Why are you arguing against your own ideas?

 

[jhtalisman]

The point is that arguing that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to private citizens is moot because the supreme legal body in the land has ruled otherwise.

It states what it states. Well regulated means with laws regarding ownership rights, irregardless of opinion on whether for personal or national defense. It means laws can be passed that change the legality of certain types of firearms and availability of accessories (clips/magazines, ammo types, etc).

 

[A.Nonymous]

And what's the point of that? Why are you arguing against your own ideas?

I obviously didn't make myself clear. I've never felt the Second Amendment doesn't apply to private citizens. I've always felt that it does.

 

[SiempreTuna]

I obviously didn't make myself clear. I've never felt the Second Amendment doesn't apply to private citizens. I've always felt that it does.

Then you're way ahead of the curve because the Supreme Court has only thought so since the late 80s when Reagan packed it with right wingers. Like most things Reagan did, it's been a complete disaster. Historically, guns were always controlled in the US: they should be again.

Re the argument that there's no evidence that banning guns saves lives, try the fact the US has a homocide rate several times higher than anywhere else in the developed world.

I know guns don't kill people. They do make it a helluva lot easier for people to kill people, though.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Re the argument that there's no evidence that banning guns saves lives, try the fact the US has a homocide rate several times higher than anywhere else in the developed world.

I know guns don't kill people. They do make it a helluva lot easier for people to kill people, though.

There is evidence that banning guns in the US does not save lives. They've tried handgun bans in Chicago and DC. Had no effect on the murder rate. I think in Chicago the murder rate actually went up. So, the argument that banning guns would save lives doesn't seem to hold water.

 

[Ibrick]

http://wh.gov/PUf7

Petition to prevent Executive Order by Obama.

 

[Speed Daemon]

There is evidence that banning guns in the US does not save lives. They've tried handgun bans in Chicago and DC. Had no effect on the murder rate. I think in Chicago the murder rate actually went up. So, the argument that banning guns would save lives doesn't seem to hold water.

I can verify that; I'm a witness. I lived mostly in Chicago during that time. Daley's plan backfired in a big way!

I've spent less time, and in shorter stretches in DC. But as a regular destination for me over the last 40 years, I've seen really bad crime there too.

 

[Ibrick]

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

In particular the graphs showing IL and DC when

 

[jefboyardee]

GOP congressman threatens impeachment if Obama uses executive action for gun control

Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman threatened Monday afternoon that he would file articles of impeachment against President Barack Obama if he institutes gun control measures with an executive order.

“Any proposal to abuse executive power and infringe upon gun rights must be repelled with the stiffest legislative force possible,” he added. “Under no circumstances whatsoever may the government take any action that disarms any peaceable person — much less without due process through an executive declaration without a vote of Congress or a ruling of a court.”
​

 

[Gmash]

Good luck with that.

 

[copestag]

so all day today the news will be filled with left wing types screaming about racists wanting to impeach the prez

 

[pbf98]

Since the 2nd amendment specifically states "well-regulated militia", regulations on gun ownership is not a violation of that amendment.

You left out part of that..

...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

People as in who make up the nation. it specifically states the right of the people shall not be infringed, not the militia's right..

There you go again. Nobody is taking about banning guns. The second amendment doesn't say anything about the right to bear arms WITH NO REGULATIONS.

I ask you to please take a look at the definition of infringe.

in

 

[Speed Daemon]

Also the bow and arrow attack in Casper, WY not even 2 months ago!

The only "assault weapon" that needs to be banned is the mindset that "laws only apply to everyone else, but not me".

 

[Bob Maxey]

62% of Americans maybe.. but there are 288 congress members who oppose all weapon bans at this time. This is why President Obama may need to use his executive power to do what he wants.

Easier said than done.

Obama is not free to simply get his way by singing endless executive orders. He may be the president, but with a Congress against him and his (Obamas) disregard for following the Constitution and rule of law, Congress might decide enough is enough.

Especially when it comes to guns and gun bans. We the People do not want our rights taken away by a president that thinks he is a King. Politicians know enough to leave guns alone.

Congress is not going to sit by and be removed from the process by a president that thinks he does not need Congress. He is using his power to act without Congress on policy issues.

I refer you to this: How Is President Obama Abusing Presidential Power? - AskHeritage

I am beginning to think that President Obama actually believes he is free to do whatever he wants. He might decide to do as many bad things as possible because he does not need to worry about a third term, just the fat book deal and speaking fees.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Good luck with that.

I do not know, but remember, Johnson and Clinton--both Democrats--were impeached. I did not think Obama would be elected the first time and I was confident he would not be elected a second time. Both things happened.

Perhaps the president is not as safe as you might think.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Re the argument that there's no evidence that banning guns saves lives, try the fact the US has a homicide rate several times higher than anywhere else in the developed world.

Actually, the homicide rate in this country is very low. It has been in steady decline for many decades. And if there were no guns, people with the itch to kill would still kill.

Here in the United States, we do not slaughter entire races of people. We are not genocidal mass murderers sponsored by our government. We do not have a corrupt police force that lets wholesale murder occur. We do it in small batches and it is still rare.

61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese
20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime

Contrasted the above with the number of kids murdered in the United States. Many of the people that die a violent death are criminals and drugs have lots to do with some problems.

We are not as violent as we once were and the fact bear this out.

The news keeps on a story for a long time and when they move on to the next story, we are left reeling. All we can think about is how one crazy nut bar could do such a terrible thing and perhaps we should ban guns without understanding that guns were never the problem.

 

[pbf98]

Easier said than done.

Haha I meant to say thats why theres talk of him saying if it came down to it he would try and use it.
I watched his little press conference where he supposedly said it, but unless I wasn't paying attention when he said it, he didn't.

I am beginning to think that President Obama actually believes he is free to do whatever he wants. He might decide to do as many bad things as possible because he does not need to worry about a third term, just the fat book deal and speaking fees.

And it almost does seem like he thinks that because he is president he gets to make all the decisions and make all the rules.. That is something a 3rd grader would think.

 

[jamor]

when americans are finally disarmed.. the people lose.

The only people pushing gun control are the mainstream media and politicians who have lassoed the victims of guns.

something not right with this picture.

 

[saptech]

Some of these people always take things the wrong way, especially if it's not their choice!

Since he’s been president, there have been four mass shootings, President Obama remarked during a Sandy Hook Interfaith Prayer Vigil on December 16. The president hugged survivors and consoled families. An endless series of deadly shootings have plagued America, he said.
“We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change. We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true,” President Obama said.
“No single law—no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society. But that can’t be an excuse for inaction,” he said.
President Obama vowed soon to use his power to prevent similar tragedies. He pledged to work with law enforcement, mental health professionals, parents and educators saying there was no other choice.

This is what I got from what the president said in one speech.

 

[SiempreTuna]

when americans are finally disarmed.. the people lose.

The only people pushing gun control are the mainstream media and politicians who have lassoed the victims of guns.

something not right with this picture.

Absolutely there's something wrong with the picture: the whole thing is ridiculous right wing BS. Did republicans learn nothing from the recent election? Believing your own lie does not make it true - "Math You Do As A Republican To Make Yourself Feel Better".

The people pushing gun control include just about anyone who sees these mass killings for what they really are: totally avoidable tragedies. Could these head cases kill 22 kids if they didn't have a gun?

 

[Gmash]

The majority of American people are for gun control.

People realize guns are already regulated, right? You can't go into Wal-Mart and buy a bazooka or mount a .50 caliber to the roof of your car. Infringement?

I see it brought up all of the time about how Chicago has strict gun laws and a high murder rate, so that means gun control doesn't work. That's a BS comparison. There's no cause and effect. NYC also has strict laws and their rates are lower. Common sense says banning handguns in one city is not going to affect anything one way or the other when people can just go to the suburbs or right outside the city line and get whatever they want. Flawed argument. Regardless, nobody is considering banning handguns anyway. That would be far too extreme and would never be accepted in America.

 

[ElasticNinja]

And it almost does seem like he thinks that because he is president he gets to make all the decisions and make all the rules.. That is something a 3rd grader would think.

If you dont want to that to be the case start a campaign for a (semi)-parliamentary system...

 

[pbf98]

The reason why a majority of the people are against gun control is because of the stupid mainstream media brainwashing people to think what they tell them is the only thing that matters. Most people get their facts just from the TV news channels, which are completely biased. But if they were to do some research of their own, and look at both sides they'd see that the news is only telling you half of what you should know about them.

What about the states that adopted a right to carry law? Those states crime went down.. or is that just a coincidence? Chicago not good enough example how bout DC?

The real problem is not guns, its us, humans. Do you really think taking guns away from law abiding citizens will stop people from killing other people? No, if someone wants to kill and no one knows about it, chances are that it will happen with or with out guns. And there are far more deadlier things out there then guns that someone can use to kills multiple people in little time.

And what about the criminals that will get the guns regardless of laws? How are we going to get them to stop that? You can't we have two borders to the US and guns will come through them and go straight to the criminals no matter how strict you make your laws

Anything that limits the second amendment is infringement.. its in the definition of the word. If you don't want guns to protect yourself and your rights its simple, don't buy one, but let me make my own decision when it comes to that. Its my right, and I have done nothing wrong for it to be taken away from me. Don't punish me for something someone else did.